CCPC Agenda 02/18/2021
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 2/11/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
February 18, 2021
9: 00 AM
Edwin Fryer- Chairman
Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair
Karl Fry- Secretary
Christopher Vernon
Paul Shea, Environmental
Joseph Schmitt, Environmental
Robert Klucik, Jr.
Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board
Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selec ted to speak
on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on
an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials
included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to
the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the
public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part
of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if
applicable.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings
pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
February 2021
Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 2/11/2021
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call by Secretary
3. Addenda to the Agenda
4. Planning Commission Absences
5. Approval of Minutes
A. January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes
B. January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes
6. BCC Report - Recaps
7. Chairman's Report
8. Consent Agenda
9. Public Hearings
A. Advertised
February 2021
Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 2/11/2021
1. ***This item was continued from the February 4, 2021 CCPC meeting*** A
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the
Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended,
specifically amending the future land use element and map series to create the
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay (IRRVO) on property within the
agricultural, rural designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, to establish
210.78± acres of Sending Lands, 1998± acres of Receiving Lands and 578.49± acres
of Neutral Lands; to allow a maximum of 4042 dwelling units within the IRRVO of
which a minimum of 3,000 and a maximum of 4,000 dwelling units will be located in
the receiving lands; to provide for generation of transfer of development rights
credits from sending lands including one credit for restoration of farm lands; to
provide for uses on sending lands to include allowable uses in County preserves; to
provide for uses on Neutral Lands to include uses permitted by LDC section
2.03.08.a.3 on Neutral Lands without limitation including but not limited to
agricultural activities, single family dwelling units, group housing, sports and
recreation camps, farm labor housing, schools and educational plants; to provide
for uses on receiving lands to include a minimum of 25,000 square feet and a
maximum of 125,000 square feet of civic/institutional/government uses, a minimum
of 50,000 square feet and a maximum of 250,000 square feet of commercial uses
permitted by right and conditional use in the General Commercial (C-4) Zoning
District, with non-residential uses subject to a cap of 375,000 square feet in the
receiving lands; providing for a greenbelt and native vegetation requirements; and
furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 2787.27± acres and located on east
side of Immokalee Road, approximately two miles north of Oil Well Road.
[Coordinator: James Sabo]
2. PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA-A Resolution of the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be
known as the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow
development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum
of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and
10% will be single family attached or villa; an aggregate minimum of 65,000 square
feet and an aggregate maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale
commercial and office in the village center context zone and neighborhood
commercial context zone; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental
and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing
care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood
general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a
maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area
credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area and
establishing that 6697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of
the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located
east of Desoto Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road and west of the intersection of Oil
Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 And 35,
Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner]
February 2021
Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 2/11/2021
3. ***NOTE: This item has been continued to the March 4, 2021 CCPC Meeting
***PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA - A Resolution of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be
known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow
development of a maximum of 2,750 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum
of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and
10% will be single family attached or villa; a minimum of 68,750 and maximum of
85,000 square feet of commercial development in the village center context zone; a
minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the
village center context zone; senior housing including adult living facilities and
continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial
uses in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center
site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the
Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Bellmar Village Stewardship
Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being utilized by
the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject
property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto
Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11,
Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James
Sabo, Principal Planner]
B. Noticed
10. Old Business
11. New Business
A. Town Plan-This is information related to the creation of an SRA Town by amending the
Longwater Village SRA to add 515.1 acres to form a town SRA, which Town will also
address impacts from the Rivergrass Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA. No action
is required other than being informed. The Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC)
will be asked to approve a Town Agreement at the April 27, 2021, BCC hearing when the
Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA petitions are also heard. [Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
12. Public Comment
13. Adjourn
02/18/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 5.A
Item Summary: January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 02/18/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission
Name: Diane Lynch
02/03/2021 3:34 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/03/2021 3:34 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/03/2021 3:35 PM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/04/2021 9:24 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/04/2021 12:39 PM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 02/08/2021 10:21 AM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 02/18/2021 9:00 AM
5.A
Packet Pg. 5
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida,
January 7, 2021
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County
of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
Edwin Fryer, Chairman
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair
Karl Fry
Joe Schmitt
Paul Shea
Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely)
Christopher T. Vernon
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. Happy New Year to everyone, and welcome to
the January 7, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Before I ask the secretary to call the roll, we must take action on a preliminary matter.
Commissioner Klucik has requested leave to participate remotely in this meeting, and his request
requires, first of all, the presence of a physical quorum, which I observe preliminarily that we have,
and our favorable action.
Now, from my point of view, I have absolutely no problem allowing remote participation
during the pandemic time because I think it's just a wise thing to do. It's my own personal opinion.
And so is there any further discussion, or is there a motion to permit Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to permit.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Commissioner Klucik, are you on, sir?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, while we're continuing to get him hooked in, I'll ask the
secretary now to please call the roll.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman in the
beard over on the side. I'm wondering who that gentlemen is and what happened to Commissioner
Vernon.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We heard that --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's my winter coat for this brutal winter.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here.
Chairman Fryer?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? I believe -- isn't he here?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: He's not connected in yet, but he intends to be.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, we have a physical -- oh, I'm sorry.
Page 2 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. SUMMERS: He is online. We just can't get his sound in right now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I can count him?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Please do.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on
January 21, 2021. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, that's great. It looks like we'll have a quorum.
We have no minutes before us to take action on, and Mr. Bellows has informed me that we
do not have a BCC report for this morning. And I'll cap onto that by saying I don't have a
Chairman's report either, and we don't have consent agenda before us either.
***So that takes us right to the public hearings and the advertised one. The first and only
one today is PL20200000191. It's the Heritage Bay PUDA. All those wishing to testify in this
matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: Just email correspondence that is part of the public record.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and email correspondence as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
(Commissioner Schmitt entered the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Same as Mr. Shea and Mr. Eastman and, plus, I did have a
telephone phone call with three members of the applicant's team.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
In my case, I made a site visit. I received the materials from staff. It's a matter of public
record. I had a meeting with staff, numerous emails from members of the public, and a meeting
with counsel and other -- telephonic meeting with counsel and other agents of the applicant.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is staff -- site visits something we should disclose? Because
I visited it twice.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I should disclose that?
MR. KLATZKOW: You just have.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone else -- well, we'll continue down with the vice chair.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I talked to Attorney Tony Pires, his representative Chris, I
believe it was, from the -- transportation was on the phone and the representative from the
community were all on the phone. So that's who I spoke with.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Schmitt.
Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
The applicant?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Oh, good. You're here.
Page 3 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, good. You can hear me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can, Commissioner. Do you have any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I spoke with staff, and I spoke with Bill McDaniel.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Klucik.
We'll now begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Pires, you may proceed, sir.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I don't mean to take any role
with the Planning Commission, but I don't know if the record reflected Mr. Schmitt's appearance
and the time he arrived.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. That will be so noted for the record.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of seven.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MR. PIRES: I didn't mean to take Mr. Fry's position, the highly paid voluntary position.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just didn't want Karen to be last today, so I --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was very thoughtful, as always. It's in the holiday spirit.
And I don't think we need to time stamp his exact arrival, simply to say that he arrived before we
began the application.
MR. PIRES: And I see Mr. Klucik on the screen. Good morning, Mr. Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Good morning.
MR. PIRES: I will try to find the PowerPoint, if I may; Mr. Chairman and Planning
Commission, indulge me for a moment. This is a PowerPoint.
My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo representing
The Quarry Community Association, the applicant in this matter.
Today we have with us as part of this team -- and I'll ask -- I'll also have some preliminary
matters I will ask for some approvals and actions by the Planning Commission. But initially I
want to introduce the team: Myself, as counsel; Chris Mears, professional engineer, civil
engineering; Vicki Castro, professional engineer, Palm Traffic, transportation planner, traffic
expert; Michael Yates from Palm Traffic, transportation planner, traffic expert; Greg Stuart who
you're very familiar with. Greg spent three days living with you-all, I think, the last couple
months, as our planner; and Cheryl Ollila. And I always mispronounce her name. So I'm sure
she will correct me. My name gets mispronounced. It's all the vowels, I guess, that we have.
She's the president of the applicant, The Quarry Community Association, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, as a preliminary matter, and members of the Commission, a couple of
items. We have two individuals, our transportation planners, that we would request that the
Planning Commission allow them to appear remotely and waive their physical presence.
Mr. Yates has a conflict with a Board of County Commissioners hearing in Manatee County that
was found out last week. Ms. Castro has been in North Carolina since March. She's out of the
Tampa area but, because of COVID and other situations, she's been at her place in Boone, North
Carolina, and we'd request the ability for them to participate remotely, and they have preregistered.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Initially I'd ask the County Attorney if we have it within
our authority to do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: You do, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
From my point of view, under the circumstances of the pandemic, particularly, I have
absolutely no problem with this and defer to other members of the Planning Commission if
there -- if anyone objects.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you need a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No objection.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, let's do a motion, if we may.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I move to approve that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second to approve the appearances of expert witnesses
telephonically?
Page 4 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Continue, please, sir.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly.
With regards to the experts, and I just -- I'll defer to the Chair and to the Commission as to
how they wish to proceed, if we wish to have them qualified as they come up and they can explain
their qualifications and then ask that they be qualified as experts or we can go through their
CVs/resumés now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe I saw some material that you submitted --
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to staff, and it -- CVs and the like and experience. So unless
staff raises an objection of some kind, I believe it is appropriate for us to take that as acceptable for
them to appear. But I defer to other Planning Commissioners. Is anyone concerned about the
credentials of the experts?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It appears not, so we'll --
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just like the 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thirty seconds of their background before they get into
the substance, Tony, if that's okay with the fellow members.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely.
MR. PIRES: If you would like the experts to do that or --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Just when they come up, literally, 30 seconds of
some background.
MR. PIRES: Vicki, Michael, do you hear that? You're on the clock when you come up.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. PIRES: And I think, as to Mr. Stuart, he's already been qualified as an expert before
the Planning Commission. Can we make an exception for him and consider him an expert?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Anybody who is -- who is established as an expert for the
county we don't need to re-establish.
MR. PIRES: Correct. Thank you very much.
Again, my name is Tony Pires. I'm called Anthony Pires. When people call me
Anthony, I know I'm in trouble. Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo representing the applicant.
The Heritage Bay PUD, which is the subject matter of this application, it's comprised of
two residential communities and a commercial activity center. It's the Heritage Bay residential
community in the eastern portion and The Quarry community in the western portion with a
commercial activity center in the southwest corner. And what's important is that commercial
Page 5 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
activity center is the only portion of the Heritage Bay PUD within the Activity Center No. 3
outlined in the Growth Management Plan. The Limestone Trail, we'll hear a lot of discussion
about that, that's at issue in this application, is not in an activity center. The activity center has
commercial uses and they're, again, in the far western southwest corner.
The Heritage Bay PUD was designed as an integrated, interconnected mixed-use
development. And bear with me as I go through the slides.
And from this graphic and aerial photograph, you can see the Heritage Bay PUD and
Heritage Bay neighborhood. That yellow line on the right-hand side is not a roadway. It's just a
demarcation line between the two residential communities; Heritage Bay neighborhood on the east
and the Heritage Bay -- The Quarry neighborhood on the west, and the far southwest
quadrant -- corner is the Heritage Bay Commercial Center in orange.
The Heritage Bay PUD was --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tony, can I interrupt you? I'm sorry I interrupted you,
but I did. Can you put that in presentation mode so it fills the entire screen.
MR. PIRES: Oh, I'm sorry. You are dealing with the most technically challenged person
on this team.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray can show you, or somebody can show you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Bottom right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Either that or down on the bottom left -- right corner.
MR. PIRES: Thank you. Sorry, Joe.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. There you are. That's the button. And I believe
now all you have to do is press the mouse and it should advance.
MR. PIRES: There we go. We'll roll it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Excellent. Thank you.
MR. PIRES: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that's good for the viewers as well if they're
viewing from home.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
And with regards to the Heritage Bay, again, the neighborhoods, Collier County approved
the original DRI PUD in 2003, and over the years the County Commission and the county staff
approved the developments, including the two residential communities, different platting for them.
They have different distinct master homeowners associations, and the development pattern was one
approved by Collier County.
Interestingly enough, although not a part of this application, there are two community
development districts in this PUD. There's The Quarry Community Development District and the
Heritage Bay Community Development District which pretty much encompassed those residential
areas. Again, actions by the County Commission in 2004 and 2005.
Going to the next slide, this shows the road network within the Heritage Bay PUD.
Again, the yellow line is merely for purposes of distinguishing the two residential neighborhoods
and communities.
Bellaire Bay Drive, Goodland Bay Drive, and this segment here, they're all public roads.
The rest of the roads are private roads except for a portion that comes up to here for exit.
Otherwise, the road network consists of private roads.
The -- Limestone is not in Activity Center No. 3, as I mentioned earlier. The Heritage
Bay road network, Limestone Trail. As to Limestone Trail, I think you've seen from our materials,
it's platted as a private two-lane roadway; a private street. It's in the plat approved by the County
Commission in November of 2004 and recorded January 2005. It is owned and maintained by the
applicant, The Quarry Community Association, Inc. They -- it's always been a part of the
common area of The Quarry Community Association and it was, in fact, deeded to them by the
developer in 2005, so it always has been part of the association.
Yes, sir.
Page 6 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Pires, may I just ask for a clarification. So does that mean
that the maintenance and liability for Limestone Trail rests solely with The Quarry and in no way
with Heritage Bay?
MR. PIRES: Absolutely correct. The Quarry Community Association carries liability
insurance, maintains the landscaping, maintains the roadway and, again, has exposure for any
utilization of that roadway, and Heritage Bay does not.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. Commissioner Shea has a question.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Another clarification question. You said the road, like
Bellaire Road is public.
MR. PIRES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: That means that the county maintains it all the way up when it
goes -- heads north and ties into the north -- the west entrance of Quarry, that whole section of road
is maintained by the county?
MR. PIRES: That's my understanding, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And everything inside the commercial roads inside the
commercial area is taken care of by the county?
MR. PIRES: Well, one road is --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, you've got --
MR. PIRES: -- Goodland Bay Drive and Bellaire Bay, there's an east/west minor street
called Sage Drive. It's hard to see here. Sage Drive is maintained by the association for the
commercial area. That's internal. It's hard to see from this graphic, but --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Bellaire Road is not maintained by the association --
MR. PIRES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- or the commercial area. The county maintains it.
MR. PIRES: That's correct. Well, the county owns it. The county owns Woodcrest and
the county owns Tree Farm, and we'll talk about that in a bit, too.
The privately owned Limestone Trail is used by both The Quarry and Heritage Bay
communities within the --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Mr. Pires? Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you please, when someone's referring to the map or
a graphic, can you just make sure that that's up?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. I apologize. My finger --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you repeat the streets that you were talking about
just now when -- the questions regarding the different streets.
MR. PIRES: Bellaire Bay Drive is owned by the county and platted as a public road.
Goodland Bay Drive is owned by the county, platted as a public road, and it goes all the way up to
the westernmost portion of the Weathered Stone Drive and --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's where all the commercial businesses are. And the
issue or the question from the fellow commissioners were whether or not the maintenance and
operating costs were borne by the county?
MR. PIRES: Yes, and that -- my understanding is yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. I apologize for my scrolling to the different slides.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Another point of clarification. I apologize.
MR. PIRES: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I want to make sure we get the details right. On the
north side of Bellaire, you have some apartments type. Are those part of The Quarry, or are they
part of the commercial? What are they; independent HOAs?
MR. PIRES: That apartment complex is part -- is within the activity center. It is not
within The Quarry development nor the Heritage Bay residential development.
Page 7 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's part of the activity center?
MR. PIRES: It's part of the activity center, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: There's an HOA? There's some kind of organization that
governs that?
MR. PIRES: I believe the condo association, if I'm not mistaken, is part of that, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could -- I'll give some insight on that,
because I'm well aware when the PUD went through its original petition. That was the -- an
affordable housing complex that was mandated or I would say agreed to by the developer when it
went before the Board of County Commissioners as a -- I'll call it not a -- I guess I'll say it, as a
condition of the development, and that was the affordable housing where the affordable housing
was designated. That was back in the throes of when they were talking about inclusionary zoning
and other type of programs to promote affordable housing, but this was offered as an area -- as an
affordable housing type project. I believe it still is designated as affordable housing.
MR. PIRES: I can't recall, Mr. Schmitt, but --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Cormac or Ray, you may -- you may recall, but it is a -- it
was originally affordable housing, but that's, what, 15 years ago, I think, when that was built.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows.
I was the planner for Heritage Bay back at the time, and it was also a Development of
Regional Impact, and the Development of Regional Impact process had some affordable housing
mandates, and this satisfied those. But over the 15 or so years, I don't know if the turnover still
was required and maybe if we can follow up with Cormac, we'll maybe have an answer before the
end of the meeting -- this item.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a question also, if I may, Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was going to hold it, but now we're talking about the subject; I
think it makes most sense for me to ask this particular question now.
The roads that run roughly north of the Heritage Bay lake, and by that I mean Siesta Bay,
Quarry Drive, then continuing west they connect to Weathered Stone Road and ultimately to
Bellaire. Am I correct, first of all, that Siesta Bay and Quarry are privately owned and
maintained?
MR. PIRES: That is correct, and those two roads are owned by The Quarry Community
Association.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And am I also correct that when they connect to
Weathered Stone, which is a county road, there is no barrier, no gate?
MR. PIRES: There is a gate at the western end of Weathered Stone before you get to a
county -- short county segment, I believe.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So in order to go from Quarry Drive to Weathered Stone,
you need to have a pass?
MR. PIRES: If you're internal, I don't think you need to exit. You mean as far as
exiting?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Entering or exiting.
MR. PIRES: I believe entering you would.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do -- are those passes possessed by both the residents of
Heritage Bay and of Quarry?
MR. PIRES: To my knowledge, just The Quarry Community Association.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That -- we're going to need to talk some more about that,
then.
All right. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. Oh, no, no.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: One last question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, and then Commissioner Schmitt.
Page 8 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Siesta Bay, you said was -- Quarry maintains it?
MR. PIRES: Yes, owned and maintained by The Quarry.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the homes along Siesta Bay from Quarry going east are
part of Quarry, not part of --
MR. PIRES: I stand corrected. It's Heritage Bay. That portion -- that eastern portion of
Siesta Bay Drive is maintained by Heritage Bay. Apologies.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, when you say "the whole drive," it starts -- it starts on
Quarry and then just goes east along the north side of the bay there. That's all Heritage Bay.
MR. PIRES: That's Heritage Bay. I stand corrected. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's no gate at that point?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No.
MR. PIRES: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Tony, I think it's very important as well, as you
discuss each of these roads, you distinguish or delineate whether they were funded by municipal
bonds as part of the CDD or were they -- were they constructed as part of the community under the
foundation? Because there is a significant legal difference. I know you understand it. My
fellow commissioners may not, but the CDD -- typically a CDD being a -- funded with municipal
bonds could legally be deemed public roads. Even though they could be controlled, a CDD and
all -- all intent and purposes could be deemed public because they're funded with the municipal
bonds, which is publicly funded.
If the roads are constructed by the foundation, it's strictly private. So I just would ask that
you make it clear which roads were CDD constructed and which roads were actually funded by the
foundation.
MR. PIRES: To my knowledge, none of the private roads were funded -- internal roads
were funded by any of the two community development districts. Their function is focused on the
stormwater management and other aspects but not the road construction, although the community
development districts do have the ability to acquire or construct roads. Quarry Drive, Weathered
Stone Drive, all those streets internal, and Heritage Bay Boulevard, those are --
MR. BELLOWS: Do you want me to put this on?
MR. PIRES: Okay -- those are owned and controlled by two different associations. The
community development districts do not own any of the roads.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Including Limestone?
MR. PIRES: Correct. Limestone is owned by The Quarry Community Association, Inc.,
correct. Limestone was deeded to The Quarry Community Association by the developer in 2015.
It was platted as a private street right-of-way and was included in the initial declaration for the
master association documents for The Quarry as part of their common area.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So they --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it wasn't constructed with funding from the bonds?
MR. PIRES: No. To my knowledge, no. The developer constructed Limestone Trail.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, no. The developer often constructs things that
are funded with bonds and then later on turns it over to a district. At least that's how it works in
the district that I'm in.
MR. PIRES: I represent six community developments districts.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, and I -- right. I understand that, but it's very
important to know precisely the question that, you know, at least two of the commissioners are, you
know, telling you is very important. So I would figure that out and get us a definitive answer.
MR. PIRES: No. To my knowledge, the roads were not funded, paid for --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: To your knowledge isn't -- to your knowledge isn't really a
good enough answer. I need to know for sure. And I understand. I know I'm putting you on the
spot, but that's a question that I think is important for the Commission to know the answer to. And
Page 9 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
if I'm out of line, I apologize.
MR. PIRES: Oh, no, no, sir. I appreciate the question. And if the -- if district -- if the
district floated a bond issue and paid for the construction or the acquisition of the road, that road
would have to be in the name of the district. The district --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will ask staff to have an answer to that question when they
make their presentation, because that would be the authority.
MR. PIRES: Well, fortunately, Mr. Bellows has --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would doubt that staff would have that information,
because that information -- but they may have it, but I would doubt --
MR. PIRES: Ray has a map, and the visualizer will show that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tony, as far as maintaining those streets, so the Board of
Supervisors is a CDD as far as their annual funding or operation and maintenance? It does not fall
on the Board of Supervisors of the CDD? It falls under the foundation?
MR. PIRES: It falls under -- and Cheryl, the president, will address the issue that the
CDD does not pay for any of the maintenance liability or cost of operating or maintaining
Limestone Road [sic], Quarry Drive, Weathered Stone within the gates; that's correct?
MS. OLLILA: That's correct.
MR. PIRES: And she will testify as to that. There's none of the -- no funding for those
roads is made by the district, CDDs.
Ray has put up on the visualizer -- I hope that you can see. He has a key with regards to
the roadway. And at the bottom, if you note, none of the roads are owned by any of the
community development districts, by either one.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In regards to the other -- I'll follow up again. But in
regards to other community development districts that you represent --
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- is this unique? Because in many cases the CDDs
typically are responsible for their road networks.
MR. PIRES: No, sir. I've seen -- there are a number of community development districts
where -- to maintain the roads as to be utilized by the residents, that the roadways are, in fact,
private and not community development districts roads. That's not unusual.
The developer, at the outset, when it establishes a district, will ask the board of supervisors
to either take over or pay for the roads or pay for the roads and not turn them over or give them to
the CDDs or not use any bond proceeds for the purposes of maintaining access control -- greater
access control. And so that is not unusual. There are a number of communities where the
roads -- where there is a community development districts, the community development districts
does not own the roadways.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. PIRES: That's not unusual.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on Commissioner Fry, I want to be sure that
Commissioner Klucik is able to see what is on the visualizer. Are you, sir?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Thanks for asking. I actually have the best view
ever.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Perfect. All right. Excellent.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: If not the maintenance of these roads, what is the role of the
CDD, and what part of the DRI -- what role did it play in the DRI? And just please clarify that it
is or is not related to this application in any way.
MR. PIRES: The community development districts have no relation to this application,
and I think staff will concur with that. I think Ray's shaking his head up and down, for the record
Page 10 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
for the court reporter, that the community development districts have no role or application or any
relevance to this application. They maintain and operate the stormwater management system.
That I do know, which is all -- they operate that backbone system which is not unusual. In fact,
very, very typical of community development districts.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
Next slide, if I may. The Heritage Bay road network, as we talked about -- and I'll go to
the next one. The amendment and why we are here. The PUD text amendment to the Heritage
Bay PUD, we're requesting it to construct a permitted PUD use right, a guardhouse traffic control
facility. And as we go through the slides, you'll hear the testimony and see the excerpt from the
PUD where one of the permitted uses are guardhouses, gatehouses anywhere within the
development.
And it's consistent with the PUD. You'll hear testimony, we believe, to that extent, to
install two gates on Limestone Trail, to clarify the ability to install gates on Limestone Trail and
other Heritage Bay PUD privately owned roads.
In our opinion -- and you'll hear testimony -- the text amendment will not affect the use of
the privately owned Limestone Trail by Heritage Bay and The Quarry residents that have enjoyed
that use for approximately 15 years. The Heritage Bay residents -- and you'll hear that
testimony -- their manner of Heritage Bay residents using Limestone Trail will not change by this.
They have the same as they do now.
Next I'd like to introduce Chris Mears, professional engineer, and he will continue on with
the program.
And, Chris, if you can give, as Mr. Vernon mentioned, a 30-second --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, okay. So just for clarification, Mr. Pires, I
think -- you know, one of the issues, of course, is whether or not currently the district has been
involved in these roads. My question -- and I think, you know, the answer probably is no, but I
would like a definitive answer, and that would be on the funding.
Now, in Ave Maria, for instance, it's a different kind of district very similar to a CDD.
Some of the HOAs -- some of the builders build their community roads with their own funds and
don't turn them over to the district. Some of the builders do use bond-related funds for that
infrastructure, and then they own them in the beginning, and they eventually turn them over to the
district. It appears as though -- and that's why I want confirmation on. I don't -- I don't really
think the answer is yes, but it appears as though the answer is no, that the funding was never bonds
for the roads that are in question.
MR. PIRES: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like someone to confirm that.
MR. PIRES: My understanding is the answer is no, and I think Cheryl can also address
that.
MS. OLLILA: I can't address --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you're going to need to approach if you're going to speak.
MR. PIRES: I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. In my review of the various documents,
I did not see any documents where the CDD paid for the funding of the construction of Limestone
Trail.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
MR. MEARS: Good morning. Chris Mears. I'm with Native Engineering out of Tampa
area. I've got 23 years of experience in site development and permitting and design as well as
transportation projects, roadway expansions, things of that nature. I've worked on hundreds of
Page 11 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
different projects ranging from those site development type projects, commercial, multifamily
residential, single-family residential design projects, the design and permitting end, as well as,
again, on the transportation end, roadway improvement projects.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Licensure and certification, sir?
MR. MEARS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you elaborate, within the 30-second framework?
MR. MEARS: Yes. I've been licensed since 2004.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: As?
MR. MEARS: As a professional engineer.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. MEARS: So I'll continue with --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's in the state of Florida, correct?
MR. MEARS: That is in the state of Florida; sorry for that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. MEARS: I will continue with some of the discussion that Mr. Pires had talked about
and provide some additional clarification. I think some of the discussion in regards to traffic
circulation will help the understanding of how, you know, vehicles and residents move back and
forth to and from the commercial activity center.
So as Mr. Pires had indicated, Siesta Bay Drive, which is controlled by Heritage Bay -- you
can't see the entire PUD on this slide; however, you can identify Siesta Bay Drive here and then
Quarry Drive just to the west. So I'll point out that Heritage Bay residents as well as Quarry
residents can exit from any of the gates that are currently in place at Weathered Stone Drive,
Quarry Drive as well as Heritage Bay Boulevard; however, not all the residents can re-enter
through those same gates. Quarry residents, because they control and maintain and pay for their
roadways, only Quarry residents can re-enter through Weathered Stone as well as Quarry Drive.
Heritage Bay residents cannot re-enter into those gates. They can exit. They cannot re-enter. I
just want to provide that clarification because there have been questions in regard to that.
On the same token, Quarry residents cannot re-enter in through the Heritage Bay gate.
They can only exit if they feel they need to move in the eastbound direction from their community.
With that said, all residents currently have access to Limestone Trail, both Quarry and
Heritage Bay residents. And it's full use both on the eastbound and westbound direction. And to
access the commercial activity center, which is outlined here in the light blue color, both Quarry
and Heritage Bay residents can either exit through Weathered Stone and run south on the
county-owned and maintained roadway, which is Bellaire Bay Drive, or they can exit through
Quarry Drive and go westbound on Limestone Trail to the commercial activity center.
I'll also point out that the residents that are in the commercial activity center, the
multifamily community here, they cannot also enter in through any of the gates. They do not have
access to either of the communities.
But I'll point out as far as the access goes from the commercial activity center back into the
communities, specifically Heritage Bay, they have a number of different options to regain access
back into their community. As I mentioned before, they cannot go through into the gates at
Weathered Stone or Quarry Drive; however, the first option, which is highlighted here as little
yellow arrows, they can go eastbound on Limestone Trail, they can make a U-turn, or I'm sorry,
they can make a right turn onto Immokalee Road, and then make a U-turn at the first median
opening. They could also make a U-turn at Bellaire Bay Drive.
I'll point out that Bellaire Bay Drive used to have a median opening here at Immokalee
Road. That has recently been closed and directionalized. So the movement which previously
existed, which was a southbound to eastbound movement, no longer exists. This was a county
improvement. Along with that improvement, the county extended the turn lane at Goodland Bay
Drive to accommodate additional stacking and deceleration lanes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me.
Page 12 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. MEARS: So one of the other options here that you can see is Option No. 2.
Motorists leaving the commercial activity center can make a --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just on that last point, so the county made an improvement,
and when the county made the improvement, obviously they made the improvement assuming
Limestone Trail would continue to be open?
MR. MEARS: I can't speak to what the county's assumptions were.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, had you submitted -- had you submitted this
application when they made that improvement prior to the --
MR. MEARS: We had submitted the application prior to the improvement being made;
however, the county did anticipate that these closures would exist at some point in time. With the
Traffic Impact Statements that were done by the developers within the commercial activity center,
there were a number of those TISs that made the assumptions that these median -- that the median
closure would occur at Bellaire Bay Drive. So in those TI --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that --
MR. MEARS: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. Carry on.
MR. MEARS: So in those TISs, I want to say out of the 14, 10 or so of them made those
assumptions or anticipated with their distributions of their traffic that that median closure would
exist.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. I'm going to ask Commissioner Schmitt to speak.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, to follow up on two questions, Chris. One is in
answer to the question just asked by my colleague, and Mr. Pires may have to answer this. But
was there not -- I believe there were public hearings or public meetings by both Deputy County
Manager Nick Casalanguida and the County Commissioner briefing the residents on everything
that was taking place and was planned to take place in this area, because this area's been discussed
for years in regards to various phases of traffic improvements and intersection improvements.
So there were public meetings, were there not, or at least meetings to advise the residents?
MR. MEARS: Yes, there were. And as I move through my portion of the presentation,
I'll get into those details of how we came about where we're at today. You know, why did we file
the application. And it was for some of those very reasons and some of those presentations that
were given by the county during town hall meetings, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the second question, then. You may have it on a
following slide, which you probably do. But at Quarry Drive and Immokalee, that currently is a
full opening but it's not signalized?
MR. MEARS: Currently, it is a full opening. It is not -- I don't believe the opening is -- I
think there's traffic control devices that are keeping it closed; is that correct?
Pete or Cheryl, is it -- are there still barricades or traffic control decides that prevent that
opening from allowing those full movements?
MS. OLLILA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your arrow shows, of course, heading south and then
turning west, so I can make a right turn only. I cannot make a left turn out of that -- from Quarry
Drive and go east?
MR. MEARS: That's correct. The signal is currently under construction. Once the
signal will be constructed -- and, again, I'll get into that discussion. Once the signal's constructed,
that will be a full opening; it will be signalized. So they will be able to make that movement.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. No. I drive by there frequently, and what has
happened is it appears as though the traffic signal is fully installed, and there's barrels that prevent
anyone from actually using that intersection. And so the main -- the median is actually -- you
Page 13 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
know, it's as if there's a continuing -- continued median right through there. And so right now
anybody can use that for any kind of access. So you have to use the traffic patterns that the
current witness has -- sorry. Mr. Mears --
MR. MEARS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- that he has shown on his graphic in red and orange.
MR. MEARS: I appreciate that clarification.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And from my understanding, talking to the county staff,
that's -- you know, it's just a matter of time before that's going to open up as a traffic signal.
MR. MEARS: Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And before you proceed, sir, since you have testified
with respect to gates, I do have a question, and it relates to a conversation I had -- a good
conversation I had with Mr. Pires yesterday. And I will say, in a preliminary way, that I am
leaning toward approval of this for reasons which I will elaborate upon later. Of course, I don't
make decisions until all the evidence is in. But I want to flag something right now that is of
concern that I did not speak with Mr. Pires about.
First of all, I am -- I am okay with the fact that the Heritage Bay people don't have a way in
from Immokalee to Quarry Road, and I'm also okay -- and it's kind of a sense of parity, if you will,
that The Quarry people don't have a right-of-way in from -- a right to enter from Immokalee to
Heritage Bay. Those two things kind of cancel one another out from a fairness standpoint.
But what I am really not okay about, and I'm going to need to hear some good and
sufficient reasons why this should be approved without a significant change, is the gate that I'm
now finding out about between Quarry Drive and Weathered Stone Road. I think that's where it is.
Is it not, or is it between Siesta and Quarry? In any event, wherever it is, it presents an
internal -- yeah, out you can go, but in you can't. And so what I was looking for was an alternative
for the Heritage Bay people to get from the commercial part of this PUD back into their
neighborhood without having to go out on Immokalee. And I'm flagging that for you right now
because it's really going to be a stumbling block for me when we get -- when we come time to vote.
And I would suggest that you consider granting the people in Heritage Bay an in/out access
on that gate that's internal to the two adjoining subdivisions.
MR. MEARS: Understood. Appreciate your input.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. MEARS: I will chime in on that. And, no, you are correct, access is not permitted
for Heritage Bay residents in the eastbound direction onto Weathered Stone, through Weathered
Stone. Again, I'll point out that Weathered Stone Drive is owned and maintained by The Quarry,
and they are separate communities. I'll let Cheryl Ollila talk about that when she comes up as well
as Tony can recap in his conclusion.
But, currently, the traffic pattern is requiring that Heritage Bay residents use Immokalee
Road to get back into their community.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm going to interrupt you again, with apologies.
Back in June 29 of 2003, the Board of County Commissioners' minutes of that date, which
related to the approval of the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact and PUD, Mr. Bruce
Anderson, who's a lawyer who was representing the developer at the time, said the following.
Quote: This project also features internal access to the activity center so that residents of Heritage
Bay will not have to travel out on Immokalee Road to shop for their everyday needs. And that
was the intention that the Board of County Commissioners acted upon back in 2003, and I've got a
fundamental problem if this -- if that is not the case. Thank you.
MR. MEARS: Understood.
Again, I'm not going to speak to Mr. Anderson's, you know, intent with that statement. It
did say, as you pointed out, residents of the communities to access the commercial activity center.
They do have use of Limestone Trail and the internal roadways to access the activity center.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you don't think access implies being able to return back
Page 14 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
home?
MR. MEARS: I'm not going to say that it doesn't have that interpretation. They do have
access to Limestone Trail to return back home. Again, they don't have access using The Quarry
owned and maintained roadways to return back home.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I really do think that's a problem, and I think it is contrary,
because at the time when Bruce Anderson made that statement, Heritage Bay was the entire area.
It was Quarry, and it was what's now Heritage Bay, and also the commercial area. So he was
talking about residents. So we're not, at this point, talking about giving the commercial owners
access throughout here. But I really am repeating myself, with apologies. I think that the original
intent of this, as it came before the BCC in 2003, had full ingress/egress for everybody who was in
the PUD; every resident who was in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir, Mr. Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. And I would just state, if you look at the plain
common understanding of what Mr. Anderson, my former colleague at Roetzel & Andress, had to
say, it seems as though -- and, again, I was not -- I said that just because I respect him, and he's a
friend, a professional colleague. I didn't even work at the firm at the time in '03 -- that Heritage
Bay will not have -- the people of -- residents of Heritage Bay will not have to travel out on
Immokalee Road to shop for their everyday needs. I would think coming home is part of
shopping. You know, it's a -- it's a very strained reading that really -- you know, you'd be better
off if you just acknowledged that that says what it says, and it's hard to interpret that it only implies
one way, because it really -- it doesn't make sense to suggest that one-way travel was at all implied
by this.
MR. MEARS: I apologize. I'm not trying to imply that -- one point that I did want to
make is that I believe you had indicated, Commissioner Fryer, that the CDDs were later
development after that statement was made. The county approved those two separate
developments. They approved them being owned and maintained the way they are today. The
county's approved a number of other improvements along this -- within this community since that
date. And I'll get into a little bit more detail with regard to that, and it might help you with
that -- with your concern.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It might. And before you continue, I'm going to call on
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you, Ned.
I vividly remember this petition as well, and you're absolutely correct, Mr. Anderson,
Bruce Anderson, did make that commitment. Where on the map is that control at between Siesta
Bay and Quarry? Show me the --
MR. MEARS: There is no controlled access from Siesta Bay to Quarry. Again, the
communities may travel back and forth from one community to another without leaving the
community itself, without leaving the -- through a gated entrance or exit. So Heritage Bay
residents --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was just stated, there was a control that you can't
get back. Is that correct, if I'm on The Quarry I cannot go into --
MR. MEARS: No. I'll go back and clarify. I apologize. I didn't realize there was that
confusion, but I'll clarify once again.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Other than I have to go through the gate. And I do not
have -- if I live in the -- all right. I'm getting mixed up now. On the right is --
MR. MEARS: I'm going to scroll up to --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. MEARS: -- to this network, internal network --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Heritage Bay, I come in the main -- I can't go on
Limestone and enter into The Quarry through that gate is what you're saying.
Page 15 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. MEARS: Correct. So residents from the Heritage Bay neighborhood or community
can travel back and forth to The Quarry without going back out onto the public roadway network.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So --
MR. MEARS: Quarry residents can also --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is the activity center?
MR. MEARS: The activity center is here highlighted in red -- or outlined in red, sorry.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
MR. MEARS: So The Quarry -- the Heritage Bay residents can travel on Siesta Bay
Drive onto Quarry Drive and go south on Quarry Drive to Limestone Trail, exit through the gate,
travel westbound on Limestone Trail to access the commercial activity center. They can also
travel west on Siesta Bay Drive through The Quarry community through no gated feature, exit
through the gate at Weathered Stone, go southbound either on Bellaire Bay Drive to the
commercial activity center or southbound on Collier Boulevard, which has access points to the
commercial activity center, whichever they prefer.
What they can't do -- the residents cannot do is go from the commercial activity center up
Bellaire Bay Drive and enter back into The Quarry-owned gate at Weathered Stone, nor can they
go west -- or eastbound on Limestone Trail and enter The Quarry-owned gate at Quarry Drive.
They are required to go back out onto Immokalee Road and enter into their gated entrance at
Heritage Bay Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If it weren't for the evidence that we have in the official record, I
think your argument might be plausible. But the point is is we know now what was -- what was
represented to the Board of County Commissioners when they approved this, and it has to do with
interconnectivity, and it doesn't ring true to me to say that you've satisfied the statement of
Mr. Anderson by allowing them to go out to shop but not to come back home again, and I -- so I've
got a real problem with that, and nothing that you have said has helped me.
MR. MEARS: Understood. But, again, I will point out that the applicant -- a lot of this
development had occurred, you know, undue from the applicant. It wasn't the applicant's choice to
set the communities up the way they did. This traffic pattern has existed for many years.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, as I said, I'm not objecting to the entrances off of
Immokalee Road. They can -- because I think it's fair, and it's sort of a parity that the Heritage
Bay people have their own gated entry that Quarry can't go through, and Quarry has its own gated
entry that Heritage Bay can't go through from Immokalee. But interconnectivity to get over to the
commercial center, to me, needs to be a two-way street.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On Weathered Stone, though, you're saying?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, on Weathered Stone.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because the -- and -- because the other question would be
drivers' behavior. And let's say the two gates are put up on Limestone, that means a driver
returning to get into the -- through The Quarry gate would go through two control arms and then a
gate just to get back into Heritage Bay in lieu of just going down Immokalee and going in their
main gate, which probably will not happen. But, I agree, Weathered Stone would be the preferred
option. If they leave the commercial area, go through the Weathered Stone gate, and then they
would have access. And that's what you're referring to?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir, it is, yeah.
And Limestone Trail, a two-way access there would require the Heritage Bay people to
have access rights at Quarry, and I'm not asking for that. It doesn't need to happen in order to
achieve interconnectivity and keep the cars off the public roads. What's needed is access north of
the former Quarry.
MR. MEARS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
Page 16 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It seems like you could have access at either point, you
know, I mean, but there has to be -- to honor -- to honor the commitment that the attorney,
Mr. Anderson, represented in '03, it wouldn't matter where the access was, but there has to be one
or the other. And what you're suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is one way that that could be satisfied
without, you know -- and also being able to approve, you know, the application with an amendment
that opens up that northern access, I think.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner, that is -- I'm not telling them it has to be
northern, but I think they would prefer it if they had to choose between the northern Limestone.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then my question to Mr. Mears is you
mentioned that eventually this was split into two different -- the county ended up approving the two
different communities. When that was approved, it was approved with Limestone as a public
road, correct?
MR. MEARS: No, sir. Limestone has always been platted as a private road.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So then when did it become a public road?
MR. MEARS: Limestone currently is not a public road. Limestone is currently a private
road. I'm sorry for the confusion.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. The access. The access, I guess, is what I'm
talking about. Was it approved with a -- with public access as part of the -- you know, mentioned
in the approval?
MR. MEARS: I believe when Limestone was turned over to The Quarry association, it
had always been a private road. The Quarry had installed a no trespassing sign -- private property,
no trespassing sign alerting motorists that Limestone Trail is a private roadway. That sign has
been there for a number of years now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been there ever since turnover, correct?
MR. MEARS: I believe so.
MS. OLLILA: Actually, before.
MR. MEARS: Actually, before. I'm being corrected.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I think that's -- I think the turnover was --
(Someone speaking in Zoom background.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. I'm unable to hear. Commissioner Klucik, are you
speaking? I can't hear you, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. What has been there since turnover? A sign?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, a no trespassing sign, possibly earlier. And leading up to
that -- and let me speak to it a moment -- the developer had, as the developers always do prior to
turnover, virtually all the rights, control of the HOAs and other things. I'm assuming, and without
casting aspersions on a developer -- I don't even know who the developer was, and it doesn't
matter. But it stands to reason that as more and more homes are sold, the developer is going to
have less and less interest and perhaps less and less financial incentive to be erecting gates and the
like. And so it got to the point of turnover, and the first thing that the homeowners association did
was to erect a no trespassing sign, because it did matter a great deal to them.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Now, is -- the no trespassing sign, Mr. Chairman, I think, it
doesn't appear as though that was for the road, is that, but that was for the property surrounding the
road? I mean, the reason I ask that is if you look right under where Mr. Anderson's comment is
referenced in the staff report, Packet Page 14, Page 10 of a 16-page report, it mentions that, you
know, historically, that there was a request to have a pedestrian walkway and there was -- you
know, and it was going to be near, right there on Limestone Trail, and the response was that well,
we don't want that because that's a road that, you know, is going to have -- has public access, you
know, public use, and we don't want a sidewalk to come into the community from there, which is
extremely reasonable, which seems to be as well why you would have a no trespassing sign there.
I don't know what the no trespassing sign -- you know, what it's designed to do, but it
Page 17 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
seems as though that's a reasonable, you know, explanation for it. It's for the property there. You
can use the street, but you can't walk around, you can't park on the side of the road, I don't know.
But I don't think the fact that the no trespassing sign really dictates much to anybody on the
decision or even is much of a factor, but...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I -- we may disagree, Commissioner. It seems --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is -- what is the genesis of that no trespassing
sign -- what are they trying to prevent? What sort of trespass is that trying to prevent? That
would be a good thing to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think when you're confronted with a no trespassing sign, it
means no entering, whether you're in a motor vehicle or as a pedestrian or otherwise and --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you have a public access road in which the no
trespassing sign is supposedly meaningful?
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It was a public access road only by reason of the potential of it
becoming [sic] through an easement by prescription, open, notorious, and under claim of right for
20 years, which potentially would run in 2025 in the face of a no trespassing sign, people who are
complete strangers to this PUD like me. I live in Naples. I don't have any rights whatsoever to
trespass on that property, and I'm forewarned by that no trespassing sign.
And I'm -- and I can fully understand why the residents want to bring this matter -- and I'm
talking about Limestone Trail now, not the back way in. They want to bring this matter to a head
now, because if they continue to allow the public to flout the no trespassing sign with impunity,
they're going to wind up -- it's going to be an easement by prescription, and there won't even be the
need for the payment of a taking, not --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't square with what I
thought the staff was explaining to me and the history and the genesis of, you know, the whole
project here regarding Limestone Road -- or Limestone Trail. I always understood that this has
been a street that was open to the public and there was never any question that anyone, you know,
was not allowed to use it or didn't have permission to use it.
And I understand you can put up a sign that says, I'm not responsible for your hat or coat in
your business. That doesn't necessarily mean you're not responsible for the hat or coat. You
might be responsible for it. Same thing with this trespassing sign. I realize it's different. It's an
analogy, and all analogies suffer a little bit.
But I just don't understand how you can have a road -- you know, could you then -- could
the -- right now could the HOA, The Quarry association, have someone removed from the road?
You know, could they call the sheriff and say, you know, this is private property, and we've told
this car to not use the road and here they are again?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think -- I think they proceeded in exactly the correct
manner. Rather than making it a police issue -- which perhaps they could; maybe they
couldn't -- they've noticed that the public is flouting the no trespassing sign in its admonition and
has been ever since turnover when the developer had waning interest at best in providing benefits
to the homeowners. So the earliest time they could, they mounted a no trespassing sign. It's
private property. The extent to which there's been public access has been in contravention of that
sign. And I feel -- well, it doesn't matter what I feel.
But we can get into this more as we proceed.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I ask --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I'd be interested in hearing from staff about that
just because it's that -- the idea that it wasn't actually designated for public use, you know, in its
current situation, that is not at all how staff presented anything to me. So, you know, I guess staff
could be wrong, or I misunderstood staff. But, yeah, we'll have a chance to talk to them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will, and we'll have both Nancy Gundlach and Sue Faulkner
here to address those questions, and that would be the proper time, you're correct. Please continue,
Page 18 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
sir.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And this is a big-picture question. Setting aside -- and
setting aside the current petition, right now if somebody from Heritage Bay goes to the commercial
activity center, they cannot get back without going to Immokalee. That's where we are right now.
MR. MEARS: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER VERNON: So where we are right now sans the petition is that Bruce
Anderson's representation is not being carried out; is that accurate?
MR. MEARS: That is accurate.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, I'm going to apologize to the applicant. And I've probably
been the worst offender here interrupting your presentation. So, with apologies, please continue.
We'll have a full opportunity up here to ask questions and make comments. And I didn't -- I didn't
do a very good job as gatekeeper with that, so I apologize.
MR. MEARS: No apologies necessary. But I appreciate, you know, the opinions, and I
appreciate the insight towards your concerns, and I will -- I hope that I'll address those as I move
forward. I believe some of them I will. I can't guarantee that I'll address all of them. But I will
address first the comment in regards to the sidewalk connectivity. And there was a question a
number of years ago during the development process whether that sidewalk connectivity would
occur.
There is a sidewalk along the south side of Limestone Trail. The -- I think at the time the
engineer had responded back to the question in regards to having sidewalk connectivity across
Limestone Trail and into the community, that they prefer that not happen because there may
be -- there may be public traffic on Limestone Trail.
I want to emphasize the word "may." It doesn't mean that they said there wouldn't be; just
there may. And with that being the case, they didn't want people going back and forth into a
private community where there are no restrictions, specifically speaking about the sidewalk.
With that said, I will continue. I'm glad -- I believe everybody understands the traffic
pattern that is current there today. It has been there for years. So we are not -- the community is
not in compliance with Mr. Anderson's statement with regard to motorists from Heritage Bay
having to go back out onto the public roadway. They do have to go back out on the public
roadway. They've had to go back out on the public roadway. Whether there's a petition today or
no petition today, they've had to do this for years. We're not proposing to change that.
Limestone Trail has always been a private road. I want to make sure I emphasize that. It
will continue to be a private road as far as I know and as the applicant believes or intends.
I will go to the next slide which shows what will happen if this amendment is approved,
and I will go back and forth between these two slides because this is important and this emphasizes
the statement I had just made in regards to current traffic movement.
You can see the return movements back from the commercial activity center specifically
for Heritage Bay residents. They'd have to make a number of different movements that they
currently -- they currently make with the amendment in place and the signal in operation.
Heritage Bay residents, the only additional movement that would provide another option for them
is the one that's the heavy arrow in the southbound to eastbound direction.
So I'll go back and forth. As the gates are installed on Limestone Trail, Heritage Bay
residents will continue to have access to Limestone Trail as they do today. They will continue to
have access back onto Immokalee as they do today; however, they will have a signal to make a
southbound-to-eastbound movement that they currently don't have today. So once the signal is
installed, they will be able to make this movement southbound to eastbound into their -- into their
gate.
So the condition of whether -- you know, who is able to come in and out of the different
Page 19 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
gates, the three yellow gates that are shown on this slide, that won't change, or is not intended to
change, but both Quarry and Heritage Bay residents will have transponders that they can access in
both directions and use Limestone Trail in an eastbound and westbound direction.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Chris, just to --
MR. MEARS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- nutshell that, what you're saying is that for the residents of
Heritage Bay, the only difference it will really make is that Heritage Bay residents will now have a
shorter trip home by taking Limestone Trail, making a left at the light, thereby relieving some
congestion or some traffic burden at the light potentially at Collier Boulevard and also the two
U-turns?
MR. MEARS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Would that be an --
MR. MEARS: That is an accurate --
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- accurate statement?
MR. MEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. MEARS: So as I had pointed out earlier -- and I think Tony had pointed out -- and,
again, we'll go back through this. There is a bit of redundancy, and I'll apologize in advance for
some of these slides. But it seems like we've gotten a lot of similar questions that I hope we can
address as we progress.
But the county created this current traffic operation. As I go back up to this slide, there is
a restriction here at Bellaire Bay. There is an extension of this turn lane. These were county
improvements with the anticipation that Bellaire Bay would be a closure and traffic would have to
exit onto Immokalee and make a U-turn at Goodland Bay Drive or go out to Limestone Trail and
make a westbound movement and then a U-turn to get back to Heritage Bay or east of Heritage
Bay. So that anticipation from the county was there, making those movements.
So we're maintaining that historic vehicular and pedestrian interconnectivity which is
consistent with the Comp Plan.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Mears?
MR. MEARS: The regulations and LDC. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You just -- I mean, what you just said is that -- you know, could you go back to that slide,
the graphic?
MR. MEARS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you were talking about the changes being done in the
county, you know, decided to do this. Again, when I've talked to the staff and Traffic, you know,
Trinity and, you know, other staff, the idea that Limestone would be closed off for public use was
not what they were anticipating when they decided to install the traffic signal there that's shown on
your graphic.
Now, again, I might be misremembering or misunderstood what I thought, you know, staff
explained to me. What is your -- so you're saying that when the staff decided -- or when the
county decided to go ahead and put that traffic signal in, it fully understood that Limestone Trail
would likely be cut off from public use?
MR. MEARS: I can't speak to what they understood when they were making these
improvements, but they should have understood that Limestone Trail was a private roadway.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right.
MR. MEARS: Whether the county recognized Limestone being a private roadway, I can't
speak to that, and whether they anticipated Limestone Trail being utilized by the public, I would
say, yes, they probably did, because the traffic signal warrant for the signal at Quarry and
Page 20 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Woodcrest and Immokalee directed traffic onto Limestone Trail from the commercial activity
center. So there was a volume of traffic that they directed onto Limestone Trail that would access
the signal.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And so would you -- would you think the county,
you know, would be prudent, you know, when they're doing their planning that they can rely on the
fact that that -- that -- you know, that Limestone Trail is open and that once -- you know, if they
make -- if the county makes its plans, assuming continued use based in accordance with an
understanding of all of the Land Development Code and the goals, et cetera, you know, which
actually require, you know, for instance, your client to bring this petition and get permission to
close it off, that it makes sense that they were assuming -- or that they have a right -- the county has
a right to go ahead and make its plans based on the situation as it is?
And also -- knowing that, from what I, you know, have been told, there's going to be a
flyover there anyways, which also indicates that it's not going to be feasible, you know, to have
access closer to the activity center, you know, a signal or something.
I mean, it just makes sense to me -- I don't understand your representation. You were
trying to make it seem as though the county had proceeded, you know, and the county has, you
know, kind of made this mess or understood what was going to happen. And you're kind of now
trying to say that the county's actions somehow bolster your petition, and I'm trying to figure out
how that could be the case, because I -- could you explain how -- is that what you meant to say,
that the county's actions bolster -- you know, to some intent underscore the necessity to approve
your petition?
MR. MEARS: As I move through the presentation, I'll try to address that question.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
MR. MEARS: There are some slides in here that do speak to that and some progression of
how we got to where we are. If you'll bear with me just a second here, I'll try to advance through
these two slides and make it to the point where I can then answer the question in regards to whether
the county anticipated Limestone Trail ever being closed and at what point in time was -- did the
communities communicate back to the county when they understood that the signal was going to be
in place at Immokalee Road and Quarry Drive.
It's important to understand, too, that without the signal being at that intersection and
providing the full movement at that intersection, there's very little use of Limestone Trail by the
public. There wouldn't be a reason for anyone to go from the commercial activity center
eastbound. And let me go back to the previous slide, because I think this is important. There
would be no reason for someone to travel from the commercial -- I'm going to speak to the public.
There would be no reason for someone to travel eastbound on Limestone Trail, make a southbound
movement, and then make a westbound movement to then make a U-turn to go eastbound.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, can I just say that I -- I will disagree with you there
only because I can just tell you what happened to me very recently. I was trapped. I was trying
to find a way to get out. You know, I was in the activity center. And I live in Ave Maria, so I
was trying to go east on Immokalee Road.
I somehow figured out that there was this Limestone Trail there that I didn't even realize
existed, and I thought, well, the last time I was here, I got trapped and I couldn't make, you know,
an eastbound turn onto Immokalee. So I actually wandered down Limestone Trail and then
realized that I could have done what I wanted to do, which was to use that, you know, access to
Immokalee Road to head east except they put barrels in front of the intersection because they were,
you know, in the process of putting the turn signals up.
So I think, you know, like, six months ago or a year ago, I don't think those barrels were
there, and I think you could have turned left there, or turned east there. And so if you were
leaving the activity center to head towards Immokalee or Ave Maria, you would have actually use
Limestone Trail. And like I said, that was my natural -- and this was -- by the way, this was two
weeks before I even realized there was a petition, you know -- your petition was even -- you know,
Page 21 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
existed. So I didn't know anything about the history. That was just what I personally went to do.
I'm going to go ahead and be quiet, because I know you have a lot to say.
MR. MEARS: Yeah. I'll go down to -- well, I had hoped I had a -- whoops. I had
hoped I had a different slide that actually showed that opening. It was a little more zoomed in.
And I apologize for that. This one might do a better job. You can see this -- I don't recall the
actual date of this slide or this aerial being taken. But I'm hovering my mouse over the
directionalized opening at Quarry Drive. That median opening has been closed for a number of
years. You had experienced a situation in which the county had opened up that median opening in
anticipation of the signal construction.
So one of the first things they did with the signal construction was they cleared open that
opening, and then they put barrels or barricades up to block that southbound-to-left-bound
movement without the signal in operation.
So your experience was post median opening removal, pre-signal. So your expectation
was at some point in time that median opening was a full opening. It hasn't been a full opening
for, I don't recall how many years, but it's been well over five years or so.
So the movement that we're showing here on this particular slide, this is the current
movement that's been in place for a number of years. So as I mentioned, there really isn't a reason
for someone to travel eastbound on Limestone Trail just to go back westbound again just to be back
eastbound. There wouldn't have been a reason for anyone to do that specifically if Bellaire Bay
Drive was a full median opening. Why would you have gone down Limestone Trail? I
understand that there could have been a lot of congestion. That's not The Quarry community
association's problem that Limestone Trail may have been congested at that time.
But you may have experienced congestion, so you felt like, you know, making that
movement out of Bellaire Bay Drive to make a U-turn wasn't in your best interest. So what you
decided to do was utilize Limestone Trail as a cut-through, and that is the issue at hand. The
public and the county staff is wanting to keep Limestone Trail available for public use, the private
road, as a public cut-through. That is our problem today.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah. Well -- and by putting --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let him go through the rest of the presentation. I need to
ask the Commissioner -- we need to go through the presentation.
MR. MEARS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I realize there's a lot of talking and discussion, but we're
going nowhere. I need you to go through the rest of the presentation, and then we as a
commission can start asking questions. I know I interrupted as well, but we're getting nowhere.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a point well taken. And everyone should make notes and
save their comments and questions for the proper time. Thank you. Please proceed.
MR. MEARS: I apologize for getting hung up on these details but, you know, they are
important, and we will address them. So as we move forward, the purpose of putting gates on
Limestone Trail is to prevent that public access.
In the Heritage Bay PUD, it identifies Section 2.5, substitutions to design standards. I will
go ahead and read this, because this is the amendment that we're proposing. The standards for
roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating subdivisions
unless otherwise modified, waived, or accepted by this PUD or approved during preliminary
subdivision plat approval.
This sentence is important: The developer also retains the right to establish gates,
guardhouses, other access controls, signs, and monuments as made deemed appropriate by the
developer on all project roadways. Those project roadways would be inclusive of Limestone
Trail.
This process should be a minor site plan modification. This is the proposed text
amendment. The text amendment includes the underlying language, and the strikethrough
language is removed.
Page 22 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
So I'll go back through the last sentence that I emphasized in the previous slide. The
developer and the property owners associations may establish, construct, and operate gates,
guardhouses, other access controls, signs, and monuments, in parentheses, access controls, as
desired on privately owned internal project roadways including, but not limited to Limestone Trail.
Access controls on the road currently known as Limestone Trail owned by The Quarry Community
Association, Incorporated, will be operated to allow areas designated R1, R2, R3, and R4, in
parentheses, excluding the area designated AC/R3, full use of Limestone Trail.
I'll point out that the AC/R3 is the affordable housing multifamily complex within the AC.
There's no reason to provide access for those residents across the Limestone Trail for them to have
an internal connection to the commercial activity center. That's why that was included in there as
an exclusion to those areas.
The areas R1, R2, R3, and R4 include The Quarry community, various areas within The
Quarry Community, as well as Heritage Bay.
So The Quarry's concerned about the increased cut-through public traffic on the private
Limestone Trail as the development continues around the community and from county
modifications, including the new signal at the traffic -- at The Quarry, Immokalee Road, the new
traffic light.
At the present time, there is a de minimis use by some members of the general public.
The general public have no legal right to use this road. As we had pointed out, it is a private
roadway. And as I pointed out, there really isn't a reason for the public to utilize the roadway
today. There's no -- it doesn't provide a shorter access to eastbound Immokalee.
Going back through some of the history -- and this will help you understand why we're
here. In June of 2019, we had -- the applicant requested an insubstantial change of the Site
Development Plan. It was indicated by the county that the application should be filed under an
insubstantial change to the construction plan. Still a very similar process. Applicant had no
objection to going down that road with the ICP.
As we prepared plans for the ICP and were prepared to submit the application and we had
requested some clarification on some specifics with the application, the county changed their
requirement from an ICP to an insubstantial change to the PUD or a PDI due to perceived changes
to traffic circulation.
The county staff didn't provide any factual quantitative evidence of impacts on public
facilities and why they were making this decision. So as we prepared for a pre-application
meeting and sat down with the county to discuss this approach, the county then again changed their
requirement from a PDI to a PUD amendment advising that the proposed gates would result -- and
these are in quotes -- and I'll emphasize this because this is important -- they'll result in a
substantial increase in the impacts to the development which may include, but are not limited to,
increases in traffic generation, changes in traffic circulation, or impacts on other public facilities
under Section 10.02.13.E.1.E of the LDC. And they specifically cited anticipated changes to
traffic circulation.
So that's why we went down this path of the PUD amendment; otherwise, we still feel like
today it should have been an ICPE or an SDPI or more of an administrative approval process, less
exhaustive than this PUD amendment. Again, the staff did not provide any factual quantitative
evidence of traffic impacts on their public facilities for this decision, but we've gone through this
process anyway.
Then as it currently is today, the county hasn't provided that evidence of the traffic impacts
that are different than what currently exists. That would obviously merit a denial.
The president -- excuse me. The present alignment of Limestone Trail was approved
administratively March 30th, 2003, by Collier County staff by a revision to the PUD master plan.
It wasn't a PUD amendment. It was a revision to the PUD master plan. The Board of County
Commissioners, by the approval of The Quarry Phase 1A plat in 2004, recorded this in 2005. The
Heritage Bay PUD Ordinance 2.5, which I had read previously, allows the right of the installation
Page 23 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
of traffic control facilities and gatehouses within the Limestone Trail right-of-way.
I'd point out in Section 2.11, Section C, fences and walls which are an integral part of the
security and access control structure, such as gatehouses and control gates, shall be governed by the
height limitations. So there was an understanding that these structures would exist, these controls
would exist within the PUD.
Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout Heritage Bay PUD.
Item 2.14.A.6, guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control features. These were anticipated
improvements at some point in time throughout the PUD or allowed on any of the private
roadways.
Shown here are the PUD master plan, the initial PUD master plan. They, then and now,
provide and maintain internal access to the commercial activity center for both Quarry and
Heritage Bay residents. It's difficult to see on this slide, but you'll see on a subsequent slide, that
Limestone Trail and the initial PUD master plan was, we'll call it here -- I don't know if it was
actually named Limestone Trail, but there was an internal connection from the commercial activity
center to Quarry Drive, and there will be a better slide that shows it.
The commercial activity center with an internal access to neighborhoods so residents will
not have to travel out on Immokalee Road to shop for their everyday needs; this is a statement from
Bruce Anderson. So, yes, Heritage Bay residents could access the commercial activity center
through Limestone Trail. And I understand the concern in regards to the return back to Heritage
Bay.
Current county-approved access control facilities were at Limestone Trail -- or I'm sorry,
Quarry Drive, Weathered Stone Drive, and Heritage Bay Boulevard. These were -- access
controls were put in place, you know, at those locations, not shown here at Limestone Trail.
Limestone Trail probably would have had an access control at this location had the road stayed
there, but through the administrative approval, Limestone Trail was shifted to the south side of the
PUD connecting Bellaire Bay Drive to Quarry Drive.
This is a better slide that shows that change. On March 30th, 2004, county staff
administratively approved Master Plan Revision 2 which changed the internal roadway alignment
of what is now Limestone Trail. So here's showing Limestone Trail from Bellaire Bay Drive into
The Quarry community. It also shows a signal here which was anticipated and discussed in a
number of meetings from the county in presentations by the county that there was an anticipated
signal at Bellaire Bay Drive and Immokalee Road. That was removed from one of the county's
intended improvements.
As I discussed, this was at a town hall presentation in 2018 which discussed history of this
PUD, some zoning and improvements along Immokalee Road. At that point in time, there was
some discussion about the flyover. I can't speak to whether that flyover is currently on the
county's Comprehensive Plan or Long-Range Transportation Plan improvements, if it's funded, but
I don't believe it is. But neither here nor there. Limestone Trail shifted from this north/south
direction to an east/west direction. There wouldn't have been a reason for the county to -- or, I'm
sorry, for The Quarry to put access controls on Limestone Trail at that time. And the reason why
is because the signal at that time was not anticipated.
The master plan provides the internal connection or interconnected street system without
any language or provision that restricts the placements of gates on private roads within the internal
PUD. No public access requirements or conditions imposed on the placement or construction of
the Weathered Stone Drive, Quarry Drive, or Heritage Bay Boulevard gates. The absence of exact
gate locations on the master concept plan is common to most PUDs when the internal street
systems are private and maintained by a homeowners association, and Greg will talk further on
that.
The Heritage Bay PUD and master plan are silent as to any commitment or requirement
that all development within the PUD will be provided access to all the depicted roadways and to
the outside for the general public.
Page 24 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. We usually take a break at 10:30. Would that
work for you, or do you want to do it beforehand or a few minutes afterward?
MR. MEARS: If you can give me about 30 more seconds, that would be a perfect time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Thank you.
MR. MEARS: I've got two more slides in my section and then another speaker.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Go right ahead. Sorry to interrupt you.
MR. MEARS: So on November 16th of 2004, the County Commission approved The
Quarry Phase 1A plat and approved Limestone Trail as a private roadway. And it's pointed out
here at the lower left corner which circles around -- or encapsulates a section that indicates that
Limestone Trail would be considered a private street right-of-way, so that's important to note.
And this just shows the platting of Limestone Trail Tract R.
And with that, this will be the speaking section for the presenter or the expert that is
presenting virtually.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. With that, it's 10:26 a.m. We will take a
12-minute [sic] break, which would put us at 10:40. Stand in recess until 10:40.
(A brief recess was had from 10:26 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene.
Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. We have on the phone
remotely Michael Yates, and we'd like to have him qualified as a transportation planner, traffic
expert.
Michael, if you can, as Mr. Vernon succinctly put it -- and I'm taking more time than
that -- 30 seconds. Give us your backward so that the Planning Commission is knowledgeable of
your expertise, how many times you've been qualified as an expert, and your area of expertise.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And your licensure and certification.
MR. YATES: Yes.
MR. PIRES: Did you hear that, Michael?
MR. YATES: Yes. This is Michael Yates. Can everyone hear me okay?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
MR. PIRES: And licensure and certification.
MR. YATES: Yep, I understand.
So my backward is I have a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering, I have a certification
as a professional transportation planner, and I have been doing this for 28 years and in the state of
Florida with an expertise in traffic impact studies ranging from small to large. I've probably done
in the neighborhood of 2,000 of them during that time period, so that is what my expertise is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Licensed civil engineer under Florida law?
MR. YATES: I am not a licensed civil engineer. I am a professional transportation
planner.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. YATES: But I do have a bachelor in civil engineering.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. YATES: And also we have Vickie Castro who will possibly need to do some of the
presentation, and I'd like to have her give her background as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is she physically present?
MS. CASTRO: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Ms. Castro.
MS. CASTRO: So I have a bachelor and master's from USF in civil engineering. I'm a
certified professional engineer in Florida since 1994. I've been in traffic operations, traffic
planning, impact studies, things like that my entire career.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Page 25 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Commissioner Vernon, are you satisfied with that?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: (Indicated with thumbs up.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Please proceed.
MR. YATES: Okay. If we can have the slide presentation back up. There we go.
So as we were going through this process, we were asked to do a TIS for the potential
impacts to the closure of Limestone or the gating of Limestone Trail, and so what we had done is
we had looked at the TISs that were previously conducted for the parcels within the activity center.
What you see before you is the 14 TISs that were done and then the 16 parcels. So there were two
parcels that a TIS was not conducted for, one of which was the pump station which is county
owned, which is No. 15, and No. 16, which is the government center just north of that. But we did
pull the information for the government center for estimating the traffic from the plans that the
county currently has.
And -- next slide, please. So what we found in these -- the review of these TISs is that
none of the TISs, with the exception of one, assigned any trips to Limestone Trail. And, in fact,
the majority of them were asked to evaluate the impacts of channelizing and restricting the left out
at Bellaire Bay in their TIS.
So what would be the impact to the project with the closure of Bellaire Bay median
opening? So you can no longer make a southbound left at that median opening. And still, with
that assignment, only one assigned trip to Limestone Trail. And that was the Culvers which is,
oddly, the parcel west of Goodland Bay. So it was an odd assignment anyway for them. It was
AL. And so it was an odd assignment to send their trips down Limestone Trail, but they did. We
had a few of the TISs that actually did internal trips that were on Limestone Trail as they could
today.
But we wanted to kind of make sure that everyone understood that when all these TISs
were done, they were conducted with the understanding that the median opening at Bellaire Bay
and Immokalee Road will be closed and that this traffic would be potentially on Immokalee, and
none of them were assigning them to Limestone Trail. And in all fairness, that was likely because
that signal was never part of their consideration in that assignment. And none of them addressed
that there would be a signal there. They just all assumed the closure of the median opening.
Next slide, please.
The traffic signal was done in 2018. A couple of interesting parts to this is that they,
much like what we had done, was took all the TISs that were done and approved and reassigned
them. And the assumption they made and the concerns that The Quarry had with the impacts to
Limestone Trail is that the assumption that they made in doing the signal warrant analysis was that
35 percent of all exiting trips from the activity center. So everyone that was exiting the activity
center and going east on Immokalee would use Limestone Trail to get to the signal. Now, what's
interesting about the study is that they did the signal warrant but did no traffic counts to validate
any of this information. The 35 percent was based on the original DRI assumption. And so that
was the assumption they had.
And so the concern, obviously, that we had when we were reviewing this is that all that
traffic would -- they were assigning to Limestone for that reason.
Next slide, please.
Again, let me go through this. The increased cut-through traffic of 35 percent is contrary
to the LDC and Policy 9.5 of the Transportation Element. This increased cut-through traffic
exposes The Quarry and all of the residents of The Quarry to additional costs and liability. This
increased cut-through traffic and its intended noise is not anticipated by those who purchased
homes in The Quarry just to the north of the privately owned road.
So when you look at the aerial, there are a good number of town homes that are right along
the -- there you go. Thanks, Chris. You can see them right along the north side of Limestone
Trail. And I think you will have in your packet some letters from those residents expressing their
concern for the traffic that could potentially use Limestone Trail because of the signalization
Page 26 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
without the gating. And I think you will find in those letters that they expressly concerned [sic]
that they probably would not have bought their homes without -- with the understanding that that
would be used as a public cut-through road.
And, again, these issues will be amplified and increased as development continues external
to The Quarry and from continuing major modifications by Collier County to the roadway network.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is just showing some of the travel patterns. And what we wanted to emphasize
on this one is the traffic from Woodcrest coming north and using Limestone as a cut-through.
That is of concern to the neighborhood as well. It's not designed to be a local road.
The -- Woodcrest could easily make a left on Immokalee and go right into the activity center
without any issues, and that is -- would be logically the best path anyway. But what we're
concerned with is that they're using the private road as a general public access.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is going through and just kind of recapping some of the stuff that Chris had
gone through in his presentation. But this is showing the future signal there at The Quarry Drive
and the potential of the gating of Limestone to prevent that traffic from cutting through Limestone.
Again, as it was mentioned, Bellaire Bay, Goodland Bay are all the public roads, and that
is what is designed to carry the local traffic that is not part of The Quarry or Heritage Bay. And so
it's -- Limestone Trail isn't really -- shouldn't have been intended to be used as a public road
connecting to the signal for outside, particularly Woodcrest and all the development to the south of
Immokalee.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is showing some of the traffic movements. I know Chris had gone through this
in some great detail with the site circulation, but I wanted to bring everyone's attention. Again,
when the TISs were done, they assumed that -- yeah, there we go. All the TISs assumed that they
would make a right out of Bellaire Bay and make a U-turn at Goodland Bay. They had a few trips
that also came out onto Collier and either made a U-turn or went north up Bellaire Bay to
Weathered Stone and then made the left out, depending upon where they were in the activity
center.
But, again, it's with the -- when these TISs were done, all these assumptions were part of
those TISs. So all the parcels within the activity understood that Limestone Trail was private
because they did not assign any trips to it. It was not a logical travel route for any of those trips,
and the county has reviewed and approved all those TISs with those assumptions. So all those
trips were planned to be on Immokalee Road.
And you can see that even in the county's improvements, that they are extending that
westbound left-turn lane at Goodland Bay to provide additional storage for the U-turns.
Next slide, please.
And, again, this is showing the interconnection and relationship between Heritage Bay and
The Quarry as you can see, and we already had great discussion on this is that Siesta Bay connects
the two neighborhoods. Limestone Trail would be available to both neighborhoods. And so all
those are private roads. There is a very good grid system for public roads within the activity
center that provide great circulation to the external trips, the local traffic that would be in the
activity center, and going to places outside of the activity center. So between Goodland Bay,
Bellaire Bay, and the connection of Weathered Stone to Collier Boulevard, they have great
circulation. They have great connectivity that would allow complete access to the roadway
network.
And based on the TIS that we had prepared, Immokalee Boulevard [sic] operates at
acceptable level of service with the full vested trips and all the planned trips that are within the
county's level-of-service report.
Next slide, please.
Just to go through consistency, the Future Land Use 7.3, again, the important part here is
Page 27 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
the interconnectivity is designed to connect local streets to the adjoining neighborhood. So it's
designed to connect neighborhoods, not to add as cut-through traffic.
If you can go to the next slide.
And then Transportation Element 9.3, it specifically says facilitate convenient movement
throughout the road network. That's the intent of interconnectivity. And so -- and I think it will
get further clarified in the Land Development Code when we talk about -- if you want to go to the
next slide -- how some of this interconnectivity is designed to take place.
So under LDC 4.04.02.B, during the development or redevelopment of commercial
residential projects and all rezoning petitions, shared access and interconnections shall be required,
and that is being provided.
So if you want to go to the next slide.
LDC 4.07.02.J.4, interconnection of local streets shall be designed to discourage through
traffic and not adversely impact local streets in the neighborhood residential areas. That is exactly
the intent we're trying to accomplish with the gates on Limestone Trail.
There's some further clarification -- if you want to go to the next slide -- in the Land
Development Code Section 6.06. I'm going to -- the highlighted are the key points here. Every
subdivision or development shall have legal and adequate access to the streets dedicated for public
use. So you can see that Bellaire Bay, Goodland Bay, and the connection up to Weathered Stone
to Collier Boulevard. That is the legal and adequate access to a street dedicated for public use.
That is the access. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a
right-in, right-out condition at any access point.
So this section of the code specifically says the county has every right to modify the access
to the local streets, just like they're doing at Bellaire Bay and Immokalee Road where they're taking
away a full median opening and making it a left-in, right-in, right-out access.
The next point is access points shown on a PUD master plan are considered to be
conceptual. Again, this is going back to the point that the county has the rights to modify this. I
know the original approval considered a signal at Bellaire Bay. That was removed, obviously,
because of the potential flyover. It's not an approved project. It's not a funded project. But they
have removed that access. To the reasonings why they have done it at this point in time, that is a
county decision that was made but well within their rights.
And the last point I wanted to make on this one is that the 6.06.01.G specifically states use
of local streets by cut-through traffic shall be discouraged. And, again, that is about what we are
trying to accomplish with this gating of Limestone.
And that is all I have, and I will turn it over to Greg for his presentation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll jump in now on behalf of the Planning Commission and ask if
any Planning Commissioners have questions or comments for Mr. Yates. Seeing none, please
proceed.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I actually do; I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes.
Okay. So for the Section 9.3 -- and this might be a question for our attorney or for one of
the staff. Where Section 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP mentions interconnectivity
of developments, what is the definition of development there? Is it residential, mixed use,
commercial, or all of the above? Because that actually makes a difference.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That might be something, perhaps, better asked of staff unless the
applicant wants to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. Is the applicant -- is your contention that that only
refers to residential? Because that would be -- your argument seems to require the
development -- the words "development" there to simply be residential and nothing else.
MR. YATES: I mean, from my standpoint, the interconnectivity allows -- is intended for
the internal circulations to occur, and when the Heritage Bay and Quarry gated their subdivision,
Page 28 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
they have total internal access. They have ingress into the activity center. And so it was -- when
it was done, it was agreed that their inbound trips would be separated and need to go through their
own separate gates. I cannot explain the history of that, but that is what was done, and what we
are doing is maintaining that same circulation that has been occurring for years. And so by gating
of Limestone, we're not changing any of that circulation, and we're not -- because of all the
residential trips that are going to be internal to the project would have full use of Limestone with
the gating.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, no, no. I'm going to interrupt you there, because
that wasn't really the specific question.
Section 9.3, the county shall require, where feasible, the interconnection of local streets
between developments to facilitate movement throughout the road network. So if
developments -- the definition that we should apply to developments there, if it only means
residential developments, then I guess, you know, that would help you. If it means more than that,
it seems to, you know, kind of support the idea that if it's feasible, we have a road that's already
there performing this function, so the feasibility seems there.
I just -- I want to know what that definition is, and I'm sure we'll get to that. If I could ask
the staff to make sure that that's covered when the staff presents.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Faulkner has approached the microphone, so I'm going to call
on her, and then I'll call on Commissioner Shea.
MS. FAULKNER: Hi. I'm Sue Faulkner for Comprehensive Planning.
And in our Comp Plan there is a policy that is called Policy 7.3.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you put the speaker on the screen, please?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: She is masked.
MS. FAULKNER: Well, the answer is that it applies to regardless of land use type to
encourage connections, and so that is the answer.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I venture a guess that when we say "development," we mean
a Planned Unit Development?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No? Okay. Could you clarify?
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, an example of this would be -- this is just a recurring theme.
In Pebblebrooke we had a commercial area that was adjacent to a residential area. We required an
interconnection between the developments. Of course that's now gated, but this is just what
happens. The county's policy is to allow internal access from the residents to the commercial, and
then the residents always want the gate there. So this is just deja vu all over again.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The gentleman -- I just had another simple point of
clarification for me just to make sure I've got all of the information.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I cannot hear you. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: A final point of clarification. Just -- is The Quarry road from
Limestone to Immokalee also owned and maintained by The Quarry?
MR. PIRES: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because there's a pretty substantial section there. So that's
also Quarry property? Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The witness nodded in the affirmative.
All right. Applicant, who's up next, please.
MR. STUART: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow Planning Commissioners, and staff.
Greg Stuart, Stuart and Associates. I've been qualified as an expert in urban and regional land-use
planning, urban design, zoning, and land development. My resumé is on file, so I can continue on
that.
The PowerPoint -- before I get into my presentation, I just want to make sure that everyone
Page 29 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
understands that the PowerPoint presentation that has and will be used is part of the substantial and
competent evidence that we are presenting. It's not just a slide show, but there's documentation in
the presentation that will be on the record that qualifies as evidence for this quasi-judicial hearing.
My testimony does, in some way, overlap with Chris Mears and Michael Yates, but it
differs in that I'm really going to get into the land-use planning aspect of it rather than the technical
traffic impact and traffic analysis. So, basically, what I'm going to do is to address the issue of, for
better lack of a term, staff recommended denial based upon their aspirations of a transportation
road network versus the reality of rules, regulations, planning principles, and practices. That will
be the main difference. But, again, I do apologize up front if there is some overlap.
So to begin, if you look at the ordinance, the Heritage Bay ordinance on Standard 7,
Heritage Bay, a PUD is designed to encourage internal vehicular trip capture by providing
commercial and recreational uses and providing for pedestrian and bicycle access to internal
community recreation and convenience retail centers. That really is the core issue, whether the
amendment still is consistent with this standard, i.e., providing internal, not external, but internal
connectivity.
So if you look at staff recommendation, basically, they're recommending denial. You've
seen that. And they're primarily citing -- to simplify the staff argument, they're primarily citing
Transportation Policy 7.3, 9.3, and the Land Development Code 4.04.02.
Now, I respectfully and strongly disagree with staff's recommendation. I hold the opinion,
and hopefully you will come to see our side of the story on this consistent with this opinion, that
the project has and still remains consistent with 7.3, 9.3, and 4.04.02.
So to begin with, how I'd like to frame this, I mean, first and foremost, you know, is the
recommend denial logical? But I also then want to follow up to see whether it's predictable. And
by that, I mean, does it follow -- does staff recommended denial follow accepted planning
principles and practices, precedent, you know, whether it's predictable in terms of, well, other
communities have had this situation and how everyone's being treated, and then the final standard
is, obviously, whether the recommended denial is fair, whether it's prejudicial.
So to start with 7.3, the denial is not logical when you look at 7 3 when it says that
developments shall be encouraged to connect to streets and interconnections and all that. And I'm
not parsing words, because -- I'm not parsing words when you say look and encourage. Encourage
doesn't mandate anything because whether it does or does not, we're still consistent.
If you look at the ordinance, and I believe there has been testimony with Chris Mears, the
guardhouses, the gatehouses, the traffic control devices are clearly permitted uses in the PUD.
They're permitted uses explicitly within Tract R of the Limestone Trail Road tract, and that is in the
ordinance.
The connection is being maintained. There is no modification to the project's
infrastructure. There's been testimony to that. There is no modification to the operational access
and orientation. What we have now is what we had when it was approved in '03 and when -- using
Weathered Stone Drive as an example, when that was built in '05. There are no changes. And
since '03 -- and I have to emphasize this, because the general population, you know, such as
communities on the south side of Immokalee Road, they have no right to use the Heritage Bay
PUD property. So the denial doesn't look at these facts; therefore, the denial is not logical.
Now, when you look at whether this is predictable, I agree with our civil engineering
testimony. When I first took a look at the case, I went, why is this going through a formal PUD
text amendment process? This is clearly a minor modification to the site plan. Most projects that
I've had been involved with, in Collier and elsewhere in Southwest Florida, I mean, this is a minor
mod, and it's a minor mod because it's an ancillary -- excuse me -- it's an accessory residential use
on a private road, and it's a use by right. We shouldn't even be here. This should have just been
approved two years ago when it was originally submitted.
Going back to the original ordinance Standard 7, again, I have to emphasize, if you look at
the slide, underline, internal community. That is the standard. Not external community. And,
Page 30 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
finally, it seems to me regulatory assumption for staff denial is that the general public has the right
to use a private road, and that contrasts with the common notion and definition of property rights.
So the denial is not predictable.
We've had some questions in the past about, you know, okay, is this a public road or a
private road? The graphic in front of you with the yellow lines, those are the public roads, so I
hope that really clarifies that issue. And then the pink dashed lines are the private roads, and it
shows the interconnection, the current conditions, if you will.
Also what's important to note, if you look at this is the current condition and then with the
amendment, there's no change. There's no change whatsoever. The residents can still use Siesta
Bay Drive for east movements.
And notice I did state on the slide, and I missed it, it's a westbound movement. That's a
typo and a spelling. So the record, delete westbound movement, and the movement is misspelled.
So when you're looking at 7.3, is it prejudicial to the applicant? And my opinion is that the denial
absolutely is prejudicial to the applicant. It's because -- and, again, we have the president of the
homeowners association to speak more to this, but the amendment will introduce more non-project
general traffic into the community. It will increase through traffic and, therefore, it will create
enhanced residential safety concerns.
And, again, the text amendment denial is based on solving a problem that is not being
created by Heritage Bay. Heritage Bay is not responsible to solve Immokalee Road and
Woodcrest Drive. Woodcrest Drive is the road that will be opposite -- or that is opposite of the
intersection of Quarry Drive.
So, you know, my client is not responsible to fix Collier County roads, period. When you
look at, from a planning perspective -- and, again, I'm crossing into a little bit of land-use law. But
strictly from a land-use planning perspective, you know, there has to be logical connections
between the denial and the facts on the ground. There has to be. And when you look at the facts
as outlaid by both our traffic engineer and civil engineer in regard to all the previous traffic
studies -- you know, I think they stated there's 14 studies in the -- in the PUD. One, everyone did
not use Limestone for any type of operational traffic circulation consideration with the exception of
one, and then that one showed, I believe, 11 trips. So, again, when you look at those facts, you
know, versus a denial, I believe it's prejudicial.
Now, if you look at this graphic, I mentioned Woodcrest and southbound to northbound
traffic movements. Succinctly looking at the staff report, their aspirational goal is to have
Limestone Road to be used as a frontage road to the public to allow for all the communities on the
south side of Immokalee Road to go up onto Quarry Drive, and before they get to the gatehouse,
turn left. I mean, that's what this thing is trying to accomplish. And, again, there's a huge
difference between, yeah, it looks good and it's a good idea, but the county has no right to actually
incorporate a private road into a public frontage road system.
So when you look at 7.3, hey, the PUD amendment is consistent. And I have to point out
that this consistency was found in 2005 when Weathered Stone -- for example, when Weathered
Stone came into being through a Site Development Plan approval process and the gatehouse and all
that, it was found to be consistent then, and there is no change. And, quite frankly, there has been
so many permits issued within this community, and each permit has to be found consistent with the
Growth Management Plan, including 7.3, including 9.3.
So it seems to me that from 2003 to two thousand and, let's say, '20, everything's fine,
everything's consistent, but now it's not consistent. And there has not been any change in the road
circulation network. The interconnectivity is maintained so, again, the project is consistent with
7.3.
Now, if you look at Policy 9.3 where it says, the county, where feasible, requires
interconnection -- and, again, the denial is not logical. Previous testimony stated that the
Limestone Trail was designed to build as a private road for the PUD. It was platted as a private
road. The plat -- I know there was some discussion about, well, was it or was it not funded by a
Page 31 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
public bonding issue. And, from my experience, it's irrelevant, because if that plat says it's a
public road, it's a public road. If the plat says it's a private road, it's a private road, period, period.
And the plat says it's a private road.
The general public does not have any legal access to the property vis-a-vis Limestone and,
in fact, the Heritage Bay community has access, as discussed, into the activity center, but even they
do not have the legal right to use The Quarry's private roads. That's something that needs to be
worked out between the two communities.
So it's not logical whatsoever to deny an amendment for a permitted use by right on a
private road, you know, based on the assumption that, well, we're going to transform this road into
a public frontage road. It's just not logical.
Now, it's not predictable -- and for the -- for the simple reason is that, again, it's a private
road, and the essence -- from a planning perspective, the essence of what is private versus what is
public is very simple. If you have a private facility, whether it's a country club or a golf course or
a road, you have the absolute right to allow whoever you want to allow into that facility or road
network. You have the absolute right to deny the ability of Joe -- Joe Person A or whoever into
your clubhouse or into your private road.
