Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 07/07/2022
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 6/29/2022 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 July 7, 2022 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Christopher Vernon Paul Shea, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Robert Klucik, Jr. Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected 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. July 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 6/29/2022 1.Pledge of Allegiance 2.Roll Call by Secretary 3.Addenda to the Agenda 4.Planning Commission Absences 5.Approval of Minutes A.May 19, 2022, CCPC Meeting Minutes B.June 2, 2022, CCPC Meeting Minutes 6.BCC Report - Recaps 7.Chairman's Report 8.Consent Agenda 9.Public Hearings A.Advertised 1.PL20210001795 Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, Lely, a Resort Community Planned Unit Development (PUD), by allowing the 9+/- acre C-3 parcel at the southwest corner of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) and Grand Lely Drive to have C-3 and/or residential development limited to 184 dwelling units. The subject PUD consists of 2,892 acres located between U.S. 41 and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, west of Collier Blvd. (CR 951), in Sections 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, and 34, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] 2.PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow development of safety services and related government uses as an essential service in the Conservation Zoning District within the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment Overlay (CON- ACSC/ST) pursuant to Section 2.03.09.B.1.c.2, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The property is 1.83+- acres and is described as Lots 18 and 19 of Paolita Acres, an unrecorded subdivision, and is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) approximately 0.85 miles from Collier County's eastern boundary in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] B.Noticed July 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 6/29/2022 10.Old Business 11.New Business 12.Public Comment 13.Adjourn 07/07/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: May 19, 2022, CCPC Meeting Minutes June 2, 2022 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 07/07/2022 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 06/09/2022 2:20 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 06/09/2022 2:20 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/09/2022 2:21 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/09/2022 5:13 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 06/10/2022 7:39 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/17/2022 12:54 AM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 07/07/2022 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 May 19, 2022 Page 1 of 49 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 19, 2022 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 Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Karl Fry Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 2 of 49 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the May 19, 2022, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before the roll is called, I have an announcement to make. With the news coming in on May 17 of 2022 from Dr. Kamela Patton, the superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, that the Board of County Commissioners has been informed of her desire to appoint Ms. Amy Lockhart temporarily to serve on the Collier County Planning Commission as the nonvoting school board representative in place of our friend Tom Eastman. Now, that's the only information I have except, of course, I'd be remiss in not taking time to say a few words about our former colleague, Tom Eastman. As many of you know, Tom served as the public schools' representative to the Collier County Planning Commission since as far back, I believe, as 2007, and that's at least 14 years of dedicated service. We thank Tom for bringing to us his insight, his intelligence, his legal knowledge, and also his sense of humor. It will all be missed. I consider Tom to be a true friend, at least as close a friend as you can have when the only time you can talk with someone is when you're on TV. And on behalf of the entire Planning Commission, our sincere and heartfelt thanks to Tom. We wish him God speed. And please join me in giving him a round of applause. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome, Ms. Lockhart. And with that, I will call the roll. And then I might ask you to say a word or two about yourself, if you don't mind. Give you a little warning in advance. All right. Starting with Ms. Lockhart. Here -- just say "here" for now. MS. LOCKHART: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I was just giving you warning. MS. LOCKHART: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fry? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We have a quorum of five. And now, Ms. Lockhart, we would like to hear just a few words about your career with Collier County Schools, and welcome aboard. MS. LOCKHART: Good morning. I'm Amy Lockhart. I'm the long-range planner with the Collier County School District. I have been with the school district for almost 20 years; it will be 20 in July. Before that I was working with you all, so I consider Collier County Government 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 3 of 49 my first family in Naples and the greater Collier County area. So I appreciate being here. We're filling a tremendous loss with Tom not being part of our team, part of our CCPS family. So I am here to represent as best I can. I can certainly not fill his shoes for the temporary time I'll be here, but I will give it a try. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A warm welcome to you from us, and we're sure you'll do a great job. We'd like to have you always, but I understand this is temporary. MS. LOCKHART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So thank you so much. Before I move -- I'm sorry. Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: Chair, I just wanted to say, when I first started with Collier County Government in 2002, one of the most welcoming co-employees that I met in Comprehensive Planning section was Amy Taylor at the time, and that's Ms. Lockhart, and she was a great addition to that team; moved on to the school district. We worked well with her, developed the school interlocal agreements, the public school facility element of the GMP. So she has a strong history in association with the GMP, with Comprehensive Planning, and all planning issues related. So she's a long-time friend, and it's a welcome face to the -- but I agree with you, we most certainly will miss -- staff's perspective, we most certainly will miss Mr. Eastman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. You come very well recommended by Mr. Bosi. Before we leave the roll, I want to acknowledge that Commissioner Vernon's and Commissioner Fry's absences are both excused. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Bellows? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commission Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Previously, I had an absence. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Your mic. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. Previously I had an absence, and I don't think you ever mentioned on the record anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you for bringing that to my attention. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It was a conflict with a business appointment that I just couldn't get out of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, of course, that absence will also be excused, and I apologize for not doing it in a timely way. But thank you for bringing that up. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For the meeting on the 2nd, I will be out of the country, so I will not be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And that does take us to the subject of our upcoming meetings. We have one scheduled for June 2, 2022. Right now we only have one item on it. It's a combined item. But I'm sorry that there's only one on there, and I've been working with staff trying to find a way where we could be better stewards of everyone's time, but it just, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be possible at this point. But keep -- please know that I appreciate the fact that it's not fair particularly to those who are still working for a living to be brought in for a one-matter agenda, and we will make every effort in the future to avoid that whenever possible. Having said that -- and, thank you, Commissioner Schmitt. Anyone else know whether he or she will not be able to be in attendance on June 2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Looks like we will have a quorum. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 4 of 49 Then our next meeting after that won't be until July 7, 2022. Does anyone know whether he or she will not be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We move on to approval of minutes. We have two sets before us this morning, those of our April 7, 2022, meeting, and of our April 21, 2022, meeting. First, is there any need for us to vote on them separately? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I'll make a motion to approve both. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we approve both the minutes of April 7 and April 21, 2022. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. BCC report and recaps. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the May 10th Board of County Commissioners, on the summary agenda the Board approved the Siena Lakes CCRC. It's the assisted living PUD that had the addition. And then they also approved the CCME amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS: That was on the summary agenda as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Chairman's report, nothing today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearings, the first advertised is the Good Turn Center, which is MPUDA. It's PL20210003228. 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 Ms. Lockhart, please. MS. LOCKHART: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: For me, it's staff materials and matters of public record. Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing for me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff materials and discussion with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I also had a discussion with staff as well. All right. With that, we'll turn it to Mr. Arnold. You have the floor, sir. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates representing Sparrow Acquisitions. They're in -- they're acquiring the existing Good Turn Center. Good Turn Center is an existing Planned Unit 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 5 of 49 Development. It allows for commercial and for senior housing. The intent here it to modify the building height that we originally had approved many years ago in order for the Sparrow Acquisition team to build a four-story senior housing project on the site. Staff has recommended approval. I've got a short presentation. I think the significance here is the property is located in your activity center. So the highlighted area in purple is your activity center boundary. You can see that the subject property is well within it. Properties to the north allow heights that are greater than we're seeking, and then properties surrounding us are asking and have been approved for comparable building heights. Staff has recommended approval. And we had our neighborhood information meeting. We had one gentleman from Naples Lakes attend, and they seemed to offer no objection to it. We're adding a couple of other standard commitments that are now common for all of your PUDs. Staff opportunity to get those inserted in this PUD document, so we're happy to do that. With that, I'm happy to answer questions or whatever you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Arnold from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I don't have a question but just a comment. First of all, I -- substantively I am absolutely fine with this and will vote in favor of it barring some terrible thing being reported by staff that I don't anticipate. I will note that there was -- there were some pages in the agenda packet where the left margin was cut off. They were part of the NIM presentation. And since -- well, I make a judgment call that this is a pretty straightforward matter, and I could interpolate most of the words that were cut off, so I didn't make an issue of it, and I'm not making an issue of it now. And I don't know whether it was on the part of the applicant or staff, and it doesn't matter; I'm not asking. But please ensure -- all who submit materials for the agenda packet, please be sure that everything is legible. I know we're all working fast to get documents out, but it needs to be -- it needs to be fully legible. So with that -- and there's still -- no one is signaling to be heard from the dais, so we'll turn to staff for its presentation. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MS. CASTRO: Hi. Sorry. Gabriella Castro, principal planner with the Zoning Division. Staff is recommending approval and is here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling at this point, so I take it they do not. Thank you, Ms. Castro. Let's see. Mr. Youngblood, do we have anybody registered to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Does anyone who is in the room who is not registered care to be heard on this matter? Now would be the time. If not, thank you. We will close the public comment portion of this hearing and proceed to deliberate and vote as a Planning Commission on this MPUDA. Anyone wish to start? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now, I believe we need EAC approval as well, so this would be a joint motion to approve the MPUD. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 6 of 49 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not this one -- it is on this one? MR. BOSI: Yes, an EAC is required. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because of the proximity to a bald eagle? MR. BOSI: Ms. Cook is indicating yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Cook's coming to the mic. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can't remember why the EAC had to vote on this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Good morning. Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review. EAC is required for this petition because there is an eagle nest on the property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the property, or is it -- MS. COOK: On the property, yes, in the proposed preserve area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But from a standpoint -- there's no application for a take permit and, of course, the eagles are now listed species, but they're not protected species; is that correct? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Any further comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, Vice Chair, you made a motion. May we assume that you're -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I will include EAC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's been moved -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and it's been seconded, joint motion. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we've moving right along, folks. It's too early for a mid-morning break. ***Therefore, we'll go to the second and third matters; they are combined. PL20210000623, the Carman Drive Subdistrict Small-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment and PL20210000612, the Carman Drive 15 RPUDZ, and this is also going to require EAC approval when the time comes. All those wishing to testify in these matters, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: None. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 7 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, a meeting with staff, and a discussion with applicant's representatives. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Torres, and Ms. Crespo. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I, likewise, spoke with all three representatives of the applicant, Ms. Crespo, Mr. Torres, and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just staff material and staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. With that, we'll turn to Mr. Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. You have the floor, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. The team here today is David Torres, myself, Alexis Crespo. Jackie Larocque is the engineer for the project; Russ Weyer did the economic analysis; Ted Treesh is our transportation consultant, and Bethany Brosious is our environmental consultant if you have questions. The overall presentation you'll hear is I'll do a brief overview of what we're asking for, Ms. Crespo will get into the planning details, and then Mr. Torres will present a response to staff's proposed income-restricted condition for approval of both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD. We've spent some time working on a proposal and an explanation as to how projects are built and why we will not be able to agree with staff's recommendation, but hopefully you will agree that what we're proposing is a significant proposal to address affordable housing and income-restricted housing. You have two proposals in front of you. There's a Growth Management Plan amendment because the property is located in the Urban Residential Fringe area, and we have a PUD for the project. As we went through the process -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. I think EAC approval is also -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I keep forgetting EAC is -- because of that eagle that was on the property on the first item is requiring us also to get EAC approval. The project as we've submitted it has evolved over time. Staff has asked us to -- because of the location of the property, the base density is 1.5 units per acre. We initially had proposed just doing affordable housing to get to the density. We have -- staff asked us to include TDRs, so our affordable housing initial commitment changed, but it's still there. We always proposed a 20 percent restriction, but we've added the TDRs. We've committed to the project being rental, and we've committed to the project being rent controlled, if you will, for the 30 years that staff is requesting, and we will be utilizing 15 TDRs. Just briefly, the project location -- and I'll turn it over to Alexis after this slide. It's a 15.4-acre parcel. Collier Boulevard is to the west. And we're next to the project you just considered. All the necessary infrastructure is in place to serve the project. We had -- we've not really had any real objections to the project. We work closely with our neighbors and have included appropriate development standards to address their concerns, and Alexis will go over that. And with that, we're requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of both the Growth Management Plan amendment as we're going to propose our income-restriction condition and then also your PUD. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 8 of 49 Your staff is recommending approval of the PUD should the Growth Management Plan amendment get amended. And with that, I'll turn it over to Alexis unless you have any questions for me on the general overview. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Yovanovich at this time? If not, we'll hear from Ms. Alexis. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Good morning, Alexis Crespo with RVI Planning. So as Rich has provided you with a project location, you can see, again, this is an infill site, very well located to accommodate additional growth to accommodate the demands for affordable/work force housing within the county. And we do acknowledge in the discussion with staff and in the staff report that the key here is how much affordable and what level of affordability is needed to justify this increase in density on the property. And the baseline we're working off is the 2.5 unit-per-acre maximum allowed in the Urban Residential Fringe. And so we do want to just spend a moment and talk about that Urban Residential Fringe, the density cap on the east side of Collier Road [sic] and how things have substantially changed over the years that no longer make that density appropriate. And you can see that through policy decisions both this commission has made as well as the Board of County Commissioners have made in allowing for increased densities on the east side of the roadway where appropriately served by infrastructure and where compatible with surrounding development. So back when the underlying land use was limited to 1.5 units per acre -- this dates back to 1989, over 30 years ago. At that time you can see, just looking at the aerial, the world was a very different place in Collier County. There was a desire to ensure transition to rural lands further to the east outside the urban rural boundary. The county was not collecting impact fees. There was limited infrastructure in this area. And the development that has really shaped the land-use patterns along Collier Boulevard were either just getting started in the case of Lely Resort or Hacienda Lakes coming online after its 2011 approval. So things have changed substantially and, as well, the county has acquired more lands to the east to provide for that transition. So the land-use patterns that we're trying to achieve through this future land-use category have been met through some of those actions. When you look today at the aerial, you can see it's very different on the east side of the road. It is getting built out with suburban as well as urban levels of density/intensity around that quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock and 951. The county is collecting impact fees. They are investing in public infrastructure in this area based on the collection of those fees, and now you have the water/sewer, roads, schools, fire, EMS, sheriff to accommodate growth in this area. And the continued growth pressures are pushing development further east. So taking advantage of the small 15-acre infill site well located with no environmental concerns or sensitivity is an excellent location for a project such as this. So when you look at the side-by-side, we would just submit that we're working off a baseline of 2.5 units per acre, but the framework that put that in place is somewhat outdated based upon how the county has evolved over time. So getting into the density surrounding us and why what we're proposing at 13.8 units per acre is appropriate. This is a dynamic area. You've got the Hacienda Lakes DRI which, while a low density from a gross acreage standpoint due to the vast preserve within that project, the actual built cluster densities within that project are significantly higher, especially in and around this property. So to our north we do have one low-density residential neighbor which is Sapphire Cove. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 9 of 49 This property was developed by David Torres. It is single-family detached, one- and two-story homes. Fortunately, their preserve is along the southern boundary and abuts our northern boundary, so we do have a nice buffer there via their preserve, which will be further enhanced by performance standards we're proposing through the PUD. But that really is our only low-density neighbor. We have a fairly intensive FP&L facility to our northwest. In Hacienda Lakes the uses on the east side of Carman Drive, again, are not low-density/intensity. It's the Swamp Buggy races as well as the Junior Deputy facility. So fairly intensive nonresidential uses abutting us within Hacienda. Just a few meetings ago you unanimously recommended approval to increase density on the Lords Way site, which is also very proximate to the property providing an affordable housing component. We are proffering more than that project did, and that's at 10 units per acre upon adoption of that amendment, which is anticipated next week. As you move to the 951 frontage, while not density in all cases from a residential standpoint, there is group housing at significant densities allowed on those properties. You have the Amerisite, which is to our west/northwest, which is at 16 units per acre. The project you just heard, Good Turn, is proposing 200 units on less than 10 acres. So they are senior housing. It does have different impacts than a standard residential density unit. We acknowledge that. But the built form of these senior housing are four stories. There's a lot of units within these buildings, so it's really changing the built form of this quadrant to be more of an urbanized area. As you move immediately south of us, we, again, have another senior housing project that's allowed at four and five stories, and it's 21 units per acre just for the first phase, and they have vacant land on the western portion of their property to do additional units. And, lastly, we were before you a few years ago to increase density on the Hammock Park site at the northeast quadrant of the intersection to 13.8 units per acre with a commercial component. As you move south of Rattlesnake Hammock, you have two, again, senior housing projects ranging in density from 16 to 26 units per acre. Those are fully permitted through SDPs. And then just, lastly, to anchor the southern end of this intersection, you've got future commercial development within the Hacienda Lakes, and David does intend to develop that with commercial retail entertainment type uses to service the residents in the area. So the density pattern in this area, when you take into account the senior housing, is not necessarily low density. Another key component when looking at density increase coupled with workforce housing is what employers are in the immediate area, and this map is just simply showing we've got several employers of essential service personnel folks that really hit that moderate income salary that are very proximate to the property, can walk to work when this housing development is available. That would include the Physicians Regional Hospital to the south -- or southeast of the intersection. You've got FSW College and Lely Resort. That future commercial component of Hacienda Lakes and public facilities such as schools, libraries, et cetera, within the area. So we really took that into account when crafting the affordability component of this project. We did submit and work through this with staff to do a combination of TDRs and 20 percent moderate income housing, which is that 80 to 120 percent. David is going to present to you additional changes to that to try to address some of the items in the staff report, but that salary really hits on the nurses, the deputies, the folks that would live in this area and be serving those employment centers in proximity to the site. And you can see that per the latest numbers, the individual salary for that 80 to 120 percent, it ranges from about 53,000 up to 80,000, and that's falling right within that essential service provider client or future resident of this project. And I'll just reiterate, there is this 30-year affordability commitment associated with the county's program. We're certainly going to comply with that. And what we're finding as a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 10 of 49 business in Collier County and Lee County is that the long-term control of the rent or sales price is just as critical as the price itself. We've lost employees whose rents have adjusted 5-, $600 in a very short period of time, so we do agree that is critical to making this program work. Before I turn it over to David to talk about the modified affordable housing proposal, I just want to walk you through some of the design parameters that we worked through with staff. This is our PUD master plan shown on the screen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think, if you don't mind, I'm going to interrupt you with some questions that are pertinent to the subject you're about to leave -- MS. CRESPO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- if that's all right. First of all, it's recognized that staff is recommending denial of your application, correct? MS. CRESPO: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and I think the essential issues have to do with the amount of density being requested, which is roughly five times what is currently allowed in exchange for the affordable housing or the essential services personnel housing that you would be required to provide. Wouldn't you say that that's probably what the essential issue is? MS. CRESPO: Yes. It's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then -- and you showed some statistics on the fire district salaries. Do you happen to know what the -- as of 2022 what Collier County Public Schools, the teachers' starting salary is? Do you want to answer it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Amy might. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand. And if you don't mind, I'll continue to preside and ask Ms. Crespo. MS. CRESPO: What is proposed on that screen is the average salary, so we did not have the data of the starting salary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I obtained it from Collier County, and the starting salary for 2022 is 47,720, and also for the Sheriff's Department, same source, 45,010 is the starting salary, and Collier County workforce, the people working for the government itself, starting at 32,4-. Now, you're offering opportunities for people who are in the 120 percent range of moderate housing, and the AMI right now for those people is $98,600, I believe. Is that your understanding for 2022? MS. CRESPO: That would be for a household of four. As shown on that screen, an individual in that range would start at about 53,000 up to 80-. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I honestly don't think that's correct. And now I'm going to be basing upon -- my information based upon an exhibit that was provided to AHAC, and -- MS. CRESPO: The 98,6- is the latest 2022 number for a household of four persons. So there's a sliding scale where lower -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. But the -- and is Mr. LaRow here? I'm not going to interrupt the applicant's presentation, but -- he is? All right. Well, we'll -- I'll let you continue. But the point that I'm concerned about is that what you're proposing you could offer 100 percent, all 42 units, to people at 120 percent of the AMI, and you would, I think, miss a very, very large percentage of teachers, Sheriff's Department, Collier County workforce. And so to me, I don't see how that is a meaningful concession in exchange for five times the density that you're requesting. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Fryer, could you let us get to the next two slides. You will have seen how we're proposing to address exactly what you brought up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Torres is going to get up there, and he's going to talk about a modification to where not all 42 units will be at the 120 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this is something new since yesterday afternoon when 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 11 of 49 you and I spoke? MR. YOVANOVICH: We did -- I said we have a proposed -- we have a proposal, and you wanted us to present it here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what we're going to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough. Then I'll hold my fire until we hear from Mr. Torres. Thank you very much. I had one other thing I wanted to mention before. Well, I'll hold it for now. Continue, please. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. And I just had one more slide before I hand it over to David, and that's the PUD master plan. We are in agreement with staff in the findings of fact in their staff report. This is a fairly straightforward layout. I think once we get past the affordable housing percentage and component, the project is relatively straightforward. We are proposing residential uses along with private on-site recreation. There is one point of ingress/egress from Carman Drive, which is being -- currently being improved. There is also an enhanced 20-foot Type C buffer. We worked with staff on this. They felt that having the same roadway buffer that Sapphire Cove developed to our north to have consistency along that roadway would be important, so we did agree to a 20-foot-wide Type C plantings along with a 6- to 10-foot wall. We are seeking a deviation to do up to 10 feet with that wall just for compatibility with the Swamp Buggy races to our east. We do have residential layout surrounded -- surrounding those private on-site roadways. In terms of the intended housing type, it is -- we're looking at more of a townhome form of housing, and we are limiting the building height to two stories, 35 feet along our shared boundary with Sapphire Cove. You can see from the aerial that we do abut preserve. We are going to install our required what would be a Type B buffer along that property line. But in addition to that we're going to limit building height to two stories to ensure that we're compatible with that lower density to our north but also understanding that we are adjacent to some very high density and intensity senior housing on other sides of the property. And with that, I'll turn it over to David to talk about our revised proposal. MR. TORRES: Yes, David Torres with the applicant, Carman Drive 15, LLC. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wanted to discuss some of what the Chairman was bringing up just earlier, and the commitment that we made before, the county's response to it, and how we see us moving from hereon. So part of what I'd like to do is, if everybody's patient, is try to quantify what the proposals mean. I always struggle when we have these conversations. They're very subjective. We're just throwing out numbers without truly understanding, hey, this is -- this is -- this is how it translates to the pro forma to the project. So where we stand right now is we've submitted an application. We've said that we're willing to do 20 percent of the units in the 80 to 120 percent category. That restriction will remain for 30 years, and it, in essence, would be -- Rich used the term "rent controlled," but it is -- the maximum rents would continue to be restricted during that 30-year period based on these tables that get issued by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which are tied to wage -- the wages or median income. The county has come back and said, we believe you need to do better. And my understanding is that I don't believe that the density is really what bothers them. And, you know, I'll let them speak to that. I think they're comfortable that this is an appropriate density for the area, but it's more than -- maybe you don't deserve that density for the proposal that you've put on the table. So with that, the county's proposal is to do 20 percent of the units in the 50 to 80 percent 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 12 of 49 and an additional 10 percent of the units at 80 to 100. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is it fair in all of this -- you know, I guess, is the reality that when we say 50 to 80 or 80 to 20 [sic], we really mean 50 to 80 is 79.9 and the 80/20 [sic] is 119.9? And I'm not trying to be cute. I'm just saying, like, that would be a logical thing to assume that that's sort of what happens because of market forces, the pressure, and -- the pressure, you know, to have profit. And so I guess all I'm saying is, is that, do you feel the pressure to be at the upper end of either of those ranges, or am I kind of making an assumption that's way off base? MR. TORRES: No. Your assumption is correct on the rent side. I had conversation with Mr. LaRow, and, you know, compliance in their department just to understand how these are going to be monitored in the long term, and the expectation is that you would have people, say, within 50 to 80 percent but that you're using the 80 percent rent. I don't know if you've seen what this table looks like. You know, so your understanding is correct, on the rent side you're on the upper -- you know, on that line item of the table, you know, but when you're monitoring the people for income, they can be anywhere below 80 at that point in time, so... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So as a percentage of monthly income for those charts that we saw earlier, you know, if you're at the starting salary, for instance -- not that that has to be the -- you know, I'm certainly not suggesting -- I think it's worth exploring. If you are at the starting salary, what's the monthly income at those starting salaries that you had mentioned, Mr. Chairman? I would just be curious to know, what would that turn out to be? And then on this -- whether it's 80 percent or 120 percent, what would that look like if we compared the monthly income to the monthly rent? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do have some numbers on that from AHAC. And if you don't mind, we'll answer the question, but may I postpone the answer to that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we'll let them continue the presentation. MR. TORRES: Yeah. If you don't mind, let me finish. It will take me another 10 minutes or so, five or 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. TORRES: So as I mentioned before, if the goal is to value what these commitments mean, we first start with saying, okay, what does a new apartment complex charge? Okay. And I picked -- these are the last five that have been built in town. Is there apartments that are cheaper than these, yes, there are apartments that are cheaper than these, but I picked these because these have the most recent costs. And this is important because things have just gone up tremendously throughout the years. We completed the Milano Lakes project in 2018. That project we were all in at $180,000 a unit. Any project that is in planning right now is expecting to be in the mid $300,000 per unit as an apartment complex. So just based on the increase in land, the increase in construction cost, just in the last 12 to 18 months we're seeing 35 percent increases in construction costs. So we have to be conscious about that, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: David, just to clarify, that's your cost when you said 300,000. MR. TORRES: Yeah, this is our cost. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your cost, not a selling cost. MR. TORRES: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is your cost to develop, construct, and provide the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 13 of 49 product? MR. TORRES: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make sure that's clear. MR. TORRES: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TORRES: So these rental rates are running, you know, on average, 2,879 and 3,894 for a two- and a three-bedroom. And I used the two- and the three-bedroom purposely because our project is planning, like, a townhome design that is going to be two and three bedrooms. So we would then take those numbers and compare them to the rent limits. This is the maximum -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry, Mr. Torres. Would you repeat what you just said about the bedrooms and the numbers you're using. MR. TORRES: So in this case, you will see my table only has two-bedroom numbers and three-bedroom numbers. There's no number for one-bedroom here, and the reason why is because our project is designed as a townhome design. So I'm not going to have one-bedrooms in it, you know. So it won't be part of the offering, you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So did I hear you -- maybe I misheard. Did you make a comment about what rent limit would be for a three-bedroom and four-bedroom at 120 percent? MR. TORRES: Yeah. We're going there now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. TORRES: So in this slide, you see the average rate that we saw on the prior slide, 2,879, 3,894, that's what the market is charging, right? That's what these five apartment complexes are charging. And then we have three sections below here at 120 percent, at 100 percent, and at 80 percent. These numbers come from the table that we are supposed to be using of the maximum amount that we can charge people. At 120 percent, that's $2,547 for a two-bedroom and $2,943 for a three-bedroom. You know, at 100 percent, it's $2,122.50. And to clarify, on 100 percent, the table does not actually have a 100 percent section, so this is an average of the 80 and the 120, and Mr. LaRow can clarify that that's the way -- how we're going to be monitoring -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But your commitment would enable you to rent all 22 at 100 percent or 119.9, as Commissioner Klucik said? MR. TORRES: Your understanding is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. TORRES: The current application would say I could rent at 2,547 and 2,943. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. TORRES: Right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that is at 120 percent. It's not at a blended average of 100 or anything else. That's what the number's showing up. MR. TORRES: That is correct, and that is my understanding after having confirmed it with how compliance is going to be reviewing these projects. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're apples to apples, then, because you're using the same chart that I'm using, so thank you. MR. TORRES: Perfect. So same thing at 100 percent and 80 percent. So then what you see below those numbers is the reduction from the market rate. So how much is the developer giving up from market rate by having this restriction? So if I have to rent a two-bedroom for $2,547, I am giving up $332.60, and so on. And it gets -- at the highest amount, if I have to rent a three-bedroom at the maximum 80 percent limit, which is $1,961, I'm giving up $1,933 a month. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, 7-, $8,000 a year on average if you took the median 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 14 of 49 of 641. MR. TORRES: So we're good up to there. So then from there we say, okay, let's value the proposals, the proposal I put on the table and the proposal that the county put on the table. So my proposal is 20 percent of the units, the original proposal, which is 42 units at an average reduction of 641.80, that's the average between two- and three-bedrooms times 12 months. So what I put on the table means I give up $323,000 and change every year in rent because of the reduction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you also get five times the density. MR. TORRES: I hear you. Okay. The county's proposal is 42 units in the 50 to 80 percent, which is an average reduction of $1,557. It comes to 784,000 and change, plus an additional 10 percent of the units, which is 21 units, with an average reduction of 1,100 or so for an additional 277,000. So the county's come back and said, you need to give up over a million dollars rent a year, okay. So this is where we are. I proposed 323,000. The county's come back with a million. So it is our position that their plan is not feasible, and I'd like to explain why. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I ask a question? MR. TORRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik and then Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So I realize I could figure this out if I went and looked at it again, so -- but right now those 42 units are additional units? What's the -- how many units could you have right now without the increased density? Just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thirty-eight, I think. MR. TORRES: Thirty-eight or so; two and a half an acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then how many -- so the total units that you could have under the existing density is 38? MR. TORRES: Thirty-eight, correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then the total units that you would get under the proposal that you're asking for is how many? MR. TORRES: 212. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So you have a chance -- you know, 212 minus 42 is what, 170. And the current is how many, 38? MR. TORRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So then you have 132 huge chances for gigantic profit. You know what I'm saying? So, like, I get it. This is a great comparison. This helps us understand the two proposals, but you also have this gigantic -- MR. TORRES: Yeah. We're going to get there. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- money, money, money and that's a factor, too. And I suggest that you -- you know, that your discussion addresses that. MR. TORRES: No, and that's why we're here. I mean, we're not saying we don't need to give anything away, so... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's not just this raw, well, you're asking us to give up a million dollars in rent. There's -- you know, you're also asking for a chance to make a lot of money, and I'd like to hear how much extra money will you make. What's the opportunity -- MR. TORRES: Well, it is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Don't interrupt me, please. What's the opportunity to make more money under these two proposals? Because there's an opportunity to make more money under your proposal, and there's an opportunity to make more money under the county's, you know, suggested requirement, recommendation. Please don't interrupt me. And so I just 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 15 of 49 want to know -- you know, you're getting something for this regardless. In either section, in either situation there's a nice opportunity, and that's why we do it. We -- the whole idea of doing this is to incentivize because we want -- my whole approach, we want -- I want you to make more money. I want you to have a great opportunity to make money and do something that benefits the community. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to ask your indulgence. Please let David finish the slides, because we've anticipated that question -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Great. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- so if you can just let us finish the presentation. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You have a good lawyer, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. TORRES: I do want to address your comment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm very pro-development, and I want nothing more than you to have this opportunity. MR. TORRES: But in a sense we just need to decide how we want land to be developed. I can develop a project at 38 units. It will look like Sapphire Cove, and there's a resale in Sapphire Cove right now for $2 million on a 55-foot-wide lot. So if we want to see $2 million homes there, you know, it can be done. I just don't think that's what we want. I don't think that's what the county needs, but, anyway, I'll keep going. So we were -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There's an inherent benefit in building something -- I mean, just building a lot more units that are lower price regardless of whether they're low income. There's a market demand for that that relieves pressure on the housing. MR. TORRES: In addition, additional supply of rental apartments, whether they're restricted or not, is a benefit to the overall market pricing, so... Okay. So with that, I'm going move on to this next slide. We've just discussed what these proposals are valued at. And this slide shows you what our estimates are of what this apartment complex would make net in a year. So we do make money, so don't get me wrong. So this is -- I'm expecting, once this complex is built, it will be putting out $4.7 million a year. But to get there, we're going to spend 74,380,000. So that pro forma, if I have no restriction, if I'm able to charge market rate, I'd be making 6.4 percent return on cost, which -- you know, you guys are not in the apartment development business. It would be a healthy number right now. It would be a healthy number in the current marketplace. My application then proposes a concession of 323,000 a year. So it would bring my net income of the complex to 4,431,000, which would be at about 6 percent return, right? The county's, when I'm giving up over a million dollars, puts me at a return of 4.96. The problem with 4.96 is I can't get the project done. I can't get it financed. I can't raise capital for it. It's too much, you know. So we hear you that my proposal's too low. All I'm trying to convey is just the county's is too high. I believe I can get the project financed and built at a 5- and-a-half percent return on cost, which would put at me providing a concession, an annual concession -- this is every year, an annual concession in the $663,000 a year. That's your last column in that table. So now we can discuss what does that mean. How do we use that money, you know, that 663,000? Which is basically twice what I've, you know, put in the application originally. Okay. What would that mean? That would mean 10 percent of the units at 100 to 120, another 10 percent of the units between 80 and 100, and about 5.7 percent of the units in the 50 to 80 percent. So it would make our commitment a total of 25 percent. It brings the brackets down, and it gets the project built, which I think -- like I said originally, even if they were unrestricted, I mean, we need additional supply of rental apartments out there. So I -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 16 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I was just going to say that I appreciate this, and especially explaining the logic. And, obviously, you were already planning to give me the information that I was insisting that I have. So I kind of get ahead of myself sometimes. Mr. Yovanovich knows that. MR. TORRES: No problem. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But I'm also always fair. MR. TORRES: Yeah, thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. Great. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know that as well. MR. TORRES: Unfortunately, this has all evolved in the last day or so, so the county, unfortunately, has not been able to review this revised proposal. But once they get up here, I'm hopeful that this satisfies, you know, their concern and that they consider this a fair middle ground. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you talk about that 5.5 percent threshold for a lender. Is that your lender, or is that in general? MR. TORRES: That's in general. That's in general. So lenders are -- and that's a moving target, you know. It's not always 5 and a half. It used to be higher years ago but, you know, cap rates have gone down, and they've adjusted the amount of capital in the marketplace at any point in time. So it is a moving target as well, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm sorry. Can you go back to the previous slide. I just want to -- that one and the next one. I just wanted to see what -- Okay. And then you were on the next slide. No, but go forward, Dave. The last slide you were on. Okay. So this one is basically the 21 units; what do they represent? Because I lost track. MR. TORRES: So there's three brackets in the revised proposal: 21 of them between 100 and 120 -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. MR. TORRES: -- 21 of them between 80 and 100, and 12 between 50 and 80. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do want to get into the discussions about operating costs as well. Now, of course, they have no bearing on rezoning. There's no criteria in our rezoning applications that talk about financing, cost of doing business, rate of return. None of that is really within our criteria for evaluating zoning. But from an operational standpoint, if you build a product that you can't raise enough revenue to either maintain, sustain, or keep it a viable or desirable place to live, then my point is, I don't want the product in Collier County. MR. TORRES: Yeah, absolutely. At some point in time, I can't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I don't want something that's going to be built and then it's not sustainable, maintainable, and you don't have an operating revenue, and it becomes -- it becomes dilapidated and deteriorates from a standpoint. So those are my concerns as well. I realize from a financing standpoint, your threshold as 5.5 is basically to secure revenue and to move forward with the project. That's pretty much your target, and that's what the banking industry is basically -- or the financiers are basically telling you. MR. TORRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But from an operational standpoint, is that still true, your annual income -- you're looking at annual income, paying staff, paying all the other type of operating costs, you still have to have the rent to meet requirements, annual maintenance, painting, all the other kind of things that are associated with operating a rental product. MR. TORRES: Yes. At that level, it will still be run as if it had no restricted units. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 17 of 49 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. TORRES: But I do recognize the risk. You know, the more you, you know, restrict revenue, you're right, an owner could decide to run it differently operationally, and then that wouldn't be fair to the neighbors. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's the point. The reason affordable housing has such a bad connotation is because of the perception it's going to be run down and it's going to become less desirable and detract and degrade the surrounding neighborhoods, and our job is to make sure that doesn't happen. I mean, your job, of course, as the owner and operator, is to make sure that doesn't happen as well, so... MR. TORRES: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But all that said, it's -- like I said, those issues really aren't part of the zoning process, but they are part of our decision process and kind of -- that's kind of where we're at. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TORRES: I don't have any more. If anybody has any questions, or I'll give it to Rich to close our presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone have a further -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like a copy of the presentation if you can email that to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further for Mr. Torres? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Kind of picking up where David left off. The Board had a workshop a few months ago now about the need and importance of this being a -- basically a joint venture to bring more affordable units to Collier County. It's not just the burden on the property owner. We were asked to bring proposals that would lead to more income-restricted units coming to the market. We've done that, but you have to also factor in the market risk that David faces. He doesn't know where construction costs are going to go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till he's done with his conclusion, because I have a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we have that risk, and we've brought forth a proposal that we think is fair, could be financed, will actually result in a Class A apartment complex with, as revised, another 12 units, I think was the slide, that was not in our previous proposal with income brackets that were not all at the 120. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, did you want to be heard now? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I've gone in turn. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would also say, as you heard from Alexis, I know what the Growth Management Plan says regarding density in this area. I think that's an outdated concept and an outdated policy and puts us in a position to be portrayed at an -- I think an unfair increase request in density. If we were -- right across the street, four units per acre as a base, and as an infill you get three units per acre. So right across the street, I start with seven. I don't start with two-and-a-half. Because I'm on the other side of the street, I start out at two and a half, so now I'm being portrayed as a five-time increase in density. When I'm across the street, I'm not even a double. We'll round up. We'll call it a double, but I'm not five times. And I'm not that far off of what your current table 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 18 of 49 would allow me to do without a Growth Management Plan amendment if I were across the street. Now, if you look at how that has been developed along Collier Boulevard -- and some of us have been here -- I didn't get here in '89. I got here in '90. Some of us have seen how it's changed. And it was a great policy in 1989. 2022, I think it's an unnecessary restriction in density and how we look at things. So I think it's fair to us to look at this as a typical urban parcel of property with a typical urban density. It's only a 212-unit project. You've seen other projects that have come in with 400 units and get a 30 percent income restriction. They have far more units, Mr. Klucik, as you were pointing out, to spread that out over. It's far different from what staff wanted and now what we're proposing. We're about halfway to staff's proposal. So he's got the risk of the market, risk of costs, but he's willing to take that risk at what he can get financed. This is one of several proposals you're going to have coming your way. Next week -- next meeting Amerisite, similar concept. I've got several -- several other projects that are in the review process right now that are asking for density bonuses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Since you brought up Amerisite, you're not providing for any affordable housing in that, are you, or has that changed? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's changed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what I'm saying is if you impose requirements that can't get financed, you're going to end up with, you know, lower-density projects. The developer will do okay, you won't have more rental to help either stabilize or possibly reduce the rental rates for the market rates, and you'll have no income-restricted rental housing coming forward. What I think's been missed in this whole discussion is the benefit of that teacher moving in and knowing that his or her rent is not going to go up unless the adjusted median income goes up and that table shifts, because we're all aware over the last year or two -- my assistant who rents got a letter saying, congratulations, you get to pay me another $500 a month. She's fortunate because I've known others who get, congratulations, you get to pay me another thousand dollars a month. But that teacher, that firefighter, and the sheriff's deputy is not going to get that letter. They're going to have security in what they're paying that they will not get that letter and try to find another place or, guess what, maybe leave Collier County because they can't afford to live here anymore. I've had conversations on projects with the Sheriff's Office, Collier County Public Schools, hospitals, Chamber of Commerce. This is a big issue, and there's a lot of support for the projects that are coming forward. But you have to put us in a position where a developer's willing to take the risk. Hopefully what we've shown you is where we've got to be to get the project financed, show you what the impact is for the project, and hopefully have, with this proposal, justified the additional units that we're requesting. We hope you'll recommend approval for what we're proposing. I don't think there's planning issues related to this. I think this really was about how many units that will be income restricted for the extra units. And with that, this furthers two policies in your Growth Management Plan: Affordable units as well as the utilization of TDRs. Both of those are important concepts in the Growth Management Plan and, with that, we hope you will recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD and the EAC approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The 20 percent threshold, you're at 20 percent? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're at 25.5 percent now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 25.5. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 19 of 49 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We're at this. This is what David is proposing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 25.7, isn't it? MR. YOVANOVICH: 25.7, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And staff is still at 30 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Staff was at 30 percent. And in fairness to staff, we haven't talked to them because we got a staff report on Thursday. We've been reacting to it and we've been -- you know, I've raised issues with Mike about costs and how this is all going to work, and I have not shared with him this slide, but I've shared with him the concepts of we're in an un -- the proposal is not workable from a business standpoint. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I just ask the question. Are you saying that there was more units that would bring that 54 up higher, which makes the 25.5 percent go up to 30? Is that what you were talking about? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were at 42 units. Staff was at 63 units. This counter is at 54. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff is asking for 30 percent to be affordable. MR. YOVANOVICH: They were asking for 63 of the units to be income restricted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That 30 percent comes from -- is that a policy decision, or is that a recommendation, or what -- what is the reason -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to hear -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd rather have Mike answer that than me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll hear from staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I -- okay. Because that's a question of staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a staff question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd just like to know why 30 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to have to ask Mr. Bosi that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a fair question, and I'm sure that it will be appropriately asked of staff. Anything else, Mr. Klucik or Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to just finish. From a standpoint of density -- and I've had this discussion with two commissioners previously. The affordable housing issue, to be developed in this county, to develop affordable housing, the only answer, quite honestly, with the cost of land, cost of construction, cost of operating and maintaining, the only way to meet the requirements is through density. You've got to have high-density product just like they do in other urban centers. You can pretty much classify Collier County as pretty much an urban center now, 300,000, 280-, whatever we are, probably above that. MR. BOSI: Four hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Four hundred thousand. But you've got to have density. When I'm talking density, 15, 16, 20 units an acre in order to make a product -- to develop a product that can be marketed as affordable housing at the rent threshold. So -- and I've heard the comment five times the density, but density is the key to solving affordable housing. That is it. And if we don't provide a high-density product, a developer -- what you've presented, a developer cannot meet the requirement, even at 20 or now 25 percent. So that's your -- basically your bottom-line position? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can make the project be financeable at what we're proposing. We can't make it financeable at what Collier County staff is proposing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or you walk and then just develop another -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be a 38-unit, nice single-family community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Single-family dwelling unit. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you get more of the same, and you get no more rental units, and you get no more income-restricted units. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 20 of 49 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, did you have more, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. All right. So when -- you know, in this concept you have a couple hundred apartments and you have these set asides, whatever number it is, 54 we'll say in this case, is that -- is Unit 138B, is that, you know, always going to have the same designation, or is that a sliding designator? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have to prove to the county staff through the review process that there are 54 units either rented to people who qualify in these categories or vacant to be rented for people in that category, because -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The only reason I ask the question is because I'm thinking your friend that you mentioned who gets the little notice, and then if all of a sudden, you know, the landlord designated a different property -- you took the designator away, you know, so you have someone in there. And maybe there's some other provision that doesn't allow that. If you actually -- you know, if the same tenant stays in there and we have that income, they can prove that you can't change it to a non-income-restricted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, once you're in, my understanding is if your income increases, the county's not going to force us to evict somebody. So there could be that teacher that eventually gets above the income threshold. My understanding is they get to stay. I don't think you have to worry about an apartment operator saying to you, guess what, I want you to go, but I'm going to replace you with Rich who makes the same amount of money. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you're the safe bet. We want you to stay as long as possible and not have to go find another person. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And another question: Are these -- you know, is the idea that these 54 units would be somehow sequestered from the other units, or would they be absolutely integrated? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're integrated. It's a requirement that they be integrated. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then I guess I just wanted to say that I always kind of tickle the elephant in the room instead of, you know, letting the elephant just sit there. And, again, though, generally, my reason behind that is I would rather everybody have talked about the elephant. And I kind of like what I see in this proposal and your movement, you know, to try to accommodate some of the concerns. And so what I see on the screen, you know, I tend to think that's something I would vote for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I guess the question I have -- I'm very much worried about the percentage of AMI that you're servicing. I appreciate the effort of the revised proposal. I still think it's a lot to give up. Would you guys entertain switching in this table here your first 21 for the 12 and putting the 21 in the top line down on the bottom third bullet? MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we figure out the math to where it's equal. I mean, we've got to stay at the 5.5 percent, Mr. Shea. So it may mean that -- and I don't know. Would you be willing to do -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Three goes into 54. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know how to divide that, but I don't -- I have -- basically, to get his rate of return, you need to shift, and that would be a greater reduction and bring it below the 5.5 percent. So what I'm saying is, we're happy to -- we may do less than 54 by bringing some of the units from the 80 to 120 to a lower category. I don't know the number. I'd have to do the math. But, you know, we'd have to -- it has to be equal is what I'm trying to say from the loss of revenue. Does that make sense, Mr. Shea? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 21 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, I understand what you're saying. I just think there might be a little more room in there for negotiation. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, it's -- David's been here a long, long time. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: There's a lot of assumptions that go into it, good and bad, that go your way and some that don't go your way. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you know, and who knows? 2008 and 2009 seems to be a distant memory for a lot of people. It isn't for me. Who knows? And who takes the risk? David does. Nobody up there. Nobody at the county. I don't. So you have to -- he has to -- you have to be willing to take the risk. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. We'll now hear from staff. Ms. Mosca. MS. MOSCA: Good morning. Michele Mosca with the Zoning -- Planning and Zoning Division. So most of what I was going to present today has already been discussed. What I'd like to do is really kind of focus in on those income ranges. I think that's what's important to staff. Rich and I had a discussion about the density. Let's say you're in a coastal urban, let's say, activity center. So what is the typical density in an activity center? Sixteen dwelling units per acre. If you have a density band around that within one mile of the activity center, you get an additional three units; it brings you up to seven. So how do we get from seven to 13 point whatever or 14? Well, let's say you did the affordable housing provision that's within the Land Development Code. You would be looking at 20 percent to 30 percent of those units being in that low bracket. So I understand that there are challenges with using that LDC table. I've heard that from several developers, but you still end up at that low 50 to 80 percent, so -- just so we address if this is an activity center within another area of the county. Thanks, Michael. So I won't go through all of this. We all know that in order to have a plan amendment, you have to have your data and analysis requirements. The market study that was provided for the apartment complex was reasonable, so we'll just move on. Again, 38 DUs per acre. So what does it look like in the surrounding area? Alexis touched on all of this. Really, when you see the increases in densities, those have all been done with a Growth Management Plan amendment. So there's no question there. A lot of the PUDs that are along that corridor are well below or at 2.5 or below 2.2 -- sorry, two dwelling units per acre. I didn't realize that was going to do that, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Michele -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- these numbers and the numbers that were in the staff report, both the Comp Plan amendment staff report and the rezoning, these are a little bit different numbers than what Alexis showed because of the recent -- recent approvals, do these reflect the recent approvals? MS. MOSCA: It does. Well, the First Assembly Ministries, you'll see it on the map. So right now it's at 4.28 dwelling units per acre. They're proposing a density of 10 dwelling units per 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 22 of 49 acre. So you see that right on the screen. Further south of Better Way, the approval for Hammock Park, you're at 13.85, and surrounding it, you're generally below 2 or you're at 2.5 with, for example, the Lords Way PUD 30. Now, what I'd like you to do, though, is look at these properties in here. These are all vacant agricultural properties right within this area. They're outside of the activity center. So what do these become? And that's something I'm sure you'll see proposals moving forward. So the maximum for those properties -- they're agricultural properties -- are limited to a maximum of 2.5 DUs per acre with Transfer of Development Rights credits, and same thing with here, or they can come in for an ALF or something similar in the agricultural zoning district. I just wanted to point those out. So you likely, with this approval -- I know each petition stands alone, but the developer expectation then will be looking at these particular units and bumping those up in density, just for your awareness. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I mean, the 16, is that -- what is that one? It just popped up on the screen below those ag units. Sixteen density. MS. MOSCA: Oh, I'm sorry. So that's the Amerisite PUD that you'll hear on June 2nd. And right now, as it's submitted to staff, is a market rate product for rental units at 16 dwelling units per acre. So TDRs have not been provided. They're not providing that nor have they offered up any type of affordable housing. But what I'm hearing today is Rich is saying that there's some sort of proposal on the table that staff will learn about. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I guess all I would say is, it seems like those two-and-a-half -- those five -- four ag parcels seem like they would be, you know, something, that -- I mean, is there a reason other than the fact that they're currently at that zoning, they seem like they would be the perfect candidates, you know, for an increased density just based on, you know, the area that they're in. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I guess all of this is -- you know, the area is filling in, and it's filling in, you know, in ways you never can predict, and it seems as though even if we -- you know, in my view, even if we weren't giving -- even if we weren't getting the affordable housing, by nature of the product, you would -- you know, if you were just going to do a market-rate apartment building on some of this stuff, you'd want -- we would want, as a policy -- on a policy basis, we might want to say, yeah, I want to approve that because it takes stress off of the housing market. And so the fact that we're also -- you know, I mean, to me it's kind of one of those things where I think we can extract these concessions, you know, from the developers, but I also think, you know, we're getting so much out of it even if -- even if we were just going to give them that without getting anything back. The fact that they're doing something that provides relief to the housing market is a factor as well that I think we have to consider. MS. MOSCA: And I agree. The proposal that they've provided is getting closer to where we want to be. So let me just continue. I just want to address a couple more items. So we already talked about that, what are they getting. So they're at 38 dwelling units that they could build now. So we're looking at an additional 174; 170 at market rate. So that's based on the existing proposal, obviously. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Michele, I'm going to interrupt. The Hacienda Lakes -- go back to that other slide, the Hacienda Lakes sports park and the Junior Deputy tract, aren't those all now identified for future development as part of Hacienda Lakes, or am I mistaken? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 23 of 49 MS. MOSCA: They're all within Hacienda Lakes, as far as I know, and David could probably address that. I don't think there's any sort of future development on that at this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought -- MS. MOSCA: I mean, it is becoming -- you know, with the Swamp Buggy attraction, what is that -- what do we have, events, I don't know, a handful of times -- MR. TORRES: Three. MS. MOSCA: Three times per year. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: So the Sapphire Cove, they've been able to live comfortably next to them, is what I hear from a couple of the residents. But looking at the subject site, we probably could look at increasing that density, what that number is. Is that seven? Should it have some sort of transition from the activity centers similar to another activity center within the urban area transitioning east to Hacienda Lakes, so that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then when we get further east, we're into the rural fringe. MS. MOSCA: Correct, sending and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sending and receiving lands. MS. MOSCA: Sure, yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And so this -- the data and analysis, Russ did a great job. I think that it was inconclusive in terms of the employment categories. You know, Russ and I continued to talk, and then we had the petition moving forward to public hearings. So there's sort of a disconnect, I should say. Maybe it's not a disconnect. But, for example, some of the -- let's look at food preparation. So what Russ included -- which, you know, he had the best available data. What he included were chefs and head cooks and managers to derive a mean salary when there's other standard classifications also listed in there which aren't included in that mean salary, which would be your line cooks or your food preparation servers. So then that goes back to, well, you know, what do we do when we look at, you know, what's appropriate for those income categories. So staff, of course, is going to look at the HUD income and rent limits. So what -- again, this is the existing proposal that the applicant provided at the 120 percent. So, typically, when we see that 81 to 120, we're usually getting 120 percent; that's what typically end up with the rent. So you can see those further to the right, the rent limit. So those would be one-, two- and three-bedroom. And now I understand maybe there's going to be a commitment from the developer to do a townhome. In the submittal now, it can be a multifamily, et cetera. So then as part of our evaluation, we looked at the county's housing model, and the county's housing model identified a demand for low, very low, and extremely low in the rental categories. Five hundred plus units annually are needed. So then what do we look at? So we're looking at the low at 80 percent, looking at those units, and then I also researched a number of apartments. You saw this in your staff report. And, again, that's just a snapshot in time. I know these rents fluctuate and they have ranges, but what it appeared to me, just doing the research and doing the evaluation, is that a lot of these rents are in the market-rate rental category, so there's a little bit of concern there. So that's why you ended up with your staff recommendation of denial. I think we can move towards what the applicant is proposing. What I would suggest is maybe the applicant look again at their numbers and maybe get, you know, 5 percent below that -- you know, into that 80 and below range. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair at this point and call for the mid-morning recess, and during that time I would like to speak with Ms. Mosca and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 24 of 49 Mr. Bosi. So we stand in recess for 10 minutes until 10:33. (A brief recess was had from 10:23 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.) MR. BELLOWS: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's reconvene. Ms. Mosca, please continue -- MS. MOSCA: Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. So during the break staff worked with the applicant, and we've gotten closer to where we want to be as a staff in addressing the affordability needs for the community. So now what we're looking at is 24 dwelling units at 100 percent and below for the area median income for a 30-year commitment and then 24 dwelling units at 80 percent and below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Say that again. MS. MOSCA: Yes, sir. So 24 dwelling units at 100 percent of the AMI or below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Or below. MS. MOSCA: And then 24 dwelling units at 80 percent and below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Bosi, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So now it's 48 units, then, right? It's 48? MR. BOSI: And that comes to about -- that's 23 percent of the units would have an income restriction associated with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And so that would -- that's 48 units. MR. BOSI: Forty-eight units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And there would be nothing at the 120? MR. BOSI: Nothing at the 120. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, gotcha. Everything 100 or less, right. Okay. MR. BOSI: And the only thing I wanted to do is provide a little bit of an explanation of where staff has arrived upon that 30 percent number. What you see on the table is the current -- that's 2.06.03 from the Land Development Code. It's your current affordable housing density bonus number. If they were -- if they are not seeking a Growth Management Plan amendment and were utilizing the affordable housing density bonus to get 11 units, they would have to hit the very low at -- and 50 percent of the units would have to be associated with it. If they were going into the low, that would be 70 percent. If they were at the moderate, the 80 to 120, that would be 90 percent of those units. We've recognized that these numbers don't work for the marketplace. That's why it hasn't been exercised, and that's why you're going to hear later on GMP amendments that are proposing housing initiatives that are outside of this table that are an alternative to this table. We haven't gotten there yet with those GMP amendments. So the market has recognized that, and Mr. Yovanovich has represented various clients, and other petitioners have sought to increase density through the density bonus, and we recognize there's two avenues that you have to be able to exercise to address the affordable housing issue. You've got your income restricted, but you also have your market rate. And there's a supply and demand imbalance that currently exists. That's why the pricing power sits within the apartment complexes or the landlords is there's more demand than there is supply. So as we add unrestricted units from a multifamily perspective, we know that addresses this issue in a way. It is a benefit. But we also know there's a benefit when we have the income restriction because it targets individual specific income levels for our essential service personnel. So as we -- as we were developing what our proposals -- or what our reactions should be to these GMP amendments, we arrived upon 20 percent in the past couple years. After the Board of County Commissioners meeting where they had their discussion on the affordable housing and the crisis and the recognition and the agreement from all five of the Board 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 25 of 49 of County Commissioners and the urgency that they said and the request for partnerships and asking the development community to be on board with it, we've had meetings with the County Manager's Office, and they said, let's be a little bit more aggressive. So we arrived upon 30 percent. That's what -- we countered their original proposal with 30. They're coming back with this revision. I, from a professional planning standpoint, appreciate it because it got us much closer towards where we wanted to go. With the -- with the abandonment of the dedication at the 120 to increasing the units available to the up to 100 and up to 80 to 24 and 24, we feel that there's a public benefit that's going to be provided. Obviously, the applicant feels that their pro forma can still meet these -- the stress test of these subsidized units, and staff can support a revised proposal at those income levels. But I just want to give you a little bit of history of where we're at, how we got to these levels. And it's not a specific policy. What -- our policy in our GMP is provide incentivization to provide for affordable housing. That's additional units to be able to offset the income restrictions that are associated. So that's a big umbrella. We've developed this 30 percent through conversations with the County Manager's operation, and we appreciate the effort of Mr. Torres and Rich and Alexis in working on the fly, and we think that this proposal is something that -- we know staff can support it. Have had conversations with -- Mr. LaRow and the Housing team can support it as well. So we are -- we're ready to amend our recommendation that's contained within the staff report based upon all the changes that we've discussed as part of this -- the hearings today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I appreciate that, Mr. Bosi. And before I call on the other commissioners, I want to echo your positive comments. Well, no, first of all I want to thank staff for being able to react so quickly, because that shows that you are steeped in this material. You know it like on the back of your hand, and you're able to respond so very quickly, and we greatly appreciate that. And we also appreciate the spirit that the applicant and his team have brought to the table of being willing to talk these things through and see if we can find an accommodation. I don't think anyone -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone up here believes that 2.5 dwelling units per acre is the right maximum. I think we all realize it's too low, and we agree with the way Commissioner Schmitt said it, that if you're going to get affordable housing, you've got to have more density. And so I think that general concept is a given. It's just a question of striking a fair balance, and that's where people, I think, can perhaps disagree. But I think where we are at this point is -- it certainly shows some considerable progress and good efforts on the part of everyone concerned. Ms. Mosca, do you have more to say? MS. MOSCA: I don't. I'm just waiting for a vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Oh, we do. First of all, Commissioner Schmitt and then Commissioner Klucik. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, Mike, the 30 percent was not a policy. It was more of a -- kind of stress goal -- MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that -- to push applicants to come in with that. Okay. So that clarifies, because I was trying to -- I was trying to -- because to just throw 30 percent out without understanding the finances and dynamics behind it, as Mr. Torres points out, I think is important when you come up with a goal like that because it -- you've got to have a product that's going to be supported financially and a product that will be a success, not become an eyesore in the community. And that's -- so I'm -- but I understand -- so you're falling off that based on, now, the analysis and the adjustments made by the applicant now? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 26 of 49 MR. BOSI: Correct. And what we were -- and when we were discussing with the County Manager's Office organization, it was -- we were at 20 percent, and they were 80 to 120 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: So it's basically 120. We asked for 30 to be more aggressive, but if we can target income levels below that 120, as they're suggesting, all of a sudden that 30's not as necessary because we do know that we're going to be getting real value in terms of being able to provide housing for an additional 48 of the workforce that makes this community what this community is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. What you said, then, is the counterproposal that was the last item on the screen for the applicant before we switched to the county presentation, that proposal with the 25.5 percent and the 21, 21, 12, that's the one that you could support? MR. BOSI: No. The proposal is a hybrid of that. It is basically zero units are going to be allocated to the 120 percent, 24 units are going to be allocated to the 100 percent, and 24 units will be allocated to the 80 percent. Because they increased the targeting to the 100 and then to 80 -- to the lower, we agree that it -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- that that proposal is what we can support. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Mosca, anything further? MS. MOSCA: No. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Paul. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? Oh, he's not -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I took your advice. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Again, I want to thank you all. I think -- I support what the compromise is. And for me, it's getting down to that below 80, getting more numbers down there, because that's an area that we're just not -- everything that's coming before us seems to be this 80 to 100 percent, but we don't seem to be attacking the lower level, so I like that movement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, where are we now with the final proposal? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think we're going to have to hear from the applicant pretty soon, but before we get finished with staff, I want to be sure that all questions have been answered, and then we'll have the applicant come back up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One last question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Michele, based on the urban boundary, is there initiative to relook at that whole thing that was dated back from '89? MS. MOSCA: I'll have to defer to Michael. MR. BOSI: One of the things I would say is that, yes, in 1989 they established the Urban Residential Fringe -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- but in 2003 we adopted the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. We recognized what the Urban Residential Fringe was, and we made no -- there was no decision amongst staff or the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners to make any adjustment to those levels. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 27 of 49 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we made no adjustment -- no thought of adjusting those densities? MR. BOSI: There was recognition of how that worked, but there was no -- there was no -- there was no initiative to say, okay, let's look at the eastern portion of that activity center, and does the 2.5 still make sense? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it may become overcome by events because of all the Comp Plan amendments that seem to be coming in along this 951 corridor right now. MR. BOSI: I don't disagree. And I think that at the end of the day what we will have is this activity center acting as the other activity centers as almost the full quadrants having the type of densities that are associated with that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. BOSI: And I don't think that's a bad thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I see a former employee sitting way back in the back of the room back there, and I wanted to see if he nodded his head. Mr. Weeks. He trained me on all this. MR. BOSI: I think he trained us all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further, Commissioner? Commissioner Schmitt, anything further? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Mosca, just one comment, and this is -- this goes to procedure only. But I observed when I listened to the NIM transcript that only one person identified on the microphone, and that was Ms. Crespo. She identified herself at the beginning. No one did that, and that I find to be most unacceptable. Most of the people there should know better. I'm not suggesting that it affect this action on the merits, but I'm going to call it out, and I'm going to call it out every time it happens, because it really deprives us of really important information. So please, please, please everybody who's involved in those NIMs be sure that members of the public identify themselves, be sure that county and applicant representatives identify themselves each time they speak. I don't think that's asking too much. All right. Anything further for -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I think -- I would ask -- staff has a staff person there. It's not a staff-run meeting, but I think we just need to make sure that staff make sure that the applicant follows that guidance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Nothing further from the county. Let's hear from the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any public speakers that you might want to hear from? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, do you want to wait? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think let's just see what the public -- so I could just talk once. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I was going to give you a chance to rebut after the public if you wanted. I wanted to hear what your view is on this proposal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we reached the proposal together at the break, so the 24 and 24 is acceptable to us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can, since the topic is lodged right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I actually made a math error earlier. If we were in a typical activity center where we are right now, we would have had four units base, three units for a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 28 of 49 residential density band, and three units for residential infill, so we would have had 10 units. And if you looked at the table, to get the additional units we wanted of three, we would have done a 10 percent commitment at the 80 percent and below. So I believe what we're proposing is far better for the county under that analysis. So I think the 24 and 24, staff did a great job. I think we were -- also did our fair share as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I commend you, and I commend staff for reaching that. I find it to be a very acceptable solution. Unless we hear something from the public to change my mind, I'm pretty far along here. Mr. Youngblood, do we have any public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I don't have registered public speakers for Items 2 or 3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone in the room who hasn't registered wish to be heard on this matter, now would be the time. Seeing none, we will -- do you want to rebut at this point? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nothing to rebut. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just move to approve with the amendment of the 24 and 24 as stated to be approved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's in order. And would that be also for the EAC side and the PUD? So it's three matters we're joining. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And it's been seconded. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wanted to see the area where we're changing the language. That's what I'm looking for right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think that's a point well taken. I mean, this is going to require I won't say considerable redrafting, but some redrafting, and we do have an opportunity to take another look at this after it's been redrafted focusing exclusively on the results of the redrafting effort by hearing it again on consent, and we haven't done that in a long time, and maybe this would be an appropriate time to do it. What is the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have another item to discuss. I mean, by the time we're finished with that, would they -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, that's what I was going to suggest -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I show you how easy it really will be? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did you anticipate this? MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't make the change, but I'm just saying this paragraph -- it's that paragraph right there, C, in the subdistrict language, which is similar to the PUD. It is simply just changing a couple of numbers. Instead of percentages, to say the number of units at the 100 percent and below and the number of units at the 80 percent and below. I think -- I'm sure staff and County Attorney and I can work through this to where we don't need to come back for the consent. But it's similar language in the PUD, but that's the real revision. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could we postpone our vote until after we hear another matter, and then they actually can put it in writing for us? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 29 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think this is in writing. Let's -- but let's see what other -- well, first of all, County Attorney, are you -- do you feel the need that this be brought back on consent? It seems like it's pretty straightforward with the language that Mr. Yovanovich offered. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't feel the need, no. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any planning commissioners feel otherwise? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the limit is at -- instead of 81 to 120, it's 80 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be -- this language is going to say 24 units at 100 percent and below and 24 units at 80 percent and below, instead of percentages. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's pretty straightforward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hard numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's pretty straightforward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's moved and seconded that that is what we're going to do. There are three matters before us: The GMP, the PUD, and the EAC. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I think we're moving smartly on time. ***And that takes us to the fourth and final matter coming before us for hearing today, which is PL20210000660. It is the staff-initiated affordable housing initiatives Large-Scale Growth Management Plan amendment, which means, of course, we'll hear it twice, and the Board of County Commissioners will also hear it twice. The matter is purely legislative in nature, so we don't need swearing in or ex parte disclosures. And with that, staff may have the floor. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I just want to give a little bit of a context of an introduction to the amendments that you're going to be hearing today. These are the last of the initiatives that were identified by the 2017/2018 ULI Collier housing analysis. There was a number of different things that were recommended to the Board of County Commissioners. Out of the those, they -- they went through the list. They called them what they wanted to support and what they, you know, couldn't support, and then they took troths of what they felt they could support and directed the staff to provide for those amendments or modifications as whatever the case may be. These are the last of the four, so these will put a -- kind of a final touch upon the impact that that 2017 housing assessment from the ULI provided for us, and I think at the end of the day we can say it was a benefit that that did take place because we did -- and at the time that that was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, it was stated from the ULI participants that you're not at a crisis now, but there may be one coming. And we find ourselves in '21/'22 where I think that was very prophetic in the sense that we do find ourselves in a situation towards where 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 30 of 49 housing is becoming an issue, a critical issue, not only to the individuals who need that housing, but to the individuals who employ those individuals who live within those housing. So it's not just a one -- it's not just one demographic or it's just one population that this affects. This affects everyone within this community whether you can have individuals, you know, provide the services that your households need, whether you can find adequate staff within your favorite restaurant, within the areas in which -- you know, you do your business, you have your services provided for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik has a question or comment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. My question really is -- and I couldn't -- you know, I should know this, and I didn't bring it up in our discussion, you know, when we had our staff meeting together -- how would this impact or would it impact, the things that we're looking at today, the RLSA or, because it has its own overlay, none of it affects the RLSA? MR. BOSI: The proposals that you're having here today do not affect the RLSA because it has its own overlay. The majority -- these -- the majority of these are restricted to your urbanized area, your Immokalee urbanized area or your coastal urbanized area. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And how about -- would it impact Golden Gate Estates at all? MR. BOSI: The majority of Golden Gate Estates would not be affected except for Golden Gate City which is a separate sub-element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And with that, I think we have some words from Mr. LaRow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Chair recognizes Mr. LaRow. MR. LaROW: Good morning, Commissioners, Jacob LaRow, your Housing, Grant Development, and Operations manager with CHS, Community and Human Services. And, you know, I need training on this. How do I get this up on the screen? MR. BOSI: I got you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just mention your name and title, sir. MR. LaROW: Oh, Jacob LaRow, Housing, Grant Development, and Operations Manager with Community and Human Services. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. LaROW: So as Mike just alluded to, there's been some significant history with the county discussing affordable housing, and so I just have a number of slides, about four slides, compressing about six years of activity into four slides. So just full disclosure, I'm not doing complete justice with all the discussions, all the meetings that have occurred over the last number of years leading up to today. But I believe I'm pulling kind of the highlights out of that as it respects -- respects to the density kind of discussion we're having. And then once I get done with the history, then I'll be turning it over to Michele Mosca with Comprehensive Planning as the experts in planning. So those of you that maybe have read the ULI advisory panel report that was compiled at the beginning of 2017, they really kind of pinpoint the workshop that the Board of County Commissioners had in March of 2015. That's where they started. Obviously, affordable housing programs and policies have been in place much longer than that, but at least to pick a starting point, this is where I'm starting. So the two reasons there that were identified for the purpose of this workshop was just kind of taking stock of what happened in the housing crises in the mid 2000s, what proactive steps the county might take and to, you know, mitigate similar effects down the road. And then, of course, you're seeing update housing element of the Growth Management Plan, basically, improving the model in terms of how we evaluate our need in our community. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 31 of 49 So the number of incentivizes that were listed on that -- or discussed at that workshop, I pulled up two, Incentive C and K, because those, again, largely, speak to density as a tool to help support the development of affordable housing. And you can see here -- I won't read these verbatim but -- again, in the next slide I'll go into the next workshop, which occurred about a year later, where these themes were built on and further elaborated and analyzed as a tool. So fast forwarding a year, this workshop, again, with the Board of County Commissioners was held jointly with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. I believe, Commissioner Schmitt, you might have been serving on AHAC at that time, and now we have Commissioner Shea. So this is something you'll have an opportunity to participate in in the next coming year, because this now is an annual report that we have to compile. Previous to 2020, I believe this is a triennial report. So this is something that we're taking -- because of the market demands and how quickly things shift, we're reevaluating our incentives more frequently in order to better react to market demand and those types of issues. So this joint presentation through the AHAC and Community and Human Services division really expanded on the number of topics that were discussed at the previous workshop. And, again, keeping with the theme, just highlighting some of the myriad of items that were discussed focusing, again, on type of density. The previous workshop looked at the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program. This one was looking at that program and possibly expanding those types of flexibilities allowed under the program elsewhere. So it was at the conclusion of this workshop that the Board directed staff, really, to start the planning process that culminated in the invitation to the Urban Land Institute and, ultimately, the adoption of the Community Housing Plan. So those familiar with -- that might have watched or participated in the February 22nd board meeting of this year where we had about four hours of discussion on the topic of affordable housing, this slide -- the next two slides might look familiar to you. This really is just capturing key dates in terms of the progression of all the incentives, all the different opportunities that were presented to the Board through the development of stakeholder groups that worked, met several times through the course of the year 2017 to identify and incorporate viewpoints from industries such as banking, developers, local government, healthcare, essential service personnel employers, to really kind of get a community broad range of input in terms of what type of incentives/programs that may be entertained by Collier County to help with the development of affordable housing. So October of 2017, the second bullet point from the end, that meeting in October, I think it was October 25th, is where the Board approved the Community Housing Plan and made incremental recommendations to staff kind of breaking off pieces of all those initiatives or all those items that were identified in the plan in working through those to evaluate those. And so, finally, here's just kind of a summary of those items that were listed in the plan. Again, this is a slide that Community and Human Services went over at that February board meeting. Kind of broke these -- color coded these out in terms of what the Board had acted on or didn't act on or what was in process. So you can see the, I'm going to say, light brown near the bottom are those four remaining incentives, as Mr. Bosi had alluded, that are kind of the end cap to all the adopted recommendations to at least evaluate made under the Community Housing Plan. So just backing up for a second, in October of 2018, the Board -- Community and Human Services and my predecessor, Cormac Giblin, brought an item to the Board that basically sought Board direction to look at and implementing the last number of incentives that you see before you here. Then October of 2019, I believe, the county engaged with Johnson Engineering to begin developing and ushering those proposed amendments through the planning process. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 32 of 49 So, ultimately, what you see here that Michele will cover was a partnership between Johnson Engineering, Community and Human Services staff, and then the applicable staff from the Growth Management Department just kind of, again, tying everything up here in culmination before you today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: On that slide, I noticed what was probably just a typo, but you've got seven-member BCC, and I think you mean five-member. MR. LaROW: Yeah. That was -- they were -- one of the recommendations from the ULI was to consider expanding the Board of County Commissioners. I think two at-large members is one of the recommendations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. LaROW: So the theory was to try to obtain a -- I want to be delicate here with the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To avoid the in-fight of where all the housing was located. MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. LaROW: Right. So you can have an at-large member that had a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll say it. MR. LaROW: Yes -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well -- MR. LaROW: -- community-wide viewpoint, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- thank you for educating me. MR. LaROW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That will go nowhere. MR. LaROW: And I think -- Michele, was this the first slide of your next -- of your presentation? MS. MOSCA: Is that one of yours, Michael? MR. LaROW: Oh, oh, yeah, or I can dive into this. In fact, I was actually kind of hoping I'd get called on the last item because the development, the finance, that's kind of where my -- where I cut my teeth in terms of affordable housing. So to the extent that I don't re-litigate that, if you will, I'll just clarify here. So the top number, extremely low, very low, low, and moderate, those are all -- those are all income and rent ranges that are determined by HUD. Actually, technically, 30, 50, and 80 are determined by HUD. The moderate and gap are then supplemented through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. They take HUD's numbers, adopt their methodology, and then put those in those income ranges. And so for the discussion over the last week or so, I was speaking with Mike and Michele and thought it might be beneficial for a visual to adopt the same methodology and determine 90, 110, and 100 -- excuse me, 90, 100, and 110 income and rent limits because the 80 to 120 is such a large span. So this just helps you kind of visualize what those income and rent limits would be based on and using HUD's methodology. And with that, I think I'm done, and if anybody has any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. LaRow. MR. LaROW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Mosca, welcome back. MS. MOSCA: For the record, again, Michele Mosca with the Planning and Zoning Division. So the proposed housing initiatives really try to expand the affordable housing inventory in 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 33 of 49 the Immokalee area -- so I just put that map up. I know everybody knows where the Immokalee area is -- the Golden Gate City area, and then the Coastal Urban area. Now, there's going to be a lot of information on these slides. I know you all had an opportunity to review the extensive staff report as well as the resolution for transmittal of these amendments. So with these amendments, we're really setting the framework for moving forward with the Land Development Code amendments which you'll see a certain degree of specificity probably between -- I think it's going to be at time of adoption or between transmittal and adoption. So as we move forward with these amendments, keep in mind that you'll have greater detail when you see the Land Development Code amendments as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're going to touch on them, though, with the material that you supplied to us yesterday, right? MS. MOSCA: If you'd like, sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I absolutely would, yeah. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. So the first initiative is the commercial mixed-use-by-right subdistrict. This allows mixed-use development without a rezoning. The first change that we have in that second table, this builds on an existing provision that we have in our Future Land Use Element. It affects all C-1 through C-3 properties within the Urban Residential District and the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. And with these amendments, you can achieve up to 12 dwelling units per acre in a mixed development. So in addition to your existing C-1 and C-3, this would also include your Planned Unit Developments that also are approved for C-1 through C-3 development. The second -- I'm sorry. Where am I? Okay. Yes. The second table -- I meant the first table previously. Sorry about that. So the second table, the provision also expands mixed-use residential development to C-4 and C-5 uses. So this, again, would be for those properties -- and most of you are familiar with this -- those properties that have been deemed consistent by policy. So those properties that don't meet the local criteria of the FLUE, you can see some of the properties along the East Trail. You have some of them on the North Trail as well in red. So these particular properties would be allowed to develop at that mixed -- at that mixed use. Some of the conditions include that no more than 75 percent of the project could be residential and that the height in the C-4 zoning district would be capped at 50 feet. The height now in the C-4 zoning district is 75 feet. And, again, you'll see in the LDC in the Land Development Code amendments, you'll see some of the development standards, the buffer requirements, setback requirements, and so forth. We don't have those for you yet. Okay. The next is the conversion of commercial by right subdistrict. So all commercial properties that are consistent by policy in the Future Land Use Element may convert to residential without a rezoning. So the last one we saw was a mixed-use development, and this one is a residential only without a rezoning. The conditions include limiting the density to 16 dwelling units per acre. It requires a public facilities test. Height in the C-4 properties are, again, capped at 50 feet, and all dwelling units must be affordable. So I should have mentioned this in the previous one, that all units must be affordable as well. So these, by right, all units are affordable. Some of the excluded areas include the East Trail. Currently we are undergoing a zoning overlay. We have a development plan in place, the East Naples Community Development Plan. So within that boundary of the East Naples Community Development Plan, again, which includes U.S. 41, but it also includes Rattlesnake Hammock and parts of Collier Boulevard. Then the other exception would be in Golden Gate City. This downtown district already has a development plan or an overlay in place. It would include the activity center here in Golden Gate City. The next initiative is strategic opportunity sites. And I know you probably saw -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before you leave, can I -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 34 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wanted to ask a question on the "by right." And that's an explosive term, quite honestly, because, again, you're denying the public to provide any input. So that's clearly a policy decision of our -- you know, we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, but it is pretty -- a pretty significant change. And I'm not arguing that, but the other issue is, as you propose these, the two issues, commercial conversion and 100 percent affordable, have you talked to any developer as to the viability of moving forward with any -- this type of proposal? Does it seem like someone could actually take this and produce a product at a cost? Does this maintain and operate and provide a product to do? And I guess from that standpoint, would the Courthouse Shadows fall into something like this where they -- we converted the shopping center to -- it would not? Well, that's on 41, okay. Go ahead, Dave. MR. BOSI: And that's within an activity center. Mike Bosi, Zoning director. When this initiative started off, there was a meeting at Habitat between Johnson Engineering and the development community to talk about these four initiatives and what the components were going to be. I was a member of Johnson Engineering's team participating within that meeting. This was one of the ones where our traditional builders here would not participate, because it's 100 percent affordable. If you're going to eliminate the opportunity for the public hearing, we said it has to have some tremendous community benefit; therefore, the requirement that all units had to be provided as affordable, we recognized, then, your only -- the builders who are going to be able to satisfy the financing of that are the ones who provide for affordable housing who are very steeped in the federal tax credits, the grants, the subsidation [sic] that is required. Those aren't our traditional builders. So this is one where this is outside of where the market-rate builders would participate in. And we understand that limits the numbers, but it was inspired, like I said, by the housing plan. It says eliminate NIMBY-ism and try to streamline the process to administrative. And that's why we -- that's why we restricted it to having to have all units be affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, by right, of course, we avoid the whole public-hearing process, 8, 9, 10, 11, maybe 12 months accelerated because you're not going through the NIMs and the various gates that you have to go through for the rezoning. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My concern is, it sounds great, and we're going to pound our chests and say, oh, boy, we really did this by right, but then it sits and nobody ever uses it because it just -- it's not something that could meet financing and all, as we heard in the previous petition, that somebody would actually take this initiative and move forward. So I mean, I agree with it but, again, is it really something that somebody's going to take advantage of? MR. BOSI: I would -- I could point to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it's 100 percent. MR. BOSI: Yeah, it's 100 percent. Every Habitat project's 100 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: So what Habitat can do -- Habitat, who has been very successful in terms of putting projects forward within this community, now has the ability to identify a commercial property that's consistent by policy that they can plan that there's not going to have a requirement for the uncertainty of the public hearings and the cost that's associated with the public hearings. So that helps subsidize the project a little bit. And I understand there's other national providers that do specialize and provide for affordable housing all at unit [sic] and aren't utilizing market rates to subsidize it but are using 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 35 of 49 other federal and state funds to do so. So, yeah, at the end of the day, it could be like our affordable housing density bonus. It's not utilized anymore. It's on the books. This is one where I think Habitat is one of the ones we identified that could benefit tremendously from this in specific locations, and we would be getting units all that are dedicated to the income level. So we thought it was worth the effort for the potential that that could yield. Even if it's one project, it's still an improvement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's a conversion to residential? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Straight zoning? MR. BOSI: Yeah. Straight zoning. To be eligible for that straight zoning, you have to do your public impact analysis, meaning you would have to compare the proposed residential development, their impacts upon Public Utilities and the Transportation System, compared against one of the uses that are allowed for within that commercial category, and if the public impacts are less than what the commercial would have imposed, we say, well, then, this is less than what already exists; therefore, that justifies why it's an administrative process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But just for clarity, then, I mean, if we get into deviations, we get into setback deviations or other types of things, then we're right back into a PUD. MR. BOSI: If they were seeking a deviation and weren't going to develop per the codes that were required by the Land Development Code, they could not take the administrative route. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I cap onto that? Because I -- like with Commissioner Schmitt, when I read the -- when I see the language of "right" and "vested rights," alarms go off with me. And I had this conversation with staff on Tuesday. I'm still not completely comfortable with it, although I understand that it averts the NIMBY-ism stuff, which is going to be important. But it's creating a vested right that's going to be with us forever. We can't take it away, which means that the obligation is upon us to try to identify and foresee all different ways where this could be used or abused and, as Commissioner Saunders frequently says, you know, lawyers can be tricky people, and he's one, and he can say it, and I'm one, so I can say it, too. And it's true. But the burden is on us to identify everything, because we're relinquishing not only the public's ability to weigh in on this, but also ours. Now, you mentioned -- you mentioned public -- public benefit. No, that wasn't -- what was your term? Public justification. MR. BOSI: Public benefit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But -- so that's -- is that a measurement or an exercise that staff will undertake? And what if you don't find adequate public benefit? MR. BOSI: The public benefit is already defined. The pubic benefit is where there's an imbalance between the supply of affordable housing and the need for affordable housing. If you have a project that is going to be converted from commercial to residential that is all dedicated to income-restricted levels, you are providing a public benefit because you're providing a need. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I thought you mentioned a public benefit study of some kind. MR. BOSI: Oh, public facility analysis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public facility analysis. So that's going to call upon someone to make a judgment; am I correct? MR. BOSI: They're strictly numerical. It's not judgment. It's not the area that we deal with in Zoning in terms of the gray area, which is opinions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, but these consultants who come before us are going to have to be engaged, and they're going to prepare a study, and staff is going to vet it. That's as far as it's going to go. MR. BOSI: The staff from Utilities Department and staff from Transportation Planning will provide the analysis. Is this a reduction from what is currently allowed by the -- by the zoning 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 36 of 49 in terms of the impact upon the system? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I, like I think everybody else up here, am a firm believer in affordable housing or what I prefer to call workforce housing, and I want to do everything that I can in the role that I play to advance that. But are we sure that there might not potentially -- I'm sorry. County Attorney, please. MR. KLATZKOW: You can put a sunset clause in it. In other words, if you're not sure this is a good idea and you're concerned that this is going to be forever and ever and ever, you can put -- pick a number, 10 years, see whether or not we get the applications for this, and at that point in time, a future Board of County Commissioners, a future Planning Commission could elect whether or not to continue it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good idea. Thank you. Just to finish my thought, the concern that I have has to do with one of the variables that we weigh in the balance each time a project comes before us, and that falls under the heading of the word "compatibility." And, obviously, NIMBY-ism comes in. People say it's incompatible with what we've got, and so that can evoke knee-jerk responses as well. But I can imagine -- and as much of proponent as I am of workforce housing, I can still imagine a potential situation where a particular project really is truly not going to be compatible with the neighboring properties, and that there should be some level of public vetting on that. And maybe the County Attorney's suggestion is a good way of dealing with that. We put something in place and see how it works. I've got Commissioner Shea and Commissioner Schmitt wanting to speak. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mine's a simple question. Define affordable housing. How are you going to define it? I mean, we get into that discussion all the time. And my understanding is 120 percent or down. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's going to be in the PUD stuff, and that's why I'm asking her to -- MR. BOSI: The specifics of what -- to implement this policy will be contained in the Land Development Code amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I meant. MR. BOSI: That will be brought to the Planning Commission as part of the adoption hearing. So you won't -- you're not going to be able to -- we're not -- to be able to -- or we're not going to ask you to approve finally, to adopt a GMP amendment that you don't get to see the specifics of how it's spelled out within the land development, and it will have the income levels that are required to be satisfied. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that was the very reason that I asked Ms. Mosca and staff to send out the information that came yesterday showing how far along they are with the LDC amendments because, obviously, there must be specifics, because "affordable" is just a generic term, and they don't have that in mind any more than we have it in mind. There will be meat put on those bones. And before she's finished with her presentation, I'm going to ask Ms. Mosca to tell us how far they are along without making any commitments, because it's all subject to change. But at least so that when we vote on this we know the general direction that staff is going to be taking with respect to such things as defining affordable housing and what we mean. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. My question was going to be the implementation criteria comes to us in an LDC amendment. And of the four, this is probably the most significant and most dynamic, probably the most, from a standpoint, change in our philosophy here, because 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 37 of 49 of by right. My concern, will the LDC amendments deal with all the kind of things associated with the conversion, setbacks, landscape criteria, density, all the other types of things? Because those are the impacts. I mean, I could look at different areas of commercial from both -- the standpoint, looking at Comp Planning or Zoning. But to do it by right, I've got to have all the other factors to evaluate whether it can be suitable or not. MR. BOSI: The development standards that are contained within the -- whatever the commercial category that is being converted to residential will need to be maintained by the project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That could be problematic. MS. MOSCA: Well, in addition to that, we have greater setbacks as well. MR. BOSI: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Staff was a little concerned about the various heights. That's why we capped the height in C-4 because, potentially, C-4 you could have 75 feet adjacent to one-story or two-story residential, and that was a concern that staff discussed at length. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did this map -- did you say that that represents areas that potentially would fall into this category? MS. MOSCA: Well, on this map -- this doesn't represent everything, but on this map it was supposed to be representative of the consistent by policy. Now, those aren't those activity centers. These are properties, for example -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: -- along the East Trail -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MS. MOSCA: -- although this portion is excluded. But let's say around the Naples Park area, so there's C-3, C-4 properties within there. I think there may be a couple within Golden Gate City as well. So this is representative of those existing commercial, consistent-by-policy properties. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. Well, I would agree with what -- from a standpoint what Jeff recommended, a sunset clause, but I think there also should be some kind of an addition to that as part of the affordable housing briefing to the Board of County Commissioners. Maybe at a five-year threshold they come back and brief the county commissioners as to whether this program was ever even thought of or utilized or a standpoint where they evaluate whether there needs to be tweaking to -- because I'd love to see somebody try and do it. That's -- I mean, there's properties that certainly beg to be converted from commercial to residential, and if it's by right, you avoid all the other process, and it would be interesting to see if somebody actually came in to do it and what kind of hurdles they would have to go through. So I would just propose that as well, as some kind of a report back at a five-year window if we do a 10-year sunset clause. MS. MOSCA: I just want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Yep. I just want to -- on this same conversion of commercial subdistrict, if you look to the bottom, it identifies the total number of parcels that may be able to participate. It also has the acreage and the potential max dwelling units. So David worked on all of the properties that perhaps would be eligible for all of these various initiatives. So the strategic opportunity site, this is only applicable to the urban coastal area. Some of the conditions include the project must be 10 acres in size or more. The project must have a qualified target industry as defined by Florida Statutes. Those are your headquarters type facilities. They must have direct principal access to an arterial roadway. The minimum density is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 38 of 49 10 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density is 25 dwelling units per acre. So this particular initiative, not subject to the density rating system. The base density would be four dwelling units per acre. And also there would be an allowance for support commercial uses as C-1 through C-3 intensity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But this would come in as a PUD? MS. MOSCA: Yes, yes. And so just to touch on -- so I can either do it at the end or as I go through. So, Mr. Chairman, you had asked about the provisions for affordability. So, again, this allows for a base of four dwelling units per acre, up to 10 dwelling units minimum, to 25 dwelling units max. Twenty percent of the units have to be at low and very low. And so we're still working through those numbers, but I'll sort of address them as we move through these initiatives. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think -- good. And, conceptually, we want -- and I think we need very little incentives the higher up you go against AMI and greater incentives, and they should be scaled in order to incent people to put -- because we've seen the charts. I think, what, annually 148 new units are needed at the 120 percent of AMI, and, like, 1,500, roughly, units are needed at the three lowest levels. And so that's -- you know, that's really where the need is. And I -- on Tuesday I was uncomfortable about passing on this as a GMPA without also seeing the LDCA, but the way I satisfied myself in our meeting was is that to receive a briefing from you as to how far along you are in reaching the general objective that I just expressed. MS. MOSCA: So the next initiative is the Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict, and the goal is to increase affordable housing inventory as well as the CAT area ridership. So the market rate density begins at 13 dwelling units per acre. That's without any affordable units. You can achieve up to 12 additional dwelling units per acre for the affordable housing bonus. So the maximum is 25 dwelling units per acre. These are for multifamily projects only. Fifty percent of all units must be within a quarter mile of the transit stop or future transit stop. Excluded areas would be the Urban Residential Fringe, and we talked about that this morning with the project. As you know, the density there is 1.5 with a maximum of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, and also excluded would be the Urban Coastal Fringe, and that's within the Coastal High Hazard Area just south of U.S. 41 where the density is lower as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the cap is a creature of Collier County. It's under Collier County's -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- absolute control, so the county can establish where it wants to put stops, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes. And right now you can see all the stops that are on the map. There's a tremendous number of them. If you look at the bottom table, the total number of parcels that potentially could participate are around 60. So -- and then the acreage and so forth. So there are a limited number of parcels that could participate. So let me talk about the affordability side. So this is broken down into rent and ownership. So two-thirds of all the units in excess of the 13 base units must be low and/or very low. So that would be 13 to 25. That would equal 12 dwelling units per acre. Two-thirds of that would be eight dwelling units per acre, so that would be the affordability. This -- hopefully I explained that. So the sold would be two-thirds of the first nine dwelling units per acre. So the 13 plus 9 would give you 22. There would be six dwelling units per acre at the low and very low. And then two -- this is still for the ownership. So two-thirds of the final three, getting you from the 22 dwelling units to 25, that two dwelling units per acre could be at any price point within that affordability chart. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As a practical matter, is it really possible to construct 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 39 of 49 single-family dwelling units -- or I should -- well, I should say owned units for low and very low? MS. MOSCA: Well, this is for a multifamily project, but Habitat does -- they, in fact, do the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Habitat does single-family, don't they? MS. MOSCA: Yeah. Did you ask about single-family or multifamily? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, really both. The low and very low, I assume, we pretty much had to put ourselves into rental-only category. But argue with me on that. MR. BOSI: You could have an arrangement where you have a structure that has all the characteristics of a multifamily rental that is -- that is condominiumized, so they could be ownership opportunities that would be dedicated to the income level that we're discussing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And those numbers work? MR. BOSI: Do those numbers work? I guess we will -- I mean, we didn't have any negative comments from the development industry that participated with us as we developed the initiatives. Ultimately, if we adopt, I guess we will see if the numbers will work by the participation or lack of participation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there any chance that Habitat is willing to get into the multifamily business? MR. HARNEY: Sir, I'm from Habitat. I can speak to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up. Please identify yourself, and then you have the floor. MR. HARNEY: I'm John Harney. I live in North Naples. I am the lead advocate for Habitat, so I can answer these questions. I'm also a member of the AHAC, and I will be speaking later. We're building multifamily units right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. HARNEY: Whitaker Woods is six units per acre. We're building those by right. We're also projecting a condo development -- these are all townhouses we're building today. We also are projecting condo development which would be a two-unit -- rather, two-floor condo development called Songbird that's already on the books for our design. We expect we could build those as sold units, purchased units in conjunction on the same property as these rental units. We think they'd fit in well. It would work within our pricing model. We are doing that. We can do that. We project doing more of that. Within the urban area we don't expect to build any more single-family houses unless it's a very special circumstance like with CRA money supporting it, that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Harney. Appreciate it. Anybody have any questions for him? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MS. MOSCA: Okay. And then the final initiative is the Mixed-Use Activity Center Interchange/Activity Center Subdistrict. So there are 19 activity centers throughout the county. They're roughly spaced no more than two miles apart. You can see them on this map. Most activity centers would allow an increase in density from 16 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre with the affordable housing. The bonus structure will need to be adjusted for the Urban Residential Fringe area and the Urban Coastal Fringe area due to their base densities. Again, Urban Coastal Fringe, roughly 4, and then the Urban Residential Fringe, 2.5 maximum. So this, again, has had a rental and by-owner for-owner bonus, and this is very similar to the last where it has the two-thirds bonus density for low and very low, and it's broken into, you 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 40 of 49 know, your first nine dwelling units and then your second six, or with the sold, two-thirds of the first six and so forth. So it's very similar to the last discussion. And then in the bottom, we have roughly 104 properties that were identified as potential properties that could utilize this provision. So this is just a recap of the total number of parcels within each of those initiatives, and the total acreage, maximum DUs for each, and then the DUs that increase over the existing GMP. So what that means is if you are allowed 16 now and then you can go up to 25, that shows you what that difference would be. It doesn't tell you how many individuals, how many properties would be participating in the affordable housing program. And then lastly, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Mosca. No one is signaling. Does anyone up here have any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm just -- I'm concerned about the "by right." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And also when you are evaluating, you're focusing on providing affordable housing but not taking into consideration losing the commercial. I mean, you don't know that you're not going to need it. I mean, the population's going -- eventually we'll be using the commercial as commercial to keep traffic off the road. MS. MOSCA: The activity center -- oh, I'm sorry. I was going to say the activity centers is where we want to direct commercial to. These are the properties that are consistent by policy. So these are the properties that we looked at years ago that weren't consistent with the plan, and so these are the properties that we had anticipated moving to another use besides commercial. MR. BOSI: And I could add a little bit more to that as well. The activity centers is where we have an abundance of commercial. Where we want to try to promote is what the design of those activity centers were is higher density residential to provide a compliment of housing choice for the area. As you know, and I think as I think most people in this room who pay attention to trends understand that brick and mortar retail is most certainly something that is continuing to evolve and shift. And the amount of square footage of commercial that can be supported by an area is continuing to be influenced by the opportunities for Internet, commerce, delivery, and the majority of major retailers are not building brick and mortars anymore. So what we're seeing is within our activity centers a shifting of the highest and best use. And these -- the programs that we're proposing is recognizing that the amount of square footage from a commercial standpoint that we can support is continuing to evolve and change, and they provide us the greatest opportunity to really have significant increases within the supply of affordable housing. A great example is at our activity centers. You can add a 20- to 25-unit residential component to an activity center. Good example would be Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. If one of those -- if one of those shopping centers replaced one of their strip portions or a big box with a 450-unit multifamily development, it would be a reduction in the amount of traffic that that activity center would be projected to develop, and the impact of that residential inclusion would be absorbed by that activity center without a negative impression upon any of the traveling public. I could speak to that specifically, and it's not an activity center, but the southwest corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway, Orchid Run Apartments came in. It's about 15 units per acre. I take that route into work every day, off of the interstate, down Golden Gate Parkway, making a left onto Livingston, going past those apartments. When those apartments opened up, I noticed not one difference within the way that that intersection functioned. The increase of 15 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 41 of 49 units per acre on the surface sounds like, wow, that's going to have a serious effect upon how you experience the traffic within the local area. But when you exchange that -- a high-attraction property such as a commercial, which attracts a lot more trips than residentials generate, and it actually results in a net positive increase within. So we understand that having neighborhood goods and services is critical towards what we're trying to do from a transportation standpoint. You know, people complain about traffic congestion. So what we're trying to do is add commercial opportunities that shorten those lengths, but the amount of commercial that this community can support that the market is demanding is continuing to change. And what these initiatives are trying to do is take advantage of that -- of that fact, but also the recognition of having a mix of uses in closer proximity helps our transportation, helps the transportation road system without expanding any of the lanes but by having a better land-use arrangement and how those land uses interact with each other and satisfy the needs of each of those land uses. So we understand those concerns. And we -- I would agree that any one of these initiatives where you feel that you're uncertain how much of an impact it's going to have, have a review period. Ask the staff to say in three years, in five years report back to the Board of County Commissioners. If there's an end sunset, that report could be provided prior to that sunsetting date to give the Board -- inform the Board, inform the Planning Commission how well this initiative worked or how well -- or how poorly it has worked, and that could influence the ultimate -- whether they feel that it's something to move forward. And also, that we will have the Land Development Code amendments with the -- with the GMP amendments at adoption. So we're not going to be asking you to adopt -- take final action on these proposals without seeing the specificity that's going to be contained within the Land Development Code. And staff is supportive of that review period and having a -- you know, having an expiration date, so to speak, sometime after that so that we can give the Board another opportunity and the Planning Commission another opportunity to say, all right, did these initiatives meet their marks, or do they need improvements, or should we abandon them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have a couple -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I still have one. I still have some concern. I mean, if we're going to have a sunset of five years or something, that's, you know, acceptable, I think, to me. But still, if people are buying things on the Internet, you need warehousing next to the interstate. So you wouldn't want to give up a commercial area there. MS. MOSCA: And, Commissioner, this is all voluntary. So if someone wants to utilize their property for a multifamily project, they can. If they want to retain their commercial, they can do that as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that decision will be based on highest and best use which doesn't necessarily mirror benefit to the county. They're not necessarily the same thing. I have a couple of questions. Under the findings and conclusions on the staff report, Page 9 of 10, which is Page 682 of the packet, the first bullet point it says, it is difficult to determine the impacts upon public infrastructure. And the second bullet point it says, it is difficult to determine the impacts of these amendments upon environmental resources and cultural resources resulting from these amendments. Is this a good idea for us to be considering it now without having made at least some kind of a preliminary judgment about impact? MS. MOSCA: Well, this is going to be a case by case. As these properties come in, we'll evaluate the impact. No different than when we have a rezone petition that comes in, we evaluate that impact during the PUD process, et cetera. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it's going to be as of right. MS. MOSCA: Well, as of right you have -- is that the public facility test? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 42 of 49 MR. BOSI: As of right, you still have to satisfy the concurrency management system, and you still have to satisfy all the environmental regulations that we have on the books related to development. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I would just say to this point -- I was looking at the same thing previously. And it seems as though the reason that they can't predict the impact is because it's, you know, such varying locations. So it's not really saying we have no idea what impact. It's saying, like -- as with any other petition that might come before us or application that might come before us, you have to do the specific analysis for that site. And I don't think it actually -- I think what I'm hearing staff say is that any existing requirements as far as environment, for instance, would have to be complied with. So just because you could do whatever it says, this new zoning is going to allow, you know, some increased density or whatever, you still have to meet whatever the environmental concern is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if those are -- if those automatically attach such that we're guaranteed that the infrastructure -- well, of course, it's going to be at the cost to the taxpayer. If the infrastructure's insufficient to accommodate the new uses, the taxpayer's going to have to make up the difference without a public hearing because it would happen as of right. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: The only one that doesn't require a rezone is the conversion by right, and the only way that it can go forward by right is if it has a reduced impact compared to the existing allowance. So the only one that does not require a public hearing is the one that has to establish that it has a reduced public facilities impact than what the -- than what's currently allowed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can you point me to the language that says that? Can someone show me? I missed it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is it safe to say that the staff anticipated this exact concern, and you had the concern yourselves? MR. BOSI: We always are concerned about impacts to infrastructure, and no matter -- no matter what is done at the rezoning stage, where the impact analysis is truly applied is at our concurrency management system, and every development order -- or every SDP or every plat is reviewed against that concurrency management system to ensure that there is adequate capacity within the required fields. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That does explain it. I think I am coming down with where the Vice Chair is on sunset and following the suggestion of the County Attorney, although I believe five years is more appropriate than 10 years to have a further restudy, and maybe another one after 10 years, just so that we're sure we haven't overlooked something that those sneaky attorneys like me can find a way to circumvent. Commissioner Klucik, did you have any more, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I would recommend, since we are the land planning authority both in designing -- or approving the implementation language as well, I would propose that at the five-year interval at some meeting as part of this amendment process, that both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners get a -- what do you want to call it? -- interim review of just how many applications have come in and the implementation. The other three -- of the four, the one that's most significant, of course, is the one by right. The others we will see through a rezoning process. So I would say, at a five-year interval, an in-process 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 43 of 49 review, and part of that is a sunset provision whether we decide to continue it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can craft the language accordingly, I guess, when it comes back for adoption. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah. And we could frame it as we either would have to take a vote to stop it or we have to take a vote to continue it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We would have to make a recommendation to the Board. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And then -- and what you've done, then, is the right that anyone has is limited in time, and they all know that it may expire based on the voting that might happen, and then that incentivizes people to take advantage of it in the interim. MR. KLATZKOW: If you picked five years -- I'm just -- whatever you want to pick -- you would have five years to make application. Once you made application, you could move forward. If you want a sunset provision, it automatically terminates on that date unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MR. KLATZKOW: You could have a review process and everything else, but anybody who had an application in before the end date would be allowed to utilize that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it's -- the application is what you have to do before -- MR. KLATZKOW: The application date. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You have to ring that bell. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. Any further discussion on this? If not, I think we're ready to entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess my only question is, is that enough -- are we giving -- the people who might take advantage of this, are we giving them a big enough window, five years? You know, they have to think about it for two years and then say, yeah, we should do that, you know. By the time they get their plan together -- I just want to make sure we're not kind of dooming it to failure because the window is just too small. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good concern. I don't think it's going to be the case, though, because the process is going to be so short-circuited, shortened that we should be able to see right away whether there's interest in this, I would think. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would just ask staff if -- what they think of this sunset idea, if that -- and the five years, in particular. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Do you have concern? MR. BOSI: I guess the question that I have is the five-year interim report, is that the same five years that we have that -- and then it sunsets in five years, or is it in five years the report and then it sunsets a year later if the Board doesn't take action after that report or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think five years from the date of enactment when the Board enacts it, it would sunset, and prior to that time, four years and 10 months or whatever, staff would release its report so that the Board -- well, so that we and then the Board would be able to consider staff's report and we, in making our recommendation, would have the benefit of that. MR. KLATZKOW: And keep in mind, it's unless otherwise extended by the Board. So if we're going back and forth with the staff reports and everything else, the Board could simply increase it for another three months, six months while the process is going on. But you have to have an end date if you want to get rid of any vested rights issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Public speakers? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 44 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have public speakers? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know John's here to talk. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Harney. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I do have two public speakers. Mr. Harney is with us, and then we'll go online to Joe Trachtenberg. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Harney, go ahead, sir. MR. HARNEY: Yes. I'd like to go back to the meeting that we had about two years ago. Mike was involved with that. This was at the Habitat office, and we had the development community in there, and the idea there was what's it going to take? This was not pie in the sky. It was, if you as a developer, as a builder, are going to get involved, take an interest in building these projects, what do you have to have from the county to make that happen? So this kind of turned things on its head. It wasn't, hey, there's a need. It was, what do you want to do -- what do you have to have in order to build this profitably, which would mean that you stop building single-family houses and you build this instead. So these rules were developed with the idea that they were to be attractive to developers, and the agreement was we came up with rules that are. We feel that there will be developers who will want to step forward to participate in this process. One of the things that they really wanted was rules, and typically people don't want those, but what they wanted was something understandable and predictable which would make things happen faster. The time-is-money problem. And we don't have that today. As you know, it takes a long time to get things done. We just had a discussion this morning about something that we arrived at a good agreement on, but that doesn't always happen. Sometimes it takes years, and people eventually find out that it's just not going to work for them. If we have understandable rules, we feel that we're going to get something that people will participate in. So this was -- this was done from a different basis from the way a lot of these things happen. You mentioned a number earlier about the number of new apartment units that are needed in the county. The number we're using now with the AHAC is 2,000 per year. So there's been an increase because so many people are buying houses. Corporations are buying houses and renting them. So there are less houses to buy. And when they're renting them, they're renting them at market rate. So that has very much increased the number of affordable units that are required. There are other market influences that have affected it, but -- there was one number earlier. We were talking about market-rate apartments being indexed to the AMI. This is kind of off the side of what I have here for today, but I hope you let me do the math here for a minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. HARNEY: We had an AMI here which was about 85,000 not very long ago. Now it's almost 100,000. If you round them off, call them 95 -- or, rather, 85,000 and 100,000, $15,000 increase in AMI in a year. Now, if that were to happen again and again -- and who knows if it will or it won't -- if you take that number and you take the 30 percent that somebody's supposed to pay out of their income for housing, that's $4,500 a year. Divide that by 12, that's $375 a month more when you index off AMI for an affordable unit. Just -- I thought that was additional information that might be helpful for you, because when you start indexing off the AMI, sometimes you get results that you wouldn't have expected. The idea here, as Mike talked about, is that it's very much pitched towards very low, low, and moderate income. It is not pitched toward gap income or anything like it. This project -- these amendments are pitched to help the majority of wage earners in the county. If you look at the census statistics for people who are out there working, no matter what they're doing, they fall in the moderate-and-below income ranges. Our AMI is very skewed by all the passive 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 45 of 49 income that's out there. These buildings, as we anticipate them, are going to be mid-rise buildings. They'll be moderate; two stories, three stories. They're not going to be big units. We feel that since they are going to be located in activity areas and transit areas and that sort of thing, they're going to fit in. They aren't going to be big high-rises. You're not going to get that we're building Miami with affordable units. They will be buildings like a lot of other buildings we see in the county right now. They will not stick out like a sore thumb. There are a lot of things built in there to make these buildings look like other buildings from the street. Proper setbacks, fences in some cases, other things like that. So the -- it's a very detailed set of rules in the amendments. These are made so that they look like everything else we have out here today. We talked about CAT. We feel that there -- with the location for these units, there will be a lot more people who will ride a bike to work, they'll walk, they'll take CAT. This is going to reduce traffic impact, and we will get that negative cost for the county for roads. There have been developments in a number of other areas where they had reduced number of parking spaces required. If they are close to an urban area where people are walking to work, riding a bike to work, they don't need a car. This will allow people with lower income to be able to get into those units because they don't have to pay that almost $10,000 a year that it takes to own and operate a car. So this will help us be able to get the people at the lower ranges of income into these areas better. There's another part of this that is a recent development in the county and that we feel that many of these buildings will be tied into projects which link in with the Local Housing Trust Fund. I'm also on that subcommittee with AHAC and the Community Land Trust. And with the Community Land Trust, these buildings would be leased or, rather, these properties would be leased to the developers, and we would have 99 years of affordability locked in through that lease. So that is a really big hook on making sure that these stay affordable for a long time. And there's a very close association between AHAC and the CLT with Michael Puhala (phonetic) and we feel that many of these projects will get tied in that way as well. The AHAC fully supports everything that's in the amendments. We've been very much involved with them from the beginning, and we feel that what is in there is going to do a great thing to solve this crisis. It's not going to happen overnight; we understand that. It will take a little while for this to finish the approval process, but we do encourage the Planning Commission to approve this. I will also be appearing at the DSAC meeting. We're hoping to get the commissioners to look at this before their summer break at least on a preliminary basis, or make a special meeting during their typical summer break. We don't want to wait until October after they have finished their budget review for next year. We're trying to get things done faster. Yes, Mike. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Oh, I just want to provide a clarification. This does -- it's a full-scale amendment, so it takes a round at transmittal and adoption, so it won't be able -- MR. HARNEY: It still has to go to the state, I understand. MR. BOSI: Yes. So this is scheduled for the June 28th Board of County Commissioners hearing. MR. HARNEY: I didn't know that. MR. BOSI: Yeah. So the Board will hear it, then we'll send it off to the state. The summertime we'll get a -- we'll get feedback from the state agencies, and we're probably going to take this October/November time frame, December to the Board of County Commissioners. So before the end of the year, this will be in front of the -- the Planning Commission and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 46 of 49 will then the Board of County Commissioners for an adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Anything further, Mr. Harney? MR. HARNEY: That's all I have. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Harney? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, thank you very, very much for your service on AHAC. It's an extremely important committee, and we're honored to have you appear before us. Thank you. MR. HARNEY: Thank you. And going back again just briefly, we talked about the six units per acre that we're doing. We're in discussions with some other developers to do what we do, which would be sold housing, and mix that in with apartments. So these are some discussions that have been going on for months already. So we feel there would be a place to put all those together. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. And with that, it's my pleasure to call upon Mr. Joe Trachtenberg, who is the chairman of AHAC and who is online. Mr. Trachtenberg. MR. TRACHTENBERG: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Joe Trachtenberg, for the record. I'm chairman of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today really for two purposes. First to introduce myself and tell you how anxious AHAC is to work with the Planning Commission. We're delighted to now share a member with you. The second thing is to reiterate what John just said, that we've been through with Mike and with staff, and AHAC fully supports the proposal that's before you today. You know, one of you earlier used the term "the elephant in the room." And I think we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room is -- if you speak to most consultants, they'll tell you, we're 5,000 units behind right now. John talked about needing 2,000 a year, and the way we're proceeding in terms of adding units by getting 40 or 50 per development is nowhere near what we need to be doing. So AHAC, for the past several months, has been discussing what we need to be doing differently as a county in order to fulfill this need. We have 40,000 people who work in the county and live elsewhere commuting every day to their jobs here, many of them working for the county. We have people, as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, who are getting 500 and $1,000 a month [sic] rents, so that 40,000 number of people leaving the county is growing every day. So the approach that AHAC believes is required is going to take more than increased density as the solution. For those of you that listened to our February 22nd meeting, first we're going to need more density than 16 units and -- per acre. We're going to need an ad valorem contribution from the county. We're going to need land donations. We're going to need a revisitation of impact fee deferrals for as long as rents are controlled as opposed to some set figure and then an expectation that somehow the developer will come up with the -- with that amount of money. And we're going to need some other zoning modifications. Whether this works financially is dependent upon the county doing more than they're doing today. I think the conversation with the Carman Drive folks was fascinating. I applaud them and staff and you commissioners for coming up with a solution to that problem, but what they said is very real. Land costs are increasing, building costs are skyrocketing, interest rates are going up, and the ability to make these developments work is getting harder and harder, especially when you consider that we need all affordable projects as opposed to 10 or 20 percent of the multiunit developments that are being made. So it is going to take more creativity. The land trust is going to have to be involved, and we're going to have to work collaboratively, really, to create a new day and a new series of inducements to get developers to be willing to come in here and provide the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 47 of 49 housing that's necessary. There's a very serious concern if we don't -- the quality of life in Collier County is not going to be acceptable to the people that are living here. And certainly not acceptable to the folks in that room. So please approve this proposal on behalf of AHAC and on behalf of the 40,000 commuters every day and those that are joining their ranks. And thank you for my opportunity to introduce myself to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Very well said, Mr. Trachtenberg. Commissioner Klucik has a question or a comment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So you're suggesting that in your view it's increased density but it's also -- what else is there besides increasing density? MR. TRACHTENBERG: We're going to have to do -- we're going to have to do a number of things. First, it's going to cost money, and the county is going to have to be fronting some of this, not as a developer. The county is the last -- the last group -- any government agency is the last group that actually should be owning housing -- owning and operating housing developers -- developments. So we need developers, but we need to do things to induce them to come in here, and that means actually making a reasonable return on their investment. There are all kinds of opportunities. There are tax credit deals. There are a variety of loans, but we have to recognize the risks are growing dramatically with increased costs, increased interest rates. So, specifically, we've informed the BCC of our recommendation that impact fees go into a different kind of deferral program. Deferred for as long as the rentals are controlled, and if that means in perpetuity, then impact fees would be deferred in perpetuity. We've asked for a study of linkage. We've asked for ad valorem tax starting at $10 million a year be allocated, and we've asked for very serious focus on both the county and the school board and, additionally, the fire departments to look at surplus land and see what might be made available. We've got to do all these things, and we've got to expedite it as well. We can't take four years or five years for a project. Golden Gate Golf Course was purchased, what, in 2018 or '19, talking about maybe groundbreaking in 2023. We've got to speed this up, because the shortage is growing by the thousands. And so we do believe this is a crisis, and we believe that more people's hair should be on fire as a result of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Trachtenberg. Thank you again very much for your service on this extremely important committee. You're always welcome to come before us and share your expertise and your great thoughts, and thank you also for taking on our commissioner, Paul Shea, who is also very committed to the philosophy and the purposes being served by AHAC. Thanks to all. Anyone else have a question or comment for Chairman Trachtenberg? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, sir. And now I think it would be appropriate for us to wrap this up with a motion unless, Ms. Mosca, did you have more to say? MS. MOSCA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion to approve subject to language in the adoption hearing as to either some kind of IPR, in process review, or other type of language if we're going to put a sunsetting clause on this. I have no other amendments. So I would recommend approval based on staff's proposal subject to the comment I just made. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I offer a friendly amendment? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 48 of 49 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That it -- that we recommend a sunset of five years with a staff report leading up to that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, following the five year, I would approve, or agree with. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded as you heard. Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Mosca. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Commissioners. We go to old business. I don't believe there is any old business at this time, unless a commissioner has something to be brought up. And if not -- or staff. And if not, new business, same thing, I don't believe we have any of that. Public comment, any member of the public wish to be heard at this time on matters not on the agenda, now would be the time for that. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none and without objection, we're adjourned. ******* 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) May 19, 2022 Page 49 of 49 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:10 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 L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 05-19-22 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 1 of 38 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 2, 2022 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 Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 2 of 38 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, all. It's 9:00 a.m., and a warm welcome to the June 2, 2022, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, please call the roll, sir, starting with Ms. Lockhart, whom you just met. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Welcome. 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. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe is still on the Commission, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I do not see him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He has an excused absence. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's been here the last couple. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addendum to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. We do have an addenda to the agenda this morning. We would like to add an item to talk about upcoming night meetings for LDC amendment, and Mr. Johnson is here to discuss some possible dates with you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And as you know, Mr. Johnson, we like to -- we like to do these on the days when we're otherwise going to be here. So that, I think, is July 7, August 4, and August 18. But you have the floor, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Sure, thank you. For the record, Eric Johnson, LDC planning manager. Thank you for indulging me. We were looking at either August 4th, August 18th, or September 1st for a nighttime hearing, and we wanted to make sure that we could have a quorum for LDC amendments that require a nighttime hearing, or after 5:00 p.m. Of course, depending on the agenda itself, we could always start the CCPC meeting later in the day so that way you wouldn't have to be here for too, too long. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Being good stewards of our time. Appreciate that. Planning Commission, what is your preference on the night meeting possible dates? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Eighteenth. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else want to weigh in? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just checking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Give us a second to look at our calendars. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 3 of 38 MR. JOHNSON: Gladly. And thank you very much for doing this. COMMISSIONER FRY: August 18th will be best for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's two for August 18. That would work for me. Anybody have a problem with August 18? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I can do August 18th. Possibility of a vacation, but it's not set yet, so the August 18th works. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Klucik and Vice Chair Homiak, do you want to weigh in on that or go with the crowd? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fine with me. Go with the crowd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Klucik, is that going to work for you? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it's August 18. And depending upon what we have on the agenda, it will either start at 9:00 or later. I mean the daytime portion will either start at 9:00 or later. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Planning Commission absences; our next meeting is on July 7, 2022. Anybody know if he or she will not be able to be in attendance for that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it looks like we can expect to have a quorum. Approval of minutes; we have no minutes before us today for action. BCC report/recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On May 25th, the Board of County Commissioners approved their summary agenda the PUD amendment to Hacienda Lakes and its companion item, the DRI development order. The other item on the agenda was the Lords Way PUD amendment and Growth Management Plan amendment. Those items were continued to the June 28th BCC meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Chairman's report; I don't have one today. Consent agenda; nothing before us on consent today, so it takes us right into public hearings. We have only one matter to come before us we're hearing today in the form of two companion applications, PL20210001104, and that's the proposed AmeriSite small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and PL20210001103 is the proposed AmeriSite Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development Z, PUDZ. And when the time comes for a vote, this will also require action on our part as the EAC. So 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: Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: I've reviewed staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. Materials of public record for me as well as a meeting with staff and communications with developer's agent. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Meeting with staff and staff material. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 4 of 38 Okay. We'll begin with the applicant's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will say that Mr. Yovanovich, on an unrelated matter, did subsequently send me a document I had requested that he send. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much for that. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Ma'am, you may proceed. MS. McMICHAEL: Good morning. Paula McMichael with Hole Montes, for the record. As soon as I figure out how to start this presentation -- here we go. So this is the AmeriSite project. We have the project team with us this morning: Peter Sulick is the property owner; Rich Yovanovich; myself; Bob Mulhere also with Hole Montes; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant; Russ Weyer with Real Estate Econometrics did the market study. He is participating via Zoom, I hope; and we also Dave Fisher from Latigo, which is the contract purchaser of the property. Again, the request before you this morning is for a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Mixed-Use Activity Center No. 7 to add the ability to do 303 multifamily dwelling units and also to rezone the property from C-4 commercial to a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development to permit the 303 multifamily dwelling units and an indoor air-conditioned self-storage facility, which is currently permitted on the site through a conditional-use approval. We had previously requested truck rental and leasing and gasoline service stations as additional commercial uses on the site. My understanding from speaking with the applicant this morning, we are removing both of those uses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that clarification. MS. McMICHAEL: And the other C-4 commercial uses, again, that are already permitted on the site through the C-4 zoning. So the location of the site, it's approximately 19 acres, it's on the east side of Collier Boulevard. It's about a half mile north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock. Collier Boulevard -- I forgot I had things that click in when I click on them. So just to review the adjacent properties. To the north we have the proposed Collier Boulevard Lords Way development, which is being requested at 10 units an acre. This is Sapphire Cove. It's a single-family residential community at two-and-a-half units per acre. We have the proposed Carman Drive that came to you recently at 14 units an acre. Watercrest Phase 1 at 21 units an acre. The Good Turn Center is directly to the south. That is a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development that allowed 100,000 square feet of commercial as well as residential at 21 units an acre. The Hammock Park at 13.8 units per acre. The Naples Lakes Country Club is across Collier Boulevard, and then these two pieces are within Hacienda Lakes. So there's a commercial piece on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock at the intersection and Cadenza at 26 units per acre. So the future land use, this is in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict as well as within the Mixed-Use Activity Center No. 7. The mixed-use activity center is intended to allow concentrated commercial and mixed-use development. The Urban Residential Fringe allows residential development at up to two-and-a-half units per acre. If this were just in a regular mixed-use activity center, not within the Urban Residential Fringe, it would allow residential development at 16 units an acre. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can you say that last thing -- I'm sorry. Say that last sentence you said again. MS. McMICHAEL: Yeah. Mixed-use activity center, if they are in an urban area of the county, allow residential development as well as commercial development up to 16 units an acre. Because this is within the Urban Residential Fringe, it allows residential development at two-and-a-half units per acre. That's -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 5 of 38 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. Sorry, I thought you were finished. COMMISSIONER FRY: You were rolling. Do you want to keep going or -- MS. McMICHAEL: I'll just continue and then -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, no. I wanted to interject one question. MS. McMICHAEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: The map -- could you go back one slide. Okay. Actually, that's a good one. So the previous map showed the activity center as a square, which I think is the typical shape of it. But this is the actual activity center, correct, with -- MS. McMICHAEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- the revised dimensions? So you are fully within the activity center -- MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- this parcel? MS. McMICHAEL: It is currently within the activity center right now, so the amendment is to allow the additional residential development. But it is already in the activity center. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fully in the activity center? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, did you want to be heard again? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And you mentioned the density that was allowable in the activity center is what? MS. McMICHAEL: Sixteen units per acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, except for this property? MS. McMICHAEL: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And why is that? MS. McMICHAEL: Because it's within the Urban Residential Fringe. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So if it's in the activity center but it's also in the rural fringe, it has a restriction? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. If you remember the last presentation, the Urban Residential Fringe was intended in 1989 to be a transition. Because it had -- Collier Boulevard was two lanes. It didn't have water and sewer facilities, and that area, that corridor is -- obviously has evolved. It's now a six-lane facility with water and sewer facilities. So I don't know that it -- I don't think it really serves as a transition anymore. The purpose of that transition is gone when the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District provisions came about because everything to the east, if I got my directions right, is basically sending lands. So if you look up and down that corridor, it's a typical activity center, typical corridor. So if we were a typical activity center, we'd have 16 units per acre. There's one other activity center that doesn't allow 16 units per acre, and it's the one where Courthouse Shadows came through and redeveloped. So there were only two activity centers that I'm aware of -- actually, three. There's one up by the interchange of I-75 and Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So the purple area is an activity center? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And throughout that purple area that we're looking at, what is the density? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a base density of 1.5, and you can go to 2.5 by buying TDRs. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So the entire activity center has this lower number? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you're talking about other activity centers have the 16? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. If you were to just go further sought on Collier Boulevard, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 6 of 38 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. McMICHAEL: So zoning on the property, again, currently is C-4 with a conditional-use approval for an indoor self-storage facility. The project back in 2014, the subject property back in 2014, was the subject of a Growth Management Plan amendment which brought it entirely within the mixed-use activity center. It rezoned it from C-3 and C-5 to C-4 and, again, approved the conditional use for the indoor self-storage facility. The ordinance that rezoned it to C-4 also excluded some of the commercial uses that would typically be permitted in C-4, and we have brought forward all of those prohibited uses. We have excluded all of those prohibited uses in the MPUD that's before you. This is the specific changes to the text for the mixed-use activity center. So, again, we're allowing the use of multifamily at 303 multifamily dwelling units. We also had added some clarification regarding the commercial development up to a maximum of 70,000 square feet, the self-storage at limited to 85,000 square feet, and the truck rental, again, that portion will be struck. We are removing that requested use. And this is the amended subdistrict map that just notes where the AmeriSite parcel is located within the subdistrict. So the rezoning request before you, again, is to rezone the property from C-4 to a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development to permit 303 multifamily dwelling units, the indoor air-conditioned self-storage, and other C-4 commercial uses. These are the development standards from the PUD document, and I know that's a little bit hard to read. The one thing I will point out, the multifamily is permitted at a maximum height of 50 feet zoned height, which would be four stories. The property to the south, the Good Turn Center, is permitted at a maximum height of three stories. There are other multifamily residential in the area that are also permitted at four stories. The clubhouse recreation building would be a maximum height of 35 feet and the commercial uses would be a maximum height of 50 feet rather than the 75 feet that's typical in the C-4 rezoning district. There are a couple of footnotes on the Table 1. One is that indoor air-conditioned self-storage is only permitted within 100 feet of the western property line. Collier Boulevard -- if it's not visible from Collier Boulevard. So if it would be visible, it would have to be set back 100 feet. Retail uses are limited to a maximum zoned height of 35 feet. Group care facilities and hotels/motels are permitted a maximum zoned height of 75 feet. And, again, those are conditions that are in the existing C-4 zoning that we have brought forward in this PUD. So this is the master plan associated with the PUD. And so this is the existing access out to Collier Boulevard. There's an existing bridge over the canal. There is a 100-foot-wide canal easement along the eastern -- excuse me -- western side of the property, so between Collier Boulevard and the subject property. There is an FP&L easement that encumbers the eastern 170 feet of the property, so there would be no structures within that 170 feet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is this showing all of the three parcels? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All in one map? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. There is an existing preserve in the center of the site that's a little less than a half an acre. And the proposal for the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development would allow commercial or residential or commercial and residential to be developed; however, Plan A for the site and the contract purchaser for the site is to construct the 303 multifamily residential units. There is one deviation requested regarding the floor area ratio for assisted living facilities to be from 0.45 to 0.60. So, again, Plan A for the site is the residential development. So these are conceptual site plans to show you what this would look like. So these -- I guess you can't see that. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 7 of 38 So on the eastern portion, again, there's that canal that runs between the property and Collier Boulevard. The buildings would be set back a minimum of 100 feet from Collier Boulevard. So the longer rectangles, those are the residential buildings. The clubhouse is towards the front towards Collier Boulevard. And you can see the -- they're showing some dry detention within the FP&L easement on the eastern side. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a correction, or a clarification. You said 100 feet from Collier Boulevard. Do you mean 100 feet from the Henderson Creek easement? Because you said that was 100 feet wide. MS. McMICHAEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's a further 100 feet to the structures? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes, correct. It's 100 feet from the property line. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the smaller structures? MS. McMICHAEL: Those would be parking garages. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: One story just covered or actual garages? MS. McMICHAEL: Oh, I'm being corrected. Those are carriage homes. So those are residential units as well, just a different type. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what is the -- do we have a different view of the -- to see the side view? MS. McMICHAEL: We do have some elevations. So this is the clubhouse elevation which is, again, a height of -- maximum height of 35 feet. These are the elevations for the four-story multifamily buildings. We're looking at it so that you can see the elevation we're looking at. It's straight on, but that is not the way that it's oriented towards Collier Boulevard. So these are some 3D renderings to show you what that would look like from Collier Boulevard. So this is looking from the south. If you can see on the far left of that picture, that would be the bridge going out to Collier Boulevard. So we're looking from the south to the north into the site, and you can see the clubhouse. I do like to point out, these were done by the architect. The architect wants you to see the building, so they have not included the landscape buffer. There is a required 20-foot landscape buffer between the property boundary. So you have the 100 foot from Collier Boulevard, that canal easement, and then you'd have a 20-foot landscape buffer. And this is looking from the north towards the south into the site. And, again, what's missing there is that 20-foot-wide landscape buffer. And with that, I'm -- we had some slides in here to talk about commercial uses, but we have removed those to new-requested commercial uses. This development scenario does represent a reduction in trips from what is currently permitted, and that is based on the mixed-use development. So the 303 multifamily units plus the commercial development, it still represents a reduction in trips from what's currently approved on the site. And with that, I am going to turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you step down, Commissioner Fry has a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two questions. So your slide showed truck rentals not stricken, but you're saying truck rentals has been stricken? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. And then in terms of density, it's 303 units, but that is computed across -- or the density's computed across the entire 19 point [sic] acres, not just the area excluding the Henderson Creek easement and the FP&L easement, correct? The density's computed across the entire -- including those easements? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. Do you know the density of the -- what the remaining acreage is after those easements? MS. McMICHAEL: The canal is not part of the subject property. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 8 of 38 COMMISSIONER FRY: It is not? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's not part of the 19, but the FP&L easement is? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So that 175-foot easement reduces the 19-some acres to a developable acreage of -- do we know? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Fourteen acres. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fourteen acres. MS. McMICHAEL: About 14 acres. They will be able to use that FP&L easement, again, for detention. So it is incorporated into the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: And our density -- the county's density calculations take into account the entire acreage of the parcel? MS. McMICHAEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. Can you tell me just -- you know, it's probably something that is common to all of us but, certainly, you know, I can't speak for anyone else. But -- so I have what was in our packet originally when I had my meeting with staff, and that was on, you know, Tuesday. So what has changed, you know, from their original recommendation? So you submitted -- you submitted a project, an application, they made their -- you know, they weighed in on it, I had my meeting, and then what I was working off of isn't exactly what your proposal is. So I want to know what changed from when I -- you know, I was looking at it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Your staff recommended we delete gas stations, and your staff recommended we delete the truck rental, and we've agreed to both of those staff recommendations. That's what's changed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to get into the affordable housing. They had a different recommendation on affordable housing. Now I found out they have another recommendation on affordable housing that I'll go through in my -- when I take over the presentation to show you what changed on that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Klucik, I think your question relates to the fact that they showed you a residential project, and this allows residential, commercial, industrial. So that's one option, but your -- the documents before you do not say it's "residential or." You know, it indicates that there's a whole bag of uses that could go there. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Yeah -- no, but that's very helpful, though, to know that you've eliminated those two things that the staff had objected to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It just makes it hard for us to be thinking about these things. And I realize you're trying to be cooperative and responsive to staff, but I also realize it's like any negotiation. You ask for a million dollars when you'd settle for, you know, 200,000, you know, and then we kind of get stuck trying to figure out what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We actually settled for closer to 900,000. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah -- no, I know. And I don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't ask for a million and try to go all the way down to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're a very good attorney. But, no, you understand it puts us in a hard position to understand what's really going on, because we have a lot of these things to evaluate, and as they change -- you know, we're volunteers, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- we have other things that we're responsible for. This is 5.A.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 9 of 38 something I do, and I try to keep up with it, but it makes our job harder. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we try -- we try to keep it within what staff tells you they want us to do. And, you know, we don't learn some of this stuff until you learn it. So we do work with staff, and they're cooperative in working with us, and we try to -- we also have to adjust on the fly as well. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know me, you'll never wonder where I stand or how I feel. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, and I told you I appreciate never wondering. MR. KLATZKOW: And here's an idea: Why don't we not bring these things to the Planning Commission before you guys finalize what your recommendations are? Because it's not fair to Mr. Yovanovich to do it at the end, and it's not fair to this board to do it at the end. MR. YOVANOVICH: It actually works -- it works pretty well. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you want to -- you want to get here as fast as possible, but we're advertising this to the public. They're reviewing stuff. I mean, I would think you'd want to bring it to the Planning Commission with a box with a bow rather than the last-minute changes to these things. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we don't -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it's appropriate. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's not on you, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. And I'm not -- I'm defending staff because the reality is, we don't always agree to everything, so what I'm presenting to you is what we're willing to agree to, but we have -- we don't have it wrapped up tight in a bow because we haven't agreed to everything that staff has agreed to. So through the presentation, we're telling you what we agree to and what we don't agree to. So that's where I was getting ready to go on the affordable housing, because that -- that's the issue that we still have, I think, a slight disagreement on, but I'm not 100 percent sure. So if I can go forward on that portion of the presentation -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Before you do that on the uses -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And thanks for taking out the truck rental. But could you add or leave in the language that already exists about adult-oriented sales and rentals being prohibited? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we can add that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Either add that, what I just said, or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll add that language in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- or the old one that's existing now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll make sure to clarify that there's no adult -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. And No. 65, outdoor advertising services, that kind of is an odd one to me, and I don't understand it. Billboard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. But it's -- yeah, I don't think billboards -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can you remove that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I don't think that's a big money maker for us. We can remove the billboards. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I have a number of those as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And the interconnection to the north. MR. YOVANOVICH: That cannot work on our plan. We are connecting to the south to 5.A.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 10 of 38 share the access to the bridge, but the connection to the north is -- it does not allow us to have the residential project properly function. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But if it's commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: If it becomes commercial, we could talk about interconnecting, but if it becomes a residential project, we have an issue. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So would it be a potential? MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Potential interconnection? MR. YOVANOVICH: We could put it as a potential interconnection for commercial development, how's that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I'll be coming back to permitted use at a later time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Continue, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. As you recall, at the last meeting we went through a presentation to support why or what we could agree to as far as affordable housing commitments. The original staff proposal, I think, was a 40 percent affordable housing commitment broken into three different categories. We could not agree to a 40 percent income-restricted. Based upon the last meeting that we were aware of at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission wanted us to have as many units at the 100 percent and below and then also the 80 percent and below and still have an economically viable project. So the proposed project that we're going through right now has one-, two- and three-bedroom units. The project that was before you last time only had two- and three-bedroom units. So the economics change a little bit when doing the project because the one-bedroom units do not generate as much net revenue as the two- and three-bedroom units. And as we went through -- and I'll get in a little bit more detail on the slide. In order to finance the project, you have to show the bank that you can potentially make 5.5 percent on the investment in the property. So we had gone through that analysis and provided the slides to show how much is going to be invested in the project -- how much is going to be invested in the project and how much we need for the rate of return to get to the 5.5 percent. This is how we presented it last time. I know it's new to Mr. Vernon and Mr. Fry. If I'm going too fast, let me know. But the original target return was a 6.38 percent return on money if there were no income restrictions on the property. We analyzed the staff request, and that was a 4.97 percent return on costs. And what we had proposed was 30 units at the 80 percent and below and 30 units at the 100 percent and below, because that got us to the target rate of return of 5.5 percent. I have since been provided a copy of an email that you-all received from your staff saying they wanted us to do what Mr. Torres wanted to do or agreed to do, which I believe was 34 units at the 80 percent and below and 34 units at the 100 percent and below. And I'm confused. So I want to know if that is truly what staff's recommendation now is, together with purchasing TDRs. I just need to -- I just need to know if that's the real -- because there's an email that was sent to you-all that I believe says that. I'm just asking, before I keep going, if I can just confirm that, because it will shorten my presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection from the Planning Commission, we'll ask staff to answer that. MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Zoning staff. So we have reviewed the market-rate units, and the question before us is, would we support what the applicant is now proposing. The applicant had indicated to my director, Mike Bosi, that they would be consistent with the Carman Drive project which, again, would require 22.6 percent of the units to be affordable and, as Rich stated, that would be 34 dwelling units at or below 5.A.b Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 11 of 38 80 percent of the AMI and 34 dwelling units at or below 100 percent of the AMI, but in addition to that, similar to Carman Drive, we would also be requesting the 18 Transfer of Development Rights credits to increase residential density from the base of 1.5 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre, so that is the difference. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the difference is just the TDRs? MS. MOSCA: No. Rich is asking for just 10 percent of 80 percent and below and 10 percent of 100 percent and below, is what I heard him say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're .6 percent apart? MS. MOSCA: 2.6. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 2.6, excuse me. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Did you need anything else explained, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I got it. I just wanted to make sure that that's really what was in the memo and really is staff's position. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I did have a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think you said it. I just want to make sure I understand. The difference between what you're proposing and what they're requesting, setting aside the TDRs. But in terms of the affordable housing, the difference which, as the Chairman said, is just a very small delta between your two numbers. MR. YOVANOVICH: We were offering or proposing 60 units. Staff is saying 68 now. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But they were at a higher number when it was 40 percent. That would have been roughly 120 units. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt for a quick second. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. SABO: We have not been at the 40 percent for affordable housing. That has not been our recommendation. I understand Mr. Yovanovich may say that, but we -- 30 percent is the number we have been using. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand, and I share your observation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me read from the staff report on Page 22 under the recommendation. The first was provide 18 TDRs. The second was provide 20 percent of the units at the low affordable, 50 to 80 percent. The third was provide -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you slow down. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just reading from Page 22. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah -- no. I'm trying to get there. MR. YOVANOVICH: You with me? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are your numbers. MR. KLATZKOW: For clarity, all right, we have LDC provisions on our affordable housing that nobody's following right now. We're in the process of coming forward with LDC amendments -- when, I don't know -- that will hopefully give some clarity to this process going forward. Right now what we're doing, we're just bartering. There's no rhyme or reason to it, okay. Staff could ask for 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent; it doesn't matter. The applicant has to respond to that because they have to get their project through without the new LDC amendments. And there is no -- there's no clarity in this process right now, and there's no way to know what, really, you should do. It's just, well, maybe it should be 30 percent; maybe it should be 80 percent of AGI. Maybe it should be 100 percent. Maybe we should do 20 percent and 90 percent AGI. It's just every single one of these we're making it up on the fly until we actually get LDC 5.A.b Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 12 of 38 amendments. And I've been waiting for these LDC amendments for the longest time. And the Board's going on hiatus. So, what, we're not going to see the LDC amendments until September now? This is just on the county's -- for the county, this is just a terrible look for us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. It's my understanding -- let me ask staff for clarification. But it's my understanding that at present the explicit position of the County Manager's Office is that this should be at 30 percent; is that a fair statement? MR. SABO: Yes. For the record, James Sabo. That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's the best we can do until we get a Land Development Code amendment. But it's not as good, granted. MR. KLATZKOW: It's like you're bartering here. It's like with the old market back in the Roman times where everybody's haggling back and forth for stuff. This is not the way the process is supposed to be. You're supposed to have clarity and certainty in the process, and right now Mr. Yovanovich is trying to get a project through, and staff is just coming up with numbers. It's random. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure what else could be done other than continue these until we have an ordinance in place that sets the number, other than to look at the chief executive officer of the county, who is -- whose position is the 30 percent is the proper number pending a clear expression in the code. That's the best we can do right now. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have a county manager right now, you have an acting county manager, and there are no positions right now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So you were on Page 22? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So what I see, then, as the actual recommendation for the initial proposal was -- because I had the same thing. I thought it was 40 percent, but it's -- it's either 20 -- it's 20 percent of all units, and it's -- so if you do any combination of the different kinds, it still ended up being 20 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I proposed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's how the staff told me -- that's what they told me this meant when I spoke to Mr. Bosi. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can only tell you what it says. It says I've got to do 10 percent of the units at the moderate, which is less than 80 percent, and they had the number 30 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no, no. Ten percent is not moderate. Let than 80 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. It's at the -- I'm sorry. It's the low category. Ten percent at the low, at the 80 percent or below, then they have the number 30. And then at the moderate it says 20 percent, and they have the number 60 units. And then they want me to do another 10 percent at the gap, and they have the number 30. So 30 plus 60 plus 30 is 120 units. That's what was in the recommendation. If they really intended that I was doing 30 percent, that's not what it says. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, now that I've seen the 22 percent, 22.6 percent number and 68 units, we can do the -- we can do what staff confirmed for you they're requesting plus the TDRs. So we can do what staff is recommending to you today, which is the additional 2.6 percent plus the TDRs. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I would then want clarification as to what the -- what I'm looking at on Page 22. And if we move beyond that, that's fine. What I would say just as an aside, Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me, to staff -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, you know, I'm an attorney, and I draft documents for people who aren't attorneys or who don't get to -- you know, need to understand quickly. I try to 5.A.b Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 13 of 38 draft them so that it's easy to read visually, and something like this, especially when you have all these complexities and numbers in it, it would be far better if you, you know, put No. 1, separated it out, No. 2. I realize that takes up more pages, but it's very difficult to comprehend even just because of the way it's written on that page -- that paragraph at the top of Page 22. Do you follow what I'm saying? MR. SABO: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. SABO: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got three planning commissioners who want to be heard, starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm confused, as probably a lot of us are. Also in that same page, 22, there's two criteria; one, whether it's a rental or whether it's owned. To me, following up on Jeff's comments, the most important thing isn't just the percentage. It's -- what groups that you're attacking to me means if you're going to be over 120 -- or 120 percent. I think you're doing much for affordable housing as opposed to 50 to 80 percent. So I'm always going to be pushing for a higher to lower percentage of AMI. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, Mr. Shea. We had that discussion at the last hearing, and what came out of that was, because David was doing twos and threes, he showed you the math. He could do, basically, 11 percent at the 80 percent and below and 11 percent at the 100 percent and below. So what I asked my client to do was look at that target. What did David commit at those income categories? Because you-all made it very clear that you wanted to get -- you didn't want to serve above 100 percent because that was not the target. So what we did since that meeting is we only looked at the 100 percent and below and the 80 percent and below, and that's where we came back with our initial proposal of, not 11 percent, but 10 percent to get to the target 5.5 percent so we can get the project financed. Now staff has said to you-all -- and I guess I was measuring 10 percent from a different number than what staff was measuring their percentage from, and now I see their numbers. It was 68 versus 60 units. We can live with providing 68 units for affordable housing, which is -- which is half of them, 34, at the 10 percent -- I'm sorry -- at the 80 percent and below and 34 at the 100 percent and below. Those were the targets we had for Mr. Torres' project. We still met those targets. I didn't even analyze -- I didn't even analyze the gap, because we're going to do a rental project. And I agree with you -- I don't totally agree with you that gap doesn't provide a service, because I think teachers and others can't even get to the gap category, but that's more of an owner-occupied, I think, issue that we should deal with. Rent, we understand to stay away from basically anything above 100 percent. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So originally you had asked -- we had given you two separate goals. I mean, they both were 60 and 30 -- or 30 percent was in the staff report, but for owner-occupied and rental. So you still have the option of owner-occupied or rental, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm telling you right now I have the option, but we're not building owner-occupied. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I know, but we're writing something in the record that addresses both rentals and owner-occupied. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would be fine with if put language that says owner-occupied or rental we have to do the 34 and 34. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's -- if that's what you're asking me to clarify. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on Commissioner Vernon, I just want to join in on your comments and observations, Commissioner Shea, about the significance of which segment of AMI is being addressed. And when you're addressing, largely, moderate and gap, which is not the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 14 of 38 case here, I understand. To me it's pretty illusory, and especially given one of the charts that was in the materials where, fully, 1,600 new units this year are needed in the extremely low, very low, and low category, and only 148 are needed in the moderate category. And so that's where we need to address our affordable housing. Having said that, I'll call on Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just want to make sure I'm on the right page and focus strictly on the application. I mean, it's a good discussion about bigger-picture issue. But the application right now with respect to the affordable housing, there's no discrepancy between what you're willing to do and what staff is proposing; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And let me say what I understand. I've got to buy the 18 TDRs. I've got to income-restrict 34 of the units to the 80 percent or below income category and 34 of the units at the 100 percent and below category. That's what I understand is the most recent staff emailed to you and, yes, we will agree to those conditions. MR. KLATZKOW: James, are those the conditions? MR. SABO: Yes, that is correct. James Sabo. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Including the TDRs? MR. YOVANOVICH: Including the TDRs. MR. SABO: That is correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, essentially, we are 100 percent in agreement with your staff's recommendations for this project. We deleted the gas station, we deleted the truck rental, and we agreed to the percentages of income restrictions, and we agreed to the TDRs. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did you say leave in the truck rental? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, eliminate. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Eliminate, okay. My ears were a little -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, delete. If I said "leave in," I didn't mean to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I apologize if this has been covered previously. How did the -- what is the basis of the 5.5 percent as a minimum return on investment? MR. YOVANOVICH: In order to get money/loans to construct the project, the lender wants you to show that you are going to, hopefully, attain that rate of return on the money you're investing; otherwise, you can't get financing, and then you get zero affordable units. So that's -- that's basically what you've got to do to get the money to build the project, and that's what we discussed last time. And that's -- and I know you were not here, and neither was Mr. Vernon, but we tried to stay within those same parameters. And, look, we're going to do that for more projects as they come through. And with all due respect, when the LDC amendments final do come to you-all, we're going to jump in, depending on what they are, and let you know whether they're really addressing what the market can build or not because, clearly, your current affordable housing -- your matrix doesn't work because none of us are bringing projects to you that will fit within that matrix. I shouldn't -- there will be one where -- because you have enough base density where you only need one or two units and you can fit within that matrix, but you haven't seen one yet where anybody can live with the matrix. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the 22.6 percent, which is what we're at for this project of affordable units, is derived by matching Carman Drive? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that what was said? Okay. Now, you seem to have made an additional concession beyond this chart which showed that with the units you were offering, which was 60 units and no TDRs, you were at 5.5 percent. So wouldn't you now be below the 5.5 percent? How will you -- how will you adjust -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 15 of 38 MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have to skinny up some of the construction costs. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. And then how do you derive the level of discount at each tier? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was based upon the market rates today. If you were to go out and rent a two-bedroom apartment, it ranges from 2,800 to $3,000. That's the market. And then we looked at what are the rent levels you can charge based upon the county's immediate income and that delta -- and it is a delta. There's -- it's anywhere from, you know, basically, 400 a unit to almost $1,000 a unit difference between what the market you can get and what your income restriction rent is. So that's the delta to show you we're, basically, taking it out of -- and I guess it's easier to -- let me go back a slide. COMMISSIONER FRY: So there's a table -- the county has a table -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It tells you the maximum rent. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRY: -- at each level. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So when you look at that, you can see right there for the two-bedroom apartment, essentially, the 100 percent category you're talking about, you know, a $900 delta. COMMISSIONER FRY: What happens as -- I mean, the rental market has gone crazy, rents have gone up 30, 40 percent in the last year or so. I mean, it's been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's been crazy. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's been crazy. If we can assume that that will level out and perhaps adjust downward -- I don't know if that's a reasonable assumption -- then what happens? You basically, then, are just having to offer less of a discount. If your market rents drop, you'll just be -- you'll be offering less of a discount which -- how would that affect your profit picture? I guess you're not getting the rents that you're anticipating now, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how -- I don't know how the really smart people factor that in, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's why I'm asking you. I count you among that group. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm not one of those people. But I don't know how they factor in the rent risk when they're looking at rate of return. I'm assuming they do have a -- there's probably a little bit of a, you know, delta in there that they're looking at. MR. KLATZKOW: This is why we have market crashes, because they're going to bundle this loan up with a bunch of other loans, and when the rents go down, they can't get paid, and we've seen this happen time and time again over the last 30 years. It will just crash. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is part of the consensus that is seeming to be reached that these are 30-year restrictions? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I have for you, Rich. I guess I look forward to hearing from staff how the Carman Drive was arrived at and why that 22.6 percent is the baseline for this project. I mean, why are we there? I think we're looking at 30 percent. You're saying 30 percent is not feasible. You can't do the project at 30 percent. That's our guideline, but staff is willing to accept less, so I guess I look forward to, you know, the baseline data on how that's a reasonable compromise. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I can take a quick second and explain that, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With leave from Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. SABO: Does that work? Mr. Yovanovich, if I'm incorrect, please correct me. But at that meeting for Carman Drive, the discussion was our proposal for 30 percent. There was 5.A.b Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 16 of 38 some on-the-spot negotiations, and we came to an agreement at that meeting based on the percentages of return on investment that Mr. Torres needed to make those projects happen. Is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It was. And, Mr. Fry, I've been saying to staff, what you're asking for means the project doesn't get built, okay. And they said, "show me," so we showed them. We showed them how the market works. And David Torres is an experienced builder of apartments. He got up there and explained what he has to show the banks in order to get money to build the project. And that's how that 5.5 percent was resolved. And then we -- now, I try to be a smart guy and focus on what I learned at the last hearing and bring it forward. So I learned 5.5 percent was acceptable, and I also learned that you don't want me to go above 100 percent, or my client to go above 100 percent, and you want me to get as much 80 percent or below as I can. I learned those two things. I submitted a proposal that got to that number. And, you know, 30 percent for staff went down to 22.6 percent. I talked to my client. He says, I can make it work. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, in effect, you're giving us an additional piece of information that we have not seen in a lot of past -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You have -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- applications. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have historically seen a pro forma, and we brought that to you to explain our position as to why we're not just -- we're not just saying no. We're saying no for a reason. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm anxious to hear from you on other uses that might come up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've got some comments on that. Anybody else from the Planning Commission before I launch into that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, bear with me for a moment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we are addressing both applications at the same time, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really all three, if you count EAC. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I did see -- I believe I saw deviations with the deviations in the -- is that something staff will present? MR. YOVANOVICH: There was one deviation Paula went through, and it had to do with the floor area ratio for senior housing. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, that was -- that's the only remaining deviation, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I have some concerns about things that were approved back in 2014 by groups of people who probably weren't paying very close attention to what they were approving, and just because it was approved back then doesn't obligate us, I don't believe, to repeat the same mistakes. And let's start with under Exhibit A to the ordinance, and this would -- this is going to be the PUD ordinance. Permitted Use No. 35 is food stores, and it's Groups 5411 to 5499. Now, you can tell me that these have already been approved. I can tell you that I suspect that people never really went over these, and I also strongly suspect that you don't need them, and so I'm going to be asking you to take things out that, really, you're vested to do, but I don't think you really want to, and it would clean this up significantly for me. 5499 says, the poultry stores may sell live poultry, slaughter, and clean poultry. So I suspect you don't want that one. Then health services, miscellaneous, 8092 to 8099. MR. YOVANOVICH: You just jumped to a different number. Okay. Food stores -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I did. 42, I said. I thought I said it. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 17 of 38 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I didn't hear that. Hold on. So on food stores you want me to delete the poultry? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now I'm jumping to 42. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Forty-two, and 8099, it says, blood donor stations, plasmapheresis centers, and sperm banks and organ banks. Pull that out? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't even respond. I don't think -- I think we'll be okay with taking that out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I sort of thought so. MR. YOVANOVICH: The first two I didn't find to be a problem. If you -- I got it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I won't get into personal things. 8069, alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals, drug addiction rehab hospitals. Again, I'm not opposed to these things, but when you're looking at compatibility, it seems to me that those things would not be compatible with the rest of what's going on in the activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then under 64, 8059, homes for the, quote-unquote, mentally retarded, psychiatric convalescent homes. I take it we can remove that as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to -- first of all, my client reminded me that when we came in before to go from C-3 to C-5, we did go through the uses on the C-4 uses and eliminated the ones that people at the time found to be what they didn't want to happen on the site. So with that premise -- because we did -- C-5 would have allowed every one of these uses and more, so -- but the few that you are asking us to delete are things that were not going to happen on the site anyway, so sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Then, let's see, 79, retail miscellaneous. 5998 is called out there, 5992 to 5999. There is no 5998. It doesn't exist. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no what? CHAIRMAN FRYER: There is no SIC Code 5998. So by asking for 5992 to '99, you're asking for something that doesn't exist. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there a -- I don't have mine. I don't have my SIC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I can't tell you what it is because it doesn't exist. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no 5999? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 5998. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, but is there a 5999? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we still would -- do you want me to say -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exclusive of 5998. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That fixes it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, we haven't typically done that in the past. The SIC codes are fixed as of, like, a long time ago. So if there's not a SIC code in that range, you know, we haven't typically excluded ones that don't exist. They've just done the range. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I understand. But what if -- what if down the road a 9998 is put in there? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It won't, because they've discontinued the use of this, and now they're doing the NAICS code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, humor me. MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a specific year of the SIC code book that we use. It doesn't amend itself. We are stuck with, like, 1984, I think, is the year. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was the year. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if you don't mind deleting it, I'd appreciate that. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 18 of 38 Then under -- this is the last one I have, and I think that it's already fixed, but I just want to make the record of this. In commercial accessory uses, B2, there is a reference to noise and -- worded in terms of public hearing, which is a different use of the word than we used the expression "public hearing." It's my understanding that the nuisance ordinance kicks in at 65 decibels. And so the nuisance ordinance is already in place. And I'm not suggesting that we need to make that tighter. I just wanted to make a record that the reason I'm okay with that is because the nuisance ordinance has a decibels limit in it. Anybody object to that or tell me that I'm wrong on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And that's all I have on the permitted -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I can do that if you really want me to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're kidding? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm trying to be funny, but it doesn't always work. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, don't hesitate to try again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would stick to just being brutally honest. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's funny. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's funny enough. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, you've indicated that this will be a residential 303-unit development. We have the contract purchaser in the room. What is the status of that contract? Is it final subject to approval of this application? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I say yes to that? Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if we approve this, that will go forward, barring if -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You meant if the BCC -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Lord willing and the creek don't rise? MR. YOVANOVICH: If the Board of County Commissioners approves it, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right, I'm sorry. Of course. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further from the petitioner? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just an informational question. How long does it take the process in this county to the point that you would be renting those units? So if we get our approval today of our proposal, how long before you're actually talking about renting? MR. YOVANOVICH: Approximately two years. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Two years. Okay, good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the CO would start the 30 years? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The CO would start the 30 years? MR. YOVANOVICH: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We'll now hear from staff. Mr. Sabo and Ms. Mosca. MR. SABO: Ms. Mosca will present. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 19 of 38 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Again, for the record, Michele Mosca with the Zoning division. I have a PowerPoint but, obviously, I do need to go through step by step. I do want to make sure that the commitments are clear so that staff understands them. The applicant presented a pro forma. We have 141 one-bedroom units, 144 two-bedroom units, and 18 three-bedroom units. Will that be a commitment within the PUD? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good question. MR. YOVANOVICH: You told me to be David Torres. I'm committing to -- I may have to change some of the mix in order to attain what David Torres committed to you. David Torres committed to you 22.6 percent of the units. X below 80 percent and Y below 100 percent. We're making that same commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're not, then, willing to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't -- you've just -- I can't commit to 141 single-family -- or one-bedroom units. I can't get that finite today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You asked me to be David Torres. I'm being David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I don't believe I asked you to do that, but maybe someone else -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Staff asked me to be David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: My question is, what is the impact of him not being able to commit to that? What difference does that make to us to the outcome of this project? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask that same question of staff. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. The concern is the number of one-bedrooms. The applicant has stated there's a greater demand for one-bedroom units, and I just want to make sure -- and I may need to call Jacob LaRow to maybe address the affordability of these units. I don't know -- I haven't had enough time to analyze all of the information. MR. KLATZKOW: We have never asked a developer to commit to X number of two-bedrooms, X number of one-bedrooms, throw a studio in here, and while you're at it, let's get a three-bedroom. We've never asked that, and I think it's arbitrary and capricious to do that right now. MS. MOSCA: And I agree with you. My concern is that we get the affordable housing units that are needed for the community. MR. KLATZKOW: And they are committing to what, 22.6 percent or whatever the number is? MS. MOSCA: Which also is arbitrary. MR. KLATZKOW: Which also is arbitrary and capricious, yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All righty, then. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just don't think -- just because we've never done it before doesn't mean it's not a good idea. So, you know, I understand what you're saying, but I don't want to just say, well, we've never done it that way. We're not going to do it that way now, because I don't have a full understanding of what we're discussing right now. So I -- more clarification would help me. MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, planning manager, for the record. Just one point of clarification. On a traditional affordable housing development that has a full housing density bonus agreement, that agreement contains several attachments. In those attachments, the breakdown, the specific breakdown of number of units at bedroom -- by bedroom type is on the record and committed to in that agreement. It says the number of market-rate units by bedroom type, the number of affordable units by bedroom type, and the number of affordable 5.A.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 20 of 38 units by bedroom type and affordability level. So in a traditional affordable housing development, you do typically see that. MR. KLATZKOW: Which we haven't done in years, and it's never in the PUD document, is it? MR. GIBLIN: It's an attachment to the PUD, yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: If they do -- if they go forward with that project. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: And here they can do commercial. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Staff? MR. GIBLIN: One more thing. On the timeline to development -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: -- the applicant is correct, it's about 36 months from time of pre-application meeting to final construction and CO. The affordable period, however, should start with the date of the first lease, not with the date of the CO. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What if I sign a lease before CO? MR. GIBLIN: I believe it's occupancy. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're quibbling about dates. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I just wanted to make sure that I understand the timing and the -- or the timeline. So these are permanent affordable? That status stays on there permanently? MS. MOSCA: No. Actually, that was another question I had. So this commitment will be for a 30-year period. And is that -- I need some assistance here. Is that from date of the first CO or from the first lease? So we'll need to clarify that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then the other piece of that is related. Is this -- you know, in the past we've seen it where, you know, oh, well, we have -- we'll market it for six months and then we'll sell it at market rate. What is the requirement to hold this as -- you know, in this stage of offering it to the public as far as timeline? MS. MOSCA: So what we've done with previous applications/petitions -- so the applicant here is committing to 34 affordable units at or below 80 percent. When one of those units is vacated, they have to lease it to the next person meeting those thresholds, and same thing with the 34 at or below 100 percent. So they remain in place for that 30-year period for those income ranges. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then how about for purchase? MS. MOSCA: For purchase? CHAIRMAN FRYER: All this runs with the land. I mean -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's what I'm saying. I guess what I'm saying is -- because you could be -- these could be for rentals or they could be for purchase, but the same thing, it's a permanent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's permanent, 30 years. MS. MOSCA: Thirty years. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. It's 30 years, and there is no marketing period? MS. MOSCA: No. Not with this one, no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Great, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if they can't find anybody to rent it at those rates, it sits empty? MS. MOSCA: I'd have to ask Housing staff for some assistance here. You do do publications of -- okay. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 21 of 38 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We get no money from that unit. It stays empty. So you know we're not going to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. That's what I think the question was: Is there a time period that you have to search, and then you can put it to market rate? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: It has to be for those income categories, and if it has to stay vacant till we find somebody, it stays vacant till we find somebody. MR. SABO: Right. The units are committed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As far as I'm concerned, we're not going to do right of first refusal anymore, because that really is totally illusory. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we've learned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. I know, Commissioner Fry, you want to be heard. First, I think that the issue that we have in front of us, though, is 30 years from where? And it seems to me it should be from the first occupancy rather than the date of a lease, because a lease could be dated 18 months or two years prior to occupancy, and I think that's what Mr. Giblin was suggesting as well, and he's nodding yes. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's what I would like to see. And having said that, Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I fully support that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was hoping you might clarify. You started and even, more or less, interrupted in terms of your concerns with the number of one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms. I believe your concern centers around one- and two-bedrooms, the ones -- like, if they have just the minimum number of one-bedrooms in order to meet their affordable housing requirement and then they make the rest two- and three-bedroom apartments, in your opinion, are you saying that that, then, defeats somewhat the value of this as an affordable housing community? MS. MOSCA: Well, it should be a mix based on -- let me see if I can pull up my PowerPoint. Hold on one second. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can address that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you give me leave? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, leave granted. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to help you, I promise you. You know, we're doing math, too, because I just learned about the 22 percent percentage, okay. So we could commit to a minimum of 40 percent of the units being one-bedroom units, and I think that was a concern that somehow now I'll do -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Forty percent of the 68? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, 40 percent of the 303. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I think there was a concern that I would somehow make this an all two- and three-bedroom-unit, and I would do better than the 5.5 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's what her concern was. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we can commit to that so that way you know we're addressing that part of the market, because that's why I told you I couldn't go all the way up to staff's recommendation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that 40 percent of all the units, Rich, or is that just the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 22 of 38 affordable units? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. Forty percent of the 303 units, or whatever we built, will be one-bedrooms. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that address your concern? MS. MOSCA: Generally so. I mean, there -- what we want is a mix of affordable units across the range, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom. That's their offering. So we really want a mix. If the demand for the one-bedroom can meet the income needs of that lower -- and you can see on the monitor you have the income and rent limits. So at the 80 percent for one person all the way up to five, and then for the corresponding number of bedrooms. So those -- those would be generally the rent limits based on the 2022 data, so at low 80 percent and 100 percent. So we really want a mix of those units. COMMISSIONER FRY: And right now there is no mix offered. Simply a percentage of units at those different income categories? MS. MOSCA: Right. And the pro forma that was shared with you-all does have that mix. They had 14 -- I mean, the numbers are different. They had 14 at one -- I'm sorry. They had 141 one-bedroom with 14 units designated for affordable, 14 in the two-bedroom, and two in the three-bedroom. So I just want to make sure we have some sort of mix. And, again, I defer to Housing staff. They're the experts in this area. We just want a diversity of affordability across those ranges. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sounds like Rich is in conference. Perhaps, Rich, you can address her concern about a mix to cover the affordable housing requirements. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the issue. You guys want us to bring you projects that serve people in certain income categories. We're bringing you projects that meet people in those income categories. Now you're asking me to assume all kinds of market risk that if I can't find somebody who meets an income category in a one-bedroom, I've got to leave it vacant; and I've got to have so many two-bedrooms. I've got to leave it vacant; and I've got so many three-bedrooms. I've got to leave it vacant. Is the goal to get more people living in Collier County that make these income thresholds or not? Because what we're trying to say to you is we're willing to meet the income thresholds. We're willing to have that set aside. Please don't tell me I have to have 14 of this, 15 of that, and six of the other. I don't even know what the math is. But I'm saying you're getting too specific at this point for us. You're making it -- you're discouraging people from even wanting to come forward with projects. We've got construction costs kind of going out of the control. Let's serve people who make those income categories. We've committed to you that 40 percent of the units are going to be one-bedrooms. Maybe 10 percent of them go to people who make those income categories, but what if we experience many more people who come to us that say, we really need the two-bedrooms? I've got to say, I'm sorry. I can't -- I'm not going to do that because I've got a commitment for X number of one-bedrooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But didn't you just do so? MR. YOVANOVICH: I committed to making the -- doing the -- doing the bedrooms, the 40 percent of the units. I'm not telling you what specific number of those will serve the 80 percent or what specific number will serve the 100 percent, which I think staff is now trying to make me do. And I'm saying, please don't put me in that position to have to negotiate that right now. The goal is to get more people to live here in those income categories. Let's try to attain that goal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Understanding that, Rich, I guess I see some value in us thinking this through for future projects, which is -- from this standpoint: Down the road -- you've committed to a certain number of units, but not a -- not restricted to one-, two- or three-bedroom. So if you don't -- if you have the certain number of units, you could have the flexibility, right, if you've got -- you have to have a certain number of units, but you now have larger families coming that need a three-bedroom, you'd have the flexibility to offer -- you're not locked into any formula, simply a minimum number of each of those income categories, correct? So you could, 5.A.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 23 of 38 based on market demand, have -- you know, there's 68 total. You could have some one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three bedrooms at the 80 percent, and you could have some one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms at the 100 percent based on market demand and what you have available at the time, correct? So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, market demand. And, remember, I've got to show you I have 34 units available at all times to those income categories, or I don't put a tenant -- I lose the money. I don't have rent. So I'm committing to those 34 at the 80 percent and below and the 34 at the 100 percent. So I'm committing to 68 units always being available for those income categories because, as Mr. Klucik made it very clear, they stay vacant until I put a -- one person or family. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I'm trying to agree with you here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we are. I think we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER FRY: That we are served -- and I want to hear from you -- that we are served if you have the flexibility -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- to have that certain number of units. They could be one-, two-, or three-, but you are allocating that minimum number of units across those as works for you and as works for the people that are coming forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you can meet those requirements. So I guess I'm not seeing a huge problem with the commitment to the number of one-bedrooms, and I'd just like to hear from you in terms of if I'm missing something in that analysis. Anybody from staff? MR. SABO: Mr. LaRow is going to address that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. LaRow, welcome. MR. LaROW: Good morning. Thank you. Jacob LaRow, Housing, Grant, Development Operations manager with Collier County. So some -- just general comments to the concept of what Michele was referring to about diversity of housing options. What you'll generally see, especially as you target lower income households -- you know, we're getting down into the 80 and below range -- is that typically you want to see having the one-bedroom units available for those because those -- as you get lower in income ranges, typically, you're seeing more individuals and, of course, with the one-bedroom, you're getting the lower rents as a result. Some of the other programs out there that might be to assist lower income folks, there are rent affordability restrictions, and so usually those at the one-bedroom are more attainable for those at the lower income ranges, and so that's to the concept about having diversity of options. And to Cormac's point, yes, many of our traditional affordable housing programs, they get very detailed in terms of they describe in detail and in perpetuity for 30 or 50 years, the income targeting and the number of units that will be set aside, and the number of projects. For example, the Bembridge property, which now is the Harmony, which has an affordable housing density bonus, is currently under construction, 82 units. Those documents are very specific because many of the grants and funding mechanics that make that project viable demand it. So because we're not necessarily talking about those financing options here, this is where there's, I guess, a little more flexibility. But the need, really, in terms of serving those populations, still kind of exists regardless of that. So just in kind of -- in conclusion, we'd like to see, to the extent feasible, one-bedroom units available for those -- for the income targeting that's being discussed today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it a win for county if out of those 120 or 121 one-bedroom units, all 68 of the affordable units that they have committed to are all one-bedrooms? Is that still a win for the county? Because that's a possibility under this scenario. MR. LaROW: Yeah, I would say. I mean, even at the two- -- the two- and three-bedroom units, you're still going to see a demand for households that meet those income 5.A.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 24 of 38 ranges that will need the two- and three-bedroom units. I mean, we have teachers, single mothers, single fathers that have children that might need some of those larger units. So I think funneling them all into one or the other may not be the best solution. But having a number of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units available at those income ranges would be advisable. But I acknowledge that, given the market and things like that, it creates a little -- imposes a little more burden, perhaps, on the developer and operator of the housing project. COMMISSIONER FRY: As a business, they'll be weighing the applications they get among those income ranges, the size of the families, and their own financial profit model. And so I don't know whether it's true that if they did all one-bedrooms in the affordable range they would make more money and they'd get a greater return on the project. So my ultimate question is, do we need to impose anything further upon them than what they've already committed to in terms of the 120/40 percent one-bedrooms? Is that enough, or are you looking -- is staff looking for a little bit more? And if so, why? MR. LaROW: So just to clarify, the question is the overall percentage of units being proposed being income restricted and rent restricted -- COMMISSIONER FRY: No. I think we've come to the compromise that -- we still haven't heard from the public, and we haven't approved it. We've come to the compromise of 34 at the 80 percent, 34 at the 100 percent, the TDRs. They've agreed to that. So we're looking at 68 total units. What we -- and they've committed to 40 percent one-bedrooms, which is approximately 120 or 121 units out of 303, if that's what it ends up being. So the remaining question is: Are they -- is there a further commitment that staff needs from them in terms of reserving some two- and three-bedroom units for affordable housing so that there is a guaranteed mix of affordable units in each those one-, two-, and three-bedroom categories? That is the only thing I can see that that's not already baked into the compromise at hand. MR. LaROW: So If we're -- if the commitment is 40 percent of the one-bedroom units being affordable, then it wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER FRY: No. MR. LaROW: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's that 40 percent of the total units built are one-bedrooms. MR. LaROW: Okay. I gotcha. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that's simply because there are a lot of people looking for the lowest rent possible and can live in a one-bedroom, is my assumption. So now they can distribute those 68 affordable units. It can be any number of one-bedroom, any number of two-bedroom, any number of three-bedrooms that they see fit. And I imagine it would based on who applies and also they're trying to -- they're a business. They're trying to make money as, you know, many of us are. So do we need more of a commitment from them in terms of requiring a certain minimum number of two- and three-bedrooms to be affordable from out of the 68 units, or are we okay with giving them the flexibility because there is no formal affordable housing agreement in this case? I look at this as a bit of a precedent, not -- let me retract that statement. We have always said there are no precedent. It's -- every one is judged individually. But looking at it as a -- for future reference, you know, what -- we have to arrive -- as he said, this is capricious and arbitrary. We have to arrive at something that actually makes sense, that works for the public, that works for the people that are trying to build the units and still, you know, have an affordability -- a profitable project. MR. KLATZKOW: This is not the process. You are a quasi-judicial body. You're supposed to look at criteria. Your problem is staff doesn't give you the damn criteria, okay. I don't know why it takes so long to get this LDC amendment through. Affordable housing's in a crisis. We've known about this problem for a very long time, and now you guys are reduced to just bartering fish up there, all right, which is not your job. You're a quasi-judicial board. It's not 5.A.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 25 of 38 fair to ask you to do this, all right. It's not fair to ask Rich to do this, and, you know -- so we're just going to make it up off the cuff? We'll have 32 units one-bedroom reserved, and we'll have 18 units with two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms? Why? Is there any data and analysis on this that's been presented, or is just -- we're just making it up as we go? COMMISSIONER FRY: Valid point, Jeff. I guess the question is -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean -- and I've got to defend this, by the way, should it ever get challenged. And I'm telling you, this is as arbitrary and capricious as it gets. All right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, but I completely agree with Karl. We're trying to get to the best result you can. You've made your position known, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. But that doesn't fix our problem. I think Karl's doing a fantastic analysis of trying to figure out -- MR. KLATZKOW: And you have no data and analysis to give you any reign. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me finish. Let me finish. He's doing a really good job of kind of sorting through this. What Rich wants is he needs a lot of flexibility. What I heard from Michele is she wants it spread out. Joe [sic] says it ought to be concentrated in one-bedroom, mostly, but a little bit. So wondering -- and I don't mean to jump on top of you -- sorry about that. But what if it was, like, at least 10 percent of the two-bedroom, at least 10 percent of the one-bedroom, and at least 10 percent? That gives you a lot of flexibility, but it ensures that 100 percent of the affordable housing isn't locked into one area. And I think all three of you could agree with that, unless that causes you concern, Rich, or -- and it doesn't have to be 10 percent. My fellow board members may have a different view, but it seems like that would solve the problem. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Good number. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me tell you why it causes me concern. I have no idea what's happening with construction costs other than they're going like this (indicating), okay. So I have to figure out, with construction costs going up, how to get a rate of return that a bank is willing to take the risks. The more restrictions you put on me, the harder it is to get financing. So we are committing -- and the big goal has been get more affordable housing units to Collier County. We are doing that. I got -- you know, I got -- no disrespect to staff. I don't think any of them have ever built a project. So we build them, and we're telling you what we can -- what risk we can stomach. So we would like the flexibility. You've asked me to make sure I build one-bedrooms. We're building one-bedrooms. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, they're powwowing back there right now. But in synthesizing what the staff wants, they seem to say most of the need's going to be in the smallest units. But they seem to be saying, if I listen to all of them together, that they would like it not all to be concentrated in the smallest units. And what I was trying to do with you is give you very minimal standards just to make sure 100 percent isn't concentrated in one area but give you lots of flexibility. I mean, 10 percent -- 10 percent of the units would be, what, six, seven -- seven units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. But if you say I can't have more than seven units in the one-bedrooms -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what you said to me. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, minimum. Minimum. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I can do 100 percent. What are you doing? Are you telling me a minimum of each of the -- were you asking me -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm saying take, of the 68 units, a minimum of eight units in each one, and then the rest can be wherever you want to put them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I suggest -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. And I just talked to the guy who's going to build the project, and he says he doesn't want to do that. He wants to have -- he needs the flexibility -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 26 of 38 COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's a lot of flexibility. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not enough for him to take the market risk to stomach it right now. He's got to go do -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, he's saying he can't do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: He's saying he doesn't want to commit. He says he's willing to commit to the 22.6 percent but don't further hamstring him on how that is allocated. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. But you understand what I'm trying to get to? MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, too. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I want to talk to my fellow board members. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not understanding -- I don't think you -- do you know what the construction cost is for each unit? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Uh-uh. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I think maybe you should -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I mean, I do in the aggregate, because he showed it to us. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to suggest this -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But what cost -- not that many years ago cost 150,000 a unit now is 350- -- 310- to 350-. So if they're coming -- if they're trying to work with you and supply some of the housing that's needed, I don't know why you'd want to keep picking at it. I mean, it's going to be -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, because I want to get to the best result today. I'm trying to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think we did get to the best result. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm trying to listen to the staff, and I'm trying to listen to the builder and come up with a solution that works for the builder and works with staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: And what I'm staying, because of the uncertainty of construction costs, we can't continue to be put in a hole. And I want to point something out: The Bembridge project that was referred to, my recollection is that was county-owned land. That's a little bit different than where I am right now. So you have had zero -- zero that I know of -- I haven't done every project, but I don't know of any affordable housing projects that have come forward under the current program where we say we're going to have X one-bedrooms, Y two-bedrooms, and Z three-bedrooms. You haven't had any. There's got to be a reason why. That program doesn't work. We're bringing you programs, because we've been asked to, to build more affordable housing. We're at a good point in the market, but that could change. If that changes, you know, the numbers of developers that are going to be willing to come and bring you units is going to go down, and the more restrictions you put on there, it's harder for the developer. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I understand. I'm trying to get to a solution -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- and the 10 percent's been rejected. You say that's too burdensome. Do you have a proposal to meet their need so it's not 100 percent concentrated in one of the size units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're at a normal break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I please ask this -- and I know Commissioner Klucik is signaling and wants to be heard. But we're right up against 10:30. I would like to call for a break now until 10:40 and ask staff and the applicant to see if they can't cut through some of this stuff and come back with some kind of a meeting of the minds or at least close off some of these variables. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 27 of 38 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do think, though, it would be helpful for them to know the sense of some of us. I mean, I am -- before they start talking. I feel strongly that we're getting too particular, and I would prefer to not have the -- you know, the limitations or the requirement for specific sizes or, you know, bedroom numbers that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, you can -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You both can be heard before we hear back after the break if you want to elaborate on that. It's 10:28. We're in recess until 10:40. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return to session. And before I ask the parties, I wanted to give Commissioner Klucik, who is not yet back in the room -- Vice Chair Homiak, did you want to say something further before we hear from the parties? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, I don't have questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Okay. Here we go. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca for the record, Zoning staff. So I just want to make sure we have all the commitments before we hear from the public. So staff had a discussion. We're going to let the market dictate the 68 units in the various ranges. I want to make sure, again, we have a commitment for the 18 TDR credits; interconnection to the north if it is, in fact, built as a commercial property; we're going to prohibit gas station and truck leasing in the Growth Management Plan amendment; and those are my -- those are my commitments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. What about the 40 percent of the 303 being one-bedroom? MS. MOSCA: If the applicant wants to do that, that's fine with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Okay. And, Mr. Yovanovich, did you wish to have a word before we hear from the public on this? MR. YOVANOVICH: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, okay. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, I would like to ask the purchaser, the developer, to come up, because I just want to understand how, when we get into the real-time game of this affordable housing allocation, how you might address it at the time. Is that appropriate? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell you he doesn't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: He's pleading the 5th or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He's basically saying he doesn't know. He's going to -- what's going to happen is when the market comes, he knows he's got fill 68 units in those categories, and that's -- you know, he's -- you know, that's what we have to do, and we'll figure out how to market to get people in those categories. I'm sure we're going to send a flyer to Amy, we're going to send a flyer to the county and say, hey, help us, and I think they're going to fill up pretty quick. COMMISSIONER FRY: I agree. So I think the value of this conversation is we have a member -- Mr. Shea is a member of the Affordable Housing Committee now and, as Mr. Klatzkow says, we really need to develop a policy and LDC amendments that drive this in a way that works for the county, the public, and the people that are trying to do these projects. And so I guess my question is, will it be more profitable to only, if you get enough applications -- and let's assume that there's a glut of applications for one-, two-, three-bedrooms. Let's say you've got an unlimited -- you know, an extra helping of applications, and he has the flexibility to offer the affordable units to either one-, two-, or three-bedroom units in any allocation that he prefers, is it more profitable for him to do only one-unit -- one-bedroom units as affordable 5.A.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 28 of 38 units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The answer would be yes? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hang on, Mr. Yovanovich. Did you want to hear from the developer or the lawyer? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, if you don't mind -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I might mind. Hang on just a sec. I want to find out what Commissioner Fry wants. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's really what the property owner decides, because he's a potential buyer. So I'm committing for the property owner. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will you please just stand down for a second. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I mean, I think that you've -- you answered my questions. It's that -- and I'm going to extrapolate and say that if you can't fulfill the affordable housing with all one-bedrooms, you don't get enough applications to fulfill those numbers, then you look at the two-, and that's a little less profitable, and the three- is a little less profitable yet. So it's in descending order of which units. So the developer's -- the developer's financial impacts are impacted by having to do two- and three-bedroom affordable units more so than the one-bedrooms, which I think is what we're saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think we showed you the numbers. Yes, there's less of a deduct from market for one-bedrooms, but if it turns out that that's the real market for the need for affordable units, isn't that a good thing? What if the real market's two-bedrooms? What if the real market's three-bedrooms? What if we don't get people who come to us for one-bedrooms? Who knows? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, isn't the real market that we have a huge shortage of affordable units, and there should be probably an abundance of applications for all those sizes? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, that's what we're being told. But I don't know who's -- I don't know. I'm assuming that -- I don't know how many people would fit into the income categories in the ones that would qualify that want to live there. I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just responding to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. We'll now hear from any members of the pubic. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers for Item 1 and two speakers online for Item 2. Do you want to hear all four of them together? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we do. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first speaker in person is going to be John Harrison, followed by Nicole Esch. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HARRISON: Good morning. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak. Let me also -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Start by stating your name, please, sir. MR. HARRISON: That was my next paragraph. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me. MR. HARRISON: My name is John Harrison. I'm vice president of the board of directors at Naples Lakes Country Club. Our club is located across the street from the area under 5.A.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 29 of 38 consideration today. Okay. You threw me for a loop today because you've made some changes to what it is that was included in the agenda, and two of those items were those things that we were opposed to. One was the gas station, and the other was the truck rental. And we're very happy to see that. There are some things that we are in favor of. And I thought I would let you know what our position is of housing in the area right across the street from our community as well as those things that we are not so much in favor of. Earlier in all of the discussions Commissioner Shea said he was confused. Told me -- let me tell you that we are a little confused about everything that has gone on this morning. So let me go through again and explain what Naples Lakes is, where we are, how we're impacted, and our positions on some of the issues that you have here. You may recall me from our April 7 meeting. I spoke with you about the expansion of housing units across the street down Lords Way. You may recall that we were not opposed to the expansion of units, but we had concerns about safety along Collier Boulevard. Now, wouldn't you know it that just a few days ago we were advised that yellow flashing lights are going to be installed for safety reasons in front of our front gate on both sides of Collier Boulevard. If your group had anything to do with that, we thank you. Even if you didn't, it's so good to see that our county is truly concerned and responsive to public safety and concerns. Let me remind you about Naples Lakes. Our community is comprised of 731 households. These include a mix of estate homes, villas, townhouses, and condos. We are proud to have one of the very few Arnold Palmer signature golf courses anywhere in Florida. We have a beautiful clubhouse, and we are in the final stages of construction of an outdoor dining and activity center next to our tennis courts. It's a seven-month project, and we are now in the 14th month of that project. When I spoke last month, I talked about living the dream and how most every Naples Lakes resident truly believes that we are living the dream, not only at Naples Lakes, but also in Collier County. We are undoubtedly living in one of the, if not the best parts of the country; however, our little secret is no longer a secret, and we are seeing development and expansion everywhere and at an unprecedented rate. With expansion in our county, we believe that there needs to be a balance in the type and cost of housing. In fact, we're experiencing our own problems getting support staff for our club. And when we bring in foreign staff under the H2B program, we are finding it difficult to find affordable housing if we can find housing at all. So we are in support of the expansion of housing in the area. So it would be hypocritical of us to be opposed to additional housing, although we believe strongly that such affordable housing should be distributed throughout our county and not concentrated in any one area. Now, Naples Lakes was developed by Toll Brothers and has been in existence for a little over 20 years. Over those years, we've seen Collier Boulevard change from a two-lane highway to a six-lane highway. Right now we hear sirens and trucks buzzing by all day and nights. There has been much development outside our front gate and back entrance. Going out our back gate on Rattlesnake Hammock, we find a RaceTrac gas station, a Clean Machine car wash, an Extra Space storage facility, in addition to hundreds of condos. At our front gate on Collier Boulevard, we find Hacienda Lakes and EMS Station No. 25, Sapphire Cove, and Milano Lakes with hundreds of units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, you're at the five-minute mark. Would you take 30 seconds and wrap it up, please. MR. HARRISON: Fifteen seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sounds good. MR. HARRISON: Now, the proposal that was in front of us today was to add a gas 5.A.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 30 of 38 station, to add a storage facility, and there's also a proposal to add a shopping center. We're not opposed to the housing, but we feel that there's too much development of commercial area within a very limited period in our little corner of Naples, and that is what we are opposed to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Nicole Esch, followed by Jacob Winge. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Esch, you have the floor. MS. ESCH: Good morning. I'm Nicole Esch. I'm an Isles of Capri resident, and I just wanted to set this kind of straight here to start that I'm not actually talking about this. I'm talking about another matter. Isles of Capri has -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hang on, hang on. This is not about Isles of Capri today. MS. ESCH: I had -- they told me -- they kind of put me in this spot of the meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that was an error, perhaps, on our part. But this is about AmeriSite. MS. ESCH: Well, that's what I understand. That's why I wanted to make sure, before I say anything, that you're okay -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. If you have any comments about AmeriSite, now would be the time to do it; otherwise -- MS. ESCH: No, I don't, but I did submit to do a new public comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well -- MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we can put her in Item No. 12 for public comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what we'll do. MS. ESCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Jacob Winge, and then we will go online to Dennis Born. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Winge, you have the floor. MR. WINGE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Jacob Winge, president of East Naples Civic and Commerce. I just want to echo some of the comments that were made by Naples Lakes residents as opposed to our position on the project. Very happy that the applicant took out the truck rental facility and some other items that were really not conducive to the area. The one thing that we are asking is that also storage be struck from the commercial portion of the PUD. It really sounds like this is going to be a residential project, but I just feel that we are just extremely overburdened with storage -- and much like comments were on housing and affordability being spread throughout the county, which there is such a need, especially at the north end. Also from a commercial standpoint, we need more economic drivers and economic opportunity in East Naples, and storage units don't provide that just as much as gas stations and car washes and other discussions that we've had up into this point. And so I'm just asking for the commissioners to recognize that facet and ask for the removal of public storage from the PUD. So thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Dennis Born is our next speaker online. Mr. Born, are you with us? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 31 of 38 MR. BORN: I hope so. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We hear you loud and clear, sir. You have five minutes. MR. BORN: Number one, my name is Dennis Born. I also reside in Naples Lakes. I would just like to reiterate what Mr. Harrison indicated to the commission, that Naples Lakes, as a whole, residents are in agreement that there is a need for affordable housing. I would also note that most of the residents that I have been in contact with believe that it is their understanding that if you take a look at everything west -- or east of Collier Boulevard, there is very little commercial space that has been agreed to. We would object to any heavy commercial use of that spot, and that's basically all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Next? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker is going to be -- forgive me. Patrick Kehoe. Patrick, are you with us? You're being prompted to unmute your microphone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could we have a spelling of your name as well? MR. KEHOE: Okay. My name is Pat Kehoe, K-e-h-o-e. And thank you for allowing me the time. Dennis Born and John Harrison have covered my concerns, so that's -- I'm going to spare you any more of my discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Applicant, do you have any rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: I could tell you, if you -- there's no way we're giving up self-storage. That's in response to one of the comments from the public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: So other than that, I think we've -- well, I think we've accurately reflected the commitments we've made. Yes, we've committed to the 40 percent. That will stay in. Forty percent of the units will be one-bedrooms. And with that, we're hopeful that the Planning Commission will bring a motion on all three petitions to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, and if you have any more questions of us, we're happy to answer them, but I'll spare you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to go ahead and move that we vote on it, to approve it as presented with the modifications. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's for all three petitions, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, this is all three. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, indeed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: EAC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: EAC; bald eagle. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, all three. COMMISSIONER FRY: Could we clarify the conditions just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Let me say what I believe they are, if I can get to my notes quickly enough. Well, I'm going to try to do it off the top of my head because I can't find my notes in time. So it's going to be 34 units at under 100 percent, 34 units at under 80 percent, 40 percent of the total 303 will be one-bedroom, 18 TDRs will be used, and so when you run the math with the 68 units, you come to 22.6 of what I would prefer to call actually workforce housing, but we're 5.A.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 32 of 38 calling it affordable housing. And did I -- and also the two uses, the gas station and the truck rental, are being removed, have been removed by the applicant. And have I forgotten anything? COMMISSIONER SHEA: The start of the 30 years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yes. And the start of the 30 years is with the first occupancy. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, it's a minimum of 40 percent of the units will be one-bedrooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A minimum of 40 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: You had said an absolute number. I just wanted to make it clear on the record. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I also wanted to just clarify, these are all percentage -- you gave numbers, but they're all percentages, is that correct, in case they didn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're absolute numbers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, the 34 and 34 are units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Correct. So even if they chose to only build 200 units, they still have to do 68? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no chance we're building only 200 units. It's a good question. It's fair. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It could make a real difference if the economic conditions are such that you have to say, wow, we can only do 250. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I -- and I appreciate your protecting me. I would have -- if I was worried about it, I would have said, let's go X percent. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You have a good lawyer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So, Commissioner Klucik, did I state your motion correctly? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, you did, and -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I think there were a couple other items I just want to make clear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Put them on. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just wanted to confirm that you can still slaughter chickens? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. We're going to -- those have all been removed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, okay, because you didn't mention that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't, and I should have. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And we're also adding a condition that an interconnect be shown if it's developed commercial. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To the north. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it was "potential" interconnection is the word. MR. BELLOWS: Potential. MR. YOVANOVICH: Potential. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, for commercial. MR. BELLOWS: And then to also remove some additional uses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Outdoor advertising services for me, and added the adult-oriented sales and rentals are prohibited, and whatever other ones you said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Are we all in agreement? Have we reached an informed -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, that was what -- my motion contained all of that, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. And the second -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- you're confirmed? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 33 of 38 All right. Any further -- okay, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. Just on the potential interconnectivity, what does that mean? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: To the north. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I know what you -- I know what you asked for the north. If you go commercial, then -- instead of saying interconnectivity, potential interconnectivity was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think, in fairness, we need to reach an agreement with the property owner to the north to where 100 percent of the burden isn't on us to provide the interconnection and maintain the interconnection. I think that, typically, we reach an agreement with the property owner to the north so I'm not obligated to 100 percent absorb that cost. That's what we meant by "potential." COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a common request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mover and seconder agree? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Let's say that this does not move forward with the apartments and now it reverts the commercial -- more to commercial use and the mini-storage and that type of thing. Do the traffic counts that were presented in the application still hold? Do they cover all scenarios? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. What will happen -- the way I see this happening is if we're not successful with everything, probably we'll withdraw all of the petitions, and we'll live with the existing zoning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because we've burdened ourselves. We've given up uses that we currently have and then further restricted ourselves with other -- so why would we move forward if we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: You'd make that decision not -- after BCC approval? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. What I'm saying is if -- if this -- I think what you're asking is if I'm not successful at the BCC, what will we do. Well, if the BCC brings a motion to deny, I'll just say, well, we withdraw our petitions, and I'll stay at the activity center I am now. I'll stay C-4 zoning. I'll stay with everything I have. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Slaughter chickens. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll slaughter some chickens. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further before we take a vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of the three motions combined as modified, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes six to nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 34 of 38 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Now, we don't have any old business, we don't have any new business, but we do have public comment. So, now, ma'am. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have two -- two registered speakers for public comment. First we're going to go with Gordon Brumwell, and then we're going to go with Ms. Esch. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fine, thank you. Spell your name for us, sir. MR. BRUMWELL: Hi. My name is Gordon Brumwell. G-o-r-d-o-n, B as in boy, r-u-m-w-e-l-l. So this is a general comment. It can be applied to the AmeriSite conversation, perhaps, but I'm meaning it more generally with respect to the number of mixed-use projects I feel I hear popping up in the East Naples area. I'm going to back out to quality-of-life issues in East Naples. Thank you all for dealing with the nitty-gritty that you deal with. It sounds very complicated, and it's pretty much over my head. But backing out, we're all becoming increasingly aware we need to get our steps in. We need to move more. This is a public health issue. It's a quality-of-life issue. We currently have a naturally beautiful area, although it seems that we're losing a fair bit of that. We have decent weather. Let's keep in mind that it gets super, super hot, though. And we probably have at least part of the Paradise Coast bike trail coming. And I'm not a planner, but I feel as if mixed-use is supposed to be getting us along the lines of getting those steps in, walkability, bikeability, getting to that commercial location that's close enough that you don't have to drive to it. But the problem here is we only have sun-baked sidewalks and on-street bike lanes. No offense if there's any avid bicyclists here, but normal people won't use those, okay. They scare normal people; they really do. So my point is, I think there's a good argument that in and around East Naples we could have a larger plan of an interconnecting set of safe, protected, and shaded trails for biking and walking that would allow this mixed-use idea to come to fruition and better meet its purpose. Consider the future residents of the AmeriSite project. As more mixed-use pop -- mixed-use projects pop up, they should be able to safely bike or walk to nearby commercial amenities. I feel like that's the purpose of this. And, in fact, I looked at the map, Collier Boulevard presents a barrier to this, but there's a Publix only a quarter a mile away. And if we were thinking bikeability and walkability and public health issues, I, again, think we'd have a network of safe, shaded paths that people could use. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I think what you're speaking of really comes under the heading, at least the way I think about it, of smart growth, and smart growth is encouraged under our governing laws. I wish it were more strongly required than just encouraged. But the very things you're talking about are part and parcel of what we see as smart growth. Thank you. MR. BRUMWELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I think Ms. Esch, you're up. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Nicole Esch will be our final speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. ESCH: Good morning. I'm Nicole Esch, a resident of Isle of Capri. Isles of Capris has growth -- has had lots of growth in the past couple of years. Our growth includes mostly one- and two-story houses. We do have a few three-story houses but, to my knowledge, they have all been built within our current building code and zoning regulations. Isle of Capri is in desperate need of an overlay. We need balanced development for all four of our isles. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 35 of 38 Our community's biggest concern is our smallest isle, the business isle. FCC Beach and Yacht Club, Inc., is proposing 368-foot buildings with 108 condos, marina, restaurant, and ship store. Currently there is nothing on the land except derelict pilings. Many years ago there was a restaurant called Backwater Nick's. It was damaged during Hurricane Wilma and was never rebuilt. The developer understood the building code many years ago when he built on the land as C-3 and had a restaurant. Somehow, many years later, this has been forgotten. The developer doesn't live on Isle of Capri and has not attended either of our NIM meetings. He is not listening to the 824 residents that signed a petition saying no to rezoning. Eight hundred twenty-four is almost all of Isle of Capri. His proposal is not balanced or consistent with our small neighborhood. Isle of Capri needs diverse quality commercial with help with beautification and green space. The residents of Capri would like it to remain C-3. All buildings on our isle are only one and two stories in height, with the Tarpon Club Marina been the highest building at 50 feet. This is something that the residents do not want changed. Many communities have been well planned with overlays, and we have small things that need to be addressed on Isle of Capri, but our two big concerns are building height and future sewage or sewer plan. A concern of Capri is that we are a small coastal community completely inside Rookery Bay. We only have one way to enter and one way to exit on a two-lane road coming onto the isles with mangroves on both sides owned by Rookery Bay. There needs to be planning to not hurt our environment, our sensitive land and water along the way. We care about our manatees and dolphins and are concerned with dredging plans that should be addressed. I'm here to ask for help from the Planning Commission. We need a plan for our community to prevent overdevelopment and irreversible damage to our environment. Isles of Capri needs guidance on how to start this process. I believe the residents of Capri would welcome this, and this would help with future development so we don't have this type of proposal again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to ask staff, we've been receiving emails, communications, postcards for months on this application. When will it actually come before us? It's not on our look-ahead. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning section manager. The planner's Nancy Gundlach. I had a conversation with her not too long ago. It's still in the middle of the review process, so we're not close to scheduling it yet. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I would say to you, Ms. Esch, we really will not get a detailed look at it until we get a packet one week before the meeting. Now, we can drive down there and look at it. We've been receiving emails. I would just suggest that you track when it's coming to us and that you come out in force and save some communications for them. I think everything that's been submitted will be in the packet that we receive, correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The -- every bit of correspondence the staff gets, we create an attachment in the packet that you get with all the correspondence. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just say pace yourselves and have some energy left when it actually does come before us because we really -- we really don't have an adequate understanding of it until we get the packet with all the details and all the staff's hard work, so... MS. ESCH: I'm wondering, Mr. Bellows, if possible -- I know you helped Goodland with their overlay, and they had a building height restriction, and I didn't know if there's an easy way to -- you know, just even a very basic overlay so -- just with even building height, and then we could go back and edit it at a later date, that if the residents voted in -- higher than Goodland, which they were around 60-something percent, I think even on -- in season we could beat what Goodland's percentage was and get something moved forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: An overlay would call for a GMPA, wouldn't it? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 36 of 38 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is a zoning overlay for Goodland. It's in the Land Development Code, and that was at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. Before staff could initiate such an overlay, we'd have to receive direction from either the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would just -- I would hope that we'll have at least a month notice, and especially since it sounds like there's a lot of residents who would want to participate or at least somehow let us know that -- we'll know a month beforehand at least which meeting, that way it's not people scrambling to come because that's -- that is a problem is that people can want -- you know, they might want to participate, but if we're always changing -- and I understand, we need -- you know, we do need flexibility, but I think on this one, since we know there's a lot of people that might want to weigh in from the public, that it would behoove us, and we will seem more like we are servants of, you know, the public interest, if we give advance notice. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The look-aheads that are provided, we can start showing you when we anticipate the hearing date to be. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just ask, you know, my fellow commissioners if you agree with that idea, you know, that it not be sprung on the members of the public, that we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think -- yeah, as soon as -- as soon as staff has a pretty good idea of what that date is, six weeks out, four weeks out, whenever it is, just give us that word. And, if necessary, say we can't have staff commit to this, but our best judgment at this time is what it is. And, certainly, as we always do, we will allow every member of the public who wishes to speak to be heard. That's a commitment that we make as a Planning Commission, and if it takes multiple sessions, we've been through multiple sessions before, and we can do it again. MR. BELLOWS: And staff has met with many of the residents down there and have had ongoing conversations/correspondence with residents of Isles of Capri. So nobody has to wait to a neighborhood information meeting to get information, copies of plans. Everything we have is available. We'll provide it at any time. There will be neighborhood information meetings, so we can try to get public input to try to address the comments and concerns that you've expressed today, but I can't do anything with the zoning overlay until we get some direction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner -- MS. ESCH: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're talking about -- are you talking about having another NIM? Did I misunderstand? You've already had two there. Is there another one? MR. BELLOWS: No, I'm just saying, whatever -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, in general? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, you were up next, if -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Just a question for Ray. It's my ignorance. Explain to me why an overlay is better than -- is it just more detail for that geography than the Growth Management Plan would show or what? MR. BELLOWS: There is a distinction between a Comprehensive Plan element such as the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which is specific to that area, but less than the Growth Management Plan level which has a lot more restrictions if it's part of the Growth Management Plan. You can have a zoning overlay that just regulates building height or regulates other development standards. That process doesn't necessarily require a Growth Management Plan amendment to go with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French? 5.A.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 37 of 38 MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Jamie French, department head with Growth Management and Community Development. Despite whether or not the Board were to ask staff to look at an overlay for this area, there's no look-back. An application is in, so none of that would apply. They simply have to meet -- much like the Florida Building Code, they simply, based off the date of application when they've met the minimum filing requirements, those are the rules that we would apply. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In other words, it's not retroactive; it's not proactive? MR. KLATZKOW: And it doesn't do anything, because they can always come in here, like they do time and time again, and ask for it to be amended for a specific spot. MR. FRENCH: Absolutely. MS. ESCH: I guess the big concern is we have other properties nearby that the developer could possibly buy, and we could have towers on the whole island. So if this gets approved, if we have an -- if the overlay's there, it might prevent other people -- because it would have -- so it would prevent future people, even if this one did go through, to try to get us to have some form of even development. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What's the proper route for the people on the Isles who feel this way and want to initiate something? Should they contact -- MR. KLATZKOW: They can petition the Board of County Commissioners at any meeting, or they can go to their commissioner of the district, Mr. LoCastro. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Got that? MS. ESCH: Yes, thank you. Thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. Thank you. Anything else under -- any other public comment? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. No other public comment. Anybody in the room that hasn't registered but wishes to be heard, raise your hand, and we'll recognize you. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I don't see any hands raised. So we've completed with the public comment portion of our agenda. And without objection, without further ado, we're adjourned. ******* 5.A.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) June 2, 2022 Page 38 of 38 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:16 a.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 L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 06-02-22 CCPC Minites Formatted (22540 : Meeting Minutes) 07/07/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: PL20210001795 Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, Lely, a Resort Community Planned Unit Development (PUD), by allowing the 9+/- acre C-3 parcel at the southwest corner of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) and Grand Lely Drive to have C-3 and/or residential development limited to 184 dwelling units. The subject PUD consists of 2,892 acres located between U.S. 41 and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, west of Collier Blvd. (CR 951), in Sections 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, and 34, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 07/07/2022 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 06/08/2022 11:18 AM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 06/08/2022 11:18 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/10/2022 3:57 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/15/2022 3:58 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 06/20/2022 12:18 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 06/20/2022 1:56 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/21/2022 2:31 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 07/07/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 92 PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 1 of 13 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: JULY 7, 2022 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20210001795 LELY RESORT MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) _______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Property Owner/Applicant: David Development, Inc. 3330 Cumberland Blvd. SE # 425 Atlanta, GA 30339 Agents: Lindsay Robin, AICP Richard Yovanovich, Esquire Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich, and Koester, P.A. 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd. #300 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Napless, FL 34108 Naples, FL 34103 The C-3 parcel at the corner of Collier Boulevard and Grand Lely Drive is owned by David Development, Inc., There are numerous other property owners in the Lely Resort PUD. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92- 15, the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow a 9 acre C-3 Tract located at the southwest corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard to add residential dwelling units to the permitted uses. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 2 of 13 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 94Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 3 of 13 MASTER PLAN 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 4 of 13 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The overall PUD, consisting of 2,892.5 acres, is located to the west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), east of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), and south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, within Sections 21- 22, 27-28, and 33-34, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject 9 acre C-3 Tract is a portion of the 2,892.5 acre Lely Resort PUD, specifically Ordinance 92-15, recorded on March 23, 1992, as amended. The current ordinance/PUD permits a variety of uses including 8,946 dwelling units, 820,000 square feet of commercial uses, 350 hotel rooms, and educational facilities. See Attachment B-Ordinance 92-15 and Attachment C- Ordinance 15-39. The petitioner proposes to add residential dwelling units to the permitted uses in the C-3 designated portion of the PUD located at the southwest corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard. The proposed 184 multi-family and townhouse dwelling units are already accounted for in the previously approved 8,946 dwelling units. Because this PUD is already partially developed, the petitioner cannot prepare a new PUD document using the latest format, e.g., Exhibits A-F rather than sections. To do so could create non-conformities in the existing development. Instead, the petitioner is providing the proposed changes in a strike thru/underline format, showing the new information in underlined text and showing the text to be removed in a strike thru format. There are no deviations proposed. There are no changes to the current density of 3.1+/- dwelling units per acre. See Attachment A–Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (of Subject Parcel): North: Grand Lely Drive, a 4-lane divided collector roadway, then a developed 8.8 acre “C-3” parcel with a zoning designation of Lely Resort PUD. This property is developed with a commercial strip shopping center and out parcels. East: Collier Boulevard, a 6-lane divided arterial roadway, then the SFWMD 951 Canal, and a developed residential area with a zoning designation of Winding Cypress PUD. South: Celeste Drive, then a single-family development with a zoning designation of Lely Resort PUD. West: Celeste Drive, then a single-family development with a zoning designation of Lely Resort PUD. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 5 of 13 AERIAL PHOTO-CLOSE UP GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Subject Site 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 6 of 13 Transportation Element: According to the revised PUD document and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Waiver request provided with this petition the proposed change will have no net increase or decrease in the number of trips generated by the Lely Resort PUD development. Lely Resort is a vested development under the recorded Developer Agreement, instrument 3341317, OR 3498, PG 0233 which vests Lely Resort with a total of 9,150 dwelling units. According to the most recent PUD Monitoring Report dated May 21, 2021, the current built residential unit count is 5,442. Therefore, there are 3,708 residential units remaining of the 9,150 vested units total. This PUD Amendment is not requesting any additional dwelling units and following Collier County TIS guidelines the applicant provided a TIS waiver request which staff reviewed and approved due to the noted no additional impacts-vested development status. Based on the proposed PUD Amendment request and Lely Resort’s vested status, the subject petition can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. There are no additional traffic impacts resulting from the proposed change. Staff further notes that operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points and impacts to the existing road network. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the headings “Rezone Findings” and “PUD Findings.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the PUD document (Ordinance 92-15). The native vegetation has been placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 7 of 13 meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Staff further notes that the agent submitted, post review, a ‘Traffic Study” document which is not a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). This study was not used in the determination of consistency with the GMP for this request. The study is a trip generation comparison scenario that is based on potential land uses. It does not distribute trips on the road network, does not evaluate impacts, and does not meet minimum TIS requirements. The limited data provided appears mathematically accurate. However, it also contains extraneous information and conclusions that should be removed from the record to avoid unintended consequences at the time of Development Review. To clarify, the “Traffic Study” was not used as part of the Transportation Planning Staffs' review, evaluation of GMP consistency, or the above recommendation. The submitted “Traffic Study” does not meet minimum TIS submittal standards and contains extraneous sections and conclusions. Therefore, Transportation Planning staff recommends approval subject to the following stipulation: 1. The “Traffic Study” shall be removed from the record. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and south wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure along the project’s frontages on Celeste Drive, Grand Lely Drive, and Collier Boulevard. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. School Board Review: At this time there is existing or planned capacity for the proposed development at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. At the time of SDP or Plans and Plat (PPL), the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity. The Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that the proposed project is located within was approved prior to 2000, and therefore is not subject to concurrency. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: As previously stated, the petitioner proposes to add residential land uses to the commercial (C-3) tract at the southwest corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard. The subject site is pie -shaped 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 8 of 13 and surrounded on three sides by roads. The subject site is across the street from an existing commercial shopping center to the north, and single-family residential to the east and the west. At the Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) the petitioner stated 184 four-story multi-family residential dwelling units including townhouses are proposed on the subject site. The 184 dwelling units are already accounted for in the previously approved 8,946 dwelling units. The residential uses proposed for the C-3 tract will utilize the currently approved residential development standards in the PUD. Multi-family land uses are considered to be a transitional use between commercial development and single-family development. In this case, rather than the currently prescribed commercial land use only, residential land uses are proposed. The request is similar to the 2014 request that allowed the current residential land uses on the C-3 tract located at the southwest corner of Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Therefore, staff finds the proposed PUD amendment to be compatible with the existing surrounding residential development. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff offers the following analysis: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map, and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern can be characterized as developed commercial and residential. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 9 of 13 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to develop the property with residential land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change from commercial development to multi-family residential development will not change the overall intensity of land uses allowed by the current PUD. The proposed change from commercial to residential should be more compatible with the adjacent residential development than commercial development. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., the GMP is consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or PPL). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is anticipated that the proposed PUD Amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas inside or outside the PUD. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 10 of 13 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP and PPL approval process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of the adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed Rezone does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without rezoning the property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed PUD Amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed. However, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or PPL processes, and as part of the building permit process. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 11 of 13 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria:” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Water distribution and wastewater collection mains are readily available within the Celeste Drive, Grand Lely Drive, and Collier Boulevard rights-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has found this petition consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with the adjacent uses. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 12 of 13 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Collier County has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including adjacent Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is not seeking any new deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM meeting on December 14, 2021, at the South Regional Library located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, Florida. Approximately 90 residents attended the meeting in-person along with 10 remote participants along with the Agent’s team and Applicant. A second, non-required NIM was held on March 10, 2022. Approximately 160 residents attended the meeting. For further information, see Attachment D - NIM Synopsises. The neighboring residents are opposed to the proposed residential development. They do not want additional traffic on Celeste Lane, they are opposed to tall buildings, and they prefer the originally prescribed commercial development on the subject parcel. Staff has received 45 Letters of Objection along with a Petition. Please see Attachment E-Letters of Objection and Attachment F-Petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on June 3, 2022. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) PUDA-PL20210001795, LELY RESORT PUD June 3, 2022 Page 13 of 13 RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA- PL20210001795, Lely Resort PUD to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulation: 1. The “Traffic Study” shall be removed from the record. Attachments: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance See Attachment B-Ordinance 92-15 See Attachment B-Ordinance 15-39 Attachment D-NIM Synopsises Attachment E-Letters of Objection Attachment F-Petition Attachment G-Application 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Lely Staff Report 6-3-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 060322(2) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 060322(2) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 060322(2) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 060322(2) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 060322(2) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 060322(2) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B-Ord. 92-15 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) ORDINANCE NO. 15- 3 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-15, AS AMENDED, WHICH RE-ESTABLISHED LELY, A RESORT COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY REDUCING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 10,150 TO 8,946; BY AMENDING SECTION 2.06 ENTITLED "PROJECT DENSITY" AND SECTION 2.07 ENTITLED "PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS"; BY AMENDING THE MARKET ABSORPTION SCHEDULE; BY AMENDING SECTION 3.02 ENTITLED "MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS"; BY AMENDING SECTION V, C-2 COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL TO PROVIDE THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED AS PART OF A MIXED USE PROJECT; AND BY AMENDING SECTION VI, C-3 COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD TO ALLOW C-3 USES AND ALL TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AS MIXED USE OR STAND ALONE FOR THE C-3 PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AND GRAND LELY DRIVE; BY ADDING SECTION XV, DEVIATIONS, FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE SIZE OF SIGNS; AMENDING EXHIBIT H, THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO MOVE A C-3 PARCEL TO THE EAST OF GRAND LELY DRIVE AND ADJUST ACREAGES TO DECREASE RESIDENTIAL USES AND INCREASE COMMERCIAL USES BY 6± ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 2,892 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD WEST OF C.R. 951, IN SECTIONS 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20140002040] WHEREAS, on March 10, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved Ordinance No. 92-15 which established the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the Board approved Ordinance No. 07-72 which amended the PUD; and 14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108—rev. 6/18/15 Page 1 of 4 Lely Resort—PUDA-PL20140002040 Words st^u^' gh are deleted;words underlined are added. cA 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing Stock Development, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida to further amend Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to Index. The Index to Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to add the following: SECTION XV Deviations from the LDC. 15-1 [applicable to entire PUD unless otherwise notedl SECTION TWO. Amendment to List of Exhibits and Tables. See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TWO: Amendments to Project Density. Section 2.06 entitled "Project Density" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION THREE: Amendments to Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units. Section 2.07 entitled Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION FOUR: Amendment to Estimated Market Absorption Schedule. The estimated Market Absorption Schedule, Table 1, of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: 14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108—rev. 6/18/15 Page 2 of 4 Lely Resort—PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. cq 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) See Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION FIVE: Amendment to Maximum Dwelling Units. Section 3.02 entitled "Maximum Dwelling Units" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: 3.02 Maximum Dwelling Units. A maximum number of i 0 8,946 dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated as "R" except as permitted by Section 2.07 or "C-2" or "C-3" where expressly permitted. SECTION SIX: Amendments to Section V, C-2 Commercial/Professional. Section V, C-2 Commercial/Professional of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION SEVEN: Amendments to Section VI, C-3 Commercial/Neighborhood. Section VI, C-3 Commercial/Neighborhood of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION EIGHT: Amendments to Section XIV, General Developer Commitments. Section XIV, General Developer Commitments of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, (Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to add the following: C. Transportation 10 Prior to SDP as'royal of im•rovements on the C-2 .arcel that has fronta•e on US 41 the owner shall post a performance guarantee such as a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $50,000 in order to secure owner's fair share of transportation improvements to Triangle Boulevard including but not limited to, turn lanes, median modifications and/or a traffic circle along Triangle Boulevard. The performance guarantee shall be released by County upon execution of a developer's contribution agreement by owner or upon creation of a commercial municipal service taxing district and/or benefit unit by County. The amount of the contribution shall be determined at time of execution of the developer's contribution agreement or calculated in accordance with the taxing district. 14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108—rev. 6/18/15 Page 3of4 Lely Resort—PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. C19)., 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION NINE: Amendments to Add Section XV, Deviations from LDC. Section XV, Deviations from LDC of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, (Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby added to read as follows: See Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TEN: Amendment to Master Plan. Exhibit H, "Master Land Use Plan" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: See Exhibit H, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION ELEVEN: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 1' day of J u 1.1 2015. fie Al ra. ATTEST?• g a.. .BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DW bI MfiBRpc1 CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA f }1uJ 9 f( E B Ji iA. i.L By: e,a4ece.„_ Attest as re TIM NANCE, Chairman signature orb .' Approved as to form an. legality: fiD tk(ttK H idi Ashton-Cicko I u\‘ Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—List of Exhibits and Tables Exhibit B — Section II, Sections 2.06 and 2.07 Exhibit C—Estimated Market Absorption Schedule Exhibit D— Section V, C-2 Commercial/Professional Exhibit E—Section VI, C-3 Commercial/Neighborhood Exhibit F—Section XV—Deviations from LDC Exhibit H to Ord. 92-15, as amended—Revised Master PlanThis ordinance filed with the Exhibit Ito Ord. 92-15, as amended - Buffer Exhibit eet tthhtote's Office 615day1u19 and acknowledger'nent of that filing received this T`__ day of -- y its 1L,y 1.:i14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108-rev. 6/18/15 Page 4 of 8Y Deputy tiLelyResort-PUDA-PL20140002040 Words strusk-thfeugh are deleted;words underlined are added.r1 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT H Revised Master Land Use Plan (Prepared by Pock, Inc. Filo No. RZ 198 EXHIBIT I BUFFER EXHIBIT TABLE I Estimated Market Absorption Schedule TABLE II A Development Standards `R' Residential Areas TABLE II B Development Standards `R' Residential Areas EXHIBIT A ii Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.06 PROJECT DENSITY The total acreage of the Lely Resort property is approximately 2892.5 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 10,150 8,946. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is approximately 3.15. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary according to the type of housing placed on each parcel of land but shall comply with guidelines established in this document. 2.07 PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS All properties designated for residential uses may be developed at the maximum number of dwelling units as assigned under Section 2.05, provided that the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed -1-0,-50 8.946. The Development Services Director shall be notified of such an increase and the resulting reduction in the corresponding residential land use or other categories so that the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 10,150 8,946. Approximately 1850 single family units and 5300 7,096 multi-family units have been planned. Variations from these numbers without an adjustment to the maximum number of units within the project shall be permitted provided that the maximum number of dwelling units by type shall not vary by more than twenty (20) percent. The maximum number of dwelling units shall include all caretaker's units but does not include the designated hotel rooms. The project may exceed the variation of twenty (20) percent of the unit types set forth in this section provided that for every single family unit permitted in excess of 2220, the maximum number of dwelling units shall be reduced by 1.667 units. EXHIBIT B 2-1 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words stlk-thfeugh are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) ESTIMATED MARKET ABSORPTION SCHEDULE TABLE 1 PHASE YEAR RESIDENT COMMER. GC EC RC CC UNITS SQ. FT.HOLES STUDENTS HOTEL RMS SEATING I 1985- 264 3,600 18 1990 II 1991- 1328 300,400 36 364 350 Rooms 1995 III 1996- 1482 56,000 736 1850 2000 IV 2001- 1526 2005 V 2006- 1250 90,000 1400 2010 VI 2011- 1300 1,000 100,000 2015 VII 2016- -1-50014(20 135,000 2020 VIII 2021- 1500 1 4096 135,000 2025 TOTALS 40 10,150 8.246 820,000 54 2500 350 Rooms 1850 315,000 S.F. 315,000 SF of hotel commercial space is included EXHIBIT C 2-9 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION V C-2 COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 5.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this sSection is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated on Revised Exhibit H', Master Land Use Plan RZ 198, as `C-2'. The C-2 tract is intended to provide for the professional, office, and business related needs of area residents, supplementing the retail nature of the adjacent C-1 tract. 5.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURE No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1) Business and professional offices; banks; financial institutions. 2) Churches and other places of worship; civic and cultural facilities; educational facilities. 3) Funeral homes. 4) Homes for the aged; hospitals; hospices and sanitoriums, hotels and motels. 5) Medical laboratories; medical clinics; medical offices; mortgage brokers; museums. 6) Parking garages and lots; private clubs. 7) Real estate offices; research design and development activities; restaurants; rest homes; convalescent centers; and nursing homes. 8) Laboratories, provided that: No odor, noise, etc., detectable to normal senses from off the premises are generated; All work is done within enclosed structures; and No product is manufactures or sold, except incidental to development activities. 9) Transportation, communication and utility offices—not including storage or equipment. 10) Water management facilities and essential services. 11) The C-2 parcel fronting U.S. 41 may be developed allowing C-2 and/or C-3 uses, as outlined in Section V and Section VI of Ordinance 92-15, as amended, and up to 175 residential dwelling units to provide for a mixed-use project. 5-1 EXHIBIT D Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struelFthreugh are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added e C) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this district. 2) Caretaker's residence. 5.03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1) Minimum Site Area: As approved under Section 2.04 2) Minimum Site Width: As approved under Section 2.04 3) Minimum Yard Requirements for parcel boundaries: Thirty(30)feet 4) Maximum Height of Structures: Fifty (50) feet above the finished grade of the site, plus ten (10) feet for under building parking. 5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor. 6) Minimum Distance Between Principal Structures: 30' or ''A the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. 7) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and landscaping shall conform with applicable Collier County Regulations in effect at the time permits are sought:, or as approved by a deviation in Section XV of the PUD. 8) The area of the C-2 and C-3 uses referenced in Paragraph 5.02 A.11) above shall be limited to a maximum of 100,000 square feet in the aggregate. This limitation does not apply to the 175 residential dwelling units permitted as part of a mixed use proiect 9) Tho area of each, individual C 2 and C 3 uses referenced in Paragraph 5.02 A.11) above shall bo One (1) building o C-3containigC-2 r uses n -. in P.r. r. .h 02.A 1 i .Il• -. • • .1 101 • _.r- --t of 'r• ••r . A other buildin•s containing C-2 and C- uses shall be limited to 20,000 square feet. 10) 9) Any restaurant uses permitted by or associated with any use permitted by either the C-2 and C-3 land use designations of this Ordinance, only if those uses are located on the C-2 parcel fronting U.S. 41, shall be subject to the following additional regulations: a)No televisions shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas. b) No amplified sounds, including music, shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas after 10:00 p.m. Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 5-2 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) c)No live entertainment shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas after 10:00 p.m. d) All windows and doors shall be closed after 10:00 p.m. 11)IQ)The 175 residential dwelling units and C-3 uses referenced in paragraph 5.02 A.11)above shall be subject to the C-2, Commercial/Professional development standards set forth in this Paragraph Paragraph Section 5.03). • Amid' I-. • . .•• It .61•6. -. • - .16 • - - 6- . ••-t • 6. - frontin. U.S. 41. excluding restaurant uses, which shall be regulated in accordance with paragraph 5.03 9)above. 12 Th- -2 ..r -I r•• '!! s._ . • '.- _ 1.- •• • , -. - • ' • _ ••. ' - .- ":" plantings in accordance with Exhibit 1 along the northeast perimeter of said C-2 parcel, where the commercial building and associated loading area abut the existing lake. The wall will extend from Tr'.n•l- :1 . • , .,••'» . 11 •1u'• • . . • .••. •• •• ..._ h- -n• if ,n . .••. - • , '•1 i • -. -. is i- lei - •-rig•- - • ,- parcel where restaurant uses abut the existing lake. The loading dock shall be on the commercial interior side of the wall. Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9 5-3 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION VI C-3 COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD 6.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated on Revised Exhibit `H', Master Land Use Plan RZ 198, as `C-3'. The C-3 tract''-s are intended to provide residents with conveniently located commercial facilities and services that are typically required on a regular basis. 6.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1) Antique shops; appliance stores; art studios; art supplies; automobile parts stores; automobile service stations. 2) Bakery shops; banks and financial institutions; barber and beauty shops; bath supply stores; blue print shops; bicycle sales and services; book stores. 3) Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation); child care centers; churches and other places of worship; clothing stores; confectionary and candy stores. 4) Delicatessen, drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods stores and department stores. 5) Electrical supply stores. 6) Fish stores; florist shops; food markets; furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 7) Gift shops; gourmet shops. 8) Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; homes for the aged; hospitals and hospices. 9) Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms. 10) Jewelry stores. 11) Laundries—self-service; leather goods and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores. 12) Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care;millinery shops; music stores. 13) Office(retail or professional); office supply stores. 14) Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops; pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office. EXHIBIT E 6-1 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struccik-thfeugh are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 15) Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants. 16) Souvenir stores; stationary stores; supermarkets and sanitoriums. 17) Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores. 18) Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics(no outside kenneling). 19) Watch and precision instrument sales and repair. 20) Water management facilities and essential services. 21) The C-3 e arcel at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake 1mmoc Road and Grand Le Drive may be developed allowing C-3 uses, as outlined in Section VI of Ordinance 92-15, as amended, and/or residential dwelling units. 21)22) Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the !_ _ ._ _ ._ •1'1 • : .. • Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible with the district. B) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1)Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. 2) Caretaker's residence. 6.03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Minimum Site Area: As approved under Section 2.04 2)Minimum Site Width: As approved under Section 2.04 3) Minimum Yard Requirements from parcel boundaries: Abutting non-residential areas: Twenty five(25)feet Abutting residential areas: Thirty five (35) feet in which an appropriately designed and landscaped buffer shall be provided, as determined under Section 2.14. 4) Distance between principal structures: None, or a minimum five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front yard to rear yard. 5) Maximum Height of Structure: Fifty(50)feet above the finished grade of the site. 6) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor. 6-2 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 7) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and landscaping shall be in conformance with applicable Collier County regulations in effect at the time permits are sought or as approued by a deviation:in Section XV of the PUD, 8) The residential dw .11in' ..' - - -• -. '. - •• • 12.A.21 above shall be subj the re,sidentjal development standards as set forth in Table IL of Ordinance 92-15, except that residential building height shall be limited to a maximum of fifty(50) feet/4 stories, 9 A six-foot tall wall/fence with Alternative T pe `B" plantings in accordance with Exhibit I shall be rovided between the existing lakes on the sout ern perimeter of the C-3 parcel at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive, Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 6-3 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION XV DEVIATIONS FROM THE I,DC I• ,••i ion • devi. '•n rr-n ,••r•v-• in h- P D h- f•1 o- •i .r- •-in .!o-_ • •- PUD: Deviation 1; Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows tem.or.ry signs on residential. zon-• properties us • 4 sou. - -- in ,r-a or feet in h-iih • .11. . - .• , siin or .ann-r . • • a maximum of 32 s•uare feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in hei_ht: subject to ap.r.v,l . .-r temporary Sian permit procedures in the LDC. The tem.orar si•n or banner shall be limited to 14 day duration not to exceed 2: da •- calend.r ear. This d-vi, ion ,•'lie • - -n ire P D. Wh-.• '100 of the dwellin. units ar- solo i hin each s 'division ilizin. hi •-via ion re•u-st his •-vi, i• terminates and reverts to the LDC for such subdivision. Deviation 2• Deviation fr. P S- ion .0..02.B.6.b whi h .ermi s o 2_!r.und or ,1 . is per entran e to the develo.m-n h . .mbine• si'n .re. of.4 • ,r- -- • allow for two 2 'r• no or wall sins at the entrance to re i.ential .ro'ects within the P D i h . •m.in-d i'n , -a of :1 f per sign, and not to exceed the height or length of the wall upon which it is located. This deviation applies to the entire PUD. Devia ion 3: Deviation from LDC - ti•n .0..02 B.6 whi h •- it . m,xim m sin hei•ht of : - - for us o •roung or wall sins at e. h entr. c- o . m lti-f. it or n•1 -f,mil • -v-lo.m- • allow • maximum heiih of 11 f-- This •evi.ti•n ,..li- • - •n ir- P P. Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC S-c ion 06.02.B.12 a. which permit . maximum of 1 w,11 in pursuant o LDC re•uirement for si'n within non-r-siden i.1 •i ri s , d a maxim m •f tw• 2 ground signs with a height of 8 feet and sign copy area of no more than 32 square feet per sign at the main entrance to internal residential communit amenity facilities, to allow for a maximum of one (1 ground or wall sign for each individual amenity within the Player's Club at Lely Resort, in addition to he main amenit entran e si•ns not to -xc-ed a hei•ht •f t-n 11 f-et , d sin co• area of 64 ..r- feet .er siin. The deviation a•.li-s solel to the P1. ers Cl b at Lel Resort Parcel No. 5542500300. and is limited to a total of six (6) amenity site signs. Deviation • Deviation from LDC Sec ion 5 0..02.B.6 14.b whi h permit one .ound..t marker sign . e. h residential d-velo•ment .ro pert corner with a maximum si!n fa - area of 24 s.uare feet to all.w for one bounda marker sin with a maximum sin face area of 2 s•uare feet at each pro.ert c.rn-r of the C-3 tract at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive. This deviation applies solely to the 20-acre tract desi'nated as `C-3' on Revised Exhibit `H' Master Land Us- Plan and located at the southwest corner of R.ttlesnak- Hamm. k Road . d Grand Lel Drive Parcel No. 535 0100063. 53570100241, and 53570100225). Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.0..04. F.1. which permits an additional pole or !round si'in for parcels havini frontaie of 150 ft. or more on a public street or combined public street fron . 'e of 220 lineal feet where there is a minimum of a 1 000 feet separation between such sins to allow for a maximum •f two 2 si i ns on the C-2 tract that fronts on U.S. 41 one of which ma be located on the US EXHIBIT F 15-1 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck-through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12,2015 Words underlined are added c, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 41 fr•nta'- an. h- -c•n• hich _ s- • . -. in h- i.n1- : • r• M.I. i .e,_ in' .f411 f— .- w--n sins Thi .-v'. '•. • ..1'- •1- • h- •-. - on Revised Exhibit `H', Master Land Use Plan, and located at the northwest corner of Tamiarni Trail East and Trian•1- Blvd. (Parcel No. 55425001008). Deviation 7: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06,04.F.1.c, which permits a maximum allowable si. • of 80 s•uare feet for a role or aroun• sin I• •s .n .n . - i.1 r. . .av • . x1•w f•r . im ' n a of 1 1 0 • •re feet fora sole or r•~n•l.c. -. on h- -2 r. t n in 4 . • is the C-3 tract at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive. This d-vi.tion a.sli-s solel to the •-acre r. t •- i'n. -• . ` -2' in Revised Ex •s' ` ' u -r . - Plan and locat-d at the northwest corner .f Tami. i Trail East and Tr'. 'le Blv• P.r -I N. 42 001118 .nd the 20-acre tract desi•nat-d as `C-3' •n Revises Exhi•it `H' Ma -r L.n• U - Ph and located at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive (Parcel No. 5357)100063, 53570100241, and 53570100225 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 15-2 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) IL1/h4Wii,Y H•WkCi+WtB.... PR PR r 7?•. Ir: Ifr.- - 1 1. tivo col Jrd L'?J fad R C # c PI:v...J w • PR ql a`. PR ti..( flR y"' a, 0 41 R Z' ?v pA r.R R4F c ac ad ac Y ( ,\ F+ J 1.A e 41 1 i 4tCC u 'i:' t3C ' '.`r'qr tic .,,I R.. ^' 7„? i 543 fl., re R k, 0. )!' S ' Rc /HI 6 h 7-.., S.l/..... R 1 ,°..'')"..!'' 4.'"c 5 R is '1 ' ' R $ C3 R R t( i1 C3 i B a h o a l C l ` aC f` f RLI GC R 7111!.1 i1C pry ap LEGEND PR SYMB ITEM RCR 3 R R ) 0 4. Finn RESIDENTIAL r.w.w.r...rw 1166.0 0 - * R C1 j COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY 38.0 f 1 02j COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 16.0 t sr LCSI COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD 36.0 rail r+,, y,, iBC; EOISOCOLLEGE 44.0 R R R 4.'. pR CC CULTURAL CENTER 46.5 Y fRC RESORT CENTER 49.0 jam t' 4C R... IGCJ GOLF COURSE 49S.0 1"'` J ""` C , CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE 233.0 r CYPRESS PRESERVE 171.5 ti CO PARIS/SCHOOL 21.5 1,'5 ,`.,.f Ca LAKE 405.5 C 4. A MAJOR COLLECTOR 70.5 RIO MINOR COLLECTOR 64.0 y' _ r ' N Et) um LOCAL ROAD 26.5 fz ra; ACREAGE XXX.X 961 R.Q.W. RESERVE 9.0 TOTAL.ACREAGE AREA 2692.0 f TOTAL UNITS 8,945 TOTAL COMMERCIAL SO.FT. 1.135,000 EXHIBIT H Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struelchrough are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added U 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 07Zth->-- zi. 3,3 541. r4' 1W4W1IelIFr,H c,r1.7 cc.'biltxxmC I0113 rs)M M 73 r1-1 IP3 an 03,3 8 Mg P0 Air- -10 PA 411oNliktot MORI 1,011 ri 4 lip 016 ire cn 02 P44114Hi0 2-E 13 FlikiNIfpCOIP-rT-, r9 Api m NW1ANk 1 m > 2 plioato.06, 41%--"— or. I. 1. 4' 0 ASIII" W\ r. 0 om 03 re 111. , n M Po 14 z I cnm 15 WIDEz o z“ol i ",:11101f. ;11 il' 1 Si po 0 ml if ..a 7 EXHIBIT I ON' 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) d FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNERGovernor Secretary of State July 9, 2015 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Ms. Martha S. Vergara, BMR Senior Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 15-39, which was filed in this office on July 9, 2015. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 • Facsimile: (850) 488-9879 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment C-Ord. 15-39 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Memo rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP From: Lindsay Robin, AICP Collier County Growth Management Stantec File: Lely Tract 12 PUDA (PL20210001795) Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis Date: January 24, 2022 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and Collier County Staff conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Wednesday, December 14, 2021. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy., Naples, Florida 34113. The meeting was hybrid and therefore an online option was also provided for participants to attend virtually. Approximately 10 participants attended using the link provided. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit “A” and demonstrates 86 residents were in attendance. Handouts were distributed providing information on the proposed amendment and are attached as Exhibit “B”. Lindsay Robin (Agent) conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and Staff, and an overview of the proposed PUD amendment application, including the location of the subject property and the request to add residential uses to the C-3 tract as an option for development. She also outlined the amendment processes and opportunities to provide input at public hearings. Fred Hazel, the Applicant representative from Davis Development, also spoke about the project and provided input on details relating to the proposed luxury apartments, and the market demand to create a residential project on this parcel. Following the Consultant’s presentation, the meeting was opened up to the attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. The Applicant’s representatives’ responses are shown in bold. Question/Comment 1: Does Davis Development own the property? Response: [Developer] No, Stock Development owns the property. Davis Development is the contract purchaser. Question/Comment 2: It’s zoned C-3 and curb cuts were always planned on to Collier Blvd. from this lot for the last 30 years. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 2 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Response: [Planner] Yes, it will remain a C-3 parcel. We are adding the option to do residential on the C-3 parcel. Question/Comment 3: Is there a process to change the land from commercial to residential? Response: [Planner] Yes, that is the process we are currently in now with the County. We are requesting approval to add residential uses to this parcel. Question/Comment 4: The entrance and exit was supposed to be on Collier Blvd. This property has always been zoned C-3 with planned entrances and curb cuts on Collier Blvd. and at the time of that zoning Collier Blvd. was a two-laned country road. We’re asking to not reduce the number of curb cuts that have long been planned on to Collier Blvd. Response: [Attorney] It was zoned C-3 when this was originally rezoned back in 1992. Looking at the PUD master plan, there is no access from this C-3 parcel to Collier Blvd., so there is no currently approved access for the commercial project that could be built on this property on to Collier Blvd. We will be talking to County staff about access, and what they think about the access. We go through the Site Development Plan process, that is the next step after we go through the first process, which is to amend the current PUD. It was pointed out, but I will point it out again, this process requires us to go through the CCPC first, they will make a recommendation whether they agree or don’t agree with our adding residential units to this particular piece of property. Then we’ll go to BCC. The BCC will consider both staff’s recommendations and the CCPC recommendation and they will make the ultimate decision as to whether or not to add residential to this particular piece of property. They may say yes it makes more sense to have residential than commercial on this piece of property, they may say no they don’t agree with that. We have not asked for any changes to the development standards that already exist on this C-3 piece of property. We haven’t asked to go taller than what we could do for commercial and that’s what we are proposing to do. The purpose of this meeting is to explain that’s what we want to do, get your feedback, I get that you don’t like that access solely on Celeste. I get that, but access currently is on Celeste after the commercial, so let’s make sure we understand what’s currently approved. Nancy is going to go back to transportation staff at the county and say there is concern about the traffic going on to Celeste. Question/Comment 5: We’re concerned about the 4-story building. Response: [Attorney] I’m hearing now you don’t like the four-story as currently could be built. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 3 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Question/Comment 6: Are these being leased on an annual basis? Or could there be potential for VRBO, Air BNB, or what do you anticipate for that? Response: [Developer] This would be a market-rate, for-rent, with year-plus leases, so no this is not a short-term rental of any sort. This is a luxury multi-family project. Question/Comment 7: Who can reside in your community? Response: [Developer] To reside in our community you have to be on the lease if you’re going to live in the unit. You have to be background checked to be accepted into the community. We will know the name of every person living in the community. Question/Comment 8: We agree to disagree on that potential. My name is Tim Schofield, I’m a new resident to Tiger Lilly estates and was very displeased to find out a couple days after we closed that the plans are changing for this to go to residential from commercial. I think most of us agree here the density, the size, and the traffic, but more the density. Take a look at that aerial. There are 12 homes across Collier on less space than 184 units. The absolute mass you are proposing to plunk in across the street from our homes is not acceptable. To drop this to 3-stories, doesn’t look like the money wouldn’t work for me, to build the project, that makes it 1/4 better, but the density is still 15X and anything near that. I don’t believe that the traffic, environmental, and all the beautiful things my wife and I could bring from the state of California with us, is going to make this project worth your while. Response: The comment was acknowledged. No response was provided. Question/Comment 9: We are very concerned about the traffic because people take the path of least resistance. So, if the exit/egress is onto Celeste only people are going to come out on to Celeste and go through the residential neighborhoods rather than going to the light because the lights take 3+ minutes. We met the department of transportation and they actually wanted to increase the speed limit because so many people were speeding, but we said no thank you. How many parking spaces are provided? The height is a big issue. Access/egress only on Celeste is a major issue. Someone else is going to get hurt and die. Response: The comment was acknowledged. 370+\- spaces. Question/Comment 10: Since Stock developed everything in Lely, why is he not developing this property? 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 4 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Response: [Attorney] The reason Stock’s not developing it is they do not want to develop this piece of property, so it went out to market and Davis Development responded to that going out to market and currently is the contract purchaser on the site and is taking this through the process to change or add the use of residential. Frankly, I am Stock’s lawyer. I have done all of Stock’s zoning and changes, I’ve done all of the projects that Stock has done. Question/Comment 11: I’d like to understand the approval process a bit more. After the BCC approves this, it is after the approval that the traffic study is done and that doesn’t make sense to me. When will a true traffic study be done? Response: [Engineer] A traffic analysis is done at the time of SDP approval. After the zoning approval. We could submit concurrently for SDP – Site Development Plan – but right now we’re looking at seeking approval of the zoning process and then come back and submit the SDP and traffic study, which is a part of that process. Question/Comment 12: So, what if they say then that the site can’t handle the traffic? Then what? Response: [Engineer] Then we can’t build. If traffic improvements were necessitated out of that then the County may come along and force those improvements on the project in order to receive approvals. Question/Comment 13: I would just encourage you all to call and email your county commissioners please. Rick Locastro could not be here tonight he had another meeting. We met with him about the traffic going in and out and he’s fully in agreement with us, but they need to hear from you. All five commissioners have to vote, so I would email all 5 with your issues and concerns. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 14: I would hope that our commission would take a look at the fact that we did not have Ole in 1992. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 15: The way Lely is set up now is different than what was envisioned back when 10,000 units were approved [in 1992]. What you’re doing on that corner needs to be considered. They envisioned it differently. Why aren’t you putting a strip center there instead of apartments? 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 5 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Response: [Attorney] The truth is right now retail is not the most desirable option on various pieces of property. We’ve all been through our recent experiences with COVID and we know typical retail uses are not demanded. The reality is retail is not marketable on that piece of property. They [Stock] sought solicitation and Davis made a proposal. Question/Comment 16: What is the purchase price of the lot that you are going to pay Stock? Celeste is very busy and I don’t see any bicycle lanes. Also, noise of the traffic right now is very loud. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 17: I disagree with you about retail. If you go downtown, you will notice restaurants are packed not just now but during summers. We need more resources in this area to accommodate and enhance our lifestyle here. We need coffee shops and places to go. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 18: The issue is size. The height. That’s the big concern – the scale. I also don’t think there should be any ingress on to Celeste Drive. Find a way to get that on to Collier and extend the wall that ends at Ole and bring that up and around to give us some privacy. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 19: If you want this community not to oppose what you are doing you are going to need to change it. You can’t have the density and you can’t have the access on Celeste. Otherwise, you will force us to hire our own traffic engineer to do an analysis and oppose your project. You want to look for our support. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 20: I personally think having residential there instead of retail is a better thing if done right. What’s the perimeter of the project? Response: [Developer] We want to match the richness of the landscaping around the resort. We do that in-house [landscaping]. We will bring forth a very lush landscaping for the buffers and interior. We use larger caliper trees and do everything in a nicer fashion. At this time no wall is planned. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 6 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Question/Comment 21: If you add 184 additional units, you’re going to have so many problems and it’s too much density. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 22: Seems to me like Davis is not ready for this meeting. You will do a traffic study after the fact, you will do a landscape study after the fact, we pay taxes now, we want answers now about how this is going to impact us. We spent a lot of money to be here to retire here to enjoy it here and you keep saying we will do this after the fact. You should be doing this before the fact and then we’d be supporting you, but we can’t support this. Response: [Developer] There’s a process that’s been talked about that we have to go through. We’re not trying to short-circuit the process in fact we’re just trying to be right in our approach there are steps that have to be taken, which we will take as the County asks. The traffic will be discussed with the jurisdiction to make sure it works. Question/Comment 23: One thing I see looking at the website for Founders Square that Davis is proud of, is that it’s a pet-friendly development. Will this be a pet-friendly development? Looking at the site plan with the only entrance on Celeste we know where 200+ dogs are going to go do their business. What’s your plan to manage the dog poop that’s deposited further down Celeste and in Tiger Island along with the Verandas and surrounding neighborhoods? Response: [Developer] We are a pet-friendly community and how you deal with that is 1 – we have breed restrictions, 2- we have dog love stations throughout, we have play areas for dogs and water for dogs. We know our residents will have dogs and we know how to deal with that. Question/Comment 24: The amount of U-Haul’s, moving trucks, and vans will affect our traffic greatly if these are rentals. How will you make sure this doesn’t affect us who live along this road? Response: [Developer] We will have appropriate space at each building for move- in/move-out activity obviously that’s an anticipated part of the lifestyle of the deal. To the extent we have moving vans coming in there’s places for them to park interior to the deal to get access to the elevator to get moved in. Question/Comment 25: Why have you not prioritized looking for a tract of land to develop that already allows zoning for residential development? 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 7 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Response: [Developer] We found this site that Stock wasn’t developing and liked the location and we feel it’s a good spot for the product and will be well-received. We’re always looking for opportunities and they come with varying stages of approval. Question/Comment 26: My question is for the County – what is the probability that an access to Collier Blvd. would be possible? Response: County staff is here for observation tonight, not to be directly questioned. Question/Comment 27: At this juncture have we [Davis Development] tried to achieve other access points other than Celeste? Response: [Developer] No. There will be a time and place for that. There is a curb cut also on the parcel I believe to the north that accesses the main boulevard, Grand Lely, and we aren’t even showing use of that at his point, feeling that the access point ingress/egress is better served as it is shown on Celeste. Again, we’re going to go through that process and listen to what the experts have to say, the County says, and so that is an open item that has to be addressed. Question/Comment 28: Other than the fact that you’re required to hold his meeting do you really care what we have to say? Response: [Developer] Yes, I do care what you think and how you feel and what your thoughts are – that’s why we’re here. I’ve been doing this for 25 years and have stood in front of a lot of homeowners for this very purpose. My goal is to be a good development partner and a good neighbor in the community. We’re not an unknown corporate entity, we work for one gentleman this is his private company, so that gives us a lot more flexibility that other developers. But again, obviously we’re businessmen and we’re trying to make money on this endeavor. Question/Comment 29: That property was used as a dumping spot during Irma. Is there a separate plan for the construction? How long will it take? Response: [Developer] The construction entrance will have to be a permitted item with the jurisdiction. As for the trucks coming and going from the site, obviously there will be traversing in and about a third of the construction is deliveries, so one we’re governed by not making a mess in the street. We will be the same folks constructing this so my phone will be ringing – it’s still employees that work for me, I’m managing that process. To the extent we can place that at the best location, which may not be on Celeste, but we will 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 8 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx see what the jurisdiction will allow and then we manage that process. We will be good neighbors in that process. From groundbreaking to vertical about 16-month process. Question/Comment 30: My question is not for you [the developer] what about property values? I really like the neighborhood…but. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 31: I don’t see a lot of options for dogs to go walking. Where are they going to walk? To my house? Also, retail is not dead. You can’t get a parking space at Home Goods. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 32: Entrance on Celeste would be on a one-way street, does that mean everyone coming out has to take a left? Or will you eliminate that? Response: [Developer] There is a median with a break and a curb cut that’s what our initial plans show. Question/Comment 33: What percentage are you willing to offer the county for Section 8 housing to sweeten the pot because that has happened in some of the bigger communities? Response: [Attorney] None of them are section 8. It’s 120% of the median income. They have been imposing that for growth management plan amendments, not for rezones that are consistent with the existing growth management plan. I don’t anticipate having to set aside any units. We haven’t committed to that in any of our submittals and I don’t expect that ask to come from the BCC or County staff, and if so, we would obviously fight back. Question/Comment 34: My biggest concern is that all of those people trying to get in and out of that space in an emergency. Traffic needs to be considered for the safety of this community. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 35: There’s nothing that is going to benefit us with this project. Name something that we, the residents, will benefit from? Response: [Developer] Maybe someone doesn’t have the ability to maintain their home in Lely Resort and want to stay – I have elevators. Maybe some new neighbors you can meet. We will bring nice residents to the area. And it’s another housing option. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 9 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Question/Comment 36: It seems like there is a better option for that Property. We’re open to commercial. It seems like adding that much traffic, people, and blocking of views is hard for us to imagine. Appreciate you thinking about that and knowing where we’re coming from. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 37: What’s the benefit to us? You’ll have lots of lights there, you’ll light up the whole place. Response: [Developer] One of the things you’re required to do is a light study. Fixtures have to be shielded down and directed away from other homes. The design will be sensitive to light pollution. That is part of the permitting and process we have to do. Question/Comment 38: Will there be rental signs posted along Celeste to market this building? Response: No, we are not planning on anything except our base sign, which will be a monument sign permitted through the appropriate jurisdiction. Just one sign at the entry and that will be all the signage for the community. Question/Comment 39: Is this a unique situation for you all? Have you ever built something like this in a residential area like this? Is this typical, or atypical for you? What is your historical experience with property values being maintained once you are built? Congestion? People assimilating? What is your experience? Response: [Developer] Because we develop very upscale communities the residents and community tend to be upscale. As long as it’s done properly and tastefully its an enhancement to the community, its another housing option, an important part of the housing stock in our country at a time where we have a very high shortage of housing. That’s why single-family houses as soon as they hit the ground are being bought at record pace with escalating prices, so there is a need for the housing. I have not heard or seen any deteriorating of values of single-family homes. Question/Comment 40: How long do you typically hold on to the property? Response: [Developer] We hold some for over a decade, and some we sell soon after construction. They are sold to top-notch owners and operators in the country. It will always be run as a high-end institutional asset that will maintain its value because of the investment we’re making, and if we have a buyer, the investment they are making. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 10 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Question/Comment 41: How many parking spaces? Any parking restrictions? Response: [Developer] 373 parking spaces including interior garages that could be rented to residents of the building We don’t allow commercial trucks or bring-home vehicles. We have restrictions for that. Question/Comment 42: It goes against the previous planners and approvers who originally zoned this as C-3 with valid reasons and rationale to do so and I’m not sure residential use of C-3 is the right move. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 43: I want to reiterate the concern for our 108 residents [the Verandas] who I feel will be directly affected by the increased traffic that I believe will occur as the only entrance being located on Celeste. We are not a gated community and people already use our roadway as a cut-through from Celeste to Tiger Island, so our community will be affected by the traffic and also by noise that we already hear from 951 [Collier Blvd.]. Response: The comment was acknowledged. Question/Comment 44: I think you would have been better off if you showed a connection to 951 [Collier Blvd.] This is common sense. Response: [Attorney] Collier County is here for a reason as well. They have told us you’re not getting access on 951, so that’s why we didn’t show access on 951. That’s why we’re here so we can tell them the residents want them to change their mind. So one of the benefits of this meeting is Nancy is here from the County and she will go back and tell transportation staff that the residents think the better option is to put access on 951. So, we showed you a realistic plan, and I appreciate your comments about 951. There were no further questions or comments. Ms. Robin thanked the attendees for coming and noted that their contact information is available for those who wished to reach out with any further questions. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:45 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the CD attached as Exhibit “C”. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) January 24, 2022 Nancy Gundlach, AICP Page 11 of 11 Reference: Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis rl \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\nim\summary\nim synopsis_rev1.docx Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Lindsay F. Robin MPA, AICP Urban Planner Phone: 239 985 5502 Lindsay.Robin@stantec.com Attachment: Attachment c. C.C. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Lely Resort PUDA-PL20210001795 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: December 14, 2021 Words underlined are added Page 1 of 3 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.14 PUD Monitoring One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Stock Development, LLC. 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 that needs 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 Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2.15 Miscellaneous Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION VI C-3 COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD 6.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth regulations for the areas designated on Revised Exhibit ‘H’, Master land Use Plan, as ‘C-3’. The C-3 tracts are intended to provide residents with conveniently located commercial facilities and services that are typically required on a regular basis. 6.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1) Antique shops; appliance stores; art studios; art supplies; automobile parts stores; automobile service stations. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Lely Resort PUDA-PL20210001795 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: December 14, 2021 Words underlined are added Page 2 of 3 2) Bakery shops; banks and financial institutions; barber and beauty shops; bath supply stores; blue print shops; bicycle sales and services; book stores. 3) Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation); child care centers; churches and other place or worship; clothing stores; confectionary and candy stores. 4) Delicatessen; drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods stores and department stores. 5) Electrical supply stores. 6) Fish stores; florist shops; food markets; furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 7) Gift shops; gourmet shops. 8) Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; homes for the aged; hospitals and hospices. 9) Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms. 10) Jewelry stores. 11) Laundries – self-service; leather goods and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores. 12) Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care; millinery shops; music stores. 13) Office (retail or professional); office supply stores. 14) Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops; pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office. 15) Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants. 16) Souvenir stores; stationary stores; supermarkets and sanitoriums. 17) Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores. 18) Variety stores; veterinary office and clinics (no outside kenneling). 19) Watch and precision instrument sales and repair. 20) Water management facilities and essential services. 21) The C-3 parcel at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive and the C-3 parcel at the southwest corner of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) and Grand Lely Drive may be developed allowing C-3 uses, as outlined in Section VI of Ordinance 92-15, as amended, and/or residential dwelling units. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Lely Resort PUDA-PL20210001795 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: December 14, 2021 Words underlined are added Page 3 of 3 22) Any other commercial use of professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible with the district. B) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. 2) Caretaker’s residence. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300, Naples FL 34108-2709 November 12, 2021 Re: NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING LELY RESORT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUDA) (PL20210001795) Dear Property Owner: In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code please be advised that Davis Development, Inc. has filed an application with Collier County. The application is seeking approval of an amendment to the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract located at the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Grand Lely Drive. The proposed amendment does not seek to increase density or to add residential units to the Lely Resort PUD. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 14 at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, Florida, 34113. A virtual meeting option is also available: TEAMS Meeting: https://bit.ly/3D4aTYV or call TOLL FREE: United States, (833) 436-6264 Conference ID: 561 649 706# Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 985-5502, or Lindsay.robin@stantec.com. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Lindsay F. Robin, MPA, AICP Urban Planner 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code the public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. on behalf of Davis Development, Inc., at the following time and location: DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 TIME: 5:30p.m. ADDRESS: South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy., Naples, Florida, 34113 VIRTUAL MEETING OPTION: TEAMS Meeting: https://bit.ly/3D4aTYV or call TOLL FREE: United States, (833) 436-6264 Conference ID: 561 649 706# Davis Development, Inc. has filed an application with Collier County (case number PL20210001795). The application is seeking approval of an amendment to the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract located at the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Grand Lely Drive. The proposed amendment does not seek to increase density or to add residential units to the Lely Resort PUD. Business and property owners and residents are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners’ representatives and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed to: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. c/o Lindsay Robin 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34108 (239) 985-5502 OR Lindsay.robin@stantec.com *The Collier County Library does not endorse or sponsor this project in any way. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment D-Lely NIM Synopsises (1-24-22) (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:James Abbatemarco <kleinker@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:13 PM To:Lindsay.robin@stantec.com; Adrianaaleman@davisdevelopment.com; FredHazel@davisdevelopment.com; mikedavis@davisdevelopment.com; GundlachNancy Subject:The Davis Development REJECTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr/ Ms, Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, Davis Development ; Fred Hazel- Vice Presiden; Adriana Aleman- Operations Coordinator; Lindsay Robin, I am a resident of Lely Resort in Naples, FL where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely- populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive PL # 20210001795. I am strongly opposed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area. Not only is it unacceptable in terms of its aesthetics, it will bring: 1) Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which is a small artery intended for light traffic for existing single family homeowners 2) Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approx. 2 year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the single access street, Celeste. 3) Potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise 4) An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 5) Potentially lower property values for the residents in Lely, many of whom are retirees who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 6) The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. I attended the meeting on Dec. 14th at the Naples Library lead by Linsday Robin and we were all genuinely outraged. We intend to make our voice heard at every meeting going forward. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel and urge Davis Development to build elsewhere. Sincerely. James Abbatemarco 9067 Capistrano Street North Unit 4506 Naples, Fl 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Lin Agostinacchio <laugust7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 5:57 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Re-zoning EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach: We are residents of the Olé community within Lely Resort where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier Boulevard (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive (PL # 20210001795). We are vehemently opp osed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area, was never intended in the original Lely Master Plan, creates significant safety hazards, and is unacceptable in terms of aesthetics for the area. More specifically, it will bring: 1. Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which we live mere feet from, which is a small 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 artery intended for light traffic for existing homeowners. 2. An unacceptable safety hazard. The increased traffic from hundreds of occupants of the proposed complex, whose only point of access is Celeste Drive, will make Celeste Drive a busy thoroughfare that it was never designed to be. Celeste Drive goes right through the heart of the Olé’s Village Center where there is significant foot and bicycle traffic that should not be exposed to the increased car volume that would absolutely result from the proposed apartment complex as that would be the shortest route to shopping and access to Northbound Route 41 (Tamiami Trail). This significant safety issue for the existing Lely communities, particularly those along Celeste Drive, and their residents, by itself is reason enough not to approve the re- zoning. 3. Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approximate 2- year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 3 single access street, Celeste Drive. 4. Approximately 500 potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise. 5. An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. 6. Lower property values for the existing property owners in Lely, many of whom are retirees like ourselves who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 7. The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. In our view, that this type of project is even being considered is outrageous. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel.Thanks, Sincerely, 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 4 Nick and Lin Agostinacchio 9107 Capistrano South Unit 7802 Naples Fl 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Alex Albacarys <alexalby7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 23, 2021 7:35 AM To:VernonChristopher; FryerEdwin; Joesephschmitt@colliergov.net; KarlFry; GundlachNancy; LoCastroRick; eastmath@collierschools.com; HomiakKaren; SheaPaul; KlucikRobert Subject:Development on Collier and Grand Lely Drive EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear all First, wishing you all a safe, peaceful holiday season and best wishes for 2022. Secondly, I’m very concerned about the proposed change for the corner of Collier and Grand Lely Dr. development. Whilst I am aware that plans can change, changing it from commercial to residential is a huge change in my view. My wife and bought in Players Cove in 2012 with full awareness of the development of Stock Plaza and something similar on the opposite corner - changing it now to residential with a high concentration of living units totally changes the feel and attractiveness of Lely, not to mention the increased traffic both inside Lely and on Collier. To the point that there is little land left for residential development, I respectfully disagree - there is lots of land for development east of Collier. Please consider working with Davis Development on a separate parcel for their residential project and keep the current designation of “Commercial” for this plot of land…. Developing it for commercial purposes will increase the attraction of Lely to future residents while continuing to expand the commercial offerings to Lely and beyond. Thank you for considering this as you make your final determination. Respectfully, Alexander and Lourdes Albacarys 8080 Players Cove Dr. Unit 101 Naples, FL 34113 Alexalby7@gmail.com -- Alex Albacarys 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Carolina Bernhardt <naniinfl@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:02 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Lely Resort EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I live in Lely Resort, And it has come to my attention that A new project at the entrance of 951Has been planed. I am deeply concerned about this project because The Entrance and exit from the project is within Lely and Traffic will be Unbearable. At the very least there should be an entrance and exit on 951Known as Collier boulevard... Furthermore the height of the buildings is opressive. This piece of land was Designated as small shops Not big tall buildings. Carolina B Bernhardt 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Yvan Bourdeau <ybourdeau@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 12:11 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Davis Development Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms Gundlach, We reside in the Classics Plantation Estate which would directly impacted if the project below is approved. The rationale against the project is as follows: The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. The impact this project will have on the surrounding communities is as follows; 1. The 2 building, 4 story complex is NOT what the residents of Lely Resort expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial, NOT residential . 2. The ONLY entrance/exit access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. How would emergency vehicles enter the area and residents leave if there was a fire, or other emergency? 3. Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents, even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would increase traffic on Celeste Blvd through Ole and Tiger Island because of the number of residents expected and a greater number of cars that would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. 4. The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues in Lely Resort. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. 5. This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes within sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. Inspira traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive. 6. Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Blvd, and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities’ Village Center. 7. There would be a significant impact on local schools from the potential influx of up to 184 families. 8. The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. 9. It is a density concern, as the 2 buildings being planned are both to be 4 stories high. Yours truly, Yvan Bourdeau 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:amhb123@aol.com Sent:Monday, January 3, 2022 1:02 PM To:SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; LoCastroRick Cc:GundlachNancy; amhb123@aol.com Subject:Fwd: To Lely Residents: Regarding Lely Resort tract 12 PUDA C-3 being rezoned: here is what you can do to oppose this EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Jan. 3, 2022 To: Collier County Commissioners and Nancy Gundlach, see the note below from Marlene Landa, who lives in Lely Resort. I am in opposition of the zoning amendment and the building of 184 units. See the information below. Anne Marie Bularzik Anne Marie H. Bularzik, 8718 Mustang Island Circle, Lely Resort, Naples FL 34113, tel: 978-337-4388, email: amhb123@aol.com Roles: MI HOA President, MI Roadway President, President of the Lely Resort Presidents Association, and Elected Supervisor- LCDD (Lely Community Development District) If you are in opposition to the requested zoning amendment to the vacant Lely Resort tract 12 PUDA C-3 Commercial lot, bordered by Celeste Drive, Collier Blvd, and Grand Lely Drive, that would allow for the construction of 184 multifamily units read the information below. Here are some steps you can take. First: For those not in Naples, below is the link to watch the news clip about the proposed development, which was on Fort Myers NBC-2 news. https://nbc-2.com/news/local/2021/12/20/lely-resort-residents-worried-about-possible-traffic- from-proposed-apartment-complex/ Second: 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 Here is a website that posted information by a group called: Save Lely, click on the link Savelely.org Third: Here is the link to the Collier County Application: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/CityViewWeb/Planning/GetFile/12002460 Fourth: Here is a letter from the planner/developer dated September 15, 2021. It is a request for a traffic study waiver for the new rental complex on Celeste Dr. From Claudette Klinkerman whose husband found this online. RE: Lely Resort PUDA (PL20210001795) TIS Waiver Request Dear Mr. Sawyer Please accept this letter as a request for a waiver from providing a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) with the Lely Resort PUDA application submittal, PL20210001795. The Lely Resort PUD is a vested development, and no other residential units are proposed; therefore, the proposed amendment to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract will have no transportation impacts. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this request Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC Lindsay F. Robin, AICP Urban Planner Fifth: Collier County will have an info session sometime in the future and then they will review the application. Write to Nancy Gundlach, (after the first of the year), she is the principle planner for Collier County that will be reviewing the application listed in the third section of this email. She was at the info session on Dec. 14th, but we were not allowed to ask her questions and she was not allowed to speak. She was there to observe. Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Principal Planner Zoning Services (239)252-2484 Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov Sixth: Finally, this proposal will be reviewed in the future by the Collier County Commissioners. There are 5 Commissioners and the proposal would need to be approved by a supermajority, which means 4 of the 5 Commissioners would need to vote to approve this change from Commercial to Residential and the 4 story structure with only access/egress from Celeste Blvd. Write to theCollier County District Commissioners, again after the new year: District 1: Rick LoCastro Rick.LoCastro@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8601 District 2: Andy Solis, Esq. Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8602 District 3: Burt L Saunders Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8603 District 4: Penny Taylor Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8604 District 5: Williams L. McDaniel, Jr. Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8605 Express the points that are most relevant to you, re: The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. The impact of this project will have on the surrounding communities are as follows; 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 3 1- The 2 building, each 4 story complex is not what the residents of Lely, expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial, NOT residential . 2- The only access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. How would emergency vehicles enter the area and residents leave if there was a fire, or other emergency? 3- Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would increase traffic on Celeste Blvd and going through Ole and Tiger Island because of the number of residents expected and a greater number of cars would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. 4- The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues in Lely Resort. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. 5- This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes within sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. This traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive. 6- Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Blvd and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities’ Village Center. 7- There would be a significant impact on local schools from the potential influx of up to 184 families. 8- The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. 9- It is a density concern, as the 2 buildings being planned are both to be 4 stories high. For all the above reasons, I am OPPOSED to BOTH the proposed project on Celeste Dr & Grand Lely Drive and amending the existing C-3 Commercial code for this parcel. Anne Marie Bularzik, Anne Marie H. Bularzik, 8718 Mustang Island Circle, Lely Resort, Naples FL 34113, tel: 978-337-4388, email: amhb123@aol.com 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:patricia carlson <pattycarlson1014@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 4:27 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Opposed to the Davis Development #PL20210001795 on Collier & Celeste, Lely Resort EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach, My husband and I moved to Naples from California less than one year ago and purchased our home in Lely in Sept. 2021. At that time we had high hopes of making Lely Resort our “forever” home as we were so taken with the vast green spaces, lush landscaping and quiet single-family homes. We felt that each neighborhood & sub-section was beautifully and thoughtfully designed and even though we knew there was a vacant lot near us in Tiger Lily Estates, we were assured by our Realtor that this was zoned as “commercial" property to serve the Lely residents if it was ever purchased from Stock. Suffice it to say we are furious about the proposal by Davis Development to put a high-density rental apartment complex on this small 9 acre lot. I’m sure you’ve heard our community concerns and hundreds of us have attended each and every meeting held by the Davis Group as well as the meeting held by Commissioner LoCastro. While Davis Development has made some modifications to their original plan, we still find it intolerable for the following reasons: 1) There is NO value to current residents of Lely Resort if this complex is built, rather it represents an enduring burden on the community 2) The apartments will result in unacceptable traffic congestion as well as high impact use of pedestrian traffic from the 500+ people using our small roads, green belts/ walk ways and bicycle paths 3) The architectural design of the apartments is dramatically different than the single-family homes in Lely and it will be an eye-sore as one approaches the Lely entrance from Collier BLVD. There will be a shocking architectural disconnect from the existing surroundings not just in style, but in scale. 4) We are concerned about the stability and safety of our neighborhoods as this is a 100% rental complex. I understand this can’t be disclosed in a filing by Davis, but it must be said as this is a serious concern of the residents 5) We are concerned that our property values will decline over time if his complex is built These are top of mind, but there are many other objections residents have raised over the last few months. I can’t afford an attorney to represent my interests. The only thing I can do is voice my objections, vote and hope to appeal to your sense of duty to the residents who have invested, in many cases, their life savings to retire here. Sincerely, Patricia Schofield 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Rich Cobuzio <rcobuzio@me.com> Sent:Sunday, February 6, 2022 7:05 PM To:GundlachNancy Cc:Cobuzio Monica Subject:Re-Zoning PL # 20210001795 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach, We are residents of the Olé community within Lely Resort where Davis Development is proposing a two 4 story multi-family densely populated apartment buildings on the small parcel bounded by Collier Boulevard (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive (PL # 20210001795). With any new development plan, there may be some small inconveniences that can be expected and justified. In this instance however, there is a significant impact to the immediate surrounding communities. We are strongly opposed to the development of this housing for many reasons, but the most critical being the safety hazard it will undeniably cause. Major Safety Hazard: The increased traffic from close to 200 units of the proposed complex, whose only point of access is Celeste Drive, will make Celeste Drive a thoroughfare that it was never designed to be. Celeste Drive goes right through the heart of the Olé Resort’s Village Center where there is significant foot and bicycle traffic that should not be exposed to the increased car volume that would absolutely result from the proposed apartment complex. There are a plethora of grocery stores, restaurants, banks, Starbucks, Xfinity, Home Goods, Dollar Store (and the list goes on and on), that will be much easier accessed by these occupants driving on Celeste Drive through Ole Resort vs. a less direct route via Collier Boulevard. By itself this is reason enough not to approve the re- zoning. There are many more legitimate and material negative impacts that would result from this proposal: 1. These multi-story buildings are entirely out of character for this residential area and was never intended in the original Lely Master Plan which calls for this area to be commercial if used at all. These tall buildings will stand out like a sore thumb and undo the careful attention to aesthetics of the entire area. 2. Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approximate 2-year construction phase from constant trucks, contractor activity, etc. to the site through the single access street, Celeste Drive. 3. There would be a significant impact on local schools from the potential influx of up to 184 families 4. Lower property values for the existing property owners in Lely, many of whom are retirees like ourselves who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 5. The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. We respectfully request that you vote down the re-zoning of this parcel. It will create a significant safety hazard and cause irreparable harm to existing homeowners. Sincerely, Rich and Monica Cobuzio 9085 Chula Vista Street, Unit 10606 Naples, FL 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Mary Egan <maryegan01@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 30, 2022 8:09 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Davis Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Nancy, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development by the Davis Development project on the corner of Grand lely Dr and Collier Blvd. I have several concerns: 1. The traffic affecting Ole and Celeste Blvd. The only access is proposed to be on Celeste thus overloading that small road and pushing excess traffic into Tiger Island and Ole. The amount of development on Collier Blvd is immense. Causing great backups already in that area and especially at the major intersection of 41 and 951. The influx of 180 + families, cars and demands on services is much in an area that is being taxed already. I do favor the commercial use originally proposed for that track of land. I am opposed to both the proposed project and amending the existing C-3 commerical code for this parcel. We are in major need of the following in the area: 1. Upscale restaurants -- we have none and most go to downtown naples to enjoy better food == Organic food options would be well received 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 2. A great bakery -- again none in the area 3. A good florist shop - we have only Publix 4. Pickleball courts -- I know hard to do but the demand is huge and we do not have courts in the area that can be used by the public. Players has 2 and is private and East Naples is over crowded 5. Pet retreat... the area is lacking pet boarding 6. Car repair -- a jiffy Lube A OK Tire is great but huge demand. 7. Upscale womens clothing like what they have in Venetician Village...we have NONE 8. A wellness center Put that track to use for the people that live here. I would offer jobs. Thank you for your time. Mary Egan 8811 Mustang Island Circle Naples To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Mary Egan - Nutrition, Arthritis, Wellness, Coach Call 443-994-6003 Check out my new website Solutions to Wellness like me on Facebook Solutions to Wellness, Instagram HappyjointsSTW Enjoy life - we only have one! 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Terry Endress <terryendress@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:57 PM To:GundlachNancy; HomiakKaren; VernonChristopher; KarlFry; FryerEdwin; KlucikRobert; SheaPaul; Joesephschmitt@colliergov.net; eastmath@collierschools.com Cc:LoCastroRick; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject:PROJECT #PL20210001795 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Planning Commission and County Commissioners The project set out above is very close to my home at the address set out below, The proposed 184+/- apartment complex overloads the property with people and vehicles. The area is already plagued with high traffic and high accident counts Approval of this zoning change would only create a more dangerous situation The density requested is also very high. The 4 story height requested does not work in the mostly residentially populated. Please reject this request Your consideration is appreciated TERRY ENDRESS 7873 Hawthorne Drive Unit 203 Naples FL 34113 330 571 3730 terryendress@gmail.com 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:crnabarb@nycap.rr.com Sent:Thursday, February 17, 2022 12:15 PM To:michaelsawyer@colliergov.net.; GundlachNancy Cc:LoCastroRick; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject:traffic Impact Statement Lely Resort Attachments:Resolution Opposing the requested zoning amendment to the vacant C.docx EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. February 17, 2022 Mr. Michael Sawyer Principal Planner Growth Management Department Transportation Planning 2685 S. Horseshoe Dr. #103 Naples, Florida 34104 We are writing at this time as a community to voice our objections to the request of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for a waiver from providing a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for Lely Resort PUDA application submittal. (PL20210001795) The request makes the claim that, “the LELY Resort PUD is a vested development, and no other residential units are proposed, therefore, the proposed amendment to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract will have no transportation impacts” To argue that traffic will not be increased by the development of this particular project because no other residential units are proposed is a non sequitur. Future development or lack thereof does not relate in any way to the faulty conclusion that this project will not affect traffic congestion in this area. Moreover, to imply that the addition of 184 families and most likely upwards of 360 additional vehicles to the area will not increase traffic flow is an insult to our common sense. It is a false narrative predicted on a baseless assumption. Please see attached resolution that was signed by 27 HOA's representing 3,192 doors/73% of total Lely Resort homeowners. These communities are focused on the effect on traffic congestion this project will engender, and their concerns are expressed in the attached resolution. Barbara Capogna President Lely Verandas at Flamingo Island HOA crnabarb@nycap.rr.com 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Eileen Fusco <efusco1160@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:19 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Reject PROJECT #PL20210001795 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms Gundlach, My husband and I are relatively new residents and taxpayers in the Classics neighborhood of Lely. We rented for years in Lely before purchasing our house here, so we are familiar with the neighborhood and the growth in the area. I recently learned that Davis Development is seeking a variance on the small parcel of land bounded by Collier (951), Grand Lely Dr. And Celeste Dr. PL 20210001795. We understood for many years that this parcel was zoned for commercial use, similar to Stock Plaza. Davis Development is now proposing a a four story multi-family apartment complex which will be densely populated. (I’ve read estimates of 500 residents.) We are strongly opposed to the variance for many reasons, which I have outlined below: The ingress and egress for the proposed complex is on Celeste Drive. Celeste Drive is already the entrance for numerous two story multifamily condos and single family homes on the west side of Celeste Dr. A new complex of this size would add intolerable traffic to this relatively small artery frequented by bicyclists and walkers. Celeste Dr offers existing Lely residents an escape from the Collier/Rt. 41 congestion to access basics like Publix. Celeste Dr. enters Grand Lely exactly across from the entrance to our Classics neighborhood, and there is already considerable vehicle congestion at the traffic circle on Grand Lely between our entrance and Celeste Dr. The obstruction of traffic, noise and debris during construction would add to the already over burdened Celeste Dr. We are still living with the construction of the traffic circle at Celeste and Triangle Blvd. The proposed four story buildings are very much out of character with the character of the many single family homes of bordering Lely neighborhoods. It is 12 times more dense per acre than any other area in South Naples. Lely is already fairly densely populated, and could definitely use more commercial infrastructure in that area, much more than additional residents. This was the original and anticipated use for many (30) years. Renters could presumably turn these units into AirBnb or similar short term rentals, adding noise and debris to the area in addition to increasing traffic. We purchased in Lely because we believed it to be fully developed. That was one of the appeals of this area. We did not want to be near new construction or added congestion. For all of these reasons, we oppose the variance to allow for this proposed additional residential units. We strongly urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Eileen and Cono Fusco 7437 Byrons Way Naples, FL 34113 917-825-2870 (PROJECT #PL20210001795) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Ben Garfunkel <bgarfunkel@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 25, 2022 4:56 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Re-Zoning PL # 20210001795 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach: We are residents of the Olé community within Lely Resort where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier Boulevard (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive (PL # 20210001795). We are vehemently opposed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area, was never intended in the original Lely Master Plan, creates significant safety hazards, and is unacceptable in terms of aesthetics for the area. More specifically, it will bring: 1. Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which we live mere feet from, which is a small artery intended for light traffic for existing homeowners. 2. An unacceptable safety hazard. The increased traffic from hundreds of occupants of the proposed complex, whose only point of access is Celeste Drive, will make Celeste Drive a thoroughfare that it was never designed to be. Celeste Drive goes right through the heart of the Olé’s Village Center where there is significant foot and bicycle traffic that should not be exposed to the increased car volume that would absolutely result from the proposed apartment complex as that would be the shortest route to shopping and access to Northbound Route 41 (Tamiami Trail). This significant safety issue for the existing Lely communities, particularly those along Celeste Drive, and their residents, by itself is reason enough not to approve the re- zoning. 3. Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approximate 2-year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the single access street, Celeste Drive. 4. Approximately 500 potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise. 5. An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. 6. Lower property values for the existing property owners in Lely, many of whom are retirees like ourselves who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 7. The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. In our view, that this type of project is even being considered is outrageous. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 Sincerely, Ben and Gina Garfunkel 9076 Rialto Street, Unit 6204 Naples, FL 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:J Gentile <jeffglmg@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 19, 2021 11:43 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Residential Rezone on Celeste Drive Near my Home 34113 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Nancy, I live in Ole and the proposed re zone to residential for high density living Apartments or any apartments would ruin our neighborhood. Only 1 access from Celeste Drive would also be a disaster and dangerous to all of us who use it for biking, walking and access to our community. NO is my VOTE! Jeff Gentile 9086 Capistrano St N 34113 J Gentile jeffglmg@gmail.com 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:BellowsRay Sent:Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:20 PM To:Greg Koch Cc:GundlachNancy Subject:RE: Please Reject Proposed 180 unit Apartment at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd Attachments:Submittal 1 - Request Narrative - Prepared.pdf; Submittal 1 - Application.pdf Good afternoon, I have forwarded your comments to Nancy Gundlach since she is the Principal Planner for the County in the review of this proposed PUD amendment. She can also provide copies of the latest revised plans for this amendment. Furthermore, she will discuss your comments with the applicant to see if they are willing to modify their application to better address your concerns. Lastly, she will forward your concerns to all the Planning Commission members as well as to incorporate all correspondence into a staff report that is presented to the Planning Commission and to the BCC for their review and consideration. Please let me or Nancy know if you have any questions concerning this matter and we will be glad to assist. Ray Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. From: Greg Koch <kocgd@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2022 1:59 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Please Reject Proposed 180 unit Apartment at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr Bellows, I am contacting you as Planning Commission County Liaison. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 First, I wanted to communicate to you that we oppose the Proposed 180 unit Apartment Complex at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd. A. The area surrounding this property is Single Family Homes. We do not want Apartments that will lower our property values. B. Homes in the area are one or two stories. We do not want two four story apartment buildings. They would be out of place and an eyesore for the community. C. When we purchased our home, very close to the subject property, it was with the understanding that this area is zoned for much needed commercial establishments, like desperately needed restaurants. We need restaurants, doctors offices, etc to support the local community. D. The roads and infrastructure at this intersection will not support a 180 unit very dense apartment complex. Traffic and safety are already a problem. Please do not make it worse by sticking all these people and cars in there. Second, can you please provide email addresses so I can communicate this to the Planning Commission Members? And third, is there anyone else in county government that I could contact to voice our opposition to this horrible apartment proposal ? Thank you Greg Kochendorfer 7616 Winding Cypress Dr Naples, FL 34114 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Greg Koch <kocgd@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:14 PM To:GundlachNancy Cc:BellowsRay Subject:Fwd: Please Reject Proposed 180 unit Apartment at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Nancy, I ask for your support to reject the Proposed 180 unit Apartment at Grand Lely and Collier Blvd. This proposal will adversely affect living conditions in the area. The proposal can not be changed to address the many many issues that local residents have. The only way to change it is to reject it. The Zoning for that parcel should continue to promote commercial establishments that support and contribute to the community.....like restaurants, etc... I would welcome the opportunity to talk to you by telephone; may I make an appointment? I would like to understand what the community can do to ensure this proposal is rejected. Thank you Greg Kochendorfer -----Original Message----- From: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> To: Greg Koch <kocgd@aol.com> Cc: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 3:20 pm Subject: RE: Please Reject Proposed 180 unit Apartment at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd Good afternoon, I have forwarded your comments to Nancy Gundlach since she is the Principal Planner for the County in the review of this proposed PUD amendment. She can also provide copies of the latest revised plans for this amendment. Furthermore, she will discuss your comments with the applicant to see if they are willing to modify their application to better address your concerns. Lastly, she will forward your concerns to all the Planning Commission members as well as to incorporate all correspondence into a staff report that is presented to the Planning Commission and to the BCC for their review and consideration. Please let me or Nancy know if you have any questions concerning this matter and we will be glad to assist. Ray 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. From: Greg Koch <kocgd@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2022 1:59 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Please Reject Proposed 180 unit Apartment at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr Bellows, I am contacting you as Planning Commission County Liaison. First, I wanted to communicate to you that we oppose the Proposed 180 unit Apartment Complex at Grand Lely & Collier Blvd. A. The area surrounding this property is Single Family Homes. We do not want Apartments that will lower our property values. B. Homes in the area are one or two stories. We do not want two four story apartment buildings. They would be out of place and an eyesore for the community. C. When we purchased our home, very close to the subject property, it was with the understanding that this area is zoned for much needed commercial establishments, like desperately needed restaurants. We need restaurants, doctors offices, etc to support the local community. D. The roads and infrastructure at this intersection will not support a 180 unit very dense apartment complex. Traffic and safety are already a problem. Please do not make it worse by sticking all these people and cars in there. Second, can you please provide email addresses so I can communicate this to the Planning Commission Members? And third, is there anyone else in county government that I could contact to voice our opposition to this horrible apartment proposal ? Thank you Greg Kochendorfer 7616 Winding Cypress Dr Naples, FL 34114 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 3 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:amhb123@aol.com Sent:Monday, January 3, 2022 12:57 PM To:SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; LoCastroRick Cc:GundlachNancy Subject:Fwd: To Lely Residents: Regarding Lely Resort tract 12 PUDA C-3 being rezoned: here is what you can do to oppose this EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. To: Collier County Commissioners and Nancy Gundlach, see the note below from Marlene Landa, who lives in Lely Resort. -----Original Message----- From: Marlene Landa <marlenelanda@me.com> To: amhb123@aol.com Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2021 12:14 pm Subject: Re: To Lely Residents: Regarding Lely Resort tract 12 PUDA C-3 being rezoned: here is what you can do to oppose this Anne Marie, Thank you for keeping us informed. I have filled out the form below…..please forward it to the appropriate parties. Unfortunately, we have a lot on our plate right now, and this issue is not top of mind….but I am certainly against the proposed development. Wishing you and yours a Happy and Healthy New Year. Marlene Sent from my iPad On Dec 29, 2021, at 8:58 AM, amhb123@aol.com wrote: If you are in opposition to the requested zoning amendment to the vacant Lely Resort tract 12 PUDA C-3 Commercial lot, bordered by Celeste Drive, Collier Blvd, and Grand Lely Drive, that would allow for the construction of 184 multifamily units read the information below. Here are some steps you can take. First: For those not in Naples, below is the link to watch the news clip about the proposed development, which was on Fort Myers NBC-2 news. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 https://nbc-2.com/news/local/2021/12/20/lely-resort-residents-worried-about-possible-traffic- from-proposed-apartment-complex/ Second: Here is a website that posted information by a group called: Save Lely, click on the link Savelely.org Third: Here is the link to the Collier County Application: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/CityViewWeb/Planning/GetFile/12002460 Fourth: Here is a letter from the planner/developer dated September 15, 2021. It is a request for a traffic study waiver for the new rental complex on Celeste Dr. From Claudette Klinkerman whose husband found this online. RE: Lely Resort PUDA (PL20210001795) TIS Waiver Request Dear Mr. Sawyer Please accept this letter as a request for a waiver from providing a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) with the Lely Resort PUDA application submittal, PL20210001795. The Lely Resort PUD is a vested development, and no other residential units are proposed; therefore, the proposed amendment to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract will have no transportation impacts. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this request Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC Lindsay F. Robin, AICP Urban Planner Fifth: Collier County will have an info session sometime in the future and then they will review the application. Write to Nancy Gundlach, (after the first of the year), she is the principle planner for Collier County that will be reviewing the application listed in the third section of this email. She was at the info session on Dec. 14th, but we were not allowed to ask her questions and she was not allowed to speak. She was there to observe. Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Principal Planner Zoning Services (239)252-2484 Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov Sixth: Finally, this proposal will be reviewed in the future by the Collier County Commissioners. There are 5 Commissioners and the proposal would need to be approved by a supermajority, which means 4 of the 5 Commissioners would need to vote to approve this change from Commercial to Residential and the 4 story structure with only access/egress from Celeste Blvd. Write to theCollier County District Commissioners, again after the new year: District 1: Rick LoCastro Rick.LoCastro@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8601 District 2: Andy Solis, Esq. Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8602 District 3: Burt L Saunders Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8603 District 4: Penny Taylor Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8604 District 5: Williams L. McDaniel, Jr. Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8605 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 3 Express the points that are most relevant to you, re: The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. The impact of this project will have on the surrounding communities are as follows; 1- The 2 building, each 4 story complex is not what the residents of Lely, expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial, NOT residential . 2- The only access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. How would emergency vehicles enter the area and residents leave if there was a fire, or other emergency? 3- Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would increase traffic on Celeste Blvd and going through Ole and Tiger Island because of the number of residents expected and a greater number of cars would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. 4- The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues in Lely Resort. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. 5- This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes within sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. This traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive. 6- Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Blvd and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities’ Village Center. 7- There would be a significant impact on local schools from the potential influx of up to 184 families. 8- The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. 9- It is a density concern, as the 2 buildings being planned are both to be 4 stories high. For all the above reasons, I am OPPOSED to BOTH the proposed project on Celeste Dr & Grand Lely Drive and amending the existing C-3 Commercial code for this parcel. Signature ____Marlene Landa______________________________________________ Print Name Marlene__Landa____________________________________________________ Community __Ascot___________________________ Address ___6827 Ascot Drive___________________________________ Unit _______101__________ City, State, Zip Florida_______34113______________________________ 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Gae Lennox <gaelennox@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 3, 2022 12:56 PM To:GundlachNancy; mikedavis@davisdevelopment.com; fredhazel@davisdevelopment.com; adrianaaleman@davisdevelopment.com; lindsay.robin@stantec.com; HomiakKaren; VernonChristopher; KarlFry; FryerEdwin; KlucikRobert; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com Subject:PROJECT# PL20210001795 Attachments:location of my condo vs development.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am a resident of Lely Resort in Naples, FL where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely- populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive PL # 20210001795. I am strongly opposed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area. Not only is it unacceptable in terms of its aesthetics, it will bring: 1) Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which is a small artery intended for light traffic for existing single family homeowners 2) Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approx. 2 year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the single access street, Celeste. 3) Potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise. 4) An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. 5) Potentially lower property values for the residents in Lely, many of whom are retirees who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 6) The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. 7) I am in the closest condo to this entrance at Celeste. I will be the most affected by this development. Please see the picture of my condo on Panther Trail marked as 8003. I attended the meeting on Dec. 14th at the Naples Library led by Linsday Robin and we were all genuinely outraged. We intend to make our voice heard at every meeting going forward. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel and urge Davis Development to build elsewhere. Sincerely, Gae Lennox 8003 Panther Trail, Apt 702 Naples, FL 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Tom Rodeheaver <trodeheaver@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 10, 2022 7:07 PM To:GundlachNancy; LoCastroRick; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; PennyTaylor@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercou9ntyfl.gov Subject:proposed apartment complex in the area bounded by Collier Boulevard, Grand Lely Drive, and Celeste Drive EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ladies and Gentleman, I am writing in regards to a proposed zoning amendment to allow construction of two apartment buildings in a lot bounded by Grand Lely Drive, Collier Blvd, and Celeste Drive and now zoned commercial. I understand that you all will be involved in reviewing and approving this project if it is to come to fruition. Many of my neighbors have concerns about the proposed re-zoning and construction project, and I share many of their concerns. I am opposed to this project and urge you not to approve it as proposed. My main concern is the effect on traffic in the current Lely Resort, especially the developments of Ole, Tiger Island, and Lely Island Estates (where I live). I have seen excerpts from a letter from Standec Consulting Services requesting a waiver to the requirement for a Traffic Impact Study for this project. My mind boggles at the idea that there is no need for such a study, unless it is because the project will have such an obvious deleterious effect on traffic that it should be rejected out of hand. Specifically, I note that: 1. The only access to the apartment complex would be on Celeste Drive. This will result in additional traffic through the nearby neighborhoods, which already receive considerable drive-through traffic from people seeking short-cuts to Freedom Square, Lely High School, Tamiani Trail north and south of Collier Blvd, and Collier Blvd south of Tamiani Trail. The streets in these neighborhoods were planned and are acceptable for local traffic and some drive-through traffic, but in many places even the current level of drive-through traffic is too high. Speed limits of 20 to 30 MPH on these streets are frequently exceeded and not enforced. The addition of 184 apartments worth of people driving through our neighborhoods would be a real safety concern. 2. The limitation of ingress and egress to one entrance on Celeste Drive would cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. How would emergency vehicles enter the area and residents leave if there were a fire or other emergency? 3. Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Blvd and many walk across Celeste to reach the community’s Village Center. Additional traffic will make that crossing, and any walking or bicycling along Celeste, more dangerous. People are moving to Southwest Florida for the same reasons as many of us who live here already. I get that they have to live somewhere. But they don’t have to make the areas where they live so much worse because of their presence. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 I object to this project and urge you to reject it. I would withdraw my objection if you required safe, reasonable access from Collier Blvd directly in to and out of the apartment project. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas N. Rodeheaver 8992 Lely Island Circle Naples, FL 34113 571-331-8968 trodeheaver@gmail.com 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Renee Lokay <rclokay@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, December 18, 2021 2:44 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:STOP Lely apartments EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Need your help regarding the proposed Apartment Building adversely affecting our “Award Winning” Lely Resort! I am sure you know by now that there is a major outrage by THOUSANDS of Lely Resort and surrounding neighborhood residents objecting to the rezoning of the parcel of land on Grand Lely Drive and 951! What are the steps for Rezoning??While many residents are concerned about dangerous traffic conditions and flow that is only one of the many reasons this rezoning should never be approved! I am a 20 year resident of our Beautiful Lely Resort! I am also responsible for the costs as well as all residents of Lely Resort for money spent making this an aesthetically beautiful community with our famous Freedom Horses and landscaping! I get sick thinking of the thought of a four story monstrosity on the corner of our beautiful entrance Please help us to squash this rezoning request before it even gets any traction Renee Valant Sent from my iPhone 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:SawyerMichael Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:11 AM To:Renee Lokay; GundlachNancy Cc:VargaCecilia Subject:RE: Is this legal??? Ms. Lokay, Thank you. I appreciate your clarification and I apologize ahead of time for the length of this response. There are two parts to our transportation reviews in the county, the first is with the current phase for the proposed PUD use change at Lely. I know I'm repeating information you already have but to be clear, the requested change to the Lely PUD is proposing allowing residential uses in addition to commercial uses in this location. Our current transportation review is limited to determining if there is available capacity on the adjacent roadways to accommodate the proposed use change. In this case the current PUD residential units for Lely are vested and counted already on the road network traffic counts. Vesting is basically pre-payment of transportation impacts and putting the traffic on the road network trip counts before they are built-occur. The proposed change is not requesting additional residential units. In this case the TIS waiver request meets the provisions of our TIS guidelines for the PUD change because the residential units at Lely have already been counted on the road network due to vesting. You are asking about the operational impacts which are reviewed as part of the second transportation review for actual development projects. This second transportation review is done as part of the development review process and is known as a Site Development Plan (SDP) reviewed by our Development Services Department. This is a much more detailed set of plans and documents showing the actual proposed development, building layout, parking, landscaping, etc. and is required before building permits can be obtained. PUD's set development standards and SDP's show what is actually proposed for construction which is why we have this two review process for transportation impacts. First review, is there capacity on our road network for potential new development; and second review, what are the actual impacts operationally to that network.. When submitted the SDP will require a TIS including those operational impacts at access points, intersections and the network. The SDP has not yet been submitted for this location so our offices do not have that TIS available yet. That being said staff is aware of homeowner concerns at Lely including the same access points, intersection conflicts and the overall roadways within your community. The SDP review will include staff from our Transportation Operation staff as well as Development Services. I've copied additional transportation staff above so that your concerns and interest in this development are know and can be addressed. Please let me know of your follow-up questions. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Principal Planner Growth Management Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov -----Original Message----- From: Renee Lokay <rclokay@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:27 AM To: SawyerMichael <Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Is this legal??? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Mr Sawyer As we all know Stocks Comercial Property on Celeste in Lely Resort is submitted for Re-Zoning for Apartment building I know you this has been submitted to you with the paragraph: My question is: Is this legal To make this request??? This can’t be legal!?!! And the residence of Lely Resort and Verona Walk Will be affected by horrible conditions and accidents that are already happening at Celeste!!! I am requesting that this property stays as is “Zoned Commercial” as this was the reason we have all made our Life’s Highest Investment “Our Homes”! I am requesting a copy of the traffic study you will be doing because obvious this should kill this project and can’t be legal not to do one??!! Please reply to this letter Renee Valant 8982 Lely Island Circle Naples Fl 34113 > > Request Dear Mr. Sawyer Please accept this letter as a request for a > waiver from providing a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) with the Lely > Resort PUDA application submittal, Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Renee Lokay <rclokay@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, December 18, 2021 2:15 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Lely Resort Appointments EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello There are thousands of Residents that these proposed rental unit will affect our in a very negative way. It will make very dangerous traffic conditions and ruin and affect most all of Lely Resort Please put a STOP to this project!! What are the Steps that are taken for Rezoning??? Please help Renee Valant Sent from my iPhone 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:BellowsRay Sent:Friday, December 31, 2021 1:57 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:FW: Lely Apartments Hi Nancy, I think this is your project. Ray Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. -----Original Message----- From: Renee Lokay <rclokay@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 9:15 AM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Lely Apartments EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. >> The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. >> >> The impact of this project will have on the surrounding communities are as follows; >> 1- The 2 building, each 4 story complex is not what the residents of Lely, expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial, NOT residential . >> 2- The only access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. How would emergency vehicles enter the area and residents leave if there was a fire, or other emergency? >> 3- Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would increase traffic on Celeste Blvd and going through Ole and Tiger Island because of the number of residents expected and a greater number of cars would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. >> 4- The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues in Lely Resort. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. >> 5- This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes within sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. This traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 >> 6- Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Blvd and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities’ Village Center. >> 7- There would be a significant impact on local schools from the potential influx of up to 184 families. >> 8- The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. >> 9- It is a density concern, as the 2 buildings being planned are both to be 4 stories high. >> >> For all the above reasons, I am OPPOSED to BOTH the proposed project on Celeste Dr & Grand Lely Drive and amending the existing C-3 Commercial code for this parcel. >> >> Signature Renee >> Valant___________________________________________________ >> Print Name >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Community ________Lely Resort >> ____________________________________________________ >> Address ____8982 Lely Island Cr_____________________________________ >> Unit _________________ City, State, Zip ______Naples Fl >> 34113____________________________________________________ Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Amy Malley <amy.d.malley@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 18, 2021 8:48 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Proposed development near Lely Resort EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. As a 13 year resident of Lely (originally in Ole and most recently within the Classics), I am writing to express my most sincere disapproval of the apartment complex being proposed near the Celeste/Grand Lely intersection. As this area has grown in recent years, we’ve seen more and more ‘cut through’ traffic through an area that was never intended to serve anything but the residents of Lely Resort. Accidents (and many near accidents) are a regular occurrence at the circle right at the aforementioned intersection. Pedestrians and bicyclists as well as are at risk daily…even with today’s traffic levels. The addition of the proposed apartment complex, with no egress from 951 will only complicate an already dangerous intersection. Please do not allow such development to proceed on this plot. Please preserve the safety of the residents of Lely. Thank you for your consideration. Amy Malley 7793 Hawthorne Dr Naples, FL 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Karen Manross <kamanross@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, December 30, 2021 8:00 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Regarding rezoning of Lely Resort tract 12 PUDA C-3 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach, Mr,LoCastro, Mr. Solis, Mr. Saunders, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. McDaniel: Please do not change the zoning from commercial to residential. It would create even more undo stress and the traffic safety issues that we already have here in Lely especially at the intersection including Celeste Drive, Collier Blvd. and Grand Lely Drive. It’s bad enough that the Lely exit from Grand Lely Drive doesn’t have a designated right turn lane to alleviate the backup of traffic that occurs from people driving straight across 951 into Verona Walk. Adding a large residential high rise would exacerbate this problem, not to mention the speeders that race through Lely’s main thoroughfares. If this tract remains zoned for commercial use instead of residential , the busy times would be fewer and the volume of traffic would be far less. Please do not rezone tract 12 PUDA C-4 to residential. Thank you and Happy New Year, Karen Manross Lely Resort resident Sent from my iPad 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Dear Ms, Gundlach, I am a resident of Lely Resort in Naples, FL where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely-populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive PL # 20210001795. I am strongly opposed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area. Not only is it unacceptable in terms of its aesthetics, it will bring: 1) Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which is a small artery intended for light traffic for existing single family homeowners 2) Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approx. 2 year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the single access street, Celeste. 3) Potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise 4) An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. 5) Potentially lower property values for the residents in Lely, many of whom are retirees who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 6) The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. I attended the meeting on Dec. 14th at the Naples Library lead by Linsday Robin and we were all genuinely outraged. We intend to make our voice heard at every meeting going forward. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel and urge Davis Development to build elsewhere. Sincerely. Thomas G Mockler Veronawalk Resident 7991 Valentina Ct Naples, FL 34114 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Bonnie M <bonniemurphy357@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 24, 2022 8:45 PM To:GundlachNancy EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms, _____Gundlach_______________ I am a resident of Lely Resort in Naples, FL where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely- populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive PL # 20210001795. I am strongly opposed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area. Not only is it unacceptable in terms of its aesthetics, it will bring: 1) Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which is a small artery intended for light traffic for existing single family homeowners 2) Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approx. 2 year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the single access street, Celeste. 3) Potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise 4) An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. 5) Potentially lower property values for the residents in Lely, many of whom are retirees who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. 6) The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. I attended the meeting on Dec. 14th at the Naples Library lead by Linsday Robin and we were all genuinely outraged. We intend to make our voice heard at every meeting going forward. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel and urge Davis Development to build elsewhere. Sincerely. Bonnie Murphy 8941 Malibu St, Naples, FL 34113 unit 103. 732 575 2209 phone 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Gary Nolte <garynolte@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 23, 2021 4:14 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Lely Lot EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Please do not allow the apartment complex project to proceed! The roads in Lely were never built to allow the amount of traffic they will bring to our community! Celeste is only a 2 lane road & like all other Lely roads there are no bicycle lanes which already make our roads very unsafe! Gary & Connie Nolte Verandas Sent from my iPhone 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:BellowsRay Sent:Friday, January 7, 2022 10:28 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:FW: Opposed to rezoning on Isle of Capri FYI Ray Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. From: Lorraine Painter <lorrainekaypainter@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2022 10:14 AM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Opposed to rezoning on Isle of Capri EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am opposed to rezoning of the Fiedler's Creek property parcel on Isle of Capri because of the density of population on that small parcel that it would cause which would be hard to support with infrastructure and particularly roads on that small island. It would be a financial burden for the Isles of Capri. Lorraine Painter 414 Panay Ave. Naples. FL 34113 (Isles of Capri) Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Steven Pergola <sgpergola@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 8:31 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Proposal for construction EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach, I would like to know the current status of the proposed construction at the intersection of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard. I am strongly opposed to changing the use of this property to high density, high rise residential use. Maintaining low rise commercial use would serve the community better. It would change the whole atmosphere in the area for the worse, increase traffic at this busy intersection, adversely impact safety and lower property values. Residents should be be able to vote on this proposal and be able to voice their opinions. Thank you, Steven Pergola 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Kevin Steele <kmsteele1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 2, 2022 8:25 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Proposed Lely Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. As I am sure you are abundantly aware we have a potential development going into Lely Resort. I am adding my voice to many who find various components of this project totally unacceptable. To Wit: 1. The only access and egress would be from Celeste. There is currently no design to have access and egress to this complex from 951. Steering all traffic through this small pedestrian trafficked road is completely unrealistic and dangerous This would put significantly more traffic not only onto Celeste but also through the Lely residential areas of Ole, Verandas, Tiger Island, etc. Putting many more cars through the Lely residential communities, traversing to Lely Resort Blvd… to drive “the back roads” to get to US 41. What if a fire occurred, how would all these residents be able to exit that area, all would be converging through one egress? Also then how would emergency vehicles (fire, police, first responders get into the complex, with people trying to exit all from on access/egress point? 2 Lely already has issues with driver speeding through the neighborhoods, this would add to this. 3. The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with Collier County DOT (Department of Transportation) on 4 safety issues in the Lely Community. There have been several deaths of drivers and traffic intervention was needed. I think that this is going to result in further traffic/safety issues. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 4 It is a density concern, as the 2 buildings are both to be 4 stories high. Is it within fire code to over 500 residents with only one small exit in an emergency? When will a traffic study be done? We are told that it happens after approval --really! Talk about too little too late. 5 This should not be compared to Inspira. Inspira has access and egress onto Grand Lely Blvd, and those renters do not then travel through the residential neighborhoods of Lely. As I stated in the subject line we need your help. I would like to see it stopped completely but that may be unrealistic. At the very least the density should be reduced significantly and there should be no entrance or exit from Celeste. If Collier is not an option then the project should not be approved -period. PS - I have been very pleased with your energy and efforts to date for our county. Best regards Kevin Steele 6665 Alden Woods Cir 201 Naples Fl 34113 978-807-8283 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Stephanie Rhodes <strhodes49@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 17, 2021 4:13 PM To:HomiakKaren; VernonChristopher; KarlFry; FryerEdwin; KlucikRobert; SheaPaul; GundlachNancy Subject:Planned development on Collier and Grand Lely EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. December 17,2021 Dear Collier County Planning Commission, I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to allowing an amendment to the C-3 Commercial zoning on the parcel at the SW corner of Collier Blvd and Grand Lely. I attended the neighborhood information meeting on 12/15/21 presented by Davis Development with Q&A from Davis personnel and a Stock Management attorney. As a resident of The Verandas, I live directly across the street. I have served on the Verandas HOA BOD (not currently serving) and am presently on the Verandas 1 Association BOD. I have a few questions: How can the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Commissioners before a traffic study is conducted? We were told that’s the process Is there is a need for the zoning amendment? Was a mistake made when the neighborhood was originally zoned? If not, is there sufficient land elsewhere for high density residential use? The fact that Davis Development wants to develop on this parcel is not enough to justify a zone amendment. Will the zoning amendment be consistent with surrounding uses? Clearly this zoning change will not be consistent with surrounding uses. Verandas residents own their condos. Apartment renters are not vested in our community. As the Verandas is not a gated community and will never be one, we have no control of who uses our neighborhood as a cut through. Our road is private and our residents pay for the upkeep. We have had has issues in the past with non-residents damaging our pool, using our dumpsters and with crime. I personally have had my garage burglarized twice. Will the zoning amendment have an impact on our traffic? Renters will be entering and exiting Celeste 24/7. The original C-3 allowing for commercial use is acceptable as most commercial business hours are usually 9 AM to 9 PM. A few years ago, I wrote to the county traffic engineer about the hazards at the “round about” at Celeste and Grand Lely. They agreed that the signage was not sufficient, so they erected new signs. However, the issue still exists. I often 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 see a car heading in my direction on the one-way lane because motorists do not know where to turn. Adding the traffic of 185 residents (not to mention construction trucks that will use Celeste for approximately 1 ½ years) will turn that circle and all of Celeste into a congested mess. In closing, I sincerely ask that you consider the impact to our entire Lely Resort community and especially to The Verandas. Sincerely, Stephanie Rhodes 8025 Tiger Cove Apt304 Naples, FL 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Schofield, Tim <Timothy.Schofield@usfoods.com> Sent:Saturday, August 21, 2021 9:35 AM To:AshtonHeidi; ThomasClarkeVEN; FeyEric; FaulknerSue; GiblinCormac; GundlachNancy; LynchDiane Cc:Susan Vicedomini; Frank Lo Monte; patricia carlson Subject:Development of Grand Lely & 951. PL# 20210001795 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Afternoon, My wife Patty and I are purchasing the home at 8028 Tiger Lily Drive in Lely and have concerns regarding the vacant land on the SW corner of Grand Lely and 951, PL# 20210001795. We have been informed this property may be re-zoned and developed into 180-184 high density apartments. At the time of our purchase agreement in July 2021 we were told this would be developed as a small commercial/ retail property. We would like to go on record as strongly opposing the development of this area for apartment units for the following reasons: 1. Apartments, rather than condominiums/ townhouses, would be a destabilizing force in Tiger Island Estates. Renters tend to be transitory, and we feel this will change our stable neighborhood feeling. We realize there are existing apartments in other sections of Lely, but we feel this number of units on only 9 acres (the application states 20 acres, but the parcel is only 9), would increase the population density diminishing the quality of life in our local neighborhood within Lely Resort. 2. 3. We have no gate in Tiger Island Estates. We feel a dense population of renters could potentially pose a security risk. 4. 5. Adding 460+ residents to an already congested area presents safety, traffic, and noise concerns for the current residents of Lely Resort. 6. 7. We are concerned that these apartments will be used for short term rental (Airbnb, VRBO) further decreasing the quality of our stable, neighborhood environment. 8. 9. We are concerned that the magnitude of the development with so many rental units will decrease our property values. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 We would like to be informed of any public comment period and/or hearing regarding this potential re- zoning/development. Thank you so much, Tim and Patty Schofield Tim Schofield Vice President- Supply Planning, Replenishment US Foods Rosemont, IL 847.962.2603 This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or proprietary to US Foods. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply, and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Kevin Steele <kmsteele1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 2, 2022 8:25 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:SteeleProposed Lely Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. As I am sure you are abundantly aware we have a potential development going into Lely Resort. I am adding my voice to many who find various components of this project totally unacceptable. To Wit: 1. The only access and egress would be from Celeste. There is currently no design to have access and egress to this complex from 951. Steering all traffic through this small pedestrian trafficked road is completely unrealistic and dangerous This would put significantly more traffic not only onto Celeste but also through the Lely residential areas of Ole, Verandas, Tiger Island, etc. Putting many more cars through the Lely residential communities, traversing to Lely Resort Blvd… to drive “the back roads” to get to US 41. What if a fire occurred, how would all these residents be able to exit that area, all would be converging through one egress? Also then how would emergency vehicles (fire, police, first responders get into the complex, with people trying to exit all from on access/egress point? 2 Lely already has issues with driver speeding through the neighborhoods, this would add to this. 3. The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with Collier County DOT (Department of Transportation) on 4 safety issues in the Lely Community. There have been several deaths of drivers and traffic intervention was needed. I think that this is going to result in further traffic/safety issues. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 4 It is a density concern, as the 2 buildings are both to be 4 stories high. Is it within fire code to over 500 residents with only one small exit in an emergency? When will a traffic study be done? We are told that it happens after approval --really! Talk about too little too late. 5 This should not be compared to Inspira. Inspira has access and egress onto Grand Lely Blvd, and those renters do not then travel through the residential neighborhoods of Lely. As I stated in the subject line we need your help. I would like to see it stopped completely but that may be unrealistic. At the very least the density should be reduced significantly and there should be no entrance or exit from Celeste. If Collier is not an option then the project should not be approved -period. PS - I have been very pleased with your energy and efforts to date for our county. Best regards Kevin Steele 6665 Alden Woods Cir 201 Naples Fl 34113 978-807-8283 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 282Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Bruce Topol <brucemtopol@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 17, 2021 9:46 AM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Proposed Zoning Change next to Lely Resort EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Gundlach, My name is Bruce Topol and my wife Brenda and I have chosen to retire and live in the Verandas section of Lely Resort. We have been there almost 10 years. We write you today to ask that you advise against the proposed apartment complex next to our home by Davis development. This proposed development calls for a density 12 times that of our contiguous communities and at four stories high it would tower over our neighborhood and all of Lely. No traffic study has been done but with the likely addition of several hundred cars all entering and leaving on Celeste Boulevard the traffic congestion would overwhelm the contiguous current neighborhoods. Please understand that the people who live here have done so for almost 30 years with the knowledge that this parcel of land has been zoned commercial. Hundreds of us have bought homes or condominiums here with that knowledge. This zoning change would devastate our communities. Please support the people who live here. We are counting on you to look after our homes and neighborhoods. Sincerely, Bruce and Brenda Topol Sent from my iPhone 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:tom Weiss <tom.weiss21@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:29 AM To:LoCastroRick; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; GundlachNancy Subject:Davis Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. DEAR COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. District 1: Rick LoCastro Rick.LoCastro@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8601 District 2: Andy Solis, Esq. Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8602 District 3: Burt L Saunders Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8603 District 4: Penny Taylor Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252-8604 District 5: Williams L. McDaniel, Jr. Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov 239 252- 8605 Nancy Gundlach Planner Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. There are many impacts of this project will have on the surrounding communities. The 2 building, each 4 story complex is not what the residents of Lely, expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial, NOT residential . The only access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam on an every day basis. How would emergency vehicles enter the area and residents leave if there was a fire, or other emergency? Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would greatly increase traffic on Celeste Blvd and going through Ole and Tiger Island because of the number of 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 residents expected and a greater number of cars would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues in Lely Resort. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. \ This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes within sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. This traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive. Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Blvd and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities' Village Center. The roundabout in Ole will be over run with cars all day long as people short cut to Publix. There would be a significant impact on local schools from the potential influx of up to 184 families. The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. THIS PROJECT IS A DENSITY CONCERN, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERN, AND VISUAL NIGHTMARE!! (the 2 buildings being planned are both to be 4 stories high.) DO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT!!!!! For all the above reasons, I am OPPOSED to BOTH the proposed project on Celeste Dr & Grand Lely Drive and amending the existing C-3 Commercial code for this parcel. Signature ____THOMAS and DIANA WEISS___________tom.weiss21@gmail.com____ Print Name ____________________________________________________________ 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 3 Community __ALDEN WOODS_______________________________ Address ______6665________________________________ Unit __101_______ City, State, Zip _____NAPLES, FL______________________________________ Powered by CINC Community Association Management Software 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Adele Wilson <siehsta@aol.com> Sent:Monday, January 3, 2022 12:26 PM To:GundlachNancy Subject:Save Lely construction EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Dear Ms. Nancy Gundlach I am a resident of VeronaWalk in Naples, FL where Davis Development is proposing a 4 story, multi-family, densely-populated apartment complex on the small parcel bounded by Collier (951) / Grand Lely Drive and Celeste Drive PL # 20210001795. I am strongly opposed to the development as this type of construction is entirely out of character for this residential area. Not only is it unacceptable in terms of its aesthetics, it will bring: 1) Intolerable traffic congestion to Celeste Drive, which is a small artery intended for light traffic for existing single family homeowners. Traffic on Grand Lely and Collier Blvd. 2) Debris, delays and chaos throughout the approx. 2 year construction phase from constant trucks back and forth to the site through the single access street, Celeste. 3) Potentially unstable renters who will not have the investment we have in our neighborhoods which could bring litter, animal waste and excessive noise 4) An unsightly, tall structure which will throw this carefully and beautifully designed Lely community completely out of balance. Including communities opposite the site. 5) Potentially lower property values for the residents in Lely, many of whom are retirees who have counted on their homes to maintain a stable value. Including Verona Walk. This will be an eyesore. 6) The destruction of the quiet, peaceful, safe, small-town quality of Lely Resort which made this area so desirable to all of us and the reason we purchased here in the first place. I attended the meeting on Dec. 14th at the Naples Library lead by Linsday Robin and we were all genuinely outraged. We intend to make our voice heard at every meeting going forward. We urge you to vote down the re-zoning of this parcel and urge Davis Development to build elsewhere. Sincerely. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 Adele Wilson Sent from my iPhone 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 GundlachNancy From:Tom Z <tomzuk7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Lisa Gillingham Cc:GundlachNancy; mikedavis@davisdevelopment.com; FredHazel@davisdevelopment.com; Adrianaaleman@davisdevelopment.com; Lindsay.robin@stantec.com; HomiakKaren; VernonChristopher; KarlFry; FryerEdwin; KlucikRobert; SheaPaul; Joesephschmitt@colliergov.net; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; LoCastroRick; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject:Re: Davis Development Project - Please reject this zoning change and development EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. The impact of this project will have on the surrounding communities are as follows; 1- The 2 building, 4 story complex is not what the residents of Lely expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial. NOT residential 2- The only access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. 3- Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents and deaths even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would increase traffic on Celeste Drive because of the number of residents expected and a greater number of cars would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. 4- The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. 5- This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes with sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. This traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive 6- This project would negatively affect home values and ultimately tax revenues. 7- Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Drive and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities’ Village Center. 8- Lely has exiting water and drainage problems that have not been resolved by the developer and this project would exacerbate this problem. 9- There would be a significant impact on local schools from the influx of 184 families. 10- The application for an amendment will invalidate the rationale, decision making, and planning in designing Lely and the C-3 commercial zoning. 11- Davis development has admitted that they have not searched for other parcels in Collier County that already have the proper zoning for this type of project. 12- The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. For all the above reasons, I am OPPOSED to BOTH the proposed project on Celeste Dr & Grand Lely Drive and amending the existing C-3 Commercial code for this parcel. Tom Zukowski 8077 Players Cove Drive, Unit 201 Naples FL 34113 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. ReplyReply allForward On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 8:44 AM Lisa Gillingham <llg237@gmail.com> wrote: The Davis Development project, on the corner of Grand Lely Drive and Collier Boulevard (7665 Collier Blvd), if built as proposed, will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2 The impact of this project will have on the surrounding communities are as follows; 1- The 2 building, 4 story complex is not what the residents of Lely expected when their residences were purchased. They were aware that the parcel was zoned C-3 commercial. NOT residential 2- The only access would be on Celeste Drive. This could cause a traffic jam in the event of an emergency. 3- Celeste Drive has had repeated speeders and traffic accidents and deaths even though the speed limit is 30 MPH. This proposed project would increase traffic on Celeste Drive because of the number of residents expected and a greater number of cars would use it as a shortcut between Route 41 and Collier Blvd. 4- The Lely Traffic Committee has already worked with the Collier Country Department of Transportation regarding 4 safety issues. This project would result in additional traffic safety issues. 5- This project should not be compared to Inspira at the opposite end of Grand Lely drive because there are no single-family homes with sight and traffic for Inspira does not pass through residential neighborhoods. This traffic exits onto Grand Lely drive 6- This project would negatively affect home values and ultimately tax revenues. 7- Ole will be the most impacted community as Ole residents live on both sides of Celeste Drive and many walk across Celeste to reach the communities’ Village Center. 8- Lely has exiting water and drainage problems that have not been resolved by the developer and this project would exacerbate this problem. 9- There would be a significant impact on local schools from the influx of 184 families. 10- The application for an amendment will invalidate the rationale, decision making, and planning in designing Lely and the C-3 commercial zoning. 11- Davis development has admitted that they have not searched for other parcels in Collier County that already have the proper zoning for this type of project. 12- The proposed structures are not visually compliant with the surrounding architecture. For all the above reasons, I am OPPOSED to BOTH the proposed project on Celeste Dr & Grand Lely Drive and amending the existing C-3 Commercial code for this parcel. Lisa Gillingham 8077 Players Cove Drive, Unit 201 Naples FL 34113 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 291Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 292Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 293Attachment: Attachment E-Letters of Objection 6-22-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Resolution opposing the requested zoning amendment to the vacant C-3 Commercial lot, bordered by Celeste Drive, Collier Blvd, and Grand Lely Drive, that would allow for the construction of 184 multifamily units. Whereas Davis Development has requested that Collier County amend the zoning restrictions of C-3 Commercial Parcel #55425003255, aka Lely Resort Phase I Tract 12, Naples, FL., from the current commercial designation to allow for the construction of 184 multifamily units; Whereas this lot has an entrance/exit at the east end of Tiger Island Boulevard, which would lead to apartment traffic using 2 lane quiet residential streets such as Tiger Lily Drive and Lely Island Circle to access Rt. 41 as well as result in excessive traffic on 2 lane Celeste Drive through the center of Ole’, and create traffic backups at the dangerous intersection with Grand Lely Drive at the north end of Celeste Drive; Whereas the 7/23/21 Zoning Verification Letter (ZLTR) review prepared by Eric Ortman, Sr. Planner Collier County Zoning Services Section inaccurately compares this zoning amendment request to June 2015 Ord. 15-39 which amended Ord. 92-15 to permit a similar change for the C-3 parcel at the corner of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive, both of which are 4 lane high volume straightaway through roads without residential frontage, as opposed to the 2 lane winding residential streets through which traffic would flow from/to this proposed dense residential apartment development; and Whereas this dense 4-story development proposed for construction in the midst of quiet 1 and 2-story residential neighborhoods was not incorporated into approved plans during the 40-year build out of Lely Resort, and would negatively impact the quality of life for residents; now, therefore be it Resolved, that the 116 Households of the Alden Woods Home Owners Association – President Robert Vigorito 63 Households of the Caldecott Home Owners Association – President Luis Alvarado 84 Households of the Calumet Reserve Home Owners Association – President James Mengarelli 44 Households of the Chase Preserve Home Owners Association – President Terry Basch 248 Households of the Classics Plantation Estates Home Owners Association– President John Campbell 64 Households of the Coral Falls Home Owners Association – President Ginny Jefferson 32 Households of the Flamingo Fairways Home Owners Association – President Ray Webb 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment F-Petition 1-5-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 87 Households of the Falcons Glen Home Owners Association – President Kevin Gomes 76 Households of the Hawthorne Home Owners Association – President Laurel Hendrickson 24 Households of the Hidden Sanctuary Home Owners Association – President Bruce Watson 44 Households of the Indian Wells Home Owners Association – President Bill Fox 88 Households of the Legacy Home Owners Association – President Harlan Dam 191 Households of the Lely Island Estates Home Owners Association – Vice-President Lyle Ackerman 142 Households of The Majors Homeowners Association – President Tony Pusillo 135 Households of The Masters Reserve Homeowners Association – President Irving Waldman 84 Households of the Moorgate Point Home Owners Association – President Anthony Bottalico 185 Households of the Mustang Island Home Owners Association – President Anne Marie Bularzik 60 Households of the Mustang Villas Home Owners Association – President Holly Balante 60 Households of the Mystic Greens Home Owners Association – President Chuck Nelson 623 Households of the Ole’ Home Owners Association – President Art Celuszak 97 Households of the Prestwick Place Home Owners Association – President David Molnar 96 Households of the Saratoga Home Owners Association – President Bill Penny 76 Households of the Signature Club Home Owners Association – President Scott Harper 120 Households of the Sunstone Home Owners Association – President Amy Strietzel 145 Households of the Tiger Island Estates Home Owners Association – President Andy Fox 56 Households of the Tasori @Lely Resort Home Owners Association – President Dan Brunell 108 Households of the Verandas Home Owners Association – President Barbara Capogna Urges the Collier County Commissioners: Rick LoCastro- Dist. 1, Andy Solis-Dist. 2, Burt Saunders-Dist. 3, Penny Taylor-Dist. 4, and William McDaniel Jr.-Dist. 5. to oppose the proposed amendment to current C3 Commercial Zoning for parcel #55425003255 that would allow for 4 story multifamily housing. 1/3/22 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment F-Petition 1-5-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collierĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff Stock Development, LLC Davis Development, Inc. 3330 Cumberland Blvd. SE #425 Atlanta GA 30339 770-644-0075 239-220-9776 770-644-0078 GSCHAUFLER@DAVISDEVELOPMENT.COM Lindsay Robin, AICP & Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. & Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd. #300 Naples FL 34108 239-985-5502 N/A N/A lindsay.robin@stantec.com & ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: x If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; x The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and x The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ PUD PUD Vacant Commercial Multi-Family Residential Lely Resort 92-15 34 50 26 LELY RESORT PHASE I TRACT 12 515+\-1073+\-398,138 9.14 7665 Collier Blvd. Directly south of Grand Lely Drive, east of Celeste Dr., and west of CR 951 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ PUD (Lely Resort)Grand Lely Drive; Commercial PUD (Lely Resort)Celeste Drive; Residential PUD (Verona Walk)CR 951; Residential PUD (Lely Resort)Celeste Drive; Residential Lely Resort Golf & Country Club 7989 Grand Lely Drive NAples FL 34113 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. No 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. N/A N/A 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ Davis Development, Inc. 3330 Cumberland Blvd. SE #425 Atlanta GA 30339 770-644-0075 239-220-9776 770-644-0078 GSCHAUFLER@DAVISDEVELOPMENT.COM 7665 COLLIER BLVD Naples FL 34113 34 50 26 LELY RESORT PHASE I TRACT 12 55425003255 X South County WRF 16 MGD X South County Regional WTP 184 muti-family residential units 178.6 GPM 64,400 GPD 127.5 GPM 46,000 GPD September 2023 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Project:Lely Resort PUD Amendment Project No.:215616630 Calculated By:Josh Mueller Checked By:Patrick Noll Date:9/9/2021 Task: Detemine the estimated wastewater flows generated for the project. Wastewater Flows Generated CALCULATIONS: B = # of Service Connect C = Average Occupancy per Unit. D = Total Occupancy (BxC) E = Capita Flow (GPD) F = Avrg Daily Sewer Flow Per Service Connect (GPD) (CxE) G = Avrg Daily Sewer Flow (GPD) (BxF) H = Avrg Daily Sewer Flow (GPM) (G/24/60) I = Peak Hourly Factor J = Peak Hrly Flow (GPM) (HxI) 184 2.5 460 100 250 46,000 31.9 3.99 127.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 - - - - - 46,000 31.9 127.5 18 + (P)1/2 Population = 460.0 = Average Daily Flow / 100 GPD 4 + (P)1/2 where P = Population / 1,000 = 0.46 E) Peak wastewater flows for each non-residential use below are calculated per F.A.C. 64E-6 (Table 1, Estimated Sewage Flows) - Clubhouse; no additional contributed wastewater flow generated considering it is an ancillary facility to the residential units. ASSUMPTIONS: C,D,E,F) Wastewater systems shall be designed to maintain adequate flows and standards as established by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), using the equivalent residential connection (ERC) value of 250 gallons per day per residential unit (broken down to 100 gallons per day per person and 2.5 people per household) and F.A.C. 64E-6.008 for non-residential (per design criteria manual Part 2) Lely Resort Phase 1 Tract 12: The proposed maximum of 184 multi-family residential units was utilized for wastewater calculations. CONCLUSIONS: - The wastewater peak hourly flow and average daily sewer flow were detemined to be 127.5 GPM and 46,000 GPD respectively. I) Peak Hourly Factor = (18+ (Population/1000)^.5)/(4+(Population/1000)^.5) (from Recommended Standards for Wastewater Works , 1997) using Ten States Standards (4.0 max). A = Type of Service Connection Multi-Family Residential Units 3.99=Peak Hourly Factor = Lely Resort Phase 1 Tract 12 (Proposed) Total Phase 1 Clubhouse (Ancillary) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Project:Lely Resort PUD Amendment Project No.:215616630 Calculated By:Josh Mueller Checked By:Patrick Noll Date:9/9/2021 Task: Determine the estimated potable water demand generated by the project using estimated wastewater flows. Total potable demand for the project CALCULATIONS: B = # of Service Connect C = Rooms, Seats, SQ FT, Units, Etc. D = Capita Flow (GPD) E = Avrg Daily Water Demand Per Service Connect (GPD) (CxD) F = Avrg Daily Water Demand (GPD) (BxCxD) G = Avrg Daily Water Demand (GPM) (F/24/60) H = Max Daily Demand (gpm) (G*1.35) I = Peak Daily Demand (gpm) (G*0.5) J = Peak Hrly Demand (GPD) (FxPeak) K = Peak Hrly Demand (GPM) (J/24/