I mean, this is so important. I mean, this really gets to the heart -- in my opinion from a
land-use planning perspective, this gets to the heart of the issue. They, my client, have the right to
say to the general public or to Heritage Bay -- if they want to use their road network to go back
east, they have the absolute and unconditional right to say, no, you can't; it's private property. And
notwithstanding the staff's aspirational goals of creating a frontage road network, it violates the
property rights of my client.
And then when you look at the text amendment itself and the impact statements that have
been generated, then you'll clearly see that it does not diminish any of the key regulatory findings.
Does it diminish level of service on Immokalee Road? No, it does not. Does it impact
operational considerations? Again, out of the 14 TISs that have been accepted by the county, one
used Limestone Road, had 11 trips. So I don't think 11 trips is going to really distract from any
operational consideration. So it's not predictable.
The recommended denial doesn't conform to accepted land-use planning principles and
practices insofar as, you know, what my client has in terms of property rights, which is an absolute
right to deny the general public to use their road network. Now, therefore, 9.3 is consistent.
If you look at the graphic on the right-hand side of the slide, this has been used before, but
I want to emphasize that the pinkish areas that are in shade, they're all the residential
neighborhoods that have, since 2003, and, you know, after this permit hopefully is approved -- or
text amendment is approved will still have access. I mean, there is no change. These
communities, these neighborhoods have the ability to go into the activity center and then, with
Heritage Bay, again, they are restricted about going west. That condition has been in place since
2003. Well, really, 2005 when they built Weathered Stone.
When you look at 4.04.02, again, the denial's not logical. There are other routes to be
used to get to the activity center. If you're looking at Woodcrest Drive, I know it would be really
neat for Woodcrest Drive to go north, cross Immokalee Road, and then turn left into Limestone.
They are not permitted. They don't have any legal rights, but they can take a left on Immokalee
Road and then take a right on Bellaire Bay or take a right on Goodland Bay.
So there are means to get in and out of the activity center and, according to the TISs that I
reviewed -- and I believe staff concurs. I think staff concurred when you read their narrative on
Policy 5.1, there are no level-of-service impacts.
So, yeah, hey, you know, people still get in, get out. There's no real impacts here.
There's no -- there's no harm for being able to use a legally permitted use on a private road, because
that's what this is all about.
Getting more specific, again, the design capacity was the 3,300 peak-hour trips. Currently
there's 2,050. There's plenty of residual capacity with the future modeling. It's still at Level of
Page 32 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Service D. Level of Service D is higher than the established level of service, which I believe is E.
And, again, I pointed out the 11 reassigned trips which are completely de minimus.
So the PUD complies with 4.04.02.B.2. And, again, if you look at 7.3, 9.3, and
4.04.02.B.2, which basically is the core foundation for staff recommended denial, I respectfully
submit that staff is in error.
Now, I'll go through this relatively quickly, but I have to for the record. If you look at the
consistency findings within the staff report, which is Page 7, and starting on Paragraph 4, whether
the change is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, yes. We agree with staff; it's
consistent with 5.1.5. There's no capacity issues, diminishment issues.
If you look at 7.3, as I already pointed out, I believe that staff is completely in error. This
project has been found consistent. Building permits have been issued based upon a finding of
consistency. Nothing has changed.
Same thing with 9.3; the project is still consistent with 9.3. It was consistent with 9.3
when they built Weathered Stone and put up gates, so forth and so on. You get where I'm saying.
There has been no change in planning consistency findings.
Now --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask whoever's got their telephone on to mute it.
MR. STUART: I thought that was reverb. Okay. Sorry. I thought there was reverb.
My apologies.
Changing conditions, yes, they're changing conditions. They're putting a light in. The
light will facilitate more through traffic. Through traffic is an adverse condition. There are codes
and rules and standards in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code that strongly discourage through traffic. That's a change in condition that
necessitates the gates to be approved.
Whether the gates will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Now,
staff says yes because of travel time, impacts, and emergency access impacts. First, it's my
understanding that insofar as emergency impacts, that the gates will have a -- I don't know the
technical term, but a universal access code or key that will allow for fire safety and police to
access. So there's no emergency accesses.
And then looking at level of service in all of the TISs that have been submitted and
approved, there's no traffic congestion. So there is no adverse impacts to the public and to
Heritage Bay and to The Quarry's community. So I disagree with staff.
And, again, the -- okay. 6, 7. Will it increase traffic congestion? I already testified, and
we've had other testimony. No, it's not going to create traffic congestion.
Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be achieved without
amending the PUD. Well, as I pointed out, the gatehouse, or the access control device, are uses by
right. They have an absolute unconditional ability to put in these devices. And, again, for the
record, I'm amazed that we're even here talking about a PUD text amendment. This is a site plan
modification pure and simple. So I strongly disagree with staff on that.
Item 14, whether it's out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood. No, it's not. Again,
the interconnections are still in existence in regard to the original PUD standard, which was 7,
which was to provide internal interconnection, Heritage Bay, Quarry, so forth and so on. So it's
not out of scale whatsoever. And, of course, there's been other slides that do show existing gates
that have been built in the PUD's road network.
Level of service, public impacts, we've already talked about that. There are no
level-of-service impacts. Staff agrees with that.
So I need to address this. We had some discussion about Bruce Anderson. I wish Bruce
was here. I'd love to see Bruce again. He would agree with me on this point, which is as follows:
Bruce made a comment on the record, and staff is relying on the comment. If you look at the
PUD, if you look at the conditions, if you look at the plat, if you look at the master concept plan,
Bruce's comment, quote-unquote, this project also features internal access to the activity center so
Page 33 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
that residents of Heritage Bay will not have to travel out onto Immokalee Road to shop for their
everyday needs.
And, Mr. Chairman, assuming you're correct, access is both ways, east to west, west to
east. But they, for better lack of a term, there's no codification of that comment. And so what we
have here is, well, you know, they stated this on the public record and yet we didn't create a
regulatory requirement for it, and we've built this project, and we've platted this project, and we've
found everything to be consistent, and now we're kind of trying to create a new condition that's
really not in the original PUD ordinance.
So, again, I believe strongly that we comply with Bruce's statement but, irregardless, that
statement is not in the PUD ordinance that specifies that you've got to have both east to west and
west to east connections with Heritage Bay. You've got to have these roads open up to the traffic
south of Immokalee Road to go through it. There's nothing in there. So you have to go with what
is actually on the books. So, you know, I disagree with staff.
Their other two comments talking about instead of developing as one consolidated project,
it would split, multiple parties. Well, you know, that happens all the time. Every project that I've
worked on in terms of PUDs and PDs and master planned communities, they're always subdivided,
so that comment's not even relevant.
And when you look on Page -- the staff report Page 5, Paragraph 7 -- and then they're
talking -- the staff is talking about the sidewalks, and the sidewalks somehow create the momentum
to allow for a private road to be used for public purposes. Obviously, a sidewalk is not a road. A
sidewalk has very vast different operational and maintenance and management and liability
responsibilities. So I don't really think that's relevant whatsoever.
And then to wrap up, if you look at -- and, again, I'm not sure if this is in your package or
not, but if you look at the executive summary on the Woodcrest Drive traffic signal bid, 20-7682,
okay, and it states -- and this was, I believe, last spring -- Heritage Bay PUD was a master planned
community intended to take advantage of interconnections, controlled accesses, and internal
capture between residential and commercial uses. There you go. Internal capture between
residential and commercial uses.
Master plan was designed for Heritage Bay and The Quarry. And yet if you go through
the staff report and if you look at some of the staff graphics showing, again, it's purely aspirational.
Woodcrest Drive communities going up through this new light going into this property that they
have no right to go into to get to a commercial activity center. Well, again, you know, staff has
basically made our case for us in regard to the bid document because, again, this solely is dealing
with an internal connection.
So, to conclude, the principles and practices pertaining to the private nature of this road
and the fact that by being private you have the right to say yes or no to anybody using your facility
or road or whatever, I mean, that's -- and you could talk to the County Attorney on this. I mean,
this planning principle is enshrined in constitutional law. It's enshrined in Dolan [sic] versus
Coastal -- California Coastal Commission, Nollan [sic] versus Tigard, Florida's own Koontz versus
St. Johns Water Management District. So these planning principles that underline case law, you
know, clearly point the direction for an approval because, again, to use private property for a public
good is not permissible; it violates all types of planning rules and principles and practices.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I'm going to exercise the prerogative of
the Chair and go first with my questions and comments, please, without objection from the
Planning Commission.
First of all, I want to say that if the only thing that were before us was the Limestone Trail
issue, I would agree completely with the applicant. It's private property. To me it's always been
private property. As soon as the residents were able after turnover, they posted a "no trespassing"
sign, which has been flouted by members of the public that, legally speaking, are strangers to the
PUD.
So for essential constitutional private property rights, I'm in complete agreement but,
Page 34 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
unfortunately -- oh, and also I want to point out that I fail to see the logic between allowing the
developer to put up gates and other structures but then denying it to the developer's successors in
interest, namely the homeowners, makes no sense. So I agree with you on that point.
But here's where I continue to significantly depart from your logic, and it gets back to
Bruce Anderson's statement which has very much to do, I think, with Policy 7.3. He's talking
about the residents of adjoining neighborhoods, if you will. And that was -- he made those
statements at a time when there was one PUD, which is still the case, and only one subdivision
called Heritage Bay. It wasn't until later that The Quarry got carved out of that.
So, to me, the people that have a special interest in this property are the owners, the
residential owners within the PUD, and that includes Heritage Bay and Quarry. And that's the way
I see it, and that's the way I think that Mr. Anderson was seeing it. And, certainly, it's my
interpretation of 7.3 which encourages interconnectivity between adjoining neighborhoods, and
that's what sets them apart from, say, Bent Creek -- is that the name of it, to the south? Bent
Creek? Burnt Creek?
MR. STUART: Bent.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bent Creek. The folks there are not part of this PUD. They're
not adjoining neighborhoods. And I agree completely with you that they do not have a special
interest in encroaching on private property.
But I very much still part company with you that when the barrier was erected
between -- somehow to prevent a return trip for residents of Heritage Bay via Bellaire Bay,
Weathered Stone, Quarry, Siesta, the return trip. When a barrier was put up then, I think that that
was offensive to the intent of the Board of County Commissioners when they granted this based
upon comments on the record made by Mr. Anderson on behalf of his client, the developer who
was the predecessor in title of the owners.
Now, the fact that it's not contained explicitly in the PUD to that effect, I don't see that as
dispositive, the fact that that was -- that was the commitment made and the undertaking made by
the developer at the time.
And so where I am on this is I would like to see us, when the time comes -- and we're not
there yet to be sure, but when the time comes to see a motion that approves the application with the
condition that the return trips along those roads I've mentioned be reopened for the benefit of the
Heritage Bay people.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, having said that, I'm going to call on Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just following along the same lines of concern that the
Chairman has, have Heritage Bay residents always had access through The Quarry to Limestone
Road?
MR. STUART: It's my understanding yes, but we could --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: There was not a sign up there that used to -- same kind of sign
that's on the beginning of Limestone Road that says private property for residents of Quarry only?
MR. STUART: Oh, our next speaker, Cheryl Ollila, the president of the homeowners
association, she could more accurately speak to that. I believe that they've always had it but,
again, I don't have --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't think you're correct.
MR. STUART: Well, Cheryl will speak to that. She can address that. But I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, do you want to call her up now and have her testify?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can wait. I'm fine waiting. I just didn't know if
somebody --
MR. STUART: Well, she's up next.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll wait.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is somebody from Heritage Woods [sic] going to be speaking
also?
Page 35 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. STUART: Yes. Oh --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Heritage Bay, I mean.
MR. STUART: I don't know. I think you have a lot of letters from Heritage Bay. I
don't think any speakers.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know. I don't recall.
MR. STUART: Well, let me -- but Cheryl will speak.
But, Mr. Chairman, I just say, now, see, my position from a planning perspective is that,
certainly, you may have a point, but it's up to the private parties involved to come to terms with this
interconnection issue because it's a private property matter, and it certainly deals with funding and
maintenance and operations and liability. So the two parties need to get together, and I don't see
how the county can intervene in this private-party discussion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, Mr. Stuart, we're not intervening. You're before us with a
PUDA, and in my judgment when you come before us with a PUDA, you open any other
substantial issues that are directly related to it, and I think you've opened that door.
MR. STUART: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Stuart, I guess, two questions. One is, have you seen other
related similar issues elsewhere in your experience, and how were they settled?
MR. STUART: Well, quite frankly, I've been practicing over 35 years, and I've never
seen anything like this. You know, I mean, succinctly, if you have a private road and if you have a
use by right, a guardhouse, traffic control facility, you have the absolute right. So I've never
seen -- other than -- now, let me back off. Other than actual condemnation cases, but that's a
whole different ball of wax here. So, you know, in this type of situation, no, this is unique unto
my professional experience.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So as I understand, the DRI was approved in 2003/2004, and
then subsequent to that, the PUDs for Heritage Bay and The Quarry were approved; is that
accurate?
MR. STUART: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No? Yes?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, they're not PUDs separately. They're communities
within --
MR. PIRES: Let me step in briefly. It was one PUD, one DRI, encompassed the same
geographic area. So it was called Heritage Bay, and it was one big 2,000-plus-acre community, a
development. Then the developer came along and decided to make two different residential
communities; in fact, two different developers. One development's called Heritage Bay on the east
side; the west side is The Quarry. Two developments with two different development entrances.
Heritage Bay comes off Immokalee Road at Heritage Bay Boulevard, The Quarry on
Quarry Drive off Immokalee Road.
So those were county approvals approving the two different communities and approving
the gates into those communities. And, as Mr. Stuart mentioned, in 2005 the gate at Weathered
Stone was specifically approved by the county with an SDP and a building permit on Weathered
Stone, which the county had to find that that Development Order/SDP permit was consistent with
the PUD, the Land Development Code, and the Comprehensive Plan. That was back in 2005.
But, no, it was one PUD, and it's been developed with two residential communities outside
the activity center.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Was there a county approval involved in the current traffic
pattern whereby Heritage Bay residents can travel through The Quarry to get to the activity center
but not return? Has that been -- has -- that traffic pattern and restriction on Heritage Bay travel,
has that been formally approved at some point by the county?
MR. PIRES: The county approved The Quarry, the gates at Quarry Drive, and the county
has not required The Quarry Drive gate to allow access to Heritage Bay. Similarly, the county has
Page 36 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
not approved the gate at Heritage Bay Boulevard and Immokalee Road, and the county has not
required Heritage Bay to allow Quarry residents through the Heritage Bay gate. In other words,
the county allowed the gating of those communities to provide their particular access control.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it your statement, then, that the decision on which accesses
are allowed for which residences at each of those gates is not within the county's approval process;
that is purely a private matter?
MR. PIRES: In my opinion, absolutely yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, do you have a reading on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I was part of the -- I was -- I worked with Transportation when we
originally did this PUD. And I know what was intended, and I know what went to the Board, and
I know what they're asking for, and I do know that over time things change, and I don't know what
else to say.
This was supposed to be an integrated community with the residents having access to the
commercial. As soon as the ink was dry on the PUD, they started balkanizing it, selling it off to
different communities, and now these different communities want gates.
This is not the first time this happened in the county. This is not the last time this is going
to happen in the county. So I don't know what to tell you. I know what was intended, but what
was intended and how it developed are two different things.
MR. PIRES: And it's important, the way it was developed was approved by the county.
Collier County issued the approval for the gate at Quarry Drive. The county issued the approval
for the gate at Weathered Stone.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I understand that staff over the course of time issued permits,
okay. I am telling you that I was there at the beginning of this. I know what the intent was. But
I'm also aware that these things are in paper, okay. They can't be amended. That's why we had
these processes. That's why you're here, okay. And that the development of -- the development
of this PUD was not what was originally intended, at least by staff and the Board. Whether the
developer had these purchase contracts in the back of their pocket, I don't know.
But I do know what was presented to the Board, and I do know what's happening here, and
they were two different things, and that's fine, Mr. Pires. It's fine. But we're here now to say,
given the current way this has been developed, is this an appropriate request, and that's all.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But we would be --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm going to bring up something new. If I'm
interrupting, I don't want to interrupt something that -- a discussion that's already happening.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, start. We'll see.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So I'm looking at Section 9.3, and I ask if you
could put up Page 13 of the staff packet where it talks about Policy 9.3 in the staff finding, just
because we will see the language that I'm talking about. It's also what -- I'm sorry. Our most
recent witness, what is your name, sir? I apologize.
MR. STUART: Greg Stuart.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Stuart. Mr. Stuart also had a slide on this where he
discussed it.
So if we look at Section 9.3, I think our analysis and the staff analysis hinges on whether
that 9.3 lawfully requires, where feasible, the interconnection of developments. If 9.3 is a lawful
requirement, then it seems that interconnectivity to and from the developments Bent Creek and La
Morada is something that Section 9.3 actually requires. And this petition would hinder and even
remove that required interconnectivity, because right now the interconnectivity is all but there. It's
just a simple [sic] of the recently installed light going active. And as soon as that light goes active,
certainly we could say it's feasible at this point because someone just has to turn that light off and
remove the barrels that are at the median, and then we'll have the required "where feasible"
Page 37 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
interconnection of local streets between developments, meaning here between Bent Creek, La
Morada, Heritage Bay, Quarry, and the activity center.
If -- so my whole thing is, if 9.3 is actually unlawful and it's an unlawful taking in this
instance, then that's a whole 'nother issue. But I'm saying, if that's lawful, that requirement of
Policy 9.3 and the county's enforcement of it, then, you know -- because I was ready to say, well, I
don't see how it works, but then I thought about Bent Creek and La Morada -- or Bent Creek and
La Morada, and I think that 9.3 actually does require it.
MR. STUART: And if I can respond, where it fails the test of logic and predictability is
that, again, the project has been found consistent with 9.3 during the Weathered Stone
improvement and all subsequent building improvements and, of course, Florida law mandates that
any and all permits, building permit to utility connection permit, has to be consistent with the
Comp Plan. So we are consistent with 9.3.
And then the second thing is, we're not questioning whether it's -- to use the physical
feasibility aspect of it. We're questioning the absolute right of the public to use a private road and
the absolute error in staff denying a permit for an existing -- for a use that's permitted by right on a
private road.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I was --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, please.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no. I'm following up to the response to my question.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Your response -- I understand what you're saying, but I
would say that here the condition is that you're asking for a -- you're asking for an approval of
something. And if the county approves this, this petition, then the county would not be requiring,
you know, under Policy 9.3. So the approval that you're asking for -- I get that you're saying, well,
we already, you know, should be able to do this. The whole point of it is, though, we're at the
point where you're asking for permission.
And so the county -- in order to follow Policy 9.3, I think the county can go ahead and
hang their hat on Policy 9.3 to say no. And I don't -- you know, your argument is that, but we
have a right to do that. Well, the county -- you know, the code actually, you know, impinges on
these rights.
MR. STUART: Yes. But also the code doesn't say an absolute interconnection on, you
know, north, south, east, west. It's an interconnection, and if this was more clarified through a
code amendment, you know, yeah, you may have a point there. But the fact remains is that the
physical interconnection has and will still remain as it was and as it is, so --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I just want to follow up in regards to this process.
So just to be clear, even though it was approved as one unified development and it was a
DRI and a PUD, the formation of the two separate CDDs are, in fact, Board actions. They
go -- they're publicly advertised. And I just want to make that clear just so folks understand, it is a
public petition, it is advertised, and it goes before the Board of County Commissioners because it is
a formation of two local governments.
So the fact of the matter is, the Board approved the two CDDs. Now, whether at that time
the Board understood that it was creating now inconsistency with 9.3, I don't know. But all I do
know is the Board has subsequently approved the two CDDs. Whether that's in violation, we'll
deal with that during our discussion. But the Board did approve the two CDDs which, again,
created the situation. I just want to make sure folks understand the CDDs are approved by the
Board of County Commissioners.
MR. STUART: That's correct.
Page 38 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Mr. Stuart, anything else, sir?
MR. STUART: No, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other Planning Commissioner have questions or comments of
Mr. Stewart?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have Cheryl Ollila, the president of The Quarry
Community Association.
But just briefly before that, following up on what Mr. Schmitt said, the County
Commission also approved the platting of two different communities, and the platting is a
quasi-judicial act, whether it's on a consent agenda or not. The approval of a plat, the courts have
found that's a quasi-judicial act.
The Quarry plat was platted first, which -- the plat that's at issue in this case was approved
November '04, recorded January '05. Heritage Bay plat was not approved until six months later,
June of 2005.
And so we have the situation where the County Commission, again -- in 2004/2005, the
County Commission approved two separate CDDs. 2004/2005 the County Commission
specifically approved two subdivisions, Heritage Bay on the right, secondly. First, Quarry on
the -- sorry, the western portion.
So those actions are, again, actions of the county. And whether -- and the county staff is
always very contentious about making sure the development orders that are issued are consistent
with the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, and the PUD.
And so we would submit those three gated approvals, Quarry Drive, Heritage Bay
Boulevard, and Weathered Stone all were approved by the county, and they had to make the
determination. The statute says all development orders, all -- have to be consistent with all Land
Development Code regulations.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Pires, before you leave the microphone, do you have any
evidence at all that when the BCC took its actions with respect to the CDDs and the divisions that it
was consciously also enabling the inability of the Heritage Bay people to return internally rather
than having to go out to Immokalee?
MR. PIRES: I've not seen that but, again, I think that's subjective as opposed to the
determination that they realized -- they made a determination when they established the CDDs.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But my question was, do you have any evidence, and I think
you're saying no.
MR. PIRES: When the CDDs were established, the County Commission make a
conscious determination that they were the best way for those individual communities to deliver
services to those individual communities by the individual CDDs. That's a requirement to be
made under Chapter 190.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're not answering my question.
MR. PIRES: I would say that would indicate to me that they did make that decision.
MR. KLATZKOW: That has nothing to do about putting up gates, okay. It has nothing
to do with putting up gates. Filing plats has nothing to do with putting up gates. The CDDs had
nothing to do with putting up gates, okay.
There was an internal transportation system there, and now we're going to be gating it,
which we can do that if that's the prerogative of this board and the Board of County
Commissioners. It's fine. I'm just saying that it's red herrings, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, Jeff, it -- and I'm going to follow up. Yes, you're
correct. And I don't argue the fact that it's open for discussion, because it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And -- because it's now in front of us. But, typically, an
Page 39 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
approved plat is typically, as you know, on the consent agenda. It's approved -- it's reviewed by
staff, and it's typically a consent-agenda item. But a PUD, there is -- correction. The CDD,
typically there is a staff report, and unless there's objections raised, again, typically those will go on
the consent agenda as well, or typically they're part of a -- in most instances, the formation of the
CDD is part of the PUD/DRI process as well. But in many cases, it's pretty perfunctory. It's
just -- it's a consent-agenda item unless it's raised. So if there were any issues that were found
inconsistent, it should have been brought up by the staff and raised to the Board of County
Commissioners. I mean, that's --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree.
And, furthermore, what we have -- the only evidence we have as to what was presented to
the Board of County Commissioners with respect to ingress and egress was the statement of Bruce
Anderson who was talking about the entirety of the PUD at the time, and he wanted there to be
access for everybody in there to the commercial area. And to me, access means both ingress and
egress.
So, I mean, if there's other evidence out there that you've got, now would be the time. If
not, let's hear from the president of the homeowners association.
MR. PIRES: There might be some documents on the visualizer. Cheryl, do you want me
to help you with them?
MS. OLLILA: Yeah, do you want to do that now.
MR. PIRES: Yes.
MS. OLLILA: Okay. A question came up about --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Identify yourself, please, ma'am.
MS. OLLILA: Yes, thank you. I'm Cheryl Ollila. I'm the president of The Quarry
Community Association. I've been in that position since 2017.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Last name, please.
MS. OLLILA: O-l-l-i-l-a, Ollila.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you.
MS. OLLILA: Yes. Okay.
A question came up earlier that we had a sign on Siesta Bay Drive that said private
property, no trespassing, Quarry residents only. And that sign was placed By The Quarry
Community Association, which I'll refer to as the QCA, in approximately 2015 time frame shortly
after we assumed turnover.
We were having issues with Heritage Bay residents. Some of the condos are very close to
Quarry Drive that belong to the Heritage Bay Master Association, and they were coming over and
using the pools and some of the amenities. Conversely, Heritage Bay will tell you that Quarry
residents have come in through Siesta Bay Drive and used their trash receptacles at the end of
season, and so forth. So there's been that history.
But the original purpose of erecting that sign was due to amenity usage by nonresidents of
The Quarry Community Association.
We had some discussions with the Heritage Bay president, and he was talking about an
opportunity to possibly share expenses on the roadway network, to your point, Mr. Fryer, about not
being able to come in through The Quarry gates even though we're separate. And we pay for our
own roads. They pay for their own roads. And I said that would be a very difficult sell even
beyond our board, let alone to our residents.
But I did offer that -- in a July conversation with him and the general manager of the
Heritage Bay Association that if it would be of any benefit, we could remove the sign and change
the wording, as it is kind of in your face. And the problems of the amenity usage across the
community lines seem to have diminished, and we are under more control with that.
So we did take that sign down, you can see. That was done on November 16th. And we
have new -- a new sign that we have put up.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you please make sure that I can see the graphic. I'm
Page 40 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
sorry.
MR. PIRES: I apologize, Mr. Klucik.
MS. OLLILA: Okay. That's when it came down. That was the no trespassing sign.
That was the before, this is coming down, and then just last week the new sign arrived, and it now
says "Entering The Quarry. Amenities for Quarry use only," because that's really our concern.
I will also say that even though it said no trespassing, just like it says no trespassing on
Limestone Trail, people usually ignore that, and they do what they do and come through the roads
and go out either The Quarry front gate or The Quarry gate at Weathered Stone Drive. Okay.
So I'm not going to reiterate all the history that we've heard here in terms of the Limestone
Trail being platted as a private road, but I do want to reiterate that Limestone Trail and its
improvements, the road, the sidewalk, the streetlights, the landscaping, is owned in fee simple title
by The Quarry Community Association, and it's designated as a QCA common area. The QCA
pays for and is responsible for all of the operation and maintenance of that private street
right-of-way including the road, the sidewalk, the streetlights, and landscaping, including insurance
for its ownership, operation, and maintenance.
There are coach homes, as you've seen in a previous photo, or slide, less than 100 feet from
Limestone Trail. And I believe you've heard from many Quarry residents that they're very
concerned about if this remains and goes to a private -- public road. So you've heard from those
residents.
I want to give you some history. We've been at this a long time. This process basically
started in 2017, at the end of 2017. I was approached by one of the representatives from the
Commercial Real Estate Enterprise, the CRE consultants who maintain and lease the properties in
the common activity center. He approached me in late October, early November of 2017, and he
said -- he introduced himself. He said, I have a traffic signal warrant analysis here dated
October 22nd, 2017. Are you aware of this?
I said, I'm not. He personally delivered it to my home.
And he said to me, Limestone Trail is a private -- is the QCA's private road, right?
And I said, yes, it is.
He said, I'm sure you don't want all this traffic that this warrant analysis shows on your
private road. He said, I'm not interested in whether the county puts a traffic signal at Immokalee
Road and Quarry Drive. My interest is having a traffic signal at Bellaire Bay Drive where the
Racetrac is and for people to get into the commercial activity center. So he said, it doesn't matter
to me what you do, you know, or what the county does at Quarry Drive and Immokalee. That's
my whole interest in this. I want to show you this traffic study.
So from there, after I read through it and shared with our board, we were very concerned,
and we asked for a meeting with the county. So in early 2018, we began discussions with county
staff, specifically Commissioner Saunders and former Department County Manager Nick
Casalanguida. And when we had the meeting with Burt Saunders, there were representatives from
The Quarry Community Association, from The Quarry Golf Club, a private golf club, which Hole
17 runs parallel to Limestone Trail, and also from CRE. We joined together and met with
Commissioner Saunders.
Commissioner Saunders said, I understand your concerns, but I really need you to have a
meeting with Nick Casalanguida and his staff, and he was instrumental in setting that up. That
took place on March 8th of 2018.
The outcome of that meeting led to a town hall that took place on April 11th of 2018 at The
Quarry where Mr. Casalanguida and his staff, many representatives from the county, came and
presented to Quarry residents -- and it was very heavily attended. There were over 200 Quarry
residents in attendance. And out of these meetings, it was indicated that the county would not
push for or support a public thoroughfare on Limestone Trail as a means of alleviating traffic on
Immokalee. I can tell you that commitment was made to us on at least three different occasions.
And at that time, we retained, the QCA did, Attorney Anthony Pires and Native
Page 41 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Engineering Chris Mears to begin the process of obtaining administrative support approval from
the county for placing gates on privately owned Limestone Trail as authorized by the Heritage Bay
PUD.
On July 8th of 2019, I asked for a meeting with Commissioner Saunders and
Mr. Casalanguida. And attending that meeting, in addition to myself and the two individuals I just
referenced, were board treasurer of the QCA, Mr. Jerry Solomon, and Board Director Mr. Kevin
Mooney. And at this meeting, both Commissioner Saunders and Mr. Casalanguida specifically
informed us the county would not stand in the way of the QCA placing gates on Limestone Trail
but that we may get some pushback from our neighbors, specifically Heritage Bay and the
commercial activity center.
And I informed Mr. Casalanguida that I didn't believe we would get pushback from
Heritage Bay because they had access to Limestone Trail, and it was our intent when we put gates
on Limestone Trail, we would receive that approval, that we would give them access on the
Limestone Trail gates, through those gates.
And so I -- in December of 2019, as we prepared for the pre-application meeting, Heritage
Bay Community, through their general manager and their president, provided a letter of support,
which is in the county package, supporting gating Limestone Trail as the QCA and the legal
engineering team prepared for this meeting.
And again, we went through the history here, that, you know, it started out as an
insubstantial change, and then in the pre-application meeting, we were told that it had to be a PUD
amendment, and we were completely surprised and didn't understand that whatsoever. And we
felt that it was without any supporting evidence to request that it be a PUD amendment.
So, in summary, to turn Limestone Trail into a public thoroughfare is in direct contrast to
the discussions, the commitments, and many meetings with Commissioner Saunders, the Deputy
County Manager, and staff as we approach almost three years for this little stretch of road that
we're allowed in the PUD per 2.14 to put gatehouses, access control structures, guardhouses. We
have that right. And we pay -- the 900 homes in The Quarry Community Association pay for the
gates; we pay for the maintenance; we pay for the insurance; we assume the liability. It's our road.
It's our road, and we have the right in the PUD.
And as far as Weathered Stone Drive and the back gate, I mean, you can look on the
Collier County property's appraisal, that's our -- that's all QCA property. Heritage Bay has their
property. They -- yes, they can cut through Siesta Bay Drive and get out, but they don't have
access back into The Quarry because it's our private community. It's QCA, Quarry Community
Association, 900 homes. We pay the dues for the roads and all the common elements and
everything else that is part of our property, including Limestone Trail.
So approval of this PUD amendment is consistent with the intent of the PUD and the
County Commission approval in 2004 on Limestone as a private street. Approval will protect the
quality of life and property values in The Quarry.
On behalf of Quarry residents, we implore the Planning Commissioners to recommend
approval of this PUD amendment, reiterating the ability under the PUD for the QCA as the owner
of this private street to place gates on its privately owned Limestone Trail to prevent Limestone
Trail from turning into what it was never intended to be, a public thoroughfare. With the gates,
the street which will be used by residents of The Quarry and Heritage Bay -- and, again, I reiterate,
nothing is changing for Heritage Bay residents. They have the same access as they have today and
will have that access on Limestone Trail if we are approved to put gates.
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And before -- we've got two commissioners who
have lighted up, but before we go to that, I'm going to ask Mr. Pires to come to the microphone,
please. And, the Planning Commission, we need to take a look at the time. It's five minutes after
12:00. When do we want to take our lunch break? And I want to hear Mr. Pires tell me how
much longer he has for his presentation.
Page 42 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to weigh in as being in
line.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I'll make that note. Come on up. Tell us
how much time -- more time you need, and then we'll talk about --
MR. PIRES: I'd say fifteen minutes, and then with the opportunity for rebuttal later on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure, understood. Okay.
Planning Commission, we're -- I suggest that we go for another 15 minutes and then recess
for lunch and then return at the appropriate time. Is everybody in agreement with that? It seems
to get a lot of affirmative nods. So that's what we'll do.
And please continue with your applicant's presentation, sir.
MR. PIRES: I thought some commissioners had questions.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I had a question for the last witness.
MR. PIRES: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Go ahead, Commissioner. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Yeah, Commissioner Schmitt was first. My bad.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A couple of questions. My perception is, hearing all
this, it's kind of -- you've been through sort of the big thumb of government kind of pushing down
and squeezing you, because you went from an insubstantial change to a plat, I believe, ICP to a
PDI, and then now you're going to a PUD. And each time you met with the county you were
under -- understood that you were going through the proper process only to be told now it's
something different; is that correct?
MS. OLLILA: Well, initially, up until the preplanning meeting is -- up until that time,
through our engineer, it was those less extensive processes. In the preplanning meeting, I believe
it was Mr. Bellows who indicated you must go through a PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you can bring that up at staff, Ray. We don't have
to discuss it now. We'll discuss it at staff, because those questions are to staff as well.
How much have you spent so far on this? Estimate. Between consultants, advising,
amendments.
MR. KEDDIE: Probably close to 100,000.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would guess between 75- and 100,000.
MS. OLLILA: Yes. We're at least that, at least that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is incredible.
Who's liable -- the golf course -- and I did ask you this on the phone. That's Hole 17. If,
in fact, the public transits on this Limestone Road, who's responsible for any golf balls or
any -- you know, some people do slice the ball, and that is -- I've never been known to slice playing
golf, never; only once out of every three. But who's responsible for any golf balls that
enter -- cross the road or hit traffic?
MS. OLLILA: Well, since -- I would guess that since the QCA has all responsibility for
Limestone Trail, if that would happen, then they would come after us.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would probably assume so. I mean, it would be open
for discussion.
But it appears to me -- and I'm going to ask staff this, but I'm going to ask you as well.
They ever discussed -- if they wanted this to be a public road, did they ever discuss eminent
domain and taking over the road completely?
MS. OLLILA: In the April 2018 town hall held at The Quarry, Mr. Casalanguida did
suggest that, perhaps, the county could take over the maintenance of the road; however, as I said, it
was very heavily attended. Our residents objected strongly because we would still own the road.
We would still have all the liability of that road. And it was rejected.
And, additionally, we've seen some of the -- well, the county does a very nice job on many
of the roads. I think Limestone Trail would just be a forgotten road. And, as I said, we have the
Page 43 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
coach homes that are less than 100 feet away. We want to maintain that road, and we have
maintained it throughout our ownership. It looks very nice. It's very nice. And we don't want
the county taking over the maintenance and, you know -- and see how they may or may not take
care of. We take care of it very well.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They talked about taking over the maintenance. Did
they discuss -- you don't know their current backlog, but I'm sure the staff does. Did they discuss
what their current backlog of maintenance is for county roads?
MS. OLLILA: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't think so.
MS. OLLILA: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did they discuss taking over responsibility for the lakes
and the landscaping south of the road since they want to maintain the road? I would assume that
the rest of it would go to the county as well, and they can maintain the landscaping
along -- between Immokalee Road and Limestone Road. Never discussed that as well?
MS. OLLILA: No. It was just -- I wouldn't even call it an offer, a serious offer. It was
just a suggestion that perhaps they could take a look at doing that, but it was met with a lot of
objection by Quarry residents for the reasons I just stated.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the other -- I have other questions, certainly, I'm
going to address to staff. Because I'd like staff to -- between -- during the lunch period to tell me
how many other roads exist in Collier County that are private roads that have been -- gone through
this same process, and how many times have they been told that if it's a private road it's now open
to the public? And I'd like to have staff research that and come back to me with that as well.
That's all my questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry, then Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Cheryl, I think you've heard the conversation up here. An idea
has been floated, and the County Attorney has, in effect, I believe, told us we have the latitude to
possibly approve your request but with a condition that you allow two-way access, to-and-from
access to the Heritage Bay members. My question for you is -- and I don't know if that will get
legs or not, but I'm just curious, if that happened to be the decision of the Planning Commission,
what would be your response to that outcome?
MS. OLLILA: I would be upset. We've been at this for three years. We've been given
commitments by both the commissioner and county staff, and that has nothing to do with our
application to put gates on Limestone Road -- Limestone Trail, in my humble opinion.
The interconnectivity issues that have been surfaced here today have been that way since
day one. Neither the current homeowner-run association of The Quarry nor the current
homeowner-run association of Heritage Bay had anything to do with setting up those gates and the
private access and the interconnectivity.
There is land between Quarry Drive and Heritage Bay Boulevard. In fact, there's, like, a
semi-dirt-type road. That would have been the ideal place for the county to have said, that's the
interconnecting road between the two communities outside of our front gates, outside of the gates
of the two private communities, but they never required it. And now they want to say that we're
supposed to give the roads that we pay for out of our homeowners' dues to a 1,200-home
community.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I have to say I've been here a little over two years now. I
don't think I've ever looked forward more to the staff report in terms of how we get to this point.
But, you know, as commissioners we have to keep an open mind until we hear everything.
I just want to ask you one more question. In your -- to your knowledge, is there kind of a
county approval that has taken place that maybe we haven't talked about that showed support -- I
think we have a situation where it turned out different than was intended. It was intended to have
two-way access to allow both the communities in that DRI to access to and from the shopping, as
stated by Bruce Anderson, correct? It didn't turn out that way. You ended up having two
Page 44 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
developments, and you have restricted access returning to Heritage Bay.
Is there any county approval formal that you know of that I would say supports that
restricted access that we're struggling with today?
MS. OLLILA: I don't know that. I do know in our discussions over the past three years
that Mr. Casalanguida said that they subsequently learned after, for example, The Quarry
development that a master association should have been set up for Heritage Bay, The Quarry, and
the commercial activity center to be responsible for all the roads. And I'm -- he told us that that is
what is done now by the county, but it wasn't done then. We were set up as separate communities.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Your position would be that it is this way, it's all been
approved, according to county policy, and there's really no justification for asking you to change
your internal access strategy?
MS. OLLILA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Klucik? Commissioner Klucik, we're not able to hear you, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sorry about that.
Commissioner Schmitt actually touched on what I was going to touch on, and that was I
certainly think if this petition is denied, I don't think the current owner of the road should be
responsible for, you know, the cost of maintaining the road and that could, you know, go two
different ways to, you know, give up, you know, that land, you know, that road, or to, you know,
enter into an agreement where the county, you know, does the maintenance and pays for those
costs. But I certainly understand that that's -- that is not a wonderful solution.
But you're right in that if this petition is approved -- is denied and everyone can access that
road, it doesn't make sense that you would be responsible for the costs, all of the costs, any of the
costs for that road at that point.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Any other Planning Commissioners have questions or comments for this witness? Go
ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When the county talked about possibly taking over the
maintenance of this road -- I guess then it would almost be perceived public -- did they talk about
any type -- putting up any type of security fence or security wall or anything between the -- on the
north side of Limestone between the golf course and the road? More specifically, did you as the
residents ask about any type of fence or sound wall fence or any other type of wall with the condos
just to the north?
MS. OLLILA: In the meeting preceding the April 18th town hall when the parties that I
referenced earlier met with Mr. Casalanguida and his staff, we, the QCA, talked about, you know,
if you're going to use this as a private road, then we're going to want privacy walls to protect
especially those coach homes along the golf course, because people can park over at the Racetrac
gas station and just walk across and enter onto Hole 17. The Quarry golf club put a hedge of
Clusias, I think, in 2019 that have grown up nicely, but it still doesn't -- it still doesn't protect
people from walking right onto the golf course, throwing their fishing lines into the pond there, and
then we have to call our front gate access control to take them -- you know, get them removed. So
it's a problem.
But we did -- we did reference that. We referenced some other things as well, and we
were told no, no, no, no, no. And then the county said what we can do is come out in April and
conduct this town hall in between the March 8th meeting and the April 11th meeting, I believe it is,
the town hall, that's when the county finally said some suggestion, and that was perhaps we could
take over the maintenance. And as I said, our residents were not interested in that because we've
seen the way they've maintained some of these roads, and we would still own the road and assume
all the liability and pay the insurance and so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are these -- does the community now allow for golf carts,
Page 45 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
private golf carts to drive on the roads?
MS. OLLILA: Yes. The --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this road would be one of them for private golf
carts? Can you actually go on a private golf cart --
MS. OLLILA: You're not supposed to go out of the gates --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Out of the gate, okay.
MS. OLLILA: -- with a golf cart.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So this road would be -- would not be part of
the -- available to use as the private golf cart to go from the community to the activity center?
MS. OLLILA: No, it's not allowed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would any Planning Commissioner object if we shortened our
lunch, made it shorter than one hour? Anyone object to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then let's go 45 minutes then, and I'll do the math in a moment.
But before I do that, I want to say that it's very important that we give our complete attention for as
long as it reasonably takes on this matter and also our complete attention for however long it takes
on the workshop item that comes next. And it may well be that we need to ask the County
Attorney and his office, if they begin today and don't get finished or have questions yet to be
answered, that we continue that over to the 21st of January.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're at your disposal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
All right. So 45 and 19, can anybody help me here? What does that take us to? 12:04.
Let's take the 12:05. 12:05. We're in recess until then for lunch. 1:05, sorry. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:18 p.m. to 1:04 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have a quorum returning from lunch, so we will reconvene.
And I'm going to ask, is Mr. Pires here? Okay. Mr. Pires, do you -- I kind of lost my
place here. Do you have more presentation for us?
MR. PIRES: Just a brief, for a closing on my part, for rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, your rebuttal can occur after the public speakers if you
wish.
MR. PIRES: And it can include my closing and everything else, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can do it when you want it. If you do it before the public
speakers, then you really can't do it a second time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It should also follow the staff presentation.
MR. PIRES: I'll wait until afterwards to do everything, then.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good.
MR. PIRES: I'll wrap up our presentation and rebuttal --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you.
MR. PIRES: -- if that's acceptable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So you're resting for the time being?
MR. PIRES: I'm not resting until after I do my closing and rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ms. Gundlach, are you going to lead us through?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to confirm I'm back.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal
planner with the Zoning Division.
Page 46 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
And today we have our presentation for Heritage Bay. And with me I have several
subject-matter experts, including Trinity Scott. She is our manager from Transportation Planning;
Mike Sawyer's here with us today from Transportation Planning; we have Sue Faulkner. She'll be
on her way. She's from Comprehensive Planning; and Ray Bellows, our manager; and Anita
Jenkins, our Zoning Division Director.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good.
MS. GUNDLACH: And we are -- as you might know, we are recommending denial of
the petition as the request to close Limestone Trail. Limestone Trail is a required interconnection
between the commercial area and the developed areas.
And this is Limestone Trail. It is approximately a quarter of a mile long. And to the left
is Immokalee Road and to the right is The Quarry. And you can see there's extensive landscaping,
landscaping and a berm along both sides of Limestone Trail, and it separates the residents of The
Quarry. They're approximately 100 to 200 feet away. The berm is approximately 75 feet wide.
And the reason for denial is because interconnected development is required. The Growth
Management Plan requires interconnection. The Land Development Code requires
interconnection.
And the Growth Management Plan specifically states the following: The county shall
require, whenever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate
convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances
and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments.
And the Land Development Code requires interconnection subject to the following four
criteria, and it's not required if it's not physically possible.
This interconnection, it exists.
The location of environmentally sensitive lands might prohibit it. This is not the situation
here. And I can go through the list but, basically, it's an existing interconnection, so it's required
by the Land Development Code.
And Activity Center No. 3, it's a mixed-use concept designed to concentrate all commercial
zoning in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated, and to avoid the strip and
disorganized patterns of commercial development.
Would you like me to read the whole thing or --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not necessary for my purposes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else want this read?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think you can dispense with that.
MS. GUNDLACH: All right. And then this is our Activity Center No. 3. I wanted you
to see the boundaries. It's that commercial area. Let me see if I can -- right here, you see the
pointer, this is -- these are the boundaries of Activity Center No. 3. And we already discussed
Bruce Anderson's statement back in 2003, that we should have internal access in the activity center.
And with me today I have Trinity Scott here to discuss the commercial area ingress to the
east. So please welcome Trinity Scott.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask you a quick question?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we want, Nancy, before you turn it over to Trinity, let's get
some questions for you as well. And I -- Mr. Schmitt, Commissioner Schmitt is lit up first.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. I think you had your question first, Paul.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I was just wondering, on your map you showed the
apartments north of Bellaire Road [sic] as not being in the activity center.
MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But it is part of the commercial HOA equivalent; is that the
case?
Page 47 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MS. GUNDLACH: I believe it's separate. We have that mapped, Ray? I think it shows
it separate.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, those -- you're referring to the affordable housing
project that was originally there?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. It's there.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's no longer an affordable housing project. It has served its
time period as an affordable housing project, and the turnovers can be market rate. All the units
have been turned over, and they can be market rate. It's my understanding they're basically
condominium type of projects. Market rate units.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they're individually managed. They've not part of The
Quarry? They're not part of the commercial?
MR. BELLOWS: They're their own entity.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: They're their own entity?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And we haven't heard anything from them on this?
MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Nancy, can you go back to your first slide again,
because you make a statement. That's not what I was looking for. No, sorry. Go back where it
says Land Development Code. Next one. Okay. The County Attorney shall, wherever feasible,
on and on about the interconnect of local -- whoop. Back.
MS. GUNDLACH: Sorry. I thought you wanted Land Development Code. Okay.
Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Growth Management Plan, I'm sorry. So based on your
determination, you -- the interconnect exists now, correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the interconnect is between two communities,
Heritage Bay and The Quarry.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So how would putting up gates that are accessible to both
residents from The Quarry and Heritage Bay not be the same as it is now without the gates?
Because it basically does provide interconnect between the two communities; does it not?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's only going to provide one-way interconnection, because the
residents of Heritage Bay aren't going to be able to egress from the commercial area without going
onto Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But how do they do it now?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's currently how they do it now.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have to -- they have to go onto Immokalee Road.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But --
MR. BELLOWS: Or they're utilizing Limestone Trail currently.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if the Limestone Trail is -- has an RFI reader or other
type of access to open the gates automatically for residents of Heritage Bay and for The Quarry,
what changes? It's still accessible for residents from Heritage Bay to get onto Limestone Road, go
out to Quarry Drive, and basically -- well, they're going to have to do similar to what they're doing
now. I'm trying to understand --
MS. GUNDLACH: Oh --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm trying to understand what's changed.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because the -- it was built as an interconnect and it serves
Page 48 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
now as an interconnect for the residents of Heritage Bay and The Quarry, but putting up
gates -- and the gates now are accessible for residents of Heritage Bay and The Quarry. What has
changed, other than it's no longer open to the public?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But your GMP says interconnect between communities.
MS. GUNDLACH: Developments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And, Commissioner Schmitt, this is exactly the concern I
have. Even though it may be a transgression of relatively longstanding, it still offends what was
represented to the Board of County Commissioners by Bruce Anderson, and I think it also offends
7.3, and I'm not talking about Limestone.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I am absolutely with the applicant on Limestone. I'm talking
about this route Bellaire Bay to Weatherstone, to Quarry, to Siesta Bay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'm not arguing that. What I'm trying to understand
is the petition before us today is to put controlled access on Limestone. We can discuss the
interconnect. But regardless of whether there's controlled access to Limestone, the interconnect
doesn't exist. What changes if we put gates on Limestone? The interconnect still doesn't exist.
I'm totally lost on this.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I think part of the discussion needs to include activity centers that has users utilizing
Limestone Trail which would be precluded if this was gated. Those activity center customers,
users, road travelers would be precluded from using Limestone Trail if this was gated, altering the
traffic circulation.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, I understand, but --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to weigh in on this particular
question when --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. After Commissioner Schmitt finishes, I'm going to call on
Commissioner Fry, and then I'll call you on, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's this specific question that he has and the answer to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have many activity centers located near gated
communities or controlled communities. It's not that because the activity center is located near the
community you have every right to connect the activity center to the community. It was built for
the community to have access to the activity center, and that's Heritage Bay and The Quarry, and
they have that.
Now, we can discuss the other issue, which would be another access, but I still don't
understand by the controlled access on -- that wants to be -- they want to put up now, what changes
other than the public, the general public that visits the activity center.
MR. BELLOWS: And that was primarily the concern, that it was deemed at the time of
PUD approval and platting that this road, which is outside the current gates, it's landward or
road -- towards Immokalee Road, it's not within the gated part of the existing community that this
served as a connector road, kind of a frontage road for the activity center.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, again, for whom? For who? For the residents of
Heritage Bay and The Quarry. And putting up a gate, it's still available for the residents of The
Quarry and Heritage Bay. I don't see where the conflict exists, so could you please clarify that.
Because it seems to me to meet the requirements of the GMP, because it is servicing the
communities. Am I going to come across the street from another -- I think what I'm reading into
this now is the county is saying, well, if you're -- well, what's the community across the street?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Bent Creek.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bent Creek. I live in Bent Creek. Now I'm eligible to
cross at this full intersection to enter the activity center, when Bent Creek wasn't even existed back
when we were discussing The Quarry.
Page 49 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
So I -- I don't understand how it was inconsistent with the GMP then and now we're saying
it's not. I guess we could make it consistent with the GMP by requiring the interconnect
elsewhere. I just need to understand that. And you still haven't clarified that for me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on Commissioner Klucik, I want to -- they're really
kind of two separate issues, at least the way I see it. First of all, what to do with Limestone Trail.
And I have not -- and maybe there are points of view out there that haven't been expressed, but I
have not heard any Planning Commissioners say that they think Limestone Trail should be open to
the general public. Now, we haven't heard from the Vice Chair yet, but -- so that will come, and
we'll talk about that.
But then the other issue is, the original intent going back to 2003 that was expressed very
clearly by Bruce addresses the -- what have now become two, as the County Attorney said,
balkanized communities within one integrated PUD, and they are adjacent to one other. And we
only -- right now, and for some period of longstanding, the folks at Heritage Bay have been able to
get to the activity center, but they can't come home without going back and taking U-turns and
being on Immokalee and every other darn thing, and to me that's the thing that I'm having difficulty
with.
And they are separate, and I'm hopeful that we can get -- if -- if it is the consensus, perhaps
not unanimous, of the Planning Commission that we would -- that we would grant this petition, I'm
hopeful that we can do it on the condition that the other route, the northern route, the Bellaire,
Weathered Stone, Quarry, and Siesta Bay can be open so that the folks inside this integrated PUD
consisting of adjoining developments have access to and from the activity center.
Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and somewhat in response to
Commissioner Schmitt, but it's something I raised before. I do think that if you were going to use
Policy 9.3 to -- you know, as a basis to deny the petition, the -- you certainly can go to Bent Creek
and La Morada as neighboring developments and use that as a justification. I haven't heard the
staff do that but, you know, in trying to figure out how could you say no to this, that would be the
only way that I think you can say no, because I don't think you can read that and say that, well, you
can't go across to Bent Creek and La Morada. Those are neighboring developments,
unless -- unless there's something specific that indicates they're not, but I don't know how you can
just categorically deny that they're neighboring developments.
I would say, though, that I want to understand that qualifier, the LDC shall identify the
circumstances and conditions that would require interconnection and develop standards and
criteria.
My question is, where -- are we relying on -- or what are the circumstances and conditions
that the LDC must -- you know, must contain that elaborate on this? And then I would say,
overall, you know, as it stands right now, I am uncomfortable even if our code says that and even if
you can say, oh, we want to deny this because it's a -- because of interconnectivity, and all of those
questions seem to be answered the way where you could do that, I would then say, I don't
understand how we can have this element of the GMP to function as a taking of private property
because, ultimately, I don't think our Land Development Code can just say, oh, well, yeah, under
the code we have to take private property from private owners, and that's where I'm at right now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's where I'm at, too.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's where I'm at, too. But in terms of the access coming
from, I guess it's Bent Creek, to me when the light goes in, you take a left on Immokalee, and you
take a right on Bellaire Bay. So what's the difference if you go on private property, take a left, go
down a private road? It's the same length and the same amount of turns. So I don't see why you
would want --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think it's heading back.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- to take public property.
Page 50 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Private property.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it involves, to a degree, some stress between two important
principles. One, smart growth, which includes interconnectivity, and then the other, constitutional
property rights of private owners. And to my way of thinking, in almost all situations, the latter
should -- is superior to the former. That doesn't mean smart growth isn't important, but the
solution that I am starting to see here -- and, again, I don't -- I'm not going to declare how I'm going
to vote until I've heard all the evidence, but approving this application subject to the condition that
another way for ingress and egress interconnectivity can be provided for the Heritage Bay people.
Ms. Gundlach. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Nancy, this may be better phrased to Trinity -- and I'm
assuming she's going to leave and perform an entrance from the outside when she speaks.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. She's part of the presentation team. So if we could have our
presentation done, then we can answer all the questions afterwards, because some of them may be
answered by the presentation.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll reserve the question for Trinity, then. It's a traffic question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: No entrance music today, folks.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Does your face mask match your blouse?
MS. SCOTT: It does, and for the record -- first of all, Trinity Scott, Transportation
Planning Manager. And, for the record, I did not plan that. I grabbed the mask that was on my
seat of my car.
MR. PIRES: She told me the same thing.
MS. SCOTT: Legal counsel concurred with -- my testimony's been consistent.
Just to go over -- and we've been through this a lot -- the existing Limestone Trail, the
Heritage Bay residents have ingress to be able to get to the activity center, but they do not have
egress. They are forced out onto Immokalee Road, as are visitors to Heritage Bay, you know,
landscape folks, commercial activities that might happen within that as well who may go to the
activity center; they are required to go back out onto Immokalee Road to have ingress into Heritage
Bay.
So I'm not going to go over this a lot, because I think we've gone through the fact that it's
been a longstanding roadway that's been there, et cetera.
What I will note on this exhibit is that they're -- the county has a traffic signal that's
currently under construction, expected to be completed very, very, very shortly, as well as we had
median modifications at Bellaire Bay Drive and Collier Boulevard that actually are completed
already, but they were kind of a first phase of this project.
So this just shows a little bit more of a closeup. The median modification is over here at
Bellaire Bay, and the traffic signal is at -- The Quarry Drive is on the north and Woodcrest Drive
on the south.
And this shows -- the current aerial that we have doesn't show the completed improvement,
but this is what the improvement will be at Bellaire Bay Drive. So Bellaire Bay Drive is to the
north, Immokalee Road east/west. It will allow a left-in at Bellaire Bay Drive as well as a right-in,
right-out, as well as a U-turn opportunity.
So, overall, there is lots of new developments within this area that could possibly utilize
Limestone Trail to gain ingress and egress to the activity center and come back out at the newly
installed light once the light's open. They've not had that opportunity in the past because the
median was modified many years ago.
And I'm going to go ahead and go to questions, because I started writing down the
questions that you all were asking. And so I'm going to try to address some of those before we
turn it over to the remainder of staff that we have available for questions as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
Page 51 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MS. SCOTT: One of the questions was about Quarry Drive. Is it a full median opening?
Was it put prior to our signal? It previously was open and was a full median opening. It was
closed between 2014 and 2015, according to our aerials. We closed that because we've had a
campaign, if you will, from a county staff perspective where we've been trying to go look at our
left-outs on a six-lane roadway. And we've been trying to channelize them.
What happens when you have a left-out particularly on a six-lane roadway, on a
high-volume, high-speed roadway is folks tend to get out into the median, and they have to wait for
that next gap, but the person who's behind them doesn't always wait. And so then you wind up
having two or three, sometimes four people stacked up in the median, which creates issues from a
sight distance and a safety concern. So we've been going and channelizing those intersections
when we could.
What I will note is that the applicant's presentation did note that the TIS assumptions,
many of them did not indicate the use of Limestone Trail because they were done after the county
had closed that intersection. So there was no longer the opportunity to make a left and go
eastbound. That was done in 2014/2015, the slide that was up. Many of those TISs were done in
2016/2017 for the commercial area.
They do indicate Bellaire Bay closure, because when folks are coming in for the Site
Development Plans, and if we know that we have the intent to close that, we want to tell them
before they put that building up. We try our best that if we know that there's something planned,
we're going to let them know so that they do their TIS with that in consideration and that before
you've got your end-user in there, particularly when you've got a shell building, if you will, before
you have the end-user in there, that we've notified the person who's going to be leasing that that
your access is going to change.
At the time we had not received the signal warrant study to show that the intersection at
The Quarry and Woodcrest would meet signal warrants. The county recently -- if I go back to my
last slide here. The Tree Farm/Woodcrest connection was just completed in the last few years.
That road -- it was a dirt roadway previously. It really didn't exist. So that -- those
roadways -- and so the people who would be coming north on that roadway, they didn't exist at that
time. You've seen Bent Creek and La Morada now build. And, interestingly enough, there's a
Habitat development that was actually -- half of the land costs for that were actually paid for by
Heritage Bay as part of their PUD/DRI commitment. So there's an affordable housing piece that's
on the south end. So that did not exist.
Let me just go back and look here. Also at the time, in 2015 when we were talking about
Bellaire Bay Drive closing, to my knowledge, county staff hadn't been approached about
Limestone Trail. We had been approached about possibly gating Siesta Bay Drive between the
two communities, and that goes back as early as 2010 from my predecessors, and it came up, again,
I believe, in 2016, which staff was not in favor of as well. But it didn't move forward through the
process. It was just folks reaching out to us asking questions. We had a dialogue.
In April of 2018, county staff did go out and we met after our initial meeting with the QCA
folks. We had a town hall meeting; very well attended. There were -- I actually have my exact
PowerPoint presentation. I don't have it loaded in here. But I can read you my exact two slides
of what county recommendations were. These were the last two slides of the evening; that we
wanted to work with the entire Heritage Bay DRI to fulfill the original development order intent of
an interconnected community allowing the residential communities to have ingress and egress
through the gates, if you will.
There's also -- we were willing to maybe work with them to assist in discussion of master
association operations of how we could help them through the process of, you have two separate
homeowners associations and trying to help them through that process.
Our other two items that we had were that county staff would recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners acceptance of ownership and maintenance of Limestone Trail with the
exception of the landscaping components and the pavers, but that certainly may have been a
Page 52 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
discussion that the Board could have gotten into deeper, as well as ownership and maintenance of
Quarry Drive on the north side of Limestone Trail intersections but south of the Quarry Drive
bridge, as well as The Quarry Drive bridge, because those are all privately owned at this time.
Ms. Ollila, her recollection is absolutely correct. There was -- you could tell from the tone
in the room that the residents were not interested in that. And, to my knowledge, that's where it
stopped. We didn't have any further conversations. But that was what we had proposed when we
went out for the initial -- or for the town hall meeting.
When we do our TIS reviews with regard to gating, when a development comes
forward -- so Heritage Bay PUD is the entire development. It's Heritage Bay, it's The Quarry, it's
the commercial piece. When they come forward and they proposed their gates, I've -- I don't know
that I've actually seen where they actually tell us who has access to those gates or not.
I went back and tried to find, through the public record, if the county knew that the
Heritage Bay could not have egress -- or I'm sorry -- ingress back in. And Ms. Ollila can tell you,
I think when we had our initial meeting in the County Manager's Office with QCA, I know
Mr. Casalanguida and myself, we were both scratching our head, because we didn't know that they
didn't have access back through. So I went back, and I tried to read as much as I could within the
public record but couldn't find anything one way or another on it.
One other question that came up, I believe, when Mr. Mears was presenting about the
overpass at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, the 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan has
been adopted by the MPO board, and the overpass at that location is within the 20-year plan
identified as a need.
And with regards to the signal warrant study, I have two other folks who are available in
addition to the folks that Nancy had noted with questions. I have Anthony Khawaja, our Chief
Engineer from Operations. He's available via Zoom. I believe you met Mr. Khawaja a few
months back at one of our other hearings; as well as Tom Ross from Jacobs Engineering who
completed the review of the Traffic Impact Statement.
So -- but Mr. Khawaja, I'm sure, can get into more detail with regard to the traffic signal
warrant analysis should you have questions about that.
And with that, questions for the team.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, Trinity, Trinity, how are you?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You said it three times.
MS. SCOTT: Am I supposed to turn around now or something?
COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Trinity, when the light was warranted at Quarry Drive,
when we went through that process, was it based on the expectation and is it really founded on the
premise of Limestone Trail being part of the public traffic pattern?
MS. SCOTT: I am not familiar with the traffic signal warrant analysis personally, and I
think I'm going to phone a friend, Anthony Khawaja, if he's on the line, to be able to answer that
specifically.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The ultimate question is, without that, I mean -- I think to me
it's a bit of a leap to assume that we're going to take a private road and build it as part of our public
roadway without some kind of a discussion with the homeowner. So that's one of the things I'm
struggling with. If the light was warranted based on that assumption, and that really is the
compelling reason for its location there, I think that would be interesting to know at a minimum.
MS. SCOTT: Tony, are you online?
MR. KHAWAJA: Yes. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, thank you.
MR. KHAWAJA: Hello. Good afternoon. For the record, this is Anthony Khawaja,
Chief Traffic Engineer for Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Page 53 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. KHAWAJA: Commissioner, yes, when the warrant was submitted, it was submitted
by the activity center, and they looked at both sides of the road. At the time, Woodcrest was not
constructed yet or open all the way through, and some of the subdivisions were not all built.
So the warrant study was based on the number of left turns that would be utilizing the
signal coming from the north or going southbound, mainly coming from the activity center. So
that's what the warrant was based on, left turns trying to go east, southbound to eastbound, coming
from the activity center.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So the light would not be warranted if Limestone Trail was a
private road and gated; is that accurate?
MR. KHAWAJA: I cannot -- so at the time we also looked at a projection for the
northbound traffic from the subdivision, and they only looked at the one p.m. peak. So I cannot
tell you that it will not be warranted today, but at the time that's what they looked at is southbound,
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Tony, if not for the prospect of the flyover, in the 20- or 25-year
plan, would this light have been better located at Bellaire Bay Drive?
MR. KHAWAJA: We like to keep our signals spaced as far away from other signals as
possible. Bellaire is -- it's half a mile away from Collier, and I think maybe it would have been a
better spot for the shopping center to have the light there, but it is too close to Collier, and also
because of the bridge coming on, it was not a good location for a signal.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand. So spacing was not ideal.
I think this is for you, Trinity. I guess I'm struck by the fact that we've focused on Bruce
Anderson's statement about interconnectivity to shopping, and we've made the assumption that that
meant both ways, which would mean that you would want a system where Heritage Bay owners
could return home after shopping. And I see that the gates -- the gates actually do not affect that
in any way, shape, or form.
The only factor affecting that is that they don't have access through The Quarry gate to get
back home. So why is there no requirement in the staff report as a condition -- if that is the issue
to be addressed, why is there no requirement for two-way access for Heritage Bay people?
MS. SCOTT: I'd have to go back in and dive into the staff report. It was done by
multiple folks, one of which was my staff member. So I would -- I would look to him to come up
and discuss that. I don't get involved in the day-to-day, the reviews of items, so...
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Final question, I guess, is it talks about requiring an
interconnection, and I'm curious: Without the definition of interconnection, the applicant has
defined it as the requirement being and showed us codes in LDC and GMP about interconnecting
the neighborhoods to the commercial center, and they have that, and they're not changing that with
the addition of these gates, but the county seems to be defining interconnection as a requirement
that they dedicate and leave their private road open for public interconnection to the activity center.
So give me your perspective on that.
MS. SCOTT: Well, I would say first and foremost, the official interpreter of the GMP and
the Land Development Code are my colleagues who are here today. But I would say that the
development itself is not just Heritage Bay and The Quarry. We have a commercial piece that's
there as well. This public process has allowed, one, everyone within the PUD to be notified of the
change -- potential change in the traffic pattern, and also with the language in here with regard to at
least the Heritage Bay residents, is it codifies the fact that they would have continued access to it as
well.
So I think from our staff perspective -- and I'm going to look to Ray and to our Comp
Planning staff of -- is that we don't just look at the residential pieces. We also look to the
commercial pieces as well.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. And I guess maybe Ray will speak to this. But that
overall interconnection master plan seems to make the assumption that a development's private
roads be part of the public access plan, and that's where I'm struggling.
Page 54 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The PUD master plan doesn't designate -- it shows the traffic circulation system. It shows
the streets, but it doesn't say these are only for certain residential users or certain commercial users.
It's the traffic circulation system. When platting comes in, some of those roads are going to be
part of a gated community. This road is outside of a gated community, and it's connecting, clearly,
the commercial node, which is in the PUD -- it's a property owner within the PUD, so it has the
same interconnection rules as any other development, and we're trying to keep that interconnection
open to a signalized intersection.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What would you say to their claim -- and I think there's a lot of
merit to it -- that you're adding traffic to their private road, they have responsibility for
maintenance, for the liability from it, for the potential security issues with the residents that live
near by there? So what would the county's response to that be?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, my understanding -- and I was the planner for this PUD and DRI
when it came in -- was that there are certain roads that the developer at that time committed to to
have interconnection, interconnecting all the residential area -- residential tracts. And this road
was one of those that showed interconnection from the commercial out to the east.
COMMISSIONER FRY: To the developments -- to the Heritage Bay and The Quarry.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, to the east. But it doesn't say it was restricted to residents only
and not the users of the commercial facility.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I guess that's the $64,000 question. Is that requirement for
their private road to be for public benefit, or was it an interconnection requirement between the
development and the commercial center? So that's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Karl, spot on on the question. Again, I'm -- we
talked about interconnect for the communities, and what -- where'd Trinity go? She's disappeared.
MS. SCOTT: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The intersection at Quarry Drive has been closed since
2014, correct? That's what you stated.
MS. SCOTT: It was closed between 2014 and 2015.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for the last five or six years, what did people do
leaving the commercial center to go east?
MS. SCOTT: Well --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They would have either come out Bellaire Bay or
Goodland and --
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and made a U-turn.
MS. SCOTT: Yes, or they would go north on Collier Boulevard extension, make a U-turn
or come out at Weathered Stone, because there is an opening. They would come out on Collier
Boulevard extension, head south, and go back through the intersection at Immokalee and Collier.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. They've been doing that for five or six years,
because you could not make a left turn at Quarry. So even if they did, went on Limestone Trail
and went on The Quarry, you can't make a left turn. So it's been that way for six years.
MS. SCOTT: Yes, it has.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So most people have it in their brain, whether you're
service -- a service provider or a resident, if you want to go east, you're going to come out, have to
drive over towards Collier Boulevard, because you can't -- the full intersection at Bellaire is closed.
So the county -- I look at this as the county created the problem by closing the full
intersection at Bellaire. And I understand why, because of the -- how close it is to Immokalee
Road. So I fully understand that. But now --
MS. SCOTT: It actually wasn't -- the left-out was not closed just because of the access
out to the proximity to Collier Boulevard. The access was closed -- this is what we're doing on a
Page 55 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
majority of our six-lane roadways. We are working through closing where we have a full median
opening to where we don't want people hanging in the median. We were receiving several
complaints from people who utilize that, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you stated that.
So the option would have been to put a full -- a signalized intersection at either Bellaire or
Goodland, but that was not the preferred option because of the proximity to Collier Boulevard.
MS. SCOTT: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What about that access -- and I -- I'm looking at Google
Earth here. I'll give Google credit here, so that goes in my bank account. I just said the name.
But Bellaire is kind of askew, and it has to go all the way up. But there is sort of an access
drive between the NCH Healthcare center and behind CVS. Is that -- what is that? Is that part of
the parking lot? Because I see if traffic come out there, they really can't make a left turn onto
Collier Boulevard. The only way you can make a left turn is all the way up to -- what is that,
Woodland?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Woodland. Otherwise you have to head north to
make a U-turn.
MS. SCOTT: So, yes, you have to --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, you guys have created this morass on Collier
Boulevard.
MS. SCOTT: Hold on. Hold on. Let me tell you. So on the north end of Bellaire Bay
Drive, you see where the road swings around. That is a future government center site that will
have an access from Bellaire Bay Drive over to -- it's shown as Plateau Road here, but that's Collier
Boulevard extension.
So someone traveling in the commercial area, leaving the commercial area, could also go
north and once the government center site is completed -- which I believe it's been in for an SDP, I
believe, or they're close to it -- there will be another access point, and we're actually putting a
roundabout on Collier Boulevard extension because we have the folks right now who are egressing
at the CVS location, and when they come out, it's too close to the intersection to be able to allow
them to have a left-out.
So they go make a right, and they have to go up and make a U-turn. So we're putting a
roundabout at that location where the existing U-turn is.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. So on the map that's shown there, right where
it says, what is that, Bellaire Bay Drive, that kind of little stub out? That's between the
hospital -- or the NCH Healthcare and --
MS. SCOTT: So if you see the exhibit that's going to come up, the U-turn here on Collier
Boulevard is roughly in this area.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MS. SCOTT: And that's where there'll be a roundabout. The Board just approved the
developer agreement with the adjacent PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So once that's constructed, would it seem to be
more logical for the typical driver to go out that way, go around the roundabout, and use the light to
make a left turn to head east rather than go through this serpentine, go through Limestone drive?
And the other concern I have is at Limestone and I reach The Quarry, I just -- I've not been
out there. I've not observed. But for trucks to make that right turn, it's sort of a -- you sort of
head north, and then you have to make a turn and almost make a U-turn as you make the right turn
around to get on The Quarry.
Again, this has been going on for six years. And I'm still trying to get my arms around
what has changed other than what the Chairman brought up about the interconnect, and I agree
with him on that. But I'm trying to understand when it applies strictly to Limestone. They've not
been in compliance for six years, and what has changed other than the fact that they've now come
Page 56 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
forward and said they want to put a gate in? But I just don't understand -- other than the fact that
the gates do provide interconnect for The Quarry and for Heritage Bay.
MS. SCOTT: For the residents only. Not visitors, not commercial landscape folks, you
know, anyone doing --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they're not -- but they're not doing it now. What are
they doing now that they would do with these gates up?
MS. SCOTT: Well -- so the only difference based -- and they showed that based on their
traffic analysis, which is why we asked for the traffic analysis is you will have visitors to The
Quarry who will now be forced out onto Immokalee Road to make the U-turn, visitors, whether
that's a commercial visitor to The Quarry residents -- you have a landscape -- I'm presuming that
their landscape folks are in there for a majority of the day, mainly for lunchtime or for someone
else who is employees of The Quarry will now go out, and then they'll come back around on
Immokalee Road and around.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So the last question then is, if this is deemed so
important and it's a private road and you now want to make it a spine road for access, why not
proceed with eminent domain?
MS. SCOTT: We haven't proceeded with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why?
MS. SCOTT: County --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's your alternative.
MS. SCOTT: The Board has not provided direction to do so.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if this is approved, that's probably your only option,
then, is to proceed through eminent domain.
MS. SCOTT: The Board has not provided us that direction. Like I said, in our original
town hall meeting back in April of 2018, we offered to go in front of the Board and say -- that that
would be staff's recommendation, that we work with The Quarry to take over ownership and
maintenance of the roadway and the bridge and the connecting portion of Quarry Drive.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, now, if you take over ownership -- and I said it was
my last question, but I'm following up. If you take ownership of this road and the maintenance of
this road, then you're going to assume all the responsibility for all the landscaping --
MS. SCOTT: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- south? Why not?
MS. SCOTT: That would be something that --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then put up a wall between -- because of the traffic
increase, and now we're going to have a lot more traffic coming through there. If I were to
approve this right now, I would mandate that the county take over the road, take over all the
responsibility for the property south of Limestone between Limestone and Immokalee, and put up a
sound wall. That's my position for approval.
MS. SCOTT: Commissioner Schmitt, we never got to that opportunity because the
residents weren't interested in engaging in that conversation at all.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, that's my position.
MS. SCOTT: So we never had the opportunity to even get in front of the Board to have
that conversation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, just -- I'm in line, please.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Could we direct you to do that? I mean, that would be
our recommendation. This is all about moving traffic --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- inside the communities to get to commercial and staying
off Immokalee Road and off Collier Boulevard, right? I mean, that's what all this is?
On Page 257 of our packet, the original PUD, the DRI is there, and it's all connected to the
Page 57 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
commercial. All -- the community can move around and never get out on the road, on Immokalee
Road, and that's -- then all of a sudden it got split up.
So now that was part of the agreement to have Limestone Trail there. It had -- just so that
people could connect even just in that community, in Heritage Bay, just to get to the commercial.
But it's been open to the public so -- the whole time. So I'm assuming that's part of the reason why
the light is going in there.
MS. SCOTT: Well, Mr. Khawaja indicated that --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It makes sense to me.
MS. SCOTT: -- the signal warrant study did show the commercial area utilizing
Limestone Trail because it has been open.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, staff's position is that under the PUD it's required that that road
be open to the public, right? Is that staff's position?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's staff's position that this road is
depicted on the master plan and is not restricted to being a residential use only; that it is open to the
public.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So staff's position is under the PUD the county currently has
the rights to use this as a de facto public road?
MR. BELLOWS: For public access.
MR. KLATZKOW: And what I'm hearing is the Planning Commission disagrees with
you on that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a take.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I think that's where the discussion is right now. And so that
your point, can you require that if you're going to approve the condition, is that the county take this
by eminent domain? You can make that recommendation. It's going to be a very expensive
eminent domain.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very expensive.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I don't know why it wasn't signed over to the county
in the first place as part of them letting them split the community up. It's not developed as it was
originally approved from the beginning, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik's going to be next, and then Mr. Eastman.
Mr. Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
So my question for Trinity -- you know, and everyone calls you by your first name. Is that
okay?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's such a nice name, so that's why we all like it. It's easy
to remember.
MS. SCOTT: It's his favorite flavor of ice cream.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It is, it is. Chocolate Trinity at Publix.
The light -- the thing that kind of most bothers me, you know, as someone who, you know,
now is on the Planning Commission and trying to help, you know, make wise recommendations for
all of these things is I see that we're in a situation now where it seems as though there's a pretty
strong sentiment to approve this, and if this petition were to get approved, then we have a very
expensive project that we just put in, and the only beneficiaries of that project are the residents of,
you know, these two communities, you know. And we put -- and we're also, then, disrupting
traffic for everybody else, you know, by putting this light in because nobody gets to take advantage
of the light except, you know, the people in these two communities.
So I just think it is an example of something that's gone awry if -- you know, if you're
planning -- and it seems as though this is what happened, and you can tell me if I'm wrong -- that
you were assuming that that road would -- you know, that Limestone Trail would continue to be
accessible to the public. And by making that assumption, we're now in a position where the
Page 58 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
investment in that light is a lot of money with a benefit to very few people. I mean, do you
understand that analysis? Do you have a response?
MS. SCOTT: I understand. And let me respond to a few of those things.
So with regard to the public use of the roadway -- and the applicant is aware of this; they
brought it up in their presentation. I'd actually provided them the review comments. When the
plat was done for The Quarry Drive for the cul-de-sac road, which is Coastline Court, the
reviewer --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you just show me that, because I'm not --
MS. SCOTT: It's not on here -- it's actually covered -- if you can see my pointer, it's
covered right up underneath this section of the red line. It's a cul-de-sac road where the -- where
the townhomes are from The Quarry.
When that --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I can't see it. What is it called?
MS. SCOTT: Oh, right here. Yep. Hold on. I hit too many buttons. Sorry. Taking
my PowerPoint skills from Anthony Pires.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, right there, okay.
MR. PIRES: Absolutely right.
MS. SCOTT: It's right here.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Repeat that again, because I wasn't following what you
were saying.
MS. SCOTT: Okay. So when the -- when this roadway was platted or the Site
Development Plan came in, the reviewer at the time, Russ Mueller, who worked in our Engineer
Services sections -- this was back in 2004 -- he requested a pedestrian interconnection, a pedestrian
sidewalk to go from this sidewalk here on Coastline Court to the sidewalk on Limestone Trail. It
is what we would have asked for for interconnecting those pathways so that somebody doesn't get
to the end of the cul-de-sac and now I've got to go over a 50-foot berm. And the response from the
project engineer at the time was at the southern end of Coastline Court the sidewalk is not tied into
Limestone Trail because the sidewalk for Limestone Trail is on the opposite side of the street,
which I concur. It's on the -- the sidewalk for Limestone Trail is here. This is Coastline.
That would also be connecting a street outside of the gated community, which could
be -- could, it says "could" -- be used by the public to a private internal street within the gated
community. That's the only thing that I could find on the public record that indicated that that
roadway could be used by the public.
MR. KLATZKOW: Conspicuously absent from the PUD is a requirement that that road
be a public right-of-way.
MS. SCOTT: The plat -- there's nothing within the PUD that requires it explicitly. The
plat is platted as a private roadway. When we -- I do not have with regard to the CDD funding of
Limestone Trail; it is one of the first questions I asked of the QCA representatives, and their
indication was that no, it was not funded with the community development district. Those are the
questions that we were asking in the beginning of this in 2017 and 2018.
MR. KLATZKOW: And there is a difference between requiring an interconnect between
the communities within the PUD and requiring an interconnect between that PUD and the rest of
the public. If the intent was for that road to eventually go out to a light to other communities,
which were not even on -- were not developed at that point in time, that was just -- I used to live
out there. There was nothing out there. I think it's a stretch.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is a stretch?
MR. KLATZKOW: It is a stretch saying that the interconnect requirement requires that
people be allowed -- the public be allowed to utilize that internal road. The interconnect
requirement, in my experience, would be to allow the people within the community free access
throughout the entire community. And there's a difference -- a tremendous difference in traffic
volume there.
Page 59 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And if I may follow up on that, with which I agree.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If I would just ask if she's done or if she's going to continue
to answer the question that I asked, which was specific to --
MS. SCOTT: Oh, I'm sorry. He did have a second part of his question that I got
sidetracked on. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Go ahead.
MS. SCOTT: The second part was as far as the benefit of the traffic signal, and to say that
it's only the folks on the Heritage Bay and The Quarry side to have benefit, that is not the case now
that -- I'm going to switch to a different exhibit. Now that Woodcrest Drive --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If you could please show the exhibit.
MS. SCOTT: It's up -- it should be up now, the network with Limestone Trail "open to
the public" exhibit.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes.
MS. SCOTT: So Woodcrest Drive, the traffic signal will be in this location. Woodcrest
Drive now completes all the way down to Tree Farm Road, which connects over to Collier
Boulevard. In addition, as part of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project, that will be
starting construction shortly, in the next year or two.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the purpose of that -- because I was involved with that -- was to
bypass the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee. It gives the public -- it gives the
public the ability -- it gives the public that are going westward on Immokalee to bypass the
intersection which, quite frankly, is failing and just use alternative route. And we spent a lot of
time trying to get that right-of-way between the developments that are in there. That was the
intent of that.
MS. SCOTT: And if I could --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I just want to tell you I appreciate that explanation and,
actually, I realize that my assertion on that was wrong. And that clearly -- that clears it up for me.
There's plenty of benefit from that signal beyond to the people in those two communities.
MS. SCOTT: And just so the Planning Commission is aware, the intent is to also connect
that roadway, continue Woodcrest Drive. There's an existing private road that we have acquired
the right-of-way, and that will connect all the way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension as
well. So the residents north will have a direct connection all the way down to Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension without having to go on Collier Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to interject, if I may, please, just to stay on subject, and
then I know Commissioner Shea has asked to be recognized.
This is the same question that I'm going to ask Ms. Faulkner. But I believe it's both a
Transportation and a Growth Management Plan question.
This way of proceeding north of Immokalee, staying entirely inside the two subdivisions
that I've described as Bellaire to Weathered Stone to Quarry to Siesta is now blocked at some point
by a gate, and the gate does not allow the people from Heritage Bay who can exit through that gate
to re-enter it. In your opinion, does outgoing-only interconnection satisfy the requirements of
Section 7.3 that adjoining neighborhoods be interconnected?
MS. SCOTT: I go back to what we recommended at our town hall meeting was that from
a county staff perspective we wanted to work with the internal neighborhoods to achieve that
ingress and egress for both The Quarry and the Heritage Bay residents. That was our goal as well.
So we did believe that it should be an ingress and egress. And, as I said, when we get
permits for gating and things like that, they don't tell us who has access. That's not something that
we've asked.
Now, what I will tell you is we're learning. What's -- Mr. Yovanovich always tells us?
We reserve the right to get smarter.
Another GMP amendment that you have that's come before you, we're actually requiring
Page 60 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
that cross-access easements be in place prior to PUD coming back for approval. I think you're
going to start seeing some differences with regard to our recommendations with these
interconnections so that we can formalize them, and we don't have these issues that pop up 25 years
later.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I think -- I'm going to recast what you said, and tell me if I
erred. But I think what you're saying is is that one-way only, outbound only and not return access,
is not true interconnectivity under Section 7.03 [sic].
MS. SCOTT: That is what we have provided as far as our staff opinion, yes. We need
the interconnect.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Now, my second question for you is this, and I'm going to
also ask Ms. Faulkner. If we as a Planning Commission were to protect the private property rights
of the folks in Quarry by granting the gates that they're asking for but on the condition that they
allow true ingress and egress for the Heritage Bay people on this northern route that I described,
would staff -- would staff's recommendation still be against that, or would you revise your
recommendation of approval with that condition?
MS. SCOTT: I hadn't thought about that, and I would want to go back to my reviewer
first. Like I said, I don't review these on an everyday basis, so I would want to get the whole
picture from him.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, Ms. Faulkner knows what I'm going to be asking
her.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: You mentioned something, Trinity, again, and I said it earlier,
I don't see -- with that light going in, I don't see, coming from the south on Woodcrest, whether you
take a left at the light on Immokalee and a right on Bellaire Bay, why that's any better if you go on
Limestone Trail. You still have control.
MS. SCOTT: I wouldn't say for the ingress it would make a difference, but for the egress
of not having to go make a U-turn on Immokalee Road and just be able to have access to a traffic
signal and come due south.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess the other thing, too --
MS. SCOTT: It all depends on someone's travel patterns. I like to keep moving. I don't
like to be stopped at a traffic signal, but I'll go further out of my way, but not everyone is like me.
And I like gas tax money, too, so...
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And as far as -- I know we talk a lot about the return of the
Heritage Bay. I realize that under the situation that we're talking about with that light, the return is
much improved over what's there now because now they can go to the light, take a left, and take a
left back in. They're still out on Immokalee for that little bit of time, but it's much improved over
what they have right now. And I guess the other thing, as a general comment for somebody, is I
don't understand why we're not hearing anything from Heritage Bay or the commercial association
for or against it. It really troubles me.
MS. SCOTT: I think that there were letters from each, and there were letters in favor
from Heritage Bay, and I think that there were letters in favor from individual -- or, I'm sorry.
Letters against from individual residents in Heritage Bay that I believe were --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm talking about here at the hearing.
MS. SCOTT: Oh. Well, we haven't heard from the public yet.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: If it's an issue, why are we only hearing -- oh, we haven't?
MS. SCOTT: No.
MR. BELLOWS: We have approximately 30-some people who had registered online.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I meant to tell you that.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Never mind.
MS. SCOTT: I don't have a crystal ball to know what they're going to say.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I'm saying as part of the presentation, I would have
Page 61 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
thought that we would have -- not your part but the applicant's part.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Commissioner Shea? Thank you.
No one else is lit up at this time.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me -- if I can jump in.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go ahead, Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just -- I don't think I'm adding anything new, but I think
maybe I want to just highlight the direction for everybody going forward, since we've got a lot
more people to speak. It seems like the best argument, the best piece of evidence -- can you go
back to that. I was just about to talk about it.
MS. SCOTT: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just -- the best piece of evidence that the staff has
supporting their recommendation is that exhibit we're looking at right now, and it seems to
me -- and, obviously, staff can speak for themselves -- that the amendment that the Chairman is
suggesting will not impact their argument. So I think the Chairman's trying to solve a problem,
but I think if there's, in my opinion, intellectual integrity to the staff's position, that amendment
doesn't change their point of view.
And that being said, if I'm reading my fellow commissioners correctly and telling you what
I'm thinking right now based on everything we've seen, it seems to me that that piece of evidence,
that what we're looking at right now does not overcome the rights of the petitioner. And it's been
said several different ways.
So the point of me saying this, which is really just summarizing what I think everybody
else said, is I think, with respect to staff, speakers, rebuttal, everybody else presenting evidence
going forward, unless -- tell us if we're missing something, because it seems like everybody's sort
of figured out the issue, and if we did figure out the issue, then I think any discussion, argument,
evidence from the speakers should be focused on changing the point of view that I think I just
summarized. And not to speak for the other commissioners, but I think that's what I hear
everybody saying. And I'm in agreement with what everybody's saying.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Chris -- and I'm not sure -- and correct me if I'm not
understanding you correctly. But as I see that, that orange segment up there, without that working
both ways for the public, it guts the value -- the benefit of that traffic light on the north side. You
cannot -- you have a very difficult path to get out going west -- I'm sorry -- going east on
Immokalee Road. You have to either go up and do a U-turn and come down Collier Boulevard or
do a right-out, and then do a U-turn in either of those two locations.
So, in my opinion, that public access to that segment is key to that system, that orange
segment having any value for the public. It adds a little bit of value to service -- not even service
people, but to the people from Heritage Bay. As Commissioner Shea said, they don't have to go
way west in order to come back east to get into Heritage Bay.
But I see that light not really being justified except for the benefit it provides to the south,
as you've mentioned. But to the north, it more or less guts the value, in my opinion. So do you
disagree with that?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree a thousand percent with everything you just said.
And my only point I was trying to make is I feel like -- and I shouldn't speak for the other
commissioners, but I just feel like there's a sense that the rights of the petitioner may be superior to
that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Agreed a thousand percent with that. We're at 2,000 percent
now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good.
Page 62 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
All right. Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the light to the north, Karl, would it not -- it allows
for traffic coming out of The Quarry and out of the Heritage Bay. Both can come down Quarry
Drive, and they can make a left turn and go into town. I mean, it's -- and I'm -- I don't know how
many homes are back there between the two. It's probably close to 2,000 doors back there
between the two units -- the two communities. So I would believe that even with the traffic, it
would -- they would be able to get a warrant for a full opening and a light at that corner. I think
it's beneficial for traffic both from the north and the south, I mean, because it does allow for access.
COMMISSIONER FRY: It allows Quarry and Heritage Bay to go out to the east more
easily.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Get out to the east and to the west.
COMMISSIONER FRY: They could already come out there to the west. They can make
a right without the light. But to go east, I see what you're saying; those combined residences now
have a second way they could come out and go east. Heritage Bay wouldn't need it because
they're already farther east, but coming ingress, it would only benefit -- it doesn't add any benefit to
The Quarry people other than making a left, coming down Immokalee eastbound.
So, I mean, I see what you're saying. It does add a little bit of benefit for the residents, but
where does that weigh compared to the benefit that I think the staff is looking for for the public? I
guess I was assuming the public ease of ingress and egress from the activity center was the primary
driving reason for the light. Is that correct or incorrect, or is that a more complicated question?
Here comes Trinity.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, as she's coming up, I want to offer my apologize to
Mr. Eastman who now has the floor.
MR. EASTMAN: Well, I no longer have a question. I was going to clarify a point, but
Mr. Klatzkow clarified that point previously.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, and I apologize.
MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. I forgot Mr. Fry's question on the way up. I lost it because I
was listening to Mr. Eastman.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Just Commissioner Schmitt mentioned that there is benefit to
the north side of that light in that Heritage Bay -- Heritage Bay and Quarry residents can use that
light to go eastbound on Immokalee; it gives them an easier path. And there's, I think, 1,200
homes in Heritage Bay and I don't know how many in Quarry. Where does that benefit rank
compared to the public benefit of being able to access ingress and egress from the activity center
through that light?
I was assuming it was the public benefit that was the driving reason for the warrant for the
light, and that overall system, I think, is a public system, not a private system. And I would say
it's the benefit of the commercial. When I say "the public," I get it, it's the public, but it's to
benefit the people who are ingressing and -- based on the signal warrants, the signal was warranted,
I believe what Mr. Khawaja -- and he's going to tell me if I'm wrong. The signal was warranted
based on projected traffic from the commercial area on the north and what their left movements
and southbound movements would be.
So when we're saying "public," we're saying from the Heritage Bay Development of
Regional Impact, the traffic that's coming from the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact
are going to the commercial portion of the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact. That is
what warranted the traffic signal.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And the people who live within The Quarry or Heritage
Bay would not really need that light because they're not coming onto Immokalee. So it
really -- when you say "public," you're talking about the broader public?
MR. KHAWAJA: Well, when we talk about -- this is Anthony Khawaja, Traffic
Operation.
When we talk about public, we're really talking about the users of the activity center but
Page 63 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
not the public as in general. Like, when we talk about cut-through traffic, like a lot of people are
calling this cut-through traffic; this is not really cut-through traffic. Cut-through traffic would be
somebody's going from Immokalee to Collier. Then there will be cut-through traffic.
If they're going to Immokalee to the activity center and back, that's a PUD. That's part of
this development traffic. This is not cut-through traffic. If it went through all the way through
Collier, then they cut through the development. This is still local traffic within the development.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand.
MR. KHAWAJA: But to answer Commissioner Fry's question, the traffic signal was
warranted on the basis of the activity center traffic making a left turn to go east. The Quarry
traffic by itself did not need it as much because they did not have a heavy left-turn movement
exiting The Quarry. Most of their traffic is either making a left-in and a right-out.
And this is the same when we looked at -- the time when we looked at the traffic signal
warrant analysis. Woodcrest did not go through at the time, and most of the traffic on Woodcrest,
when it opened, it would have then served traffic going and coming from the east. So it would be
left-in, right-out is most of our through traffic, unless they're going to the activity center, which
would be local traffic going to the activity center.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Tony, you are saying that with the Limestone Trail gated,
you're losing a significant amount of the benefit of that light because people can no longer exit the
activity center to go east on Immokalee using that route?
MR. KHAWAJA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
MR. KHAWAJA: And they would have to struggle through making a right and a U-turn,
or a right and a U-turn on Collier. They'll still make their way through, but it's not as convenient.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else, Ms. Scott?
MS. SCOTT: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right.
Who will be the next speaker? I'd personally like to hear from Ms. Faulkner, but I don't
want to throw you out of order. Oh, good. You're ready.
MS. FAULKNER: I'm happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. FAULKNER: The question that I've heard you bring up is why did I review 7.3 and
find as I did. Here's what I had happen when I was doing the reviews. There were several
submittals, and in one of those submittals, at the early end, it was stated in the application packet
that Heritage Bay would have complete access to go to the commercial development. I took them
at their word, and my idea of what that meant was that they would be able to go ingress and egress,
and that made sense to me that that was beneficial and that followed the intent of 7.3, and I found
that that was consistent.
Later on, it was brought up that they do not have access to return to their homes after going
to the commercial center. I didn't care that -- that was difficult for me, because I feel very strongly
that they should be able to come and go in the same route and not have to be re-routed in order to
complete their task. So I reversed my initial finding and stated that I felt that it was not consistent.
Just for information, normally Comp Plans are -- Comp Planners are looking at projects
that are not built, and they come in and we apply these different policies for consistency. This is
unusual that we're looking at all of these different policies when something has already been built
and that the roadway is there. And I was a little frustrated because I realized they had built that
interconnection and then they wanted to block it off.
And we have a very big challenge with our word "encourage" in getting developers to
come in and actually build those interconnections when it's a brand new development. Therefore,
I was excited that there was one that was actually built that could function in that way.
And so the developments we normally look at usually have some other sort of restraint
Page 64 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
already. But if you ever travel in that direction, across the road there was several different stub
streets. I guess you're familiar with stub streets. It's where there's going to be a road that
connects to something. And in this case we asked people to draw in, in new developments, stub
streets so they can connect to other neighboring developments, and many times we're told we're
sorry, that's not possible, it's not feasible, and thank you very much.
And so this was a case that was different, and if I didn't handle it perfectly, I tried. I'm not
the traffic expert. I have worked in traffic and transportation in the past, and I feel pretty strongly
that this was a good opportunity.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. FAULKNER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you go -- and I've got at least one other commissioner who
wants to ask a question. And I gave you some forewarning about what I wanted to ask you and, of
course, it follows a conversation that we had on Tuesday where I believe our minds met. And I
would like to try to make that record and find out where -- how we can reach some progress today
as a result of that meeting of the minds, because you're the GMP person here.
MS. FAULKNER: I am.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we've heard that Bruce Anderson representing the
predecessors in title to these property owners, all of them, Heritage Bay, Quarry, everybody --
MS. FAULKNER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- back in 2003 made a statement about true ingress and egress
interconnectivity for the -- to the activity center -- to and from the activity center. Now, is it -- is it
your opinion that that egress only is not in compliance with Policy 7.03 [sic]?
MS. FAULKNER: It's 7.3, and yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Now, again, I've heard no evidence of the county knowingly approving the gate at -- up at
the Bellaire/Weathered Stone/Quarry/Siesta. I believe it just evolved informally the way
sometimes these things do, and the only evidence we have to the contrary is what Bruce Anderson
said, and that -- and your point is well taken that here we're looking after the fact at a complete
development, but before this development was even started, we had the representative of the owner
of all the property talking about full ingress and egress interconnectivity between the adjoining
neighborhoods within the PUD.
So that -- that point is what helps me get over the issue of private property rights. I think
that putting up that gate was done without any official knowing approval of the county.
So to me -- this is going to be my next question. If the applicant were to agree to allow
the Heritage Bay people ingress and egress access on this route that I've mentioned, would you still
oppose gating Limestone Trail?
MS. FAULKNER: No, I would not.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. FAULKNER: I feel -- you know, I'm speaking strictly from the policies in the
Growth Management Plan. I see that Transportation has some other factors that are being
considered. I was not going into that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. You've answered my question. I appreciate it.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Sue, are you saying that if they had had ingress and egress for
Heritage Bay at the time of their application, this would have never come to us? It would have
been an insubstantial --
MS. FAULKNER: Oh, I didn't determine that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. Just --
MS. FAULKNER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Just that you would not have had a problem -- you would not be
recommending denial.
Page 65 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MS. FAULKNER: When I reviewed it, I would not have found it inconsistent.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: With the GMP?
MS. FAULKNER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But the reason we're here, and with all due respect to other
speakers, there needs to be a language change to the PUD because it refers only to the developer.
Now, logically, to me the developer had that right. That right passed on to the successors in
interest to put those gates up. So I'm all about doing that. But I'm also wanting compliance with
7.03 the way Ms. Faulkner sees it, and the way you get to that is only the Heritage Bay people not
only ingress but egress over the other roads.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Chairman Fryer --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- you've been mentioning the upper gate at Weathered Stone.
Why not the more direct route at the gate at The Quarry -- Quarry Drive?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good question. And my answer to that is this: That you have a
sense of parity coming off of Immokalee. You've got the Heritage Bay point of ingress and
egress, which at least from the standpoint of ingress is only for Heritage Bay. And then you've got
The Quarry Road, which is the same thing except only for the benefit of The Quarry people, and so
that seems to be kind of a parity. And it could -- you could have opened it up, but I just -- I'm
hung up on -- that's not the proper phrase. I am still embracing the notion of property rights on
Limestone Trail, and I don't see the same notion with this northerly route that I proposed, because
way back at the very beginning Bruce Anderson on behalf of the then property owner recognized
full bilateral interconnectivity.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you allow The Quarry, if this was a condition, to decide
which gate they might open?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRY: If they decided The Quarry --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. I would, yeah. As long as -- as long as both segments,
Heritage Bay and Quarry, are able to move to the activity center without going out on Immokalee
Road and doing U-turns and the like, of course. I'd leave that up to them.
All right. No one else is lit up. Does staff have anything further to present?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I know you're surprised by that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, do you have anything to say, sir?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. I was just noticing that you probably were
surprised that I didn't.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we always look forward to hear from you, sir.
I'm taking it from Ms. Gundlach that staff is resting, or do you want to say something
more?
MS. GUNDLACH: Our testimony's complete. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks very much.
All right. Any discussion, comments, questions before we turn to the public up here at the
Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. But could somebody in TV land make it cooler here?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. Good point. It's gotten very warm in
here. Yeah, if there's anybody who's within the voice please lower the temperature in the Board of
County Commissioners chambers.
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a question for the County Attorney. Jeff, you were nice
enough to include in our packet for our workshop a definition of the Bert Harris Act, which is
basically taking someone's personal-property rights without compensation, without -- you know,
unfairly. Would taking the -- would -- demanding use of a private road and not allowing them to
put gates on Limestone Trail, would that constitute a Bert Harris potential action?
Page 66 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. KLATZKOW: It's staff's opinion -- and I don't know that I concur. It's staff's
opinion that the PUD itself, along with the interconnect requirement, creates the right of the public
to access that road. So there's no taking, okay. Whether or not that opinion would be validated
by a court is a different matter entirely.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would -- I would appreciate, then -- if that's staff's
opinion and it wasn't the attorney's opinion, I would appreciate if staff could go ahead and
elaborate on that. What's their basis for concluding that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. What staff is saying, that just the interplay between the
requirement for an interconnect, in their view the interconnect includes the activity center and that
in order to get to the activity center it would have to be a de facto public road.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
All right. Mr. Henderlong, do we have callers and people in the room, sir?
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have five registered speakers here in the
chambers, and 18 online. I'm going to ask that public speakers that are here in the chambers to
approach the two podiums, either left or right, and the first -- and state your name and give your
address. And the first three speakers that are registered here to speak in the chamber, the first
gentleman is Mr. Peter Keddie, if you'd go up to the podium on the left. Ms. Jody Ressler-Tatro,
second speaker, and MaryAnn Okner, the third speaker.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And before we do that -- and thank you for that clarification.
And we're going to -- we're going to allow -- assuming we have 18 -- 18 speakers is the number?
Very quickly, is the Planning Commission -- should we go three minutes or five minutes per
speaker?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three minutes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Three, I think.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The consensus seems to be three minutes per speaker, so that's
what we'll do. But seeing as how it's 2:33 p.m., we're going to take our midafternoon break. And
it's only going to be for eight minutes -- seven minutes. We're going to come back at 2:40.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Don't move.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And sorry that you came up, but we'll just --
MR. KEDDIE: So we can just start earlier, right?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'll be right back after these words from our sponsor.
(A brief recess was had from 2:32 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
(Mr. Eastman left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's return to session. Reconvene, please. And my apologies to
the speakers, but we needed to have our afternoon break. With that said, who was the first person?
Sir, tell us your name again, and then please proceed. You have three minutes.
MR. KEDDIE: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Peter Keddie, 9060 Graphite Circle. And I
am on the board at The Quarry, and I've been involved in trying to develop this plan to gate
Limestone. So I have pretty good knowledge of what's going on.
There's been a lot of studies and things gone on, but when we looked at the use of The
Quarry Drive back in -- not more than about a year ago, 92 percent of that traffic on Limestone
either originated or terminated at The Quarry. And with regard to Quarry Drive, 97 percent of it
originated or terminated at The Quarry. So it is Quarry's road, and it has been used by The Quarry
people.
Page 67 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Trinity just brought up a comment about ownership of the road or asked to buy the road.
That has never been asked of The Quarry, never. They've stated that they would maintain it, but
nobody has asked to buy either Quarry Drive or Limestone Trail. And when you're really talking
about Limestone Trail, it's not only about Limestone. It's about Quarry, because they connect
together to get out.
The problem I see with the tact you're taking with getting Heritage Bay to get entry into
our gates is that when you bring them in, how are we going to get funding for that? The gates are
going to open -- they have twice as many cars than we do, so the gates are going to open by three
times what they've already been prepared to do. And so there's going to be more maintenance on
these gates with everybody using that road.
They don't pay for any of the maintenance on our roads, so now they're going to be driving
through our community to use our gates to get out the front gate so they can drive on the light and
then coming in that way, so it's going to get a lot more use, and they don't pay any of our
maintenance fees. We spend -- we spend right now, just on Limestone Trail, about a million -- or
$100,000 annually, and that's including mowing, tree trimming, weeding, mulching, insurance,
light pole maintenance, electrical, and irrigation, but that's even before we talk about adding extra
liability, and who is going to cover the cost of the extra liability with the extra traffic on Limestone
and Quarry Drive?
When people are coming into The Quarry, and if you're going to open that up for public --
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Keddie, you have 30 seconds.
MR. KEDDIE: All right. So when people are coming into The Quarry, they're going to
have to turn left, and that's where the stackup is for our entry to the gates. So you're -- that road
was never designed for public use. And if you look at it, there's a lot of pavers there. That's for
decorative purposes and not for heavy traffic. It's going to get ripped up. And the paving is only
an inch and a half thick. So it's not conducive to heavy traffic on Limestone Trail.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I get it, and I feel -- personally, I feel very uncomfortable
with trying to dictate that you guys have to open up access and suffer that additional maintenance,
and I really feel like it's a private property decision.
MR. KEDDIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRY: However, we have a big -- you know, big challenge here.
We've got severe traffic issues on Immokalee. Limestone Trail looks like it's perfectly positioned
to be a feeder road or what's the term?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Arterial.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No, just an access road. Let's call it an access road. And I
also don't think it's fair that you pay for the maintenance of that. So I really only see one solution,
which is the county takes over that road somehow, and that's the only way that light makes sense.
We've -- it's been demonstrated that it's counting on the fact that the accessors of the activity center
can use Limestone and use that light; that's where the value of that light comes from.
So is your board open to conversations with the county on whatever it might take so that
road is then owned and operated by the county?
MR. KEDDIE: I would say we would be open to it just because I know where this is
heading, and it's not in a good direction for us. And we've spent so much money right now just to
get where we are, and we don't see an end to this.
You know, just listening to the presentation by the Collier County, it just seems to me that
we gained a better understanding of why they've rejected us, because they really want to take that
road and use it, and if they're going to take it and use it, they should be buying the road.
But, you know, I can't speak for the entire board, but we just have to look out for what's in
the best interest of our community and the people that live there, and we're trying to do that to the
best that we can.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
Page 68 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Sir, thank you, sir.
Yes, ma'am. Please identify yourself and speak for three minutes.
MS. RESSLER-TATRO: Yes. My name's Jody Ressler-Tatro, and I live at 8981 Quarry
Drive. I'm actually here to support the gating of Limestone Trail.
So I, too, am also not only a resident. I'm also a board member. And I've actually been a
resident of The Quarry for nine years. And I'd like to reiterate something that I hope hasn't been
lost in that everything that you're proposing relative to Heritage Bay having access to our roads is
something that's been in place for years, since day one, as our president had shared with you
earlier.
So nothing is going to change with what we've asked for in terms of the gating of
Limestone Trail. But with that, based on the discussion that you just had with my colleague, I just
wanted to point out a couple of other things, and I'm going to focus on two areas.
One is safety. I mean, The Quarry is an active-lifestyle community. Right now on every
one of our roads on every morning we have people walking, running, golf carts galore, bicycles.
And so when you talk about allowing 2,000 additional cars, potentially, a day coming in from
Heritage Bay, I have grave concerns about safety for our residents. And, you know, that's
something that we struggle with every day with just having, you know, our own people coming and
going, because of how active everybody is.
Additionally, in terms of the liability risk, it's going to be huge depending on what
happens. If we feel -- if we're going to keep Limestone Trail, it needs to be gated, because any
type of a vehicular or pedestrian accident that's going to -- would occur on Limestone Trail and
now potentially anywhere in our community if we're going to be allowing Heritage Bay free access
to come and go, we're going to be a named party in any type of a vehicular or pedestrian accident.
In terms of Limestone Trail -- and one of the reasons I feel strongly about it being gated,
you know, we talk about people having access to the community center to shop. There's also
restaurants that are there that are open late at night that serve alcohol. So, again, I have huge
concerns about those people 24 -- or, you know, seven days a week late into the evenings using
access to our roads. And I know I'm running out of time here, but I found this interesting when I
was preparing for this presentation, was, ironically, Collier County established a neighborhood
traffic management program to ensure the safety of Collier County neighborhoods from speeding
drivers and to restore the local streets to the residents.
This traffic management program --
MR. HENDERLONG: Thirty seconds.
MS. RESSLER-TATRO: -- acknowledges, and I quote, traffic conditions on residential
streets can greatly affect neighborhood livability. When our streets are safe and pleasant, the
quality of life is enhanced. When traffic problems become a daily occurrence, our sense of
community and personal well-being are threatened, end quote.
So, you know, Limestone Trail's not going to be a candidate for this management program,
but we have the same goal, to make sure that our streets for Quarry homeowners remains safe, and
to, you know, enhance our everyday lifestyle.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
Who was our third speaker, Mr. Henderlong?
MR. HENDERLONG: The next speaker is MaryAnn Okner followed by Paul
Schlattis -- Schlattis [sic], sorry, and then Frank Tatro.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Ma'am, please state your name.
MS. OKNER: Good afternoon. My name is MaryAnn Okner. I live at 9087 Breakwater
Drive in The Quarry. I have been a homeowner for 14 years in The Quarry. I actually saw Phase
1 and Limestone Trail being built.
I'm very proud of our community and what our board has done. It is a very professional,
hard working, intelligent board, and I want to thank them publicly for all they have done over the
Page 69 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
last few years; however, I'm very distressed that our community has spent over $100,000 for what
we considered to be a modification of the PUD.
I am here to support your approval of the gates on Limestone Trail. I believe it is a private
road and has been a private road since the beginning. We do not permit trespassing on our private
roads. And according to Florida Statute 810.08, people can commit trespassing, and it is a second
degree misdemeanor, and can be punished. Therefore, I come back to the idea that The Quarry
owns this private road and has done an excellent job of maintaining it, and it is beautiful.
To the point of, I think one of Trinity's slides, if Limestone Trail would become a public
road and construction trucks and oil tankers for Racetrac would be coming off of the light turning
right and using Limestone Trail to get to Racetrac, it would be a hairpin turn, extremely dangerous,
and, of course, trucks like that would ruin the road.
I'm sure that none of you would want a dump truck or oil tanker in your front yard. And I
know the people that are in those condos look at that as a private road. The golfers look at their
golf course as being their private golf course, and they don't want anyone interfering as far as the
public using that road.
So in conclusion, I just want to --
MR. HENDERLONG: 30 seconds.
MS. OKNER: -- encourage all of you to consider passing this amendment, approving the
gates on Limestone Trail.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Paul Schlattis.
MR. TATRO: I'm on deck.
MR. SCHLATTER: My name is Paul Schlatter. My wife Mary is here. We've been on
The Quarry since 2010. And I'm not an expert on anything, so you know that.
I am a deputy sheriff. I've been one for 26 years. I'm about to retire. I am deputized in
three states: Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. I've seen plenty of safety issues, and that's why I'm
here.
Ironically, this morning when Mary and I left to come here, we couldn't get out of The
Quarry because there was a dump truck coming from Limestone Trail, as well as an air
conditioning truck, as well as another truck. And so it's already being used as a commercial entity,
and that needs to stop.
It's going to -- you're trying to put an intersection in a residential area, and that never
works. And we, as police officers, know which intersections are bad, and you're trying to make an
intersection coming out of the gated community, and there is -- there is absolutely no room for that.
As far as the back gate goes, Mr. Chairman, you talked about access and ingress and
egress. I understand that. They have 1,200 doors. We have 900 doors. And if we have 1,200
doors coming through because, eventually, it's the path of least resistance, they'll come over to the
Collier extension and try to come out the back gate, which is a very limited -- we call it the back
gate. It's a very limited access.
So from a safety aspect, I would also ask you to approve putting gates, and we are happy to
have the -- as far as I am concerned, we're happy to have the people at Heritage Bay use Limestone
Trail as they've been using it forever.
But let's limit that and not have the commercial access, if you would, please. It's a safety
issue. I'm less than my three minutes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, and thank you for your service.
MR. TATRO: Thank you very much. My name is Frank Tatro. I live at 8981 Quarry
Drive.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Troy is your last name, sir?
MR. TATRO: Tatro, T-a-t-r-o.
Page 70 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Tatro. Thank you. Sorry.
MR. TATRO: And I used to be a resident of Heritage Bay. I have a lot of friends over
there. We at The Quarry like the people over there. We have nothing against the people at
Heritage Bay. This is not personal.
I'm not going to cover all the material that's already been gone over, but I just wanted to
give you an idea of the costs that, as a resident, I'm going to have to pick up. Right now for 900
doors, we almost have one full-time person that administers the passes to get in and out of the
gates. We have to renew them every year. You have people selling cars, buying cars, kids
moving in. It's a full-time job. If you -- if you mandate that we let the Heritage Bay people
coming in and out of our gates, we're going to need two additional people just to administer the
passes.
We've already talked about wear and tear on the gates, liability, wear and tear on the road.
It's just -- it's just something that I don't feel you ought to push off onto the residents of The
Quarry.
As a matter of history, probably seven or eight years we talked to Heritage Bay about this
issue, and we also told them, we need help financially to pay for the gates, pay for the roads, pay
for the administration of the passes. They didn't want to hear anything. If they had to pay, I'm
not interested anymore.
So your recommendation, if it includes allowing access to the people at Heritage Bay,
there's a price tag that comes with that. And I think that ought to be part of your order.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Chairman, the next speakers will be online. Is
it -- Mr. Thomas Bernardi, is he online? Can you hear so? If so, turn on your mic, please.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bernardi? Mr. Bernardi?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll try to come back to him. Who's next after that?
MR. HENDERLONG: We need to get up. One second, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. James Deitrich [sic].
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Say the last name.
MR. HENDERLONG: Deitrich, D-e-i --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Deitrich?
MR. HENDERLONG: Deitrich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We'll ask him to say it. Mr. Deitrich, are you there, sir?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Those on the telephone need to remember to unmute
on their end as well.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Gerard Miserendino.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Miserendino.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Miserendino?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Miserendino. Mr. Miserendino, are you on, sir?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Miserendino, are you on, sir?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker.
MR. MISERENDINO: Hello, hello. I'm here. Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can, sir. You have three minutes.
MR. MISERENDINO: Okay. I didn't know how to unmute. I'm sorry.
Yeah. I live at 9188 Ores Circle at The Quarry. I've lived here for about eight years. I
Page 71 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
know I heard at the beginning that some of you have been there to visit physically; some of you
have not. Anyone that would take the time to drive and see that road, Limestone Trail is
unequivocally nothing like the roads within that PUD, the activity center. It is a landscaped,
curving road with, like Pete Keddie said, pavers where it terminates at Quarry Drive. The road
terminates and curves in right in front of our gate exiting. I hope all of have you seen that. It will
be extremely dangerous to have not only cars but trucks that close to our gate. I would love for
any of you to look at that and say you'd want that traffic coming that close to your gate.
Secondly, we have people talking about that light would be useless. Well, that is your
problem, and the county's mistake.
The road by Bellaire Bay but next to the gas station, if that was moved over, I don't know
how many feet, not a lot, that would meet your guidelines for a traffic light closeness, the closest it
could be to Collier Boulevard, and everyone could have access left and right out of that commercial
district.
You guys messed up and put that light. We didn't want a light, need a light at our gate.
You put it there. It was a mistake. Don't try to fix your problem by using our private road to fix
your mistake.
It was -- we have a lot of elderly citizens at our community that would be pulling out of
that gate with trucks pulling right in front of them. Will you be responsible for the lawsuits when
they get killed or hurt?
It is extremely dangerous what you're proposing, to use a private road that is landscaped,
curves with pavers, designed just for the people in Heritage Bay and The Quarry to fix your
problem. And I invite every one of you to take a close look at what you're dealing with here.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Stan Omland. Mr. Stan Omland.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Omland?
MR. OMLAND: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir?
MR. OMLAND: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can. Would you state your name again, please, sir.
MR. OMLAND: My name is Stan Omland, O-m-l-a-n-d.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. OMLAND: 9293 Quarry Drive.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. OMLAND: A resident of The Quarry -- a resident of The Quarry since 19 -- 2014.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. OMLAND: I submitted some comments in an email to the board members -- to the
commissioners. I am a registered professional engineer.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, we've lost you, I'm afraid. Mr. Omland, can you hear us?
MR. OMLAND: Can you hear me now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now we can hear you.
MR. OMLAND: Thank you. Where did I lose you?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're an engineer, or your professional --
MR. OMLAND: Okay. Professional engineer registered in Florida, consider myself an
expert in matters just like this. I represent government, counties, and municipalities on
development matters like this. I don't profess to have a long and detailed understanding of the
history of this other than what I have come to find out from the limited research and this hearing.
It appears to me that fundamental to this is a property-rights issue, and Limestone Trail is, I
think, indisputably privately owned by The Quarry, and to use it for public purposes would liken it
to a condemnation and a taking, and I think that anything short of a taking would be a violation of
Page 72 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
the rights of The Quarry and its ownership of Limestone Trail, as has been stated by many.
I drove out yesterday, or this morning -- yesterday, and there's significant landscape
expenses being undertaken even as we speak. I can't imagine losing the quality of Limestone Trail
should the county choose to condemn it and go through the legal process in establishing value and
so forth. Long, arduous, and expensive.
I fully support the amendment to the PUD that is before this commission and hope that we
will be granted the rights to install those gates.
The one item that has not been brought up, I don't believe, is entering traffic from the
traffic light from Immokalee making a left on Limestone Trail may not make that left given backup
at our gates for the many contractors that come in and have to register at the gatehouse. So I don't
believe that will be unimpeded traffic if that Limestone Trail is permitted to be used by the public.
MR. HENDERLONG: Thirty seconds.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thirty seconds, sir.
MR. OMLAND: Thank you.
Again, I appreciate the time and effort that the Commission puts in. And I know there's a
lot of subjective and objective history here, but it is -- appears to me that for me the largest right
and issue is one of property rights that The Quarry maintains on Limestone Trail that cannot be just
passed off as to old history and planning and that it was always intended to be used. Those rights
of ownership transcend those theoretical thoughts on planning.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick question, sir. How often do you see service vehicle
traffic backing up into the intersection between Limestone Trail and Quarry Drive?
MR. OMLAND: Very, very often. Certainly mornings and when the list of contractors
come in to service the various homes. But I can -- moving trucks -- it's throughout the day, and it
happens quite often that that intersection gets blocked by those entering contractors and delivery
trucks.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. William Betz. Mr. William Betz.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Betz?
MR. BETZ: Yes. Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir, we can. Please proceed.
MR. BETZ: Thank you very much. I appreciate the time to speak in favor of the
Heritage Bay PUD process.
I live on Coastline Court. I am approximately 100 feet away from Limestone Trail and, to
me, it's an issue with regards to the fact that when we first bought back in 2013, when we were a
part of the original development of the coach homes at the end of Coastline Court, we were
told -- we were assured that that was a private road, and it would -- it would not be turned over to
be a mini Immokalee speedway that you're potentially having it to move into.
We have major concerns about the safety involved with regards to the access to and from
the areas, because we've already had situations in which private individuals have driven over the
berm to make access into our neighborhoods. And so we have major concerns with regards of
increasing amount. And from what I understand, a 35 percent increase in the -- in the activity on
that road is a tremendous amount.
So, please, we need to make sure that we have a safe environment that my wife and I can
walk in. We're just old folks. We just need to make sure that you-all don't make the Limestone
Trail into a speedway that failed Immokalee Road has already become.
Thank you.
Page 73 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Next speaker is Kevin Mooney. Kevin Mooney, are you there?
MR. MOONEY: Yes, I'm here.
What I would like to say -- and Bill Betz has already -- Bill Betz has already touched on
it -- we've had trespassing taking place all along Limestone Trail for a long time. People driving
over the berm to avoid the gates to get into our community, people going into the golf course along
Limestone Trail to fish in the ponds, and even the pond in the front.
This road is our property. It doesn't belong to anyone else, and for anyone to take it away
from us would just be a miscarriage of justice.
I have nothing else to say on this matter. I just wanted you to know that the road belongs
to us. It is not a county property, and I think this is an overreach by the county.
Thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I would just say that I think that from what I'm
gathering the consensus at this point of the Board is that we're going to vote for approval, and I
would think -- I respect all the people wanting to voice their opinion, but I think we're not going to
hear, you know, much that's going to sway us, and we already are of the opinion, unless we have
somebody who's opposed to it, you know, hearing more speakers is redundant, and I think it
doesn't -- it's not a wise use of our time at this point.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have to hear them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think -- I think, Commissioner Klucik, I believe you have
accurately characterized where at least most of us are headed. But in the interest of due process, I
think it would be advisable for us to hear everyone out. We're coming, I think, to the end of this
period of time. But I will -- at the suggestion of Commissioner Klucik, those who have a different
take on this, we'd be most interested in hearing from. If you simply agree with what you've
already heard, it's sufficient for you to say that.
For my part, I'm particularly interested in hearing cogent reasons why the so-called back
gate should remain in place. So just from my personal standpoint, that's what I'm interested in
hearing.
With that, I'll ask for the next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Adam Best. Adam Best, are you --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Best? Mr. Best?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, Rich.
MR. HENDERLONG: Please unmute yourself, Mr. Best.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's go to the next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Jeff Jones. Mr. Jeff Jones, are you there?
MR. JONES: I'm here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir.
MR. JONES: I do have many of the same concerns. My address is 8783 Coastline
Court. And so I am just across the berm from where this road is located.
I personally have observed vehicles coming over the berm and into The Quarry as well as
people with fishing poles and other trespassers. Limestone Trail is used a lot for walking and
biking. People actually go to Starbucks and those kinds of places. I'm really concerned about the
additional noise so close. I'm concerned about the speeding cars. I'm really concerned about the
property values and what's going to happen if you allow this to be open to the public.
I agree with Trinity's assessment that I don't like to sit at stoplights either. I think the
people coming west on Immokalee and they hit a stoplight are going to dive in and go through this
Page 74 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Limestone Trail route in order to get to wherever they're going in the activity center.
I would hope that you would allow us to gate this road and to keep it safe and usable for
the people that own it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Next speaker, please.
MR. HENDERLONG: Laura Beurman-Ellison. Ms. Beurman-Ellison, are you there?
If so, please unmute your mic.
MS. BEURMAN-ELLISON: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, ma'am. Please proceed.
MS. BEURMAN-ELLISON: Sorry. I've got to shut the other phone off. But -- I live at
9344 Quarry -- hang on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I don't even think we're on a five-second delay either.
Can just barely hear you, ma'am. Now you're good. Now you're good.
MS. BEURMAN-ELLISON: Okay. I live at 9344 Fieldstone Lane. It's also in The
Quarry. And I am also in support, of course, of the gates going up on Limestone Trail.
My big concern has to do with the fact that it is private property. And the terminology
that I've heard since this morning about calling it a de facto public record is very concerning, taking
our property, because this is really taking by eminent domain without the benefit of any court
processes, any payments, and also saying, by the way, you need to keep up your insurance and the
maintenance of the property.
So it really concerned me quite a bit that the county would even consider taking over the
Limestone Trail and not allowing us on this private property to put gates on it.
Other than that, I mean, I think it would be a better use of time to go onto the next person.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you so much.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Gerald Williams. Are you there, sir?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Williams?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am. Can you hear?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Please proceed.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Gerald Williams, 9404 Copper Rock.
I understand that the gate will be approved. I see no other alternative. It was -- it should
have been a slam dunk three years ago. The PUD allows for installation of the gate. The road is
definitely a private road.
So what I don't agree with is making it conditional upon opening up the back gate to
Heritage Bay. The system works very well right now. It's going to work better when the road is
open. To open up to Heritage Bay is just going to cause a lot of nightmares. I think that we were
forced into this amendment of the PUD when it never should have been taken this far. It should
have been approved as an insubstantial change. It should have been almost automatic.
So we've been forced -- because they wanted to turn it into a public road, we've been
forced to spend $100,000. Now you want to force us to accept opening up all our gates to another
1,200 homes. It's like we're being treated very unfairly, and it's just -- it just baffles me why, if we
have a private road, we weren't approved to put a gate up and instead we were forced to expend
$100,000, and now we're going to be asked to add another 1,200 cars or more through our
community. It just doesn't seem fair.
I think it should be just approved, and let's get -- let's admit that there was mistakes made,
and it's time to move on because, if it goes to the next level, I think the argument would be that it
should never have been to an amendment process. It should have been the easier process, and
with the easier process, you have no right to go back and deal with the issue of exiting the
mercantile area and entrance by Heritage Bay. That's already been approved. It's been taking
place for seven years.
Page 75 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Had we -- had it just been an unsubstantial issue that was approved right away, you
wouldn't have a right to bring that issue up to ask for a compromise to open up the gate to Heritage
Bay. So I'm saying, just give us the gates and let's get on with it.
And that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. HENDERLONG: John Streich. John Streich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Streich?
MR. STREICH: I'm here. John Streich. Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We hear you. Please proceed.
MR. STREICH: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can hear you, sir. Please proceed.
MR. STREICH: Okay. Thank you.
I'm John Streich. I live at 9271 Fieldstone Lane. I am in support of the gates. I also do
not support allowing Heritage Bay access to our community. Jerry stated it pretty well.
The one thing I would offer and -- for the commercial is, we need to think of a new
solution for the commercial, and the right solution and the safest solution is to redirect the
commercial area back to Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard was built to handle the traffic and,
for the folks that want to go eastbound, it will be the safest route for everything, especially for the
truck and heavy traffic.
I don't have anything else to add. I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. HENDERLONG: Gia Motto. Gia Motto, are you there?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Motto? Is it Amato or Motto?
MR. HENDERLONG: Motto.
MR. MOTTO: Motto.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Motto. Are you there, sir?
MR. MOTTO: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed.
MR. MOTTO: Yeah. My name is Vince Matto. I live at 8787 Coastline. And I agree
with all my neighbors. Everybody hit on great points. But what I can't get my head around is you
guys in that room want to decide our thing. We live here. You guys don't live here. You guys
don't walk here. You guys don't run. You don't bike. Nothing. You got to let us have it the
way it was supposed to be, the way it should be, and that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Pat LoGrippo. Pat LoGrippo, are you there?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: How many more do we have after Mr. LoGrippo?
MR. HENDERLONG: About five.
MR. MOTTO: Speak my peace.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Five? Okay.
Mr. LoGrippo, are you there?
MR. MOTTO: And as far as you, Mr. Klucik, if it was you, you'd want to fuckin' talk.
You don't fuckin' live here, you mother fuckers.
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Matto, please.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Turn that -- let's proceed to the next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Linda Lepore, are you there? Linda Lepore?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Lepore? Ms. Lepore?
MR. HENDERLONG: Could you unmute yourself, please, Linda Lepore.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
Page 76 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just -- I'd like to respond to that gentleman, only that I
absolutely understand. And my request was simply because we're all in agreement, from what I
can tell. The entire Commission is in agreement to go ahead and approve this petition. And
rather than continue to, you know, take up the time of this Commission, which is tasked with a lot
of other things. That's all -- that was the only reason why.
So had you actually had something -- anyone who wants to express disagreement with
what we were planning to do, I would definitely want to hear from. And I apologize as far as, you
know, you thinking that I don't want to have people talk. As a matter of fact, in my own
community I'm a huge advocate for the little guy, and almost -- you know, if you think I talk a lot
here and interject a lot here, I'm doing it a lot on a panel where I am one out of five members, the
only one elected by my neighbors on a panel that consists of five, and that government is -- it's our
equivalent of a CDD, and I'm the only elected member. And I would just want to tell you that I
apologize if you thought I was trying to squelch the voice of the average person out there, and that
wasn't my intent at all.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know that, Commissioner, and I certainly would never ascribe to
those motives on your part, so please feel free to weigh in.
And we had Ms. Lepore. Is she on?
(No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's go to the next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Nancy Shall. Nancy Shall.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Shall?
(No response.)
MR. HENDERLONG: Nancy, are you there? If so, pleases unmute your mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: George Scocca, George Scocca. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Scocca?
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Scocca, are you there?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Scocca?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next.
MR. SCOCCA: Yes, hello.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can hear you.
MR. SCOCCA: Okay, great.
Yeah. So I want to thank you for listening to me. I'm George Scocca. I live on 8755
Coastline.
I walk -- and I walk down Limestone every single day back and forth. I'm looking right
out the window now, out my lanai at the four carriage houses which are going to be drastically
affected if this thing doesn't pass, and they will be sacrificial lambs, no doubt.
And I'd just like to say I echo pretty much everything that you've heard here in the
community. I do want to add that by opening up that road is really going to take -- would really
take away from the sense of community that we have here. Right now when you see people
entering The Quarry, they're coming to The Quarry, they're coming to see someone at The Quarry,
maybe they're going home or maybe they're just going to go visit someone. But to have through
traffic coming through there -- and, you know, one other point I'd like to make is I think we're
underestimating the power of the GPS. I have lived this same thing in my home, at my old home
in New York where they built an access road to a parkway at the end of my block, and a block I
grew up on and played ball in the street immediately had traffic coming through there to cut
Page 77 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
through because that's where the GPS directs them.
Every person that has to go east coming out of that traffic center, the second they put in
their GPS, they're going to be directed to Limestone. So, I mean, please keep that in mind.
The last thing that I want to say is, I fleed New York because of constant government
overreach. I came here, and this is the first issue I'm dealing with. And I'm hearing people out
there say, well, we're just going to take it then. I'm glad to hear that you sound like you may all be
in -- you know, with us. I hope you are, and I hope this isn't a land grab, and I hope you don't use
the excuse and the mistake of the light that they should have never put there.
I mean, I saw one of the slides that you put up showed that back in 2004 they were going to
put -- that light was projected to be down at -- I guess, what is that; Bedford? I forget what the
name of that street is, but it was not projected for here.
So, you know -- and to be clear, it's obvious a lot of you people haven't seen it. The light
is up. It just has to be, like, turned on. This is all done. So, please, consider us.
MR. HENDERLONG: Thirty seconds.
MR. SCHMITT: Please note government overreach like I seen in New York. And,
again, I appreciate you listening to us, and I appreciate all the work that The Quarry board
members have done.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker.
MR. HENDERLONG: Nancy Shall. She's back online. Nancy, can you --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: How many would we have after Nancy Shall?
MR. HENDERLONG: About four.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: How did we --
MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Chairman, some come back online --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. HENDERLONG: -- and off.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to politely request that going forward, that the
additional speakers -- I believe it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong consensus not to open
up Limestone Trail. I could be wrong, but I believe that's what I'm hearing. And I think the
issue, if there is going to be one at all, has to do with what the original intent of the developer, the
predecessors entitled to the landowners now had in mind with respect to interconnectivity as that
pertains to the road that is now blocked by the back gate.
So I'd especially like to hear about that. I don't personally need to hear anything more
about property rights. I'm a sure thing for you on that one. And the other issues, just my sense of
things is is that the Planning Commission is generally with you as well.
So if you have something new to say, please do so, or you can simply say I agree with
everything that's been said, all right.
Ms. Shall? Ms. Shall?
MR. HENDERLONG: Nancy, can you unmute your mic, please.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'm going to cross her off now.
MS. SHALL: Okay. Can you hear now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead.
MS. SHALL: Okay. So this is Nancy Shall. I'm at 8759 Coastline Court, and I've been
here since about 2007, so I've been here before the gates and everything.
I know you guys are -- or one of you is, like, your big quandary is about our gate, but you
don't hear anybody from Heritage Bay during this whole conversation listening or talking about
their right of not being able to get back in. You're more concerned about it than they are;
otherwise, they would be questioning us about putting up the gate, and they're not. They're okay
with it.
So I don't understand why you guys have such a hard time with that point. I do believe
that's between them and us. They have not had a hard time with that, so I think you guys need to
Page 78 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
let that part go.
And that's the only thing I have to say, so thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MR. HENDERLONG: Joe Boudreau. Joe Boudreau, please unmute your mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have three minutes.
MR. BOUDREAUX: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
MR. BOUDREAUX: Yeah. My name's Joe Boudreau. I live at 9411 Copper Rock
Court. And I want to thank you guys for your time and stuff. I know we've all been listening to
this all day along, and -- very good.
I just wanted to let -- you know, to say that, you know, the county went ahead, they were
40 feet short off of Bellaire Bay Drive to make that traffic light to their advantage and put it there,
40 feet, but now it seems like we are paying the price for their mistake.
And I'm not going to go through everything my colleagues and my neighbors went
through, but I just wanted to let you know that, you know, we pay a lot of money for this, and it
seems like everything's going in our direction to pay and not be repaid back.
Heritage Bay knows; they haven't been using our gate for years, and they've never made
any contested issues on that. And it's -- the system's not broken, so we shouldn't fix it. The
county made a mistake, and they're trying to put it on to fix it.
And I appreciate everything you guys have done. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. HENDERLONG: Doreen Kostecki.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Kostecki? Ms. Kostecki?
MS. KOSTECKI: Yes, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Please proceed.
MS. KOSTECKI: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, I can.
MS. KOSTECKI: Great.
Thank you for your time. I agree with my neighbors wholeheartedly. I live at 8731
Coastline Court; been here three years. Never would have realized that you would have changed a
private road into a commercial road.
As a realtor, I can see that that's not going to help our property values throughout. And I
do support having the privately -- private gates put on our private road with no additional access to
Heritage Bay, and I'll wrap it up for you so you guys can call it a day.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your brevity.
MR. HENDERLONG: Nancy Shall. She's back online.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: She -- she already spoke. She's had her opportunity.
MR. HENDERLONG: Chairman, that's the end. We're done.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the end. All right. Thank you.
Anybody else who has not registered who's in the room who would like to be heard on this,
they may. If not, we are going to ask the applicant if he wishes to rebut.
MS. OLLILA: Could I ask if you have Jerry Solomon registered?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, let Mr. Pires speak for you, if you would, since he's
approaching.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I am. I maybe want to ask for just for two minutes to
huddle with my team as to rebuttal. But was Jerry Solomon on the list? Mr. Solomon, we
understood, was going to be signed up and wanted to speak, if we could.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Henderlong, was --
Page 79 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. HENDERLONG: He's not online.
MR. PIRES: Okay. Thank you. If we can have until 3:35, Mr. Chairman, to huddle
to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll give you -- that's seven minutes. We'll give you
seven minutes in recess.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 3:27 p.m. to 3:38 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's reconvene.
The applicant is at the podium, and we've asked the applicant if he wishes to present
rebuttal.
MR. PIRES: If I may, briefly, Mr. Chairman. It's been a very comprehensive and
detailed discussion, and I appreciate the Commission's indulgence and consideration and attention
and the good questions and queries. While we may disagree at times, I always
appreciate -- especially, it's a volunteer position, and I very much appreciate the efforts you-all put
in.
Just a couple of points. Chris Mears has -- my able assistant in this endeavor, has put up
on the screen, it's a portion of the approved Site Development Plan for the gate at Weathered Stone
that was from 2005.
And, Chris, if you can -- if you maybe want to pull out a bit where the county approved
both the building permit and the Site Development Plan for the Weathered Stone gate. That's just
to the point that in order to -- can you pull out a bit, Chris. In order for that Site Development Plan
to be approved, there had to be a determination and a finding that it was consistent with the PUD,
the Land Development Code, and the Growth Management Plan. All development orders have to
be consistent with those. And that was just to the point there was a formal approval by the county
staff consistent with the policies administratively approving, consistent with the PUD, that
particular gate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was a staff-level approval.
MR. PIRES: Yes, which is all that's required.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would you please, then, show me on that map where the
gate is and then direct me to the legend that says that that image is a gate.
MR. PIRES: I think it says -- if you pull back out a lot, Chris -- let me do that, because it
says Weathered -- right there, The Quarry Guardhouse No. 2. Right at the top. No, Chris, no.
Pull up to the style, the title of it on the top, the first page. You're coming -- okay, Guardhouse
No. 2.
And then there's also a building permit, but if you can then go back into the detail in the
box on the left, Chris. And it shows Weathered Stone where it meets Bellaire Bay Drive, I
believe, and it says, entry gate, and that's an approved SDP by the county staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there -- is there an indication there that the Heritage Bay people
would only have exit rights and not entry rights?
MR. PIRES: There's no reference at all. The county typically doesn't get into that. And
that is also the platted portion of The Quarry plat that has Weathered Stone as a private street
right-of-way, just like Limestone.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand, but I want -- I want to know if there is any
indication, preferably by the BCC, but if not, by staff, that a one-way egress only point of
interconnectivity was knowingly approved, and I don't -- I -- this doesn't constitute that.
MR. PIRES: But it provides a gate on a private road, which is typically indicative of
access control --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I understand.
MR. PIRES: -- by the owner of that roadway segment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I would look at that and conclude from it, because it says
Page 80 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
entry and exit, that the traffic was going to go two-way like that.
MR. PIRES: Correct, by the owners of the private road, which is The Quarry Community
Association. That is -- The Quarry Community Association owns Weathered Stone.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I -- this is -- this is helpful evidence, but I'm not satisfied
that someone knowingly and understandingly said that this is going to just be a one-way point of
interconnectivity for the Heritage Bay people. You've made the point that somebody approved the
existence of a gate there, but you've got entry and exit, and there's no -- unless -- unless there's
something in the fine print there, there's nothing that says that the Heritage Bay people shall not
have a way in.
MR. PIRES: In my -- in just rebuttal to that, with all due respect, that it doesn't reflect that
there is any access to anybody else. And, typically, those operational considerations, to my
knowledge, on private gates and gatehouses are not an issue with the county. The county looks at
the PUD or Land Development Code, and whether or not a gatehouse is allowed and
whether -- whether or not public access is required is generally not their issue.
For example, we had the discussion about CDD roads, which are considered public roads if
it's tax exempt financing; otherwise, you have private activity bonds. There are gatehouses on
CDD roads. Those are allowed; however, not because of any county codes but because of the
concern about a private activity bond there are requirements to maintain them as being public. But
once those roads are -- bonds are paid off, they might be more restrictive.
So, I mean, you even have situations where one CDD charges a toll to utilize. They call it
a rate or a fee. Key Marco does. And see, down on Marco Island, they charge non-residents to
go onto the CDD roads a fee.
But -- so I would submit that the absence of any operational aspect talking about entry to
any other party means that there is no entry to other the party. That's the whole purpose of the
gatehouse.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it seems to me that public access could be constrained or
stopped in that fashion, but -- and I'm not saying that your argument doesn't have some weight; it
does.
MR. PIRES: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I'm still fastened on Mr. Anderson's point about
interconnectivity between adjoining neighborhoods for access, which to me means both directions
to the activity center, and also to Ms. Faulkner's statement on behalf of staff that a one-way only
would not conform to 7.03.
MR. PIRES: And the counter to that, there's no restriction on that that talks about ingress
for any other residents of Heritage Bay at that gatehouse. There's no condition that was imposed.
And one other -- I think another important aspect is the PUD was approved in 2003 with
Anderson's comment. The Quarry -- first Quarry plat where Weathered Stone and Limestone were
platted as private street rights-of-way was in 2004/2005, and they were platted as private. And so,
again -- and the County Commission has to approve those plats. That's not a staff-level function.
That's a quasi-judicial function under Florida law.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. I just want to be sure that when this was brought
before the Board of County Commissioners, that the point was made that the Heritage Bay people
were only going to have one-way access, and I'm afraid I still haven't seen that.
MR. PIRES: I understand.
And with regards to one other real quick item -- and I appreciate -- I'll try not to belabor
too many points. The discussion with regards to the 14 Traffic Impact Statements, only one
assigned trips to Limestone, I think it's important that the last TIS that was utilized in the traffic
signal warrant -- and, in fact, it's referenced at Addenda Packet Page 285, that on January 10th,
2018, it assigned no trips to Limestone, but three weeks later the traffic signal warrant analysis
assumed 35 percent to Limestone. I just -- so, again, three weeks -- three weeks before there's no
trips assigned from the commercial center. A few weeks later, 35 percent is assumed.
Page 81 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Personally, I think you're on the side of the angels with that.
That has to do with Limestone --
MR. PIRES: Can you tell my wife that?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tony, in regards to the gated access and gates, as far as
any declared emergency, whether it's evacuation or any other declared emergency in preparation
for hurricane or evacuation, is it standard practice that all the gates are either placed in an up
position, or are the arms removed?
MR. PIRES: We would agree to that. We think that's a reasonable public safety concern.
Yeah, it's already happening today. Ms. Ollila indicates it's already today. We would -- I think
that's a great public safety consideration, yes, sir; that's an appropriate condition.
Otherwise, we respectfully request, and after all this deliberation, that the Planning
Commission make a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners of our
amendment request language as it exists with that condition as Mr. Schmitt mentioned.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just real quick. What's the date of this document that
we're looking at?
MR. PIRES: 2005. Chris, if you can go back.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: 2005?
MR. PIRES: Yes. If you can go back to the --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's fine. That's fine.
MR. PIRES: It's December 19, 2015. That was received by Centex, but that's a 2005
SDP file.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Thank you. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does staff have any anything further before we close the public
speaking session?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Ms. Gundlach nodded no.
So with that and without objection, we'll close the public portion of this application, and
we will commence our deliberation. Excuse me. Go ahead, Commissioner
Shea -- Commissioner Fry. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll go next.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll just go ahead and lay out my thoughts and just -- I have an
open mind until I hear everybody's viewpoints. But I guess after hearing, I think my mind has
evolved during this long proceeding.
My final reaction as of now is that rejecting the application is a violation of private
property rights and imposes additional financial and liability burdens on The Quarry Community
Association. As such, I think it could reasonably be considered a taking.
With regards to interconnection, in my two years on the Planning Commission, I've never
seen interconnection to be defined as requiring public access from outside a PUD to the PUD. It's
always been internal connection, unless specifically stated internal connection of the developments
to the commercial that's within that PUD or adjacent to it. So I believe that requirement is already
met.
Somehow The Quarry and Heritage Bay passed all the county approvals, and traffic access
patterns have been as they are now for many years with acceptance of both developments, as
evidenced by the fact there's nobody here from Heritage Bay on the phone or in person objecting to
the fact they don't have access through. So we're really looking at the -- demanding the access
through -- demanding that The Quarry open their gates to Heritage Bay as a greater-good type of an
Page 82 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
argument.
I don't find -- I don't find that's within what I feel comfortable as being my -- you know,
our rights up here because we are -- by doing that, we're imposing a significant financial burden on
one of these two parties. A great benefit to Heritage Bay, significant financial burden, 1,200
additional potential vehicles coming back through their roads that they have to maintain, liability,
accidents, safety, all those things, without any kind of compensation in return.
If that requirement had been specifically stated in any of the approvals for any of the
projects -- I know we have an aspirational statement by Bruce Anderson, and I believe that
probably was the intent. We don't have any hard evidence that's codified to the extent that that
was a specific requirement. And here we are many years down the road. It's already in place.
So I have a hard time backing into that requirement. I think that's a violation of
private -- I think it's a private matter between Heritage Bay and The Quarry.
I do believe Heritage Bay residents will benefit from the new light even though -- putting
the gates on Limestone Trail, if the light proceeds and if the gates are put up, it does gut much of
the benefit to public access to the activity center eastbound on Immokalee and coming in. Just
making an easier in and out for the activity center, but for Heritage Bay people it does ease their
path, smooth their path to get home. They now can travel Limestone Trail, which they will have
access to, go out to the light at Quarry, make a left and a very quick trip on Immokalee and a
shorter route back into Heritage Bay. So a very short impact on Immokalee Road. So I do think
it does -- this does -- even with the gates, it does help the Heritage Bay residents somewhat.
I'll be voting -- unless I hear something different, I'll be voting to approve the application
without condition, and I -- frankly, after hearing everything, I believe the only solution that
provides the desired benefits for visitors to the activity center and travelers on Immokalee Road,
meaning some relief from additional traffic having to go on Immokalee Road when it would not
have to otherwise, would be for the county to acquire the property and assume all maintenance and
liability of the road, possibly modify the intersection at The Quarry and Limestone Trail to ease
traffic making the turn as well as backing up service vehicle traffic into The Quarry, and to buffer
the residents to the north that are along that Coastline Court, you know, because of the additional
traffic.
So I'm certainly still open to suggestions, but that's where I stand as of now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. You just said everything I was going to say except
much better. So I agree with all of your points.
I will harp on the condition. I'm -- as far as trying to protect the property rights for
returning of Heritage Bay staff [sic], I'm with you, they had their -- they're not here. And, quite
frankly, I don't remember ever reading anything from Heritage Bay in all of the letters that we got
saying that we disapprove of this. So to me silence is approving of it.
I don't think it's in our purview to go in and try and go back to something we think was said
years ago and impose it today. I think everybody's comfortable with the proposal, and I, for the
same reasons that Commissioner Fry said, would fully support approval of the proposal without
condition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I second everything that's been stated. So I
support it. My only condition would be that -- well, I'll discuss it, basically, with the Chairman.
Requiring interconnect through -- what's the name of that road again?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Weathered Stone.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, whatever. Weather Stone Road -- Weathered
Stone Road. And I would leave that up to the residents to pursue that and negotiate between the
two communities. I think for government to force that -- we could state it, again, as an
Page 83 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
amendment to the PUD, but it already is in the PUD. If it -- if it needed to be enforced, it could be
enforced by the county, and it would require some kind of negotiation between the two
communities as to sharing of costs and access.
But I agree, there's -- we've heard nothing from the residents of Heritage Bay, and they
certainly have an opportunity to voice their opinion prior to this going before the Board of County
Commissioners. And if that's the case, then I think the Board of County Commissioners can
address the issue of interconnectivity. We can state it as a -- as a possibility or even leave it up to
the attorneys to discuss and negotiate with Heritage Bay, but I'll support -- I do support the petition,
and we'll wait for a motion and see where it goes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Vernon or Commissioner Klucik or Mr. Eastman? Mr. Eastman's gone.
Anything from you, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Commissioner Vernon. I had a few pages of notes. I'm
just trying to think of what I might have to say that hasn't already been said, because I agree with
pretty much everything.
I guess I view, big picture, that there is a problem here, and I think the Chairman's
identified the problem, but I think denying the petition is not going to solve the problem.
I think when you -- the old saying in the law, you know, bad facts make bad law and also,
you know, I think in a case like this, we should decide issues narrowly. So those two factors kind
of -- those three factors make me fall on, let's just -- let's just approve the petition. Not
really -- I'm not fond of any amendments I've heard.
I'd love to see the parties, the staff, get together and come up with something more creative
than what we've heard and some solutions, but I think I'm viewing this as narrowly deciding a
petition in favor of it.
And then one thing that I'm just going to say, Jeff, because it's not a conflict, it's not even a
disclosure, but I've got to say, in 2021 I am looking at maybe buying some residential property, and
I do have in the back of my mind after sitting here listening to today, I may go look at something at
The Quarry.
So I just want to tell people, a year from now if I own a piece of property in The Quarry, I
wanted to disclose that in case it impacts the influence of what I just said.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are you trying to get a discount?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I am a good negotiator. I'm starting right now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, would you like to weigh in, sir?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would say I agree with this -- the hesitancy to get more involved in what
the -- than what the petitioner has asked for.
I do think that if that -- that other issue is an issue, it can be raised. I also, you know, see
that we haven't really heard anything from the neighbors who are -- who would be affected by that,
and I think it -- for us to come up with a solution and impose it, I think it would be better to have a
solution, you know, get worked out or, you know, if someone proposed a solution, who would
benefit from it, and let us decide on that at a future date. So I would prefer to just vote raw on this
without any -- you know, any changes.
I would say that I think Section 9.3 is vague and should be, you know, amended to not be
vague. You know, obviously, we've hemmed and hawed on what it really means. And so I
would hope that that's something that the Commissioners will consider, and I think, you know, we
should try to make -- make that -- I'm going to make that known, you know, certainly to
Commissioner McDaniel who I -- you know, who I -- I always say his name because he's the one
that I know and will take my call. But I think that would be good for the Commissioners to
consider something like that or even the staff when they are making recommendations to modify,
Page 84 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
you know, the land code and the GMP, that that would be something to look at.
And I'd also say that my main reason against this is I don't -- I don't see that you can
achieve a goal that is listed in 9.3 that is vague. I don't see that the basis to do it is what -- the
equivalent of a taking. And that might be a necessary solution because, you know, if the traffic
here is going to be, you know, ever increasing and we're going to have a flyover, et cetera, et
cetera, but that's -- that needs to be resolved more directly as an issue where there's compensation
and, you know, if it needs to be a, you know, condemnation for eminent domain, then so be it, but
that's not what we're here for.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Vice Chair Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. There were letters in our packet from Heritage
Bay owners and the association who do not want to see this gated, and the businesses in the activity
center are opposed to it also, so -- and I'm -- to say that you didn't hear anything and they're not in
the room, they don't count, is -- doesn't sit well with me, so -- and I am agreeing with the staff on
this. So if you're all voting one way, I'm going to vote the other.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is about interconnection, and it's been here for all this
time, and that road is there for that reason.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You're going to gate it, and it won't be interconnection
anymore.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Karen, to your point, which I think is well taken -- and I'd like
to, I guess, issue a request -- regardless of how this goes -- and if it goes where you get your gates
where this is approved, my neighborhood recently had a -- the Naples Senior Center, a large
two-story building, 30,000 square feet put inside our neighborhood, and it was approved. It was a
bitter pill for many of our residents to swallow. Wonderful mission but a big thing in a residential
lot.
I think it's time -- and I guess my request for you is, I think we all have to look beyond our
insular interests at, in some cases, how to balance those with what's best for the county, and the
county has a problem. Immokalee Road is a mess and getting worse, and that Limestone Road
would be an excellent value for the traffic system. That's why the light was warranted. They
were certainly counting on that section being part of the traffic system.
So if these gates are approved, I would just ask that your board negotiate in good faith -- if
the county does express interest in working something out with you, whether it be eminent domain
or shared whatever, that you work in good faith and try to help solve -- be a partner to the county in
solving this issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I -- I am conflicted here but most influenced by the fact that
private property rights are involved. Interconnectivity is very important to me, smart growth is
very important to me, but I'm not going to prevail on that issue; I can see that. And I don't want,
personally, to be in a position of voting against the property rights, the private property rights of the
owners of Quarry.
So I'm going to be voting in favor of the application although -- well, I think I have had a
sufficient opportunity to explain to everyone why I feel the way I do. I haven't yet, at least today,
said that I generally like to support staff when I can, and I thought that Ms. Faulkner said it very
well, and she's the Growth Management Plan expert, that her concerns as an expert would have
been resolved if that back gate had been removed and there had been full bilateral access, but that
is not to be, and the votes are not there for that.
Page 85 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
So I'm going to be voting in favor of the application, and with that, unless --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just wanted to say, you know, I as well was conflicted. I
wanted to support the staff, and I also personally would benefit from this. I just would. I mean, I
explained a little bit about that. It would be great for me personally. So I just tried to figure out a
way to think that it would be good for me to vote against this and what I could hinge it on, and in
the end I didn't think that I had enough, especially that would overcome the taking aspect of this.
And I would be happy to entertain a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you making that motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm happy to make -- I'm making the motion for approval
of the petition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And that's subject to Commissioner Schmitt's condition
with respect to the gates being open during emergency times?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there -- Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to make one more comment going forward to
tag on to what Mr. Klucik said, is that -- it's not going to change my vote, so we don't need to get
into it. But I have a little confusion on whether the staff's position is that they need -- there needs
to be interconnectivity between the north side and south side of Immokalee Road or we need to
protect Heritage Bay. Those are two different arguments. I think one argument's better than the
other. I don't think either one's persuasive. But if this is going to go further before the Board of
County Commissioners, I just -- I'm just helping the staff -- say to me those are two different
issues, and you should pick the one you're arguing, and maybe you're arguing both. So I just
wanted to make that comment to be helpful to the staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have it within our right to reopen comment and ask for
staff to answer your question.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I don't need it answered because I've factored in
both of them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, just only from the fact that typically historically it's
been -- and I would even attribute the comment that Bruce Anderson made during the petition was
for interconnectivity for the development in itself. Very rarely do we, in DRI-type developments,
get into requiring interconnectivity between communities that are essentially gated. But certainly
it's a noble cause, but it's not something that is desired by the communities nor is it something that
is desired from a marketability and development, but it certainly complicates life for everyone else
in the county because you've got these enclaves that are islands that are surrounded by four- and
six-lane highways. That's because there's no interconnectivity, and that's a problem throughout the
county. It's been like that for 25, 30 years.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Klucik has made a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vernon seconds.
Any further discussion?
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
MR. PIRES: May I just briefly -- I just wanted to correct in the record, that guardhouse
graphic was part of a building permit application. I wanted to make sure. There is a Site
Development Plan approval that that was part of, and I will make all these part of the record, and
that Site Development Plan approval is reflected as being SDPAR5360. I apologize. It was a
Page 86 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
building permit, architectural plans.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. The record is made. Is there paperwork you
need to give to the court reporter?
MR. PIRES: I will forward it to Terri. I know exactly where she is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: She's right there.
MR. PIRES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion, comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we've got a motion and a second to approve the application.
All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 6-1. Thank you very much.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, applicants. Thank you. Thank you.
Let's see. I don't think it would be useful for us to begin the workshop, and I see that the
County Attorney is in agreement with that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But we're fresh as a daisy.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We are absolutely fresh as a daisy.
MR. KLATZKOW: You guys would be way too ornery now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Any new business to come before the Planning
Commission?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Not with me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The new business that we had on our agenda is the
workshop, and we're going to continue that to January 21st, and it's going to be heard after the
companion PUD/GMP going under two names, Camden and Meridian, I think. And we will take
as much time as the Planning Commission wishes to pursue that workshop and get all questions
answered, and if we have to -- if we can't get it done on that date, we'll just keep continuing it until
everybody has had a chance to have matters explained and to be heard.
Is there any other old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we are adjourned.
*******
Page 87 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 4:08 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on _________, as presented _________ or as corrected __________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,
COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 88 of 88
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 01-07-21CCPC (14941 : January 7, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
02/18/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 5.B
Item Summary: January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 02/18/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission
Name: Diane Lynch
02/03/2021 3:18 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/03/2021 3:18 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/03/2021 3:18 PM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/04/2021 9:24 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/04/2021 12:37 PM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 02/08/2021 10:20 AM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 02/18/2021 9:00 AM
5.B
Packet Pg. 94
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida,
January 21, 2021
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Edwin Fryer, Chairman
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair
Karl Fry
Joe Schmitt
Paul Shea
Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (appeared remotely)
Christopher T. Vernon
ABSENT:
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning and welcome to the January 21, 2021, meeting of
the Collier County Planning Commission.
Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask the secretary to call the roll, we need to take action
on a preliminary matter. Commissioner Klucik has requested leave to participate remotely in this
meeting. He's having some automobile difficulty. And his request, of course, requires the
physical presence of a quorum, which we have, based upon my preliminary observation, and our
favorable action upon that request. So at this point I'd entertain either discussion or --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion that Mr. Klucik --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded. Sorry, I'm interrupting.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, pleas say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Good morning, Commissioner Klucik.
(No response.)
MR. SUMMERS: He's not on right now. He hasn't joined.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, we'll continue here anyway.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you like me to call --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, call the roll, Secretary. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Eastman?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here.
Chairman Fryer?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Vernon?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Klucik?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six present and one soon
to be joining us remote.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Page 2 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
First, on our addendum to the agenda, let me indicate that we have a request before us for
another continuance of what is listed on today's agenda as 9A1. This is PL20190002416. It's the
Town of Ave Maria SRA amendments. The correct -- the request is to continue to a date certain,
namely our February 4, 2021, meeting.
Is there any discussion, or may I have a motion to continue?
COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the continuance, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Welcome, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows, any late-breaking changes to the remaining agenda?
MR. BELLOWS: No other changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on February 4 of 2021. Does
anyone know if he or she won't be able to attend that meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Looks like we'll have a quorum then. Good.
How about -- same question for our meeting of February 18th.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Looks like we're going to have a quorum, we hope, at both
meetings.
Approval of the minutes. We have only one set of minutes before us for action, and those
are the minutes of the December 17, 2020, meeting. Any corrections, changes, or additions on
those minutes?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 3, like, in the middle of the page, it says
Chairman Saunders. It should be Chairman Fryer; and on Page 8, Commissioner Fiala should be
Commissioner Fry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further proposed changes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve with those changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
Page 3 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
BCC report and recaps, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the January 12th meeting, the Board approved the Bembridge
PUD amendment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right.
Chairman's report. I do have one this morning. In keeping with our expressed interest in
playing a greater role in the oversight of which matters go to the Hearing Examiner and which
come to us, I had asked staff to circulate to the Planning Commission a link to the HEX meeting
agenda for the previous hearing, I believe the one on January 14.
Yesterday, at my request, Mr. Bellows also circulated to all of us the complete February
look-ahead, this document right here, which shows not only our upcoming agenda for the month of
February but also the Hearing Examiner's.
I always asked for these, and I just assumed that other members of the Planning
Commission would like to have them as well. I find them very informative. If you want to get
ahead of the agenda, you can always go to CityView and at least see what the state of affairs is with
respect to the documents that have been filed so far, which I almost always do. So thank you,
Mr. Bellows and staff, for doing that.
What I was looking for was not critical words or suggestions from Planning
Commissioners with respect to items that are already booked for the -- for the Hearing Examiner,
but I want to have all of us, including myself, be in a position of understanding fully the kinds of
matters that the Hearing Examiner routinely hears. So that's kind of where we are and why I'm
sending you that, or it's being sent to you by staff.
Generally speaking, for those of you who may not already know, the HEX hears matters
which I think it's fair to characterize are of less consequence than matters we do, and his decisions
are not automatically reviewed by the BCC. They're typically such things as reducing setbacks on
individual residential properties, approval of boat dock extensions over the maximum length of
20 feet, granting of residential variances, allowing residential pool decks to extend seaward of the
coastal construction setback line, et cetera.
In my view, the vast majority of these kinds of matters should, indeed, be heard by the
HEX and not by us, but sometimes such applications are contested. Sometimes there is a special
public interest that has been expressed in a particular matter, and sometimes there's an
extraordinary amount of money that is at issue. And in some of those rare cases, I believe that it's
more appropriate that they be heard by the Planning Commission.
Of course, if we do opt to take up a matter, then it must then go on to the BCC for final
action, and so we don't want to defeat the purpose of the HEX ordinance except for what I would
call significant, very consequential, or contested matters.
Now, one approach that I've been thinking about is for us to establish what I will call more
clear criteria for staff to apply to determine whether a matter should come to us or go to the HEX.
Mark Strain was intuitively aware and sensitive to things that should come to the Planning
Commission, and he would, not infrequently, defer matters or send them over to us. And we have
a new Hearing Examiner, and I'm not sure that he has yet developed the sensitivity that someone
with Mark's level of experience has had. So I believe it is useful for us to take a look at this
question.
And I also presume that if we decide somehow to at least propose changes to the structure
of how matters are decided, whether they go to the HEX or to us, that really we should be
making -- and I guess I'm looking at the County Attorney for this. We should be looking for a
Page 4 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
recommendation from us to the BCC as opposed to some kind of final action on our part.
Would that be correct, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the better way to deal with this would be to have staff review
the issues and for staff to make a recommendation one way or the other, not this board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
And when we come to new matters after we have the scheduled workshop items, I'm going
to invite all of you who wish to comment or make suggestions to staff so that they can consider
them when they take the matter to the Board of County Commissioners. We should have some
time this afternoon for that. So let's defer further action on that for later during the new business.
Okay. Consent agenda, there is none.
***Advertised, we have two companion matters and that's it. The Meridian Landing
small-scale GMPA and the Camden Landing RPUD amendment. They are PUD -- or, excuse me,
PL20190001387 and PL20190001364, respectively. Without objection, as usual, we will hear and
discuss both matters together but vote on them separately.
All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Ex parte communications from the Planning Commission starting with Commissioner
Shea, please.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials; public record.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials and materials also from the applicant and
discussions with staff.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Arnold.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Arnold and also had a conversation with
staff regarding the history of the Serus Point project which was the predecessor and the name that
was given to this project prior to its current name, whatever it's called now. I can't -- but I'll
enlighten more on that when we have the discussion because I want to talk about the --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where we've been.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- petition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No disclosures. All right. With that --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yes, Mr. Klucik. I'm sorry, sir. Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I reviewed the staff materials, and I also met with
staff to discuss them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
With that, we'll begin with applicant's presentation. Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of the applicant on both matters.
With me today are Greg Warderberg, who is the property owner representative; myself;
Mr. Arnold; James Banks -- and is Jeremy here? No -- to answer any questions that you may have
that I can't answer or more specific to their particular areas of expertise.
I'm going to do just a general overview of each of the petitions, talk a little bit about the
history of the project and then have Wayne come up and get into more of the details of both the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD.
The property is identified on this exhibit as Camden Landing. It's approximately
9.93 acres. It's at the intersection of Bayshore and Thomasson, and is currently the Serus Point
PUD. The Serus Point PUD is a PUD that was approved initially in 2005. It was approved as a
project that had an affordable housing density bonus associated with it. It was approved at 108
Page 5 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
units with 44 of those units being affordable housing.
At the time we were getting that project approved, the ability to use density units from the
Botanical Gardens was not an option. So since the property was basically nine units -- 10 units an
acre, the maximum density, as you've seen through your report, was 30 units, and that just was not
a feasible option.
So we came through, and I'm sure Joe will recall, it was slightly contentious, but we did
prevail, and an affordable housing density project was approved.
There are a couple of other projects in this area that are probably in the affordable
workforce housing -- serve that purpose as well as I think Botanical Place was later approved with
an affordable housing density bonus.
The CRA, over the years, became more active -- or the CRA Advisory Board became more
active and preferred that market-rate housing be provided in this area and not have more affordable
housing in the area.
So in 2013, Mr. Arnold and I began the odyssey of trying to convert this PUD to a
market-rate PUD, and in doing that we proposed what we're doing today, basically, which was a
Growth Management Plan amendment to be able to utilize the density bonus units from the
Botanical Gardens and amend the PUD to go to purely market rate.
When we started that process, we initially wanted to do apartments, rental apartments, and
the residents said, we don't want rental apartments. We want for-sale product. So we made
amendments -- we made amendments to that to go to market-rate for-sale product and came to this
body. I don't think maybe -- I don't know if Mrs. Homiak was on there or not at the time when we
got unanimous recommendation of approval on both the Growth Management Plan amendment and
the PUD amendment to go to a market-rate product.
I believe we were on summary agenda when we were continued by the Board of County
Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners -- and this is in, I believe, in your zoning
executive summary, so I just want to get this a little bit more detail and flavor on the record. The
Board of County Commissioners said the original developer received a loan through another entity
to provide affordable housing. Although they did not have a direct relationship with the then
current owner of the property, they wanted that then current owner of the property to pay that
money back prior to rezoning the property to something market rate.
And what I had suggested was, if we did not provide affordable housing as part of the
project, we would repay the $320,000, and that's in your executive summary. I want to give you
the history of why there's a recommendation that those monies be repaid if we don't provide
affordable housing.
I and my client said, it would be unfair to repay the 320,000 that was supposed to go
towards affordable housing and be unsuccessful possibly on the rezone and still have to provide the
affordable housing.
To make a story a little bit longer, five years later we still couldn't get a hearing, and we
were asked to withdraw the zoning petition of the Comp Plan amendment. I think that was in
2017. So we did withdraw those petitions because we couldn't get a hearing.
A new owner buys the property, the new owner is before you today, and started, again, the
process of going to a market-rate product. We thought we were past the issue of what to do with
the repayment. We were held up on having our hearing in front of the Planning Commission.
I went back to the Board of County Commissioners a few months ago, and the Board said,
yes, we understand. We would like the Planning Commission to consider the petition. We'll
address the repayment of those monies if you don't provide affordable housing. So we're here to
hopefully complete a process we began almost eight years ago.
So before you today are two petitions to amend the Growth Management Plan. One is
to -- one is to amend the Growth Management Plan to allow for 127 market-rate units and the
utilization of 97 of the density bonus pool that comes from the Botanical Gardens and to amend the
PUD to go from 108 units, with 44 of those being affordable units, to 127 market-rate units. They
have to be for-sale product.
We went back to the CRA advisory board again about the proposed project. The CRA
Page 6 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
advisory board recommended approval 5-2 for this, what is proposed and before you today. Your
staff is recommending approval of both agenda items, and we don't have any objections to the
conditions in those items.
So after Wayne goes, we'll come back up here again and ask you to recommend approval
to the Board of County Commissioners of both of those items, and I will turn it over to Wayne to
take you through in greater detail the -- and we're frozen -- the petitions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you withdraw --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Mr. Yovanovich, does anyone up here have a question or
comment for Mr. Yovanovich? Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to reiterate on the history of this. Of course,
in my former capacity as the administrator for Community Development, which was the
predecessor to the -- what's now deemed Growth Management Division, this was a pretty
contentious project. And Mr. Yovanovich is correct, it did subsequently reach approval. But I
just want to point out to my colleagues that this was a project, when it was originally proposed
called Serus Point, there was significant opposition due to the height, due to the density, and due to
the setback. And now we're dealing with a project with even greater height, even more density,
and even -- with a reduced setback than what was originally proposed.
But I believe -- and it was my recollection, and I did have a discussion with Cormac on this
as well as James Sabo, regarding the history of this, that there was a lot of opposition, but the
opposition pretty much stemmed on the proposal of affordable housing.
This was market-rate purchased affordable housing units, and that was what led to the
approximately $300,000 being -- coming out of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to help
subsidize the affordable housing. So that was the most significant issue. And I think the
underlying factor was -- though nobody stated it publicly, but the underlying factor of the
opposition was because of the affordable housing.
It was later eliminated, and by that time I was gone. I was in other parts of the world at
that time. And it did receive approval. But I just want my colleagues to know and understand
that the history of this was dealing with a project -- and it had some opposition from Windstar and
from other folks involved and, of course, went through the commissioner at that time for that area
in regards to opposition.
But that said, the staff -- we worked with the developer and at least were, at that time,
successful in getting it approved. I just want to note that, of course, now it's even greater density
than what was once approved, and the height is even greater than what was one of the most
significant issues.
But that all said, this area has changed significantly from what it was back in 2005 with, of
course, the development that has taken place along Thomasson Drive, and I just want you-all to
understand the history of it. Certainly, I'm not in opposition of it; I just want to note the history of
it because it sort of reminds me of let's just let this thing sit for 10 years, and now we'll come back
and we'll get something even more dense and of greater height than what we originally had asked
for.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, just so we're -- the timing. We didn't sit for 10 years.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We were -- we were forced to sit. We came back in. And each
time we've come to the residents with the proposed changes, they've been supportive of the
proposed changes.
You're right, the initial comments about height and density all related to the fact that we
were putting an affordable housing project near some other communities. But we've not had any
substantive resistance to what's before you today. But we did try to get this done in early 2013.
So I just don't want it to appear like it's -- we just sat and sat and waited. We fought and fought to
try to have a hearing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I went back. Not only did I read the transcript of the portion of
Page 7 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
the excerpt of the transcript of the September 8th, 2020, BCC meeting, but I actually went back and
looked at the video to get an even better flavor of the sense of things, at least on the part of the
BCC when it did -- I mean, it voted five to nothing, but there was a concern expressed by both
Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner Solis to be sure that it was understood that the
$320,000 loan is not a quid pro quo for getting greater density. It is -- it is secured. It's
collateralized by a second mortgage on the property, and the only way that it gets released is if
affordable housing is built. So it's not and should not be tied to density.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, it was not a loan. I was, way back then, involved in
this deal. Joe and I just have history here that sometimes gets lost in time.
That money -- think of it more as a partnership, as a public/private partnership on this one.
The county gave the developer $300,000, or whatever the amount was, and developer used that to
purchase the property. And the quid pro quo was, okay, I will now put affordable housing units on
the property. It was not a loan, all right. It was just more in the nature of a public/private
partnership than anything else. And anybody subsequent could still develop that property under
the terms of that PUD, in which case the county's benefit of the bargain would have been met.
The issue has been that subsequent to that deal there have been a number of people
interested in developing that property as market rate. At that point in time, well, if you're going to
do market rate and the county invested $300,000 to get into affordable housing, then we need our
money back.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's how I understand it as well.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Just to muddy the waters a little bit more, the actual loan,
the monies went to, I believe -- and Cormac, if I get the entity wrong -- was the Collier County
Housing Authority, which was not a county agency. The county gave the money to the Collier
County Housing Authority who then entered into the arrangements with the previous developer,
Mr. Fields. Just to be -- just to make sure we have it factually correct.
It is secured by a second mortgage, and we don't need to get into the details of where
second mortgages fall into it. But at the end of the day, I think maybe Mr. Fryer was on this board
when someone else brought forward another PUD amendment to actually do affordable housing on
the property a year or two ago, I think it was, and I think this board unanimously -- and,
Ms. Homiak, I know you were on the Board -- unanimously recommended not -- for this project
not to be developed as an affordable housing project.
So I think what we're trying to do is get to what the residents want, which is a market-rate
project. We think under the merits it's a good project. Absolutely correct, the money has nothing
to do with the density, but there has to be a commitment that if we don't build affordable housing,
the money gets repaid. And that's -- there's no quid pro quo. It's just that if we don't build
affordable housing, that's what the Commission wants to see happen.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I would like to say, for my part, that I agree with
those -- well, starting with former Commissioner Fiala and others who have observed, that there is
already, perhaps, an excessive amount, or putting it, perhaps, better, that East Naples is
experiencing or shouldering more than its fair share of affordable housing.
So I personally would like to find a way to get to yes on this. And the fact that we're
losing some affordable housing here, potentially, I think, should be offset by affordable housing in
other districts.
But it's just, I think, very important for us to mention that the developer is coming in with
more than just wanting to pay back the money and get market-rate housing. There's also the issue
of greater density, greater height, and things that are not at all tied to that, because if the affordable
housing isn't built, that money has to be paid back.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, presumably, the value of the second mortgage was factored
into the purchase price when your clients bought it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We've already said we don't have an issue with -- if affordable
Page 8 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
housing isn't built on the property, having those monies paid back.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not an issue. And I believe when you get to the merits of
what we're proposing, hopefully you'll agree with the CRA, because we are going to be pushing the
price points in this area and, you know, taking a leap of faith that this is going to -- this is going to
further benefit the CRA with higher-priced units, and when we go through that presentation,
hopefully you'll agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, then Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I, just for the record, though, want to note that
there certainly wasn't anything nefarious done by Mr. Fields. Jim Fields was a very -- in my
opinion, very honorable guy, and when -- as Jeff pointed out, when this all was negotiated,
unfortunately, he also got hit by the -- many other developers got hit at this time as the economic
downturn that kind of put an end to the first proposal on this.
So in that regard, but it is -- in fact, I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that the loan is tied to
affordable housing, and if there's no affordable housing then, as we approach a recommendation, it
would be contingent -- the zoning is not contingent upon the repayment. The removal of the
affordable housing density bonus would trigger the repayment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Vernon, then Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: You mentioned the CRA several times; they voted 5-2.
Can you tell me, the two who dissented or opposed --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- what -- summarize what their concerns were.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The two that dissented, it was height. And we explained why we
needed the additional height, to get the more modern ceilings, to get another floor so we can get
enough units to make it economically viable to develop the property. That -- those were basically
the concerns of the dissenters. The five in favor understood the rationale for what we were asking
for and supported it 5-2 to move forward.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're also facing a change in the base flood elevation on
that -- since the original zoning, are you not?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll have to defer that to Wayne. But if we are, it's measured from
there anyway, so -- but, you know, again, it was exactly those issues that we've historically had.
You know, what -- if we have to do an affordable housing project, we'll do an affordable housing.
Not our first choice, not the community's first choice. But we have to get to a certain balance in
order for it to be economically viable to take the risk to invest the kind of money --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Rich. Two questions. First, just to be clear, if this is
approved as a market-rate project, the $320,000 will be paid back?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. And second, by my math, 97 density bonus
units/credits out of 388 is about 25 percent of those --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I trust your math.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- of the available credits.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the process -- is the CRA responsible for approving
those 97 to be allocated to this project? I just wanted a little bit more insight into how those 97
units are allocated, because if they're used on this project, they aren't going to be used on the next
project. So please explain that process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Board is the actual CRA. There's a CRA advisory board that
we go to, but the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the CRA is the entity that decides
which projects can use the 388 units that were created from the Botanical Gardens. For example,
the project across the street from this that Mattamy Homes is building, some units were
allocated -- of those bonus units were allocated to that project. We're asking the Board allocate to
Page 9 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
this project those units. Others may come in later and say we would like -- we would like some of
these units. So the Board of County Commissioners ultimately decides, sitting as their -- as the
CRA, how to divvy up or allocate the 388 units.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So they are not preapproved; they are yet to be approved by the
BCC?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Part of what we're doing will have them allocate to us those units.
And in your agenda you'll see if we don't use them within a seven-year period of time, they go
back. So you can't just tie them up and hope some day you're going to use them. There's a time
frame by which to use them.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Commissioner Klucik if he has any questions
before Mr. Yovanovich brings up Mr. Arnold.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I think we're ready for Mr. Arnold.
MR. YOVANOVICH: All righty. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do apologize. My mute button was on, and I couldn't
find it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have a question before Mr. Yovanovich steps aside?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm
Wayne Arnold, a certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And as Rich gave you
quite a summary of the odyssey of getting here -- and I think that was a good term, because it's a
long road, and hopefully we can bring some closure to this in the next couple of months.
So one of the other -- just to build on what Commissioner Fry said, one of the other
projects that you-all were involved in was the Courthouse Shadows project. They also received an
allocation of density in order to be able to make that project work as a market-rate project in the
CRA boundary. So between that, Mattamy, and this project, those are the only three potential
recipients to date of those allocated units that come from the Botanical Garden.
So I'm going to go through some of the details. Rich has already told you about the
existing zoning and change, and one of the changes we are making that I don't think Rich
mentioned specifically is that we're changing the name of the project from Serus Point to Camden
Landing. So we will break free from the Serus Point past, and we will move forward as Camden
Landing on the project.
So as Rich said, we're amending your Future Land Use Element under the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle description to add language that specifically talks about the allocation
of the units to this specific piece of property. It's going to allow 127 multifamily dwellings or
townhouses, condominiums, and the language is further noted that it's to be a for-sale product. It's
not a rental community. It's a for-sale product.
We've modified the master plan, and I'll take you through some of those changes. We've
modified the Development Standards Table, and we have a couple of deviations that are necessary
to bring forth the development plan that the developer needs. That's the allocation of units that
Rich talked about, so I don't need to spend more time on that.
Our subdistrict language is in your document, but it's very specific to this piece of property.
We are a small-scale amendment because it affects a piece of property less than 10 acres.
We have two deviations. One is a parking deviation for our amenity center. The project
is compact. We don't feel that the very small amenity center needs more parking than just a
couple of spaces. So we have a handicapped parking space and a couple of other drop-off spaces.
We think that people will be walking to the pool and small community structure. It's not a large
clubhouse. It's not a large number of units that are sharing it. So staff is supporting that
Page 10 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
deviation.
The second deviation results in an open-space deviation, which is unique. It's the first one
that I think I've been involved in, but it's -- it's justified in the sense that the right-of-way that gets
allocated as part of this project for the Thomasson improvements takes away just enough land. So
we've asked for a minor deviation to go from a 60 percent open space down to 54 percent open
space, which is the number that results from the project that you'll see in just a moment.
Staff is also supporting that, and it's justified. The county's getting a usable piece of
property that helps them complete their streetscape improvements.
The approved master plan is a very generic bubble plan. A lot of the elements have not
changed. Our only access point will be from Thomasson Drive about midpoint of the project, and
the preserve area that's shown on the existing master plan that's shaped around the north and west
side of the property will continue.
This is the new proposed master plan. Again, the access point is midpoint on Thomasson
Drive. This plan is a little more specific in that we've identified the amenity center area as the AA
area, and we have the preserve that's still along the northern and western, and it wraps down along
part of the eastern portion of the property. If you've made a site visit, you've seen that the county
is actively using that site as a construction staging ground for the Thomasson improvements.
That's something that the applicant volunteered to let the county utilize. They didn't have any
really other good places to do that, and it's in the middle of our site that will hopefully be
developed for the residential structures. It doesn't impact the preserve area or any other feature.
The applicant has been doing a lot of research in the market. They really are trying to
bring forward sort of the -- probably the highest level of housing that's going to be developed or
has been developed to date in this corridor. So they are coming along with what's considered a
more coastal contemporary type of architectural structure. Light gray roofing, concrete block
construction, impact glass, stucco finishes, balcony railings, and all HVAC units will be located on
rooftops and not at ground level.
Floor plans, basically we have 16 units per building, so the buildings are fairly small in
scale. One of the units will have 15 units, so we get to the 127. But the units that they're looking
at in terms of the concepts today, the smallest unit's around 1,500 square feet; significantly greater
than what's permitted as the affordable rental project that's there today. I think that aspect of the
project and the architecture was well received by the residents and the CRA Advisory Board.
This is a rendering of that master plan that gives you sort of the aerial view of this, and
we've depicted the future roundabout at the corner of Thomasson and Bayshore Drive. And,
again, you see the site features. And separating us from our nearest project to the north will be the
preserve area and enhanced landscape buffer. Small amenity areas, I noted, and then the buildings
will front on both Thomasson and facing the preserve.
The buildings are four stories over parking. I think it's important to note that most of the
parking is under building. That also is part of the reason that the height gets elevated,
Mr. Schmitt. But Christian Andrea created some architectural renderings to show what some of
the views would look like. And we have views from the future roundabout that's at Bayshore and
Thomasson along Thomasson Drive, along Bayshore Drive. And we showed these same
renderings to the CRA advisory board, and I think generally they were well received. And as Rich
said, the dissenters were really about whether or not the height of four stories over parking was just
too tall for the area. And I think when we showed the renderings and how the landscape as it
matures was going to shield that view, especially as you're closer to the roadway -- you know, if
you're walking as a pedestrian or driving along Thomasson or Bayshore, the heavier landscaping is
going to obscure the building. You don't have long views to these buildings. So the view over
the landscaping doesn't occur very many places.
More renderings showing you what the buildings will look like. Again, four stories over
parking. I know that staff at the CRA advisory board had talked about this in relationship to the
Naples Square project, which is located at Goodlette and 41 in the City of Naples, and some of the
buildings may be as tall but, again, with 16 units maximum per building, the entire scale of these
buildings is substantially less than those buildings in Naples Square, which I think most of us have
Page 11 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
driven by and are familiar with that.
That's really the bulk of our presentation. I know that we spent a lot of time talking to
staff and the CRA advisory board. The two conditions you've talked about; the one condition,
which was the repayment of the dollars if this does not get developed for affordable housing. The
other condition is really a condition that's already in the PUD document that we were striking, and
staff asked if we would commit to retaining that language, and it's about a proportionate-share
payment for some of the streetscape enhancements along the front of our property.
And Mr. Warderberg, who's here representing the property owner, indicated our
agreeability to do that and retain that. So one of the changes we would make would be to unstrike
the language that's stricken as one of your conditions.
And, I found notes where we had spoken to Deb Forester previously, and it looks like the
dollars are somewhere around $140,000 plus or minus. I don't know the exact amount. But we
would also pay that money, and that's one of your conditions that we agree to.
So with that, I'll be happy to answer specific questions you may have about the project
and -- or Rich will, and --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then we'll go with Commissioner Vernon
and then Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Arnold, how many of the 388 density bonus units from
Botanical Gardens are allocated between this project, Mattamy Homes, and Courthouse Shadows
that you referenced earlier?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that takes up about 75 percent of the units available. Each
project can have a maximum of 25 percent of those, which is the 97 units. So we're asking for the
maximum allocation that we can achieve.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So the other two projects made similar requests, it sounds like.
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct, yeah, I think so. I'd have to go back and look at each,
but I think they did, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Has there been any resistance to having 75 percent of
the units allocated at this point with only three projects? I mean, have you -- has there been
objection within the CRA advisory board or otherwise?
MR. ARNOLD: No, I wouldn't characterize there is any objection. I mean, they're there
to be used to help stimulate development activity in this corridor, and I can assure you that they're
absolutely necessary for this to achieve a market-rate status.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Regarding the parking deviation, you have shown a
pool and a small cabana. But I believe in the text it allows other uses like pickleball and other
recreational activities. Your parking deviation is based on the minimal amenity area uses.
What -- is there language that restricts adding additional activities after approval that would then
require additional parking that is not provided?
MR. ARNOLD: If we deviated from the plan today, which is the small cabana with a
pool, then it might be. The parking calculation for amenity centers is tied to square footage of
your pool surface area, square footage of the actual building itself, and then separately for tennis
courts, et cetera.
We don't think that we're going to have an opportunity to have an outdoor recreational
component other than in this area. If you look at this master plan that's rendered there, I mean, the
areas that could be are really allocated for resident parking. So unless there would be some sort of
rooftop feature, then the parking deviation, I don't think, would even be necessary.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So if you changed the amenities, then the staff would
have an opportunity to require additional parking?
MR. ARNOLD: I think they would, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Vernon.
Page 12 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I'm not quite -- I have one more question.
You showed the architectural design concepts which was a list of architectural features. If
you'd go back to that slide. Are those commitments, or are those serving suggestions?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's the concept of which this plan has come forward,
those coastal contemporary styling points, and that's what those represent. I don't know if there's a
hard commitment. I haven't seen any renderings that don't reflect that style. So I don't know
what to say. I mean, if you're asking us if that's a commitment, I think there are -- certain things
we're committed to, which is to have -- you know, I didn't -- one of the things I didn't point out, that
units are going to have balconies and there's going to be railings that are architecturally detailed, et
cetera.
COMMISSIONER FRY: In the past on other issues -- and, Commissioner Schmitt,
you've got a lot of experience with this -- we have -- we have included a condition that the actual
product does resemble the renderings. I can't remember the exact language. But what is your
recollection of that?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, we typically -- you're correct on the -- in regards
to the -- if they show the rendering, it typically should be stated that the -- what is submitted
is -- would comply or resemble what was presented at the public hearing. But in regards to
specific comments that -- like are stated here, I don't recall in the past whether we get -- we're
concerned about concrete block and tie beam construction. All those kind of things -- many of
these things are already in the code or part of the architectural standards as outlined. I
would -- but I leave it up to you if you want to put that in as -- in the proposal but, typically, we
don't get to that kind of detail.
What was the other point I wanted to make, though? In regards to -- in regards to that,
though, is it would be part of the architectural review, but we don't have an architectural review
committee, so it's a matter of staff making sure that what is presented, it complies with it. And
like everything else, we -- in Collier County, we went from stucco and Tuscan look to coastal
contemporary to next week it will be something different. So it's difficult to tie it, because, you
know, maybe next week it will be Key West, whatever. So that's the only danger in regards to
being that specific.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
One last question, Wayne. The -- what are the actual heights of other projects in the area?
You're -- I believe you're asking for 61 feet zoned and 71 feet actual, or I may be off by 10.
MR. ARNOLD: No, you're correct. And I do have -- some of the other projects in the
immediate area, I have a list that I made. If I can just locate it here in my file, I will be happy to
share that with you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: And the question really has to -- it really goes to, is this height
significantly out of balance with the surrounding properties, or is it slightly higher, or is it the same
or less?
MR. ARNOLD: It's -- it will be the tallest, there's no question about that. The other
projects that have been approved in the area vary in height, but their actual heights -- for instance,
at Arboretum across the street that Mattamy Homes is developing, they had an actual height of
50 feet, and at Botanical Place, which is located to the north, they have a 50-foot height, zoned
height, so there's no expressed actual height for that project. But the zoned height was 50 feet, and
it's four-story maximum. So in this particular case, we're asking for a zoned height of 61 feet. So
we're about a story above.
And part of the discussion that Mr. Warderberg had at the CRA meeting was, you know,
looking for very modern buildings. We want high floor-ceiling plates. We have underbuilding
parking. So when you start adding 11, 12 feet per floor, it's easy to get up to that 61 feet. And, of
course, we want nice architectural features, which is why we asked for the additional 10 feet to get
the embellishments as part of the -- as Rich says, the tippy-top actual height.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So you are aiming for at least 10 feet -- 10-foot ceilings inside
each unit?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, at least.
Page 13 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll go in this order. Commissioners Vernon, then
Klucik, then Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Actually, I was going to touch on both the same issues
Commissioner Fry touched on. And just thinking about it, if I lived there, I had guests there, how
much do you have for guest parking?
MR. ARNOLD: We didn't ask for a deviation from parking, but anything more than a
one-bedroom unit requires two parking spaces per unit in Collier County. That includes guest
parking.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: So there's no designated guest parking?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if we're that far along yet to know that a guest parking
space is designated under this plan. It's --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And there's no room for guest parking at the amenities? I
guess that's what I'm concerned about. And probably a lot of people have one car. But if
everybody has two cars, there's absolutely no place for any guest to park.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think just the experience that I've had on many other projects, the
typical buyer at the price points these are going to be are going to be what's called older adults.
They're not going to be families. So the necessity to have two vehicles as a, you know, early
retiree may not be necessary. You've got, we think, a lot of other assets in the community that
allow walkability, like the community park. There are schools nearby. There's the boat ramp
park. There's the Botanical Gardens. And so there are a lot of features there that provide for
walkability.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. But that's just one of my concerns. If somebody
had a party or something, there's just -- people will be parking everywhere, I would think, because
there just doesn't seem to be anything in the way of guest parking.
The other one was with respect -- going back to my question for Rich, on the two
dissenters in terms of the -- I mean, you can answer, probably. The two dissenters who were
concerned about the height, did they voice any alternative or just say it's too high?
MR. ARNOLD: I think their alternative was similar to staff's position at the time, remove
a story. And we said, losing a story means we lose 16 units across the project; it makes it
infeasible to develop it.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's all I had.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I had a really simple question. When I was looking
at, you know, the drawings -- and maybe you can bring it up -- of the -- when you show the
drawings, are they oriented as a map would be, the north/south, east/west? And I'm talking about,
like, the map drawings.
MR. ARNOLD: The rendering that's on the screen --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that north south, east, west like a map would be as far
as --
MR. ARNOLD: It is, yes. North is on top.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So if you go just north of that to the community
that's just north of that -- that's fine. We don't need to look at it, but it seems as though the large
wooded buffer is on the east end of the project rather than the west end, and I'm just, you know,
wondering why, you know, they picked the opposite end.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Klucik, it reflects really where the best-quality vegetation is that
needed to be retained on site. It's also going to function as part of the water management system
for the project. So it's been strategically placed for not only because of the vegetation, but it
provides, then, the buffer to our neighbors to the north.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else, Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I have no other questions. Thank you.
Page 14 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Wayne, on this drawing here you show the traffic
circle, and it appears, and the southern portion must be some kind of an indent for a bus stop. Are
those improvements part of the project? Are you putting a traffic circle in, or is that -- will that
just be something that's funded as part of impact fees given to the county?
MR. ARNOLD: The road improvements, Mr. Schmitt, that are underway today on
Thomasson Drive will eventually include the roundabout.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: So the roundabout is part of the county's project for Thomasson Drive.
It's a CRA-sponsored project. And part of our impact fee dollars would presumably go to that.
Some of the tax dollars that are paid here will go to the MSTU that will also fund some of the
improvements; likewise, the commitment that staff's asked us to restate in the PUD. The
streetscape plans, those are -- there's some beautification elements that I'm not sure of what all of
those are, but there's some street lighting, there's some pathway enhancements, there's some other
landscape materials that those dollars will help fund.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So it's no -- nothing connected to the project itself
other than -- it's staff and then the monies from impact fees or elsewhere will be funding this.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
I have a comment, and it has to do with traffic. Do you want to handle it, Mr. Arnold, or
do you want your traffic engineer?
MR. ARNOLD: I guess it depends on your questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Depends on how hard it is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I'll ask it, and --
MR. ARNOLD: If it involves math, I'll ask Mr. Banks to answer it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It has to do with the East Trail Segment 92, which
pursuant --
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Banks is your man.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was quick.
MR. ARNOLD: I knew the answer.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good thing you brought Jim along.
MR. BANKS: He heard the number 92, and he panicked.
For the record, Jim Banks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Banks, under the 2020 AUIR, Segment 92 of the East Trail
has become deficient.
MR. BANKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're aware of that?
MR. BANKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And, furthermore, whether you're going out Thomasson or
Bayshore, either way, the traffic would have to come in and out of that segment, correct?
MR. BANKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. So my concern is is that when you go from 108 dwelling
units to 127 dwelling units and your computation tells you that that adds 10 more peak p.m. trips,
and you think to yourself, well, 10 doesn't sound like a large number, it's de minimus, but the
trouble is if each subsequent developer comes in and asks for de minimus, pretty soon you have
really created a significant problem. You've exacerbated the deficiency on Segment 92, and that's
of concern to me.
MR. BANKS: Okay. And I -- not to down-play. It's actually six additional directional
trips. We measure impacts on the road networks based upon the peak direction. So we're actually
six additional vehicles, not 10 additional vehicles.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But they're additional vehicles nonetheless.
Page 15 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. BANKS: But there are additional vehicles, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I anticipate that your argument is that this is de minimus.
MR. BANKS: It is de minimus, and we are in the south U.S. 41 TCA district, so there is
ways to mitigate projects, and we will be dealing with that when we deal with Matt McLean's
department when we come in for our site development approvals.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: My personal opinion, those mitigation factors are ineffectual, but
that's another conversation.
So, again, my main problem with this is that subsequent developers will come in and have
low numbers, whether it's 6 or 10, and pretty soon in the aggregate you have really made your
deficiency much worse, substantially worse. And what, if anything, can we as a Planning
Commission do about it?
COMMISSIONER FRY: To your point, Commissioner Fryer, I mean, just to throw this
in, we could review the mitigation strategies. And I don't know if this is within our purview or
how that would happen, but come up with -- I agree with you in a lot of ways. The strategies may
not be effective or mitigate the additional traffic you're putting on the roads, but I guess the
question is, how do you change what those mitigation strategies are so that they truly do have an
impact?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I -- unless other planning commissioners want to weigh in
on this, it's -- and I'm just giving staff a heads-up -- I spoke with them about it two days ago, and I
want to talk with them about it again and find out whether there are any practical solutions for us,
or we are just absolutely stuck.
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, God, you say no. If anybody -- anytime somebody asks for an
increase in density, you can say no, all right. So, you know, it's -- and it will be part of my
presentation. You're the Planning Commission. It's on you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, Mr. Fryer, my understanding is the trips that we're
putting on that segment, under the analysis that's in your Comprehensive Plan and in your LDC and
in your TIS, you do a 3-2-2 analysis.
MR. BANKS: Two-two-three.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Two-two-three, I'm sorry. So we don't -- where those trips are
occurring are beyond where we would be doing the analysis.
So under your current rule, yes, you know, we technically probably put a trip anywhere in
Collier County. I mean, but your analysis is focused in a confined area, 2-2-3, and you keep going
until you get under the 3. And we're not tripping any of the analysis that, under your current
rules -- and I know Mr. Klatzkow's going to get up there and say you could still say no. I don't
want to -- but I'm just saying, under the traffic analysis, we're not violating the traffic analysis
review in your Comp Plan and your LDC and your TIS.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just clarification, for either you or the applicant.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: When we do these analyses, like, for instance, we've got 398
credits available for higher density. When you come up with the analysis that we're doing right
now, do we consider the -- like Mattamy and the others that have already started using some of
these credits? Because, obviously, these credits are going to make it even worse because you're
building higher density than the original plan was. But are they considered in the analysis, the
ones that are actually under construction?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a very good question and, of course, it has to do with the
concept of a trip bank. And my suggestion is is that we wait until staff's presentation, and we --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to correct one thing for Mr. Shea. The units, the 388
units, came off of another piece of property that was -- so that density was already planned for
under the Comprehensive Plan. So we're not increasing -- even though we're moving -- we're
moving that planned-for density from the same area to this particular piece of property. So those
388 units were already factored in under the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 16 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER SHEA: My only point is, we're already at a crisis situation with the
highway, so however it was planned before isn't working.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we, the county --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- created a TCEA, which is an exception area, and two TCMAs,
if I'm correct, management areas, recognizing that there were going to be some areas that you're
simply not going to be able to build your way out of, so you're going to look at it globally;
85 percent of the links within a certain area have to meet the adopted level of service.
The county recognized that, because I'm sure Mr. Klatzkow would tell you what it would
cost the county to build their way out to meet its obligation under the Comprehensive Plan just was
never going to happen. I think Mr. Schmitt may have even been around when all of those of
revisions to the Comprehensive Plan came about.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else have questions for the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, do you have anything further, sir?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. We'll just respond to any further questions you may have
or anything that may come up through the staff review and if there are public speakers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. If there's nothing further for the applicant at this time,
we'll ask staff to make its presentation, please.
Mr. Sabo.
MR. SABO: Good morning. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager.
Give me a moment here to -- I will go through these slides quickly. Not too quickly. I'll
make sure to cover all the points.
The project is Camden Landing, the PUDA, as well as Meridian Landings, the GMPA,
those staff numbers. The Growth Management Plan, it's small scale, 9.93 acres, increasing density
from 10.89 to 12.8, and they are using that 388 density pool -- units from density pool.
Those four points -- I won't go over them, but those four points are how the credits -- the
bonus pool credits are allocated.
The change is from 108 to 127, again, using the 30 base units, which is the urban coastal
fringe subdistrict, 30, and then adding the 97 to get to 127.
There is a seven-year time limit on which to use those credits, and it is related to
market-rate housing.
For zoning they -- again, 108 to 127. They increased height from 40 to 71 feet actual.
Two deviations proposed; we're recommending approval for those: Essentially, the parking and
the open-space requirement.
The Community Redevelopment Agency, the advisory board, Ms. Ellen Summers is here if
we have questions of the advisory board, and Mr. Cormac Giblin is here as well if there's issues or
questions related to affordable housing.
So the PUD language added a commitment to pay the third of the costs of the Thomasson
right-of-way improvements and, again, that was a 5-2 support.
This is from Community and Human Services. They requested to eliminate the affordable
housing density bonus. Bottom line is if the developer intends to eliminate the 32 affordable
housing units, then $320,000 should be immediately repaid to the county's Affordable Housing
Trust Fund, and Mr. Giblin can clarify.
Now, the recommendation here, two stipulations: The CRA stipulation, and then the
affordable housing repayment -- or recommendation on repayment of the $320,000.
I'm here to answer any questions, and Mr. Giblin and Ms. Summers are here as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I thought that there was a third. I mean, we've got the
one-third payment for the Thomasson improvements. We've got the 320,000 repayment. Wasn't
there another staff condition?
MR. SABO: I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is staff supportive of the deviations requested by the applicant?
Page 17 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. SABO: Yes. We find them to be reasonable.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm going to ask -- it sounds like a basic question, but why
is height important? I mean, from my perspective, primarily, looks, aesthetics, number one -- or
not number one, but one of the reasons. The other reason is density. It's just another way to talk
about density, and which leads to the traffic issue.
So why -- am I missing something? Is that why height is important? Is that -- are those
the factors I'm looking at in deciding height issues?
MR. SABO: For density? That's their request. Their request is height so they can get
their density and they can park underneath the building. Ms. Summers did a very detailed analysis
of the height for the CRA board. I would defer to her in terms of the research that she did related
to the height.
But they -- my understanding is they want height to create that density, and they -- and
they're moving from 10.89 to 12.8 units.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. And I just -- very generic question, and I'm
probably not asking it well. But just, generically speaking, why should staff -- or why should me
and my colleagues be worried about height? It's how it looks, how it fits in the community, and
density, which leads to traffic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I take a crack at it --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and then be --
COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to make sure I'm not missing something.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to -- and be corrected if I'm incorrect.
But as we have looked at previous projects -- and I'll just take, for example, One Naples.
The subject of canyonization comes up, and that is a concept that involves height and setbacks and
compatibility with other heights in the nearly surrounding area. It's -- arguably it is subjective, but
it is a concept that is important, I think, from planning purposes, and height is one of the elements
to be considered. Did I --
MR. SABO: You did a great job.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. If -- now it's time to go to Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: This is a general question for staff. I'm not sure who is best to
answer it. But in my two years on this commission, I've noticed a pattern. That pattern is that
every applicant says, we cannot reduce density. We cannot reduce height. We cannot reduce the
number of units. We cannot reduce the number of vehicles because the project will no longer be
financially feasible.
I do not have the expertise to understand whether those are true statements. I certainly
like to take people at their word, and I know that these are upstanding citizens before us.
But does the county staff have anyone in the process pathway of these projects that actually
can vet a reasonable balance between density and height and units and the financial feasibility of
projects so that we up here -- because as our illustrative attorney says, we can say no but, you
know, I have to say, I'm often feeling like that's too high, that's too many units, that's too dense, but
nobody else in -- the staff is not saying no, and it's very hard for me to know that it's justifiable to
say no or to ask for a reduction in any of these things.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Keep in mind that you only see the rezones. There are projects that
are done in this county under land that was previously granted development rights at whatever
density it is. You could task staff to study that, okay, whether or not it's, indeed, necessary to have
the increased density or are people actually developing property with less density. They're your
staff. You can task them with that if the majority of this board wants them to do that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So look at the data of other projects that were developed with
less density and still considered financially feasible by the applicants, is what you're saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
Page 18 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: One thing that I want to get confirmation on. It's my
understanding that neither staff nor the Planning Commission gets access to the internal business
plan where we could really see the projected profit to be made off of these developments.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. If I may, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Services
Manager.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please.
MR. BELLOWS: The criteria that staff reviews all rezone applications is contained in
your staff report. It's in the Land Development Code, and there's several criteria, many criteria,
both PUD and rezoning criteria. That type of financial impact or feasibility is not a criteria that is
in the Land Development Code, and we don't have the expertise to understand what is financially
feasible or not, so we don't -- that's not part of the requirement of a rezone.
In regards to building heights and density, that's regulated through setbacks and capacity of
the roadway. If there's capacity, then taller buildings could be allowed in order to provide those
trips. But it's also a design feature, and if you're looking for compatibility with surrounding areas,
a very tall building next to single-family homes may not be as compatible. So that's part of the
subjective review by staff in the staff report.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the final analysis is, I believe, that when an applicant stands
up and pushes back, if you will, by saying if we knock off 16 units from this project, what we've
done is we have crossed over the line between profit and loss, we must take the applicant's word for
that, because we don't have access to business plans; is that a fair statement?
MR. BELLOWS: For one developer it may be true. For another developer, they may be
able to work it out financially. So that's a hard decision to know, because one builder may say I
can't do it for that cost. Another might be able to do it for that cost.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, you said that
we have to take their word for it. I mean, to state it another way, you know, you can say that a
project is unsightly or you could say the project is beautiful, and in the same way you can say -- I
mean, you could give objective data if you wanted to, if you were an applicant, you know, to show
why you're saying that it's, you know, not feasible. But if they don't present that data, it seems to
be -- you know, I don't even think we should even consider it taking them at their word. What
we're doing is we're relying on a factor that's -- in that context without data is very, very, you know,
subjective rather than objective, and I think we can give whatever weight we want to to that, and I
think that we need to be basing our decision then on, you know, whatever other criteria are there,
and it seems like in the code, you know, under the rules that apply to this process, in the end, the
county commissioners can impose, you know, extra criteria, you know, for or against, you know, in
making their decision. You know, they can really decide whatever they want. We have to try to
go by whatever the objective guidelines are.
And so I think we factor it in, I think we generally give benefit of the doubt, you know, to
our fellow commissioner's, you know, concern that there seems to be a pattern. I think that that's
good to point that out. There is a pattern. And I think we tend to make our assessments as
commissioners, and I think that's all we can do. I don't think there's a better way to factor this in,
but maybe I'm wrong.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, and I take your point, and I agree with it that it may
go to the weight of the evidence. And some developers, some applicants might come in with
business plans to demonstrate -- or a third-party economic analysis to demonstrate where the point
of crossing from profit to loss is so that we could make a more objective analysis, but without that,
a -- if you will, with all due respect, a bald statement that we can't do it unless we have those 16
units may not be entitled to as much weight as some other evidence that is substantiated.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I agree, Mr. Chairman, and I think that that's -- I think
that's the risk that an applicant takes that we're just going to accept an assertion like that. And I
don't see why we would accept assertions like that in a vacuum. I think, you know, we have to
Page 19 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
base it on what we see from, you know, from -- you know, if we have an applicant, for instance,
that's been active and they tend to, you know, be known to do good projects and have good results
that the neighboring communities are -- you know, are pleased with and that the community seems
to be pleased with, they would probably get more -- their claims or assertions would receive more
weight and more credibility than the others, you know, without -- without the data that might help
us be more objective about our analysis.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's all I have to say. I think it's a good point, and I'm
glad it was raised.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got -- I've got two before you, but I'll -- let's go first with
Commissioner Fry, then Commissioner Shea, then Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I just think that I brought this up because it's a general concern.
I do think there's a fine line, because these are private entities coming in, and there is some privacy
that goes with having a private entity. I'm a small business owner, and I believe in everybody's
right to make a profit. So it is not about extracting sacrifice from the applicant. It's simply us
being judicious in our decisions up here.
In this particular case, you know, we have an advisory board for the area, which I would
assume is intimately -- much more intimately aware of the circumstances in that area, and they
have voted 5-2 in favor of this. So I find this to be less of an issue on this than something that is
highly contested.
You brought up One Naples, and I think that is one where they're building a very large
project with a lot of units. And, you know, is it important that they might be able to scale it down
and still make it financially successful? I think that would be more important in that type of an
instance than in this one. There's no opposition, at least, that we've heard of as of yet. So I just
think it is a fine line. But I appreciate the conversation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, my comments were along the same lines. There's a lot
of criteria that are very project specific, and for me one of the inputs, among many, is always are
you getting a strong opposition from the neighborhood? And I don't -- I don't see that here, like
we did with One Naples where it was so out of whack that the neighbors just, you know, came out
in droves to protest it. I don't see that here.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Just very specific on the issue of: Well, we can't
do the project if you do this. To me, this is sort of the number-one conceptual issue that I've
struggled with since I've been on the Board, and my position may evolve, but as it sits here today,
my opinion -- and this is a personal opinion just from sitting here and trying to figure it out, a
quasi-judiciary board is, to me -- whether they're going to make a profit or not or whether they say
they can or can't do the project is almost irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I was going to see what Joe thought, because he's
been doing this a lot longer than I have. So he agrees with me.
But the only time I think it is relevant and it is, in my opinion, appropriate to think about it
is when we think about what's going to be there if we don't approve it. And I think that came into
play with One Naples.
So I kind of was kind of like, am I going too far in my analysis here with One Naples?
But I say no because I think they credibly presented that what might be there is an alternative that
we had a lot of concerns about.
So it can become relevant because our job, I think, is to, you know, help see this
community grow in the right way. So it can become relevant if we're looking at what will be there
if we deny this.
Page 20 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
But other than that -- and this is my personal opinion -- and it sounds like Joe agrees with
me -- it's really not relevant because -- why I think that is it gets us so deep into the weeds -- almost
we're becoming a codeveloper, and we're saying, what's a fair profit? And I'm just philosophically
not comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just to clarify, and I do believe -- or I agree with
Chris.
The only place we have any capability of reviewing the economic feasibility of a project is
through the SRA, because that is in the code. And if you recall, any SRA-type application in the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area is supposed to be economically -- what's the term? Within 10 years
it's got to be economically equal or --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Self-sufficient.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- self-sufficient.
So even if you recall then when we discussed an SRA application, we're still not privy to
the inner-workings of the model. You recall Mark Strain, when he was chair, wanted to have
access to that so he could play with the numbers. But I think that's way beyond our scope as
planning commissioners.
Ray is correct, their criteria is clearly spelled out in the Land Development Code, which in
your staff report they cover the rezoning criteria, and the applicant's criteria, which staff does the
analysis, none of which discusses the economic feasibility. It really -- it doesn't. And I don't
think -- I don't think we want to go down that avenue, just my opinion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling on the -- oh, Commissioner
Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to comment on what you were saying, Commissioner
Vernon. If you remember One Naples, the opposition called it the parade of horribles, that is,
presented as, oh, if you don't approve this, this is what's going to happen.
And in talking -- and I won't name names, but in talking with several people that have lots
of experience at the county, I kind of have arrived at a different point of -- a little bit different
interpretation of that in that they said that while those things are technically possible, in most cases
the economics of the projects that would -- that would realistically be developed are generally not
as intense as what is presented as what might go there.
And so it -- for myself, it kind of deluded that argument a little bit for me in that there -- I
believe there, overall, is a more reasonable balance struck even if we don't approve something
between what might end up there than what might be presented as the extreme possibility. So I
just wanted to throw that out there.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're just saying that in advocating they may be
suggesting that it's going to be worse than it might actually be as practical matter?
COMMISSIONER FRY: They may be overstating what would actually be economically
feasible and realistic to ever get developed there.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, and I do agree with that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signaling on the deliberator. I'll ask our two
commissioners who don't have access to that if they have anything further. Commissioner Vernon
or Commissioner Klucik, anything further, gentlemen?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'll ask Mr. Sabo to wind up.
MR. SABO: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. One of the things I did want to mention, you
brought height into the discussion. The Planning Commission always has the opportunity to
present maybe a negotiation. So if you are not comfortable with the heights as they are, you can
present to them, all right, we'll give you 71 feet on interior buildings, and because the ones
near -- front the street will have a greater impact, we'll give you one less story on those buildings
Page 21 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
that front the street. Now, the developer may object, obviously, but that's within your purview.
And then Mr. Klatzkow also said that you can say no as well, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
I have one final question. We've mentioned -- or it's been mentioned that there are 388
total bonus points available for this overlay area, and of that, 97 each would be going to
Courthouse Shadows, already is, and, if approved, also this development leaving whatever the
difference is after subtracting two times 97. Is it staff's point of view that of all the foreseeable
possibilities for use of those density units, that this is a laudable use or a good use that is deserving
of the taking the 97 away from the 388?
MR. SABO: Yes, we believe so because it incentivizes development in an area that
is -- could use this type of incentive, and that's why it was created to begin with.
I also have updated and accurate numbers on the bonus density credits. So Mattamy
Homes is at 62, Courthouse Shadows is at 97, and this project would be at 97, leaving 122.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have anything in the pipeline that is sufficiently far along
that you'd feel comfortable about comparing to this one?
MR. SABO: I am not aware.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
All right. Before staff -- I'm sorry, Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What's the base elevation in that area? It's in a flood
zone, so I just want to know.
MR. SABO: I don't know. I'd have to defer. We could find that out for you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any other questions or comments or observations for
staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Sabo.
MR. SABO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We are at a point very close to when we would
ordinarily have a break, and this might be the best time. I'm looking at the court reporter for an
idea of whether this is a good time or we should ask Mr. Yovanovich if he wants to rebut first.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are there any public speakers?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Thank you. There weren't earlier, but we need to
ask that question again.
So, Mr. Frantz, anybody signed up since we spoke last?
MR. FRANTZ: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a negative, okay. No, zero.
So what does the Planning Commission want to do; take a break now or hear rebuttal?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Rebuttal.
All right. Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have a lot of rebuttal, but I do want to talk about a couple
of concepts that you-all were battering back and forth in your trying to figure out the density/height
issue and whether you can rely upon what a developer tells you.
I just ask you to put yourself in my shoes when you ask me, Mr. Yovanovich, is your client
willing to reduce the density on a project? And we've made our case that we think our height is
consistent with -- or compatible with what's around the neighborhood. And I know your job is
maybe to try to push back and see if you can reduce something that's before you. I can simply say
to you no or -- I don't think you probably appreciate my just saying no. You'd want some type of
an explanation as to why I'm telling you no.
Now, we're never going to show you our projected internal rate of return in what an
individual developer is willing to spend at risk and what they would like to see the rate of return to
be. No guarantee you're ever going to see that rate of return. And I could tell you, look at this
project. I bet you Jim Fields would have showed you that when he was going into this project, he
was going to make a decent profit. That's what he would -- he asked for the opportunity to do that.
Page 22 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
He lost the property. He paid on his personal guarantees. His rate of return was negative. So he
would have shown you a potential number that they may get to. He didn't get there.
What we're telling you is, when we come up here, we do our homework. We do look at
what makes sense for a property owner. I would expect you, if I came in here and asked you for a
200-foot-tall building and said I can't go to 180 feet because I can't get a rate of return, you would
have said to me, Mr. Yovanovich, there's nothing else anywhere near 180 feet. I didn't bring that
project to you. I will never bring that project to you.
But we brought you a project that is consistent with and compatible with the neighborhood.
Your staff had no issues with the height. We were asked at the CRA, could we reduce the height,
and we respectfully said no, because, believe it or not, there's a lot of money that goes into building
these buildings, and we have to spread those costs out, and this developer said it didn't make sense
for him to put that amount of money at risk.
I didn't say that's a criteria for you to look at. But you asked me -- when I'm asked the
reason why we say no to adjustments, I think I owe you an explanation as to why. I'm not saying
our desire to make a profit is something you should factor.
But, at the end of the day, I'm not giving you a horrible that isn't realistic. I have zoning
on the property that is for an affordable housing project. Will someone want to do an affordable
housing project on that property? The answer is, if I gave them the land, probably yes, or I deeply
discounted the land, probably yes. Someone else wanted to do an affordable housing project on
this project, and they were told no.
So I don't think it's a legitimate -- I don't think it's a factor, but I don't want it to be held
against us when we give you the reason why we're saying no; otherwise, I'll just come up here in
the future and just say no without an explanation.
The CRA was created to entice investment and development in this area. A density pool
was created to entice development in the area to increase density above, basically, three units per
acre. Our densities are not inconsistent with what's in the area. Our height is compatible within
the area.
James' one slide where he said, we're going from 40 to 71, he was comparing zoned height
to actual height. We are -- you know that, Mr. Fry. We are going up in height from 40 zoned to
61. So there is a 21-foot increase. It's not a 30-foot increase from zoned height. I just wanted to
make sure the record was clear on the -- on what was being compared as to apples and apples.
I will also tell you Collier County has changed. We're now an infill development. We
have smaller parcels. You have to have higher density for smaller parcels to work. In the old
days it was easy. You would do a golf course community on a few -- you know, several hundred
acres. You'd have this artificially really low density because you had a golf course as the amenity,
and everything worked.
The world's different here in Collier County now. You've got smaller parcels. Property
owners are demanding and getting the higher price, and everything else is more expensive. So you
do need density to make it all work.
But, again, I'm not saying profitability is factor for you to consider. You need to look at
the height around us, the density around us, and what does the community, the CRA want. And
the fact that you don't have anybody here complaining about what we're asking for, I think, is
important based upon some of the factors that you guys have looked at in the past.
I do want to -- I do want to make -- it's not related to this project. It was just more about
the economic analysis discussion. There is no profitability analysis that goes into the SRA
analysis. You're going to have an SRA in front of you soon, so I want to make sure everybody's
mind is clear when it comes forward. It is a fiscal-neutrality analysis that shows that our project
will not have a negative fiscal impact on Collier County at buildout. It's not whether or not my
client makes a certain amount of money within a period of 10 years. It's a fiscal neutrality
analysis. I just want to make sure that's clear so when those come forward in the future, we're
not -- we're not looking at this.
I will tell you that Greg and Michael have got other projects in Collier County. One's by
Bear's Paw. They are a known developer here doing high -- high-quality, high-end product.
Page 23 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
We're not somebody new coming to town, so I do think there should be some comfortability. And
if you want me to bring them up here and tell you about their projects, I'm happy to do that. But
we're not new.
We have no objections from your staff. We have, really, no objections from the CRA, and
you don't have any objections from the public. I hope you'll follow the staff recommendation to
recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
And with that, I will stop talking and hopefully allow you-all to do your deliberations
either before your break or after your break.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I had a quick question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, then Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I just want to be clear that my question that I raised was not
specific to this developer. I plan to vote in favor of this project and I will say, primarily, because
the CRA advisory board is in favor of it, and I consider it much more in their interest to scrutinize
the project and decide if it's right for their area. And if the County Commission sitting as the CRA
itself feels otherwise, I think that's up to them.
For myself, there's nobody in opposition, so I plan to vote for it. It was not at all directed
at this particular developer. It was simply that after sitting here for two years it kind of finally
dawned on me that that's something I struggle with. So the timing had nothing to do with this
project, so I just wanted to make that clear.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to be clear that -- hear from you, Rich, and
staff that Commissioner Fry's question about not going to be able to add amenities without coming
back before and getting some additional approval; that that's going to be in the approval we're
approving. Do you remember when he asked -- he was concerned about the pool and the chickee
hut and that, you know, we're not going to -- if you come back and add pickleball or something
later, that you'll have to come back before us because there won't be enough parking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I might have answered that question a little bit differently,
but...
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I'm glad I asked it then.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the general basis for the deviation is the location of the
amenities and the size of the project and whether or not people will really be driving to them.
This is a -- this is a very small piece of property. Even I can walk from the furthest unit to
the swimming pool. If we swap out a swimming pool for a pickleball court, or I decide that I have
a little bit of room to add a pickleball court, I don't want to misrepresent that we're definitely
coming back through the review process. I think Wayne was right that that's -- that's what's going
to be there and that's generally going to be the size of it, but I think the reason, generally, for the
approval was the size and scope of the project and the easy walkability. Ray may have a different
opinion on that.
So I don't want to misrepresent that I'm absolutely coming back if I add a pickleball court
somewhere on this property because I can find a place to put it, but I don't think we're getting that
deviation just because we're showing a small clubhouse and a pool. I think we're -- I think we've
made the case that it's a small site; that wherever we put the amenities, it's easy to walk to.
Am I wrong, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
The Land Development Code under the parking requirements includes some similar
reductions in parking requirements for proximity to amenities. So I don't see a problem, if you're
going beyond that, to add additional reductions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But if you make it a condition, we'll live with it, but I just don't
know that it's really necessary.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, anything further, Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Just if you have questions, we're happy to answer them.
Page 24 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we ask for approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then we'll close the public comment portion of this
meeting, and I'll ask the Planning Commission, do you want to take a break first and then deliberate
or deliberate and vote and then take a break?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Deliberate.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Deliberate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The deliberators have it. All right.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, that was just two people that spoke up.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Either.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Either way is fine with me. We'll move --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: We're fine -- I'm fine deliberating. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then I'm going to ask any planning commissioner who
wishes to be heard on this before we take a vote to please so signal. And no one is alighted. And
I don't hear from either of our commissioners that don't have the advantage of the deliberator
device.
So with that, I'd entertain a motion from --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have to have a motion to approve each one.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, that's right. Two separate motions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll take the GMPA first. This is on the GMPA.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second by Mr. Vernon.
The only other thing that I want to say before I vote is there are two issues here that are
somewhat unrelated but, nonetheless, give me conflict. The one, the fact that there will be de
minimus increases in traffic on a deficient segment going forward, undoubtedly, and, ultimately, I
fear that those de minimus exceptions or increases will add up to a significant further deficiency
and a further negative impact on the people who use Segment 92.
But I'm not going to oppose this for the main reason that, first of all, I think the location of
affordable housing, I think it is saturated in East Naples at this point. As a county we need more
of it, but I'd personally like to see it more evenly distributed, and no members of the public sought
to be heard on this, and I find that to be a significant factor in determining how I vote, and so I'm
going to vote in favor of it.
Anybody else want to make any statements?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just want to speak on the traffic for a second. I've lived
in this same area for 33 years, and I've traveled these roads all the time, and the only time they're
always bad is in season, because the rest of the time it's livable. It's not a -- it's not a horrible
situation, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And this area's been waiting for this kind of a thing for a
long time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Seeing no further indications of people wanting to speak,
I'll call the question. All those in favor of -- this is the GMPA. All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
Page 25 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was an aye from Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it passes unanimously.
Now a motion on the PUDA, please.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve the PUDA for Camden
Landing, PL20190001364, motion of approval, and in that motion it would be subject with the
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that if the applicant chooses to revoke the
affordable housing density bonus, that they're subject to repay the monies owed back to the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is inherently part of this, but -- it's not a quid pro quo for
the zoning, but it's subject to -- specifically to the elimination of the affordable housing density
bonus, which is up to the applicant to do that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And before there's a second, I think we want, just to be
sure the record is clear, that the second staff condition, if you will, which I believe has been agreed
to by the petitioner, was that one-third of the cost of the Thomasson road improvements will be
paid for by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's also part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the approval of the PUDA, please say
aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it passes unanimously.
Thank you, applicant and agents.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will stand in recess for 10 minutes until 10:48, please.
(A brief recess was had from 10:38 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return to session.
***We come to new business, and we have before us the opportunity of a workshop.
We've received materials from County Attorney Klatzkow, and I propose that we ask the County
Attorney to take us through these materials at this time. And one caveat, if I may, just as a
respectful suggestion to my colleagues, unless a planning commissioner deems it absolutely
necessary to interrupt the presentation in order to gain an immediate understanding of what's being
presented, I would suggest that we hold our questions and comments until Mr. Klatzkow has
finished at least each individual topic.
I believe Growth Management staff has not prepared a formal presentation, but I'll also ask
for any questions or comments that they may have at the appropriate time.
And our agenda shows two items for discussion, legislative and quasi-judicial actions, one;
and the second, Sunshine. After we cover these subjects, I'm going to open up the discussion for
Page 26 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
any other issues any planning commissioner may wish to raise in the workshop and also, as I
mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, that would also be a good time for us to have further
discussion of what staff is going to be proposing with respect to oversight of the HEX agenda.
So without objection, we'll proceed along those lines, Mr. County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and this was prepared at your request and your direction. And
it's -- I would welcome questions as we go through this because this is really something that I'm
doing for your behalf. I'd like to thank Sally on this, by the way. She's the one who put together
the presentation, because my IT skills are just -- well, I was good at DOS and after that, I just -- I
gave up.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: DOS.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klatzkow's willing to be interrupted, but I suggest to him that
he's careful of what he wishes for.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's fine. That's fine. I like -- I enjoy a give and take.
All right. Just to state the obvious here, which sometimes gets forgotten, you are the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, okay; your job is to plan.
You've got three sources of authority. You've got the Florida Statutes, you've got a 1967
Special Act that's unique to Collier County, and then you've got ordinances. All three of these
basically say the same thing.
On the Florida Statute, every local government has a local planning agency. You are that
local planning agency. If you're wondering why Mr. Eastman sits with us, it's because of this
section that requires us to have a member of the school board with us. And if you're wondering
why he doesn't vote, that's the reason he doesn't vote.
You have the primary responsibility for the Comprehensive Plan. Let me say this again.
This board, okay, has the primary responsibility for the Comprehensive Plan. You are the agency
that was responsible for initially drafting this plan. You are the agency that's responsible for any
plan amendment. You are the agency responsible to make any recommendations as far as
changing it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. It rests with you.
The 1967 act, unique to Collier County, again, established a Planning Commission. It
says more or less the same things as the special -- as the Florida Statute, and our ordinance, again,
is going to mirror both the 1967 act and the legislation.
I would note that some of the quirks in here is that you also sit as the county's
Environmental Advisory Council. And the reason for that is once upon a time we had an
Environmental Advisory Council. We've got, between our various codes, many references to
them. When the Board elected to eliminate the advisory council, it was thought that rather than go
through and get rid of all these requirements in the code, that we simply would give them to you,
and should there be one day a decision by the Board to re-establish a separate environmental
council, we would do so.
The staff over at Growth Management is your staff by ordinance, all right. You are
authorized to direct them to do tasks from time to time. That doesn't mean you as a planning
commissioner can do that, okay. But as a board, if there's anything you wish staff to present to
you, a study, whatever, it is your prerogative, okay, to seek that, and it is their obligation to give
that to you. I think that might be unique as to all of the advisory boards.
In addition to your primary role as the keeper of the Comprehensive Plan, you also hear
anything that really amends the Land Development Code, which includes rezonings. The Board
also has you look at conditional uses. These are quasi-judicial hearings as compared to legislative.
The difference between a legislative hearing and a quasi-judicial, legislative you're setting policy.
In other words, from time to time you may wish to amend the Comprehensive Plan. That is setting
new policy for the county. That is in your legislative function.
There are other times when you're implementing the policy. A rezoning is the typical
methodology that you do that, and you have criteria to review as part of that. There you're acting
in a quasi-judicial role, and I'll get to the meaning of quasi-judicial.
Again, at its core, if you're looking at criteria, you're quasi-judicial. If you're looking at
legislation, it's legislative.
Page 27 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Quasi-judicial, think of it as light beer, all right. You're not a court, just like light beer, is
not really beer, but you're sort of like that.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I object.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not, okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I second.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a nice drink, but it's not real beer.
All right. So in other words, you're acting sort of in a judicial capacity, but you don't have
all the attributes of court.
People come before you, court reporter swears them in, okay. Cross-examination is
allowed. All right. You have to follow a minimum due process standard. You've got to be free
from bias. The decisions have to be based on substantial competent evidence. Opportunity of the
interested parties to be heard; however, unlike a courtroom, there are no formal rules of evidence.
You'll never hear anybody say "I object," you know, or that nature, and you may freely engage in
conversations amongst yourself, which is not something that would happen in a judicial
proceeding.
Generally speaking, a quasi-judicial proceeding has an impact on a limited number of
people: Variance, a rezone. It's a policy application again. Legislation generally involves many
people.
I've talked about that.
Burden of proof. It's on the applicant to come forward and prove that his petition
complies with the county Land Development Code and consistent with the Comp Plan. In other
words, the applicant has the burden of showing that it meets the criteria. Once he's met that
burden, it then shifts to the other side, whomever that other side might be. It's really anyone
seeking denial. It could be the neighbors. It could be -- it's county staff. They're there to then
simply provide substantial competent evidence that, no, it does not comply, all right.
Typically, it comes down to whether or not the rezoning application is compatible with the
neighborhood. It seems as if that's the argument that I hear most often. It is a very subjective
argument, but it is really at the crux of the matter. And One Naples is right there. It's not
compatible with our neighborhood. It's too dense, what have you. Then you'll hear staff say that
residential is always compatible with residential, whatever that means.
Ex parte communications, okay. Because you're functioning as sort of a court in a
quasi-judicial proceeding, you've got to be careful with ex parte communications, and ex parte
communications is a communication that's made outside of this room to you. It doesn't
mean -- unlike a judge who won't listen to the parties, you're allowed to hear them, but then you've
got to, when you get in here, disclose that, yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich on this matter. And the
reason you do that is the right of cross-examination, all right. Because they're saying -- they are
saying things to you outside this room that the -- that another party might want to cross-examine
on. That's the reason we do this. It's statutory requirement, and it's part of a resolution that we
have that I've given to you. I will tell you that in all the years I've been here and before the Board
of County Commissioners, only one time did somebody actually make an issue of ex parte and
wanted to cross-examine. It just doesn't happen, but because it could happen, we ask you to do
that.
Bert Harris. It is the Florida state policy to encourage development, period. That's been
the policy in this state for a very, very long time.
Private property rights --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- are sacrosanct in Florida.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. If I had a question about a specific topic, should I
wait until the end, or is it better to ask it now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klatzkow is inviting questions at any time.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So go to your last slide on ex parte
communications. I think that was your last slide. So if -- it's saying that, you know, the Jennings
Page 28 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
rule, we can't discuss zoning matters outside of the public hearing. And I get it, you know,
because the idea is the applicant or others have a right to know, you know, because it's ex parte.
As long as we disclose it, then we're fine and that's -- and then it's up to them if they want
to make an issue of it. Is that basically the essence of what I heard you say?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the essence. And, really, it's a balancing act. You have an
elected official, Board of County Commissioners, for example, and people have the right to talk
with their elected official. So it's a balancing right, it's a balancing thing where you've got the
right to talk to your elected official, but if you're going to do so in this context, then the official has
to disclose it. We talked about this. So there's an opportunity for somebody to cross-examine on
that issue.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So if I -- you know, for instance, if I were to talk to an
applicant, then someone who's opposed to the application might be suspicious -- you know,
whatever. I mean, obviously I'm giving a scenario. They could say, okay, well, gosh, we don't
know what they said.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, they would ask --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If we want to go ahead and --
MR. KLATZKOW: They would ask you what was said, and then you would disclose
that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And then that would be subject to whatever sort of
scrutiny the -- what, then, could that be subject to? Could there then be -- they could bring up the
other person and ask them to confirm what was said?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They could put me -- and me as well?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: He said, and him as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So it's just -- it's not really a big deal. It's just, you
know, if we're doing our job by trying to be well informed, we just need to understand that that's
fine, but everything you say, you know, is -- you know, might turn into an issue, and you just gave
a -- you just gave a practical point, though, that that just, in practice, doesn't happen very often.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. And one of the reasons it doesn't happen is that we have so few
representatives for the applicants here. We've got Mr. Yovanovich, and I don't know who else
right now, and before him we had Bruce Anderson along with him, and Bruce retired. And so you
just don't have this as an issue here.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Rich is not going to cross-examine himself.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This little discussion, you know, in your presentation is
very helpful. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to, if I may also, go back, and I apologize --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- for doing that. But with respect to on-site visits, which is
generally related to a previous topic that you covered on, what, if any, limits are placed upon our
findings or conclusions or discoveries in connection with that on-site visit?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. I, in fact -- personally, if I have a matter, I will always go
there and see for myself what is the dispute, whether it's a taking matter of major import or what
have you. I think it's important to actually be there and understand what it is. You just have to
disclose you did it.
The only other caveat I would have is go there alone; otherwise, you're risking Sunshine
issues.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's say that I make a site visit and one of the issues is setbacks.
The setbacks are inadequate in my opinion as a planning commissioner. And let's say that I, then,
undertake to measure the actual setback -- and this is all hypothetical -- of the Ritz-Carlton and
discover that it's 700 feet of setback. What, if anything, are the limits or constraints placed upon
Page 29 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
me with respect to that information that I've acquired?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that. You'll need to disclose that, and then you'll be
subject to cross-examination.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So at what point do the things that I learn subject me to
cross-examination?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have to disclose what you've learned. You say I did a site visit,
all right and, you know, these were my findings, and at that point in time you would be subject to
cross-examination as to whether those findings were accurate or not.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So as a practical matter, that would strongly discourage us from
making, for lack of a better word, findings of our own based upon what we see at a site visit.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to take a tape measure -- if you want to take a tape
measure and start doing setbacks, I think you might find some problems with that; if you want to
just look at the site to get an overall view of how it fits in with the surrounding neighborhood -- and
for compatibility that's a key portion of it -- there's very little to be cross-examined on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So if a planning commissioner were to do a site visit and make a
general observation, not a tape measure but a general observation, that the Ritz-Carlton has a huge
setback, and the planning commissioner could come back and ask the applicant what -- how he
accounts for that huge setback when he is attempting to draw comparisons to the Ritz-Carlton in
relation to his project.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's -- it's subject to a conversation by this board, if that's what you
want. Always subject to cross-examination.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. But --
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why at an earlier proceeding when you came forward with
a detailed analysis, I said, it's probably not a good idea that you continue here, because the
cross-examination could have gone on and been very, very lengthy on that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. And, of course, I took your advice to heart, as I
always do and would, but, nonetheless, I see an issue, and I -- maybe -- maybe it's not an issue for
others, but...
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do have a comment about it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You want to go ahead?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: To me the litmus test is, the only reason I would go do a
site visit is to get something that I can't get the equivalent from from staff or the applicant or both.
You know, we're going to -- from staff -- so we're kind of getting both sides. From staff
and the applicant, we're going to get the setback numbers. We're going to get -- I mean, that's
what the staff's for, to give us that kind of information.
The only reason I go out to a site is just to get the subjective feeling: Huge setbacks
compared to short setbacks as opposed to 725 feet versus 125 feet, because then I think we get into
the point where -- at some point somebody's -- some smart lawyer is going to cross-examine you,
and all of a sudden your numbers don't jive with the staff's numbers, and then we -- you know, it
almost also falls under the heading of "no good deed goes unpunished" from my perspective.
You're trying to do your job really well, but it ends up making it more complex.
Jeff, does that make any sense to you?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, it makes all the sense in the world to me.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have a quick question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So -- and it's -- I know it sounds sort of
pedantic, and I hope you'll excuse it. I think, you know, I can sense in my fellow commissioners
we all -- well, at least some of us are kind of scratching our heads. So if I have driven by whatever
site a million times, I don't have to disclose it, because that's just knowledge that I have obtained
through my life experience versus, hey, this is on our agenda, I'm going to go look at it?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
Page 30 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So, for instance -- and this is a perfect example.
So the Ave Maria SRA is coming up, you know, soon. I obviously know a lot about the
community because I've lived here for 13 years, and I have very particular knowledge about certain
things. So when I bring that up, there's really not a need to disclose anything unless I went out and
sought particular knowledge again or to reconfirm something because I saw there was this petition.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's correct. I mean, you'd have to disclose whatever
conversations you've had with the applicant. And I'm going to assume you're going to be having
conversations with the applicant, or at least they'll try to have conversations with you. But, yeah,
just your general knowledge having lived in the community, it is what it is.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a reason -- there's a reason that the Planning Commission is
set up so that we have a planning commissioner from each district. I mean, we want the
knowledge on this board of what the community impact is going to be. If we had everybody on
this board who lived in Naples, you wouldn't have that knowledge. It's why we geographically
dispersed this board, just for that knowledge.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I had a comment, too. I guess -- is that lighting up?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see it now. Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't want us to feel legally we shouldn't go to the site. I go
to almost every site, and for the reasons Chris is talking about, which is just get a feel for the lay of
the land. You can't get that in a two-dimensional drawing, you know. And you really have to
have that feel when you're listening to both sides of it. I think it's really important. And I don't
want the legal side of this thing to scare us away from doing that. I think we do a better job when
we do go to the site and we do see what it feels like out there.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is a difference between the visiting a site and taking out the
tape measure.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, you'd have to have permission to be on somebody's
property.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, usually you're in public right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Sorry to interrupt.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. I would prefer that you do that. This is for your
benefit.
Let's just talk about private property rights for a second. So the understanding is that
private property rights are jealously guarded by the Florida legislature and the Florida Constitution,
and in an eminent domain trial, it's 12 members for a jury, all right. For a robbery, it's six, all
right. So the state legislature puts greater protections on private property rights than it does on,
well, not going to jail. It's -- that's how deep the policy is in this state.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I interrupt?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is the state policy with respect to private property rights more
favorable to those of developers versus those of individual residents, neighbors?
MR. KLATZKOW: Developers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Applicants?
MR. KLATZKOW: Applicants. It's -- you've got a right to develop your property in this
state, and I'll get into that more, but -- and it's a -- it's a strong right.
That's why you've got the Bert Harris Act which basically tells local governments, if you're
going to try to unfairly deprive somebody of the ability to develop their property, there are
significant financial repercussions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But if the property-right holder happens to be an individual as
opposed to a developer or a contract purchaser or -- you know, it's equal.
MR. KLATZKOW: Equal, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Page 31 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Let's talk about concurrency.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we do, Commissioner Fry has a question. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, last meeting we had The Quarry, and we had the -- what
was the name of the road, the little road, private road?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Limestone.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Limestone. Limestone Trail. And by -- it was a privately
owned road, and by the public using it, they would have additional maintenance costs and maybe
security issues and liability issues. And then we talked about allowing the two-way access inside
the developments, which would have done similar things to the roads internal to their
developments. Would they have had -- I brought it up then, but I just wanted to understand more
perspective. Would they have had a Bert Harris case?
MR. KLATZKOW: My view is substantially different than staff's view on that, all right.
It's my belief that if the -- if the Board of County Commissioners wanted that as an access road, we
could have required that in the PUD and we -- failing that, staff could have made sure that when it
was platted, it was platted as a public road. Staff did not do that. So that from a planning
standpoint, it was planned to be a private road. So my view on that is different from staff's, and I'll
leave it at that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But it was a private road and the roads internal were private
roads. So if we had approved that and forced public traffic on a private road, not allowed them to
put up gates, would they have, then, had a Bert Harris?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the gates are a different issue. When that project was -- when
this project came forward, it was a unitary project. One developer was supposed to be integrated.
I don't know how many times I've sat in that chair over the last 15 years having people say, well,
the traffic impact is going to be lessened because we'll have internal capture, all right. And so
they'll say, instead of having 100 trips, it's going to be 85 trips because the people will have access
to the commercial, then they would have to go out on the arterial road, and then a couple years later
they're always asking to cut that out, because once the residents take over, they want the gates,
because that's what Naples is. It's people coming from all over the country without gates. They
get here. Now they want their gate. It's just how we are.
But the times change and, you know, needs change, and then it was no longer a unitary
project. It got balkanized over the years into separate developments, separate commercial,
separate residential developments. Now everybody wants their own gate, and I understand that.
But the original concept was a unitary development where people could go to the
commercial centers without having to pour onto the arterial road first. It's an internal capture
issue. That's the gate issue. But there's a difference between a gate issue, which allows the
internal movement throughout the entire place, than having the public utilize those roads. Those
are two separate things.
All right. Concurrency. Under the Florida Statute, the only real concurrency is sanitary
sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water. Everything else is discretionary to the local
government, all right. So on a statewide basis, you have to have the ability to turn on the water
and you have to have the ability to flush and you have to have the ability to get your garbage
somewhere else, and these are just basic public health issues, all right.
The Florida Legislature then says to the local governments, you're allowed to put
concurrency on a bunch of other things if you want to, okay, and this county has. But understand
what -- the point of this. Statutorily, the point of concurrency is so that you'll have the facilities
available at the time that development is actually in place, all right.
So when Trinity comes in here and talks about the impacts to the road, the purpose of that
is not for you to say no to the development. The purpose for you is to figure out, because you are
the Planning Commission, okay, how, over time, we're going to increase road capacity to handle all
of this.
We also do this as a county every year in the AUIR where staff gives you a report saying
this is where we are from a capital element. This is what we think we're going to need. And
that's your -- that's your time to review it and say, well, I think we need more here or more or less
Page 32 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
there.
So the point of concurrency is not to stop development, other than water, because you can't
have a house without water, all right. The purpose of concurrency is to plan. That's why we have
a Capital Improvement Element in the Comprehensive Plan, which is saying, okay, we know what
growth's going to be over the next five, 10, 15 years. In order to plan for this growth, we need
these much roads, these many schools, these many fire stations and so forth. It's a planning tool.
It's not a tool to be used to say no to development.
If our roads are too crowded, that's not the particular development's fault. That's on us
because, for whatever reason, we did not plan for that level of capacity, and it's as simple as that.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask -- I don't get the term "concurrency." I understand
planning, planning infrastructure, but for some reason concurrency doesn't -- I'm not sure what that
means.
MR. KLATZKOW: What it basically means is that by the time you open up that
development, there's going to be room in the schools for those children. There's going to be
adequate road capacity for their cars. There's going to be adequate parks that are open for them to
recreate in. There's going to be adequate library facilities for them to use. There's going to be
adequate fire and EMS, you know, in case there's an emergency. That's what we really mean.
We're planning for future growth, and it's hard, all right. I mean, the Soviets had these famous
five-year plans that never worked because you make a plan in year one, and by the time you're in
year three, let alone year five, circumstances have changed, but we try to do the best we can.
The county has internally struggled with this. There was a point in time where we had
separate divisions between Planning and Transportation. Then the thought process was to merge
them both together so that the Transportation people and the Planning people can talk about what
the impacts of these things are. That had mixed success, quite frankly, and there will probably be
another reorganization along those lines because, you know, people are -- people grow tired of
traffic, and whatever we're doing currently isn't working. It's just not.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may follow up on that. We've got a significant concurrency
problem on Road Segment 92, which is the East Trail. And, of course, you know, as a Planning
Commission, we -- we have the right to deny an application or recommend denial, I should say, of
an application based upon the lack of concurrency, but on the other hand, that places the burden on
the developer rather than the county.
MR. KLATZKOW: You really don't have the right -- unless it's water, you really don't
have the right to say no. It's -- again, the problem is not the developers. The problem is us.
Now, when somebody comes in here and says, I need more density because that's the only
way to make this project work, which, personal opinion, is nonsense, all right, because they bought
the damn thing with the current zoning on it, so there is some reasonable expectation, all right.
And, in the 15 years I've been here -- and I've been sitting in that chair for 15 years now -- I
would say that 95 percent of all the applications asking for increased density have been granted.
And so you've got these five-year plans and these 10-year plans and, ultimately, these 30-year plans
that are based on a certain number of people coming to the county, and that number's always
moving. And it gets to a point where for the area of the county that is west of 951, we six-laned
everything. We're done. We can't put in any more roads.
In the 15 years I've been here, we six-laned all the arterials. We put in, as a new road,
Livingston. At this point in time, we're down to making intersection improvements. I can tell
you that they are exceedingly expensive because commercial tends to abut the right-of-way at that
point in time, and now these takings get to be extraordinarily expensive if that's what's needed.
We're talking flyovers in an effort to get rid of this. The reason we had that problem is
because the Board, a generation ago, decided to allow golf courses in this area, which destroyed
any grid system you can have. So the sheer number of golf courses we have destroys the grid
system, which requires us to have an arterial system, and, you know, there's only so much you can
do with an arterial system.
Now, the trick's going to be what we do with Eastern Collier County, how we manage that
growth and -- because we're pretty much done with building out the area that is west of 951 as far
Page 33 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
as what we can do for roads other than overpasses. But that will be the -- that will be the trick.
And the thought process is half the population of this county is going to be on the other
side of 951 by the time we're built out. So, you know, don't think of it as just a minority of the
population. It's going to probably be at least half the population when all is said and done. So
this board has the chance to make sure that the infrastructure gets in right.
Now, mind you, the Board of County Commissioners has the ultimate say. And at the end
of the day the Board of County Commissioners has to program funding for all of this, and that's a
lot harder than it is to say. But this is the board that's primarily responsible for making the
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners that this is what we need to do. It's not
staff. It's you. Now, staff can make recommendations to you but, ultimately, it's you.
And I will tell you that in the 15 years I've been sitting in this seat, this is by far the
strongest Planning Commission I've had the pleasure of working with. Mark Strain was absolutely
outstanding but, as a group, this is -- this is as strong a group as we've ever had, and I'm very
appreciative of that, and I believe that the Board is very appreciative of that, too. So what you
have to say to the Board has a great deal of weight at this point in time.
If there are no other questions, I know I have Colleen Greene here who's going to give a
brief presentation on the Sunshine and public records.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask Jeff a question before you leave?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, you mentioned 15 years in this chair.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've been sitting in that seat for 15 years. I started out working or
running Horseshoe office when it became -- and I sat in that seat. When I became Deputy County
Attorney, I sat in that seat, and when I became County Attorney, I continued to sit in the seat
because it has always been my personal opinion that this is by far the most important of the
advisory boards. That is not to say that the other advisory boards have no importance. But in my
opinion, this by far the most important of the advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You mentioned that over that time, I think you said, 95 percent
of the applications for additional density have been approved.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So it begs in me the question, I get the impression at times -- I
mostly hang on every word you say because you just cut right to the chase, and it's always based on
a lot of experience. Are there -- so I assume that means there are a lot of opportunities that this
commission has had over the years where perhaps you might have felt we could have said no. I'm
just curious if we're missing something in the criteria that --
MR. KLATZKOW: You could always say no to increased density.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I know it's easier said than done, though. I think it's --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's a policy decision. There's nothing wrong with hammer
swinging in this county, all right. We know what it's like in this county when the hammer stops
swinging. My office had hundreds and hundreds of foreclosures that we dealt with during
the -- during the great recession; many of those people who had lost jobs in the construction
industry. It was horrible, all right, and it took a couple years to get through that. And there's a lot
of good to be said about the development, all right.
But what I'm telling you is that you've got to plan for development. And when you
increase the density, which is a policy decision -- and I'm not saying it's bad or good,
okay -- you've got to then plan for that extra development by increasing the number of libraries or
the parks or the roads or what have you. You just -- you cannot increase density and then do
nothing for your Capital Improvement Program, all right. It's got to be hand in hand.
And we try with impact fees to have growth pays for growth. That is imperfect at best.
But for every time somebody comes in asking for increased density, well, that's more school kids
that have to be educated, and then we -- and we do have Tom here, which is one of the reasons
Tom is here, most of the time.
And, you know, there are people who are going to be consuming public services, such as
Page 34 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
libraries and museums and parks and the like. And if you don't adequately plan for that, and you
are the planning agency, all right, then the quality of life in this county, which is exceptional right
now, which is why we have so many people coming into the county, that quality of life will
eventually diminish.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The image that you're projecting of this commission, I think the
definition is, I take it to mean a more proactive agency than I feel we are. I feel we're very
reactive. We have issues that are introduced to us. We rule on them one by one, and there are a
few things, the AUIR --
MR. KLATZKOW: You are the keepers of the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I feel like we need to be more proactive than we are.
MR. KLATZKOW: You are the keepers of the Comprehensive Plan, okay, under both the
statute, the 1967 Act, and the ordinance. And you are the agency that's responsible for making
recommendations to the Board. How active you wish to be in that role is up to you as a board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to concur with Jeff, him sitting in that
chair for 15 years and his statement that this is an important board. It is. In my previous
capacity, I used to sit up in that chair as well with Ray. Ray's been there, like -- have you ever left,
Ray? No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ray was born here.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's been here for a while.
But this, at that time -- and Jeff can probably highlight the dynamics of growth in this
county.
I came on board after the incidence in the late '90s, otherwise known as Stadium Naples,
when there was a real effort to control growth, and then, of course, the inertia that the Board gets
from the industry, because they want growth to happen. And it is a balancing act, but our job is to
make sure that is complies with the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and
that's our job.
We have to rely on staff to advise us, but you also have to trust your instincts. And I
sense -- you all have been on the Board for a long time, and your instincts are great. My
compliments, because that's our job. And I do believe that it is a -- in the past, and it's -- and, Jeff,
again, he's -- I'll ask him to comment, but it is a dynamic. It's like a pendulum. It's -- one year
it's, we've got to stop everything, and then there's a lot of pressure to make sure that everything
doesn't stop to a point where nobody's working. So it's a balancing act.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an absolute pendulum. And, Joe, as you'll remember, people
lose their jobs in this county over it --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- where especially in your old gig where they'll get painted as
pro-developers.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And everybody gets fired, and then, you know, time will go on and
say, these people aren't doing enough to get development in the county, and they'll be fired.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: So it has absolutely been a pendulum, and it swings with every
recession.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do have a thought I want to get comment from Jeff on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And maybe Joe might want to comment on this.
It seems to me that my understanding of big picture is that overall density is scary and can
be bad because it clogs the roads, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but density within a project is not
necessarily a bad thing because of what the old-timy term "urban sprawl," and in terms of getting
services to people and managing growth well; is that accurate? Because I don't want to get caught
up in we don't like a density of a particular project because we're afraid of overall density. They're
really two different things.
Page 35 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the dynamic with density as well is -- are the other
competing demands on any project. You have so much you have to put in preserve. Of course, if
they're jurisdictional wetlands and they go through the various aspects of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act when they have to go through the permitting process, through the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and through the other federal agencies -- and, oh, by the way, some of that, I guess, may
be transferred to the State. That's a whole other issue.
But -- and then the requirements for water management. So when you look at a
development, there are significant demands on the large piece of property. Let's take a 2,000-acre
PUD. When you look at the overall density, it may be 1.4 units an acre, but when you take
everything out, all the other requirements that they have to meet for water management, for
preserve, most of our projects are -- even our single-family communities are dense, and that's
because you'll see the side-yard setbacks in most home developments -- the communities now are
seven-and-a-half feet side-yard setbacks. Some even go to five feet because of all the other
demands. So in a nutshell, that's the density, even when we look at projects in the future as they
come in, even for the eastern properties because of all the other requirements placed on a
developer.
Adding that, then, the density has the impact on all the other essential public services,
primarily roads, and we went through some pretty dynamic times here with roads, and back at that
time we used to call it the checkbook concurrency. But how many moratoria did we have?
Probably at least two or three where --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Those were under the old rules.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Under the old rules where we suspended all development.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can suspend development for up to a year, but you have to have
a plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have to have a plan.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So the plan back then was, okay, we're six-laning Immokalee
Road. You can't start your -- no -- you can't start actually building homes or issuing certificates of
occupancy until the job is completed, but then there was a very limited time frame. So from that
standpoint, you can do a moratorium.
And to get back to what Commissioner Schmitt was saying -- and correct me, because my
memory sometimes gets hazy -- but I seem to recall once upon a time you closed your shop just to
get everything organized because you were getting just flooded by applications, and the
development community just went ballistic on you. And it was one day of just, we need a breather
here.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was stunning.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we're ready to continue, Mr. Klatzkow.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now we're going to talk Sunshine. We all can meet
afterwards and talk and -- no.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let's have a meeting --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As long as we're outside in the Sunshine. No, that's not
it?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's Sunshine indoors.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No.
MS. GREENE: Good morning. I'm Colleen Greene. Let me see if I can get the slide
show started. We're going to start -- it's Page 12, Florida's Government in the Sunshine, because
Jeff has given you a really great overview of your role on the Planning Commission. And I'm here
to talk about the Sunshine Law and public records. I think we have a number of new advisory
board members, which is why we're here to talk about this today.
Some of you have heard our presentation before and are experts in the Sunshine Law. But
the Sunshine Law is found in Florida law. The Sunshine Law establishes a right of access to most
meetings of boards, commissions, and other governmental agencies or authorities.
Page 36 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
When is the Sunshine Law applicable? The Sunshine Law is applicable to any
gathering -- this is the official definition -- whether formal or casual, of two or more members of
the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by
the board or the commission. So the key language in there is two or more members of the same
board discussing some matter which is foreseeable; is foreseeable that it will be discussed at the
Planning Commission in this case.
There are three requirements for the Sunshine Law. The basic requirements, which are
staff liaison really helps you to comply with these requirements, but the first is that meetings must
be open to the public, reasonable notice of the meetings must be given, and minutes of the meeting
must be taken.
So we'll break down each of those three requirements. The meetings must be open to the
public. The public must be allowed to attend the meetings. You almost always meet at the
county government center, so you know you're meeting in the right place. The place must be
accessible and sufficient size for the turnout in a place that does that not discriminate and within
Collier County, generally. In addition, before the Board takes action, you must give the public a
reasonable opportunity to be heard. This board can establish policies and procedures for your
public speakers. Most of the advisory boards follow the county -- the Board of County
Commissioners' policies and procedures, so you can maintain decorum and you can establish time
limits for your public speakers. Generally three minutes.
Reasonable notice of your meetings must be given, and your staff liaison is responsible for
providing the public notice for your meetings. Reasonable notice has been defined as 72 hours;
however, the county strives to provide more notice when possible.
And minutes of the meeting --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. Go ahead.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So -- I think I have a good example. So here we
are having a workshop, and right now we're discussing the Sunshine Law, and that doesn't seem to
be a matter that would foreseeably come before the Board, or am I wrong there? So how the
Sunshine Law operates --
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- doesn't seem like it's a no matter that may foreseeably
come before the Board for action.
MS. GREENE: Do you mean -- are you asking whether two or more members of the
same board can discuss the Sunshine Law; is that the question?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Correct.
MS. GREENE: Well, you know, I would recommend against it, because we're here today
talking about the Sunshine Law so that you all are aware, you know, to not have conversations that
may foreseeably come before the Board.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right. No, no, no. My specific question is, what
constitutes "coming before the Board"? So if we -- if we have a workshop where we discuss the
Sunshine Law so that we can all comply with it, has that matter now -- is it now before the Board
because we're talking about it, or does "before the Board" mean that we're exercising our powers
as -- you know, as a board?
MS. GREENE: No, I would say that the matter is before the Board and that it is not
something that two or more board members should discuss outside of a publicly noticed meeting.
We urge caution. We're very conservative in the County Attorney's Office when it comes to the
Sunshine Law, and the reason is to keep our advisory board members out of harm's way. It's all
about the perception.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if I had breakfast with Karl, we couldn't talk about the
Sunshine Law because we're going to talk about it today? I don't think -- we're not acting on it.
We're just talking about it.
Page 37 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MS. GREENE: I agree, and, Commissioner Shea, my advice to you is conservative, and I
would recommend against discussing something that we are here talking about today at a publicly
noticed meeting. So I would say no. I would say, if you are having breakfast with another
commissioner, that you keep your topics off government; that you talk about the weather and
tourism and things that are not going to be discussed here in front of your board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have asked my fellow planning commissioners to let me know in
advance by an email when they're either not going to be able to be here or would like to participate
electronically, and that is -- that is something that we're going to have to talk about, because we
have to vote on whether we're going to allow that to happen.
MS. GREENE: That's correct. And my presentation will talk about this in more detail.
But if you receive an email from another commissioner, it could be perceived as a two-way
communication, which is -- has to be done in the Sunshine. So really, strictly speaking, if a
member is not going to attend the meeting, the member should contact the staff liaison. The staff
liaison will send an email to the Chair advising the Chair that a member will not be in attendance at
the meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand. That's not the way Mark did it. And
I -- we'll take the current situation. Commissioner Klucik sent me an email stating --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I wouldn't even get into that. I mean, just a better
course -- sorry to interrupt. But I mean --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I want to -- going forward I want to do it right. I want to
be sure that -- because then, to let -- to let Commissioner Klucik know that I had received it --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- I forwarded it --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I appreciate it, because I think it's important. Yeah, and I
have nothing to hide. I don't think I did anything wrong, but this is a good time. I sent an email
to the commissioner and copied Mr. Bellows and Ms. Jenkins and just said, hey, I am
planning -- you know, hoping to attend, you know, virtually at tomorrow's meeting. Please send
me a link. Boom. That was it. You know, I'm assuming that that was harmless or not -- you
know, not a violation, but, you know, if it is, then this is a good time to know.
MS. GREENE: No. I mean, I agree with you. There's not a violation, but what we're
talking about here is to be conservative. Two or more members may not discuss something that
may foreseeably come before the Board for discussion, and that would include not only discussion
and meeting in person but also written correspondence.
And so my recommendation to you -- these are bookkeeping matters or administrative
matters, as you may want to call them, and Commissioner Fryer was appropriate to write back that
he confirmed the email. The only concern becomes whether people put more information in an
email than they intended to, and you're looking at a two-way communication outside of the
Sunshine.
My recommendation to you is to let your staff liaison be the person responsible. This is
the person who is, you know, taking attendance and keeping track of attendance, and I would defer
all of that type of communication to the staff liaison.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And let me say that I absolutely appreciate that approach,
because your approach, we can't get in trouble. You know, I can't violate it unintentionally if I
follow your advice, and I very much appreciate that that's what --
MS. GREENE: That's correct. That's the plan. Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So going forward, our procedure will be that as our
liaison, Mr. Bellows will receive that communication direct from the planning commissioner who
needs to call in. May Mr. Bellows inform me that we're going to have that kind of a situation, or is
that --
MS. GREENE: Yes, Mr. Bellows --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- triangulation?
MS. GREENE: No, it's not, and there is another rule against using a staff liaison as a way
around the Sunshine. These are bookkeeping matters or administrative matters; housekeeping
Page 38 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
matters is a word. And Mr. Bellows will gather all the information, perhaps two or three
commissioners will not be here, and once Mr. Bellows has a communication, he will send it to you,
the Chairman, just as an FYI, these are the people who are not expected to be here today. It's not
something that's going to be discussed at the Board. It's just a matter of housekeeping and keeping
attendance.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Even though in the case of Commissioner Klucik, who
asked for leave to participate electronically, that's something, under the current rules, that we have
to take action on.
MS. GREENE: That's correct, and that's why all of these requests should be directed to
your staff liaison.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. But then Mr. Bellows may then inform --
MS. GREENE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- what's been said, and that's not triangulation.
MS. GREENE: It is not, because we're just trying to organize the meeting. It's for
planning -- not CCPC planning purposes, but it's for planning purposes for your meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right.
Well, then, going forward, that's how it should be done. Please do not communicate with
me on that kind of a thing, but send it to Mr. Bellows. And, Mr. Bellows, I will ask you to let me
know sufficiently in advance of the meeting so I can plan to bring it up for the vote that needs to
happen.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I'll be glad to do that, and I also would like that you copy Anita
Jenkins, our director --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: -- in case I'm out. At least we have redundancy in following up.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I will ask, have you gotten to your slide on written
correspondence, or is that the next one?
MS. GREENE: I have not, no.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We haven't let you yet.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the only reason I say that is because it seems as
though what I did was one-way communication, and it did comply. And I realize those still -- the
caution is, don't do it anyways, and I certainly understand that.
MS. GREENE: Okay. Very good. And we'll get to that slide, and let me know if you
have a question then.
Minutes of the meeting are required. Again, that is always set up by your staff liaison, and
you have a court reporter here. So the CCPC is one of the few advisory boards that does have
verbatim minutes. Minutes are public records, including draft minutes.
The Sunshine Law applies to all advisory boards and all of the advisory boards'
subcommittees. A lot of advisory boards ask to set up subcommittees, and then they want to add
other people from the public in their subcommittees. So a subcommittee can only be made up of
members of the whole, and the Sunshine Law does apply. All three requirements of the Sunshine
Law applies to any subcommittee when two or more members are meeting to discuss something
that may foreseeably come before the Board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask you a question with respect to that, because I was
really a stranger to the concept of subcommittee meetings until, well, frankly, when the Board of
County Commissioners approved a subcommittee to review applicants for County Manager.
So my question is -- and I've looked online to see if that has been archived on the video or
if there are minutes available. If someone wanted to follow what that subcommittee was doing,
what resources would they have to do that?
MS. GREENE: Well, the subcommittees -- any subcommittee has to be publicly noticed.
So you would look on the county's website to find the public notice, and then you would find out
the date and time of the hearing. The subcommittee has to be open to the public so members of
the public may attend, and minutes will be taken.
Page 39 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
As I said earlier, really the CCPC is the only advisory committee I can think of with
verbatim minutes, because the law only requires summary minutes. So the rest of our advisory
committees have summary minutes, and so would the subcommittees.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. But my question is a little bit different.
It's -- from watching BCC meetings, which I do rather regularly, I see that that
subcommittee has met once, maybe twice. How would I have access -- well, is it videoed? Are
they meeting in a way that Mr. Miller and his staff can record it and it can be seen publicly on
Channel 97?
MS. GREENE: To my knowledge, that is not being publicly recorded. There is no
requirement in Florida law to record or to publicly broadcast any advisory board meeting, and we
have only a handful that we do broadcast, including the Planning Commission and the Coastal
Advisory Committee, the Tourist Development Council. So they're not all broadcast, no.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So if I want to know more about that, I need to follow the
public notices and show up?
MS. GREENE: Yes. Or you can read the minutes. I'm sure they'll be attached to a
board meeting agenda.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. GREENE: Yes. These are some reminders for advisory board members. I've been
attending advisory board meetings for 15 years. Not the CCPC, but a lot of others, and these are
some of the reminders that I give to my regular advisory board members, and they're all about
avoiding the appearance of an impropriety. No pre or post-meeting discussions. When members
of the public see a group of commissioners or council members huddled together in the hallway in
a corner, they think you're talking about something that's going to come before the advisory board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, but I'm going to interrupt again for clarification.
MS. GREENE: Of course.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It has occurred in my presence on more than one occasion that if
we have a lunch after we have finally heard something, it's not going to come back, let's say a
small-scale GMPA, are you saying that we can't discuss that because it's not -- reasonably, it's not
expected to come back to us?
MS. GREENE: Well, the question becomes where are you in the process. And so after
this advisory board makes a determination, it goes on to the BCC. Is it possible that the BCC will
send it back to you for additional work?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I see.
MS. GREENE: And I would say, arguably, that is foreseeable that the Board would have
additional questions.
Then after the Board would finally approve it, you also have to look at the nature of the
item. Is it something that is final with that approval at the BCC level, or is it something like an
RLSA item that will continually come back before both the Board and the Planning Commission.
So it really depends, in my opinion, on the nature of the item.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, this is -- this is timely, because, I mean, we're all
well-intentioned, to be sure, but I think we're going to have to, perhaps, change some of what we
thought were permissible behaviors in order to comply which, of course, we will.
MS. GREENE: The County Attorney's guidance is really just to be the most conservative
that we can be in order to stay out of, you know, trouble or the perception of an impropriety.
That's what this is about.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: To make sure that I understand, let's say a past agenda item like
Rivergrass came to us.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: We pass it on. Between the time it goes to the County
Commission, we should not be speaking about it.
MS. GREENE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Once they have ruled on it, we still then should not, or are
Page 40 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
we -- because we -- I mean, I will just point out there is some value to us in understanding our role
and -- I think just educating ourselves on this whole process is a big learning curve for us up
here -- to be able to debrief something that has gone through the entire process. My question is,
are we able to do that, and if so, at what point? Passing the BCC, is that the line in the sand after
which we might -- we could discuss something?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's never an issue until it becomes an issue. I don't know what else
to say. Human nature is to have a couple of drinks with somebody and talk shop. We know that,
okay. What's foreseeable? It's going to be hindsight. You should have known that Rivergrass
was coming back to you because there's a lawsuit or you should know that -- it would be hindsight.
What Colleen Greene and I try to do is we take as much a conservative approach as
possible, especially with advisory boards, because you guys aren't paid. And the last thing you
guys need on some odgena dealing with somebody claiming improprieties for you. It's not worth
it.
Now, what you do after that is up to you. But the practice that we outline, if you follow it,
you will never get into trouble.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Err on the side of caution.
MR. KLATZKOW: Err on the side of caution.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I jump in?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I spent probably 15 years on a Sunshine board, and it got
really contentious, and I've seen situations. And I just was going to say at some point exactly what
Jeff said. It doesn't matter till it matters. Some applicant gets upset, some member of the public
gets upset, the press shows up. And I lean over to Joe and say something jokingly or they happen
to sit next to us at lunch and we're trying to do our jobs, it can be terrible. And there's a criminal
component to it. It doesn't matter till it matters, and it will be on the most contentious issue.
And what I try to do is, I try -- first off, follow their advice. I agree 100 percent with what
they're saying. But I think we can get better at our jobs by being -- discussing things -- and you
may disagree, so I'd like to hear your comments. Very hypothetically, after something's over, we
don't talk about the project, but we can talk about what kinds of things are relevant or not relevant
without being -- talking about the project in any way. And I'm not encouraging that. I'm just
saying, if you feel like you want to get better at this, just make sure we're not talking about a
particular project and be super careful when we're at lunch, super careful -- you know, err on the
side of caution. Does that jive?
MS. GREENE: Well, yes -- I would said say yes and no, because you may also discuss
policy decisions at the Board that -- you know, here in your public forum that are not specific to a
project, and you really are in the best -- you know, you're in the best position to know whether it is
something that will be foreseeably discussed at your board.
And, you know, we urge caution, and that's why you're here today, because you want to
follow the procedures and the rules as well. And so, you know, I have no doubt that you'll do
what's right.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And you're probably right. There's no question, it
makes us less effective to follow this -- err on the side of caution. It just makes it harder to do our
jobs.
MS. GREENE: You can talk here when, you know, we're here in a publicly noticed
meeting and you have the room for the day, and, you know, sometimes the conversations may take
longer, but that's the nature of the Sunshine Law is transparency.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this -- and this may start happening more for that very reason
because, for instance, the concept of smart growth and understanding that and the various
permutations and combinations and nuances are things that are very important to me. I have my
own point of view, but I want to hear the point of view of my colleagues. We couldn't talk about
smart growth in private because, inevitably, things are going to come before us that involve smart
growth.
MS. GREENE: Exactly. Yes, Commissioner, you're correct.
Page 41 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: So as a policy, I would propose we -- when we're not in a
formal meeting we speak only of religion, the weather --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Politics.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- and politics.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sports.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Sports.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can count me out of those meetings.
MS. GREENE: Or just weather.
So these are our reminders. No private conversations on the dais. Somebody mentioned
that already; avoiding texting on the dais; you may not use nonmembers as liaisons. And we
talked about, you know, using your staff liaison. That's for scheduling purposes only; and avoid
the appearance of impropriety; that's the reminder.
So the Sunshine Law does apply to written correspondence. A board member may send
documents on matters coming before the Board for official action to other members provided there
are no responses and no interaction from the other members. We recommend against this unless
it's necessary. If you have a report or information that you want to get to the Board in advance of
the meeting -- because I understand your time is limited -- you would send it to your staff liaison,
Ray Bellows, and ask Ray to send it out to the rest of the advisory board and to include a reminder,
a note at the top, "This is a one-way communication. Please do not respond to this email," because
we don't want somebody inadvertently provide an opinion or comment or what have you on the
document that will be discussed at the advisory board. You have to save your comments for your
publicly noticed meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So as a practical matter, the first planning commissioner who
wants public distribution of material is also going to be the last on that subject. Because if I see
something that one of my colleagues has asked Mr. Bellows to circulate, that's going to be the last
word on that until the meeting. I can't then ask Mr. Bellows to submit something that casts it in a
different light.
MS. GREENE: I think it works that way, yes. You'll have to see, you know, what
document is submitted, and you could have two different pieces of information pertaining to the
same project, submit them all to your staff liaison. Not only will he maintain them as a public
record; they'll get on the agenda. They'll be part of the meeting, part of the minutes, and then
everything will be, you know, in compliance with the Sunshine Law and public records.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could I ask a -- I know it sounds like it's unrelated, but it's
tangentially related.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So do any of these provisions apply to a planning
commissioner's communication with a county commissioner?
MS. GREENE: Oh, I have a slide that will tell you that but, no, it does not, because it
applies to two or more members of the same board. So one --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
MS. GREENE: -- one member of the Planning Commission may meet with one member
of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then the only requirement then is the requirement we
have for any kind of ex parte discussion of any matter that we handle, we have to disclose it.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no ex parte component to that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There wouldn't be?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nope.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well -- okay.
MS. GREENE: Okay. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I don't understand Attorney Klatzkow's -- I mean, I
understand what he said. I'm trying to contextualize it. My thought was if I talked to, you know,
Janet Jones about what she thinks of setbacks in Collier County in neighborhoods and, you
know -- and then, you know, because we're thinking of changing the setbacks, you know, in the
Page 42 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
county, you know, or recommending a change to the code somewhere about setbacks, I thought I
would have to disclose that.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ex parte comes when you talk to other parties. So if you --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or their representatives. If you think of it from the same context
from a courtroom --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just real quick, based on what you said, then the reason I
have to disclose the staff is because the staff is considered a party because it's the county?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, they're part of the proceedings.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay. And I cut you off. I'm sorry.
MS. GREENE: Oh, no problem. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I cut off Attorney Klatzkow.
MS. GREENE: Oh, I'm sorry.
We are on to inspection trips, and I think Jeff spoke about inspection trips in his
presentation earlier this morning. But if the advisory board decides it needs to do an inspection
trip, we do these on a very limited basis because all elements of the Sunshine Law, all of the
requirements have to be met. It has to be open to the public, public notice, minutes must be taken.
So we recommend against them unless necessary. Your staff liaison would coordinate with the
County Attorney's Office if it became necessary to set up an inspection.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we're not going to do that. I'm just saying, we're not going to
do that. I remember once upon a time we took a bus trip out to Goodlette, and we had a court
reporter on the bus trip. But you've got to make it accessible to the public. It's just -- it is not
worth the odgena.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we're not talking about individual inspections?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not.
MS. GREENE: That would be a group. So you see the second bullet. To avoid
Sunshine issues, if you wish to conduct an inspection trip, do it outside the company of a fellow
board member.
This is a little Sunshine Law humor.
And then we have some frequently asked questions, and the one question has already been
asked: Two members of the same advisory board allowed to attend the same social function. Of
course, social events are permissible. Lots of advisory board members, you know, engage in
multiple civic types of associations. You just have to be cautious and be mindful not to discuss
anything that may foreseeably be discussed at your advisory board meeting. And the Sunshine
Law does not apply to private organizations such as homeowners associations.
And the Sunshine Law only applies to meetings of two or more members of the same
board. So one of you may meet with one commissioner or one TDC member or another advisory
board member.
There is an opportunity to correct action that is taken outside of the Sunshine Law. You'd
have to work -- staff would work with the County Attorney's Office, but the reason we're here
today is so that we don't have to correct action that's taken outside of the Sunshine.
There are consequences. And one of your commissioners mentioned it today. There is
actually a criminal penalty. It's a second degree misdemeanor to knowingly violate the Sunshine,
and you may be removed from your position.
There are headlines that we don't want, and this is all about the perception of impropriety.
And that leads us into our discussion on public procedures.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we enter that world, we're at two minutes past noon, and I
think we ought to assess how much more time we're going to want to have. I personally am
encouraging us to go as long as we can as long as we have unanswered questions. This is a very,
very important time, and I know the County Attorney is available all afternoon if needs be. But
let's talk about whether we want to try to run this to 1:00 or 1:30, and then leave for the day or
Page 43 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
whether we want to take a lunch break.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you've got much more after this, and Colleen can be
very brief.
MS. GREENE: Yeah. Public records is very quick, and then we can just do a broad
overview of the ethics presentation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do any Planning Commissioners have lots of issues that
haven't been touched upon?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do not.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Well, then that's what we'll do. We'll
continue. And please continue.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just wanted to assure you that I do not as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I also wanted to give you a startle.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wanted to ask, how typical is the Sunshine Law in
Florida compared to other states? Does every state have a Sunshine Law? Are we the only state?
Is ours more stringent than others? How do we compare?
MS. GREENE: I believe that other states have similar rules. I do think Florida's is one
of the more stringent, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would agree, having practiced law for over 48 years in other
jurisdictions, that this is a -- this is something in its own class. I mean, let's put it that way.
MS. GREENE: So public records, as you may know -- and we've talked a lot about it's
overlapping, the Sunshine Law and the public records, so we really don't have a lot of time left.
But a public record is more than a document. A public record encompasses all materials
made or received by an agency in connection with official business which is used to perpetuate,
communicate, or formalize knowledge, regardless of whether the matter is in final form. And the
public records includes all documents. And you'd be surprised, most of us working in the county,
almost every document on my desk, even as an attorney, is a public record whether it's -- if it's in
draft form, it still may be a public record, because the public records law is that broad.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could I ask a question there?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I'm looking at the slide with the magnifying
glass on it. So all materials made by an agency.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So is that --
MS. GREENE: Or received.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- something that I could do?
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So if I have my own notes and I haven't sent them to
anybody and don't intend to, am I making -- is that a public record that has been made by an
agency?
MS. GREENE: No, it is -- it is not. But as a public official -- and I will explain my
answer. As a public official, the public records law applies to you. There is an exemption for
personal notes that you take that are not shared with another person to help you remember. For
your own personal use, that is an exemption from the public records. But the minute you share
your notes with another person, it becomes a public record.
MR. KLATZKOW: I never take notes, ever, ever, ever. Not here, not in meetings, ever,
ever, ever. I have that reputation of never taking notes, so people won't be surprised when I say I
never take notes. If I want to send myself a reminder for something during a meeting, I send it by
email where it's a clear public record.
Page 44 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Good luck trying to tell people when you're taking notes that it's just for my own personal
recollection and I'm not going to be talking about it with anybody else.
It's -- that's how I do it. I just -- I will send myself an email as a reminder if I need
something done. As soon as you start writing up on there and people see it, you'll get a public
records, I want to see what he had to say. And you've got no desire to be in court with some judge
trying to figure out whether or not you should be giving that up or not.
MS. GREENE: And I can affirm, I have never seen Jeff take a handwritten note in 15
years.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I'll tell you, I take a lot of notes because I'm trying to
come up to speed and make a decision. But this is the first Sunshine board I've been on where I do
take notes. I usually follow Jeff's -- it's a great rule.
I don't even take this stuff -- I just -- I think that's a great policy. I just -- to be a judge, so
to speak, I need to, especially at this point and being the new kid, but I think that's a great policy,
too.
MS. GREENE: And I do recommend that you, when you join an advisory board -- I know
everybody is more electronic and more techy than I am, but get a three-ring binder and just keep
everything that you collect and gather and documents, any notes, keep them in a three-ring binder,
and then you can maintain your records should there ever be a reason that you need to reproduce
them in response to a public records request.
You know, keep track of your documents. Using the county's email system is the best
way to do it because the county, we have a great network, and we can always call up the document.
So if you've emailed yourself a reminder or a note or any kind of document that you use at the
CCPC, we can find it on the county's network, and you don't have to be responsible for reproducing
it at a later time.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Quick question.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that would include --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I take notes as I go for the same reason Chris is, to kind of
help formulate the key points, and at the end of the meeting, I rip them up and throw them away.
Am I destroying a public record now?
MS. GREENE: Not if you've never shared them. If your notes are to help you
remember --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I've shared the ideas. I probably -- just like we all do, if
we're going to make a statement on a very serious issue, we'd probably write some notes down of
key things we want to say, we say it, and then we throw it away. But we've just shared it with
everybody in a public venue, so it's okay, right?
MS. GREENE: Not your document. I mean, if you're not sharing your document, these
are -- this is your chicken scratch. This is Commissioner Shea's chicken scratch to help me get
through today's discussion. At the end of it, that's your record. You may --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MS. GREENE: -- toss it.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you.
MS. GREENE: But if you create anything more formal, you need to maintain it.
MR. KLATZKOW: And this is what's going to happen, and Commissioner Vernon said
this earlier. It's going to happen on a contentious item. So it's not going to happen on something
like the matter you heard today. It's going to happen on a matter like One Naples where you know
it's headed for litigation, you've got multiple attorneys involved. They're going to want to try to
muck up record as much as they can in some sense, and that's where you're going to get it.
So in one sense on something like happens today, I wouldn't have the same level of
concern on these issues as you would for something like One Naples, just as a practical matter.
MS. GREENE: And when you look at the definition of public records with the
magnifying glass, it's documents that are to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge. So
if it's just for your reminder during today meeting, you're not attempting to do that. Once you
make something more formal and you share your document, it immediately becomes a public
Page 45 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
record.
If I create a draft memorandum in my office and I ask a colleague to review it, it becomes a
public record, unless another exemption applies, because that's how the statutes work. But,
generally speaking, once you share a document, it is a public record.
And we have guidelines for advisory board members regarding public records. So while
you are serving on an advisory board, the public records law applies to you. Correspondence and
emails to or from anyone on any computer relating to county business is a public record. And it's
my understanding that Planning Commission members have county email addresses, and that is a
true benefit because, as I said before, the county maintains those records for you.
Public records must be maintained pursuant to state guidelines. And we've talked about
this. If you leave your position on an advisory board, please provide a copy of all public records
in your possession to the county staff liaison. One-way communication by email should be
directed to the staff liaison. As we talked about under the Sunshine Law section, no two-way
communications between members except during publicly noticed meetings. And if you choose to
communicate with members of the public concerning business via email, be aware that that email
becomes a public record and the person emailing you, their email becomes a public record as well,
their email address, if they have their signature line, would also become a public record.
There are exemptions to the public records. They're all defined by Florida Statute.
Common exemptions are documents prepared for in anticipation of litigation, social security
numbers of employees, sealed bids or proposals, and home address of certain county employees,
for example, current and former law enforcement officers, including Code Enforcement officers.
The county has a system in place pursuant to Florida Statute for members of the public to
make public records requests. If you should receive a public records request directed to you as a
member of an advisory board, the first thing you should do is contact your staff liaison. We don't
want you to attempt to struggle through it on your own, and your staff liaison will contact the
County Attorney's Office. You can always contact the County Attorney's Office directly if you
have any questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question on the email.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Great example: One Naples, probably received almost a
thousand emails. It may have been three less than a thousand. I'm not sure. I did not keep those.
I kept them in a file for the meeting. I didn't respond to them. But then after the meeting, I
simply deleted the file, and it was all in the county email.
MS. GREENE: All at your county email address.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I didn't keep those, but my assumption was that --
MS. GREENE: They are on the county's network.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They are in the -- they're in the county archives
somewhere.
MS. GREENE: Yes, and we have the ability to search emails to find -- if we have a
public records request, we can search all emails, you know, pertaining to whatever the public
records request asks for. So, yes, you can delete them off your screen, but they're saved for a very
long time on the county's computer network.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to follow up on that, if I may, Commissioner Schmitt. As
a matter of my personal practice, I rarely reply to emails from the public, although in the back of
my head, I always think, this is discourtesy -- discourteous on my part not to acknowledge receipt
of an email. But I'd just like to know what other Planning Commissioners are doing. Is anybody
replying to any of these things?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I never reply.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But occasionally, though, you'll get one that's addressed
specifically to you and are asking you a question, not promoting one side or the other on
the -- what we're hearing over, and they ask a question. What I try to do is if it's -- I send it to Ray
Page 46 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
and say, you guys answer it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's what I would -- I do as well. If I ever
got anything direct, if I had that type -- and I may have once or twice, I just say, thank you very
much for your concern. I'm forwarding your question to the staff liaison for this project. But in
no way do I attempt to answer those, because typically those emails, we all get them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're cookie cutters, frequently.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Sometimes I receive follow-up emails from somebody in the
public after a meeting, you know, Commissioner Fry, blah, blah, blah. I will respond out of a
courtesy to those just to let them know. They're a human being. I am, too. So I just respond
acknowledging the email. But it's not public records. It's on the county email address.
MS. GREENE: Yes. It will be maintained on the county's email address, I mean, for
decades.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But that's okay?
MS. GREENE: Your documents will be there.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm comfortable with it being public record, so that's okay.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was mostly wanting to have this conversation because I didn't
want to be being more discourteous than anybody else up here, because I really hardly ever
acknowledge, so...
MS. GREENE: But if you do receive a request for records, a public records request via
email, you do need to get with your staff liaison --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, absolutely. Understood.
MS. GREENE: -- directly because, pursuant to Florida law, we have to respond in a
reasonable amount of time. So we can't delay on a public records request. And then staff knows
when to involve the County Attorney's Office or our Customer Communication Relations Office.
We have a whole team of people who review responses to public records requests.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I have a question on that, then. I get hundreds of
emails. I do not read most of them because so many of them are repetitive, and I'm human, you
know, and I'm not going to look at every single email I get, especially when so many are the same
thing. I am not reviewing my email for requests for records, and I won't. I just -- I don't care
what your response is, I am not going to review my email for requests like that.
So is that -- you know, is that something that I'm obligated to do, to read through hundreds
of emails to make sure there's no public records request?
MS. GREENE: You know, I can tell you, Commissioner, in the last 15 years, I can only
remember one time that a public records request was directed to a member of an advisory board.
So it's very rare, and I do think that the public is aware to go to county staff if they're looking for
public records. It's -- you know, it's your discretion with your email, how you respond to your
emails. Whether you read them or respond to them, that's your discretion.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It has nothing to do -- like, if I was aware that someone
made a request --
MS. GREENE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- obviously I would follow the rules.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But I'm just saying that there's no way I'm going to review
all of the email that I get to, you know, just to see if there's any, you know, request in there. I'm
sure that, you know, none of us could meet that standard, you know, based on the amount of email
we get.
MS. GREENE: It sounds like you get a lot of emails. I didn't imagine that you did.
But staff is on it, and if we receive public records requests, staff will reply.
Public records requests can be made really informally. They can be verbal. They can be
a telephone call. And, you know, we have people in the county that are good at handling
responses to public records requests.
So social media, really quickly; this will not take long, Commissioners. Tools for social
Page 47 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
networking, you guys probably know more of the tools for social networking than I do. But the
issue is, if you are using social media, you run a risk of being out of compliance with the Sunshine
Law and the public records law. And the County Attorney's Office, Jeff and I, we recommend that
our advisory board members not use social media for advisory board business, because regardless
of the platform, if you're on Facebook or Twitter or whatever the other platforms are, if the material
is material that would foreseeably come before your advisory board or it's regarding your
government service, it is a public record, it must be retained, and it must be producible for
inspection or copying. And that's a really high burden to accept with using social media to
maintain those documents and to be able to reproduce them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are we considered "public officials" as that phrase is used in the
statutes?
MS. GREENE: Yes, you are, as an advisory board member.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. What about staff?
MS. GREENE: Staff -- the definition changes throughout, but in some places staff is a
public official and sometimes they're defined as county managerial employees, but it depends on
the section of the statute. Oftentimes yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. GREENE: So social media in the Sunshine, you have to -- advisory board members
must not engage on social media in an exchange or discussion of any matter that might foreseeably
come before the Board. And you know on social media people make comments, and you don't
want to make a comment and then have another advisory board member make a comment on the
same topic, because the Sunshine Law and the public records law applies. And so the --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we can do one-way communication, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to tell you, Commissioners have a much harder job because
it's their business to be involved with their constituents, and so they've got a much more difficult
problem with social media than you guys do. Don't use any social media for this job. Just don't.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I agree.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no need to do it. We give you a county email address for a
reason.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For all those who attempt to contact me on social media,
they'll find that I'm not on any of them.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nor am I.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the only one I'm on.
MR. KLATZKOW: As long as I'm a county attorney, I will not be involved in any social
media. It's just --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It goes out into the ether somewhere, because it's not
coming to me because I don't have an account.
MS. GREENE: It's just a greater risk.
Very quickly on the ethics laws. There are a number of ethics laws that apply to you now
as public officials. There's the Florida Statute, the county's ordinance, and -- the county's
ordinance. So those are the two statutes that apply to you specifically.
And as you know, as a member of an advisory board, as a public official, you are
prohibited from accepting anything of value that is given to you that you know or reasonably
should know is being given to you to influence your vote or other action.
The county has a more stringent public records -- sorry -- ethics law than the state, and we
have a zero-dollar gift limit in Collier County. So if anyone who comes before the Board who is
looking for direction from you or approval or a vote or action from you, if they're coming before
this board, you should not accept anything of value, and anything of value includes food.
Meaning it includes anything that you would have to pay for otherwise. This applies to advisory
board members, your spouses, and your minor children.
There are so many ethics laws that apply, and I know we're trying to get out of here on
time. Misuse of a public position. I don't think any of you on your advisory boards are trying to
get an unfair advantage based on your position as a Collier County Planning Commission;
Page 48 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
disclosure of certain information; information that you learn here. It's really hard to imagine that
you would disclose information improperly because everything is done in the Sunshine Law and
under the public records laws, but you have to use your best -- your best judgment. And
what -- the point of our ethics law/Sunshine Law, our presentation today, is to make you aware that
these rules are out there so that when you're faced with a question, you know you can contact the
County Attorney's Office directly or you can work with your staff liaison and contact us through
them.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Just don't take anything from anybody that has anything
possible to do with this job.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Including staff.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What are you referring to, Ned?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Coffee.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Coffee. Yeah, coffee.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm telling you, I -- just don't take anything from anybody. If
you're going to have dinner with somebody, you pay for your own dinner. If you're having drinks
with somebody, you pay for your own drinks. It's just -- don't take anything from anybody that
has anything to do with this job, and you'll be fine.
MS. GREENE: There are voting conflicts of interest. If an item is coming before you for
action and you have -- you may have a special private gain or loss, and that means an economic
benefit in the outcome of the vote, you may need to abstain from voting, and you should contact
either the County Attorney's Office directly or your staff liaison, and we'll work with you to see
whether you actually have a conflict of interest, because there are many exemptions that apply in
the Florida Statutes, but we'll work with you to decide.
It's hard to do an overall -- tell you the overall rule because of the number of exemptions
that apply, and it's a fact-specific analysis. But we want you to be aware that if something is
coming before your board for a vote where you or a member of your family is going to derive an
economic gain, you need to contact us in advance so that we can work on any potential conflict.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's for your protection, because anytime you have a remote thought
in your head that this might be problematic, send us an email. We will give you a quick-response
opinion on it, and after that, you're beyond criticism as long as you adhere to that opinion. So if
we say, sure, you have no problem, nobody else can point to you because you said the County
Attorney said I could do this.
Now, they could -- they could point to me and say, County Attorney, you don't know what
you're talking about, and that's fine. But it protects you. So anytime you have any doubt in your
mind whether you should be voting on something, take it to us and think of it as a safe harbor.
MS. GREENE: And if you think that you may not have an economic benefit but you feel
like there's some possible gain or there's some perceived conflict, Florida Statute provides this
optional absentia provision which, again, we'll have to work with you. Where there may not be an
actual conflict but you have some connection to the item coming before you, we'll work with you
to determine whether that's something where you should abstain from voting.
Again, the purpose of our presentation is to give you the idea that, if you have a question,
we want you to ask. We're here to help.
We have a no gift policy in Collier County. It's a zero-dollar limit. That way it's easy to
remember. You don't have to say, wait, was it $25? Was it 50? No. It's a zero-dollar gift limit.
Buy your own lunch, buy your own coffee on the way into the building. There are limited
exemptions that apply. When in doubt, ask -- call us and ask us.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm assuming if we have lunch with somebody, we can buy
the lunch, right?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can't even buy their lunch?
MS. GREENE: Buy your own lunch. Somebody doing business with the advisory board,
it's just better if each person pays for their own lunch. There's no perception of an impropriety.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can Paul buy me lunch?
Page 49 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure, as long as you don't talk about business.
MS. GREENE: I didn't know who asked the question. Yes.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was just looking for a free lunch, that's all.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: You owe me one, too.
MS. GREENE: All right. So let us know if you have any questions. I just did that
briefly to give you an idea. It's 12:30. I know you're ready to get out of here. You've had a busy
day.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone have any questions with respect to the subject matter
that's been presented by the County Attorney's Office? Questions, comments, observations?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I had a couple miscellaneous questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I noticed today Yovanovich -- I never noticed it before.
But he raised his hand. He's testifying. As a technical matter, could a savvy attorney
cross-examine him on the -- opposing his application?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a personal opinion. I think Mr. Yovanovich may disagree
with me on this, okay. But there are times when Mr. Yovanovich goes beyond being an attorney
and almost becomes a witness as he's testifying. In that context, yeah, I think he's subject to
cross-examination, and if I'm asked that's how I'd -- that's what I'd tell this board. So as long as
he's in his role as an attorney and he's just introducing one engineer or expert after another, he's
fine. But if he actually starts testifying to matters, yes, he is subject to cross-examination.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And related to that, when the Chairman says everybody
testifying needs to raise their -- I mean, are all the attorneys that show up here representing people
required to raise their hand?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: They all do.
MR. KLATZKOW: They're not required to, because -- anybody giving testimony is
required to take an oath.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Unfortunately, sometimes the line gets blurred as to
investigating [sic] testimony.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then the only other question --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: On that specific issue, Commissioner, do you mind if I ask
a specific --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, jump in. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. On that particular point, I would think it would
be good to have a standard procedure that the attorney declare before he's making his presentation
on whether or not, you know, he's giving testimony or not. That way, you know -- I mean, we
should know. We should know. I mean, if someone is presenting the whole case and answering
detailed questions, then they're apparently -- under, you know, Attorney Klatzkow's interpretation,
and he's the one advising us -- that attorney is giving testimony. It should be very clear who's
giving testimony to us. What do you think, fellow commissioners?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think that they should, as a rule, that agents, whether it be
the planners, the lawyers, that these folks should raise their right hand and swear to tell you the
truth because it is a blurred line. And I don't remember if it was Mr. Yovanovich or Mr. Arnold
today, but someone, one of the two, said, well, we couldn't make this deal happen if you took 16
units away from us. Well, to me, first of all, that opens the door for questions to be asked. But in
order to be sure that they have a full understanding that when they make a statement like that, that
they are under oath. That's my personal view.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, and I guess, then, maybe when, you know, at
the beginning of each petition -- you know, because we don't know if people are under oath or not.
You know, I mean, how does anyone know?
MR. KLATZKOW: They raise their hands here. Pretty much everybody including staff
raises their hands.
Page 50 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As long as someone's monitoring that, then, so we know,
then that's fine.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm trying to keep track of it, and particularly after the registered
speakers, if we ask for -- anybody in the room who hasn't registered wants to speak, my first
question would be, have you been sworn in.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Well, I appreciate that. I don't -- I don't know as I
even agree, you know, with, you know, Attorney Klatzkow, but I feel like that's the advice we're
given, and absent me concluding something different, I'm going to go with that advice and I -- you
know, and assume that he's correct on that or at least there's a good argument to be made.
And precisely for this issue, you know, if we're going to be perceiving that information, I
think the perception that we should have should be different if it's testimonial versus simply a, you
know, ministerial, you know, announcing the next person or presenting these documents, you
know, on behalf of my client. Those are two different -- two different levels of gravity as to what
we should perceive.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But isn't it a lot simpler just to do what we do; everybody
that's going to come to the mic gets sworn in. You don't have to argue whether it's testimony or
not. They've been sworn in.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's my view.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which is what we do.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is, absolutely. And, furthermore, and I made this point when I
recused myself from One Naples. There's a provision in some ordinance somewhere to the effect
that if a public official, which we know now that we are, if we do not follow the advice of the
County Attorney, we put our own right to indemnification in serious jeopardy, and we could find
ourselves defending ourselves at our own expense. Did I say that right?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I have one other different subject-matter question,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: It goes back to what Commissioner Fry was asking about
the Bert Harris Act. If we -- well, we're just giving an opinion. But if the Board of County
Commissioners -- or we give a recommendation -- deny something, the county can be sued for
refusing to allow development.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then the follow-up, is the -- does that become inverse
condemnation, eminent domain, or is that the damages, or is there money damages, or could it be
either?
MR. KLATZKOW: It could -- the way Bert Harris works is that the developer will say,
okay, this is my injury, and they'll give you an appraisal report what it is. So it's always about
money. At that point in time, the Board has the option to -- a number of options, including
allowing -- allowing the application to move forward.
I will tell you that with the good work that this board does and what staff does, we've had
very few of these claims over the years. I mean, I think one, which wasn't much of a claim to
begin with.
Other jurisdictions, if they don't listen to their staff or their County Attorney, have gotten
into trouble with Bert Harris. But it's not a statute that concerns me, because we're very
professional here as to our approach.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: All right. Thanks to both of you for the presentation. It
was great. That's all I had.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from the County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does the Planning Commission desire to have any further
discussion about our role with the Hearing Examiner? The County Attorney suggested that this be
placed in the hands of staff after hearing our input to take it, in effect, as a resolution or perhaps
Page 51 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
ordinance, among other things. The Hearing Examiner works directly for the Board of County
Commissioners. Does anybody have any further observations that they want to --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just -- I'll make a comment to staff, and that is, I -- from
my perspective, the only thing we want to change is to make -- and make it as objective as possible
as to what comes to us and what doesn't come to us and that if it can't be objective simply because
it's a subjective decision, then who should make that subjective decision? And what I don't really
want -- and this is self-serving, but I don't really want a lot more work pushed to us as a result.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And not only is it pushed to us, but then it's also pushed to the
Board of County Commissioners because they have to hear it on a recommendation that we make,
whereas the HEX, his decision is final unless it's appealed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Who is -- when you say "staff would review and make the
decision," who -- define "staff" in that case. Is that a person? Is that a department?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
During the pre-application meeting for an item, say it's a variance or a boat dock, those are
typically petitions that will go to the Hearing Examiner. And in just about every case, those aren't
very controversial and pretty straightforward.
Now, we did have a boat dock extension for multiple slips for a multifamily development,
and it was controversial, and it ended up going to the Planning Commission and to the Board on
appeal. I think it even went to the Board on appeal.
So there is -- boat docks are typically -- are reviewed and approved by the Hearing
Examiner, and before the Hearing Examiner, boat docks were reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, prior to HEX, also approved PDI applications.
But variances and conditional uses that go to the HEX, those require Board of Zoning Appeals
approval, and the Board of County Commissioners sits as the Board of Zoning Appeals.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: And at the pre-application meeting, we generally have a good idea if
it's, you know, intended to be something that qualifies as a HEX item.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it the consensus of this board that we are asking staff to sharpen
its pencil and come up with as clear criteria as they possibly can and objective criteria as to what's
going to the Hearing Examiner and what comes to the Planning Commission?
MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that that request has also come from the Hearing
Examiner to clarify that as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay.
MR. BELLOWS: And I don't know if Anita wants to speak to that or not. But we are
looking at that issue.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just want to be sure from --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. Did we get a response from all the commissioners
to the Chairman's question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. Does anyone disagree with my characterization
of that as a consensus request on our part of staff? Does anybody want to except themselves from
that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then we'll determine and we will say that by
consensus we're asking staff to come back with clear and objective criteria to determine, going
forward, whether a matter goes to the HEX or comes to the Planning Commission. And we're not
going to tell you when you have to do this, but can you give us an idea when, reasonably, we might
expect something to be coming back to us?
MR. BELLOWS: Can we follow up with email on that once we've had a chance to vet it a
little bit more?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And we will -- we will report as this evolves. If you're
talking about an email with me, we will report on regular --
MR. BELLOWS: I certainly know how to do the emails now after the presentation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, good.
Page 52 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We make recommendations of changes on the HEX. Of
course, that involves a change to the ordinance and following changes to the LDC, because that
spells out some of the criteria.
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely that would be the case if there is a change. You know, we
were going to look at the request from the Hearing Examiner and what you've put on the record
today, and we'll come to some kind of planner consensus, and it could be something that goes back
before the Board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to weigh in? Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I'm comfortable with that approach. This
handout, which I do find helpful, giving us a preview of what is coming our way --
MR. BELLOWS: There's a typo in it, though. I'll correct it and send it out.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I saw that. Is this something we can continue to
expect?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That is now part of the tickler. I think Commissioner Fryer
indicated that, you know, we can get them out sooner than during the day of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's helpful.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we all have to keep in mind that this is not a -- this is not
etched in granite. There can be changes. This is just staff's present estimation of what's coming
in, and we --
MR. BELLOWS: What's currently scheduled in our computer program called CityView.
When a date gets entered in there, it's getting prepped for advertising.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's our responsibility not to complain if it turns out that the real
agenda differs somewhat, because events are dynamic, and they will change.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, on that note, I do notice that I think in March both
Bellmar and Longwater show up on the same agenda on the same day. Is that actually --
MR. BELLOWS: That is the way it shows up in CityView right now. So I believe the
applicant had requested both of them to be companion items, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, heard together?
MR. BELLOWS: Heard together.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's actually February 18th.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct, yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we're going to have our work cut out for us.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have an idea I want to bring up before we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Now would be the time.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well -- and I'm putting Mr. Bellows -- I'm not
intending to put him on the spot. We have talked about it previously. But I just wanted to bring
up, you know, since we're not -- you know, we're not really on a tight timeline, but it shouldn't take
too long -- to discuss my -- you know, my desire that the -- that our staff has all of the -- all of the
Land Development Code online for people, you know, and I think everyone remembers, you know,
my concern and my request. And I didn't know if Mr. Bellows has any more feedback, if, you
know, he's made any progress or has an update.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is online.
MR. KLATZKOW: The Land Development Code is online.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, the -- no, the more specific elements such as the -- you
know, a searchable version of the SRA for Ave Maria, for instance, that you can easily find and
you don't have to know exactly where to go.
MR. KLATZKOW: That exists under MUNI Code search engine. I suppose we could --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Really?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I suppose we could -- yeah, I suppose we could make a
Page 53 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
reference in our web page to that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That would be great. All right. Well, Mr. Bellows, did
you have anything to add to that?
MR. BELLOWS: I was just going to say, part of that question that you asked to include
PUD documents and ordinances, the Clerk's Office has all of those recorded. We have searchable
zoning atlases that you click on a property, they'll pull up all the approved ordinances or resolutions
for that particular property. But I think what you were trying to say is can you click on, like, a
GIS map and pull up all the approved ordinances, and right now our system isn't designed to
accommodate that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think it would benefit me, Mr. Bellows, if -- you
know, if someone can, you know, log in with me and show me, you know, how I can -- you know,
what exactly the capabilities are of what we have, you know. And my main concern is so that, you
know, citizens, you know, homeowners, residents, can easily find these things when we're
referencing but also, you know, just for myself.
I figure if it's hard for me to find something -- not that I'm a genius, but, you know, I'm a
trained lawyer, and I'm very persistent, you know, and can ferret out information pretty easily. If
it's hard for me to find something, then I'm assuming, you know, that that's, you know, going to be
the case with a lot of people that ought to not have so much trouble finding stuff.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, understood. And we do have a business center that is put
together to help the general public with their zoning -- general zoning questions, to help get
answers, help them navigate our web page so they can find information themselves in the future.
So we do have systems in place, but the intuitiveness of the web page probably needs
improvement.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And I look forward to talking to you with that, and
I really appreciate you've always been very supportive, you know, of responding and helping me
understand better and maybe move progress on that issue. So I appreciate that.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I do think it's a great opportunity. And when you get a chance,
maybe we could set up a time. You know, we're trying to do additional training for our new staff
on how to find things through our computer, various programs. Maybe we can start working on
maybe a one-on-one session to help show how we research things on our county web page that
commissioners can use to help with their research projects.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good.
Commissioner Shea and then Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So this type of training that we went through today, I really
value that. I think it accelerates our learning process. And I had a couple more ideas on topics
just based on today from my personal standpoint.
I think Jeff talked about double the population and the other half going to be in the eastern
part of the county. I've never seen any presentation on growth projections in the county. I would
love to see, not just a number, but where -- you know, a dialogue where you can ask questions like
this, and maybe the growth management committee could talk a little bit about growth, where it's
going to go, how -- you know, high-level discussion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: A not absolutely current such presentation but an excellent one
exists online, and it was Mark Strain's presentation. I think autumn or early winter of 2019 was
the last time he updated it. But for those who have not seen that, it is still very, very informative
and well, well produced, and it's out there on the Internet.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Another topic that we hear a lot that everybody kind of
intuitively understands what it means, but smart growth. I mean, we're managing growth, and is
most of us -- I don't know -- I know what it means just from the general standpoint, be smart. But
there's a lot of specific details that fill in the blank of the definition of smart growth. I think it
would be good for us to get a little bit more knowledge on what it means.
The third one is -- I don't know what we can do with it. I still struggle reading in the paper
all the time by anybody who's against any kind of growth, that the county is going to pay millions
of dollars to build the infrastructure for the developer. And when we had the impact fee
Page 54 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
discussion, nobody seemed to really know whether that was true or not. Jeff indicated in his -- I
mean, I took his comment as we don't collect anywheres near the cost. Somehow we've got to get
our hands around that. That is a common, common public comment that I hear all the time, that
we're giving away infrastructure.
MR. KLATZKOW: The Board sets the impact fee policy for the county, and what
happens is that we go to an outside consultant, does a study, and says this is what the impact fee
needs to be if growth's going to pay for growth.
At that point in time, the Board has the ability to charge the full amount, or they can charge
less than that. From time to time the Board has elected to go less than that because the reality is
that the impact fees on a single-family house right now, I think they're over $25,000. It gets to a
point where a big part of the cost of purchasing new construction in Collier County is the impact
fee.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Because Collier County, I believe, is the highest
impact fee in the state of Florida.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what we're saying is the public is right, the rest of the
citizens of Collier County are paying for the impact fees on development because we're worried the
impact fees are too high.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, okay. But there was a point in time where there were no
impact fees, and roads still got built, the schools got built, and everything else.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It falls onto the General Fund.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. That's all I'm saying is we need to be more honest
about it is that we are all paying for the growth.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: But the flip side is that our impact fees are higher than
anybody in the state, so we're doing a better job, arguably, of collecting -- having the developer pay
for it.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, our costs are higher.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is it's been a --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: True.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- policy decision by the Board to set the impact fees. Whatever
they are, it's a policy decision of the Board.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. No, I understand. I'm just saying, it's not like
we're not collecting strong impact fees, but Paul's point, well, it's a higher cost of living here, so
they should be higher.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, I was curious if there was a slide missing in the
presentation. I saw nothing about our role in issuing pardons. And I wonder if you could just
cover that for us briefly. I have about 144 I would like to submit.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Family members.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Himself.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mostly. Including myself.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. With that...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hearing none, any further old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hearing none, without objection, we're adjourned.
*******
Page 55 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 12:44 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on _________, as presented __________ or as corrected _________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,
COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 56 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
Page 57 of 57
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 01-21-21CCPC (14942 : January 21, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes)
02/18/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 9.A.1
Item Summary: ***This item was continued from the February 4, 2021 CCPC meeting*** A
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the future land use element and
map series to create the Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay (IRRVO) on property within the
agricultural, rural designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, to establish 210.78± acres of Sending
Lands, 1998± acres of Receiving Lands and 578.49± acres of Neutral Lands; to allow a maximum of
4042 dwelling units within the IRRVO of which a minimum of 3,000 and a maximum of 4,000 dwelling
units will be located in the receiving lands; to provide for generation of transfer of development rights
credits from sending lands including one credit for restoration of farm lands; to provide for uses on
sending lands to include allowable uses in County preserves; to provide fo r uses on Neutral Lands to
include uses permitted by LDC section 2.03.08.a.3 on Neutral Lands without limitation including but not
limited to agricultural activities, single family dwelling units, group housing, sports and recreation camps,
farm labor housing, schools and educational plants; to provide for uses on receiving lands to include a
minimum of 25,000 square feet and a maximum of 125,000 square feet of civic/institutional/government
uses, a minimum of 50,000 square feet and a maximum of 250,000 square feet of commercial uses
permitted by right and conditional use in the General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District, with non-
residential uses subject to a cap of 375,000 square feet in the receiving lands; providing for a greenbelt
and native vegetation requirements; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 2787.27± acres and located on east side of
Immokalee Road, approximately two miles north of Oil Well Road. [Coordinator: James Sabo]
Meeting Date: 02/18/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission
Name: Diane Lynch
02/10/2021 4:07 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/10/2021 4:07 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 02/10/2021 10:34 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 02/10/2021 10:34 AM
Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 02/10/2021 10:34 AM
Zoning Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/10/2021 10:34 AM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 02/18/2021 9:00 AM
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 152
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 1 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: February 4, 2021
SUBJECT: PETITION PL20180002660_CP2018-5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING]
ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE and CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGMENT
PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owners: Agent:
27th Pico Boulevard Limited Partnership
Brentwood Holdings Limited Partnership
95 North County Road
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Applicant:
Jeff Greene c/o Stuart Grossman, Esq.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Robert Mulhere, FAICP
Hole Montes Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
The subject property is 2,787.27± acres is size and includes
properties designated RFMUD Neutral (210.78 acres);
RFMUD Sending (578.90 acres) and RFMUD Receiving
(1,997.59 acres). The Immokalee Road Rural Village
Overlay (IRRV Overlay) is located in Sections 1 & 2,
Township 48S, Range 27E, and Sections 35 and 36,
Township 47S, Range 27E, and Section 25, Township 47S,
Range 28E, Collier County, Florida. The Property is located
approximately 2 miles north of Oil Well Road with 2.3±
miles of frontage on Immokalee Road.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 2 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
REQUESTED ACTION
This petition seeks to establish an Overlay designation on 2,787.27 acres in the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) by amending:
1) Policy 1.9, to add the new Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay;
2) Overlays and Special Features, to add the new Overlay provisions;
3) Future Land Use Map Series list, to add the title of the new Overlay inset map;
4) Countywide Future Land Use Map to depict the Overlay;
5) Future Land Use Map Series to add an inset map depicting the Overlay site;
The Overlay text, Countywide Future Land Use Map, and FLU Map Series inset map proposed
by this this petition are attached to the draft Resolution as Exhibit “A.”
This petition also seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)
by amending:
1) Policy 6.1.7 (3), to allow for the total littoral planting shelf area to be reduced to 15% of
the wet detention pond surface area within the Receiving lands.
The petition’s proposed CCME amendment is attached to the draft Resolution as Exhibit “B.”
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed amendment seeks to establish the Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay (IRRV
Overlay). The proposed IRRV Overlay includes Neutral, Sending and Receiving designated lands
within the RFMUD.
Neutral Lands:
The Neutral Lands (210.78 acres) were previously mined and are encumbered by a large lake
(162.19± acres). Along the southern perimeter of the lake there is a +/-100-foot-wide strip of
upland (within the Neutral
Tract). This is proposed to
be combined with an
adjacent +/- 150-foot-wide
strip of Receiving Lands to
allow for development of up
to 42 single family lake front
lots and for access from the
public project’s public
roadway. These 42 dwelling
units are derived from the
Neutral Lands allowance of
1 unit per 5 acres.
Sending Lands:
Sending Lands (578.90 acres) are located consistent with the area identified by the Hussey
Settlement. The proposed amendment revises the TDR generation formula for Sending Lands
within the Overlay to allow for the following:
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 3 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
A. Base TDR Credits: 0.4 per acre (2.0 per five acres); and,
B. Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus: 0.2 Bonus Credits per acre (1.0 per
five acres) generally, and an additional 1.0 Bonus Credits per acre (5.0 per five acres) for
restoration of cleared areas utilized for farming activities, to functional native habitat, including
upland, wetland and wading bird habitat; and,
C. Conveyance or Public Access Bonus Credits: 0.2 Bonus Credits per acre (1.0 per five acres).
The applicant states that the additional incentive for restoration of farm fields to functional native
habitat, including upland, wetland and wading bird habitat is only achievable on the +/- 100 acres
of existing lands previously cleared for agriculture in the Sending designated lands. This will yield
100 additional Bonus Credits beyond what can be achieved in the currently adopted TDR
provisions.
Receiving Lands:
Receiving Lands (1998 acres) are proposed for development as a mixed-use Village. The petition
requests a minimum of 3,000 and maximum of 4,000 residential units, inclusive of 400 affordable
housing units, 50,000-250,000 square feet of commercial uses, 25,000-125,000 square feet of
civic, institutional and government uses.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Subject Property: The subject property is designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Receiving Lands, which generally provides for higher land use densities in an area with fewer
natural resource constraints than Sending Lands and, where existing and planned public
facilities are concentrated. The property is zoned A-MHO, Agricultural Mobile Home Overlay
and is a former mining site. It is undeveloped and wooded.
Surrounding Lands:
North: Future Land Use Designation; Agricultural/Rural RFMUD Neutral. Zoned; Agricultural
Mobile Home Overlay A-MHO. Land Use; Agricultural zoned parcels, (north of Neutral
parcel) Immokalee Road and Agricultural zoned parcels.
East: Future Land Use Designation; E-Estates; (Rural Estates). Zoned; E-Estates. Land Use;
60-foot canal easement, developed and undeveloped Estates lots.
South: Future Land Use Designation; E-Estates; (Rural Estates). Zoned; E-Estates. Land
Use; 80-foot canal easement, developed and undeveloped Estates lots.
West: Future Land Use Designation; RFMUD Sending, RFMUD Receiving, Zoned; A-MHO.
Land Use; Immokalee Road and Crew Trust NRPA.
In summary, the existing and planned land uses in the larger surrounding area are primarily low-
density single-family residences and undeveloped or agricultural parcels.
Hussey Settlement Agreement
The Hussey Settlement Agreement (Agreement), dated February 12, 2013, involves a portion of
lands within the proposed IRRV Overlay Boundary. The Agreement changes the designation of
578 acres from Receiving Lands to Sending Lands. The petition proposes to generate TDRs
from these Sending Lands. The Agreement limits uses within the Sending Lands as follows:
• Native vegetation retention requirement – 80%
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 4 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
• Ag uses consistent with RTFA – to the extent & intensity such exists at date of TDR
severance
• Cattle grazing on unimproved pasture
• 1 DU/40 acres – where TDR credits haven’t been severed [it is allowed to sever TDRs from
a portion of a site but not all of it so as to retain some DU rights; e.g. on a 40-ac. parcel,
sever 7 base TDRs then build 1 DU on the 40-ac. site]
• Preservation/conservation uses, same as above
• Passive parks & passive rec uses, same as above
• Essential services, same as above
• Oil extraction & related processing
• Essential services – limited, e.g. fire, police & EMS stations (CU)
• Oil & gas field development & production (CU)
The Hussey Settlement Agreement is included as Attachment C.
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District:
The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District
(RFMUD) is approximately 77,000
acres located east of Collier Boulevard.
The land areas contained in the
RFMUD are not contiguous. The Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District map shows
RFMUD lands as Receiving (blue),
Sending (orange) and Neutral (black
hatch).
The original plan for this area,
adopted in 2002, is based on the
principles of transfer of
development rights. The transfer of
development rights (TDR) is the
mechanism that provides
landowners incentives to send
development rights from the
Sending Areas. Landowners in the
Sending Areas can voluntarily use
the program to obtain and sell
TDRs to entitle development in the
Receiving Areas.
Neutral Areas within the RFMUD
are not recognized as high value
habitat areas and therefore do not
generate TDRs. Nor do Neutral
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 5 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
Areas qualify for higher density or intensity of development. These lands may generally be
developed with 1 unit per 5 acres.
The RFMUD sub-areas have been
evaluated under the labeled areas as
follows:
Sending Areas:
• North
• North Belle Meade- NRPA
• North Belle Meade-West
• South Belle Meade
Receiving Areas:
• North
• West
• North Belle Meade
• South
Neutral Areas are labeled with a black
hatch.
The RFMUD has been under evaluation,
resulting in an RFMUD White paper that
summarizes the findings and
recommendations. Based on this
evaluation, the Board of County
Commissioners has provided direction to
staff to prepare RFMUD GMP
amendments. The Immokalee Road
Rural Village petition addresses some of these considerations.
The IRRV Overlay GMPA petition proposes to amend the Future Land Use Element relative to
the North Receiving Area and Sending and Neutral Areas within the project boundary. The petition
proposes to provide for different TDR provisions and development standards.
Two amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District were recently approved, both within the
Western Receiving Area. First, Ventana Point, 37.62 acres, was approved to increase density
from 1 unit per acre to 2.05 units per acre, for a total of 77 dwelling units, and requiring the
utilization of a total of 35 TDRs. Second, NC Square, 24.4 acres, was approved for a maximum
of 129 affordable housing units, 44,400 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial and 12,000 sq. ft. of
daycare use. NC Square does not require the use of TDRs.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 6 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs):
The RFMUD incentivizes the transfer of development rights from Sending Areas to Receiving
Areas. Generally, the adopted RFMUD policies allow property owners to generate up to 4 TDRs
per 5 acres of Sending Land (1 Base TDR and 3 Bonus TDRs). The RFMUD White Paper
estimates 3,953 TDRs have been processed from 6,532 Sending Area acres.
The RFMUD White Paper reveals an imbalance between TDR supply and likely long-term
demand. It is estimated that demand will ultimately be more than double the supply under the
current TDR policies. The White Paper recommendation for additional TDRs to add liquidity to
the supply/demand balance is a central and fundamental change to the existing TDR program.
The IRRV petition proposes to generate TDRs consistent with adopted RFMUD and the proposed
White paper recommendations, and to establish unique TDR provisions specific to the proposed
Overlay. The table below shows TDR generation for the Proposed IRRV Overlay, the adopted
RFMUD and the proposed White Paper recommendations. The red ink indicates consistency
between TDR provisions.
In summary, the petition proposes the following TDR utilization.
Protection of 278 acres of Sending Lands within the project boundary generates:
• 563 TDRs from Sending Areas; and
PROPOSED IRRV GMPA ADOPTED RFMUD PROPOSED WHITE
PAPER
Sending Lands (578.49+ ac.) Sending Lands Sending Lands
Base TDR Credits
0.4 TDRs/acre (2 TDRs/5
ac.) from Sending Lands
within Overlay
0.2 TDRs/acre
(1TDR/5 ac.)
0.4
TDRs/acre
(2 TDRs/5
ac.)
Env. & Restoration
TDR Bonus Credit
0.2 TDRs/acre (1 TDR/5
ac.)
0.2 TDRs/acre (1
TDR/5 ac.)
0.2 TDRs/acre (1
TDR/5 ac.)
Conveyance TDR
Bonus Credit
0.2 TDRs/acre (1 TDR/5
ac.)
0.2 TDRs/acre (1
TDR/5 ac.)
0.2 TDRs/acre (1
TDR/5 ac.)
Farm Field
Restoration TDR
Bonus Credits
1 TDRs/acre (5 TDRs/5 ac.)
N/A
N/A
TDR Bonus Credit
for each TDR
utilized
1.0 RV Bonus TDR Credit
for each TDR utilized
N/A
N/A
TDR Bonus from
Sending Lands
For each TDR acquired
from Sending Lands, 1 RV
Bonus Credit provided for
each TDR utilized.
For each TDR Cr.
acquired for use in
achieving min.
density, 1 RV
bonus unit shall be
granted.
For each TDR Cr.
acquired for use in
achieving min. density,
1 RV bonus unit shall
be granted.
Additional credits
from Sending Lands
if RFMUD is
amended in future
Allowed
N/A
Allowed
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 7 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
• 563 RV Bonus Credits (these are bonus TDRs and do not require protection of additional
Sending lands).
Protection of unknown acres of Sending Lands outside of the project boundary. The number of
acres protected will depend on the specific types of TDRs available. If all TDRs utilized are
generated from the purchase of Base TDRs (1 TDR per 5 acres), it could protect up to 5,685
acres. If Base TDRs and all bonuses were utilized from parcels (4 TDRs per 5 acres) it could
protect up to 1,421 acres.
• 1,137 TDRs from Sending Areas outside of the property boundary; and
• 1,137 RV Bonus Credits for TDRs acquired from Sending Areas (these are bonus TDRs
and do not require protection of additional Sending lands).
Land Use Mix, Density and Intensity
The RFMUD provides for the development of Villages within Receiving Areas, “to reduce the
need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County’s Urban area for
work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and
rural levels of service through economies of scale.”
PROPOSED IRRV GMPA ADOPTED RFMUD PROPOSED RFMUD
RESTUDY BASED
GMPAs
Receiving Lands (1,998+ ac.) Receiving Lands Receiving Lands
RV Size
(excludes
greenbelt)
1,998+ acres (greenbelt ac.
not provided in GMPA)
300 ac. min. – 1,500
ac. max.
300 ac. min. – no max.
Rural Village
Density
1.5 DU/A min. – 2.0 DU/A
max.
2 DU/A min – 3
DU/A max.
4 DU/A min. – 7 DU/A
max.
Density:
Base:
Affordable
Housing:
0.2 DU/A
0.5 DU/A added for each low
income, entry level &
workforce unit provided
0.2 DU/A
0.5 DU/A for each
unit of low-income
housing only
0.2 DU/A
0.5 DU/A for each unit
of low-income housing
only
Village Center
(VC):
< 10% of total RV acreage =
199.80 ac; 100 MF units;
includes civic, institutional,
gov’t. uses, parks, 29.13 ac.
amenity center, etc.
Primary location for
commercial uses;
shall include mixture
of residential housing
types; institutional
uses; commercial
uses; recreational
uses; and, < 10% of
total RV acreage.
Primary location for
commercial uses; shall
include mixture of
residential housing
types; institutional
uses; commercial uses;
recreational uses; and,
< 10% of total RV
acreage (provision may
change)
Village Center
Commercial
Min. of 50,000 sq. ft. and
max. of 250,000 sq. ft. of C-1
through C-4 uses; and, a min.
of 25,000 sq. ft. and max. of
125,000 sq. ft. of
civic/institutional/gov’t space.
Not to exceed 30% of
Village Center
acreage & < 10,000
sq. ft. of glfa/ac.
Not to exceed 30% of
Village Center acreage
& < 10,000 sq. ft. of
glfa/ac. (provision may
change)
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 8 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
The Immokalee Road Rural Village petition proposes to amend the size limitation, increasing it
from 1,500 acres to 1,998 acres, along with other difference from the adopted RFMUD policies.
The table above shows a comparison of the proposed Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay
provisions, the adopted RFMUD and the White Paper recommendations. The red ink indicates
consistency between development provisions.
The FLUE establishes a minimum density for a Village of 2.0 units per acre and a maximum of
3.0 units per acre (excluding bonus density). A 1,500-acre Village would be required to provide a
minimum of 3,000 dwelling units (2.0 units per acre) and would be limited to a maximum of 4,500
dwelling units (3.0 units per acre), excluding specific bonuses.
The applicant states that while the proposed Village is larger than the current maximum of 1,500
acres, the IRRV Overlay Village at 1,997.59 acres and density of 4,000 DUs does meet the
minimum density requirement of 2.0 units per acre. Also, it does not exceed the current maximum
density established for a 1,500-acre village of 4,500 dwelling units. The White Paper proposes to
consider illuminating the maximum size of a Village to incentivize greater mixed-use development.
The project proposes to increase the RFMUD requirements for commercial and civic uses. Recent
studies utilizing the Collier Interactive Growth Model indicate a need for a larger ratio non-
residential uses per household. The proposed commercial square footage increases provide
greater opportunity for goods, services, and jobs closer to the residents of the community
supporting shorter trip lengths and greater internal capture.
The adopted RFMUD requires Villages to be inclusive of a surrounding greenbelt averaging 300
feet in width but not less than 200 feet in width. The Greenbelt is required to ensure a permanent
un-developable edge surrounding the Rural Village. The petition proposes a minimum 200’ wide
greenbelt in all areas designated as Receiving Lands with the exception of along the East and a
portion of the West where site constraints do not permit the full 200’ width to be provided. In these
areas supplemental planting for an enhanced buffer will be provided. Details for buffer will be
provided in the PUD.
Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency
Determination:
A Transportation Impact Statement (TIS), dated September 10, 2020, prepared by Trebilcock
Planning and Engineering was submitted as part of this petition. Transportation Planning staff
reviewed the petition for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan using the previous 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the 2019
AUIR and the now current 2020 AUIR. Staff also reviewed the Fair-Share Mitigation for
Concurrency Impacts statement, also prepared by Trebilcock Planning and Engineering, dated
September 10, 2020.
Transportation Planning staff have found both the TIS and the Fair-Share Mitigation statements
to be sufficient. Staff and the applicant are completing a companion Developer Commitment
Agreement (DCA) to address the identified transportation impacts. Prior to the GMPA adoption
hearing, agreement must be reached on the DCA.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 9 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
Environmental Impacts:
The applicant has proposed a reduction from the littoral planting criteria CCME Policy 6.1.7, which
requires wet detention ponds within the Urban Designated area shall have a littoral shelf with an
area equal to 2.5% of the ponds surface area measured at the control elevation and planted with
native aquatic vegetation. Wet detention ponds within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, shall
have a littoral shelf with an area equal to 30% of the ponds surface area measured at the control
elevation and be planted with native aquatic vegetation.
The applicant is requesting to allow for the total littoral planting shelf area to be reduced to 15%
of the wet detention ponds area within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Receiving lands if the littoral
area is provided in one or more larger aggregated littoral planting areas. Environmental Planning
staff supports the reduction in the amount of littoral planting to allow for larger expanded littoral
areas. The larger expanded littoral area will create and enhance wading bird/waterfowl habitat
and foraging areas. These areas will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize habitat
value, and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant
species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planning areas along larger lakes, which
are subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, thus negatively affects these
littoral planting areas. The concentration of the littoral plantings will meet the intent of the GMP
requirement which is to enhance water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species
and birds. The littoral requirements for the excavation lake in Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Neutral
Lands will be met through the mine reclamation requirements within the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances Section 22-110.
Public Facilities Impacts:
A Public Facilities Report, dated September 24, 2020 (Exhibit V.E.1), was submitted with this
petition and concluded there is adequate capacity of public infrastructure to serve the proposed
project – potable water, wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal,
stormwater management, parks and recreational facilities, public schools, and emergency
medical (EMS) and fire rescue services. Appropriate staff reviewed this petition and identified no
issues or concerns regarding impacts upon public infrastructure.
Affordable Housing
The proposed petition will meet the requirements for affordable housing. The RFMUD GMP policy
for a Village requires “a mixture of residential housing types.” The implementing RFMUD Land
Development Code for this policy requires specificity of “A minimum of 0.2 units per acre in a rural
village shall be affordable housing, of which at least 0.1 units per acre shall be workforce housing. The rural
village shall be designed so as to disperse the Affordable and workforce housing units throughout the
Village rather than concentrate them in a single location.”
In summary, the project will provide 400 affordable housing units dispersed throughout the Village.
The location will be determined in the PUD.
Appropriateness of the Site and the Change:
The subject site is within the RFMUD which supports Village development with a mix of uses. The
petition proposes an amendment to the GMP creating a unique Overlay, while incorporating many
of the objectives of the adopted RFMUD and the White Paper. The requested density is consistent
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 10 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
with the adopted RFMUD and the commercial and civic use square footage has been increased
to provide a better level of service. The project will require transportation mitigation measures.
Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes
Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in
Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below.
Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes:
(f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall
be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that
may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other
data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be
based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated
by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan
amendment at issue.
1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not
be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of
such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan
amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall
be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction.
Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the
comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or
summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency.
2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a
methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is
professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include
whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by
local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so
long as methodologies are professionally accepted.
3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population
estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic
and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a
professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum
amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the
Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period
unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration
Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for
each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be
reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total
county population growth.
Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. Florida Statutes:
2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and
data regarding the area, as applicable, including:
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 11 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth.
b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area.
c. The character of undeveloped land.
d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services.
e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination
of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community.
f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations.
g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and
consistent with s. 333.02.
h. The discouragement of urban sprawl.
i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will
strengthen and diversify the community’s economy.
j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions.
Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes:
(a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and
extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture,
recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and
private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity
of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category.
The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities
are ultimately directed.
8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses:
a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services.
b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering
the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and
historic resources on site.
c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and
requirements of this section.
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to
address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as
necessary, that data and analysis.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM)
The application team held a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on October 23, 2019 at the
University of Florida Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120. A summary of NIM
and an audio recording link are included in the backup materials for the project. A second NIM will
be required before the PUD application is scheduled.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 12 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
• The Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay petition proposes a Growth Management Plan
amendment to create a unique Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay on 2,787.27 acres
within the RFMUD North Receiving, Sending and Neutral Areas.
• This IRRV Overlay proposes to allow a maximum of 4,042 residential units.
• The IRRV Overlay will provide 400 affordable housing units. The location and area median
income targets shall be defined in the PUD.
• The IRRV Overlay proposes to develop a Village on 1,997.50 acres of Receiving Area with a
minimum of 3,000 and maximum of 4,000 residential units, a minimum of 50,000 sq. ft. and
maximum of 250,000 sq. ft. of C-1 through C-4 commercial uses, and a minimum of 25,000
sq. ft. and maximum of 125,000 sq. ft. of civic and institutional uses.
• County water and wastewater service is available to the site.
• Transportation system impacts have been identified with this petition. Prior to adoption of the
IRRV Overlay, a Developer Contribution Agreement between the petitioner and County must
finalized.
• The IRRV Overlay petition proposes to create unique TDR provisions. The RFMUD
recognizes an imbalance in the supply and demand of TDRs and supports the creation of
additional TDRs.
• This IRRV Overlay petition will generate 563 TDRs from on-site Sending Areas, including
restoration of farm fields. 1,137 TDRs will be secured from off-site Sending Areas. Additional
TDRs will be achieved through Bonus Credits.
• The applicant is required to work with the Florida Forest Service and the Managers of any
adjacent or nearby public lands to develop a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan that will
reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from wildfires. Applicable elements of this
plan must be incorporated into the companion PUD.
• Commitments must be made part of the companion PUD to distribute the “A Guide to Living
in Bear Country” to future commercial business owners and residential homeowners, as well
as to construction/maintenance personnel, and utilize bear-proof dumpsters.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on January 27, 2021. The criteria
for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections
163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Based on the petition, and data and analyses, staff recommends that the County Planning
Commission forward Petition PL20180002660, to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation to approve transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and
other statutorily required agencies with the following conditions:
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 13 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
1) Prior to the IRRV Overlay GMPA petition being schedule for adoption hearings, a
developer contribution agreement must demonstrate acceptable mitigation; and
2) Staff recommended changes to the proposed FLUE GMP amendment language as
follows.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 14 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
Note: Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted – as proposed by petitioner; words
double underlined are added, words double struck through are deleted – as proposed by staff. Italicized
text within brackets is explanatory only – not to be adopted.
EXHIBIT A
IMMOKALEE ROAD RFMUD/RURAL VILLAGE OVERLAY
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Amend II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY, Policy 1.9, Page 10 as follows:
Policy 1.9:
Overlays and Special Features shall include:
A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay
B. North Belle Meade Overlay
B C. Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay
C D. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlays
D E. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
Amend V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES Starting on Page 95, as follows:
V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES
A. Area of Critical State Concern
**********************************Text Break***********************************
B. North Belle Meade Overlay
**********************************Text Break***********************************
C. IMMOKALEE ROAD RURAL VILLAGE OVERLAY (IRRVO)
The Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay (IRRVO) is located within the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use Subdistrict (RFMUD) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series.
The IRRVO includes 4 full Sections of land in comprises all of Sections 1 & 2, Township 48
South, Range 27 East, and Sections 35 and 36 in Township 47 South, Range 27 East), and +/-
approximately one a third of a Section of land in Section 25 in Township 47 South, Range 27
East). The Overlay is 2,787.27± acres in size. Within the Overlay, 210.78 ± acres are
designated Neutral, 578.49 ± acres are designated Sending, and the remaining 1,998.00± acres
are designated Receiving. The Overlay has approximately 2.38 miles of frontage on
Immokalee Road.
The entire IRRVO shall be rezoned to a single mixed-use Planned Unit Development (MPUD),
which shall include and delineate the boundaries of the Rural Village Receiving, Sending, and
Neutral Lands.
The maximum allowable density for the entire IRRVO is allows for up to 4,042 dwelling units.
Receiving Areas are limited to a maximum of 4,000 dwelling units and Neutral Areas are
limited to a maximum of 42 dwelling units. A minimum of 400 units shall be affordable
housing restricted. The location and Area Median Income targets shall be defined in the PUD.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 15 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
1. SENDING LANDS – TDRs, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
No development is permitted in Sending Lands other than that allowed in LDC Section
3.05.07.H.1.b. - Allowable uses within County required preserves.
TDR Generation from Sending Lands Within the IRRVO:
TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits may be achieved as follows:
A. Base TDR Credits: 0.4 per acre (2.0 per five acres); and,
B. Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus: 0.2 Bonus Credits per acre
(1.0 per five acres) generally, and an additional 1.0 Bonus Credit per acre (5.0 per five
acres) for restoration of cleared areas utilized for farming activities to functional native
habitat, including upland, wetland and wading bird habitat; and,
C. Conveyance Credits: 0.2 Bonus Credits per acre (1.0 per five acres). This credit is
only available for those areas generating the Environmental Restoration and
Maintenance TDR bonus. The Conveyance Bonus Credits are available after the
Environmental Restoration and Maintenance in B, above is completed, and
maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner of the applicable
Sending Lands. The property owner shall include, in the annual PUD monitoring
report, a status of the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance efforts in B, above.
D, In the event Collier Country amends the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to allow for
the generation of a greater number of Base TDR Credits or TDR Bonus Credits than is
provided for in Paragraphs A, B, or C, above., and such amendment occurs prior to the
severance of the TDRs from Sending land within the IRRVO, such additional Base or
Bonus Credits may also be generated from IRVO Sending lands.
2. NEUTRAL LANDS
The allowable density, uses, development standards, and other limitations and
requirements set forth in LDC Section 2.03.08.A.3 shall apply within the IRRVO.
3. RECEIVING LANDS – DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The allowable uses, development standards and other limitations and requirements set forth
in the LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.b. shall apply within the IRRVO, except as follows:
A. Maximum Rural Village Size:
The IRRVO includes 1,998.00± acres of Receiving designated lands, all of which are
included within the Rural Village.
B. Rural Village Required Land Use Mix:
1. The Rural Village shall include a centrally located Village Amenity Center, which
shall be a minimum 29.13 acres in size. The Village Amenity Center Tract may
also allow multi-family residential use.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 16 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
2. The Rural Village shall include a Village Center limited in size to a maximum of
10% of the Rural Village acreage (199.8 acres).
3. The Village Center shall:
a) Be accessible from a public spine road within the Village and may also have an
access on Immokalee Road;
b) Include a minimum of 50,000 square feet and a maximum of 250,000 square
feet of allowable uses in the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts, excluding any
uses deemed to be incompatible and therefore not permitted in the MPUD.
c) Include a minimum of 25,000 square feet and a maximum of 125,000 square
feet of civic/institutional/governmental space to be utilized for any of the
following uses:
i. Public or private schools;
ii. Parks, both active and passive;
iii. Medical clinics;
iv. An Assisted Living Facility, not to exceed 20 acres and FAR of 0.45;
v. Government offices;
vi. Collier County Road and Bridge Maintenance Facility;
vii. Collier Area Transportation Maintenance Facility;
viii. Collier County School District bus barn;
ix. Essential Services, including but not limited to fire stations, emergency
medical services, and sheriff substations.
x. Churches; and
xi. Other comparable civic, community, governmental and institutional
uses.
d) A Research and Technology and/or Business Park may be permitted, consistent
with the provisions of the Research and Technology or Business Park
Subdistricts in the Urban Mixed-Use District, except that the maximum
allowable size shall be 20 acres and 125,000 square feet of uses.
e) The Village Center shall include a minimum of 100 multifamily dwelling units.
The MPUD shall provide a timing trigger mechanism identifying the minimum
number of multi-family dwelling units to be built within the Village Center as
well as the total number of dwelling units that may be developed within the
Village prior to development of a minimum amount (square footage) of
commercial uses as allowed in the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts.
4. The total square footage of any combination of uses listed in in paragraphs 3.b).
3.c), and 3.d) above shall not exceed 375,000 square feet.
5. Neighborhood Centers:
The Village shall be designed to include Neighborhood Centers located such that
majority of residential development is located within a one-quarter mile of a
Neighborhood Center (or the Village Center). Neighborhood Centers may include
small scale retail and office uses, limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet within
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 17 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
any Neighborhood Center and 10,000 square feet in total for the Rural Village. Any
commercial square footage developed within a Neighborhood Center shall be
subject to the maximum allowable 250,000 square foot limitation for commercial
uses established in paragraph 3.b), above. Neighborhood Centers shall include a
neighborhood park, square, green, or other similar passive use, and may include,
restroom facilities, gazebos, arbors, fountains, docks or piers if located along lake
frontage, mail kiosks, and similar structures for the use and enjoyment of
neighborhood residents and guests. To encourage compact development, a
minimum of four Neighborhood Centers shall include attached residential dwelling
units. The location and size of each Neighborhood Centers shall be identified on
the PUD Master Plan. Neighborhood Centers providing attached residential
dwelling units shall be a minimum of two acres in size.
C. Receiving Lands Minimum and Maximum Density:
1. The minimum required density is 3,000 dwelling units (1.5 units per acre) and the
maximum density is 4,000 dwelling units (2.002 units per acre).
D. Methods to Achieve Density on Receiving Lands:
1. From lands within the IRRVO:
a. Base Density: 0.20 dwelling units per acre; and,
b. Affordable Housing Bonus: 0.50 dwelling unit for each unit that is provided for
lower income residents and for entry level and workforce buyers; and,
c. TDRs from Sending Lands; and,
d. One (1.0) additional Rural Village Bonus Credit for each TDR utilized.
2. From lands outside of the IRRVO:
a. TDRs from Sending Lands and for each TDR from Sending Lands outside of
the IRRVO, one additional Rural Village Bonus Credit for each TDR utilized.
E. Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffer and Native Vegetation Retention:
1. Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffers: Within the Rural Village: A Greenbelt/Perimeter
Buffer shall be provided by the Developer along the perimeter of the Rural Village
in order to provide buffering from adjacent Estates and A-Agricultural zoned
parcels. Where the Village is adjacent to Sending designated lands, such Sending
lands may be used to meet this requirement. No Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffer shall
be required between Neutral and Receiving designated lands within the Immokalee
Road Rural Village Overlay.
2. The Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffer shall be a minimum of 200 feet in width except:
adjacent to the Village Center along Immokalee Road, where the
Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffer shall be a minimum of 100 feet in width; and, along the
eastern perimeter of the Village, adjacent to the 120’ wide public roadway, where
the Greenbelt shall be a minimum of 120 feet in width and located on the east side
of the 120’ wide public roadway. Within the 120’ foot portion of the Greenbelt
located on the east side of the 120’ wide public roadway, an enhanced 25-foot-wide
Type “D” buffer shall be provided. The enhanced Type “D” buffer shall be
designed to ensure that, at a minimum, 80% opacity is achieved within 2 years of
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 18 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
planting. The MPUD shall include a graphic rendering of this an enhanced buffer,
identifying the minimum amount, spacing, and size of plantings at time of
installation.
3. The Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffer may include utility easements. Structures
necessary to support utility infrastructure are permitted within such easements but
shall be buffered from adjacent lands. with a 6’ tall opaque fence or wall, and a
continuous hedgerow along the outside of the fence or wall. Shrubs shall be placed
4’ on center and shall be 60 inches tall at time of planting. The MPUD shall include
a graphic rendering of this an enhanced buffer, identifying the minimum amount,
spacing, and size of plantings at time of installation.
4. The Greenbelt/Perimeter Buffer may include meandering multi-use pathways up to
10 feet in width, and stormwater retention or conveyance, provided the planting
areas within all required perimeter landscape buffers are a minimum of 25 feet in
width.
5. Native Vegetation Retention:
a) Receiving Lands: The required native vegetation within the Receiving
designated lands shall be 40% of the on-site native vegetation, not to exceed
25% of the total Receiving Land area, with the following exceptions:
i. Pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07.C.1.b., where schools and other public
facilities are co-located on a site the minimum required native vegetation
retention is 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the
site. Several public facilities are proposed to be co-located, including a fire
station, a Collier Area Transit (CAT) and/or County Road and Bridge
Maintenance Facility, and a Collier County School District Bus Barn. If
the MPUD and/or companion Developer’s Contribution Agreement
(DCA) includes agreement to provide such co-located sites (or similar
public facilities), the required native vegetation within the Receiving
designated portion of the PUD shall be 30% of the on-site native
vegetation, not to exceed 25%, of the Receiving designated portion of the
PUD.
b) Neutral and Sending Lands. Within Neutral and Sending Lands, native
vegetation shall be retained as required by LDC Section 3.05.07.C.
Additionally, pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07..C.1.a.i., land set aside for off-
site native preservation within Sending Lands outside of the Rural Village
exceeding the minimum required native vegetation preservation amount for
non-NRPA Sending Lands, may be credited on a 1 to 1 ratio toward meeting
the required native preservation amount for Receiving Lands.
**********************************Text Break***********************************
Amend FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES, Page 147, as follows:
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
**********************************Text Break***********************************
Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 19 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map
East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map
Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Map
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay Map
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agenda Item 9.
‒ 20 ‒
PL20180002660 / CP-2018-5
Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – FLUE
and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME)
EXHIBIT B
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Amend Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Page 25, as follows:
II. GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
GOAL 6: TO IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE NATIVE
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT.
OBJECTIVE 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum
preservation requirements. (The Policies under this Objective apply to all of Collier County except
for that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.)
**********************************Text Break***********************************
Policy 6.1.7: [re-numbered to reflect merger of Ordinance No. 2002-32 and 2002-54] The County
shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape designs in order to promote the
preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water conservation. This shall be
accomplished by:
(1) Providing incentives for retaining existing native vegetation in landscaped areas;
(2) Establishing minimum native vegetation requirements for new landscaping; and,
(3) Wet detention ponds within the Urban Designated area shall have a littoral shelf with an area
equal to 2.50% of the ponds surface area measured at the control elevation and be planted with
native aquatic vegetation. Wet detention ponds within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,
shall have a littoral shelf with an area equal to 30% of the ponds surface area measured at the
control elevation and be planted with native aquatic vegetation.
(4) Within the Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay, the total littoral planting shelf area may be
reduced to 15% of the wet detention pond surface area within the Receiving lands, if provided
in one or more larger aggregated littoral planting areas, thus providing greater habitat value.
The excavation lake located in the Neutral Land shall not be required to provide littoral shelves,
except as may be necessary to meet the mine reclamation requirement.
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Final IRRV staff report 1.27.21 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 183Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 184Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - FLUE - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B Resolution- CCME - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B Resolution- CCME - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment B Resolution- CCME - 012521 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP
TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE
Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the County Attorney Office
at the time the item is placed on the agenda. All completed routing slips and original documents must be received in the County Attorney Office no later
than Monday preceding the Board meeting.
6
Complete routing lines #I through #2 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the
exception of the Chairman's signature. draw a line through routing lines # 1 flimnah #2 c lete the, checklist —i fnn M t., th.. !`..opt„ ett....,o., nfrb
Route to Addressees (List in routing order) Office Initials Date
1.
appropriate. Initial) Applicable)
2.
2/12/13 Agenda Item Number 12 -B
3. County Attorney Office County Attorney Office JAK
JAK
4. BCC Office Board of County
Commissioners
Number of Original One
5. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office ay\
PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION
Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the Executive Summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the
addressees above, may need to contact staff for additional or missing information.
Name of Primary Staff Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Phone Number 252 -8400
Contact / Department
appropriate. Initial) Applicable)
Agenda Date Item was 2/12/13 Agenda Item Number 12 -B
Approved by the BCC
Does the document need to be sent to another agency for additional signatures? If yes, JAK
Type of Document Settlement Agreement kA vs-oct- Number of Original One
Attached Documents Attached
PO number or account Subject to approval byt>>e Coat --wiff `
number if document is advise
to be recorded
All handwritten strike - through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's JAK
INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST
I: Forms/ County Forms/ BCC Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05; Revised 11/30/12
Initial the Yes column or mark "N /A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is Yes N/A (Not
appropriate. Initial) Applicable)
1. Does the document require the chairman's original signature? JAK
2. Does the document need to be sent to another agency for additional signatures? If yes, JAK
provide the Contact Information (Name; Agency; Address; Phone) on an attached sheet.
3. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be JAK
signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed
by the Office of the County Attorney.
4. All handwritten strike - through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's JAK
Office and all other parties except the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board
5. The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date of BCC approval of the JAK
document or the final negotiated contract date whichever is applicable.
6. Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's JAK
signature and initials are required.
7. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip JAK
should be provided to the County Attorney Office at the time the item is input into SIRE.
Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within 'a certain
time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of your deadlines!
8. The document was approved by the BCC on 2/12/13 and all changes made during the JAK
meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The County Attorney's
Office has reviewed the changes, if applicable.
9. Initials of attorney verifying that the attached document is the version approved by the SRT itBCC, all changes directed by the BCC have been made, and the document is ready for e
Chairman's signature.
I: Forms/ County Forms/ BCC Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05; Revised 11/30/12
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AN FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P. HUSSEY,
husband and wife; and WINCHESTER LAKES
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs,
q'm
COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida; THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST,
Governor of the State of Florida; and the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Defendants.
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION and
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.
Intervenors.
SEAN HUSSEY, Successor Trustee to JOSE LOMBILLO,
Trustee and EDUARDO PEREIRO, Trustee,
Plaintiffs,
V.
COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida; THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST,
Governor of the State of Florida; and the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Defendants.
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION and
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.
Intervenors.
Case No.: 08- 6933 -CA
Consolidated with
Case No.: 08- 6988 -CA
Case No.: 08- 7025 -CA
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this tz- - n of
February, 2013, by and between Francis D. Hussey, Jr., Mary Pat Hussey, Sean Hussey,
Trustee, Mike Boran, Co- Trustee of the SR 846 Land Trust, Ronald L. Brown, Co-
Trustee of the SR 846 Land Trust, Joseph Bonness, President of Winchester Lakes, Inc.,
and HHH Investments, L.P. (the "Owner ") and Collier County, Florida, a political
subdivision of the State Florida (the "County ").
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs, FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR., and MARY P.
HUSSEY, husband and wife, (the "Husseys ") are the fee owners of certain real property
within Sections 29 and 32 of the area within Collier County commonly referred to as the
North Belle Meade (the "HHH Ranch "); and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiff, WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION
Winchester Lakes ") holds a leasehold interest in the HHH Ranch and holds contractual
rights to subsurface minerals including the underground rock and a contractual right to
share in the proceeds of this action; and
WHEREAS, the Husseys and Winchester Lakes have filed a claim against Collier
County under Florida Statutes § 70.001 (the "Bert Harris Act "), and have also filed claim
challenging the constitutionality of the Rural Fringe Amendments pursuant to Article X
Sec. 6(a) of the Florida Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish the settle this dispute on the terms and conditions set
forth below.
2
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
WITNESSETH:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good
and valuable consideration exchanged amongst the parties, and in consideration of the
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Incorporation by reference. All of the above RECITALS are true and
correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully
below.
2. Nature of this Settlement. This Settlement Agreement involves an
exchange of development between two large parcels located within the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) of Collier County. The first component changes the
designation of 578 acres of that land known as the "Hussey Lands" from Sending to
Receiving Lands. The second component changes the designation of 578 acres of that
land known as the "SR 846 Lands" from Receiving to Sending Lands. By this exchange,
the balance of development rights within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District remains
substantially the same. Additional considerations are detailed below.
The Hussey Lands
3. The Hussey Lands are graphically depicted in Exhibit A, and comprise a
total of 1,110 acres. These lands are located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
and are all currently designated as Sending Lands. Exhibit A approximately depicts how
the Hussey Lands are to be divided. The 578 acres north of the boundary line will be
changed from Sending to Receiving Lands, and Collier County will amend the Future
Land Use Map designation of these 578 acres accordingly. Exhibit B contains the legal
description of these 578 acres, which shall define and control which lands have been
redesignated as Receiving Lands. The remaining 523 acres of the Hussey Lands will
remain Sending Lands. The early entry TDR bonus density credit shall be extended for
three (3) years for these Sending Lands after approval by the Court of this Agreement, or
3
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
such other date as may be extended generally for other RFMUD Sending Lands,
whichever is the later date.
4. Within 180 days following the effective date of this Settlement
Agreement, the Husseys shall deed to the County one hundred and eighty (180) feet of
right -of -way for the future Wilson Boulevard Extension (Blackburn Road) along the
southern property line of the HHH Ranch. The dedicated land is depicted on Exhibit C,
and comprises approximately 22.318 acres. The Owner will receive $55,795 in road
impact fee credits for this dedication, valued at $2,500 per acre. These road impact
credits shall inure to the benefit of the Hussey Lands, and will run in perpetuity. No
further consideration will be due to the Husseys for this dedication, irrespective of
whether the Impact Fee Credits are or can be utilized in whole or in part. The right of
way and stormwater parcels will be transferred to the County in fee simple, by statutory
warranty deed, subject to easements and reservations of record. The County shall be
responsible for paying the costs of any title work and searches, and the Husseys shall be
responsible for all costs incurred in promptly removing or curing all liens, encumbrances
or deficiencies revealed in any title work, following which the Husseys will provide the
Office of the County Attorney with an executed deed, suitable for recording. Upon
receipt, the County at its cost will record the deed in the Public Records of the County.
The Husseys will be permitted access onto the future Wilson Boulevard Extension for
residential and agricultural uses, with at least two tie -in locations that permit left turns in.
The Husseys may be permitted access onto the future Wilson Boulevard Extension for
the hauling of excavated materials, which access will be subject to the conditions of any
excavation permits or conditional use that may be obtained. The Husseys' entitlements to
density and TDRs shall include the area dedicated to the County identified in Exhibit C.
5. The HHH Ranch lands shall be subject to the Preservation and Native
Vegetation Retention Standards within CCME Policies 6.1.2 and 6.1.5 based upon the
existing native vegetation as depicted by a FLUCCS Map, which Map shall be prepared
by the Husseys, subject to approval by the County. This Map is to be prepared and
presented to the County for review within 180 days of the effective date of this
4
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agreement. The parties will cooperate with one another to ensure a mutually agreeable
FLUCCS Map.
The SR 846 Lands
6. The SR 846 Lands are graphically depicted in Exhibit D, and comprise a
total of 2,576 acres. These lands are located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
and are currently designated as Receiving Lands. As detailed below, 578 acres of the SR
846 Lands will be converted from Receiving to Sending Lands, in order to mirror the 578
acres of Hussey Lands being converted from Sending to Receiving Lands. The
remaining 1,998 acres shall remain designated as Receiving Lands. Exhibit E sets forth
the Legal Description of the SR 846 Lands.
7. Exhibit D approximately depicts the SR 846 Lands to be divided into
Sending and Receiving Lands. The 578 acres which are denoted by the appropriate hash
mark will be changed from Receiving Lands to Sending Lands, and Collier County will
amend the Future Land Use Map designation of these 578 acres accordingly. There is
presently no Legal Description for these proposed Receiving and Sending Lands. At the
time the SR 846 Lands are developed, or when TDR rights are severed, the owner of the
SR 846 Lands may make minor changes to the depicted areas, and at such time a Legal
Description defining the 578 acre Sending tract and the 1,998 acres of Receiving tract(s)
shall be prepared and forwarded to the County. The County Manager or his designee is
authorized to administratively determine whether the changes to the depicted areas
constitute a minor change, with any objection subject to a de novo review by the Board of
County Commissioners. Any major changes to the depicted areas must be approved by
majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners.
8. The SR 846 Lands may be developed in accordance with the provisions
herein or the RFMU District generally as may be amended (or a combination thereof on
separate parcels). One road may be provided in the Sending Lands to facilitate a
connection to Immokalee Road. The early entry TDR bonus density credit shall be
5
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
extended for three (3) years for the Sending Lands after approval by the Court of this
Agreement or such other date as may be extended generally for other RFMUD Sending
Lands whichever is the later date. A Conditional Use for earthmining and extraction was
previously approved for this property (Resolution No. 2012 -15), a portion of which is
changed from Receiving to Sending Lands by this Agreement. Earthmining and
extraction are no longer permitted on SR 846 Sending Lands and no amendment of
Resolution No. 2012 -15 is necessary to enforce this prohibition on earthmining and
extractions on the SR 846 Sending Lands. Nothing in this paragraph shall confer any
mining rights on the Hussey Lands.
Legal Matters
9. Non- admission of liability. It is understood and agreed that this
Settlement Agreement is the compromise of disputed claims, and that nothing contained
herein shall be construed as an admission of liability, fault or responsibility as to any
claims or allegations on the part of any party, which liability is expressly denied.
10. Mutual General Release. Each of the parties signing below, on behalf of
themselves, their former and present employees, agents, officers, directors, servants,
representatives, insurers, assigns and predecessors and successors in interest, hereby
releases and forever discharges each and every other parry signing below, together with
their former and present employees, agents, officers, directors, servants, representatives,
insurers, assigns, and predecessors and successors in interest, from any and all claims of
whatever nature or description, which relate to, arise from, or could have been alleged, in
the above captioned lawsuits.
11. Voluntary Execution. This Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties hereto regarding the resolution of their disputes. The parties
acknowledge that this Agreement is freely and voluntarily executed after they have been
apprised of all relevant information concerning the Agreement and that they have had the
opportunity to consult with and receive the advice of counsel in entering into this
2
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Agreement. In executing this Agreement, the parties acknowledge that they have not
relied on any inducements, promises, or representations other than those contained
herein. This Agreement is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or
ambiguous provision that may exist in this Agreement is to be construed against any of
the parties based upon a claim that one of the parties drafted the Agreement, or that the
language of the Agreement was intended to favor one of the parties.
12. Governing law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and
to be performed, and shall be interpreted, construed and enforced, in accordance with the
laws of the State of Florida.
13. Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties
in identical counterparts, which, taken together, shall constitute a complete original.
14. Modifications. This Agreement cannot be amended, modified or
amplified except by agreement and written document, which is signed by all parties
hereto. No oral statement made by any person shall operate to modify this Agreement in
any manner or otherwise affect its terms and provisions.
15. Severability. In the event that any term or provision of this Agreement is
deemed unenforceable or unlawful for any reason, the remainder of the Agreement shall
be deemed enforceable and in effect.
16. Enforceability and Adoption. This Agreement is effective upon the date
it is approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. This
Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. Upon approval by the Court and the
expiration of the time within which for any third parties to appeal, or the upholding of
this settlement with finality, if so appealed, this action will be dismissed with prejudice.
17. Non - waiver. The failure of either party to enforce at any time any of the
provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any such provisions.
7
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
18. Authority to Bind. The signatories hereto each warrant and represent that
they have the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective
ply.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.
Signature Pages and Exhibits to Follow.
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
1 -17 -13 Hussey SA —REV 1 -31 -13 JV &JK & 2 -1 -13 dw
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written.
Attest:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
A est. as
Mary Pat Aussey
Sean Hus , Trustee
Ronald L. Brown, Co- Trustee
SR 846 Land Trust
HHH Investments, LXsorp. By: HHH Investmen I., GP
Francis D. Hussey, J ident
BOARD OF CO
COLLIER COU
LIN
7
Y COMMISSIONERS
FLORIDA
HILLER, ESQ.
Francis D. Hussey, Jr.
Michael J. Boran, Co- Trustee
SR 846 Land Trust
1r
jo s
inchesrte Lakes, Inc.
eph Bonness, President
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
1 -17 -13 Hussey SA— REV 1 -31 -13 JV &JK & 2 -1 -13 dw
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this t•/
M
day of
February, 2013, by Mary Pat Hussey, who is personally known to me c/ or who has
produced as identification.
YADIRA P. VEGA0.V P
Notary
Comm. Expires -
State of Florida NO Ub11C
My m. Expires Jan 22. 2015 pr' ame:
Commission # EE 49019o
Bonded Through National Notary Assn. M 7 1 mmissl n Expires:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this y day of
February, 2013, by Francis D. Hussey, Jr., who is personally known to me or who
has produced as identification.
YADIRA P. VEGA Not Public U n 0.Y P
cr' = °`, Notary P,jbiic - State of Florida
y : •_ My Comm. Expires Jan 22, 2015
Pr'n Name:
Pa; Commission # EE 49019 M Commissi n Expires:
Bonded Through National Notary Assn.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _r day of
February, 2013, by Sean Hussey, as Trustee, who is personally known to me or who
has produced as identification.
YADIRA P. VEGA N y PU 11C n (/\
VxY'PIl' /
moo; ;< Notary P iblic State of Florida ri
r
Name: rGL vy
z My Comm. Expires Jan 22, 2015 / CommisSl n Expires: y
49019
y
Commission # EEN1YO:
Bonded Through National Notary Assn.
9
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
1 -17 -13 Hussey SA— REV 1 -31 -13 JV &JK & 2 -1 -13 dw
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
February, 2013, by Michael J. Boran, as Co- Trustee of the SR 846 Land Trust, on behalf
of such trust, who is personally known to me or who has produced
as identification.
Notary Public
Print Name:
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
February, 2013, by Ronald L. Brown, as Co- Trustee of the SR 846 Land Trust, on behalf
of such trust, who is personally known to me or who has produced
as identification.
Notary Public
Print Name:
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
1'h
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `1 day of
February, 2013, by Joseph Bonness, as President of Winchester Lakes, Inc., a Florida
corporation, on behalf of such corporation, who is personally known to me --or who
has produced as idd ntification.
l I A,
YADIRA P. VEGA
Notary P -iblic - State of Florida
r * = My Comm. Expires Jan 22, 2015s9OPTCommission # EE 49019
Bonded Through National Notary Assn .
10
iry Public
t Name:
Commissi n Expires:
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written.
Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
L-In
Deputy Clerk
Mary Pat Hussey
Sean Hussey, Trustee
nald L. Brown, Co- rustee
SR 846 Land Trust
HHH Investments, LP
By: HHH Investments Corp. I., GP
Francis D. Hussey, Jr., President
C
10
GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ.
CHAIRWOMAN
Francis D. Hussey, Jr.
R
Mich i J. Borah, Co- Trustee
SR 846 Land Trust
Winchester Lakes, Inc.
Joseph Bonness, President
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
1 -17 -13 Hussey SA —REV 1 -31 -13 JV &JK & 2 -1 -13 dw
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this zi day of
February, 2013, by Francis D. Hussey, Jr., President of HHH Investments Corp. I, a
Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the state of Florida, which is the
General Partner of HHH Investments L.P., a Delaware limited partnership authorized to
do business in the state of Florida, on behalf of such limited partnership, who is
personally known to me --""or who has produced
as identification.
Not ry 1c/
gpPV
PEM .
RA f?VEGA Pri t ame: 2 °•
lio _ Mate of Florida My ommissio Expires: xpires Jan 22, 2015
ion # EE 49019 "
h National Notary Assn.
11
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -p:3 day of
February, 2013, by Michael J. Boran, as Co- Trustee of the SR 846 Land Trust, on behalf
of such trust, who is personally known to me or who has produced
as identification.
LICET A. MULHOLLAND
Commission # DD 986219
Expires May 16, 2014
Bonded Thru Troy Fain Insurance 800 -385 -7079
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
No ry Public
Print Name: r'L /4. /!'1w1• i1,4 _,
My Commission Expires: 2c, l 4
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '7t-4 day of
February, 2013, by Ronald L. Brown, as Co- Trustee of the SR 846 Land Trust, on behalf
of such trust, who is personally known to me or who has produced
as identification.
s%,;., LICET A. MULHOLLAND
Commission # DD 986219
Qo ° Expires May 16, 2014gyp •... 0 `. p; 4; .• Bonded Thu Troy Fan Insurance 800.385.7019
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
r
Notary Public
Print Name: L "Le4- A YI ,1 /.; A• •l
My Commission Expires: /vi I (of_zu 1 y
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
February, 2013, by Joseph Bonness, as President of Winchester Lakes, Inc., a Florida
corporation, on behalf of such corporation, who is personally known to me or who
has produced
Appr e and legal sufficiency:
Jeffrey kow
Coun A orney
12
as identification.
Notary Public
Print Name:
My Commission Expires:
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT A 9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT B - HHH Ranch Receiving Lands
Within Section 29, Township 49, Range 27; parcels:
00328560002
29 49 27 El /2 OF SE 1/4, NW1 /4 OF SE 1/4, E 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, NW
1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SE 1/4, N1 /2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, E 1/2
OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4, SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4, W 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF
SW 1/4, SE 1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SW 1/4, E 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SETA,
00331320006
29 49 27 SE1/4 OF SETA OF NE1/4
00330480002
29 49 27 E1 /2 OF SW1 /4 OF SWIM OF NE1 /4
00328640003
29 49 27 E1 /2 OF SEl/4 OF SE1 /4 OF NW1 /4 + W1 /2 OF SW1 /4 OF SW1/4 OF
NE1/4
00329240004
29 49 27 W1 /2 OF SWl/4 OF SW1 /4 OF SEl/4 5 AC. OR 1342 PG 1129
00330840008
29 49 27 E1 /2 OF SE1/4 OF SETA OF SW1 /4 5 AC. OR 1342 PG 969 -970
2. The Northern 279 acres of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT B — HHH Ranch Sending Lands
1. The Southern 375 acres of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, less
and except any lands that were previously taken for highway right of way.
2. Within Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 27 East; parcels:
00344240005
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1 /4
00343760007
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1 /4
00345280006
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1 /4, LESS W 35FT
00343080004
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1 /4 LESS W 35'
00342840009
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1/2 OF NW1 /4 LESS W 35FT
00344040001
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF Sl /2 OF NW1 /4, LESS W 35FT
00344960000
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1 /4, E1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF
S1 /2 OF N1/2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1/4 LESS E 35 FT
00342080005
33 49 27 N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF Sl /2 OF NE1 /4 OF NW1/4, S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2
OF NE1 /4 OF NW1 /4, LESS E 35FT
00344760006
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1 /4, N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF
SE1/4 OF NWl /4, N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF SE1 /4 OF NW1/4 LESS E 35FT
00344560002
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF Sl /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF NW1 /4, LESS E 35FT
00345240004
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF Sl /2 OF S1 /2 OF NW1 /4
00342200005
33 49 27 S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF SW1/4 OF NW1 /4 LESS S & W 35FT
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
00342760008
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OFNW1 /4 LESS E35FT &S35FT
00345400006
33 49 27 N 50FT OF NE1 /4 OF SW1 /4, E 50FT OF S 280FT OF N1 /2 OF NE1 /4
OF NE1 /4 OF SW1 /4 1.84 AC OR 36 PG 378
00342120004
33 49 27 N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS N + E 50FT
00342920000
33 49 27 S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4, LESS W 35FT
00344520000
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF SW1/4 LESS W 35'
00342600003
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF NI/2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF SW1 /4 LESS W 35 FT
00344360008
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF SW1 /4, LESS E 35 FEET
00344640003
33 49 27 E1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OF SW1/4
00343200004
33 49 27 W1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF S1 /2 OF N1 /2 OFSW1 /4 LESS W35FT
00343840008
33 49 27 WI/2 OF W1 /2 OF SW1 /4 OF SW1 /4 LESS W 50 FT AND S 50FT OR
140 PG 336, LESS N 50FT OF S100FT OR 201 PG 815
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
0
Exhibit C
PROJECT NO. Florida Rock Haul Road /Wilson Boulevard Extension
PROJECT PARCEL NO. 118FEE
FOLIO NOS. 00342040003 & 00341960003
LEGAL DESCRIPTION & SKETCH
NOT A SURVE1
THE NORTH 180 FEET OF THE SOUTH 280 FEET OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 22.318 ACRES, MORE OR LESS)
SECTION 32
SKETCH NOT TO SCALE
Cofer County Growth Management DMsion . TmnsponWon Engineering Depatnent 07106/13 2:36 PM
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
Exhibit D
GACDES Planning Services \Comprehensive\David\Bert Harris claim - Hussey\1 -17 -13 settlement offer
PLATT RU Ce yti
2 .
J l._......,.. GOTH . AVE NE _..
27 26 25 30
WI TURKEY DR
68TH AVE NE
64TH AVE NE
62Nd AYE NE
34 6 31
60TH AVE NE
58TH AVE NE T47T47
T48 T48
56TH AVE NE .
54TH AVE NE
3 1 6w
52ND AVE NE
50TH AVE NE
48TW AVE NE
10 471 H AVE NE 11 aA to H y m12 7
45TH AVE NE h
i
S.R. 846 LAND TRUST R
Nom.
SENDING M Mry ROIIUWRY fRCN Mf1U0iI,NK1ER
pYYAN. M. M70R STATE PUNT
RECEIVING s ,000 ara
pASSAw ° 7;/12S.R. 846 S1JBD1 MICT bur R F,l .l.A
L+aa C. ACCT -NI--T A r"C ..
GACDES Planning Services \Comprehensive\David\Bert Harris claim - Hussey\1 -17 -13 settlement offer
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT "E"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SR 846 LANDS
ALL OF SECTION 35 AND 36 IN TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST AND ALL OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2 IN
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, LESS ROAD
RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 846 (IMMOKALEE
ROAD), COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
9.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment C Hussey Settlement Agreement (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 211Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
AFFIDAVITS OF AUTHORIZATION
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 213Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 214Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE
FORMS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 216Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 217Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 218Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 219Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
DEEDS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 221Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 222Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 223Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 224Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 225Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 226Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 227Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 228Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 230Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 231Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
NARRATIVE & JUSTIFICATION
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 233Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 234Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 235Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 236Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 237Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 238Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 239Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 240Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 241Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 242Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 243Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 244Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 245Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 246Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 247Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 248Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 249Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 250Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 251Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 252Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 253Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
GMPAAP PLICATION
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 255Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 256Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 257Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 258Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 259Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 260Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 261Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 262Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 263Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 264Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 265Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
MAPS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 275Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 276Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 277Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 278Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 279Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 280Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 281Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 282Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIHBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 284Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SUBMITTAL
PREP ARER'S RESUME
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 286Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 287Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 288Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 289Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIDBIT 3
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 291Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIDBIT 4
FLUCFCS DESCRIPTIONS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 293Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 294Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 295Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 296Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIDBIT 5
NATIVE VEGETATION MAP
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 298Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIDBIT6
1973 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 300Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT 7
LISTED SPECIES SURVEY UPDATE
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 302Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 303Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 304Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 305Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 306Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 307Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 308Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 309Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 310Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 311Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 312Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 313Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 314Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 315Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 316Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 317Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 318Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT 8
RCWSURVEYS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 320Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 321Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 322Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 323Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 324Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 325Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 326Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 327Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 328Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
APPENDIX A
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER NON-NESTING SEASON FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 330Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 331Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 332Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 333Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 334Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 335Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 336Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 337Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 338Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 339Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 340Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 341Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 342Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 343Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 344Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 345Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 346Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 347Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 348Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 349Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 350Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 351Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 352Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 353Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 354Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 355Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 356Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 357Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
APPENDIXB
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER NON-NESTING
SEASON FORAGING SURVEY MAPS WITH STATION NUMBERS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 359Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
APPENDIXC
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON
FORAGING SURVEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 374Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 375Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 376Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 377Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 378Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 379Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 380Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 381Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 382Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 383Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 384Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 385Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 386Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 387Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 388Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 389Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 390Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 391Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 392Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 393Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 394Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 395Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 396Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 397Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 398Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 399Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 400Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 401Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 402Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 403Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 404Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
APPENDIXD
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER NESTING SEASON
FORAGING SURVEY MAPS WITH STATION NUMBERS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 406Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 407Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 408Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 409Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 410Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 411Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 412Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 413Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 414Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 415Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 416Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 417Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 418Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 419Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIIlBIT 9
HUSSEY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 421Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 422Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 423Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 424Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 425Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 426Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 427Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 428Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 429Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 430Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 431Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 432Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 433Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 434Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 435Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 436Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 437Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 438Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 439Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 440Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 441Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 442Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT 10
PRELIMINARY SENDING/RECEIVING OVERLAY WITH
NATIVE VEGETATION ACREAGES
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 444Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT l0A
AERIAL WITH NATIVE VEGETATION AND PRIORITY OVERLAYS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 446Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIIlBIT 11
SOILS MAP
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 448Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXHIBIT 12
TOPOGRAPIDC MAP
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 450Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
EXIIlBIT 13
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS, WETLANDS, GREENBELT AND
LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 452Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 454Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 455Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 456Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
FAIR-SHARE MI TIGATI ON FOR
CONCURRENCY IMPACTS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 458Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 459Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 460Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 461Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 462Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 463Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 464Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
/mmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-Fair-Share Mitigation for Concurrency Impacts -September 2020
Appendix A:
Collier County Impact Fee Calculations
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA a 18
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-Fair-Share Mitigation for Concurrency Impacts -September 2020
Appendix B:
Collier County FY20 -FY 24 Five Year Work
Program/CIE
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P e I 12
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 470Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 471Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 473Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 474Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 475Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 476Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 477Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 478Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 479Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 480Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 481Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 482Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 483Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 485Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 486Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 487Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 488Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 489Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 490Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 491Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 492Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 493Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 494Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 495Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 496Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS -September 2020
Appendix A:
Project Conceptual Site Plan
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page I 25
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA PUDR -TIS -September 2020
Appendix B:
Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA p I 27
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 500Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 501Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 502Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 504Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 505Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
lmmoka/ee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS -September 2020
Appendix C:
Project Trip Generation Calculations
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa g e I 34
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 507Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 508Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 509Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 510Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 511Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 512Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 513Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 514Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 515Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 516Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 517Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 518Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 519Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 520Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 521Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 522Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 523Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmoka/ee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS -September 2020
Appendix 0:
Annual Growth Rates - Historic Data 2008 -2019
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P g e I 55
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA-PUDR-T/5-September 2020
AppendixE:
Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment F -Roadway
Segments
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P g e I 57
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS-September 2020
AppendixF:
Collier County FY20 -FY24 Five Year Work Program/CIE
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P g e I 62
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 535Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 536Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA-PUDR-TIS-September 2020
Appendix G:
Collier County Tr ansportation Element Map TR-3.0
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA e I 65
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA-PUDR-T/5-September 2020
Appendix ff:
Collier 2040 LRTP Table 6-1 and Table 6-2
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P g e I 67
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 540Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 541Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 542Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 543Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS -September 2020
Appendix I:
Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment H
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA p g 172
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmoka/ee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS -September 2020
Appendix}:
FDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic Report -Excerpts
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA e I 74
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
lmmokalee Road Rural Village Overlay-GMPA -PUDR-TIS -September 2020
AppendixK:
Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P e I 78
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
HUSSEY AGREEMENT
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 553Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 554Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 555Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 556Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 557Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 558Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 559Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 560Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 561Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 562Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 563Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 564Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 565Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 566Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 567Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 568Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 569Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 570Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 571Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 572Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 573Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 574Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
NIM DOCUMENTS
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 576Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 577Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 578Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 579Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 580Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 585Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 586Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 587Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 588Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 589Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 590Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 591Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 592Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 593Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 594Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 595Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 596Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 597Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 598Attachment: Backup GMPA IRRV Transmittal 2-4-2021 (14993 : PL20180002660 Immokalee Road Rural Village GMPA)
02/18/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 9.A.2
Item Summary: PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA-A Resolution of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Longwater Village
Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling
units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family
detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; an aggregate minimum of 65,000 square feet
and an aggregate maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the
village center context zone and neighborhood commercial context zone; a minimum of 26,000 square feet
of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and
continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general
context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and
approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship
Receiving Area and establishing that 6697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of
the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located east of Desoto
Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road an d Oil Well
Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 And 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 02/18/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
02/01/2021 3:48 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/01/2021 3:48 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/02/2021 4:07 PM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/04/2021 9:29 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/04/2021 1:43 PM
Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 02/10/2021 3:50 PM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 02/18/2021 9:00 AM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/04/2021 11:39 AM
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 599
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 1 of 30
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021
SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA (SRA). COMPANION ITEM TO SRA-
PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, AND THE TOWN PLAN
_______________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS:
Applicant:
Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
Property Owners:
Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and
CDC Land Investments, LLC
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
Agents:
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 2 of 30
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 3 of 30
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 4 of 30
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres
within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a stewardship receiving area,
to be known as the Longwater Village SRA. The subject SRA will allow development of a
maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family
dwelling units, 10% will be single-family detached, and 10% will be single-family attached or
villa; a minimum of 65,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the village
center and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the
stewardship receiving area; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and
institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement
communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and
18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum p.m. peak hour trip cap; and
approving the stewardship receiving area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship
Receiving Area, and establishing that 6,697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the
designation of the Longwater Village SRA.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 999.81 acres, is located east of DeSoto Boulevard, south of
Oil Well Road, and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in
Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
(See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in order to protect
natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to
voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve
the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of a Stewardship Sending Area
(SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the Stewardship Receiving
Area (SRA). Longwater Village SRA requires 6,697.76 credits to entitle 837.22 acres of
development. (Note: no credits are required for the 162.59 acres exceeding 35% of the open
space required within the SRA.)
The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource
Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Longwater Village SRA. It should be noted
that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Longwater Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria
contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental
Review Section of this Staff Report for further information.
The Longwater Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County
or have received an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of
Longwater Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village
(PL20180000622) and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 5 of 30
designation, and Bellmar Village (PL20190001837) which is also scheduled for hearings at this
time.
The Longwater Village SRA is 999.81 acres and consists of two context zones which are required
per the SRA Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. The
Village has access to and is located south of Oil Well Road and east of the proposed Big Cypress
Parkway. The Village is separated into two pieces by the proposed SSA 17. The southern half has
a 20.08 acre Village Center. The northern half has a 2.99 acre Neighborhood General
Commercial Area. A lengthy perimeter lake system runs along 70-75% of the boundary of the
Village. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to
wildlife. This SRA application for Longwater Village SRA will include approximately:
• 2,600 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.6 units per acre (or 3.11 units per acre
based upon 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage
above 35%);
o a minimum of 40 multi-family dwelling units located within the Village Center
Context Zone;
• a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood
scaled retail and office uses;
• a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses.
The Village will also have other uses such as three Amenity Centers, and Park Preserves, and
Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.93 acres, and 51.26% open space or
512.52 acres has been provided.
For further information, please see Attachment A-Proposed SRA Resolution.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home
Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay-Barron Collier Investments/Barron Collier
Partners-Stewardship Sending Area-9 (A-MHO-RLSAO-BCI/BCP-SSA-9), and a zoning
designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(A-MHO-RLSAO), and then Rivergrass Village SRA, and Oil Well Road, a 4-lane divided
Minor Arterial Roadway.
East: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home
Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay-Collier Land Holdings and Collier
Development Corporation-Stewardship Sending Area-15 (A-MHO-RLSAO-CLH and
CDC-SSA-15), and a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO
South: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 6 of 30
West: Undeveloped land with a designation of A-MHO-RLSAO, Rivergrass Village SRA, and
developed residential land with a zoning designation of Estates (E), and undeveloped land
and farmland with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO
AERIAL PHOTO
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 7 of 30
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. The subject property is designated
Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Please see Attachment B- Consistency Review
Memorandum.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and
recommends the following:
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 adjace nt 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.”
Staff finding: In evaluating the Longwater Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) dated August 4, 2020, for consistency using the applicable 2019 and 2020
Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,600
residential dwelling units, up to 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 26,000 square feet of
civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential
development scenario for 1,503 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,097 multi-family
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 8 of 30
dwelling units, up to 26,000 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, and 80,000 square
feet of retail/office uses.
Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation
calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable
development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap
commitment in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation, of a maximum of
2,078 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday PM peak hour trips.
According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways:
Existing Roadway Conditions:
Roadway/
Link #
Link
Location
2019
AUIR
LOS
P.M. Peak
Hour Peak
Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2019
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Projected
P.M. Peak
Hour/Peak
Direction
Project
Traffic1
2020
AUIR
LOS
2020
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Oil Well
Road/
121.2
Oil Well
Grade to
Ave Maria
Blvd
B 2,000/West 1,458 252/WB
B 1,456
Oil Well
Road/
121.1
Desoto
Blvd to
Oil Well
Grade
B 1,1002/West 558 252/WB B 556
Oil Well
Road/
120.0
Everglades
Blvd to
Desoto
Blvd
B 1,1002/West 526 238/WB B 518
Oil Well
Road/
119.0
Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
C 2,000/East 808 300/EB C 633
Desoto
Boulevard/
138.0
Golden
Gate Blvd
to Oil Well
Road
B 800/South 662 252/SB B 652
Everglades
Blvd/
Oil Well
Road to
C 800/North 308 41/NB C 240
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 9 of 30
136.0 Immokalee
Road
Everglades
Blvd/
135.0
Golden
Gate Blvd
to Oil Well
Road
C 800/North 339 126/NB
C 324
Wilson
Blvd/
118.0
Immokalee
Road to
Golden
Gate Blvd
B 900/South 549
41/SB B 550
Randall
Blvd/
133.0
Everglades
Blvd to
Desoto
Blvd
C 900/East 248 126/EB C 235
Randall
Blvd/
132.0
Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
D 9003&4/East 64
174/EB D 7
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd/
112.0
Logan
Blvd to
Collier
Blvd
C 3,000/East 1,156 111/EB C 917
Golden
Gate Blvd/
17.0
Collier
Blvd to
Wilson
Blvd
D 2,300/East 570 111/EB D 390
Golden
Gate Blvd/
123.0
Wilson
Blvd to
18th Street
NE/SE
C 2,300/East 1,016 174/EB C 845
Golden
Gate Blvd/
123.1
18th Street
NE/SE to
Everglades
Blvd
C 2,300/East 1,025 182/EB C 855
Golden
Gate Blvd/
124.0
Everglades
to Desoto
Blvd
B 1,010/East 778 245/EB B 773
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 10 of 30
Immokalee
Road/
45.0
Wilson
Blvd to
Oil Well
Road
D 3,3004/East 476 174/EB D 525
Immokalee
Road/
44.0
Collier
Blvd to
Wilson
Blvd
D 3,3004/East 362 223/EB E 95
Immokalee
Road/
43.2
Logan
Blvd to
Collier
Blvd
D 3,200/East 284 111/EB D 435
Collier
Blvd/
31.1
Golden
Gate Blvd
to Pine
Ridge
Road
C 3,000/North 1,071 111/NB C 925
Pine Ridge
Road/
125.0
Logan
Blvd to
Collier
Blvd
C 2,400/East 853 56/EB C 782
1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is August 4, 2020; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the
petitioner.
2. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (Ave Maria Developer
Agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000.
3. A portion of this link is committed for widening; Immokalee Road to 8th Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service
volume will increase to 2,000. The remainder of the link’s service volume will remain unchanged.
4. Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is scheduled for construction within the Five-Year Capital Improvement Element and is
anticipated to provide relief to the corridor. PM Peak Hour Peak Direction remaining capacity does not account for the
expected diversion.
For consistency purposes, the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan –
Projects identified in years 3, 4 & 5 of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are considered for
consistency when reviewing land use applications for compliance with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element. The following improvements are considered for consistency purposes:
• Vanderbilt Beach Road – Collier Boulevard to 16th Street
• Vanderbilt Beach Road – 16th Street to Everglades Boulevard
• 16th Street Bridge connecting Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard
• Randall Boulevard – Immokalee Road to 8th Street NE
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 11 of 30
• Wilson Boulevard – Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road
Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element.
Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
“Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as
adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and
collector system’s capacity and integrity.”
Staff finding: The Longwater Village SRA is proposing access points on both Oil Well Road and
the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown
on the master plan for this petition, however, nothing in this development order will vest the
developer to anything more than a right in/right out at those locations. Directional and full median
openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat and Plan (PPL).
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
“The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between
developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall
identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring
developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such
local streets.”
Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected
street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The
proposed Longwater Village SRA’s Master Plan shows an interconnection to Rivergrass Village
that runs parallel to Oil Well Road.
Staff Recommendation:
Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP.
Transportation Planning Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the
applicant must pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts
as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement.
2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue NE from the project entrance
to Desoto Boulevard to minimum County standards as shown in Appendix B of the
Land Development Code. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee
credits.
3. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition.
School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated
for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require
standard TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 12 of 30
will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue’s ability to accommodate school
operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated, the Collier
County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements
necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(CCBCC).
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and FLUE related to
Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent
with the CCME and FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element,
preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is
addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas. SSA 14 has been approved
and SSA 17 must be approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a
recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require
staff evaluation and comment. The criteria shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of
approval or denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier
County Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for
adequate findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows:
Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d requires that SRAs with lands greater than
one acre and a Natural Resource Index (NRI) value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space
and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There are four acres within the
proposed SRA that yield an NRI score above 1.2; these acres are located in the southwestern
portion of the village. The majority of land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native
vegetation and converted to row crops and improved pasture lands. Pursuant to the Growth
Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native
areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required
Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 14 has been approved and SSA 17 must be approved for
the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A:
• Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing,
institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that
receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.b). There
are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as “park
preserves;” therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing,
transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses will not be sited in these “park
preserves” but may be sited on the remaining lands within the SRA.
• Conditional use essential services and government essential services, with the exception of those
necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a
Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 13 of 30
(LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.c). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these
lands have been designated as “park preserves;” therefore, conditional use and governmental
essential services will not be sited on these “park preserves” but may be sited on the remaining
lands within the SRA.
• Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be
retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC Section
4.08.07.A.1.d). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have
been designated as “park preserves” and will be retained in a natural vegetated state.
• An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall
buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or
encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA or
HSA; it is adjacent to WRA lands and provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA
Master Plan.
SSA credits required for SRA Designation:
Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with Geographic Information
System (GIS) staff who provided the following information regarding the generation of
stewardship credits:
The Stewardship credits for Longwater Village SRA are generated from SSAs 14 and 17. Both
SSAs are located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way
system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough.
The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Longwater Village, which is 999.81 acres.
The minimum open space requirement is 349.93 acres; the applicant has proposed 512.52 acres of
open space. The total acreage that consumes credits is 837.22 acres. Therefore, Longwater Village
requires 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits.
Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use –
Land Cover (FLUCFCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA
application, minor changes to the Land Use – Land Cover Classifications have occurred as a result
of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in 2015. Minor changes have occurred to the
Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA; as a result, four acres of land
exceeded 1.2 within the SRA boundary.
Longwater Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Areas 14 and 17, which
have 2,515.7 available credits and 4,519.5 potential credits, respectively.
Site Description:
The subject property consists of 999.81 acres of disturbed lands. The property is currently being
used for agricultural activities, including row crops and improved pasture. The property includes
widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation, non-forested uplands, forested uplands, and
forested wetlands. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 4 of the Natural
Resource Index Assessment. The vegetated areas within the southern half of the SRA boundary
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 14 of 30
will be retained as “park preserves.” Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be addressed
through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting
process.
Listed Species:
The Longwater Village SRA project is located within the boundary of the previously proposed
Rural Lands West project. Listed species surveys were conducted throughout the area in various
years between 2007 and 2016. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants
listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS and USFWS as
endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. Eagles and their nests were also included as
part of the wildlife surveys. Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 and 2014 through 2016
indicate the following species have been present within the Longwater Village SRA boundary:
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored
heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus
canadensis pratensis), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops
floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi).
The current wildlife survey, conducted in 2019, revealed the following species were observed
onsite: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
pratensis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), little blue heron
(Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi;
see Appendix I of the Listed Species Survey). There are four protected plants listed in the LDC as
“Less Rare Plants” that were identified within the project boundary: butterfly orchid (Encyclia
tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandisa utriculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) and
stiff-leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata).
Environmental Review recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Conditions
of Approval:
4. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the
Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species.
5. SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village
SRA.
Public Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and northeast
wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water,
wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project through the
neighboring Rivergrass Village SRA from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site at 825 39th
Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds), as illustrated in Attachment C-Collier
Enterprises Villages – Public Utilities Transmission Main Connectivity Plan. The CCWSD has
agreed to reimburse the developer for the cost of upsizing certain transmission mains within the
Rivergrass Village SRA, as needed for potable water, wastewater, and I.Q. water services to the
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 15 of 30
Longwater Village SRA and as identified in Schedule C of the Agreement to Provide Potable
Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Water Utility Services (Utility Agreement).
As previously agreed, the CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection (POC)
at the western boundary of the Rivergrass Village SRA, which coincides with the northeast corner
of the adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA. The pipelines were designed to provide a minimum
service pressure of 60 PSI at the POC. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5
MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to serve the project and other developments
in the northeast service area. Utility services are scheduled to be provided to the Rivergrass POC
by June 30, 2022. The CCWSD is now agreeing to extend transmission mains from the eastern
boundary of the Rivergrass Village SRA boundary to a POC near the northeastern end of the
Longwater Village SRA, as identified in Schedule B of the Utility Agreement.
The developer will be responsible for the design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of
utility system infrastructure internal to both SRAs pursuant to the Collier County Utilities
Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). The developer has
committed to conveying a minimum 5-acre utility site in the vicinity of the general services area to
the CCWSD for the construction and operation of utility services.
Residents and businesses will receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay
standard I.Q. rates. Deviation 3 in subsection 7.5 of the SRA document allows for the I.Q. water
distribution system to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County, contrary to LDC 4.03.08
C. This same deviation was previously approved for the Rivergrass Village and Hyde Park Village
SRAs.
The Public Utilities Department recommends approval of this petition subject to the following
Condition of Approval:
6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility
Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Ordinance.
Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and
has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels. However, when the Longwater Village SRA is considered along
with Bellmar Village SRA and Rivergrass Village SRA, they collectively result in the School
District exceeding its estimated capacity. SRA Document Commitment 8.5 addresses this issue by
requiring the developer will convey real property for a high school, a middle school, and an
elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits.
Please note at the time of SDP or PPL, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is
capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent
concurrency service areas.
Architectural Review: Architectural staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Landscape Review: Landscape staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 16 of 30
Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Community and Human Services Review (Housing) Review: Housing staff has reviewed this
petition and has found that the proposed SRA does not address housing affordability. LDC
Section 4.08.07 requires that an SRA “offer a range of housing types and price levels to
accommodate diverse ages and incomes.”
The SRA Document contains no details regarding price levels, ages, or incomes of the proposed
units or residents of the SRA. The applicant must revise the SRA Document to include such details
in order that staff may confirm the SRA is diverse in housing type, prices, ages, and incomes.
Absent of such details in the SRA Document, staff proposes the following recommendation in
order to ensure compliance with LDC 4.08.07 and the provision of diverse housing types, prices,
ages, and incomes:
Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are be sold at purchase prices
near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, &
Villa 2).
Product Type Units Sales Value
Suggested
Affordability
Commitment of
Products 1, 2, 3, & 4
Percent
of
Product
Income
Level
1 Town Home 204 $250,000 48 24%Moderate
2 Villa 1 319 $260,000 74 23%Moderate
3 Coach 258 $280,000 62 24%Gap
4 Villa 2 316 $310,000 76 24%Gap
5 Single-family Product A 493 $365,000 0%Market Rate
6 Single-family Product B 402 $400,000 0%Market Rate
7 Single-family Product C 436 $430,000 0%Market Rate
8 Single-family Product D 172 $460,000 0%Market Rate
Total 2600 260 10%
This would ensure 10% of the units in the Longwater Village SRA will meet the LDC requirement
to provide units and at a range of incomes and price levels.
It is recommended that Longwater Village SRA also consider the donation of a residential parcel
to the County, to an Affordable Housing Land Trust, or to a County’s designee in order to address
the housing needs of households at the Low and Very-Low income levels. A contribution to the
Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for units unable to be made
available on-site.
Enacting the staff’s recommended condition of approval would ensure compliance with LDC
Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. to, “Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate
diverse ages and incomes.”
Housing staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Condition of
Approval:
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 17 of 30
7. Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at
purchase prices near the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town
Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to)
the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable.
Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC) provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic
Assessment for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Economic Assessment, at a minimum,
is required to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units
of government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater
management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school.
In the event the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are
identified to address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of
community development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal
Service Taxing Units (MSTU), etc.
As detailed in the information above, the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating
999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be
known as the Longwater Village SRA (Longwater), allowing for the development of residential,
commercial, and civic/governmental/institutional land use components. Longwater submitted an
Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial Group, Inc, (DPFG) in
accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an alternative fiscal impact
model, approved by Collier County. See Attachment D-Economic Assessment. DPFG measured
the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (Year 10/2031 buildout) using a “marginal/average cost
hybrid methodology” to determine the project’s impacts on capital and operating costs. DPFG
also incorporated the County’s adopted impact fee methodology and rates, to estimate the demand
and impact fee contributions related to the project. The assessment model is static and does not
include the cost of future infrastructure financing or provide for positive or negative adjustments in
costs, fees, tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant rate of development for the project.
DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture
information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As
part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to
the proposed project were also analyzed.
An outside peer review (see Attachment E-Peer Review Draft) was conducted by Jacobs (formerly
CH2M-Hill) to provide an independent, evaluation of the report. The Jacobs report concluded that
the DPFG’s analysis is reasonable and confirms the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined. Jacobs
further stated that “the analysis is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues
and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Longwater Village development would meet
the County’s requirements for Fiscal Neutrality.”
Both the DPFG and Jacobs reports rely on impact fee and other fiscal information that is adopted
by Collier County as the basis for many of the underlying assumptions. The model that was used
by DPFG was provided to Jacobs for the peer review and to Collier County for the staff analysis.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 18 of 30
While the model is locked, all cell information is visible, including formulas, and the data sources
are also presented for validation. DPFG has been available for discussions, questions, and/or
concerns related to the model and its outputs.
The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also
reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility.
This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the
adopted rates at the time of application, and as previously stated, does not include any projections
for impact fee increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee
revenue are provided below, otherwise, the assumptions are considered acceptable for the
proposed types of residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this
analysis. The analysis concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project,
through millage, fees, and other applicable funding sources to fund the attributable increase in
operating costs, to the various facilities, generated by the development. The same approach used
for the capital revenue, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated
revenue, is used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue
sources used for this analysis.
Transportation – Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and
Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
Based on staff’s review of the Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis, and fair share
mitigation reports, a majority of the projected deficiencies at build-out exist both without and with
the project. At build-out, the adopted level of service standard for roadway capacity would be
exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips
from sources other than the development project under review, with the exception of one
roadway. For the roadways that would be deficient both without and with the project, per Florida
Statute 163.3180, since the project is not causing the deficiency, the projected deficiency cannot be
cured by the development. For the one roadway segment identified in the TIS that is anticipated to
exceed its level of service standard with the project traffic, Florida Statute 163.3180 provides the
basis for a capacity proportionate share calculation and also requires a credit for impact fees
anticipated to be paid by the applicant. Therefore, if the capacity proportionate share estimate
exceeded the amount of impact fees anticipated, the Developer would be required to remit the
difference. However, in this instance, the Developer’s anticipated impact fees will exceed the
capacity proportionate share for the adversely impacted roadway segment. Therefore, no
additional capacity proportionate share payment can be required. The applicant will be paying
impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Based on a previously approved landowner contribution agreement, the applicant will also provide
right-of-way and stormwater management area at pre-SRA values. They have also committed to
the perpetual maintenance of the shared stormwater management system at their sole cost. The
applicant has analyzed multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be
paying a proportionate share toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the
development. This operational proportionate share is included as a condition of approval for the
SRA.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 19 of 30
Law Enforcement – Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly with Collier County Sheriff’s
Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the
proposed development. The main demand generated by Longwater will be the cost to equip any
new certified officers. Currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed
development. However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed
developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund
the equipment needed for any new certified officers as well as a portion of a substation and/or
other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the
calculated deficiency be cured by the development. As stated above, the applicant will be paying
impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
In order to clarify questions that arose from staff’s review of this category, an alternate analysis
was utilized to validate the finding of fiscal neutrality. DPFG, Jacobs, and staff all conclude that
this category is fiscally neutral.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F-Public Facilities
Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Emergency Medical Services representatives regarding
any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development.
EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed development, including the
acquisition of a new site for a co-located EMS station at DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate
Boulevard. This site is one of up to three that will utilize the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax to
provide certain EMS capital construction needs. The use of these funds will allow impact fees
generated by Longwater and other surrounding communities and development to be utilized for
capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and projects. Therefore, currently, there
is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the
calculated deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for
the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Regional Parks – Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted
achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact
Fee Study. This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay
impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities (Naples Zoo, Sports Tourism
Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over-charging new development.
There are no sites identified for a Regional Park within the boundaries of the proposed
development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related to
the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand created by the Development and to
establish fiscal neutrality related to Regional Parks. A minor funding shortfall was identified
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 20 of 30
through the staff analysis; however, the amount is de minimis, totaling approximately the value of
.15 acres, therefore, it does not change the finding of fiscal neutrality for this category.
The future Regional Parks Impact Fees paid related to this development will likely contribute to
funding the construction of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close
proximity to the proposed project. Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax
were identified to provide funding for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
Community Parks – Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within
the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital
funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand
created by the Development and to establish fiscal neutrality related to Community Parks. This
category showed a slight surplus in funding generated by the analysis, which was confirmed by
staff.
Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) – Fiscally Neutral.
See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact
Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG collected information prepared for, and directed by, Collier County Public Utilities
Department regarding the future needs of the project. The proposed development will be required
to pay User Fees, Impact Fees, and Special Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding
for both capital and operating costs, as applicable, attributable to the project.
Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the amended
Interlocal Agreement that accompanies this petition, which must be adopted concurrently with or
prior to the SRA ordinance. This Agreement also includes provisions related to the pre-payment of
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the capacity equivalent of 350 ERC’s each. The developer will
be responsible for the design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system
infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and
Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). As provided in the review comments,
Water, wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project
through the neighboring Rivergrass Village SRA from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site.
Stormwater Management – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact
Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater
Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by
a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001) and the Unincorporated
Area General Fund (111). The project water management system will be fully permitted through
the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. Collier County will have no
responsibility for the capital construction or maintenance of the Longwater water management
system serving the development. Staff will continue to work with the Developer in areas where
the private and public stormwater management systems interact and the ongoing management of
the flowway systems as they transition between private and public lands.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 21 of 30
To the extent that Longwater constructs improvements to accept and treat Stormwater related to
the public road network, that are also impact fee eligible, the Developer may receive Road Impact
Fee Credits. Based on the above, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable.
North Collier Fire & Rescue District – Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff
Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the
following:
DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any
specific needs (land, capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed
development. As provided by North Collier, this location is within the service boundary of a
planned, co-located facility that is owned by the District. Therefore, there is not a need for a
specific land site within this proposed development.
The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related
demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to
adequately address the potential operational needs.
Collier County Public Schools – Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District
Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be
read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific
needs (school sites, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development.
Currently, there is existing or planned capacity, over a five-year period to serve the proposed
development. However, when Longwater is considered along with other neighboring
development, “they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity.”
Therefore, the SRA Document provides a commitment that the Developer will convey real
property for a high school, middle school, and elementary school in exchange for impact fee
credits.
School capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and a
capital millage. The estimated revenue generated by the project through these funding sources,
also considering any Developer Agreements/Interlocal Agreements related to impact fees,
provides adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the
proposed development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by
the proposed project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs generated
by the development. While the exact future student population is unknown, the student generation
rate used for the analysis is based on the adopted School Impact Fee Study and supports the
determination of fiscal neutrality.
Other Facilities – Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG report also provided analysis related to
Correctional Facilities, Government Buildings, and Libraries. While these are not required
elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public Facilities Impact Assessment, the same
framework was used as that for the required facilities, the analysis is consistent with the impact fee
methodology, and thus the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 22 of 30
As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout.
Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may
affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis
concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating
needs of the specified public facilities. The future use of any type of debt as a funding mechanism
is evaluated on a facility by facility basis, including the business case for such borrowing, and will
also be reviewed for the appropriateness of such costs, as applicable, for inclusion into applicable
impact fee studies. Finally, the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a
result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the
fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied.
Zoning Services Review: The Longwater Village SRA Development Document sets forth the
design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., “Villages are primarily
residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale
and character of the particular village…Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods…” As
previously stated, the Village consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village
Center.
The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 979.73 acres and allows for residential
development consisting of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. Senior/group
housing including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities
(ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permissible. A 2.99-acre
Neighborhood General Commercial Area is also allowed in the Neighborhood General context
zone. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet.
The Village Center context zone is approximately 20.08 acres and is mixed-use, allowing for
multi-family development, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As
previously stated, a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and
institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and
60 feet.
The Village Center is located on the south side of the SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway.
A 2.99 acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area is located on the north side of the SRA
along Oil Well Road.
The Longwater Village SRA is a compact, suburban-style development similar to many of the
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 23 of 30
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking nine deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. The petitioner’s rationale and
staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
SRA Document Section 7.1. Neighborhood General Standards:
Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), “Non-residential uses,”
which states “the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet
and per location shall be 15,000 square feet,” to instead allow the Amenity Center sites and
related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Community Centers will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests).
This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size, in order to be
sufficient to meet market demands. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request)
is unique to the RLSA Overlay.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of
“Multi-Family residential,” “side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks
shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure…” to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0
or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in
Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type
development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build
such units effectively and efficiently they must be consistent with the design used in other
similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved
PUDs that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the
required minimum 10-foot side and 20-foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi-family
product and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 24 of 30
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
SRA Document Section 7.2. Transportation Standards:
Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b., “Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street
Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the
sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within
the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be
utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet
of mature tree crown projection shall be provided.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet,
measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on
the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. See Local Street Cross Section below. The
substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are (1) the
planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 5 feet versus 6 feet and the width of the
travel lane is (11 verses 10 feet). Note: This local street cross-section is unique to the RLSA -
SRA Village.
(Note: Please see SRA Resolution for enlargement of the above Section).
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 25 of 30
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” The RLSA cross-sections show a 6-foot wide
planting strip whereas LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.ii.r. allows for a minimum of a 5-foot wide
planting area between the sidewalk and curb provided there is root barrier or structural soil used.
Structural soil in the amount of 2 cubic feet per square feet of mature tree crown projection is the
industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil.
Deviation # 4 seeks relief from A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that
the amount of required parking in the Village Center “be demonstrated through a shared parking
analysis submitted with an SRA designation application…” and be “determined utilizing the modal
splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies…” to
instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan
(SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP
Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix
of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the
type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This
analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non-
residential uses in the Village Center.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
SRA Document Section 7.3. Sign Standards:
Deviation # 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within
residential districts,” which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet
from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback
of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to
the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A
unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and
drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-planned
residential developments in Collier County Note: This deviation is from a requirement that
applies throughout the County (per Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the
deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 26 of 30
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
SRA Document Section 7.4. Landscape Standards:
Deviation # 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, “Types of buffers,”
Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires “Buffer areas between commercial outparcels
located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a
shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet”, to instead allow a shared
buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and “breaking up”
of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that
applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
SRA Document Section 7.5. Other Deviations:
Deviation # 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, “Parking Space Requirements,” which
requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness,
aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1
space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes
throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car.
Additionally, the centrally located Amenity Centers (both north and south) are restricted for
use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The 1 space
per 100 square feet for these “community” amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation
is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been
granted.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 27 of 30
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
Deviation # 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – “Location Criteria,” which requires
that “LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s),
preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to
be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA
system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
These areas will be designed to create, enhance, or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and
foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value
and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance the survivability of the littoral area
plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger
lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively
affects these littoral planting areas.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” The concentration of littoral plantings in lakes
and waters of the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which
is to improve water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds.
Therefore, it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required
littoral planting areas.
Deviation # 9 seeks relief from A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, “Potable Water
System,” which states “separate potable water and reuse waterlines…shall be provided…by the
applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments” and “Reuse water
lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County,” to instead allow
for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to
allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or
appurtenances (i.e., the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). The Deviation is
supported by Utilities staff.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 28 of 30
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the
tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.”
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 25, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. at New
Hope Conference Center, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Approximately two residents
attended the NIM. For further information, please see Attachment G: NIM Summary.
Staff has received one letter of objection. Please see Attachment H-Letter of Objection.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190001836,
Longwater Village SRA on February 1, 2021. The following criteria apply to the creation of an
SRA:
1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and
transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall
not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with
the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not
be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2,
regardless of the size of the land or parcel.
5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly
natural vegetated state.
6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the
gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100
acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that
requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits.
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 29 of 30
7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an
SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained
open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into
such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An
SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial
road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity
to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation
planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the GMP.
11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section
4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA
District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away
from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship
Credits to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency
and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-PL20190001836, Longwater
Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject
to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant
must pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported
by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement.
2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue NE from the project entrance to
Desoto Boulevard to minimum County standards as shown in Appendix B of the Land
Development Code. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits.
3. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School
sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for
transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836
February 10, 2021
Page 30 of 30
TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review will require a
determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue’s ability to accommodate school operations and
activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated the Collier County Public
Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both
school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC).
4. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the
Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species.
5. SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village SRA.
6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility
Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Ordinance.
7. Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase
prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1,
Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA shall be
reserved for the development of housing that is affordable.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution
Attachment B: Consistency Review Memorandum
Attachment C: Collier Enterprises Villages-Public Utilities Transmission Main Connectivity Plan.
Attachment C-1: Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility
Services
Attachment D: Economic Assessment
Attachment E: Peer Review Draft
Attachment F: Public Facilities Impact Assessment
Attachment G: NIM Summary
Attachment H: Letter of Objection
Attachment I: Application
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-10-21B (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 633Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE
SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
The Longwater Professional Consulting Team includes:
Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) – Engineering
Coleman Yovanovich & Koester – Legal Counsel
Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) – Fiscal Analysis
Hole Montes, Inc. – Planning and Permitting
Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) – Environmental Permitting
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. – Transportation
Water Science Associates – Water Permitting
CCPC DATE______________
BCC DATE _______________
EXHIBIT B 9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 2 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3
II. SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3
III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS 4
IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 5
DENSITY AND INTENSITY
V. CONTEXT ZONES 5
5.1 Neighborhood General 5
5.2 Village Center 8
VI. EXCAVATIONS 11
VII. DEVIATIONS 11
7.1 Deviations from Neighborhood General Standards 11
7.2 Transportation Standards 11
7.3 Signs Standards 11
7.4 Landscape Standards 12
7.5 Other Deviations 12
VIII OWNER/DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 12
8.1 Planning 12
8.2 Environmental 13
8.3 Transportation 13
8.4 Parks and Recreation 14
8.5 School 14
8.6 Other 15
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – Sheet 1: SRA Master Plan (Color)
Exhibit A – Sheet 2: SRA Master Plan (Black & White)
Exhibit A – Sheet 3: SRA Mobility Plan
Exhibit A – Sheet 4: SRA Master Plan with Deviations
Exhibit A – Sheet 5: SRA Master Plan with Deviation Description
Exhibit A – Sheet 6: Typical Local Street Cross Section
Exhibit A – Sheet 7: Main Spine Road Cross Section
Exhibit B – Sheets 1-10: Sketches and Legal Descriptions Tracts 1 & 2
Exhibit C – Sheet 1: Legal Descriptions for School Sites A & B
Exhibit D – Sheet 1: Location Map
Exhibit E – Sheets 1-10: Property Ownership/Statement of Unified Ownership
Exhibit F – Sheets 1-42: Natural Resource Index Assessment
Page 2 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 3 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in portions
of Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. Longwater Village SRA
(“Village”) contains a total of 999.81 ± acres. The Village is located south of Oil Well Road, west of
the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road. The Village is bisected by proposed
Stewardship Sending Area 17 (SSA 17).
Lands to the north, south, and east of the southern section are zoned A-Agricultural and are proposed
to be designated SSA 17 under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. To the west, a
portion of the southern section of the Village abuts the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right-of-
way (ROW). The remainder of the lands to the west are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be
designated SSA 17. Lands to the south and west of the northern section of the Village are zoned A-
Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17; lands to the east are zoned A-Agricultural and
designated SSA 15. The northern section abuts Oil Well Road to the north. The land within both
portions of the Village SRA have been in active agricultural production for many years.
In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community
which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village
includes a 20.08± acre mixed-use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood-scaled
retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle
circulation via an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system including bike lands on the spine road,
serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both
the number and length of vehicle trips.
II. SRA STATEMENT OF SUITABILITY CRITERIA PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07,
PARAGRAPHS A, B, and C AND RLSA OVERLAY ATTACHMENT C
1. The SRA contains 999.81± acres.
2. The SRA includes 4 acres of lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2, which
will remain in a natural vegetated state.
3. The Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any lands designated Flowway Stewardship
Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). The Village does not include lands designated
Water Retention Area (WRA). Along the eastern boundary of the Village, there is a perimeter lake
system, designed for stormwater management purposes, and as a deterrent t o wildlife. Portions of
the lake system, outside of the Village boundary, are designated WRA. These lakes are within the
boundaries of SSA 17 in various locations.
4. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay.
5. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.93 acres. The SRA master plan provides for
512.52± acres of Open Space (51.26± percent), 162.59 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement.
6. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods, including
bike lanes on the spine road, with connecting pedestrian paths .
7. The SRA provides an interconnecting roadway with the Rivergrass SRA.
8. The SRA provides parks within and accessible by neighborhoods.
9. The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood
General and mixed-use Village Center.
10. Within the Village Center Context Zone and the commercial area within the Neighborhood
General Context Zone, the SRA shall provide the following: a minimum of 65,000 square feet
Page 3 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 4 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses ; a minimum
of 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40
multifamily dwelling units will be within the Village Center Context Zone.
11. The SRA allows for up to 2,600 dwelling units (2.6 dwelling units per gross acre and 3.11 units per
acre based on the 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage
exceeding 35%).
12. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a
minimum of 10% of units shall be multi-family, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC)
definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building),
a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units
shall be single family attached or villas.
13. Approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided,
including approximately18.01 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 21.70 acres of parks
and park preserves, which exceeds the required minimum of 1% of SRA gross acreage, (10 acres).
14. The SRA has direct access to Oil Well Road, which is classified as an arterial road. The SRA will
also have direct access to the future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial
roadway.
15. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable
to Villages.
16. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open
space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship
Credits are required to entitle the SRA.
17. The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District.
18. The proposed schedule of development within the Village SRA, is as follows:
a. Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits (or permit
modifications) and date of commencement of residential development: two years from
approval of this SRA.
b. Anticipated sequence of residential development: 250 units per year commencing after receipt
of federal, state, and local permits.
c. Anticipated timeframe for commencement of minimum required neighborhood retail and
office uses: 8 years from date of approval of this SRA.
d. Anticipated project completion date: twelve (12) years from date of approval of this SRA.
III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS1
Adjacent to Oil Well Road
Minimum 25’ wide Type D Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.
All other Perimeter Buffers
Adjacent to Preserve or SSA No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management
District)
Adjacent to A – Agriculture Minimum 10’ wide Type “A” buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1.
Adjacent to future Big Cypress
parkway (along SRA Western
Boundary).
Minimum 25’ wide Type “D” Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.
Table 1: Village Perimeter Buffer Requirements
1At the developer’s discretion, a 10-foot wide pathway may be located within required perimeter landscape buffers 25’ or greater in width,
provided the required plantings are located between the property line and the pathway. However, in such cases, the buffer width shall be
increased by 5 feet above the minimum required width. A 10-foot wide pathway may also be located within perimeter buffers that are
less than 25’ in width, however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in width by 10 feet above the minimum required width.
Page 4 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 5 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY
The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 2,600 dwelling units.
Multi-family dwelling units may be located within both the Village Center and the Neighborhood
General Context Zones. The minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial development
within the Village Center is 65,000 square feet and the maximum shall not exceed 80,000 square feet.
A minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental , and institutional uses is required.
V. CONTEXT ZONES
The Village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and Village Center.
5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone
The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 979.73± acres of land.
5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures
5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures2:
1) Single-Family dwelling units.
2) Multi-family dwelling units located within ½ mile of the Village Center or the commercial area
of the Neighborhood General Context Zone, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan.
3) Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent
Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed
300 units in this SRA, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section
5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within ½ mile of the Village Center or the Commercial area
of the Neighborhood General Context Zone , as depicted on the SRA Master Plan.
4) Within the commercial areas of the Neighborhood General Context Zone depicted on the SRA
Master Plan - any permitted use listed in Section 5.2.1.A. II. of this SRA Document. Such
uses, if developed, may be counted towards meeting the required 65,000 minimum of
neighborhood scaled retail and office uses or the required 26,000 square feet of civic,
government, and institutional uses, as applicable, and is subject to the maximum allowed
80,000 square of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses . Such uses shall be subject to the
development standards for Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings set forth under Section
5.2.2.2.A., Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height.
5) Utility facilities for water/wastewater, subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section
5.05.12 of the LDC.
5.1.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures:
1) Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including walls ,
fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings (subject to the applicable
standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC), chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite
antennas, and similar uses and structures.
2 Note: Existing agricultural operations may continue on an interim basis until a Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plat, as the case
may be, is approved for a particular parcel.
Page 5 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 6 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
2) Model homes, sales centers and other temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood
General as provided for in LDC Section 5.04.00, and in this SRA Document.
3) Clubhouses and amenity centers for residents and guests, which may include clubhouses, fitness
facilities, and typical recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball
courts, dog parks, and similar facilities.
4) Neighborhood recreation areas limited to a maximum of 2.0 acres and a maximum of 10,000
square feet of building area. Neighborhood recreation areas may include swimming pools,
tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities.
5) Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may includ e hardscape pathways or
seating areas, benches, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers.
6) Within the commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone, uses accessory to
commercial neighborhood scaled retail and office and civic, government, and institutional uses
shall be as set forth in Section 5.2.1.B of this SRA Document.
Page 6 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 7 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards
5.1.2.A. Required Minimum Yards1& Maximum Building Heights:
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSES/RECREATION
AND FITNESS FACILTIES PER
5.1.1. B. (3);
NEIGHBORHOOD
RECREATION AREAS PER
5.1.1.B.(4)
SINGLE
FAMILY
DETACHED
SINGLE
FAMILY
ATTACHED
& TWO-
FAMILY
ZERO LOT LINE
& TOWNHOME5
ALF, ILF, CCRC &
OTHER
MULTI-FAMILY6
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 S.F. /
UNIT
3,000 S.F. /
UNIT 2,500 S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A
MIN. LOT WIDTH 40’ 30’ 20’/UNIT 100’ N/A
MIN. FLOOR
AREA 1,200 SF 1,200 S.F./
UNIT 1,200 S.F./UNIT 700 S.F./UNIT7 N/A
FLOOR AREA
RATIO N/A N/A N/A 0.45 (only applies to
ALF, ILF, CCRC) N/A
MIN. FRONT
YARD2 22’ 22’ 22’ 20’ 20’
MIN. SIDE YARD3 5’ 0 OR 5’ 0 or 5’ 10’ 10’
MIN. REAR YARD 10’ 10’ 15’ 20’ 10’
MIN. LAKE
SETBACK4 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’
MIN. DISTANCE
BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
10’ 10’ 10’
15’ OR ½ SUM of BH
for Structures
Exceeding 35’ BH
10’
MAX. BUILDING
HEIGHT - ZONED 35’ 35’ 35’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’
MAX. BUILDING
HEIGHT -
ACTUAL
42’ 42’ 42’ 62’ 62’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
MIN. FRONT
YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS 10’
MIN. REAR YARD 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
MIN. LAKE
SETBACK3 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’
MAX. HEIGHT
ZONED &
ACTUAL
SPS SPS SPS 42’ SPS
Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height
S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable
Footnotes:
1. Setbacks from Park Preserves shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3.
2. Front yards shall be measured as follows:
− If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard.
The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10’.
− In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side -loaded garages where
the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroach ing upon, the
adjacent sidewalk.
3. 5’ minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by another 5’ minimum side setback on adjoining lot to
achieve minimum 10’ separation.
4. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures
may be reduced to 0’.
5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height.
6. Other Multi-family means 3 or more units other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height.
7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. Minimum floor area per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square feet.
Page 7 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 8 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
5.2 Village Center Context Zone
The Village Center Context Zone includes 20.08± acres of land.
5.2.1. Allowable Uses and Structures
The Village Center is mixed use in nature, requiring a minimum of 40 multi-family dwellings, a
minimum of 65,000 square feet and maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial
and office uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. A
minimum of eight (8) retail or office establishments providing neighborhood-scale commercial and
office uses shall be provided.
5.2.1.A. Permitted Uses
I. Multi-Family Dwelling Units subject to the applicable development standards set forth in
Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1.; and,
II. The following neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and
institutional uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section, are permitted by right, or as
accessory uses within the Village Center.
1) Accounting and Bookkeeping services (8721).
2) Amusements and recreation services (7999 – limited to bicycle sales and rental).
3) Apparel and accessory stores (5611 - 5699).
4) Auto and home supply stores (5531).
5) Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011 - 6099).
6) Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools).
7) Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools).
8) Child day care services (8351).
9) Churches.
10) Civic, social and fraternal associations (8641).
11) Computer and computer software stores (5734).
12) Dry cleaning plants (7216, nonindustrial dry cleaning only).
13) Drug stores (5912).
14) Eating places (5812 only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic
beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of section
5.05.01.
15) Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services (8711-8713)
16) Essential services, subject to Section 2.01.03.
17) Federal and federally sponsored credit agencies (6111).
18) Food stores (groups 5411 - 5499).
19) Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212).
20) Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05).
21) General merchandise stores (5331 - 5399).
22) Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except
for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to applicable
Florida Statutes; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to applicable
Florida Statutes; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC.
Page 8 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 9 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
23) Hardware stores (5251).
24) Health services, offices and clinics (8011 - 8049, 8071, 8082, 8092, and 8099).
25 Household appliance stores (5722).
26) Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311 - 6399, 6411).
27) Legal services (8111).
28) Libraries (8231).
29) Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162).
30) Paint stores (5231).
31) Passenger Car Rental (7514)
32) Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques).
33) Public Safety Facilities and other governmental services including, but not limited to, fire,
emergency management and law enforcement facilities, and public libraries (8231, 9221,
9222, 9224, 9229, 9111, 9121, 9131, 9199).
34) Real Estate (6531 - 6552).
35) Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (5261).
36) Retail services - miscellaneous (5921 - 5963 except pawnshops and building materials,
5992-5999, except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments,
swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths).
37) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and
Technical Institutes, public or private (8211, 8221-8222)
38) Tax return preparation services (7291).
39) Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services).
40) United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center).
41) Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling).
42) Any other use which is comparable and compatible in nature with foregoing list of
permitted uses, is considered to be a neighborhood scale commercial, office, or civic,
governmental, or institutional uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or
the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC S ection
10.08.00.
5.2.1.B. Accessory Uses
1) Accessory uses to residential multi-family development subject to the applicable
development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1.
2) Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted neighborhood-scale
commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses above.
3) Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height.
Page 9 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 10 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
5.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards
5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights:
Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height
Footnotes:
1. Retail and office uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.5. Civic, governmental and institutional uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.6.
2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25’wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Oil Well Road) shall provide a front
yard setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front yard setback measured
from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road.
3. Except as described in footnote 2 above, front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the right-of-way line.
4. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures
may be reduced to 0’.
5. The minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. The minimum floor area per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square
feet.
S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ALF, ILF, CCRC &
MULTI-FAMILY
ONLY
BUILDINGS
NON-RESIDENTIAL AND
MIXED-USE BUILDINGS1
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F.
MIN. LOT WIDTH 100’ 100’
MIN. FLOOR AREA 700 S.F. Per Unit5 800 S.F. for Commercial Units
700 S.F. for Residential Units
MIN. SETBACK FROM OILWELL ROAD AND
ENTRANCE ROAD2 20’ 20’
FRONT YARDS3 20’ 0’ or 20’
MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 0’ 20’
MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL
TRACT 15’ 5’
MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20’ 20’
MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25’ 25’
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Feet or ½ Sum of BH,
whichever is greater
15 Feet or ½ Sum of BH, whichever
is greater
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 4 Stories NTE 50’ 4 Stories NTE 50’
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 60’ 60’
MAX FAR 0.45 (only applies to ALF,
ILF, and CCRC) See footnote 1.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
MIN. FRONT YARD (ALL) SPS SPS
MIN. SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT SPS SPS
MIN. SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT SPS SPS
MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20’ 20’
MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’
MAX. HEIGHT - ZONED & ACTUAL 35’ 35’
Page 10 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 11 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
VI. EXCAVATIONS
The following criteria shall apply to excavations within the Longwater SRA: All excavation permit
applications within the Longwater SRA and related Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) shall be
reviewed as Development Excavation Permit applications. Within the boundary of the Longwater
SRA and related SSA(s), fill material may be hauled from one construction site to another. Fill may
be placed up to, but not within, the edge of all conservation easements, preserves, and Water
Retention Area (WRA’s).
VII. DEVIATIONS
7.1 Neighborhood General Standards
1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv ), “Non-residential uses,” which states
“the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per
location shall be 15,000 square feet,” to instead allow the Amenity Center sites and
related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each.
2) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of “Multi-
Family residential,” “side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard
setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure…” to instead allow for a
side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for zero lot line and
townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required
Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height, excluding County owned roadways.
7.2 Transportation Standards
1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b, “Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street
Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane
and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for
local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier
or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2
c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided.
2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of
required parking in the Village Center “be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis
submitted with an SRA designation application…” and be “determined utilizing the modal
splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or
studies…” to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial
Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at
the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more
comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial
SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment.
7.3 Sign Standards
1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within
residential districts,” which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum
of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow
Page 11 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 12 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the
curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned
roadways.
7.4 Landscape Standards
1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, “Types of buffers,” Table
2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires “Buffer areas between commercial outparcels
located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may
have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet”, to
instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet.
7.5 Other Deviations
1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires
1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness,
aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be
calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or
storage space.
2) A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – “Location Criteria,” which requires that
“LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s),
preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting
areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development
lake and WRA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA.
3) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, “Potable Water System,” which states “separate
potable water and reuse waterlines…shall be provided…by the applicant at no cost to
Collier County for all subdivisions and developments” and “Reuse water lines, pumps,
and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County,” to instead allow for
such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County.
VIII. DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS
8.1. Planning
A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for monitoring of the
SRA, as may be required by Collier County, and until no longer required by Collier County.
The monitoring and report shall follow the same procedure s and requirements set forth in
LDC Section 10.02.02.F, PUD Monitoring Report requirements. This entity shall also be
responsible for satisfying all commitments set forth in the SRA Document and in a separate
Owner/Developer Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the
monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally
binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such
approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of
the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As
the Owner/Developer sells off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to
the County that includes, if applicable, an acknowledgement of the commitments required
Page 12 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 13 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
by the SRA Document by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with
the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be
relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the County determines that the SRA
Document commitments have been fulfilled, the Managing Entity shall no longer be
responsible for the monitoring of this SRA.
B. Issuance of a development permit by a County does not in any way create any rights on the
part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create
any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to
obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
D. Owner shall provide an annual SRA monitoring report, in a form similar to a PUD
monitoring report, identifying the number of residential units constructed by type within the
SRA, and amount of retail, office, civic, government, and institution square footage
constructed within the SRA. The Report shall also address whether or not or to what degree
the Owner/Developer Commitments contained herein have been satisfied.
8.2. Environmental
A. The Owner/Developer shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable. The informational brochure
created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and titled “A
Guide to Living in Bear County” will be distributed to future homeowners and
construction/maintenance personnel. Residents will be provided with information on how
to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash receptacles and
the project will utilize bear-proof dumpsters in locations to be determined at the time of Site
Development Plan (SDP) approval.
8.3. Transportation
A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of
2,078 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday pm peak hour total trips based on the use
codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for
SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.
B. The Owner shall convey an easement to Collier County, at no cost to County and free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances, in a form acceptable to Collier County to
accommodate a transit stop and shelter within the SRA at a location agreed to by the Collier
County Public Transit Division Director. As part of the site improvements authorized by
the initial Site Development Plan within the SRA, the Owner shall, at its sole expense,
install the shelter and related site improvements for the transit stop, utilizing a design
consistent with established CAT architectural standards or consistent with project
architectural standards if agreed to by CAT and convey the easement.
Page 13 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 14 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
C. No more than 1,820 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum
of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses and a minimum of 20 multi-
family dwelling units have been developed in the Village Center and issued certificate(s)
of occupancy.
8.4 Parks and Recreation
A. The SRA shall include a minimum of one (1) children’s playground that conforms to
appropriate ASTM standards, which shall be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size. The
location of this playground shall be identified at the time of subdivision plat or SDP, as the
case may be, for the development phase or area within which the playground is to be
included.
8.5 School
A. The Applicant shall reserve School Site A and School Site B (School Reservation), defined
on Exhibit C for the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (District). Upon
Approval and non-appealable SRAs for Longwater and Bellmar Villages, and all required
and non-appealable permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any
federal or state regulatory authorities, the District shall have up to two years to provide
written Notice to Applicant of its intent to purchase either or both of the parcels. After
providing Notice, the District shall close on the parcel or parcels within 6 months of
providing Notice to the Applicant. In accordance with Florida Statutes Section
1013.14(1)(b), the District will obtain two (2) app raisals for the School Site A and B from
independent state certified appraisers, to establish the value of the School Sites. The
appraisal date shall be the day prior to the Approval of the SRAs. The average appraised
value of the two appraisals, not to exceed $23,000/acre, shall constitute the amount of credit
available to the Applicant as a prepayment of Educational Impact Fees upon conveyance of
the School sites to the District.
With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School
Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development’s
impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater,
and Belmar SRAs.
The Applicant will use commercially rea sonable efforts to include School Site B within
Owners’ conceptual ERP permits for Bellmar Village from the South Florida Water
Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers. If Owners are successful in
including School Site B within its conceptual permits for Bellmar Village, the District shall
reimburse the Owners’ for any Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such
permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owners’ written request
to District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners’ on a proportionate share
basis of the acreage of School Site B to the total acreage of the Bellmar Village project.
The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the
District and shall become part of the Educational Impact Fee credit issued to the
Applicant/Owner.
School Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and School
Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school, and not for any other pu rpose,
Page 14 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 15 of 15
Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021)
which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance
deed. School Site A shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County
Standards) to 56th Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. School Site B
shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 2nd
Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. The District shall be responsible for
the construction of all access improvements from the edge of the public right-of-way into
the School Sites. The District shall cause the School Sites’ storm water management
systems to be designed and permitted to provide the necessary onsite water management
system including the quality and quantity of water storage required for the development of
the School Sites. The discharge rates of the School Sites water management systems shall
be consistent with the agricultural permitted rate of discharge at the time each water
management system is constructed, in accordance with SFWMD Permit Number 11-00112-
S for School Site A, and SFWMD Permit Number 11-01178-S or the subsequent SFWMD
development permit for School Site B. The offsite discharges of water from the School Sites
to the agricultural water management area within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management
District, as provided in the South Florida Water Management District Permit System Area
shall be designed to provide for pump discharges and/or elevated discharge conditions
within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District. Applicant will convey a 10-foot
wide underground utility easement over and across School Site B adjacent to the future Big
Cypress Parkway to the Lee County Electric Cooperative.
8.6 Other
A. Street trees will be provided throughout the Village. Within the Village Center Context
Zone, street trees shall be spaced forty feet (40’) on center and within the Neighborhood
General Context Zone, street trees shall be spaces 60 feet on center. Street trees shall have
a minimum average mature canopy spread of twenty feet (20’) or alternatively, for species
with an average mature spread less than 20’, street trees shall be spaced a distance equal
to twice the average mature spread.
Page 15 of 86
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 16 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 658Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 17 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 659Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 18 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 660Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 19 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 661Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 20 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 662Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 21 of 869.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836,
Page 22 of 869.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836,
Page 23 of 869.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836,
Page 24 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 666Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 25 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 667Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 26 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 668Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 27 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 669Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 28 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 670Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 29 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 671Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 30 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 672Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 31 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 673Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 32 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 674Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 33 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 675Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 34 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 676Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 35 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 677Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 36 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 678Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 37 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 679Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 38 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 680Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 39 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 681Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 40 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 682Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 41 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 683Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 42 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 684Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 43 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 685Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 44 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 686Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 45 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 687Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 46 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 688Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 47 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 689Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 48 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 690Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 49 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 691Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 50 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 692Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 51 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 693Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 52 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 694Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 53 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 695Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 54 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 696Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 55 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 697Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 56 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 698Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 57 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 699Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 58 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 700Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 59 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 701Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 60 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 702Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 61 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 703Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 62 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 704Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 63 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 705Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 64 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 706Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 65 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 707Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 66 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 708Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 67 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 709Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 68 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 710Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 69 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 711Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 70 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 712Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 71 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 713Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 72 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 714Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 73 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 715Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 74 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 716Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 75 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 717Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 76 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 718Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 77 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 719Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 78 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 720Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 79 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 721Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 80 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 722Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 81 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 723Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 82 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 724Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 83 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 725Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 84 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 726Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 85 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 727Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 86 of 869.A.2.bPacket Pg. 728Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA
CREDIT AGREEMENT
SSA 14 & SSA 17
THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter
referred to as the (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ___________, 2021,
by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter
referred to as “County” whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East
Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. hereinafter
referred to as “Applicant” whose mailing address is 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100,
Naples, Florida 34103, and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited Partnership and CDC
Land Investments, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, hereinafter collectively referred
to as “Owner”, whose mailing addresses are 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples,
Florida 34103, for the purpose of designating the number of “Stewardship Sending Area”
(SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Longwater Village as a Stewardship Receiving
Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C.11 of the Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC).
RECITALS
1. Applicant has applied for SRA designation for Longwater Village and said SRA is
approximately 999.81 acres in size.
2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with all support
documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined
that SRA designation for the Longwater Village is appropriate.
3. The County, Applicant and Owner have reached agreement on the number of
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation.
4. The County, Applicant and Owner agree that this SRA Credit Agreement is in
compliance with and fully meets the requirements of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and LDC.
EXHIBIT C 9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the above premises and the expenditure of credits
and authorizations granted hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Applicant and Owner are hereby utilizing and transferring 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits
(Credits) which shall be applied to the SRA land described in Exhibit “A” in order to
carry out the plan of development on the 999.81 acres proposed in the Longwater Village
Development Document and summarized hereinafter.
2. Exhibit “A” is the legal description of the 999.81 acres that constitute the Longwater
Village SRA.
3. Attached hereto is Exhibit “B” the Longwater Village Master Plan which depicts the
land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit “C” is the Longwater Village Land
Use Summary which identifies the number of residential dwelling units, gross leasable
square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses depicted on the
Longwater Village Master Plan.
4. Pursuant to Section 4.08.07.B.2 of the LDC, the designation of a SRA requires eight
Stewardship Credits to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one
acre of land within Longwater Village. Applicant and Owner are transferring enough
credits to allow development on 837.22 acres, since 162.59 acres of excess open space
does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by
Applicant and Owner.
5. Applicant and Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area
14 (SSA approved) in the amount of 2,515.70 Credits and from Stewardship Sending
Area 17 (SSA pending) in the amount of 4,182.06 Credits.
6. Pursuant to Resolution No._______, the County has approved Longwater Village as an
SRA consisting of 999.81 acres and has approved the Longwater Village Master Plan
and Development Document.
7. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence
until a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk
of Courts.
8. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto.
Page 2 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year
first written above.
Attest:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________________ By: _________________________________
, Deputy Clerk _________________________, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
By:______________________________
Assistant County Attorney
WITNESS: COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC.
(Signature)
________________________________ By:_______________________________
(Print full name) Printed Name:________________________
Title: _____________________________
(Signature)
(Print full name)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this
____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online
notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.,
who is personally known to me ________ or who has produced _________ as identification.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Print Name__________________________
(SEAL) Certificate No._______________________
My Commissioner Expires__________
Page 3 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
WITNESS: COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD,
A Florida limited liability limited partnership
By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a
(Signature) Florida Corporation, it’s General Partner
________________________________ By:_______________________________
(Print full name) Printed Name:________________________
Title: _____________________________
(Signature)
(Print full name)
WITNESS: CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC,
A Florida limited liability company
(Signature)
________________________________ By:_______________________________
(Print full name) Printed Name:________________________
Title: _____________________________
(Signature)
(Print full name)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this
____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online
notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General
Partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., who is personally known to me ________ or who has
produced _________ as identification.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Print Name__________________________
(SEAL) Certificate No._______________________
My Commissioner Expires__________
Page 4 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me
this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online
notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of CDC Land Investments, LLC, who is
personally known to me ________ or who has produced _________ as identification.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Print Name__________________________
(SEAL) Certificate No._______________________
My Commissioner Expires__________
Page 5 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 1
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 23;
THENCE S 89°44'59" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 23 A DISTANCE OF 770.02 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00°15'01" E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO
AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID
INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD
(200’ R.O.W.) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING
DESCRIBED;
THENCE S 00°15'01" E A DISTANCE OF 132.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 89°44'59" W AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
45°24'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
34°17'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
09°35'51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
25°06'08" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 306.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
32°28'18" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
44°43'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1170.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
75°37'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 395.98 FEET;
THENCE S 58°44'36" W A DISTANCE OF 390.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
69°52'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET;
THENCE S 11°07'28" E A DISTANCE OF 438.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
Page 6 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
85°28'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 596.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
50°30'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 176.33 FEET;
THENCE S 23°49'47" W A DISTANCE OF 390.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
36°52'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.44 FEET;
THENCE S 13°02'43" E A DISTANCE OF 465.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
103°55'42" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 435.33 FEET;
THENCE N 89°07'01" W A DISTANCE OF 1055.37 FEET;
THENCE N 00°47'57" W A DISTANCE OF 97.59 FEET;
THENCE N 52°33'15" W A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET;
THENCE N 57°28'41" W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET;
THENCE N 54°29'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.40 FEET;
THENCE N 54°52'27" W A DISTANCE OF 222.49 FEET;
THENCE N 55°41'14" W A DISTANCE OF 108.91 FEET;
THENCE N 64°37'19" W A DISTANCE OF 52.01 FEET;
THENCE N 64°31'02" W A DISTANCE OF 71.77 FEET;
THENCE N 25°28'58" E A DISTANCE OF 46.08 FEET;
THENCE N 17°41'24" E A DISTANCE OF 159.37 FEET;
THENCE N 19°24'48" E A DISTANCE OF 130.30 FEET;
THENCE N 17°41'12" E A DISTANCE OF 152.31 FEET;
THENCE N 19°39'43" E A DISTANCE OF 163.63 FEET;
THENCE N 16°58'54" E A DISTANCE OF 115.30 FEET;
THENCE N 19°45'12" E A DISTANCE OF 95.09 FEET;
THENCE N 18°30'01" E A DISTANCE OF 108.19 FEET;
THENCE N 07°16'45" E A DISTANCE OF 105.99 FEET;
THENCE N 07°21'52" E A DISTANCE OF 1053.05 FEET;
THENCE N 06°59'59" E A DISTANCE OF 321.33 FEET;
THENCE N 09°15'09" E A DISTANCE OF 78.59 FEET;
THENCE N 08°05'25" E A DISTANCE OF 95.78 FEET;
THENCE N 06°17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 93.24 FEET;
THENCE N 02°27'15" E A DISTANCE OF 72.03 FEET;
THENCE N 02°13'12" W A DISTANCE OF 94.12 FEET;
THENCE N 04°52'08" W A DISTANCE OF 109.91 FEET;
THENCE N 04°16'40" W A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET;
THENCE N 05°59'47" W A DISTANCE OF 114.91 FEET;
THENCE N 04°38'07" W A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET;
THENCE N 04°52'41" W A DISTANCE OF 67.12 FEET;
THENCE N 86°56'23" W A DISTANCE OF 6.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S
61°34'15" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET;
Page 7 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
62°08'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 281.98 FEET;
THENCE N 03°35'48" W A DISTANCE OF 43.18 FEET;
THENCE S 81°12'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.23 FEET;
THENCE S 78°47'29" W A DISTANCE OF 97.37 FEET;
THENCE S 80°53'38" W A DISTANCE OF 85.87 FEET;
THENCE S 82°51'24" W A DISTANCE OF 71.47 FEET;
THENCE S 26°22'26" W A DISTANCE OF 82.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S
72°06'35" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28°18'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE
NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT
BEARS S 43°21'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
34°06'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET;
THENCE N 80°45'27" E A DISTANCE OF 217.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
51°27'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET;
THENCE N 01°50'26" W A DISTANCE OF 102.10 FEET;
THENCE S 88°36'14" E A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET;
THENCE S 88°38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 496.61 FEET;
THENCE N 00°15'01" W A DISTANCE OF 885.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A
LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO
BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200’ R.O.W.);
THENCE N 89°44'59" E ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 1709.53 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED.
CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 217.18 ACRES.
REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD
Page 8 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 2
ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 27;
THENCE N 89°44'09" E A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A
LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF
THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED;
THENCE N 00°15'51" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 556.73 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE N 89°44'09" E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET;
THENCE S 81°09'45" E A DISTANCE OF 24.85 FEET;
THENCE S 81°12'57" E A DISTANCE OF 43.68 FEET;
THENCE S 67°50'53" E A DISTANCE OF 24.15 FEET;
THENCE N 51°13'46" E A DISTANCE OF 14.44 FEET;
THENCE N 83°34'26" E A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET;
THENCE N 85°47'56" E A DISTANCE OF 58.59 FEET;
THENCE S 81°25'21" E A DISTANCE OF 65.83 FEET;
THENCE S 82°24'10" E A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET;
THENCE S 81°49'19" E A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET;
THENCE S 83°07'42" E A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET;
THENCE S 83°26'41" E A DISTANCE OF 106.68 FEET;
THENCE S 85°55'20" E A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET;
THENCE S 87°21'52" E A DISTANCE OF 151.35 FEET;
THENCE S 83°34'18" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET;
THENCE S 87°03'30" E A DISTANCE OF 191.80 FEET;
THENCE S 89°27'05" E A DISTANCE OF 171.39 FEET;
THENCE S 87°33'10" E A DISTANCE OF 126.34 FEET;
THENCE S 88°43'19" E A DISTANCE OF 98.64 FEET;
THENCE S 86°48'38" E A DISTANCE OF 96.80 FEET;
THENCE S 89°40'09" E A DISTANCE OF 130.03 FEET;
THENCE S 87°42'01" E A DISTANCE OF 124.74 FEET;
THENCE S 87°24'48" E A DISTANCE OF 107.14 FEET;
THENCE S 87°48'06" E A DISTANCE OF 127.16 FEET;
THENCE S 88°11'19" E A DISTANCE OF 153.59 FEET;
THENCE N 89°59'01" E A DISTANCE OF 59.76 FEET;
THENCE N 02°51'20" E A DISTANCE OF 51.25 FEET;
THENCE N 03°37'35" W A DISTANCE OF 40.26 FEET;
THENCE N 07°54'23" E A DISTANCE OF 75.33 FEET;
THENCE N 10°03'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.18 FEET;
THENCE N 11°19'06" E A DISTANCE OF 80.02 FEET;
THENCE N 10°47'45" E A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET;
THENCE N 09°49'17" E A DISTANCE OF 94.43 FEET;
THENCE N 10°03'11" E A DISTANCE OF 127.62 FEET;
Page 9 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE N 09°16'25" E A DISTANCE OF 110.89 FEET;
THENCE N 10°39'25" E A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET;
THENCE N 08°44'32" E A DISTANCE OF 112.11 FEET;
THENCE N 10°18'07" E A DISTANCE OF 145.41 FEET;
THENCE N 10°24'56" E A DISTANCE OF 170.23 FEET;
THENCE N 09°04'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.38 FEET;
THENCE N 10°37'21" E A DISTANCE OF 181.28 FEET;
THENCE N 09°57'51" E A DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET;
THENCE N 09°16'33" E A DISTANCE OF 159.76 FEET;
THENCE N 08°05'45" E A DISTANCE OF 73.91 FEET;
THENCE N 12°06'17" E A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET;
THENCE N 07°00'32" E A DISTANCE OF 96.94 FEET;
THENCE N 12°44'08" E A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET;
THENCE N 29°04'09" E A DISTANCE OF 51.97 FEET;
THENCE N 56°52'43" E A DISTANCE OF 32.67 FEET;
THENCE S 79°47'55" E A DISTANCE OF 110.65 FEET;
THENCE S 79°01'08" E A DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET;
THENCE S 78°51'16" E A DISTANCE OF 140.42 FEET;
THENCE S 79°29'47" E A DISTANCE OF 89.62 FEET;
THENCE S 79°26'32" E A DISTANCE OF 117.52 FEET;
THENCE S 79°45'16" E A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET;
THENCE N 46°57'48" E A DISTANCE OF 29.89 FEET;
THENCE N 10°52'29" E A DISTANCE OF 123.93 FEET;
THENCE N 07°32'25" E A DISTANCE OF 88.34 FEET;
THENCE N 08°07'07" E A DISTANCE OF 139.48 FEET;
THENCE N 07°54'40" E A DISTANCE OF 114.89 FEET;
THENCE N 08°49'12" E A DISTANCE OF 128.22 FEET;
THENCE N 10°33'53" E A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET;
THENCE N 08°25'59" E A DISTANCE OF 62.05 FEET;
THENCE N 26°54'30" E A DISTANCE OF 49.71 FEET;
THENCE N 62°45'00" E A DISTANCE OF 42.18 FEET;
THENCE S 89°01'30" E A DISTANCE OF 98.14 FEET;
THENCE S 88°17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 127.41 FEET;
THENCE S 89°11'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.29 FEET;
THENCE S 89°22'11" E A DISTANCE OF 181.67 FEET;
THENCE S 89°07'05" E A DISTANCE OF 73.95 FEET;
THENCE N 89°37'05" E A DISTANCE OF 158.00 FEET;
THENCE N 01°22'47" E A DISTANCE OF 56.60 FEET;
THENCE N 01°05'56" E A DISTANCE OF 175.96 FEET;
THENCE N 00°58'55" E A DISTANCE OF 120.19 FEET;
THENCE N 00°57'09" E A DISTANCE OF 106.25 FEET;
THENCE N 01°25'58" E A DISTANCE OF 172.25 FEET;
THENCE N 00°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET;
THENCE N 02°13'52" E A DISTANCE OF 174.99 FEET;
THENCE N 01°13'07" E A DISTANCE OF 170.11 FEET;
THENCE N 12°23'44" E A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET;
THENCE N 65°07'26" E A DISTANCE OF 58.11 FEET;
Page 10 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE N 87°35'09" E A DISTANCE OF 97.09 FEET;
THENCE S 89°03'01" E A DISTANCE OF 139.85 FEET;
THENCE N 89°08'08" E A DISTANCE OF 159.59 FEET;
THENCE N 89°55'58" E A DISTANCE OF 184.84 FEET;
THENCE S 89°48'17" E A DISTANCE OF 242.95 FEET;
THENCE S 89°18'36" E A DISTANCE OF 127.18 FEET;
THENCE N 88°20'13" E A DISTANCE OF 150.51 FEET;
THENCE S 89°00'04" E A DISTANCE OF 160.58 FEET;
THENCE N 88°46'01" E A DISTANCE OF 151.90 FEET;
THENCE S 79°22'05" E A DISTANCE OF 52.74 FEET;
THENCE S 38°06'03" E A DISTANCE OF 57.21 FEET;
THENCE S 01°21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 145.54 FEET;
THENCE S 00°55'57" W A DISTANCE OF 150.31 FEET;
THENCE S 01°33'09" W A DISTANCE OF 207.79 FEET;
THENCE S 01°31'44" W A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET;
THENCE S 01°23'16" W A DISTANCE OF 164.71 FEET;
THENCE S 01°00'09" W A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET;
THENCE S 00°45'36" W A DISTANCE OF 132.20 FEET;
THENCE S 16°36'47" E A DISTANCE OF 77.60 FEET;
THENCE S 86°36'24" E A DISTANCE OF 218.27 FEET;
THENCE N 84°38'32" E A DISTANCE OF 57.46 FEET;
THENCE N 88°29'19" E A DISTANCE OF 188.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S
13°14'14" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.04 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
38°04'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.41 FEET;
THENCE S 33°28'54" E A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET;
THENCE S 23°45'58" E A DISTANCE OF 31.88 FEET;
THENCE S 07°59'32" E A DISTANCE OF 22.70 FEET;
THENCE S 08°09'03" W A DISTANCE OF 100.81 FEET;
THENCE S 08°57'38" W A DISTANCE OF 111.86 FEET;
THENCE S 08°49'05" W A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE S 07°59'07" W A DISTANCE OF 98.77 FEET;
THENCE S 08°51'00" W A DISTANCE OF 462.69 FEET;
THENCE S 07°42'34" W A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FEET;
THENCE S 10°03'37" W A DISTANCE OF 256.55 FEET;
THENCE S 08°03'15" W A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET;
THENCE S 07°57'36" W A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET;
THENCE S 08°50'57" W A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET;
THENCE S 10°16'55" W A DISTANCE OF 137.59 FEET;
THENCE S 07°03'24" W A DISTANCE OF 160.41 FEET;
THENCE S 09°24'12" W A DISTANCE OF 179.42 FEET;
THENCE S 06°37'32" W A DISTANCE OF 158.52 FEET;
THENCE S 09°53'05" W A DISTANCE OF 158.01 FEET;
THENCE S 21°33'21" W A DISTANCE OF 55.08 FEET;
THENCE S 82°19'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.36 FEET;
THENCE N 89°13'46" W A DISTANCE OF 151.12 FEET;
Page 11 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE N 89°21'51" W A DISTANCE OF 108.57 FEET;
THENCE N 85°59'59" W A DISTANCE OF 198.45 FEET;
THENCE S 15°53'00" W A DISTANCE OF 96.05 FEET;
THENCE S 07°02'17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.49 FEET;
THENCE S 37°20'43" W A DISTANCE OF 68.14 FEET;
THENCE S 31°23'33" W A DISTANCE OF 40.71 FEET;
THENCE S 16°20'58" W A DISTANCE OF 220.13 FEET;
THENCE S 22°59'53" W A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET;
THENCE S 18°29'23" W A DISTANCE OF 69.29 FEET;
THENCE S 08°48'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.10 FEET;
THENCE S 10°10'49" W A DISTANCE OF 65.97 FEET;
THENCE S 05°30'03" W A DISTANCE OF 45.04 FEET;
THENCE S 06°57'16" W A DISTANCE OF 106.82 FEET;
THENCE S 08°43'39" W A DISTANCE OF 105.41 FEET;
THENCE S 08°55'48" W A DISTANCE OF 91.41 FEET;
THENCE S 24°00'42" W A DISTANCE OF 77.21 FEET;
THENCE S 09°30'12" W A DISTANCE OF 55.93 FEET;
THENCE S 08°14'59" W A DISTANCE OF 126.14 FEET;
THENCE S 08°53'46" W A DISTANCE OF 119.38 FEET;
THENCE S 08°24'46" W A DISTANCE OF 145.38 FEET;
THENCE S 08°20'38" W A DISTANCE OF 216.11 FEET;
THENCE S 08°26'17" W A DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET;
THENCE S 08°18'20" W A DISTANCE OF 131.25 FEET;
THENCE S 04°08'24" W A DISTANCE OF 228.36 FEET;
THENCE S 03°50'33" W A DISTANCE OF 214.51 FEET;
THENCE S 04°31'40" W A DISTANCE OF 180.53 FEET;
THENCE S 04°04'11" W A DISTANCE OF 292.07 FEET;
THENCE S 04°08'09" W A DISTANCE OF 211.01 FEET;
THENCE S 04°07'35" W A DISTANCE OF 350.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
88°27'15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.77 FEET;
THENCE N 87°25'10" W A DISTANCE OF 263.63 FEET;
THENCE S 56°31'23" W A DISTANCE OF 414.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
57°01'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET;
THENCE S 00°30'26" E A DISTANCE OF 645.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
60°47'29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.53 FEET;
THENCE S 61°17'55" E A DISTANCE OF 999.19 FEET;
THENCE S 75°46'34" E A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET;
THENCE N 89°49'28" E A DISTANCE OF 334.67 FEET;
THENCE S 20°39'26" E A DISTANCE OF 334.38 FEET;
THENCE S 39°21'06" W A DISTANCE OF 979.22 FEET;
Page 12 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE N 34°40'36" W A DISTANCE OF 115.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S
52°57'38" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
43°56'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21.48 FEET;
THENCE S 89°44'47" W A DISTANCE OF 204.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N
00°27'23" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
53°45'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 133.24 FEET;
THENCE N 36°53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 134.23 FEET;
THENCE N 40°42'25" W A DISTANCE OF 39.74 FEET;
THENCE N 36°14'22" W A DISTANCE OF 229.41 FEET;
THENCE N 36°53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 663.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
77°05'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET;
THENCE S 66°00'07" W A DISTANCE OF 1347.27 FEET;
THENCE S 60°11'58" W A DISTANCE OF 35.81 FEET;
THENCE N 31°43'05" W A DISTANCE OF 38.54 FEET;
THENCE N 36°09'51" W A DISTANCE OF 40.59 FEET;
THENCE N 20°45'08" W A DISTANCE OF 21.76 FEET;
THENCE N 29°12'25" W A DISTANCE OF 26.75 FEET;
THENCE N 21°48'56" W A DISTANCE OF 51.21 FEET;
THENCE N 32°54'14" W A DISTANCE OF 137.82 FEET;
THENCE N 40°35'17" W A DISTANCE OF 78.60 FEET;
THENCE N 68°24'48" W A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET;
THENCE N 53°10'07" W A DISTANCE OF 32.15 FEET;
THENCE N 21°13'51" E A DISTANCE OF 40.37 FEET;
THENCE N 22°02'47" W A DISTANCE OF 44.59 FEET;
THENCE N 07°21'32" W A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET;
THENCE N 06°28'35" E A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET;
THENCE N 09°56'22" E A DISTANCE OF 69.15 FEET;
THENCE N 03°38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 51.88 FEET;
THENCE N 07°17'28" E A DISTANCE OF 82.16 FEET;
THENCE N 06°29'56" E A DISTANCE OF 74.86 FEET;
THENCE N 06°07'02" E A DISTANCE OF 85.01 FEET;
THENCE N 03°46'47" E A DISTANCE OF 82.82 FEET;
THENCE N 05°23'36" E A DISTANCE OF 74.88 FEET;
THENCE N 02°17'48" E A DISTANCE OF 105.33 FEET;
THENCE N 01°38'19" E A DISTANCE OF 59.59 FEET;
THENCE N 00°48'14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.18 FEET;
THENCE N 02°25'45" W A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET;
THENCE N 00°54'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET;
THENCE N 00°51'34" W A DISTANCE OF 54.76 FEET;
THENCE N 15°43'00" W A DISTANCE OF 48.82 FEET;
THENCE N 13°29'58" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET;
Page 13 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
THENCE N 00°44'51" E A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET;
THENCE N 10°39'19" E A DISTANCE OF 32.52 FEET;
THENCE N 04°07'17" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET;
THENCE N 12°35'16" E A DISTANCE OF 38.67 FEET;
THENCE N 00°20'34" W A DISTANCE OF 38.40 FEET;
THENCE N 18°05'31" E A DISTANCE OF 47.83 FEET;
THENCE N 03°58'33" W A DISTANCE OF 48.95 FEET;
THENCE N 19°51'27" E A DISTANCE OF 34.70 FEET;
THENCE N 09°34'39" E A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET;
THENCE N 04°50'50" W A DISTANCE OF 28.60 FEET;
THENCE N 02°58'56" W A DISTANCE OF 30.74 FEET;
THENCE N 44°25'19" W A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET;
THENCE N 41°39'56" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET;
THENCE N 06°02'21" E A DISTANCE OF 19.31 FEET;
THENCE N 29°15'43" W A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET;
THENCE N 50°20'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET;
THENCE N 37°39'56" W A DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET;
THENCE S 87°18'03" W A DISTANCE OF 18.51 FEET;
THENCE N 86°53'50" W A DISTANCE OF 40.70 FEET;
THENCE N 57°38'19" W A DISTANCE OF 57.04 FEET;
THENCE N 02°52'44" E A DISTANCE OF 160.84 FEET;
THENCE N 49°42'21" W A DISTANCE OF 597.21 FEET;
THENCE S 89°37'33" W A DISTANCE OF 99.83 FEET;
THENCE S 89°55'08" W A DISTANCE OF 166.80 FEET;
THENCE S 88°18'59" W A DISTANCE OF 113.40 FEET;
THENCE S 80°55'44" W A DISTANCE OF 95.52 FEET;
THENCE S 79°29'17" W A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET;
THENCE S 76°51'49" W A DISTANCE OF 41.22 FEET;
THENCE S 80°58'38" W A DISTANCE OF 97.67 FEET;
THENCE S 79°59'43" W A DISTANCE OF 718.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2600.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
09°06'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.95 FEET;
THENCE S 00°15'45" E A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET;
THENCE S 89°44'15" W A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A
LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE N 00°15'45" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL A DISTANCE OF 2691.34 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBE D.
CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 782.63 ACRES.
REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD
Page 14 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “B”
Page 15 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021)
SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “C”
Land Use Summary
Use Density or Intensity
Residential Up to 2,600 Dwelling Units
Neighborhood Commercial Min. 65,000 and Max. 80,000 square feet
Civic, Governmental, Institutional Min. 26,000 square feet
• Longwater Village SRA contains 999.81± acres.
• Longwater Village contains approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and
community green space, exceeding the requirement to provide at least 1 percent of the
Village gross acreage (10 acres, rounded), in the form of Parks & community Green
Space.
• Longwater Village includes 4 acres of lands with a natural Resource Index greater than 1.2.
• Longwater Village provides 512.52± acres of open spaces (51.26± percent) of Open
Space, 162.59 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement for Open Space.
• Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total Village acreage
excluding open space exceeding 35% and public use acreage).
• At required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits are required.
• Longwater Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay.
• Longwater Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, lands designated Flowway
Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA).
• Longwater Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA).
Page 16 of 16
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 1 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M
To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: August 20, 2020
Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area
PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190001836
PETITION NAME: Longwater Village [REV: 1.4.2]
REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Longwater
Village on a ±999.8-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
as contained in the County’s Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and County’s Land
Development Code. The proposed SRA indicates 2,600 dwelling units, with no fewer than 26 0 multi-
family dwelling units, from 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses, and no less than 26,000 square
feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. Dissimilar figures are provided in different SRA
application materials – some providing the specificity necessary that is not provided elsewhere.
By example, the SRA Economic Assessment used the following development assumptions:
• total townhomes, duplexes, and single-family attached = 1,097 units
• total single family < 4,000 sq. ft. = 1,503 units
• non-residential 50,001 – 100,000 sq. ft = 65,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses
• neighborhood civic = 26,000 sq. ft. of civic, government
and institutional uses
The SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance indicates that the minimum 35% Open Space
requirement for the SRA (349.92 acres) will be met and exceeded.
The SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance indicates that the minimum 1% Parks &
Community Green Space requirement for the SRA (10 acres) will be met. A commitment to provide a
2,500 sq. ft. children’s playground is provided in the SRA document. The locations for the parks, totaling
12.6 acres, are shown on Master Plan. No areas are designated for public benefit use.
LOCATION: The ±999-acre property comprises 2 geographic areas – north and south – arching from
Oil Well Road to Desoto Boulevard, within Sections 22, 23, 26, 27 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range
28 East.
The Longwater Village north area lies immediately south of Oil Well Road (CR 858) at Oil Well Grade
Road, and lies approximately 1,100 ft. east of the proposed Rivergrass Village south area. The Longwater
north area bows southwest to connect (by roadway) with the south area. The larger, Longwater south
area comprises an area up to approximately 900 ft. east of Desoto Boulevard North [also, adjacently
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 2 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
east of (the future) Big Cypress Parkway]. A portion of Golden Gate Estates is adjacent to the west of
the Longwater south area.
The proposed Rivergrass Village lies to the northwest and its south area lies from approximately 700 ft.
to 1,800 ft. from the Longwater south area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS:
The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Owners of property
within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions ‒ agriculture
and related uses, essential services, single-family residential at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per
5 acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc. – or choose to participate in the RLSAO. The RLSAO
provides for the protection of valuable habitats by designation as a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA)
where land-use layers are removed, which generates Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle
mixed-use developments known as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) on lands appropriate for
development. SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO
policies contained in the FLUE and the RLSA Zoning Overlay.
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:
The GMP, together with the LDC, are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine
consistency with the more-general Policies and provisions of the FLUE’s RLSAO, the specific policies and
provisions of the RLSA Zoning District Overlay.
Within the RLSAO, the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to urban villages, new towns and
satellite communities is based on area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-
use development, and other planning strategies and techniques, while protecting environmentally
sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land
uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services.
Specifically, the RLSAO allows development in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural
developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as a Stewardship
Receiving Area, and allows “public benefit uses” such as public schools and public or private post-
secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages
required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities.
This application proposes the Longwater development using the Rural Lands Stewardship Credit System,
as provided for under RLSAO Policy 1.4 in the FLUE. The SRA application further proposes that
Stewardship Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent
restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land (from approved SSAs). The SRA procedures
and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSAs to be used to enable
the project to proceed as an SRA are subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage.
The SSA documents submitted for review include the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and
Reconciliation Application (dated 6/01/2020) for SSA 14 and 17.
All SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 3 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
The relevant RLSAO Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed below, followed by staff comments/analysis [in
italics].
Group 4 ‒ Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while
discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Po licy 4.1:
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of
the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative
land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate
population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage
and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development
regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into
the LDC Stewardship District.
[This application is for an SRA.]
Policy 4.2:
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as
a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria
and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay…
and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. [now:
163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be
predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs
generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have
been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for
SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC (and 18,300 acres within the
ACSC). Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay
requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and
infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability
are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the principles
of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein.
[Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and many of the other standards
described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as
eligible for SRA designation (“Open”).]
Policy 4.3:
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such
designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall
include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of
consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,
consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the
applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The
County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 4 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public
infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any
consideration by the BCC of such a designation.
[The petitioner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described
in Policy 4.5. Consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the “LDC Stewardship District” (RLSA zoning
overlay) is addressed later herein.]
Policy 4.5:
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate
that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District
and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat
identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map.
[The applicant has submitted a Master Plan with their petition intended to demonstrate the SRA complies
with the applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District. Matters of compliance and
non-compliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this memo. Compliance
with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Zoning Services Section,
Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management
Department. Matters of non-compliance with the LDC Stewardship District may also be matters of
noncompliance with this Overlay.]
Policy 4.7:
There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are
set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4.
Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC
Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and
development strategies as set forth [previously] in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. [now: 163.3168] and 9J-
5.006(5)(l). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth
on [FLUE] Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C
may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity
blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus
as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density
is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The
base residential density does not restrict [the] net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The
location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA
designation review and approval process.
This SRA must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as
identified for Villages in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold
requirements from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in bold
italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 5 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres; [The SRA is ±999.8 acres total.]
Residential Units (DUs) per gross
acre base density
1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre; [2,600 DU/ ±999.8 acres = ±2.60 DU/ac.
proposed in the SRA.]
Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot
sizes; [The SRA includes up to 2,240 single-family, with no fewer
than 260 multi-family dwelling units (2,600 DUs total).]
Maximum Floor Area Ratio or
Intensity
Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; [These uses are provided for in the mixed-
use Village Center, Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and
Amenity Centers context zones. FAR is not provided. Intensity is
shown by proposed square footages below.]
Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; [These uses are provided for
in the mixed-use Village Center. FAR is not provided. Intensity is
shown by proposed square footages below.]
Group Housing ‒ 0.45; [not required – ALFs (Adult Living Facility)
and CCRCs (Continuing Care Retirement Community) proposed.
FAR is provided.]
Transient Lodging ‒ 26 units/ac. net; [not required – not proposed.]
Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village
Centers ‒ Minimum 25 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; [(2,600
DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU) = 65,000 sq. ft. required. The SRA allows 65,000
to 80,000 sq. ft. of all commercial uses, with the minimum
neighborhood-scale goods and services provided in Village Center,
with additional goods & services in Neighborhood General Goods
& Services, and Amenity Center areas.]
Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system;
[Proposed service by County Public Utilities.]
Interim Well and Septic; [not required – not proposed.]
Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum
1% of gross acres); [9.98 acres are required (999.8 acres x 1%).]
Active Recreation/Golf Courses; [not required – not provided.]
Lakes; [provided, covering more than 264 acres.]
Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA; [±350 acres of Recreation
and Open Spaces required ‒ ±512 acres provided.]***
Civic, Governmental and
Institutional Services
Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum of 10 sq. ft./DU;
[26,000 sq. ft. required (2,600 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 26,000 sq. ft.
proposed.]
Full Range of Schools; [not required – proposed off-site, in
proximity.]
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 6 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; required
connection to collector or arterial; [A number of residential ‘pods’
each connect to a spine road with a single intersection, while no
“interconnected system of collector and local roads” is provided; the
spine road connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a minor arterial road
as classified in the Transportation Element, and the future north-
south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway. Interconnection with
the Rivergrass development was agreed to be provided in the
formal hearing of that SRA, and Longwater SRA materials have
been revised to reflect these changes.]
Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; [required.]
Equestrian Trails; [not required – not proposed.]
County Transit Access; [not required – not proposed.]
*** Note: “Open space” is defined specific to the RLSA in RLSA Policy 4.10, and with greater detail in LDC Section
4.08.01.X. ‒ Open space includes active and passive recreational areas such as parks, playgrounds, ball fields,
golf courses, lakes, waterways, lagoons, flood plains, nature trails, native vegetation preserves, landscape
areas, public and private conservation lands, agricultural areas (not including structures), and water retention
and management areas. Buildings shall not be counted as part of any open space calculation. Vehicular
use surface areas of streets, alleys, driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas shall not be counted
as part of any open space calculation.
Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application.
Policy 4.7.2:
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include
a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and
facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall
have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood
scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate location
for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each
other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in
the LDC Stewardship District.
[This SRA is primarily a residential development providing for two (2) housing types (single- and multi-
family), and senior housing facilities.
This SRA allows a mix of uses – residential, recreational, civic/institutional, and commercial. The site
comprises ±999.8 acres. Open space is provided throughout the SRA, and parks or public green spaces
are provided within neighborhoods. The Village Center allows a mix of uses – multi-family dwelling units;
a variety of commercial uses (minimum of 65,000 s.f. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental
uses (minimum of 25,000 s.f. required).
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 7 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Although the Longwater Economic Assessment indicates a mix of housing of 1,503 single-family detached
residences, to 1,097 townhomes, duplexes, and single-family attached residences, creating a single-family
to multi-family ratio of 58%꞉42%. However, staff notes there appears to be a disconnect between the
residential use, and non-residential use, mix assumptions in the Assessment contrasted with those which
are required or committed to in the SRA Document. However, the proposed ratio committed to in the SRA
Document is ≤90%꞉≥10% as compared to the Countywide ratio of 50%꞉45% (remaining units are mobile
homes, etc.). This results in a disconnect between the housing mix assumed vs. that which is
required/committed to.
Policy 4.8:
An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer
such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA w ithout
requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
[The SRA is not contiguous to lands designated FSA or HSA but is contiguous to lands designated WRA.
The project is served by contiguous WRA land uses (lakes and road rights-of-way) that are not designated
SRA and not calculated as project open space.]
Policy 4.9:
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands
and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. To further direct
development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/li ght
industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within
a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In
addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of
those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a
Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value of greater than 1.2 rep resents those
areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of
potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2.
[Staff defers review and comment pertaining to the Natural Resource Index value within the SRA to
specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division.]
Policy 4.10:
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation
lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas
and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to
serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have
such [open space] areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of
thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding
100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be
retained as open space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, located
outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume
Stewardship Credits.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 8 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Policy 4.11:
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and
intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges
of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining
property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open
space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA,
the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the
agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses.
[Lakes, road rights-of-way, and perimeter buffers are located along the SRA perimeter except where
abutting Oil Well Road, future Big Cypress Parkway road right-of-way, and land designated as “Open”
that is not used within this SRA project. These adjacent ”Open” areas are predisposed to development as
road rights-of-way for interconnection between the two areas of the SRA and between neighboring SRAs
(including one agreed upon with the Rivergrass SRA since this SRA’s initial submittal). Where neighboring
or adjacent projects may develop, the density and intensity on each property may be somewhat the same
or may be very different – and transitions must ensure the compatibility with the character of adjoining
property.
Comprehensive Planning staff defers the determination of compatibility with surrounding land uses to
Zoning Services Section reviewers based on the totality of the project.]
Policy 4.12:
Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the
Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts
to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not
adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations
shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project
control elevations and water tables.
[The subject site is located within land designated as “Open” on the RLSA Stewardship Map. The site does
not adjoin HSA or conservation land but does adjoin FSA and WRA lands [abuts a WRA based on earlier
statements]. Staff defers review and comment pertaining to these aspects of the SRA to specialists of the
Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division regarding impacts upon
groundwater, and the water detention and control elevations.]
Policy 4.13:
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and
any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map.
Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private
conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf
areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-
back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and
HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer
shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300
feet.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 9 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
[The SRA adjoins an FSA along its northeasterly boundary, south of Oil Well Road ‒ but does not adjoin
other FSAs, HSAs, or conservation lands.]
Policy 4.14:
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a
road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be
approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to
be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the
time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3
of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary
data and analysis.
[Access is to Oil Well Road, a minor arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and future
Big Cypress Parkway. The Capacity analysis is deferred to Transportation Planning Section staff.
Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders.]
Policy 4.15.1:
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by th e Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and [FLUE] Attachment C.
An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending
on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA,
within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or CRD
shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and
institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required
to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby CRD. Standards for the minimum amount
of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C, and shall be also included
in the Stewardship LDC District.
[This SRA allows mixed uses – residential, civic/institutional, recreational, and commercial uses similar to
those in the LDC’s C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district. While the SRA document allows for
65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of goods and services, the minimum neighborhood scaled goods and services are
provided in the Village Center, with additional goods & services in Neighborhood General Goods &
Services, and Amenity Center areas.]
Policy 4.15.2:
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside,
improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more
public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applic able to
public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
[Acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use”. Open space
is provided in excess of that required.]
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 10 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Policy 4.15.3:
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning
to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As part of the SRA
application, the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary,
middle, high school); and,
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any
sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility.
[Project development is planned in a single phase. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or
dedicated for public use inside the development. Collier County Public Schools requested development
commitments for two school sites in exchange for educational impact fee credits, located as follows:
• An 88.3-acre site located north of the (proposed) “Rivergrass” SRA project, near 56th Avenue NE.
This site will be used as a dual-site for 2 schools: either high/middle, high/elementary, or middle
elementary; and,
• A 20.35-acre site located north of the (proposed) “Bellmar” SRA project, near Golden Gate
Boulevard East. This site will be used as an elementary school site.
The RLSA encourages school facilities to be located within Villages and Towns (read, “within the specific
SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area” per Pol. 4.15.1), and does not
support the creation of new trips, or failure to consider reducing the length and number of trips ‒ in
accordance with FLUE and Transportation Element policies and provisions ‒ to these facilities.
The School Impact Analysis projects 632 new students to be generated from the 2,600 residences [4,478
permanent / 5,373 seasonal residents]. This overall student figure is allocated to the number of school-
aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary: 287, middle: 139, high school: 205). Staff
defers review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to
School District personnel.]
Policy 4.16:
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements.
The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated
during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable
water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation
infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater
utilities are required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, and
may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted
uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities
shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a
Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other
governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 11 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they
meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited
to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis
until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water
supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or
less in size.
[The demand for potable water will be approximately 0.929 million gallons per day (average) and 1.208
million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate
approximately 0.664 million gallons per day (average) and 0.995 million gallons per day (3-day
maximum).
Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and
wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. Collier County expanded its
jurisdictional Water-Sewer District service area boundary in September 2018, encompassing this area (FKA
Big Cypress).
The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction of
a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the
Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development.]
Policy 4.17:
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.2 [now Policy 1.2] of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the GMP for Category A public
facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in
accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of
local development order approval.
[This project does not create a significant impact on the Countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2
of the CIE. Staff defers review and comment on concurrency management to the Capital Project Planning,
Impact Fees, and Program Management Division – for which review occurs at the time of subsequent
development order.]
Policy 4.18:
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may
grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate.
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other
special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public
facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater
management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer
contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse
impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
[The applicant asserts the development will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis
provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees,
and Program Management Division involved in the review of the Economic Assessment.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 12 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
This SRA project is just one of several similar proposals, with its application materials templated upon,
other SRA or SRA applications.]
Policy 4.19:
Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a
public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and
provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation
entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services t o and
are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in [FLUE] Policies 4.7, 4.15 and
[FLUE] Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan.
[The proposed SRA comprises ±999.8 acres; of those, ±838 acres require ±6,700 credits, and this 1:8 ratio
is met. (see Policy 4.3 comments).]
Policy 4.20:
The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in
Policy 4.7. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public
or private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the
minimum acreage requirements of [FLUE] Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and
governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools
shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, 163.3177
F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged
to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting
requirements.
[No acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use”. School
sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the development. Collier County
Public Schools requested development commitments for two school sites outside this, or other SRAs, in
exchange for educational impact fee credits. By Policy 4.15.1, school facilities are more specifically
encouraged to be located within Villages and Towns.]
Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern.
Review of select FLUE Policies (followed by staff analysis in [italics]):
Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land
uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination
to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use
arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart
Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access,
interconnections, open space, and walkable communities.
Objective 7:
Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing
development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows:
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 13 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
Policy 7.1:
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.
[This property fronts Oil Well Road (CR 858), classified as a minor arterial road in the Transportation
Element. Connection to Oil Well Road is designed to meet at a single access point where a non-village
like spine road intersects with Oil Well from the northerly portion of the project. This property also fronts
the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element.
Connection to the future Big Cypress Parkway is designed to meet at a single access point where the spine
road intersects with Big Cypress Parkway from the southerly portion of the project.
Policy 7.2:
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.
[Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including indirect accesses into the northerly
and southerly residential areas from the non-village like spine road and indirect access into the residential
area and Village Center tract. The project is proposed as a “Village”. Design parameters for villages differ
[from this Policy], and this project must meet the RSLA Overlay, Group 4 Policies specific to Stewardship
Receiving Areas.]
Policy 7.3:
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.
[This property (Longwater south area) fronts the future Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector
road in the Transportation Element. The proposed Rivergrass SRA (south area) is located north and west
of this project site. Interconnection between the two projects is provided.]
Policy 7.4:
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.
[This SRA provides for different dwelling unit types and sizes, open space, and
civic/institutional/government facilities. Sidewalks are provided alongside local streets that channel all
vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and nonmotorized vehicles to the project’s single (±3-mile long) spine road.]
REVIEW OF SRA DOCUMENTS:
• SRA Economic Assessment
▪ Development Assumptions, Table 1, identifies a single, non-residential category providing
80,000 sq. ft. of retail space; however, this project is required to provide a minimum of 65,000
sq. ft. neighborhood-scale goods and services, which are not distinguished here from the
15,000 sq. ft. left for providing more-intense, community-scale goods and services. This table
also identifies a non-residential category for the required 26,000 sq. ft. of civic, governmental
and institutional services.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 14 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
CONCLUSIONS:
General Observations on RLSAO Policies
• RLSAO Policy 4.2 provides that, “land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability
criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies” and Policy 4.3 provides that, “the
basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay”. Where the
proposed project is found to be consistent with these Policies of the Overlay, it may be supported
for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.2 further provides that, “the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use
and self-sufficient...”. Where the proposed project is found to be compact, mixed-use and self-
sufficient, it may be supported for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.7 provides that, “the size and base density of each form (of SRA) shall be
consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C.” Where the size and base density
of the proposed project is found to be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment
C, it may be supported for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.7.2 provides that, “Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity
of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village,”
“shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods” and, “have
parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods.” Where the proposed project is found to
provide a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the
particular village, it may be supported for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.7.2 further provides that, “Villages... shall include a mixed-use village center to
serve as the focal point for... support services and facilities”, “include neighborhood scaled retail
and office uses” and “are an appropriate location for... schools”. Where the proposed project is
found to provide a mixed-use village center serving as the focal point for support services and
facilities, including neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, it may be supported for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.10 provides that, “open space shall... comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent
of the gross acreage of an individual SRA ...Village”. Where the proposed project is found to be
consistent with this Policy, it may be supported for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.11 provides that, “the perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a
transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity
uses on adjoining property” and that “the edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to
be compatible with the character of adjoining property.” Where the proposed project is found to
provide perimeter land uses compatible with adjoining properties, it may be supported for
approval.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
‒ 15 ‒
PL20190001836, Longwater SRA
• RLSAO Policy 4.13 provides that, “open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to
provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private
conservation land”. Where the proposed project is found to provide a buffer between the SRA and
any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation lands, it may be supported for
approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.14 provides that, “no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County
collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate... at the time of SRA
designation.” Where the proposed project is found to be served by collector or arterial road(s)
providing adequate capacity at the time of SRA designation, it may be supported for approval.
• RLSAO Policy 4.15.1 provides that, “SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the
full range of uses permitted by... Policies 4.7 ...4.7.2 ...and ...Attachment C” and that, “each Village
or CRD shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as
appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages
...may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses”. Where the proposed project
is found to provide a mixed-use Village Center including no less than 65,000 sq. ft. of
neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, and no less than 26,000 sq. ft. of civic and institutional
uses, it may be supported for approval.
cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Interim Director, Zoning Division
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
G:\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Longwater Village SRA\
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Longwater Village SRA\SRA-2019-1836 Con
Rvws\PL19-1836 Longwater Con Rev memo_REV4.2 fnl.docx
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Collier Enterprises Villages – Public Utilities Transmission Main Connectivity Plan
3/10/2020
Rivergrass
POC 1/1
Future
Randall
Blvd. Mains
41st Ave.
Mains Under
Construction
Longwater
Connector
Mains
Longwater
Connector
Mains
Bellmar
Connector
Mains
Future
Vanderbilt
Beach Road
Extension
Longwater
POC 1/2
Longwater
POC 2/2
Booster Pump
Station Site
for Bellmar
RLW South
Extent
Bellmar
POC 1/1
9.A.2.d
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Attachment C-Collier Villages Public Utilities Connectivity Plan 8-21-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 767Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
9.A.2.e
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Attachment C-1-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (14873 : PL20190001836,
Longwater Village SRA
Economic Assessment
Collier County
Collier County Schools
North Collier Fire & Rescue
Initial Submission: November 11, 2019
Revised: March 11, 2020
Added 15,000 sq. ft. Commercial
Roads
Emergency Medical Services
Water and Wastewater
Revised: May 24, 2020
Roads - Narrative Only
Revised: August 6, 2020
Roads – Fair Share Mitigation
Revised: January 8, 2021
Water and Wastewater – Narrative Only
Schools – Narrative Only
Prepared By:
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 6
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 8
Development Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 8
Revenue Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 9
Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................................................................ 9
Property Taxes ....................................................................................................................... 10
Expenditure Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 10
COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 10
Collier County Operating Impacts ............................................................................................. 10
Collier County Operating Revenue Projections ......................................................................... 11
Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................................... 12
Collier County Capital Impacts .................................................................................................. 13
Collier County Capital Impacts by Department ..................................................................... 13
NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT .................................................................................... 29
North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts ............................................................................. 29
North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts ............................................................ 30
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................. 30
Collier County Schools Capital Impacts ..................................................................................... 30
Collier County Schools Operating Impacts ................................................................................ 33
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 35
GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
3
Table 1: Longwater Development Program ................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................... 9
Table 3: Longwater Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ............................................. 9
Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout ........................................................................ 10
Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates .......................................................................................... 10
Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout ................................................... 11
Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections ....................................................... 11
Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................. 12
Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ....................................................... 14
Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts ............................................................. 17
Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service ............................................................. 17
Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ................. 18
Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities ................................................................................. 18
Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost............................................................. 18
Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ..................................... 19
Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost .......................................................... 20
Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact .................................................................................... 20
Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts .................................................................. 21
Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service .................................................................. 21
Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 21
Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts ............................................................. 22
Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service ............................................................. 22
Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ...................................... 22
Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts ............................................................................ 23
Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service ............................................................... 23
Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts ....................................................... 24
Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost ............................................................. 24
Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ................................. 29
Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population ............................................ 29
Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues .................................... 30
Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout ............. 30
Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment ........................................................... 31
Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type ........................................................ 31
Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs ................................................................................... 32
Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue ....................................................................... 32
Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach .......................... 32
Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout.............................. 34
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. is proposing the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving
Area (“SRA”) on a site less than 1,000 acres in site in eastern Collier County. The proposed SRA,
Longwater Village (“Longwater” or “Village”), is east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well
Road.
In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (“RLSA”) Overlay definition of a Village,
Longwater is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a
maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 80,000 square feet of
commercial uses and 26,000 square feet of neighborhood civic space.
The proposed Longwater Village is strategically located within a mile of a planned fire facility
which is owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District.
As reflected in the table below, Longwater Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee
revenues for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and Collier County Schools.
The results are presented at the project’s buildout, as required by LDC.
Summary Table 1: Longwater Village Fiscal Highlights
Longwater SRA Fiscal Highlights At Buildout At Buildout
Collier County:Countywide MSTU
Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 805,353,000$ 805,353,000$
Longwater SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Countywide MSTU
Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues 3,987,000$ 734,000$
Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000 490,000
Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 925,000$ 244,000$
North Collier Fire and Rescue District:Fire District
Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues*3,020,000$
Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 1,042,000
Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 1,978,000$
Collier County Schools:School District
Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 838,655,000$
Longwater SRA Net Fiscal Benefit:Annual Operating**Total Capital
Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues 3,005,000$ 42,073,000$
Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 3,005,000 42,073,000
Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus -$ -$
Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Buildout
Collier County 2,871,000$
Collier County MSTU 650,000
North Collier Fire & Rescue 3,020,000
Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating 3,005,000
Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement 1,258,000
Total Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues 10,804,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
5
*Based on FY 2020 operating millage for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the FY 2020 millage rates for the Collier School District.
** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas.
Source: DPFG, 2020
As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Longwater Village is fiscally
positive for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and fiscally neutral, as defined, for Collier
County and the Collier County School District.
Summary Table 2: Longwater Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority
* The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas.
Source: DPFG, 2020
Impact Fee Revenue:
Impact Fee
Revenue
Fair Share
Mitigation
Impact Fee Revenue
and Fair Share
Mitigation
Community Parks 1,903,000$ -$ 1,903,000$
Regional Parks 5,400,000 - 5,400,000
Roads 17,737,000 622,000 18,359,000
EMS 303,000 - 303,000
Government Buildings 1,993,000 - 1,993,000
Libraries 680,000 - 680,000
Law Enforcement 1,268,000 - 1,268,000
Jail 1,088,000 - 1,088,000
Water - Residential Only 6,662,000 - 6,662,000
Wastewater - Residential Only 7,023,000 - 7,023,000
Total Collier County Impact Fees 44,057,000$ 622,000$ 44,679,000$
Collier County Schools 16,331,000$ -$ 16,331,000$
North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,432,000 - 1,432,000
Total Impact Fee Revenue 61,820,000$ 622,000$ 62,442,000$
Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal
Collier County Collier County
Annual Operations:Annual Operations and Capital:
General Funds Grouping Positive Water Neutral
MSTU Positive Wastewater Neutral
Capital:Capital and Operations:
Regional and Community Parks Positive Solid Waste Neutral
Roads Neutral Stormwater Neutral
EMS Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue District
Government Buildings Neutral Annual Operations Positive
Libraries Positive Capital Positive
Law Enforcement Neutral Collier County Schools
Jail Neutral Annual Operations*Neutral
Capital Neutral
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
6
INTRODUCTION
An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”)
Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a
whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base at buildout. At a minimum, the
Economic Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools.
In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential
community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The
proposed Village Center provides for the required neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and
community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving the entire Village and with an
interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle
trips.
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) was retained to prepare an Economic
Assessment for the Longwater Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent
support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal
neutrality for the Longwater Village SRA for Collier County (“County”), the North Collier Fire &
Rescue District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”).
METHODOLOGY
The Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”)1 outlines the most common methods for
estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to
other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a
combination of these methods to generate a projection.
• Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of
serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The
average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs
associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic
change, existing excess capacity or potential economies of scale in service delivery.
Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and
proportional valuation costs.
• Marginal Cost uses site-specific information to determine services costs for a new
development. A case study approach is typically necessary to gather detailed information
about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate
1 Michael J. Mucha, “An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects,” (white paper,
Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
7
growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local
service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data
• Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with
comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific
projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase
in costs over a long period of time.
• Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating
impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community
such as a utility plant or an entertainment center.
The fiscal impact analysis of Longwater Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology
to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs
were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital
improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas
revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include
Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment,
and Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per housing unit by product
type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the
County’s 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published
source (see Appendix).2
The analysis includes the following general funds:3 (001) General Fund, (003) Emergency
Disaster, (007) Economic Development, (011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (040) Sheriff, (060) Property
Appraiser, (070) Tax Collector, and (080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds
to the County’s budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (111)
Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District, and
the Collier County School District.
The FY 2019 budget4 of the County and the FY 2020 budgets for the North Collier Fire Department
and the School District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions.
This “snapshot” approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues and
other factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it
currently conducts business under the present budget.
The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as
is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through
2 Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently
underway.
3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the “General Fund Grouping.”
4 The County’s FY 2020 full budget document was not available when this report was prepared. The document is
typically published in January. The FY 2020 millage rate did not change from the rate adopted for FY 2019.
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
8
independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more
customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs.
Based on pre-Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology
described in this report and applied in previous Economic Assessment reports prepared by DPFG.
In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or
horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as
a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of
an SRA Village.
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
Major assumptions supporting the Longwater Village Economic Assessment are summarized in
this section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance
Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues . Interfund
transfers were analyzed in depth and their classification s in the model were carefully reviewed.
Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2019 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation.
The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout
results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the
nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000).
Development Assumptions
Table 1 presents the Longwater Village development program which was used to estimate the
operating and capital impacts of the project.
Table 1: Longwater Development Program
Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020
Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units
Residential
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503
Total Residential 2,600
Non-Residential Sq Ft
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000
Neigborhood Civic 26,000
Grand Total Non-Residential (sf)106,000
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
9
Revenue Assumptions
Sales, Just, and Taxable Values
Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The
sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible
homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit
was based on Collier County (unincorporated) averages published by the Shimberg Center for
Housing Studies at the University of Florida.
Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values
Source: Collier Enterprises, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019
Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just5, and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses.
Sales values were based on construction cost per square foot estimates from R.S. Means, “Square
Foot Costs,” 40th Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser’s
database.
Table 3: Longwater Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values
Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2020
At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $805.4
million as reflected in Table 4.
5 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded.
Product Type Units
Sales Value
per Unit
Just Value
per Unit
Taxable Value
per Unit
Town Home 204 250,000$ 235,000$ 219,500$
Villa 1 319 260,000$ 244,400$ 228,900$
Coach 258 280,000$ 263,200$ 247,700$
Villa 2 316 310,000$ 291,400$ 275,900$
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 277,247$ 260,612$ 245,112$
SFD Product A < 4,000 sq ft 493 365,000$ 343,100$ 310,100$
SFD Product B < 4,000 sq ft 402 400,000$ 376,000$ 343,000$
SFD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 436 430,000$ 404,200$ 371,200$
SFD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 172 460,000$ 432,400$ 399,400$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 404,088$ 379,843$ 346,843$
Total Single-Family Detached 1,503 404,088$ 379,843$ 346,843$
Total Residential 2,600
Non-Residential Sq Ft
Sales Value
per Sq Ft
Just Value
per Sq Ft
Average
Taxable
Value
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 189.50$ 189.50$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
10
Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout
Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020
Property Taxes
Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions for Collier County used in the analysis.
Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates
Source: Collier County, 2019
Expenditure Assumptions
A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund
was performed to determine which were variable (i.e. assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed
(i.e. not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of r evenues and expenses,
certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary
demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment
for the County and new students for the School District.
COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS
Collier County Operating Impacts
Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Longwater Village at buildout.
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County’s Operating Impacts.
Units or Taxable Value
Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout
Residential
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 245,112$ 268,888,000$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 346,843$ 521,305,000
Total Residential 2,600 790,193,000$
Non-Residential
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 15,160,000
Total Non-Residential 80,000 15,160,000$
Total Tax Base 805,353,000$
3.5645 County General Fund
0.8069 MSTD General Fund
0.0293 Water Pollution Control
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
11
Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout
Source: DPFG, 2020
Collier County Operating Revenue Projections
Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Longwater
Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.0 million for the County’s
General Funds and $734,000 for the MSTU General Fund.
Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU
Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues 3,987,000$ 734,000$
Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000 490,000
Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Surplus 925,000$ 244,000$
At Buildout
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes 2,871,000$
Licenses & Permits 2,000
Inter- Governmental Revenues 7,000
State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 119,000
State Sales Tax 488,000
Charges for Services 346,000
Fines & Forfeitures 5,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous 10,000
Indirect Service Charge 70,000
Transfers from Constitutional Officers 59,000
Reimburse from Other Departments 8,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 3,987,000$
MSTU GENERAL FUND
REVENUES At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes 650,000$
Licenses & Permits 4,000
Charges for Services 30,000
Fines & Forfeitures 2,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000
Communication Services Tax 45,000
Reimburse from Other Departments -
Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 734,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
12
Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections
Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Longwater
Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $3.1 million and
$490,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown
of operating costs by line item category.
Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners 30,000$
County Attorney 13,000
Property Appraiser 71,000
Supervisor of Elections 24,000
Clerk of Courts 49,000
Sheriff 1,674,000
Tax Collector 129,000
Administrative Services 3,000
Human Resources 10,000
Procurement Services 9,000
Bureau of Emergency Services 29,000
Planning 1,000
Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000
Public Defender 4,000
State Attorney 5,000
Guardian Ad Litem Program -
County Manager Operations 6,000
Office of Management & Budget 6,000
Public Services Administration 2,000
Domestic Animal Services 41,000
Community and Human Services 45,000
Library 98,000
Parks & Recreation 120,000
Public Health 4,000
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000
Facilities Management 146,000
Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 179,000
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 76,000
Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 23,000
Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 31,000
Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 158,000
Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 73,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
13
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Collier County Capital Impacts
Collier County Capital Impacts by Department
Methodologies upon which the County’s impact fees are based generally use the consumption
or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements -driven approach. For
example, the County’s Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park
facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant
demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities
were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long-range capital improvement
plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically
designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess.
Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which
will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component
prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the
General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital
outlays and applicable transfers (e.g. subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service)
as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include
growth and non-growth related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the
credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth-related capital outlays
and capital fund subsidies.
Impact fee updates for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, and Parks and Recreation were
adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed. EMS, Government
Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the
associated rates were adopted in 2017. Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional
MSTU GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners 17,000$
Communications & Customer Relations Division 15,000
Growth Management Administration 6,000
Planning 18,000
Regulation 53,000
Maintenance 95,000
Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000
Project Management -
Community and Human Services 2,000
Parks & Recreation 182,000
Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 36,000
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 42,000
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 23,000
Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 490,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
14
Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development
will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time.
The capital needs of Longwater Village were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier
Fire & Rescue District, and the School District . The capital analysis for these services was
prepared in accordance with their input.
For the remaining service departments, when the achieved level of service (“LOS”) for a particular
public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating
demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved
LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when
calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to
existing development. Data from the 2018 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities
(“AUIR”), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS.6
Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies.
Projected impact fee collections for Parks, Transportation, EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries,
Law Enforcement, Jails, and Water and Wastewater are reflected in Table 9. Impact fee revenues
for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the School District are presented in subsequent
sections of this report. The County’s impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix.
Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
6 DPFG reviewed the draft 2019 AUIR and noted overall consistency with the 2018 AUIR level of service standards
and available inventory except for Regional Parks. A corresponding adjustment was made in the Regional Parks
analysis based on County Staff recommendations.
Impact Fee Type Total Fees
Community Parks 1,903,000$
Regional Parks 5,400,000
Roads 17,737,000
EMS 303,000
Government Buildings 1,993,000
Libraries 680,000
Law Enforcement 1,268,000
Jail 1,088,000
Water - residential only 6,662,000
Wastewater - residential only 7,023,000
Total Collier County Impact Fees 44,057,000$
Collier County Schools 16,331,000
North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,432,000
Total Impact Fees 61,820,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
15
Collier County Road Capital Impacts
The Longwater Village SRA is a proposed mixed-use development in eastern Collier County
located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The landowner is
responsible to pay an appropriate fee required by the County’s Road Impact Fee Ordinance as
building permits are issued for the proposed project. Road impact fees are estimated at $17.7
million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair-Share estimate of $700,000 as shown in the
“Preliminary Concurrency Fair-Share – August 2020” document prepared by Trebilcock
Consulting Solutions, PA.
Proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and
interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject
to impact fee credits.
In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate turn lanes at project entrances as
required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site
related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County’s Right-of-Way
(“ROW”) or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be
provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement.
Operational impacts of the development project traffic are mitigated for those intersections
failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics.
Consistent with the information illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study
guidelines, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores
or improves the delay and v/c (volume/capacity) ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario.
Base scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic plus background traffic for the estimated
build-out year on the E + C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network.
As illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement associated with the zoning application for the
subject development, Synchro 10 software was used to perform intersection Level of Service
(“LOS”) analysis at specific locations.
Based on the results of the Synchro intersection analyses, the following geometric improvements
may be necessary to address project related level of service deficiencies:
• Oil Well Road and DeSoto Blvd intersection – signalization
• Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection – signalization
• 18th Ave NE and DeSoto Blvd intersection – signalization; add southbound left-turn lane
on DeSoto Blvd
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
16
Fair share percentage determination illustrates traffic impacts in the AM and PM p eak periods.
The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic
contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 203 0 traffic
volumes. A cash contribution of $622,000 will be paid for the intersection improvements.
Furthermore, the landowner will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to DeSoto Blvd
at an estimated cost of $240,000. This onsite project improvement is in addition to the costs
outlined in Figure 1.
Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost
Allocation Table reflected in the “Fair-Share Mitigation Operational Impacts” report prepared by
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. The landowner contribution of $622,000 will be paid in
addition to the road impact fees of $17.7 million for a total of $18.4 million in transportation-
related payments.
Figure 1: Longwater Fair-Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts
Source: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, 2020
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Road capital impacts.
Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts
The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service
related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand
created by new growth. Facilities and equipment consist primarily of centralized and support
buildings, patrol cars and other equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level.
Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities
and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section.
Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 10. Based on discussions with
the Sheriff’s Office, capital demands from Longwater Village include the cost to equip certified
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
17
officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Longwater Village for a
substation; however, there may be need in the future for a work station to serve development
in the area. As shown below, impact fees are adequate to fund Longwater Village’s proportionate
share.
Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
The County’s achieved LOS for Law Enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population;
whereas, the adopted LOS is 1.84. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number
of certified police officers needed to serve Longwater Village.
Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law
Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated
in Table 12.
Law Enforcement Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 1,268,000$
Other Capital Revenues*230,000
Total Capital Revenues 1,498,000$
Direct Capital Costs:
Law Enforcement Equipment Cost
Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer 106,000$
Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 9.5
Law Enforcement Equipment Cost 1,008,000$
Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs 1,008,000$
Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 490,000$
Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs:
Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus 490,000$
Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$
Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 2,238
Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$
Longwater SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities
Peak Seasonal Population 5,373
Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents)1.77
Funded Facilities and Equipment for Certified Police Officers 9.5
LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
18
Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts
The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment.
Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining
and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating
Impacts section.
Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 13.
Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below.
Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15.
Item Amount
Equipment Inventory Value 70,020,524$
Number of Certified Police Officers 660
Equipment Value per Officer 106,000$
Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 1,088,000$
Other Capital Revenues*60,000
Total Capital Revenues 1,148,000$
Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed 1,148,000$
Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Longwater SRA Funded Share Jail Facilities
Land Use
Functional
Population
Coefficient
Units/
Square Feet
Functional
Population
Single Family Detached
Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,503 2,719
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 0.94 1,097 1,031
Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197
Total Functional Population 3,947
2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 290.98$
Total Capital Cost 1,148,000$
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563
2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 206.36$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
19
Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts
According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility
planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in
January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co-locate a fire facility at the site. EMS
management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility
will be funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018.
If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park
SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an
additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because
NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter
into a mutual cost-sharing arrangement. 7
The EMS level of service in the County’s AUIR is approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station
space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand
factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by
demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 70 percent of the County’s ambulance fee
collections are from Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Table 16 compares calculates the net allocable cost of the new EMS station to Longwater Village
using a peak seasonal resident population approach.
7 As described in the 2019 AUIR, the County currently leases 14 EMS stations. For 10 of the 14 leased stations, no
rent is paid but rather a shared monthly utility charged is a ssessed. Annual lease payments for EMS facilities are
considered in the County operating impact section of this report.
Description Figure
Net Asset Value - Indexed 111,592,344$
Number of Beds 1,304
Net Asset Value per Bed 85,577$
Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents)3.40
Asset Value per Functional Resident 290.98$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
20
Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected impact fees for Longwater
Village.
Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact
*Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis.
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts
The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs
associated with maintaining and operating the County’s Parks facilities are provided in the
General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section.
Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 18.
Allocation of New EMS Station
Proportionate
Allocation
2019 AUIR Cost of Shared Station:
Facility $ 1,325,000
Equipment 551,057
Total Capital Cost of Shared Station 1,876,057$
Less One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax Funding (1,325,000)
Net Allocable Cost 551,057$
Demand Base 16,400
Per Capita Cost 33.60$
Longwater Village Peak Resident Population 5,373
EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village 181,000$
EMS Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 303,000$
Other Capital Revenues*7,000
Total Capital Revenues 310,000$
EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village 181,000$
Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS Growth-
Related Capital Needs 129,000
EMS Total Capital Cost 310,000$
Longwater Village EMS Capital
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
21
Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
The County’s adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County
Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak
population for purposes of this analysis.
Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20.
Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts
Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21.
Regional Park Capital Revenues
Impact Fee Revenue 5,400,000$
Other Capital Revenues*283,000
Total Capital Revenues 5,683,000$
Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs
Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 590,288$
Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 9.78
Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Acres 5,772,000$
Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (89,000)$
Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 112,000
Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 23,000$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis.
Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Facilities
Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82
Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,373
Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 9.78
LOS Share of Regional Park Facilities
Component Regional Park
Land Purchase Cost per Acre 450,000$
Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000
Total Land Cost per Acre 490,000$
Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 43,634
Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre 533,634$
2018 Index 1.106
2018 Indexed Cost per Acre 590,288$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
22
Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019
The County’s adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population , and the
achieved LOS is 1.47 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of
Community Park acres needed to serve Longwater Village.
Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23.
Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Longwater Libraries Impacts
Libraries impact fees include land, building, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the
entire County. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with
maintaining and operating the County’s Libraries facilities are provided in the General Funds
Operating Impacts section.
Community Park Capital Revenues
Impact Fee Revenue 1,903,000$
Other Capital Revenues*31,000
Total Capital Revenues 1,934,000$
Community Park Indirect Capital Costs
Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 282,573$
Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS 6.45
Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Acres 1,822,000$
Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 112,000$
Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (89,000)
Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 23,000$
Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Facilities
Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20
Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,373
Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 6.45
LOS Share of Community Park Facilities
Component
Community
Park
Land Purchase Cost per Acre 107,000$
Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 10,000
Total Land Cost per Acre 117,000$
Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 148,328
Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre 265,328$
2018 Index 1.065
2018 Indexed Cost per Acre 282,573$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
23
Libraries capital impacts are presented in Table 24. The calculated surplus will be used to fund
other Library capital needs.
Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
The County’s adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population;
whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.31 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the achieved LOS
was used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Longwater Village.
Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capita value of $39 were obtained
from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update.
Government Buildings Capital Impacts
Government buildings impact fees include remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings,
information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and
costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s General Government facilities are
provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section.
General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26.
Library Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 680,000$
Other Capital Revenues*100,000
Total Capital Revenue 780,000$
Library Capital Costs:
Library Facility Cost
Library Sq Ft at Achieved LOS 1,687
Library Facility Cost per Sq Ft 243.20$
Library Facility Cost 410,000$
Library Materials/Collections
Unit Cost per Capita 38.62$
Peak Seasonal Population 5,373
Total Items 208,000$
Total Library Capital Costs 618,000$
Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 162,000$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Longwater SRA Funded Library Facilities
Peak Seasonal Population 5,373
Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Achieved LOS 0.31
Library Sq Ft (Achieved LOS)1,687
LOS Share of Library Facilities
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
24
Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27.
Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital Impacts.
Water and Wastewater
The following table is a calculation of the Longwater Village potable water demands and
wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions:
Government Building Capital Revenues:
Impact Fee Revenue 1,993,000$
Revenue Credits*67,000
Total Capital Revenue 2,060,000$
Government Building Capital Costs:
Government Building Indirect Capital Costs :2,060,000$
Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$
*Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis.
Longwater SRA Funded Government Buildings
Land Use
Functional
Population
Coefficient
Units/
Square Feet
Functional
Population
Single Family Detached
Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,503 2,722
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 0.86 1,097 945
Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197
Total Functional Population 3,864
Capital Cost per Functional Population 533.72$
Total Proportionate Capital Cost 2,060,000$
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563
Capital Cost per Peak Population 370.30$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
25
Figure 2: Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands
Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands
Wastewater Potable Water
Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5
Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd
Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 18,000 gpd
Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd
535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd
535,900 gpd = 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 mgd ADF
M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3
M3D Flow = 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = 1.05 mgd
Source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020
Potable water services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County
Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal
Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land
Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District.
The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300
gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial
development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions,
potable water demand for the Longwater Village development at buildout is projected to be
approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand.
Wastewater services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County
Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal
Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land
Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated
by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600
residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet
square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily
basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis.
Refer to the proposed Interlocal Agreement for a description of the commitments, including the
prepayment of a portion of water and wastewater impact fees.
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Water and
Wastewater capital and operating impacts.
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
26
Stormwater Management
The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from
the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the
predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater
discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and
total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore,
in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin
concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and
beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County
stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond
undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and
will not in the future.
The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater Village is the existing
agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area (“WRA”), which ultimately
discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. No WRA areas are included within the
village SRA area.
The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90 -
10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the
permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03
cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the
hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite
discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the
Conceptual Approval permit (11-03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant
owned property.
The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to
development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No
surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same
predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design.
Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet
detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by
SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with
SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA
areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted
control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after
treatment consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality
treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of
an additional 50 percent of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
27
quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity
treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert.
Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by
SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their
associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s.
These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation
and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the
permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact.
The water management concept for Longwater Village involves the use of the existing agricultural
water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations,
discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conc eptual
Approval Permit issued by SFWMD.
All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water
quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be
excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality
exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas
within WRA’s will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will
be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by
this project.
Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village water
management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral.
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital
and operating impacts.
Irrigation Water
The Longwater Village project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from
the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural
environments. At build-out, the Longwater Village project will result in converting approximately
1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations
currently permitted and used within the Longwater Village project area total approximately 3.37
MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis.
The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 30 7
acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater Village development requiring irrigation. The
project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD
Blaney-Criddle method are:
• 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis
• 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
28
The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation
water usage at the site. The Longwater Village project will obtain a water use permit from the
SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet
irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100
percent of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is
working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water
supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to
meet all the project’s irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30 -day
back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The on site
irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be
used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully
resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami
Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the
project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively
harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re -
supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and
groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the
permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system.
Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village
irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral.
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and
operating impacts.
Solid Waste
Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida (“WMIF”), will collect solid
waste generated within Longwater Village. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside
recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will
be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed
by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products.
Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage
and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and
institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater Village will be hauled to the
Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to WMIF’s Okeechobee
Landfill. According to WMIF, the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years.
Alternatively, the Collier County Naples landfill also has capacity according to the Collier County
2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report.
Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations described above are accounted for in the
County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund.
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
29
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Landfill.
NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT
North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts
Longwater Village is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area (“SDA”) of the
North Collier Fire & Rescue District (“Fire & Rescue District”). Based on discussions with Fire &
Rescue District personnel, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is
already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District.
Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020
Capital costs are estimated in Table 29.
Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020
Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 3 0 and total $1.4 million.
Capital Impact:
Fire District Capital Revenues
Impact Fee Revenue 1,432,000$
Other Capital Revenue 82,000
Total Capital Revenue 1,514,000$
Fire District Capital Cost
Capital Cost per Functional Resident (Indexed)407$
Functional Population 3,721
Total Capital Cost 1,514,000$
Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$
Capital Impact at Buildout
Land Use
Functional
Population
Coefficient
Units/
Square Feet
Functional
Population
Single Family Detached
< 4,000 sq ft 1.71 1,503 2,570
Multi-Family 0.87 1,097 954
Retail 100,000 gsf or less 2.46 80,000 197
Total Functional Population 3,721
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
30
Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020
North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts
Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower
density development, Longwater Village is currently projected to generate significant operating
surpluses. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 31.
Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout
Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire & Rescue
Control District.
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT
Collier County Schools Capital Impacts
The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools (“CCPS”) is
shown in Table 32. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most
recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment.
Units or Fire
Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 334.82$ 367,000$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 658.09$ 989,000
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 0.9485$ 76,000
Total Fire Impact Fees 1,432,000$
Annual Operating Impact:
Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 805,353,000$
Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75
Annual Ad Valorem Revenues 3,020,000$ 3,020,000$
Annual Expenditures:
2019-20 North Collier Fire Budget:
Personnel and Operating Expenses 37,774,581$
Debt Service 565,627
Capital 2,889,975
Total Expenditures 41,230,183$
North Collier Fire District Functional Population 147,405
Operating Cost per Functional Resident 280$
Longwater SRA Functional Population 3,721
Annual Operating Cost 1,042,000$ 1,042,000$
Annual Operating Surplus 1,978,000$
Annual Operating Impact at Buildout
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
31
Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment
Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019
Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 33.
Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type
Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019
According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next
five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However,
the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively,
result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. A stipulation to the proposed
Development Order requires the developer to convey real property for two school sites (Site A
shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and Site B shall be used only for
a public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits . The proposed
stipulation states, “With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the
District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the
development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass,
Longwater, and Belmar SRAs.”
At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity
either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent
concurrency service areas.
The capital costs of the Longwater students are presented in Table 34 and are based on the 2015
School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are
conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary
$23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station.
Residential Unit Type Units SGR
Projected
Students
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 0.11 121
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 0.34 511
Total Residential 2,600 632
School Type
Projected
Students Percent
Elementary 287 45.48%
Middle 139 22.06%
High 205 32.46%
Total 632 100.00%
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
32
Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019
School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 35.
Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019
As seen in Table 36, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact
fees. The capital impact of Longwater Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are
expected to generate only 0.11 students per household.
Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020
Facility Costs Students
Cost per
Student Total
School Facility Cost:
Elementary 287 36,058$ 10,365,000$
Middle 139 42,266 5,892,000
High 205 48,381 9,924,000
Cost of New School Facilities 632 41,426$ 26,181,000$
Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial:
Transportation 632 $ 1,097 693,000
Anxillary Facility 632 $ 1,206 762,000
Total Transportation/Ancillary 632 $ 2,303 1,455,000
Total Capital Costs 43,728$ 27,636,000$
Units or School
Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 2,844.19$ 3,120,000$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 8,789.54$ 13,211,000
Total School Impact Fees 16,331,000$
School Impact
Fee Revenue
Capital
Improvement
Tax*Total
School Capital Revenues:
School Impact Fee Revenue 16,331,000$ 16,331,000$
School District Capital Tax Revenue 25,742,000 25,742,000
Total School Capital Revenues 16,331,000$ 25,742,000$ 42,073,000$
Direct School Capital Expenditures:
New Schools 26,181,000$
New School Buses K-12 693,000
Direct School Capital Expenditures:26,874,000$
Other School Capital Expenditures:
School Bus Replacement Cost 693,000$
Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 14,506,000
Total School Capital Expenditures 42,073,000$
* Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study.
Revenue/Expense
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
33
Collier County Schools Operating Impacts
The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General
Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in
education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The
State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage (“RLE”) for each school district. The
RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida
Education Finance Program (“FEFP”). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by
the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The
Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make s ure no school
district’s RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district’s total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature
establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both
the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax
millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within
the three lowest out of all Florida school districts.
A comparison of the School District’s millage history is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
34
Source: Collier County School District, 2019
Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series
of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school
operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table
37.
Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020
Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District.
School District Operating Results At Buildout
Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.583 2,951,000$
Ad Valorem Local Millage - NonResidential 3.583 54,000
Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues 3,005,000$
Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures 3,005,000$
Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues -$
Operating
Millage
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
35
APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD
FY 2019 County Budget Year
COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION
376,086 2019 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR
1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient - Collier County
451,303 2019 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR
75,217 2019 County Peak Seasonal Population
COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT
196,065 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update
0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN
174,451 Collier County Employment
COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION
243,100 Collier County CVB Profile - March 2019
7,842 Peak Daily Tourists
COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS
550,537 County Permanent Population and Jobs
625,754 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs
633,596 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs
COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION
333,831 2019 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR
1.21 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County
404,945 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR
71,114 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population
COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT
154,851 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update
COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS
488,682 County Permanent Population and Jobs
559,796 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs
COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES
3.5645 County General Fund
0.8069 MSTD General Fund
0.0293 Water Pollution Control
COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2018 Final Tax Roll Year
66%Single Family
31%Condominium
50,000$ County Homestead Exemption
25,000$ School Homestead Exemption
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
36
Appendix Table 2: Longwater Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients
Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Appendix Table 3: Longwater Population and Employment Estimates
Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Appendix Table 4: Longwater Population and Employment Summary
Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2020
Appendix Table 5: Longwater Public School Enrollment
Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019
Land Use by Impact Fee Category
Permanent
Population
Per Unit
Seasonal
Index
Peak
Seasonal
Persons
Per Unit
Residential (Units)
Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1.05 1.20 1.26
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 2.21 1.20 2.65
Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units
Peak
Seasonal
Persons Per
Unit
Peak
Seasonal
Population
Permanent
Population
Per Unit
Permanent
Population
Residential
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 1.26 1,383 1.05 1,152
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 2.65 3,990 2.21 3,325
Total Residential 2,600 5,373 4,477
Non-Residential Sq Ft
Employment
Coefficient Occup %Employees
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 2.50 95%190
Total Non-Residential 80,000 190
Neigborhood Civic 26,000
Grand Total Non-Residential (sf)106,000 190
Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout
Permanent Population 4,477
Permanent Population and Jobs 4,667
Residential Seasonal Population 5,373
Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 5,373
Employment 190
Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563
Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 5,563
Students Total
Residential Population Units per Unit Students
Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 0.11 118
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 0.34 514
Annual Total 2,600 632
Cumulative Total
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
37
Appendix Table 6: Longwater County Tax Base
Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020
Appendix Table 7: Longwater School District Tax Base
Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020
Units or Taxable Value
Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout
Residential
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 245,112$ 268,888,000$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 346,843$ 521,305,000
Total Residential 2,600 790,193,000$
Non-Residential
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 15,160,000
Total Non-Residential 80,000 15,160,000$
Total Tax Base 805,353,000$
Units or Taxable Value
Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout
Residential
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 252,862$ 277,390,000$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 363,343$ 546,105,000
Total Residential 2,600 823,495,000$
Non-Residential
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 15,160,000
Total Non-Residential 80,000 15,160,000$
Total Tax Base 838,655,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
38
Appendix Table 8: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Ad Valorem
Taxes
Licenses &
Permits
Inter-
Governmental
Revenues
State Revenue
Sharing State Sales Tax
Fed Payment
in Lieu of
Taxes
Charges for
Services
Fines &
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous
Revenues
Interest/
Miscellaneous
Indirect
Service Charge Carry Forward
001 General Fund 314,823,600$ 229,200$ 453,500$ 11,000,000$ 41,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 14,214,100$ 392,500$ 208,100$ 910,000$ 8,254,500$ 41,381,100$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - - - - 20,200
003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - - - - 2,300 285,100
007 Economic Development - - 400,000 - - - - - - 18,600 - 1,334,200
011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - - - - - 3,214,600 - - 36,000 - -
040 Sheriff - - - - - - - - - - - -
060 Property Appraiser - - - - - - - - - - - -
070 Tax Collector - - - - - - 23,377,700 - - 233,500 - -
080 Supervisor of Elections - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 314,823,600$ 229,200$ 853,500$ 11,000,000$ 41,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 40,806,400$ 392,500$ 208,100$ 1,198,100$ 8,256,800$ 43,020,600$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES AND SOURCES
Communication
Services Tax
Special
Assessments
Transfers from
General Fund
(001)
Transfers from
Constitutional
Officers Other Transfers
Repay IRMA
Loan
Reimburse from
Other
Departments Total Less Restricted Total
001 General Fund - - - 6,600,000$ 1,815,000$ 11,700,000$ 863,000$ 455,094,600$ (19,191,900)$ 435,902,700$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - 20,200 - 20,200
003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - 287,400 (200) 287,200
007 Economic Development - - - - - - - 1,752,800 (21,000) 1,731,800
011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 7,367,000 - - - - 10,617,600 (159,200) 10,458,400
040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 - - - - 187,203,400 - 187,203,400
060 Property Appraiser - - 6,951,000 - 846,100 - - 7,797,100 - 7,797,100
070 Tax Collector - - - - - - - 23,611,200 - 23,611,200
080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 - - - - 3,893,000 - 3,893,000
Total General Fund Grouping Revenues -$ -$ 205,414,400$ 6,600,000$ 2,661,100$ 11,700,000$ 863,000$ 690,277,300$ (19,372,300)$ 670,905,000$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES AND SOURCES
Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget
001 General Fund 435,902,700$
002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200
003 Emergency Disaster 287,200
007 Economic Development 1,731,800
011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400
040 Sheriff 187,203,400
060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100
070 Tax Collector 23,611,200
080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000
Total General Fund Groupings 670,905,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
39
Appendix Table 9: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019
Appendix Table 10: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019
General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier
Base
Demand
$ Per
Demand
Unit
Ad Valorem Taxes 314,823,600$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A
Licenses & Permits 229,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 0.42$
Inter- Governmental Revenues 853,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 1.55$
State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion 1,042,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 9,958,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 26.48$
State Sales Tax 41,000,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 109.02$
Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Charges for Services 40,806,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 74.12$
Fines & Forfeitures 392,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.87$
Miscellaneous Revenues 208,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 0.38$
Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,198,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 2.18$
Indirect Service Charge 8,256,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 15.00$
Carry Forward 43,020,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from General Fund (001)205,414,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from Constitutional Officers 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 10.55$
Other Transfers 2,661,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Repay IRMA Loan 11,700,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reimburse from Other Departments 863,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 1.38$
Total 690,277,300$ 241.95$
General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier
Base
Demand
$ Per
Demand
Unit
Ad Valorem Taxes 44,228,900$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A
Licenses & Permits 452,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 0.93$
Charges for Services 3,136,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 6.42$
Fines & Forfeitures 237,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 0.48$
Miscellaneous Revenues 231,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.41$
Interest/ Miscellaneous 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.21$
Carry Forward 6,982,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Communication Services Tax 4,500,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 8.04$
Special Assessments 33,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from General Fund (001)916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers from Constitutional Officers 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Other Transfers 563,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reimburse from Other Departments 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.04$
Total 61,623,500$ 16.53$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
40
Appendix Table 11: Longwater General Funds Revenue at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020
Appendix Table 12: Longwater MSTU Revenue at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 3.5645$ 2,871,000$
Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.42$ 2,000
Inter- Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 1.55$ 7,000
State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP 26.48$ 119,000
State Sales Tax PERMPOP 109.02$ 488,000
Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 74.12$ 346,000
Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP 0.87$ 5,000
Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 0.38$ 2,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS 2.18$ 10,000
Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS 15.00$ 70,000
Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS 10.55$ 59,000
Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.38$ 8,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 241.95$ 3,987,000$
$ Per
Demand
MSTU GENERAL FUND
REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout
Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 0.8069$ 650,000$
Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.93$ 4,000
Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 6.42$ 30,000
Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS 0.48$ 2,000
Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.41$ 2,000
Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.21$ 1,000
Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.04$ 45,000
Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.04$ -
Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 16.53$ 734,000$
$ Per
Demand
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
41
Appendix Table 13: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Personal
Services
Operating
Services Capital Outlay
Grants and
Aid Remittances
Advance/
Repay
Indirect Cost
Reimbursement
Transfers to
Constitutional
Officers
Transfers to
General Fund
(001)
Other
Transfers Reserves
001 General Fund 34,711,900$ $ 36,937,400 420,500$ 3,624,600$ 6,572,800$ 445,000$ -$ 221,211,500$ 87,497,800$ 44,481,200$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - 20,200 - -
003 Emergency Relief - 50,000 - - - - - - - - 237,200
007 Economic Development - 211,000 - - 389,000 4,100 - - - 1,127,700
011 Clerk of Circuit Court 8,607,800 1,721,100 129,500 - - - - - - - -
040 Sheriff 152,433,800 26,926,900 7,842,700 - - - - - - - -
060 Property Appraiser 6,045,100 1,727,000 25,000 - - - - - - - -
070 Tax Collector 11,783,800 2,743,200 424,300 - - - - - - - -
080 Supervisor of Elections 2,351,800 1,493,200 48,000 - - - - - - - -
Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 215,934,200$ 71,809,800$ 8,890,000$ 3,624,600$ 6,961,800$ 445,000$ 4,100$ 221,211,500$ 20,200$ 87,497,800$ 45,846,100$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
Restricted for
Unfunded
Requests
Distribution of
Excess Fees to
Govt Agencies Total
Personal Services
Operating Services
Capital Outlay
Grants and Aid
Remittances
001 General Fund - - 435,902,700$ 82,267,200$
002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - 20,200 -
003 Emergency Relief - - 287,200 50,000
007 Economic Development - - 1,731,800 604,100
011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 10,458,400 10,458,400
040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 187,203,400
060 Property Appraiser - - 7,797,100 7,797,100
070 Tax Collector - 8,659,900 23,611,200 14,951,300
080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 3,893,000
Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures -$ 8,659,900$ 670,905,000$ 307,224,500$
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
42
Appendix Table 14: FY 2019 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget
001 General Fund 435,902,700$
002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200
003 Emergency Disaster 287,200
007 Economic Development 1,731,800
011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400
040 Sheriff 187,203,400
060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100
070 Tax Collector 23,611,200
080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000
Total General Fund Groupings 670,905,000$
Fund Type Operating Budget
General Fund Groupings 307,224,500$
Special Revenue Funds 156,082,600
Capital Funds -
Enterprise Funds 42,987,300
Internal Service Funds 91,365,600
Trust and Agency Funds 23,900
Transfers and Reserves 153,874,700
Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 751,558,600$
Division/Agency Operating Budget
Board of County Commissioners 17,523,000$
Constitutional Officers 243,879,300
Administrative Services 196,578,300
Growth Management 114,566,200
Court Related Agencies 5,554,000
Management Offices 51,819,600
Public Services 104,222,300
Public Utilities - Facilities Management 17,415,900
Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 751,558,600$
Public Utilities 238,142,800
Total Operating Budget 989,701,400$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
43
Appendix Table 15: FY 2019 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Division
General Funds
Grouping Total
Special Revenue
Funds Total
Capital Funds
Total
Enterprise
Funds Total
Internal Service
Funds Total
Trust and
Agency Funds
Total
Transfers and
Reserves Total
General Funds
Grouping Total
Less
Remittances
Board of County Commissioners 10,974,700$ 3,539,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,514,500$ 5,080,100$
County Attorney 2,815,500 193,000 - - - - - 3,008,500 2,815,500
Property Appraiser 7,977,000 - - - - - - 7,977,000 7,977,000
Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 - - - - - - 3,959,600 3,959,600
Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 - - - - - - 10,960,500 10,960,500
Sheriff 190,708,300 3,053,000 - - - - 3,385,500 197,146,800 190,708,300
Tax Collector 15,175,500 - - - - - 8,659,900 23,835,400 15,175,500
Administrative Services 667,300 - - - - - - 667,300 667,300
Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 121,400 - - - - 115,000 236,400 -
Fleet Management - - - - 9,308,700 - 696,600 10,005,300 -
Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program - - - 2,452,300 5,485,500 - 11,562,300 19,500,100 -
Human Resources 2,173,400 - - - - - - 2,173,400 2,173,400
Information Technology - 1,221,900 - - 9,509,200 - 1,380,700 12,111,800 -
Procurement Services 2,016,700 - - - - - - 2,016,700 2,016,700
Risk Management - - - - 67,062,200 - 40,610,500 107,672,700 -
Communications & Customer Relations Division - 1,467,800 - - - - - 1,467,800 -
Administrative Services Grants - 34,500 - - - - - 34,500 -
Bureau of Emergency Services 3,313,800 75,000 - - - - 237,200 3,626,000 3,291,000
Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 31,084,400 - - 3,562,600 34,647,000 -
Fire Districts - 2,101,500 - - - - 317,800 2,419,300 -
Growth Management Administration - 15,329,900 - - - - - 15,329,900 -
Planning 107,300 3,477,800 - - - - - 3,585,100 107,300
Regulation - 26,514,000 - - - - 1,911,400 28,425,400 -
Maintenance - 21,158,800 - - - - 872,700 22,031,500 -
Improvement Districts and MSTU - 2,086,700 - - - - 36,300 2,123,000 -
Operations - 9,329,900 - - - - 140,700 9,470,600 -
Project Management - 5,805,000 - - - - 93,800 5,898,800 -
Airport - - - 3,815,900 - - 737,700 4,553,600 -
Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 23,148,300 23,148,300 -
Court Administration - 2,968,700 - - - - 235,200 3,203,900 -
Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 - - - - - - 65,900 65,900
Public Defender 308,400 - - - - - - 308,400 308,400
State Attorney 407,400 - - - - - - 407,400 407,400
Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 4,600
Court Related Technology - 1,068,500 - - - - 495,300 1,563,800 -
County Manager Operations 1,392,000 - - - - - - 1,392,000 1,392,000
Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.664,200 - - - - - - 664,200 664,200
Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 1,310,600 - - - - 442,400 3,120,900 1,367,900
Tourist Development Council - 12,291,400 - - - - 5,588,400 17,879,800 -
Amateur Sports Complex - 2,194,900 - - - - - 2,194,900 -
Pelican Bay Services - 4,930,300 - - - - 2,708,600 7,638,900 -
Business and Economic Development 2,063,500 - - - - - 3,164,500 5,228,000 1,019,100
Ave Maria Innovation Zone - 1,000 - - - - 204,800 205,800 -
Bayshore CRA - 7,394,300 - - - - 3,534,600 10,928,900 -
Immokalee CRA - 1,216,600 - - - - 1,349,600 2,566,200 -
Public Services Administration 297,400 - - - - - - 297,400 297,400
Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 - - - - - - 1,083,900 1,083,900
Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 90,500 - - - - 313,000 3,845,200 3,441,700
Community and Human Services 7,557,300 1,171,900 - - - - 1,409,100 10,138,300 7,557,300
Library 8,216,500 270,800 - - - - 21,200 8,508,500 8,216,500
Museum - 2,217,400 - - - - 280,500 2,497,900 -
Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 17,141,500 - - - 23,900 34,585,900 61,801,600 10,050,300
University Extension Service 775,900 68,200 - - - - 22,100 866,200 775,900
Public Health 1,861,000 - - - - - - 1,861,000 1,861,000
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 - - 5,634,700 - - 480,800 6,474,500 359,000
Improvement Districts and MSTU - 6,185,300 - - - - 662,500 6,847,800 -
Facilities Management 16,458,000 50,700 - - - - 907,200 17,415,900 16,458,000
Total 307,224,500$ 156,082,600$ -$ 42,987,300$ 91,365,600$ 23,900$ 153,874,700$ 751,558,600$ 300,262,700$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
44
Appendix Table 16: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand
Board of County Commissioners 5,080,100$ PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 6.75$
County Attorney 2,815,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 2.25$
Property Appraiser 7,977,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 12.75$
Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 5.26$
Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 8.76$
Sheriff 190,708,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 300.99$
Tax Collector 15,175,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 27.56$
Administrative Services 667,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 0.53$
Human Resources 2,173,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.74$
Procurement Services 2,016,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.61$
Bureau of Emergency Services 3,291,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 5.19$
Planning 107,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 0.17$
Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.15$
Public Defender 308,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 0.82$
State Attorney 407,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 1.08$
Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 0.01$
County Manager Operations 1,392,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.11$
Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.664,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.09$
Business and Economic Development 1,019,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Public Services Administration 297,400 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 0.40$
Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 9.15$
Community and Human Services 7,557,300 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 10.05$
Library 8,216,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 18.21$
Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 22.27$
University Extension Service 775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Public Health 1,861,000 PERMPOP 0.20 376,086 0.99$
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 0.48$
Facilities Management 16,458,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 26.30$
General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances 300,262,700$
Remittances 6,961,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances 307,224,500$
Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 20,154,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 32.21$
Transfer to 103 Stormwater Utility 1,474,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 299 Debt Service Fund 703,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 15,335,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 8,555,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 13.67$
Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 2,500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,952,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 4.33$
Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,604,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 6.93$
Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 18,018,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 28.44$
Transfer to 506 IT Capital 430,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 110,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 652 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfer to 681 Court Services 2,012,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers to General Fund (001)20,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Other Transfers 8,504,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Advance/Repayments 445,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers to Constitutional Officers 221,211,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reserves 45,846,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 8,659,900 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 15.73$
Total 670,905,000$ 1.00 566.99$
$ Per
Demand
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
45
Appendix Table 17: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand
Board of County Commissioners 1,237,900 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 3.71$
Communications & Customer Relations Division 1,467,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 559,796 2.62$
Growth Management Administration 556,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.99$
Planning 1,804,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 3.22$
Regulation 5,333,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 9.53$
Maintenance 9,531,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 17.03$
Bureau of Emergency Services 75,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.13$
Project Management - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 -$
Pelican Bay Services 150,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Immokalee CRA 212,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Community and Human Services 113,100 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 0.34$
Parks & Recreation 13,729,100 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 33.90$
Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 2,750,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 6.79$
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 4,250,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 7.59$
Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 3,000,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Improvement Districts and MSTU 334,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 2,301,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 4.11$
Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Transfers 8,383,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Advances 262,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Reserves 2,982,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A
Total 58,974,700$ 1.00 89.97$
$ Per
Demand
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
46
Appendix Table 18: Longwater General Funds Expenditures at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
GENERAL FUND GROUPING
EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 6.75$ 30,000$
County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 13,000
Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.75 71,000
Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.26 24,000
Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.76 49,000
Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 1,674,000
Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.56 129,000
Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.53 3,000
Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.74 10,000
Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.61 9,000
Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 5.19 29,000
Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.17 1,000
Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.15 1,000
Public Defender PERMPOP 0.82 4,000
State Attorney PERMPOP 1.08 5,000
Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 -
County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.11 6,000
Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.09 6,000
Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.40 2,000
Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.15 41,000
Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.05 45,000
Library PEAKPOP 18.21 98,000
Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 22.27 120,000
Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 4,000
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 2,000
Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 26.30 146,000
Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 32.21 179,000
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 13.67 76,000
Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.33 23,000
Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6.93 31,000
Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.44 158,000
Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15.73 73,000
Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 566.99$ 3,062,000$
$ Per
Demand
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
47
Appendix Table 19: Longwater MSTU Expenditures at Buildout
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020
MSTU GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout
Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 3.71$ 17,000$
Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.62$ 15,000
Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.99$ 6,000
Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.22$ 18,000
Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 9.53$ 53,000
Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS 17.03$ 95,000
Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.13$ 1,000
Project Management PEAKPOP&JOBS -$ -
Community and Human Services PERMPOP 0.34$ 2,000
Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 33.90$ 182,000
Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP 6.79$ 36,000
Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 7.59$ 42,000
Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS 4.11$ 23,000
Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 89.97 490,000$
$ Per
Demand
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
48
Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule
Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019
Land Use
Demand
Unit
Community
Parks
Regional
Parks Roads EMS Schools
Government
Buildings
Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$
Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft -$ -$ 15.42477$ 0.19230$ -$ 1.27547$
Land Use
Demand
Unit Libraries
Law
Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater Total
Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ 15,864.57$
Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ 27,623.28$
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft -$ 0.76499$ 0.67846$ -$ -$ 18.34$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
49
49
Appendix Table 21: Longwater Impact Fee Revenues
Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020
Land Use
Demand
Units
Demand
Unit Libraries
Law
Enforcement Jail
Water
Residential
Only
Wastewater
Residential
Only
Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 Unit 175,000$ 325,000$ 284,000$ 2,811,000$ 2,963,000$
Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 Unit 505,000 882,000 750,000 3,851,000 4,060,000
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 Sq Ft - 61,000 54,000 - -
Total 680,000$ 1,268,000$ 1,088,000$ 6,662,000$ 7,023,000$
Total of Buildout Schedules 680,000$ 1,268,000$ 1,088,000$ 6,662,000$ 7,023,000$
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village
LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
50
50
Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions
Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2019
STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE
0.34 Single Family
0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached
0.28 Mobile Home
FY 2020 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT
18,948 Elementary
10,162 Middle
13,524 High
962 Alternate Schools
No reference
in budget Workforce Programs
3,253 Charter Schools
606 To Balance to Budgeted FTE
47,455 Total
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE
49%Elementary
23%Middle
28%High
100%Total
FY 2020 MILLAGE RATES
2.835 Required Local Effort
0.748 Discretionary
- Addiitional Millage
3.583 Total General Fund Millage
1.500 Capital Improvement Millage
5.083 Total Millage
2.835 Required by State Law
2.248 Total Discretionary Local
5.083 Total Millage
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
51
51
GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are
accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG
and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on
estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research
effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with
the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in
reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in
preparing or presenting this study.
This report is based on information that was current as of November 2019 (except for the
sections identified as being updated in March 2020, May 2020, August 6, 2020, and January 8,
2021), and DPFG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.
Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this
study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is mad e by
DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name
of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting,
excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written
consent of DPFG. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering
of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by
any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without
first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other
than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from
DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under
agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole
risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations,
conditions and considerations.
9.A.2.f
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 1 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
LONGWATER SRA
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
March 9, 2020
Revised January 8, 2021
Solid Waste
A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The
assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all
solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of
recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and
remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site.
Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida, will collect solid waste
generated within Longwater. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling
containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be
collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a
local business specializing in the recycling of construction products.
Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage
and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and
institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid
Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to Waste Management’s Okeechobee Landfill.
According to Waste Management the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25
years. TIF for any reason it is necessary, the Collier County Naples landfill is available and
according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there is also capacity
at this facility.
Stormwater Management
A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component
of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of an SRA Designation Application
Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the
following information:
a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information:
(1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA;
No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area.
(2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site
including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters.
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 2 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from
the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the
predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater
discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total
volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the
event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning
the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of
undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities
caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier Co unty
currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future.
(3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater
discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties.
No adjacent properties drain through this site.
b. A narrative component to the report including the following information:
(1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater
discharge from the site will ultimately outfall;
The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater is the existing agricultural water
management system aka Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit
Canal via Camp Keais Strand.
(2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County
Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation;
The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90-10
is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted
agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will
be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime
that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made
at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11-
03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property.
(3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from
surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management
system of the proposed development;
The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to
development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding
properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage
basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design.
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 3 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
(4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water
management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided
prior to discharge of the runoff from the site; and
Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet
detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by
SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with
SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas
will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control
structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment
consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment
volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an
additional 50% of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality
volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment
will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert.
(5) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the
report shall demonstrate compliance with provisions of Section 4.08.04A.4.b.
Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by
SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their
associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s.
These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation
and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit
which will be made upon implementation of the impact.
The water management concept for Longwater involves the use of the existing agricultural water
management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations,
discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval
Permit issued by SFWMD.
All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality
volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to
form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted
areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA’s
will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated
through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project.
Potable Water
A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The
assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code
for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the
standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall
specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 4 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed
for potable water supply.
The following table is a calculation of the Longwater potable water demands and wastewater
generation with all factors and assumptions:
Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands
Wastewater Potable Water
Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5
Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd
Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 18,000 gpd
Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd
535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd
535,900 gpd = 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 mgd ADF
M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3
M3D Flow = 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = 1.05 mgd
Potable water services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and
Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that
outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the
Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential
development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600
residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet
square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater
development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05
MGD maximum 3-day demand.
Irrigation Water
The Longwater project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water
Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural
environments. At build-out, the Longwater project will result in converting approximately 1,000
acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations
currently permitted and used within the Longwater project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on
an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The
transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 307 acres
of landscaping and turf within the Longwater development requiring irrigation. The project
irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney -
Criddle method are:
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 5 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
• 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis
• 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis
The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation
water usage at the site. The Longwater project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD
which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation
demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100% of the
project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the
County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout
the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project’s irrigation
water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30-day back up supply in the event that
there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will
include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for
the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The
proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted
to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will
provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater
supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re-supply by groundwater from the
recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer
would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance
of the irrigation system.
Wastewater
A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The
assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having
a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a
capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the
analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent
applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process.
Wastewater services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and
Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that
outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the
Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based
on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for
commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in
build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum
3-day basis.
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 6 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
School Concurrency
The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools is shown in
the table below. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most
recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment.
Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment
Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019
According to the School District, there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at
the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed
Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the
School District exceeding its estimated capacity. As a result, the SRA includes a condition that
addresses school sites (whereby the developer will convey real property for future school sites
sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school in exchange for
educational impact fee credits).
At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either
within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency
service areas.
EMS and Fire
According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS
facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the
site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co-locate a fire facility at the
site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the
new facility will be funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized
in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially
Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space
for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd
N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities
may enter into a mutual cost-sharing arrangement.
Longwater Village is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area (“SDA”) of
the North Collier Fire & Rescue District (“Fire & Rescue District”). Based on discussions with
Fire & Rescue District personnel, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility
which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District.
Additionally, please see requested maps depicting the subject site and existing North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District and Collier County EMS stations, which illustrates travel routes from
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Page 7 of 7
H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx
those locations to the subject site. Response time data, requested by staff, has been provided by
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, and is included with this Report.
Transportation Impacts
See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts.
9.A.2.g
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 1
M E M O R A N D U M
Collier County GMD – Peer Review of Longwater Village
SRA Economic Assessment
PREPARED FOR: Amy Patterson, Collier County
Trinity Scott, Collier County
James French, Collier County
Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County
Ian Barnwell, Collier County
COPY TO: Bill Gramer, Jacobs
PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs
Dennis Jackson, Jacobs
Darren Betts, Jacobs
Bethel Gashaw, Jacobs
DATE: August 14, 2020
Introduction
Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering
Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the “Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment”
(Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier Enterprises
Management, Inc. (the Applicant or Developer). The initial version of this report was dated November
11, 2019. The version reviewed herein, was most recently revised August 6, 2020. The purpose of the
peer review was to assess:
• The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment.
• The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions.
• The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other
sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and
operating) for the appropriate forecast period.
• The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally accepted governmental
accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact-fee-setting practices, balanced
development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the
Collier County Land Development Code).
Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing
of consistency among underlying assumptions, data and calculation methods, and reviewing the
consistency of results with the County’s current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop
an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but peer-reviewed DPFG’s alternative fiscal impact
model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and
assumptions is provided in Appendix A.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
2 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
In preparing this peer review Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the
County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has
assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best
efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County,
Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal
impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by
the County or third parties.
Qualifications and Consultant Team
Jacobs is one of the largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction
services, including all aspects of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and
maintenance, as well as specialty and strategic consulting. Our 55,000+ employees in 400+ locations
around the world serve a broad range of companies and organizations, including industrial, commercial,
and government clients across multiple markets and geographies.
Jacobs’ Business and Finance consulting group provides planning and financial consulting services for a
range of public sector clients around the globe. Guided by strategic thinking and an interactive process,
we help clients achieve their goals and objectives and prepare for future change. Our experience is
comprehensive and diverse, with involvement in various aspects of planning – from the conceptual
stages, to the technical, operational and financial elements. We rely on a relationship-based approach
and value strong partnerships within the team.
Relevant fiscal impact analysis work for key municipal and local government clients has included:
• Collier County, Florida – Peer Reviews of Fiscal Neutrality Analyses prepared for several proposed
new developments in the County. Analysis involved independent review of analyses prepared by
another consultant of the projected impacts of each of the proposed developments on the County,
School District, and Fire and Rescue Districts costs and revenues at the horizon year or buildout of
the proposed developments.
• Palm Beach County, Florida – Comprehensive planning focused on the economics and land use
elements of the County's comprehensive plan. The project required analysis of trends in population,
employment, and land use patterns, to project land use needs by type of use for the next 25 years.
The fiscal impact analysis required modeling county government revenues and expenditures to
provide projections of the effect different economic growth scenarios would have on the County's
budget. Jacobs also evaluated a proposed traffic performance standard to determine the impact the
proposed standard would have on the County's economy.
• City of Phoenix, Arizona – Impact fees peer review for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements and development impact fee calculations following passage of Senate Bill 1525 (SB
1525) amending the impact fee section of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §9-463.05), which
tightened the standards for demonstrating compliance with the State’s impact fee law.
• Broward County, Florida – Peer reviewer for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis related to the
construction of a new Florida Power and Light (FPL) Sunrise Energy Center.
• Various Municipal and Local Government Clients – Providing peer review and preparation of fiscal
impact analyses related to economic development options, impact fee studies, master planning, and
infrastructure project development for utilities and general government services.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 3
The Jacobs consultants responsible for this peer review are:
• Bill Gramer, PE – Client Liaison
• Dave Green – Senior Economist and Project Manager
• Dennis Jackson, PE – QA/QC Reviewer
• Darren Betts, MBA – Financial Analyst
• Bethel Gashaw – Strategic Consulting Intern
Legal Basis
Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program “was established under the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive-
based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida
Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation and
smart growth development.
Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation
purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages,
hamlets and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize
preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems
and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation
areas.”1
Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states “the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally
neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal
impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce
housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community
Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall
consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools.
Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships
shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.”
Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for
SRA Designation, which “is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity
and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District….]. One of several preconditions for the
SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows:
L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section
shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development phasing and
1 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
4 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service
pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC.
1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a
whole, [emphasis added] will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base.
This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services
listed above, using one of the following methodologies:
a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and
maintained by Collier County.
b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact
model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact
model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant
exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or
workforce housing.
DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Longwater Village SRA (Longwater) to
demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section
4.08.07 L.1.b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a
considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law.
DPFG is required to measure fiscal neutrality at the project’s horizon year or buildout. The timing of
when buildout is expected to occur is not identified in the DPFG report. The neutrality assessment is
simply evaluated for whenever that is achieved. The overall assessment is underpinned by this
fundamental assumption, and DPFG’s analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the
assessment.
It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does
not include a year-by-year examination of the County’s sources and uses of funds over the
development period. New development may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of
new development. The County must make initial investments to accommodate growth – prior to a
compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure
and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are
beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality.
There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG’s analysis
largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted:
• Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known
variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the
development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could
render the analysis obsolete.
• The cost of future financing may not be included in the analysis.2 This factor can add substantially to
the overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of
positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue
District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing
mechanisms to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time.
2 We note that the cost of financing is included in the County’s impact fees for schools and correctional facilities.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 5
• Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues
whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over-recover (subject to
economies of scale) or under-recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given
development.
• While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project-specific revenue and cost drivers, certain
obligations are subject to the analyst’s discretion.
The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there is a possibility that the Longwater Village
development plan will change, which introduces factors beyond the County’s control, and beyond the
constraints of fiscal impact analysis, generally.
DPFG’s methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections.
Methodology
DPFG’s approach to “the fiscal impact analysis of Longwater Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid
methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs,”3 which is customary for
fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain
marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the:
• Sheriff Department
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department
• North Collier Fire & Rescue District
• School District
The case study approach is based on the analyst’s determination that other standard approaches have
material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the
particular use.
DPFG’s approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General
Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU).
Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the
case study approach applied to the referenced departments.
Key Assumptions
Jacobs was provided with DPFG’s Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model
(filename: Longwater SRA EA 2020.05.24 VIEW ONLY.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time
answering Jacobs’ questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of
their methodology and assumptions.
Inflation
All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect a hybrid year 2019/2020 dollars. Inflation
is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables
3 DPFG Report, page 7
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
6 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
comparisons across years and across projects. At the time that the initial version of the economic
assessment report was prepared, the County’s FY 2020 budget was not available, thus the County’s FY
2019 budget was used for the analysis. However, the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and
Rescue District budgets for FY 2020 were available, and were used for the analysis.
Jacobs finds this use of Collier County’s FY 2019 budget and FY 2020 budget for the Collier County
Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District to be reasonable given the information that was
available at the time the initial report was prepared.
Impact Fees
Impact fee calculations utilized the County’s Residential Impact Fee Schedule, effective February 8, 2018
and Commercial Impact Fee Schedule, effective July 24, 2017. Impact fee updates are currently
underway for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Schools.”4
Taxable Real Estate Values
To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non-
residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Taxable values for residential units were applied as provided by the
Applicant. Eligible homestead exemptions were applied based on County averages. Taxable values for
non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties
from the County appraiser’s database.
Land and Improvement Conversion Factor
To calculate the market value per square foot for retail development, the applicable 2019 square foot
costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square
foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Unlike
residential real estate, there is no rule-of-thumb for commercial properties. DPFG indicates this
percentage has been applied in other economic assessment models they have prepared.
Annual Absorption by Use
Not applicable.
Millage Rates
DPFG utilized current fiscal year (2019) millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem
(property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County, MSTD, and Water Pollution Control.
• 3.5645 County General Fund
• 0.8069 MSTD General Fund
• 0.0293 Water Pollution Control
FY 2020 millage rates for Collier County Schools and the North Collier Fire and Rescue District were used
to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the School District
and Fire and Rescue District.
• 5.083 Collier County Schools (operating and capital)
• 3.750 North Collier Fire and Rescue District
4 DPFG Email RE: Collier Lakes Village EA – Model, dated February 5, 2019.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 7
Millage rates were held constant (i.e., flat). Per capita estimates for various state and other local
revenues sources are also based on the County’s 2019 General Fund budget.
Direct Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs)
DPFG applied a 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor to Collier Countywide employment to derive
countywide FTEs, based on its 2017 IMPLAN conversion assumptions. The purpose of this calculation is
to convert total jobs to FTEs. Per DPFG Principal Lucy Gallo, a difference, if any, using 2019 source data
would be immaterial. DPFG provided the industry detail in the Excel file “Collier County IMPLAN
Conversion.xls” to support this assumption.
Employment generation for commercial space factors apply per square foot of employment guidelines,
realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details.
• Retail: 400 square feet per employee
The Longwater employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the
2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG
Report was prepared.
Home-based employment was not specifically addressed.
Longwater Population Growth Forecasts
DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth
due to Longwater. The population per unit assumptions utilized were:
• Multi-Family (Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached): 1.26
• Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65
• Single Family Detached > 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.97
Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy,
consistent with best practices.5
Overall, Jacobs agrees with DPFG’s key assumptions described above.
Structure of Funds
For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County
(through its General Fund), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District
(“School District”). Each has separate taxing authority and the Collier County School Board levies its own
taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project’s fiscal
neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital
impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts.
5 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association,
2004
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
8 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
General Fund
The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These
services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities; governmental
facilities; social services; animal services; libraries; transportation system and general administrative
services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem – or property tax revenue.
Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extra-ordinary
services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. The water pollution
control millage rate is also collected county-wide.
North Collier Fire & Rescue District
“Like all independent fire districts, most of the North Collier District’s revenue is generated by property
taxes. We do not charge a fee for providing fire protection services. Each year, the Collier County
Property Appraiser establishes the taxable value for property located within the District. The Board of
Fire Commissioners establishes the millage (or taxing) rate which, according to the District’s Enabling
Act, can be no higher than 1 mil, or $1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the North Naples Service
Delivery Area or no higher than 3.75, or $3.75 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the Big Corkscrew
Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of the District’s
expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District’s residents and the
billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly trained professional
firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of emergency situations.”6
Collier County School District
School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and
expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries
specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports
the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and
internal service. The General Fund covers the day to day operations of the School District and accounts
for the majority of operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program
(FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the
availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of
geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property
taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the
State.
For FY20, federal sources provided 8.45% of the School District’s total revenue, state sources provided
14.36%, and local sources provided 77.18% of the School District’s total revenue.7
Enterprise Funds
Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service.
Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business-type activities in
the government-wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency
medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund,
the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as
6 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/
7
https://www.collierschools.com/cms/lib/FL01903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%20Summary%20Propo
sed%20FY20.pdf
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 9
major funds. The County also maintains two other (non-major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund
and the Collier Area Transit Fund.
“Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 of the DPFG Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment reflect the
impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 426 CAT Mass Transit and Fund 427
Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with
respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment.”8
Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier
County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation
insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology.
Fiscal impacts on County enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Enterprise funds are
inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-
supporting through user rates and fees.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach.
Fiscal Impacts
Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, “shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid
waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools,” each of which is
reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC.
County Operating Impacts
Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG’s analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund
groupings. These analyses cover transportation, parks, law enforcement, EMS, correctional facilities,
government buildings, and libraries. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Longwater’s annual total general
fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $3,062,000 against revenues of
approximately $3,987,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $925,000. Longwater’s annual total MSTU
operating expenditures are projected at approximately $490,000 against revenues of approximately
$734,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $244,000.
Transportation (Roads)
Operating Impacts
Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County’s budget. This fund was established
for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation
Services is a subsidy from the General Fund (for fiscal year 2019 the transfer from the General Fund
amounted to $20.2 million out of Transportation Services’ total funding of $24.3 million).
Capital Impacts
The County imposes road impact fees on new development to fund the construction of growth-related
improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the
8 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
10 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
cost burden on new development for transportation-related expansions and improvements which are
necessitated by such development.
DPFG treats road impact from a perspective that the Developer will pay road impact fees according to
the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the
corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG’s approach, Longwater Village will
generate approximately $17.7 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the
development parameters and current road impact fee rate table.
In accordance with the Collier County Transportation Planning Development Guidebook, mitigation
improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and
volume/capacity ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. DPFG reports that “the project share
of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the
improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2030 traffic volumes”9. The developer will pay
for the intersection improvements via an additional cash contribution of $622,000. In addition, the
developer will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to DeSoto Blvd at an estimated cost
of $240,000. This later improvement is considered an on-site project improvement, and thus not
included in the fiscal neutrality calculation.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be
reasonable.
Potable Water and Wastewater
The Longwater Village Developer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) confirms that Collier County
Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) will supply both potable water and sewer service to Longwater. As the
CCWSD is an enterprise fund, the costs to serve the Longwater development will be recovered per the
terms of the MOU between Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big
Cypress Stewardship District.
It should be noted that there may be nuances in the fiscal neutrality determination for water and
wastewater. For example, if existing pipe sizes are inadequate and need to be replaced, the extent of
such rework could render the development fiscally deficient. However, Jacobs’ review is not intended to
analyze to that level of detail.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public
facilities and services to be reasonable.
Irrigation Water
The Longwater Village project will result in a conversion of approximately 1,000 acres from agricultural
land into a residential development. The project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD, to
allow onsite surface and ground water withdrawals. Because the “proposed change in land use is
anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site,”10 and the
developer aims to secure 100 percent of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water, Collier
9 DPFG Report, page 16
10 DPFG Report, Page 28
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 11
County is not expected to bear any responsibility for the cost associated with the Longwater Village
irrigation system.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Stormwater Management
“The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the
SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the
predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges
from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume
perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a
change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the
south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would
be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of
this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently bears no responsibility for
or cost associated with the Longwater Village water management system; therefore the fiscal impact to
Collier County is neutral.”11
The developer of Longwater will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting,
construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the
Longwater development. Because the flowways within this project are natural wetland systems, the pre-
development capacity will be the same as the post-development capacity. Considering that water
quality treatment within the SRA is primarily accomplished using wet-detention (lakes) located within
the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas, the draft DCA anticipates that discharges from the SRA
water management system to WRA areas will occur after water quality volumes have been achieved.
The draft DCA reports that all discharges to the WRA from development will only occur after water
quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas to be excavated of the WRA are
low quality exotic impact areas, and the only fill areas will be berms associated with the surface water
management system.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities
and services to be reasonable.
Solid Waste
Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self-
supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for
a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise
funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be
reasonable.
11 DPFG Report, Page 27
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
12 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
Parks
Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county-owned and maintained
community and regional parks is a combined 3.22 acres per 1,000 residents. The County’s LOS (per 1,000
residents) by type is compared to DPFG’s assumptions, as follows:
• Community parks: achieved 1.47 acres
• Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres
• Regional Parks: achieved 1.68 acres
• Regional Parks: adjusted achieved 1.82 acres
• Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres
It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.68 acres is based on application of 2019
Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This compares to an achieved
value of 1.82 acres that would be calculated assuming the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015
adjusted achieved level of service. Adjusting the achieved level of service for regional parks to reflect
2015 Peak Seasonal Population affects the required number of acres for Regional Parks to 9.78 acres.
Capital Impacts
The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of
community parks were calculated to be $1,903,000 (plus other capital revenues of $31,000 for a total of
$1,934,000) and regional parks were $5,400,000 (plus other capital revenues of $283,000 for a total of
$5,683,000).
The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community
parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $1,822,000, leading to an estimated
surplus of $112,000 for community parks.
The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks
forms the basis for capital impacts. While the adopted level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres
per 1,000 peak population, the adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres was recommended by the County.
With the recommended LOS and cost per acre, results in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of
$5,772,000. The cost of the regional parks is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital
revenues of $5,683,000 of the regional parks by $89,000.
While there is a projected deficit for the regional parks, the forecast surplus for community parks offsets
this, and results in the total regional and community parks capital impact to be a slightly positive
$23,000.
DPFG’s assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative
assumption that increases the cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the
blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG’s calculations.
Based on the adjustment to the achieved LOS discussed above, Jacobs finds that parks will be fiscally
neutral, as opposed to DPFG’s determination of parks as fiscally positive.
Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department)
Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the County’s current achieved LOS for law enforcement is 1.77 officers per
1,000 peak population, and the adopted LOS is 1.84. The 2019 AUIR was adopted on November 12, 2019
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 13
and was not available during the preparation of the Longwater Village Economic Assessment. Jacobs
reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged.
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law
enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law
enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue to be $1,268,000 and
other capital revenues at $230,000.
Based on discussions between DPFG and law enforcement officials, law enforcement officials indicated
that there is no need for a physical station is needed to service Longwater, at this time, but may be
needed in the future. The County currently has a deficiency between the adopted versus achieved LOS
for law enforcement infrastructure. This deficiency is not due to the proposed Longwater Development
and cannot be resolved by this development.
Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $1,008,000.
The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the
amount of $490,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law
enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Emergency Medical Services
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects capital
revenues of $310,000. According to EMS management, Longwater will be served by a new EMS facility
planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd East scheduled to open in 2022. The cost of the
new facility amounted to a total of $1,876,057, which was obtained from the 2019 AUIR. Longwater’s
allocated share of the new facility is $181,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will
generate. The remainder will likely be applied to the related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is
neutral.
The cost of the new facility will be partially funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which
was authorized in 2018.12
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Fire & Rescue
Operating Impacts
Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density
development, Longwater is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. The current
millage rate and the projected tax base of Longwater results in annual ad valorem revenues of
$3,020,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Longwater’s population, based on an average of the
fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $1,042,000. Thus, there is a projected
operating fiscal surplus.
12 DPFG Report, page 19.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
14 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Longwater will
generate total capital revenues of $1,154,000 for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, with matching
levels of capital costs.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fire & rescue as fiscally positive to be reasonable.
Schools
The analysis uses student generation rates (SGRs) as follows:
• Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached: 0.11
• Single Family Detached: 0.34
The blended rate over these residential unit types is 0.225, which is comparable to similar blended or
weighted SGRs used for other recent Florida developments.
Operating Impacts
Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and cost impacts,
the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Longwater is
fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $3,005,000, with
matching levels of operating expenditures.
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the
current impact fee structure defined in the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report,
dated July 23, 2015 to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from
fees. The fees are being phased-in in stages per Section 74-307 of the school impact fee ordinance.
There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to
the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows:
• Multi-Family and Single Family Attached: $2,844.19
• Single Family Detached: $8,789.54
Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived not only from impact fees on
residential-only units, but also a capital outlay millage of 1.50 mills on both residential and non-
residential units. As a result, the mix of residential and non-residential development will have an impact
on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Longwater development
program results in a fiscal capital surplus. “According to the School District, at this time there is existing
or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each
village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass
Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. Therefore, as the
School District and the developer have discussed and been working towards having a Developer
Contribution Agreement, whereby the developer would convey real property for future school sites
(sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school) in exchange for
educational impact fee credits has been requested from the applicant. “13
13 DPFG Report, page 31
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 15
These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps
of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. 14
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Additional Public Services
The following additional public services were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality: correctional
facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Jacobs categorizes these service types as additional
services because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC.
While these additional public services are not required elements of the economic assessment, DPFG did
include them in their analysis.
Correctional Facilities
Capital Impacts
The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail
facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on units for
residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the
correctional facilities capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and
14 DPFG Report, page 31.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
16 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002)
employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial
land uses. Combined revenues from impact fees and other capital revenues amount to $1,148,000,
with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality.
Government Buildings
Capital Impacts
The government buildings impact fee is intended to recover the cost of remaining non-enterprise
County land, buildings, information technology assets, and vehicles. The impact fees are charged based
on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to
calculate the government buildings capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for
population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand
from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG
estimates capital revenues of $2,060,000, with matching levels of indirect capital costs.
Libraries
Capital Impacts
The libraries impact fee is intended to recover the cost of land, buildings, furnishings, and collection
materials to serve the entire County. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and
square footage for non-residential. The County’s adopted LOS, per the 2018 AUIR, was used to calculate
the libraries capital costs. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged.
Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately $162,000. This surplus will
be used to fund other library capital needs.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG’s
analysis and in the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined. It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the
intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Longwater development is fiscally
neutral, as defined, for Longwater SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and
the Collier County School District.
It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections – often 20 years or more
into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new
analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example,
adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams.
In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County-
Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by
several MOUs and DCAs and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and
administration of MOUs, DCAs and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the County
continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives.
Based upon DPFG’s analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Longwater Village
SRA qualifies as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, subject
to the approval of the companion Developer Contribution Agreement that is being negotiated between
the Collier County School District and the Developer. The DPFG analysis, which in Jacobs’ opinion is
professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 17
determination that the Longwater Village development would meet the County’s requirements for fiscal
neutrality.
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 18
APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 19
Assumption/Calculation Source Model Tab Comment
Collier county impact fee schedule (residential)
Collier Country Residential Impact Fees
2020 Impact Fee Schedule Checked
Collier county impact fee schedule (commercial)
Collier County Commercial Impact Fees
2020 Impact Fee Schedule Checked
Comm parks impact fees Impact fee schedule Comm impact fee rev Checked
Regional parks impact fees Impact fee schedule Regional parks impact fee rev Checked
Road impact fees Impact fee schedule Road Impact fee rev Checked
EMS impact fees Impact fee schedule EMS Impact fee rev Checked
Govt blgds impact fees Impact fee schedule Govt blgs Impact fee rev Checked
Library impact fees Impact fee schedule Library impact fee rev Checked
Law enforcement impact fees Impact fee schedule Law Enforce Impact fee Rev Checked
Jail impact fees Impact fee schedule Jail impact fee rev Checked
Water impact fees Impact fee schedule Water Impact fees Checked
Wastewater impact fees Impact fee schedule Wastewater Impact Fees Checked
Collier county millage rates
Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted
Budget County Inputs Checked
2019 Collier County Permanent Population Collier County 2018 AUIR County inputs Checked
2019 Collier County Peak Tourist Population Collier County CVB Profile- March 2019 County inputs Checked
FTE Conversion Factor IMPLAN County inputs Checked
Countywide Employment
Collier County 2016 EMS Impact fee update
(table B-6)County Inputs Checked
State Revenue Sharing
Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted
Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked
Ad Valorem Taxes
Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted
Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked
Trans to 325 Stormwater Capital Fund
Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted
Budget MSTU Exp Demand Units Checked
Average Taxable Value per unit Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked
Total Taxable Value Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked
General Fund Grouping Revenues and Sources
Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted
Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked
Net Buildings and Land Value per Sq. Ft Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW Impact Cost per Res Checked
Total Equipment Cost Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW inventory Checked
Law enforcement level of service Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Checked
Adopted LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share CF capital Checked
Correctional facility impact fee LOS Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Impact cost per Res Checked
Correctional facility net asset cost Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Asset inventory Checked
Residents per housing unit EMS impact fee study EMS Pop & Employ Checked
Residential functional population coefficient Calculation EMS Pop & Employ Checked
Functional resident coefficient Calculation EMS Funct Res Non-Resid Checked
Proportionate allocation Collier County 2018 AUIR Revised Prop Share EMS Capital Checked
Net Impact Fee per Functional Resident (per
Tindale Oliver)EMS impact fee study EMS Impact Fee Schedule Checked
Adopted LOS Library Impact fee study LIB Current LOS Checked
Library Buildings Available Square Footage Collier County 2018 AUIR LIB Current LOS Checked
Total Owned Building and Land Value per SF Library Impact fee study LIB Impact Cost Per Res Checked
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Calculation LIB Net Impact Cost Checked
Regional Park Adopted LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked
Community Park Adopted LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked
Total Land & Facility cost per acre Parks Impact Fee Study Parks Impact Per Res Checked
Functional Population Coefficient Government Buildings Impact study Prop Share Govt Blgs Checked
Total Land Value Government Buildings Impact Study Govt Impact Cost per Res Checked
LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)Government Buildings Impact study GOV Impact Cost Per Res Checked
Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate Resolution 19-022 Fire Operating and Capital Checked
Fire Impact Fee Coefficients Fire Impact Fee Study Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked
Total Facility cost per student based on
adopted LOS Standard School Impact Fee Update Study Cost per Station Checked
Student generation rates School Impact Fee Update Study School inputs Checked
FY 2020 Millage Rates CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Checked
FY 2020 School FTE Enrollment CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Checked
Peak Seasonal Population (using
unincorporated for community parks)Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked
Achieved LOS Share of Community Park
Facilities Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked
Peak Seasonal Population (using countywide
for regional parks)Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked
Regional Park Acres (achieved LOS)Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked
9.A.2.h
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Gundlach\SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area)\Longwater Village SRA\NIM Stuff\Longwater Village SRA
NIM Summary (6-25-2020).docx
NIM Summary
Longwater Village SRA (PL-20190001836)
Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:30 PM
New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall – Room 211
7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104
The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows:
A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship
Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78± acres of land located in eastern
Collier County. The SRA is to be known as Longwater Village. Longwater Village SRA is
proposed to allow up to 2,600 dwelling units of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family, a
minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family
attached or villas. Longwater Village will include a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a
maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000
square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses.
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of the Applicants:
Pat Utter, Senior Vice President of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises
Valerie Pike, Director of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes
Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman Yovanovich Koester
Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PE, Trebilcock & Associates
County Staff:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
Two members of the public attended.
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County
Staff. He went on to provide an overview of the project. Following the presentation there was
approximately five minutes of questions from the public in attendance.
Two questions were asked:
(1) What is the approximate length of the proposed main spine road?
(2) When will construction begin?
Mr. Utter responded that the spine road is approximately three miles long, and he expects
construction to begin in approximately 18 to 24 months.
The meeting concluded at approximately 5:45 PM.
9.A.2.i
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Attachment G-NIM Summary (6-25-2020) (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
August 13, 2020
Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner
Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner
Matthew McLean, Director, Development Review
Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Services Manager
Jamie Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist
James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner
Michael Sawyer, Principal Planner
Cormac Giblin, Housing Operations and Grant Development Manager
Collier County Growth Management Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Longwater Village SRA #PL20190001836 & SSA17 #PL20160000295
Dear Ms. Gundlach, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. McLean, Ms. Wilkie, Ms. Cook, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Giblin:
On behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) and over 7,000 supporting families, we are
writing this letter to express our strong objection to the proposed Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area
(SRA) for the following reasons, addressed in this order:
I. Collier Enterprises’ villages must be held to town standards.
II. Longwater Village would destroy panther habitat, not only within the SRA, but also within the
“preserves”.
III. The project is a typical suburban-style development, not innovative planning.
Based on your reviews of the application, there appears to be some alignment between the concerns we are
raising in our letter and those raised by County staff, in your review of the project. In addition to those concerns,
there are other concerns that we would like to draw your attention to, not yet addressed in your review. We very
much appreciate your consideration of the issues raised in our letter. It is our hope that you will recommend
denial of the project based on these concerns.
I. Collier Enterprises’ villages must be held to town standards.
A. The applicant’s three villages equate to a town:
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
2
All three of the applicant’s contiguous
villages (Rivergrass, Longwater, and
Bellmar) have essentially the same build-
out date1 and, when aggregated, the three
villages fall within the acreage parameters
of a town. Policy 4.7.1 states, “Towns
shall not be less than 1,000 acres or more
than 4,000 acres and are comprised of
several villages and/or neighborhoods
that have individual identity and
character.” Rivergrass, Longwater, and
Bellmar equate to three thousand acres and
have an estimated build-out population of
13,482 permanent residents and 7,850
homes,2 which would be considered a
larger town under the RLSA program. It
is undeniable; the total population, traffic
impacts, infrastructure, goods and service
needs of the three villages are town-
sized and must be treated as such.
The applicant seems to acknowledge that
they are planning for a town, as they
provided the County with an unofficial
master plan of the three villages on one
unified plan, which they call “The Villages
of Big Cypress Stewardship District”
(Figure 1). Their unofficial new town
master plan includes essentially the same
designs as provided in the three village
SRA applications. This consolidated plan
was never formally submitted as an SRA town application, nor has it been revealed in a public hearing.
Policy 4.2 affirms that “SRAs [are] to be compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient in the provision of services,
facilities, and infrastructure,” which is important so that Collier County’s existing urban communities are not
overwhelmed by increased traffic congestion and demands from RLSA residents who are compelled to travel
west to find work and to obtain daily essential goods and services. Table 1 provides a few examples of how the
applicant is short-changing Collier County taxpayers by planning for separate villages in lieu of a more self-
supporting town. As an example, Collier County’s Land Development Code (LDC) requires a minimum of 65
1 SRA application documents for all three village state that anticipated build-out is 12 years from date of approval. Since Rivergrass was approved in 2020,
this would place Rivergrass’ build-out at approximately 2032. Longwater’s and Bellmar’s build-out would be 2032-2033, if they are approved in 2020 or
2021).
2 Rivergrass Economic Assessment September 3, 2019 states permanent population of 4,269; Longwater Economic Assessment May 24, 2020 states
permanent population of 4,477; Bellmar Economic Assessment March 12, 2020 states permanent population of 4,736. Rivergrass will provide 2,500
homes, Longwater 2,600 homes, and Bellmar 2,750 homes.
Figure 1: Collier Enterprises’ unofficial town plan.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
3
sf gross building area per dwelling unit for goods and services for a town.3 Therefore, a town with 7,850 homes,
the same number of homes offered by the applicant’s contiguous villages, must provide a minimum of 510,250
square feet for goods and services. Instead, the applicant proposes a minimum 196,250 sf for goods and services
for the three villages, which is far less than half of the commercial square footage required of a town.
Under the same policy, a minimum of 117,500 sf of civic/governmental/institutional would be required of a town
with 7,850 homes. Instead, the applicant offers a minimum of 78,500 sf for the three villages, which is 67% of
what is required of a town with the same number of homes. Also, the applicant provides about 263,000 sf less
space (or 6 acres less) for community parks than is required of a town, but claim they are exceeding village
requirements by providing additional acreage for preserves and amenity centers within two of their village
plans.4 As example, in Longwater’s Submittal 4 response letter, staff asks the applicant to depict parks within
neighborhoods on the Master Plan. The applicant responds by showing segments of the master plan where parks
and “park preserves” are located.5 The “park preserves” consist of 9.52 acres. However, according to
LDC4.08.07.A.1.d,6 preserves with an NRI score over 1.2 must be left in a natural state, so preserve acreage
cannot be counted toward active public park space. Furthermore, the SRA applications are unclear as to whether
the amenity centers would be free and open to the public and, thus, the acreage should not be counted toward
park space.
Town Requirements for 7,850
dwelling units
Rivergrass + Bellmar + Longwater
Villages commit to provide the
following:
(7,850 combined dwelling units)
Acreage 1,000 to 4,000 acres 2,997 acres
Housing Diversity Full range of housing required Max 90% single family/ Min 10%
multi-family (7,065 SF /785 MF)7
Context Zones 3 context zones required 2 context zones provided
Goods and Services
510,250 sf min required
(LDC requires min 65 sf per DU)
196,250 sf min provided8
(265,000 sf max provided)
Civic, Government,
Institutional
117,500 sf min required
(LDC requires min 15 sf per DU)
78,500 sf min provided9
Community Parks 1,570,000 sf min required
(LDC requires 200 sf per DU)
1,306,364 sf of “Parks and community
green space” provided (29.99 acres)10
3 Collier County LDC 4.08.07.J.1
4 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement SSA14 & SSA17 p. 16/16 states, “Longwater Village contains approximately 39.71 acres of
active and passive parks and community green space, exceeding the requirement to provide at least 1 percent of the Village gross acreage, (10 acres,
rounded) in the form of Parks and Community Green Space.” Longwater’s master plan shows: 18.01 acres for amenity centers, 12.18 acres for parks, and
9.52 acres for park preserves, totaling 39.71 acres.
5 Submittal 4, Response letter dated June 1, 2020. p. 3
6 LDC 4.08.07.A.1.d states “Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be r etained as open space and
maintained in a predominately vegetated state.” LDC 4.08.07.J.6 provides similar language.
7 Dwelling units: Rivergrass = 2,500; Longwater; = 2,600; Bellmar -=2,750) Each SRA commits to up to a max of 90% single family homes (7,065) and a
minimum of 10% multi-family homes 785). (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24)
8 Commercial provided by Rivergrass = 62,500 sf min to 100,000 sf max; Longwater = 65,000 min sf to 80,000 max sf; Bellmar = 68,750 min sf to 85,000
sf max. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7 -12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24)
9 Civic, Government and Institutional provided: Rivergrass = 25,000 sf; Longwater = 26,000 sf; Bellmar = 27,500 sf. (Information was derived from most
recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24)
10 Parks and Community Green Space: Rivergrass = 9.98 acres; Longwater = 12.18 acres; Bellmar = 7.83acres. Note: (In addition, Longwater and Bellmar
will provide 9.52 acres and 3.44 acres respectively of “park preserves;” however, the acreage cannot count toward public parks. LDC 4.08.07.J.6 states,
“Parcels of one (1) acre or more, with a Natural Resource Index rating greater than 1.2, must be preserved as open space and maintained in a
Table 1: Comparison of town requirements to the total amenities provided by
Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar Villages.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
4
Lastly, Table 1 shows that towns require a full range of housing types (Policy 4.7.1). If the applicant’s plans are
approved, housing within all three villages could consist of 90% single-family homes, which is not only
indicative of sprawl, but it is far from providing a full range of housing or even a diversity of housing types as is
required of villages under Policy 4.7.2.
In sum, the submission of three adjacent villages -- as well as Collier Enterprises’ recent unofficial
acknowledgment that these three villages constitute a unified development plan -- raises important questions
including whether the effect of segregating a town into three villages will result in fewer obligations on the
developer than intended by the Growth Management Plan and whether the citizens of Collier County will be
forced to fund additional infrastructure needs. The bottom line is that Longwater (as well as the other purported
villages) should be withdrawn and resubmitted as a Town in order to ensure that the applicant provides the goods
and services, housing, design elements, and infrastructure needed for a self-sufficient SRA.
B. Steps taken toward an aggregate review:
The Conservancy appreciates that certain staff have taken a bold and appropriate stance in an attempt to hold the
applicant accountable for aggregate impacts from all three developments, pertaining to fiscal neutrality,
concurrency management, and traffic. As example, in a February 11, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum
for Longwater Village, staff stated:
“Comprehensive Planning staff also ask that the departments and agencies involved directly with the
Concurrency Management give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRA, rather
than considering each only individually.”11
Further down on the same page is a similar statement: “Comprehensive planning staff also ask that the
County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment give consideration to the cumulative
effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually.”
Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, both of these statements were redacted in later versions of the Consistency
Review Memo.
As another example, the transportation reviewer persisted in efforts to receive a cumulative review of traffic
impacts on Collier County’s road network from all the approved and pending RLSA’s villages. Previously, the
applicant’s consultant evaluated Longwater’s traffic in a vacuum. In other words, the project’s Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) failed to include background traffic from the applicant’s other two villages, Rivergrass
(approved) and Bellmar (pending approval). Nor did the assessment consider background traffic from Hyde
Park, a recently approved village by a different applicant. In the April 15, 2020 Review Comment Letter,
transportation review staff stated:12
“The TIS does not include any discussion/explanation as to how the cumulative impacts of the four
proposed developments’ (Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, Rivegrass Village and Hyde Park Village)
traffic on the Collier County roadway network were analyzed.”
predominately naturally vegetated state.” Master Plans for all three SRAs provide acreage for Amenity Centers; however, it is unclear whether the
applicant intends to offer the amenity centers to all of the public without a cost. Until then, the acreage should not be counted toward community park
space. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24).
11 Collier County staff Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum Februay 11, 2020, p. 13/20
12 Collier County Review Comment Letter for Longwater. April 15, 2020. p. 4.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
5
In the same paragraph, county transportation review staff explained why a cumulative analysis is important:
(highlights added for emphasis)
“The total am and pm peak hour peak direction trips estimated for Longwater Village, Bellmar Village,
and Rivergrass Village are approximately 3,600 trips per hour and 3,750 trips per hour. This is
proximately 76% of the total a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips previously estimated for the
build-out year (2040) of Rural Lands West. When the a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips
associated with Hyde Park Village are also included, the total a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction
trips estimated for all four developments are approximately 4,550 and 4,800 trips per hour. Given the
close proximity of these four proposed developments and the relatively limited roadway network in the
surrounding area, it seems very likely that the cumulative impact of all this traffic will result in level of
service deficiencies for multiple roadway segments and intersections.”
Ultimately, staff succeeded in procuring a cumulative analysis from the applicant’s traffic consultant, which
demonstrated that Collier County transportation reviewers were justified in their concerns. When Longwater’s
traffic impacts from the March 9, 2020 TIS are compared to the “Accumulation Traffic Analysis” from May 29,
2020 it is evident that many more roads would fail when background traffic from the applicant’s other two
developments is considered. Longwater’s March 9, 2020 TIS states the following:13
“As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project’s traffic:
- Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd”
When the estimated background traffic from Bellmar and Rivergrass Village were included in Longwater’s
“Accumulation Traffic Impacts Analysis,” several additional roadway segments were shown to be adversely
impacted by the Longwater project. The updated TIS from May 29, 2020 states:
“As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project’s traffic:
Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd
Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd
Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd
Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd
Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd”14
Without staff’s insistence that the applicant consider background traffic from Rivergrass and Bellmar, it would
appear that Longwater’s traffic would have a detrimental effect on only one roadway segment, when in reality
five road segments would be adversely impacted by the project. Still, it is unclear whether the developer will be
required to provide mitigation for all five roadway segments or for just one roadway segment, and if not the
developer, then who will be on the hook to pay for these infrastructure upgrades?
C. Pressure to approve the villages as a package deal:
Although the villages are being reviewed as three separate stand-alone applications, the landowner-developer
negotiated a deal with Collier County that ties approvals of all three villages together, essentially in a packaged
deal. This deal places Collier County Board of County Commissioners up against a wall, where the
13 Trebilock Planning Engineering. Traffic Impact Statement Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area. Section 1 – Impacts to Roadway Network – Road
Segment Analysis. March 9, 2020, p. 24/77.
14 Trebilock Planning Engineering. Traffic Impact Statement Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area. Section 2 – Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p.
13/352.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
6
Commissioners either approve the pending village applications for Longwater and Bellmar or enforce eminent
domain to obtain the right of way for Big Cypress Parkway (BCP).
The deal, between the county and Collier Enterprises, was made in the “Rivergrass Village Landowner
Agreement,” which provides the following stipulations, among other provisions: 15 (highlights added for
emphasis)
“8. If the Longwater Village SRA is approved the Big Cypress Parkway right of way from
Randall Blvd. to Vanderbilt Beach Road, depicted in Exhibit D, will be sold to the County under the
same terms as paragraph 5 above.”
“10. If the Bellmar Village SRA is approved the Big Cypress Parkway right of way from
Vanderbilt Beach Road to 6th Street SE, depicted in Exhibit E, and the Big Cypress Parkway right of way
north of Rivergrass to Immokalee Road, depicted in Exhibit F, will be sold to the County under the same
terms as paragraph 5 above.”
“12. For a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this Agreement, Landowner agrees
to reserve the right of way and provide the water management system referenced in paragraphs 8, 9, 10
and 11 for purchase by the County unless: (1) the Longwater Village is denied by Collier County, (2) the
Bellmar Village is denied by Collier County or (3) Collier County elects not to acquire the right of way.
During the 5-year reservation period, if Landowner withdraws either the Longwater or Bellmar
applications, the County will have the right to purchase the reserved right of way and drainage
easements.”
The Executive Summary for Rivergrass’ Landowner Agreement asserts that if Collier County Commissioners
vote to deny Longwater and Bellmar Villages, the county must resort to condemnation. Here is what is stated:
(highlights added for emphasis)
“Staff’s position has been consistent in requesting that the reservation of the complete right of way
should not expire nor should it be conditioned on approval of other developments in the future. These
conditions represent the limits of where the developer was willing to commit to at this time. While staff
is recommending approval, it is important to note that failure to approve the future SRAs, Longwater
and Bellmar, would negate the reservation and force condemnation should the County wish to proceed
with the construction of Big Cypress Parkway.”16
It is no secret; the County does wish to proceed with the construction of Big Cypress Parkway project. In 2018,
the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board (MPO) approved an amendment, which was paid for by
Collier Enterprises, to add the $111 million roadway project to the Collier MPO’s taxpayer-funded Needs Plan.17
So why would the same commission members, who voted to place BCP on the Needs Plan, do anything other
than approve the villages since their approvals are tied to getting the roadway that they want? Especially, since
no elected official wants to be in a position where a vote for denial of Longwater or Bellmar equates to a forced
condemnation of private property.
15 Landowner Agreement Rivergrass Village approved by Board of County Commissioners January 28, 2020. BCC Agenda item 11.C.
16 Board of County Commissioner Agenda January 28, 2020. Executive Summary, Landowner Agreement for Rivergrass Village. (January 28, 2020)
Agenda Item 11.C, packet page 1032
17 Cost of right of way, environmental mitigation and construction of 2-Lane road within 4 land ROW is approximately $111 million. Collier MPO 240
LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (May 25, 2018). Table 5- Costs of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects, p. 10.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
7
Regardless of ties with BCP, it is the Conservancy’s hope that staff base their recommendation for Longwater
and Bellmar solely on the merits of the project. A recommendation of approval shall be granted only if the
project clearly meets all policies and objectives of the GMP and the LDC.
II. Longwater Village would destroy panther habitat, not only
within the SRA, but
also within the
“preserves.”
A. The applicant chose a site that would
destroy over 1,000 acres of primary
panther habitat.
Leading panther scientists, as established in the
best available science Kautz et al. 2006,
consider Primary Zone panther habitat “just
enough space to support a population that is
barely viable demographically as long the
habitat base remains stable.”18 The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in their Florida Panther
Recovery Plan characterizes Primary Zone
lands as crucial for the panther’s continued
survival and recovery.19 Considering these
facts, one would think that a village, or any
SRA for that matter, would be prohibited
within Primary Zone habitat of the endangered
Florida panther. In direct conflict of the
science, the 1,000-acre site that Collier
Enterprises has chosen for Longwater Village
is entirely within Primary Zone panther habitat,
shown in pink in Figure 2.
The Primary Zone consists of several different
land cover types, including agricultural lands
that exist within the proposed Longwater Village site. Agricultural lands contain important natural landscape
connections that support panther home ranges, panther reproduction, dispersal movements, and availability of
large prey.20 Furthermore, Primary Zone habitat, including those consisting of agriculture, helps to support the
only breeding population of panthers. Anyone who claims that the Longwater site is not important to panthers
18 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 129
19 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. “Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision.”
20 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 and
Cominskey et al (2002). Panthers and Forests in South Florida an Ecological Perspective. Conservation Ecology Vol 6, No. 1
Figure 2: Longwater Village within Primary Zone panther
habitat.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
8
because the lands contain agricultural lands is in direct opposition to what best available science and the Panther
Recovery Plan states.
Plans by Collier Enterprises to replace 1,000-acres of Primary Zone panther habitat with development not only
defies principles of environmental stewardship, but it violates the very goal of the RLSA. The RLSA goal states
that “incompatible uses,” such as SRA village development, must be directed away from upland habitat. Clearly,
the opposite is occurring with Longwater Village, as the applicant plans on directing development directly within
listed species habitat.
B. The project would destroy 110 additional acres of Primary Zone and Adult Breeding Habitat
within the “preserve.”
Destruction of Primary Zone and Adult Breeding habitat is not limited to just the SRA site; the project would
also destroy panther habitat within the adjacent pending Stewardship Sending Area (SSA17), which would
become a preserve upon approval. This proposed Stewardship Sending Area (SSA17) is a Water Retention
Area (WRA) consisting of 3,113 acres of an ecologically important wetland system, called Shaggy Cypress.
SSA17 (Figure 2) provides habitat for 12 listed species21, including primary habitat for the Florida panther.
Longwater’s Master Plan shows that stormwater Lake Tracts (all 110.63 acres) would be excavated within
SSA17 (Figure 2).
Even though WRAs are identified by the RLSA program, along with FSAs and HSAs, as lands with “the
highest priority for natural resource protection,”22 ironically excavation within WRAs is allowed. LDC
4.08.06.A.4.b, states:
“During permitting to serve new uses within an SRA, additions and modifications to WRAs may be
required, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water
pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject
to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices.
However, the same policy also states that there shall be no net loss of habitat function, unless the
applicant provides mitigation or restoration . LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b continues: (highlights added)
“Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of
habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other
areas of the RLSA District that will provide comparable habitat function . Compensating mitigation
or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee
Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.”
Figure 2 shows that all of SSA17, including the location of the proposed lake tracts, fall within the Primary
Zone, depicted in pink. Obviously, excavation of those lands for lake tracts would destroy primary panther
habitat resulting in a net loss of habitat function (and loss of spatial extent of habitat) for the endangered Florida
panther. In addition to a reduction in Primary Zone habitat, panther breeding habitat would also be demolished.
The Conservancy hired Dr. Robert Frakes, a leading panther scientist, to assess any loss of Adult Breeding
panther habitat from the construction of the applicant’s villages, including Longwater Village. The authors of
the Frakes et al. (2015) study23 describe the critical nature of maintaining Adult Breeding Habitat for the panther:
21 Passarella and Associates. Stewardship Sending Area 17 NRI Assessment Listed Species Occurrence Map (July 2018).
22 Collier County Future Land Use Element, RLSA Overlay Policy 1.18
23 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PloS ONE 10(7): e0133044. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0133044
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
9
“Because there is less panther habitat remaining than previously thought, we recommend that all remaining
breeding habitat in south Florida should be maintained, and the current panther range should be expanded into
south-central Florida.”24
Dr. Robert Frakes, the leading author of the study, provided the Conservancy with a map showing the location of
where significant loss in function of Adult Breeding
Habitat is predicted if the villages were to move
forward. According to Frakes et al. 2015 model,
lands with a value of 0.338 or higher are considered
Adult Breeding Habitat. If direct or indirect impacts
occur and the value of the lands become less than
0.338, they lose their function for adult breeding
panthers. Figure 3 shows the loss of Adult Breeding
Habitat value from the proposals, with the shaded
yellow, orange, and red areas showing the worst
impacts to Adult Breeding Habitat. Not only do the
SRA sites result in a significant and devastating loss
of Adult Breeding Habitat, but nearly all of the lake
tracts (shown in blue) within the Water Retention
Areas of Longwater and Bellmar25would also result in
habitat function loss.
Undoubtedly, Longwater and Bellmar projects would
not comply with the standard under LDC
4.08.06.A.4.b, that states, “shall be no net loss of
habitat function.” What about the other stipulation
that says “unless the applicant provides mitigation
or restoration”? According to the application
materials for SSA17, no restoration acti vities are
planned.26 Also, the Conservancy is unaware of any
mitigation provided by the applicant to compensate
for the loss of panther habitat destruction specific to
the lake tracts within SSA17. In fact, SSA17 lands
are considered “preserves” under Collier
Enterprises’ application for a federal incidental take
permit with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Collier Enterprises, along with 11 other landowners formed Eastern Collier Property Owner, LLC (ECPO),
where they jointly applied for a federal incidental take permit to develop 45,000 acres of RLSA lands. Their
development plan states that “preserves” are offered as mitigation for destruction of nearly 20,000 acres27 of
Primary Zone panther habitat. Within their HCP Land Designations plan for their federal permit, the
24 Ibid. p. 1
25 Bellmar Village Master Concept Plan (June 3, 2020) shows that there would be 120.16 acres of lakes tracts within the WRA.
26 We also confirmed with county environmental staff via email May 22, 2020 that no restoration is proposed for SSA17. It appears, based on applicant’s
maps of SSA17, that Bellmar’s lake tracts would be located outside of SSA17, unlike Longwater’s lake tracts. However, Bellma r’s MCP depicts that the
project is located adjacent to the proposed SSA18. Because the application for SSA18 has not yet been submitted to Collier County it is not possible to
determine if the lake tracts fall within SSA18 or whether restoration is proposed.
27 Stantec Consulting, Inc. (2018, August). “Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared for Eastern Collier Pr operty Owners.” p.
88.
Figure 3: Loss of
Adult Breeding
Panther habitat
from development.
Source: Dr. Robert Frakes
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
10
Longwater Village SRA site is considered a “Covered” activity, whereas, SSA17 is depicted as a “Preserve.”
Their HCP states that “under the Plan, the primary mitigation for the covered activities includes the phased
perpetual preservation of 107,000 acres of diverse habitats, and the maintenance of these preservation lands
in perpetuity.”28 How, then, can the project be consistent with 4.08.06.A.4.b if the applicant plans to destroy
habitat within the very preserve lands they are using as mitigation? The answer is simple: the project is not
consistent with LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b because there would be a loss of habitat function without restoration or
mitigation for those impacts.
C. Applicant proposes to destroy mammal corridor, while seeking credit for mammal corridor
restoration:
Figure 2 provides the location of panther telemetry points. The map demonstrates that not only do panthers
traverse the proposed SRA site, but they also regularly travel within the surrounding preserves (SSA17 and
SSA15). The preserves are part of the larger Camp Keais Strand wildlife corridor. Wildlife corridors, by
definition, are continuous and connecting swaths of natural lands and habitat where mammals can travel
unimpeded by development and roads.
The RLSA program grants Restoration
Potential Credit for lands within Stewardship
Sending Areas that have the “potential” to
restore large mammal corridors.29 Credit is also
given for other restoration purposes, such as the
potential to restore wading bird habitat. Figure
4 shows, in purple, an area where the applicant
has applied for Restoration Potential Credit for
large mammal corridor restoration, and wading
bird habitat restoration, in blue.30 If SSA17 is
approved by the county, the applicant would
receive Restoration Potential Credit over 626
acres of lands for having the “potential” to
restore a large mammal corridor and additional
credit for the potential to restore 114 acres of
land for wading bird habitat.31 What is
surprising is that the landowner can earn
Restoration Potential Credit even though zero restoration work will be performed, which is the case with SSA17.
Regardless, our primary concern for this application is that Longwater’s development plan would destroy the
existing wildlife corridor in two ways:
1. Mammal access to the preserves would be deterred for two reasons: First, the applicant plans to build a
perimeter stormwater lake system, which would block access to the mammal corridor within the
preserve. The applicant’s SRA document states (highlights added): “Within SSAs 15 and 17, along the
eastern boundary of the Village there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater purposes, and
as a deterrent to wildlife.”32 In addition, the surrounding development of Longwater Village would deter
mammals from using the preserves within SSA15 and SSA17 due to traffic, lights, and noise.
28 Ibid, p. ii.
29 Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Worksheet.
30 Passarella and Associates. SSA17 Aerial with Restoration Potential Index Value Map, Exhibit 3-8. (posted July 16, 2020)
31 Passarella and Associates. Natural Resource Index Assessment Stewardship Sending Area 17. Revised January 2020. p. 4 of 4.
32 Submittal 4 –Longwater Village SRA Development Document, p. 3.
Large mammal
restoration
potential shown in
purple.
Location of
spine road crossing
SSA17
Figure 4: SSA17 Restoration Potential Map.
Source: Passarella and Associates
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
11
2. The applicant’s plan would fragment the wildlife corridor. Figure 5 is of the project’s Master Concept
Plan (MCP), which shows where the proposed spine road would bisect the existing large mammal
corridor within SSA17. Each neighborhood, or development pod, within Longwater’s master plan, must
exit and enter off of the spine road to travel to the Village Center, Big Cypress Parkway, and Oil Well
Road. Vehicular traffic on the village spine road would be heavy and continuous. The applicant’s
current Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District plans shows only a 4x6
wildlife crossing at this area, which is meant only to accommodate small wildlife species. The applicant
does not propose a large mammal crossing at this location because their fencing plans and lake design
specifically intend to keep large mammals outside of these preserve areas. The county should seek
clarity from the applicant about these plans, as their submittals for their wetland permits seem to be
inconsistent with their request to receive large mammal corridor restoration potential credits for an area
that has specifically been designed to preclude access by these type of species. Additionally, if panthers
do gain access to this area by swimming the moat or climbing the fencing, the 4x6 size of the crossing
would likely be too small for panthers or other large mammals to dependably utilize to gain safe passage
under the roadway.
D. Other options:
In this section of
the letter, we
explained to you
how plans for
Longwater Village
would impact
habitat of an
endangered species
and an existing
mammal corridor.
However, Collier
Enterprises has
other options to
build in a way that
is less impactful to
listed species
habitat. The
landowner-
developer could
build truly sustainable communities on lands outside of the Primary Zone and Adult Breeding panther habitat,
while continuing to farm their lands within the Primary Zone. If Collier Enterprises’ property outside of
Primary Zone panther habitat is limited, then they could partner with other landowners who own lands outside of
essential habitat areas, but are within the Overlay’s “Open” areas. They also have an option of selling
Stewardship Credits from SSA14, SSA15, and SSA17 to other landowners who are in need of stewardship
credits for increasing SRA acreage.
Where spine road
bisects mammal
corridor
Figure 5: Longwater Village SRA Master Concept Plan
Perimeter lakes
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
12
III. The project is a typical suburban-style development, not
innovative planning.
A. Longwater’s Village “Center” is on the edge, not the center:
RLSA Policy 4.7.2 states, “Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use
village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities.” Longwater’s
Village Center is clearly not the focal point of the community as it is located nowhere near the center. Instead
the Village “Center” is located on the extreme western edge of the property, alongside the future taxpayer-funded
Big Cypress Parkway. The applicant is placing the commercial “center” along a future county road to take
advantage of drive-by-traffic, instead of designing the village to provide its residents with walkable access to
goods and services, as is required by the Overlay. This is not innovative planning, as the RLSA requires, this is
quintessential suburban-style development.
B. Where is the continuum?:
LDC 4.08.07.3.a.v states that the village must be “developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the
greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center, to the least density, intensity, and
diversity occurring within the Neighborhood Edge.” In addition, Policy 4.11 states, “The perimeter of each SRA
shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the RLSA to lower density
and intensity on adjoining property.” The plan is inconsistent with these two policies for two reasons:
1. Because the developer has placed the mixed-use village “center” along the far western edge of the
property, along a spine road and a future county road, no development is planned on two sides of the
Village Center. If no development is planned on two sides of the Village Center, then how can a
transition or continuum of density and intensity be achieved? Obviously, a continuum or transition on
those two sides of the village center are not possible, therefore, the plan does not reach consistency with
the Overlay.
2. Up to 90% of the 2,600 homes are single-family spread throughout the Neighborhood General Context
Zone. Although the applicant agrees to place 40 multi-family units within the Village Center and some
within a ½ mile walk to the center, this does not constitute a progressive continuum of residential
density.
C. The plan provides minimal walkability:
Placing the mixed-use Village’s “Center” along the edge of the community creates conditions where most
residents must drive to get to the Village Center to obtain goods and services. Collier County’s Community
Character Plan recommends as the optimum distance for creating a walkable neighborhood a ¼ mile radius from
the mixed-use center to the neighborhoods.33 However, most neighborhoods in Longwater MCP are located over
a ½ mile from the Village “Center” and many neighborhoods are located over two miles from the center. This is
not acceptable, as the majority of the homes should be within walking distance to the mixed-use center. The plan
is inconsistent with the following policies which require a walkable SRA:
- LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.ii: “Villages shall be designed in a compact, pedestrian-friendly form.”
- LDC 4.08.07.J.3.b.i: “The transportation network shall provide for a high level of mobility for all
residents through a design that respects the pedestrian and accommodates the automobile.”
33 Dover, Kohl & Partners (2001, April). “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.” p. 2.8
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
13
- Smart Growth Policy 7.4: “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable
communities with a blend of densities . . .”
D. The project lacks connections:
Instead of providing a street grid system with multiple routes to the Village Center, Longwater’s plan provides a
“non-village like spine road”34 running through the middle of the elongated project. Each development pod
would dump neighborhood traffic onto the 3-mile long spine road, which provides access to the Village Center to
the south or Oil Well Road to the north. Because the Village “Center” is on the edge and because the plan
provides a spine road instead of a street grid system, the Village Center provides only two pedestrian connections
to only one of Longwater’s neighborhoods, or development pods (Figure 6). All other neighborhoods must
access the spine road to get to the commercial center. As a comparison, the Town of Ave Maria provides nine or
ten connections to the Town Center from the surrounding neighborhoods and the campus, which creates multiple
routes for the pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles (Figure 7).
The lack of interconnections within Longwater Village from the Village Center and to adjoining neighborhoods
is inconsistent with several policies, including the following:
- LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.ii (Village Design Criteria): “Create an interconnected street system designed to
disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips.”
- RLSA Policy 4.7.2:“Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use
village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. Villages
shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected
sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.”
- LDC 4.08.07.J.1.a (Village Characteristics Table B. Transportation. Required Uses): “Auto-
interconnected system of collector and local roads;”
34 Staff commented in the July 8, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum that “Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including
indirect accesses in to the northerly and southerly residential areas from the non-village like spine road and indirect access into the residential area and
Village Center tract.” p. 13
Figure 6: Applicant’s plan
showing only two pedestrian
connections to Village Center.
Figure 7: Pedestrian connections to Town Center in Ave Maria.
Spine Road
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
14
- LDC 4.08.07.J.3.b (Transportation Network) states, “The transportation network shall be designed in
an interconnected system of streets, sidewalks, and pathways.”
- Smart Growth 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.
E. Longwater Village lacks housing diversity and affordability:
A plan consisting 90% of single-family homes is not only a prime characteristic of sprawl, but it would be
detrimental for the future of eastern Collier County. A village plan lacking in a variety of housing types, sizes,
and prices ranges, would force those employed within Longwater’s Village Center to seek suitable and
affordable housing elsewhere in the county. Because the Overlay requires villages to be self-sufficient, every
village and town must provide housing for all ages, diverse family-types, and income brackets. This ensures that
essential personnel, such as fire and EMS workers, teachers, nurses, and utility workers, are able to work and live
in eastern Collier County.
The Conservancy supports staff’s statement: “diversity is achieved in allowing different configurations among
single-family detached and attached, and two-family dwellings, zero lot line, town home, and other multi-family
dwellings.”35 We, also, fully support staff’s recommendation to require a housing needs analysis to “estimate
the affordable housing demand generated by Longwater Village, as well as a plan to address the supply of those
units” or staff’s recommendation to require a minimum commitment of affordable housing.36
As stated in staff’s housing review, the applicant has not reached consistency with the following policy:
- LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.iv (Village Design Criteria): “Offer a range of housing types and price levels to
accommodate diverse ages and incomes.”
In addition to 4.08.07.3.a.iv, Longwater Village SRA fails to conform to these other policies pertaining to
housing diversity:
- Policy 4.7.2: “Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mixes
of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village.”
- LDC 4.08.01.UU: “Villages are a form of SRA and are primarily residential communities with
a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular
village.”
- LDC 4.08.07.C.2: “Villages. Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of
housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village .
- Attachment C: Stewardship Receiving Characteristics for a village: Requires “Diversity of single family
and multi-family housing types, styles, and lots.”
- Smart Growth Policy 7.4: “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.”
35 Collier County Longwater Village SRA Consistency Review Memorandum, February 11, 2020. p. 7.
36 Collier County. Longwater Village CHS Staff Review, April 13, 2020. Community and Human Services Division.
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application
15
Conclusion
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida urges you to recommend denial of the SRA Application for Longwater
Village as the project contradicts the fundamental goal of the RLSA Overlay to protect listed species habitat and
to prevent urban sprawl. The proposed location of the development, which is entirely within habitat for the
endangered Florida panther, flies in the face of responsible environmental and rural land stewardship. Moreover,
the design of the project defies basic smart growth design principles which are a fundamental element of the
overlay.
We urge you to require the applicant go back to the drawing board to drastically modify the development
footprint outside of Primary Zone panther habitat, re-apply under town standards, and design the project to
uphold the principles of the Overlay. If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these matters
further, you may reach us at (239) 262-0304.
Sincerely,
April Olson
Senior Environmental Planning Specialist
(239) 262-0304, ext. 250
AprilO@Conservancy.org
9.A.2.j
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment H-Letter of Objection 8-13-20 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 863Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 864Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 865Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 866Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 867Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 868Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 869Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 870Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 871Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 872Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 873Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 874Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 875Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 876Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 877Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 878Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 879Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 880Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 881Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 882Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 883Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 884Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 885Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 886Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 887Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 888Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 889Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 890Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 891Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 892Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 893Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 894Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 895Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 896Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 897Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 898Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 899Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 900Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 901Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 902Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 903Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 904Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 905Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 906Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 907Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 908Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 909Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 910Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 911Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 912Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 913Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 914Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 915Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 916Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 917Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 918Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 919Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 920Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 921Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 922Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 923Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 924Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 925Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 926Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 927Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 928Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 929Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 930Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 931Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 932Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 933Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 934Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 935Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 936Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 937Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 938Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 939Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 940Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 941Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 942Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 943Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 944Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 945Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 946Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 947Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 948Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 949Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 950Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 951Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 952Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 953Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 954Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 955Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 956Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 957Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 958Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 959Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 960Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 961Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 962Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 963Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 964Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 965Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 966Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 967Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 968Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 969Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 970Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 971Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 972Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 973Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 974Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 975Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 976Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 977Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 978Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 979Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 980Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 981Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 982Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 983Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 984Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 985Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 986Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 987Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 988Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 989Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 990Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 991Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 992Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 993Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 994Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 995Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 996Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 997Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 998Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 999Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1000Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1001Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1002Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1005Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1006Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1007Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1008Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1009Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1010Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1011Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1012Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1013Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1014Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1015Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1016Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1017Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1018Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1019Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1020Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1021Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1022Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1023Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1024Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1025Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1026Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1028Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1029Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1030Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1031Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1032Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1033Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1034Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1035Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1036Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1037Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1038Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1039Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1040Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1041Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1042Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1043Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1044Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1045Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1046Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1047Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1048Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1053Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1055Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1060Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1061Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1062Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1063Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1064Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1065Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1066Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1067Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1068Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1070Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1071Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1072Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1073Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1074Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1075Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1076Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1077Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1078Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1079Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1080Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1081Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1082Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1083Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1084Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1085Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1086Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1087Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1088Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1089Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1090Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1091Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1092Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1093Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1094Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1095Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1096Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1097Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1098Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1099Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1100Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1101Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1102Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1103Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1104Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1105Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1106Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1107Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1108Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1109Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1110Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1111Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1112Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1113Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1114Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1115Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1116Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1117Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1118Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1119Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1120Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1121Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1122Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1123Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1124Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1125Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1126Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1127Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1128Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1129Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1130Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1131Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1132Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1133Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1134Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1135Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1136Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1137Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1138Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1139Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1140Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1141Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1142Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1143Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1144Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1145Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1146Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1147Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1148Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1149Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1150Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1151Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1152Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1153Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1154Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1155Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1156Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1157Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1158Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1159Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1160Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1161Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1162Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1163Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1164Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1165Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1166Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1167Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1168Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1169Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1170Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1171Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1172Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1173Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1174Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1175Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1176Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1177Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1178Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1179Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1180Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1181Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1182Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1183Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1184Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1185Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1186Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1187Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1188Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1189Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1190Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1191Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1192Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1193Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1194Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1195Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1196Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1197Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1198Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1199Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1200Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1201Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1202Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1203Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1204Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1205Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1206Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1207Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1208Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1209Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1210Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1211Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1212Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1213Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1214Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1215Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1216Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1217Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1218Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1219Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1220Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1221Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1222Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1223Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1224Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1225Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1226Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1227Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1228Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1229Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1230Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1231Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1232Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1233Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1234Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1235Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1236Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1237Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1238Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1239Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1240Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1241Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1242Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1243Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1244Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1245Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1246Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1247Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1248Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1250Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1251Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1252Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1253Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1254Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1255Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1256Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1257Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1258Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1259Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1260Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1261Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1262Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1263Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1264Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1265Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1266Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1267Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1268Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1269Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1270Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1271Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1272Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1273Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1274Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1275Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1276Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1277Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1278Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1279Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1280Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1281Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1282Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1283Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1284Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1285Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1286Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1287Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1288Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1289Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1290Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1291Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1292Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1293Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1294Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1295Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1296Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1297Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1298Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1299Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1300Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1301Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1302Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1303Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1304Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1305Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1306Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1307Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1308Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1309Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1310Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1311Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1312Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1313Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1314Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1315Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1316Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1317Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1318Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1319Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1320Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1321Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1322Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1323Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1324Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1325Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1326Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1327Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1328Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1329Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1330Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1331Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1332Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1333Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1334Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1335Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1336Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1337Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1338Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1339Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1340Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1341Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1342Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1343Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1344Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1349Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1352Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1353Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1354Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1355Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1356Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1357Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1358Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1359Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1360Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1361Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1362Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1363Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1364Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1367Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1368Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1369Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1370Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1371Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1372Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1373Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1376Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1377Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1378Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1379Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1380Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1381Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1382Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1385Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1386Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1387Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1388Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1389Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1390Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1391Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1394Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1395Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1396Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1397Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1398Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1399Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1400Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1403Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1404Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1405Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1406Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1407Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1408Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1409Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1410Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1411Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1412Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1413Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1414Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1415Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1416Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1417Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1418Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1421Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1422Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1423Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1424Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1425Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1426Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1427Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1428Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1429Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1430Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1431Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1432Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1433Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1434Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1435Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1436Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1437Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1438Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1439Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1440Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1441Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1442Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1443Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1444Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1445Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1446Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1447Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1448Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1449Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1450Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1451Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1452Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1453Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1454Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1455Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1456Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1457Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1458Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1459Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1460Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1461Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1462Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1463Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1464Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1465Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1466Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1467Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1468Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1469Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1470Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1471Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1472Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1473Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1474Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1475Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1476Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1477Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1478Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1479Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1480Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1481Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1482Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1483Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1484Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1485Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1486Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1487Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1488Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1489Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1490Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1491Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1492Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1493Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1494Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1495Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1496Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1497Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1498Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1499Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1500Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1501Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1502Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1503Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1504Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1505Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1506Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1507Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1508Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1509Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1510Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1511Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1512Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1513Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1514Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1515Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1516Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1517Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1518Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1519Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1520Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1521Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1522Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1523Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1524Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1525Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1526Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1527Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1528Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1529Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1530Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1531Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1532Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1533Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1534Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1535Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1536Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1537Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1538Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1539Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1540Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1541Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1542Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1543Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1544Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1545Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1546Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1547Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1548Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1549Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1550Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1551Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1552Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1566Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1567Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1568Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1569Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1570Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1571Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1572Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1573Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1574Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1575Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1576Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1577Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1578Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1579Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1580Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1581Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1582Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1583Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1584Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1585Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1586Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1587Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1588Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1589Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1590Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1591Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1592Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1593Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1594Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1595Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1596Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1597Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1598Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1599Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1600Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1601Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1602Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1603Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1604Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1605Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1606Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1607Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1608Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1609Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1610Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1611Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1612Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1613Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1614Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1615Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1616Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1617Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1618Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1619Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1620Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1621Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1622Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1623Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1624Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1625Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1626Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1627Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1628Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1629Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1630Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1631Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1632Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1633Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1634Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1635Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1636Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1638Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1639Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1640Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1641Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1642Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1643Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.k
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1646Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1647Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1648Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1649Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1650Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1651Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1652Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1653Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1654Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.lPacket Pg. 1655Attachment: Longwater - Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waivers 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
9.A.2.lPacket Pg. 1656Attachment: Longwater - Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waivers 1-28-21 (14873 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)
02/18/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 9.A.3
Item Summary: ***NOTE: This item has been continued to the March 4, 2021 CCPC Meeting
***PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA - A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay
District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving
Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,750 residential dwel ling units, of which a
minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will
be single family attached or villa; a minimum of 68,750 and maximum of 85,000 square feet of
commercial development in the village center context zone; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic,
governmental and institutional uses in the village center context zone; senior housing including adult
living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial uses
in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a
maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for
Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being
utilized by the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is
located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE
and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County,
Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 02/18/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission
Name: Diane Lynch
02/04/2021 5:03 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/04/2021 5:03 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 02/04/2021 5:03 PM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 02/04/2021 5:03 PM
Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 02/04/2021 5:03 PM
Zoning Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/04/2021 5:03 PM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 02/18/2021 9:00 AM
Zoning Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/04/2021 5:03 PM
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 1657
02/18/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 11.A
Item Summary: Town Plan-This is information related to the creation of an SRA Town by
amending the Longwater Village SRA to add 515.1 acres to form a town SRA, which Town will also
address impacts from the Rivergrass Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA. No action is required
other than being informed. The Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) will be asked to approve
a Town Agreement at the April 27, 2021, BCC hearing when the Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar
Village SRA petitions are also heard. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 02/18/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
02/01/2021 4:34 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/01/2021 4:34 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/08/2021 10:12 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/08/2021 10:22 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/08/2021 11:21 AM
Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 02/10/2021 3:48 PM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 02/18/2021 9:00 AM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/04/2021 11:50 AM
11.A
Packet Pg. 1658
Page 1 of 3
February 10, 2021
*INFORMATIONAL MEMO*
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT -
PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021
SUBJECT: TOWN PLAN FOR RIVERGRASS VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA (SRA), LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA,
AND BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA. COMPANION TO SRA-
PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA AND SRA-
PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA
____________________________________________________________________________________________
*INFORMATIONAL ONLY – NO ACTION REQUIRED BY CCPC:
The creation of a Town Agreement has been proposed by Collier Land Holdings, Ltd.
and CDC Land Investments, LLC to address the combined impacts of the Rivergrass
Village SRA, the Longwater Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA. (Please see
Attachment A-Town Agreement.)
The Town Agreement includes a commitment that within 12 months of the approval of
the Longwater Village SRA and the Bellmar Village SRA, an SRA Town Application
will be submitted to amend the Longwater Village SRA to add 515.1 acres and form a
new Town.
The Town Agreement further stipulates several characteristics of the proposed new town
which are summarized in this Memorandum. The BCC will be asked to approve the
Town Agreement as a companion item to the approval of the Longwater Village SRA and
the Bellmar Village SRA.
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS:
Per the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), SRA Villages such as these are less than
1,000 acres. An SRA Town is 1,000 acres or more. Towns are required to provide more goods
and services, and more civic, government and institutional land uses than a Village.
The LDC requirements of a Village are:
• 25 square feet of goods and services per dwelling unit
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Town Plan-Memo 2-10-21 (14901 : Town Plan)
Page 2 of 3
February 10, 2021
• 10 square feet of civic, government and institutional land uses per dwelling unit
The previously approved Rivergrass Village SRA and proposed Longwater Village SRA and
proposed Bellmar Village SRA meet the above Village requirements.
A Town has greater requirements. The increased LDC requirements of a Town are:
• 65 square feet of goods and services per dwelling unit
• 15 square feet of civic, government and institutional land uses per dwelling unit
RLSA Policy 4.15.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management
Plan recognizes that it may take several Villages to support community retail and office uses in a
Town. Policy 4.15.1 states “SRAs are intended to be mixed-use and shall be allowed the full
range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE… An appropriate mix of retail,
office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily
needs and community-wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and
character of an SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other
SRAs in the RLSA…”
The designation of the Rivergrass Village SRA, and the pending petitions for the Longwater
Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA will result in a combined approval of 7,850 dwelling
units, 265,000 square feet of commercial land area, 78,500 square feet of civic and institutional
land uses.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AGREEMENT:
The property owner has an additional 515.1 acres in the general vicinity of the three Villages that
are proposed to be combined with the Longwater Village SRA to form a Town by amending the
Longwater SRA to add 515.1 acres and also address the impacts of Rivergrass Village SRA and
Bellmar Village SRA. Affordable housing requirements and a school site are proposed.
Additional employment opportunities will be provided through additional commercial, industrial
and institutional uses. The following land uses and acreages are proposed on the additional
515.1 acres:
420,000 SF office/retail/employment, 20,000 SF Civic - 85.7 acres
Community Park Site - 43.1 acres (based on
current RLSA)
Utility Site - 5.3 acres
497 units – affordable Parcel 1 - 49.7 acres
240,000 SF Town Core (retail/office), 10,000 SF Civic - 36.1 acres
650,000 SF light industrial, 30,000 SF Civic - 87.1 acres
385 units – affordable Parcel 2 - 38.5 acres
500 single family units - 141.7 acres
Elementary School - 27.9 acres
Total 515.1 acres
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Town Plan-Memo 2-10-21 (14901 : Town Plan)
Page 3 of 3
February 10, 2021
Please see Attachment B-Conceptual Master Plan for the proposed Longwater Town SRA and
the Rivergrass Village SRA and the Bellmar Village SRA. The proposed Longwater Town SRA
will be 1514.91 acres, the Rivergrass Village SRA is 997.53 acres and the Bellmar Village SRA
is 999.74 acres for a total of 3512.18 acres.
The proposed Town Agreement (please see Attachment A-Town Agreement) also contains
provisions to support the proposed Town related to the timing of the development of the Town
Core. The non-residential areas are set aside (by not allowing conversion to residential areas).
There will be an analysis of the fiscal impacts of the entire Town including uses that would have
been previously approved within the three Villages.
Options are also provided within the Town Agreement to incentivize job creation/economic
development, internal capture, and mixed-use development. Within the Town Agreement, there
are incentives proposed that will be addressed at the time of the Town Application. These
include incentives such as the design and funding of an Innovation Zone, reduced impact fees
related to reduced demand, internal capture, mixed-use development, and affordable housing.
Economic Development Incentives for targeted businesses, business expansion, job creation, and
capital investment are also included.
The Town Agreement also confirms the locations of the affordable housing parcels as shown on
the Conceptual Master Plan while offering the ability to provide an equal, alternate location. A
commitment to providing a 497-unit and a 385-unit affordable housing project has been made.
This commitment will satisfy the affordable housing requirements of Collier County Community
and Human Services.
A commitment to provide a Community Park has also been made. The Town Agreement also
outlines the submittals the developer is to provide related to fiscal analysis, transportation
analysis, impact fee credits.
Attachments:
Attachment A-Town Agreement
Attachment B-Conceptual Master Plan
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Town Plan-Memo 2-10-21 (14901 : Town Plan)
TOWN AGREEMENT
THIS TOWN AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) is made and
entered into this ______ of _________, 2021, by and among COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD
and CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC (collectively referred to as the “Landowner”), whose
address is 2550 Goodlette Road North, Naples, Florida 34103, and THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as the “County”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
adopted Resolution 20-24 approving and designating the Rivergrass Village Stewardship
Receiving Area (“Rivergrass Village”) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA); and
WHEREAS, Landowner has submitted Petition SRA-PL20190001836 to designate the
Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (“Longwater Village”); and
WHEREAS, Collier Land holdings, Ltd. has submitted a Petition SRA-PL20190001837 to
designate the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (“Bellmar Village”); and
WHEREAS, RLSA Policy 4.15.1 of the Future land Use Element of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan recognizes that it may take several Villages to support community
scaled retail and office uses in a town; and
WHERAS, the designation of Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village and Bellmar Village
results in the approval of 7850 dwelling units, 265,000 commercial square feet and 78,500 square
feet of civic and institutional uses; and
WHEREAS, Landowner has an additional 515.1 acres in the general vicinity of the three
villages that when combined with the three villages will allow for a town to be designated pursuant
the applicable RLSA policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, County wants to encourage Landowner to submit a petition to designate a
town that serves the three villages and the additional lands; and
WHEREAS, Landowner is willing to submit a petition to designate a town that serves the
three villages and the additional lands; and
WITNESSETH
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars (10.00) and other good and valuable
consideration exchanged amongst the parties, and in consideration of the covenants contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
1. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below.
2. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval of the Longwater Village
and Bellmar Village and expiration of all appeal periods related to same.
3. Landowner will file an amendment to the Longwater Village (hereinafter referred
to as the Town Application), creating the Town Stewardship Receiving Area by adding the land
uses and approximate land acreage listed below (Town Core), within 12 months of the County’s
approval of the pending Longwater and Bellmar Villages applications. Bellmar Village will not
be eligible for any certificates of occupancy until the Town Stewardship Receiving Area is
scheduled for public hearing. The land uses and land acreage are as follows:
420,000 SF office/retail/employment, 20,000 SF Civic - 85.7 acres
Community Park Site - 43.1 acres (based on current
RLSA)
Utility Site - 5.3 acres
497 units – affordable Parcel 1 - 49.7 acres
240,000 SF Town Core (retail/office), 10,000 SF Civic - 36.1 acres
650,000 SF light industrial, 30,000 SF Civic - 87.1 acres
385 units – affordable Parcel 2 - 38.5 acres
500 single family units - 141.7 acres
Elementary School - 27.9 acres
Total 515.1 acres
4. The proposed conceptual Master Plan for the Town Application is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”.
5. There shall be no timing conditions placed on the timing of the development of the
Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions. However, areas identified for
non-residential uses shall be set aside and not eligible for conversion to residential uses.
6. The Town Application will analyze the fiscal impacts of the entire Town inclusive
of uses that would have previously been approved with the Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village,
and Bellmar Village. The Landowner must use the same methodology utilized for the individual
villages, which incorporates the adopted levels of services, adopted impact fee rates, and millage
rate as well as other funding provided to support capital infrastructure.
7. The following are options that may be utilized to address/offset costs associated
with the development of a cohesive town concept and provide incentives for job creation/economic
development, internal capture, mixed-use development, etc. The use of these incentives should
help with the economic viability of the town concept while supporting the economic diversification
goals of Collier County. The incentives are as follows and will be addressed at the time the Town
Application is considered by the County:
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
a. Innovation Zone – designed to incentivize job creation and economic
development. Innovation Zone funds can be utilized in a variety of ways,
including infrastructure costs, inducements for business development, payment
of development fees, etc. based on an approved Innovation Zone plan;
b. Reduced impact fees for reduced demand (based on infrastructure/services
provided by the town), internal capture, mixed-use development, affordable
housing, etc.;
c. Economic Development Incentives for targeted businesses, business expansion,
job creation, and capital investment; and
d. Further discussion with the applicant may provide additional layers of
incentives that are beneficial to the town concept as well as the taxpayers of
Collier County.
8. The locations of the affordable housing parcels on the proposed Master Plan are
approved; however, if the site plan is materially changed the Landowner will provide for a location
depicted on the Master Plan that is near a school and/or business uses. The site(s) shall not be so
situated as to be less desirable than the market rate sites/parcels and shall be no less accessible to
common open spaces, public facilities, public transportation, and commercial good and services
than the market rate sites.
The developer has agreed to provide the following:
a. A 497-unit, 49.7-acre, Parcel 1 and a 385-unit, 38.5-acre, Parcel 2: affordable
housing sites will be conveyed to the County based upon the appraisal value of
$22,500/acre. The Affordable Housing parcel will be considered as a Public
Benefit Use and does not require Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the
calculation of total SRA acreage. The Affordable Housing units shall be excluded
from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are
located and excluded from the fiscal neutrality analysis.
b. Owners will use commercially reasonable efforts to include the Affordable
Housing and Community Park sites within Owners’ conceptual ERP permits for
Bellmar Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the
Army Corp of Engineers. If Owners are successful in including the Affordable
Housing and Community Park sites within its conceptual permits for Bellmar
Village, County shall reimburse the Owners’ average permitting cost and
mitigation cost, for mitigation required by such permits, upon completion of the
mitigation and Owners’ written request to County, which reimbursement shall be
calculated by Owners’ average per acre permitting and mitigation cost multiplied
times the acreage of the Affordable Housing and Community Park sites.
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
9. As part of the Town application, the Developer will provide for a Community Park
parcel, with a minimum size determined by using the current RLSA standard of 200 square feet
per dwelling unit. The Community Park parcel shall be reserved by the developer until a
conveyance is requested by Collier County Parks Department. It is understood that the Community
Park will perpetually be open to the public. Upon conveyance, the County shall pay developer
$22,500/acre for the parcel in the form of park impact fee credits. Collier County Parks
Department shall have full discretion as to the park design, phasing, and schedule. All park
improvement costs will be borne by Collier County; however, the developer shall pay the current
impact fees.
10. As part of the Town Application, the Developer is to provide a fiscal analysis
addressing the Towns impact on County Infrastructure at the Horizon Year per the RLSA rules.
The Developer and County shall cooperate for timing and location of needed interim facilities.
For all first responders, interconnections between the development areas internal to the site are
required, this may be accomplished by providing first responder access through gated areas.
11. The transportation analysis required in the Town Application will minimally meet
the following requirements:
a. Must complete as a “Major Study” as defined by the County’s TIS Guidelines.
b. For all analysis, any towns approved prior to the Town application will not be
deemed background/existing traffic.
c. The with and without project should consist of the following:
1. With Project – The entire town inclusive of Rivergrass, Longwater,
Bellmar, and new Town area.
2. Without Project – Only the villages within the Big Cypress
Stewardship District approved prior to the Town application and Hyde
Park
d. Internal capture must be agreed upon between the County and the Applicant.
e. Future year traffic projections for the Collier County roadway network will be
derived using the adopted Collier MPO Cost-Feasible LRTP travel demand
model. Landowner must develop future year traffic projections in five-year
increments both with and without the project. This will require the development
of future year land use data in five-year increments. This will also require the
development of future year cost-feasible roadway networks in five-year
increments. This will also require the development of separate Traffic Analysis
Zones (TAZ’s) and TAZ centroid connectors for Rivergrass Village, Longwater
Village, Bellmar Village, Hyde Park Village, and the proposed “additional land”
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
area. The land-use data sets and roadway networks will need to be provided to
Collier County staff and approved by Collier County staff prior to their use in the
travel demand modeling.
f. Intersections will be agreed upon after the internal capture agreement and initial
model runs.
g. The application will not be found complete until network and intersections
analysis are received and accepted by the County.
12. The SRA Villages of Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar are exempt from
downzoning, intensity reduction, or unit density reduction unless the County can demonstrate that
substantial changes in the conditions underlying the approval of the SRA development order(s)
have occurred or the SRA development order(s) was based on substantially inaccurate information
provided by the Developer or that the change is clearly established by local government to be
essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
13. The approval granted by this development agreement is limited. Such approvals
shall not be construed to relieve the Developer of the duty to comply with all applicable local,
state, or federal permitting regulations.
14. The Developer and County shall work together in a cooperative manner to ensure
that the necessary applications to the County, the corresponding reviews, issuance of permits, and
the conduct of inspections occur expeditiously and that development is not impeded by
unnecessary delays associated with such applications, issuance of permits, corresponding reviews,
and inspections.
15. It is understood that any reference herein to any governmental agency shall be
construed to mean any future entity which may be created or be designated or succeed in interest
to or which otherwise possess any of the powers and duties of, any referenced governmental
agency in existence on the effective date of this agreement.
16. Appropriate conditions and commitments contained herein may be assigned to or
assumed by the Big Cypress Stewardship District.
Legal Matters
17. This Agreement shall not be constructed or characterized as a development
agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act.
18. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this
Agreement shall inure to, all assigns successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. The
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
term “Landowner” shall include all of Landowner’s assigns and successors in interest, including
homeowner associations and commercial tenants.
19. In the event state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of this Agreement,
which are applicable to and preclude in whole or in part the parties’ compliance with the terms of
this Agreement, then in such event this Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to
comply with such laws, in a many which best reflects the intent of this Agreement.
20. The Landowner shall execute this Agreement prior to it being submitted for
approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This Agreement shall be recorded by the County
in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within fourteen (14) days after the Effective
Date. The Landowner shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. The County shall provide
a copy of the recorded document to the Landowner upon request.
21. In the event of any dispute under this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve
such dispute first by means of the County’s then-current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure,
if any. Following the conclusion of such procedure, if any, either party may file an action for
injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and
remedy being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the
enforcement of the Agreement.
22. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall only be amended by
mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. All notices and other
communications required or permitted hereunder (including County’s option) shall be in writing
and shall be sent by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized
overnight delivery service, and addressed as follows:
To County:
Collier County Manager's Office
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34112-5746
To Landowner:
Collier Land Holdings Ltd.
CDC Land Investments, LLC
C/O Pat Utter
999 Vanderbilt Beach Road
Suite 507
Naples, FL 34108
23. This Agreement (which include the references set forth in the Recitals) constitutes
the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the activities noted herein and supersedes
and takes the place of any and all previous agreements entered into between the parties hereto
relating to the transactions contemplated herein. All prior representations, undertakings, and
agreements by or between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement
are merged into, and expressed in, this Agreement, and any and all prior representations,
undertakings, and agreements by and between such parties with respect thereto hereby are
canceled.
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
24. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed to create between or among
any of the parties any joint venture or partnership nor otherwise grant to one another the right,
authority or power to bind any other party hereto to any agreement whatsoever.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written.
AS TO COUNTY:
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________
, Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairperson
AS TO LANDOWNER:
WITNESS: COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD.
A Florida Limited Partnership
By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a
(Signature) Florida Corporation,
It’s General Partner
(Print full name) By: ___________________________
Printed Name: __________________
Title: _________________________
(Signature)
(Print full name)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ☐ physical presence or ☐
online notarization, this ____ day of _____________, 2021, by ________________________ of
Collier Enterprise, Inc., its general partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida corporation,
on behalf of the corporation. He is personally known to me or has
produced _________________________ as identification.
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
__________________________________
[Notary Seal] Notary Public
__________________________________
Name typed, printed or stamped
My Commission Expires: ____________
CDC Land Investments, LLC
a Florida Limited Liability Company
______________________________
(Signature) By: CDC Land Investments, Inc.,
its manager
______________________________
(Print full name) By: ___________________________
Printed Name: __________________
______________________________ Title: _________________________
(Signature)
______________________________
(Print full name)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ☐ physical presence or ☐
online notarization, this ___ day of __________, 2021, by ______________________________,
of CDC Land Investments, Inc., manager of CDC Land Investments, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or has
produced ___________________________ as identification.
___________________________________
[Notary Seal] Notary Public
___________________________________
Name typed, printed or stamped
My Commission Expires: ____________
Approved as to form and legality:
_______________________________
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
FSAFUTUREVANDERBILTEXTENSIONSSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 15BSSA 17SSA 15ASSA 17SSA 15BSSA 15ASSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 18RANDALLBLVD.GOLDENGATE BLVD.EASTES27.9The Villages of Big CypressStewardship DistrictAGNOLIBARBER&BRUNDAG E ,I N C.N,12088SRA028.DWG - ROP -10/19/20COUNTY858COLLIERRivergrass VillageLongwater VillageBellmar VillageDenotesBCSD BoundaryRETAIL/OFFICE/EMPLOYMENT77.9 Ac. GROSS50.7 Ac. NETCOMMUNITY PARK43.1 Ac. GROSS34.6 Ac. NETAFFORDABLEPARCEL 149.7 Ac. GROSS38.7 Ac. NETG & S36.1 Ac. GROSS30.5 Ac NETUTILITYSITE5.3 Ac.LIGHTINDUSTRIAL87.1 Ac. GROSS72.6 Ac. NETNG141.7 Ac. GROSS74.5 Ac. NET (LOTS)AFFORDABLE PARCEL 238.5 Ac. GROSS34.3 Ac. NETPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCERivergrass VillagePROPOSED LCEC SUB STATION SITE7.8 Ac. GROSS7.08 Ac. NET11.A.bPacket Pg. 1671Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (14901 : Town Plan)
FSAFUTUREVANDERBILTEXTENSIONSSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 15BSSA 17SSA 15ASSA 17SSA 15BSSA 15ASSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 18RANDALLBLVD.GOLDENGATE BLVD.EASTES27.9The Villages of Big CypressStewardship DistrictAGNOLIBARBER&BRUNDAG E ,I N C.N,12088SRA028.DWG - ROP -10/19/20COUNTY858COLLIERRivergrass VillageLongwater VillageBellmar VillageDenotesBCSD BoundaryRETAIL/OFFICE/EMPLOYMENT77.9 Ac. GROSS50.7 Ac. NETCOMMUNITY PARK43.1 Ac. GROSS34.6 Ac. NETAFFORDABLEPARCEL 149.7 Ac. GROSS38.7 Ac. NETG & S36.1 Ac. GROSS30.5 Ac NETUTILITYSITE5.3 Ac.LIGHTINDUSTRIAL87.1 Ac. GROSS72.6 Ac. NETNG141.7 Ac. GROSS74.5 Ac. NET (LOTS)AFFORDABLE PARCEL 238.5 Ac. GROSS34.3 Ac. NETPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCERivergrass VillagePROPOSED LCEC SUB STATION SITE7.8 Ac. GROSS7.08 Ac. NET11.A.cPacket Pg. 1672Attachment: Attachment B-Conceptual Master Plan (14901 : Town Plan)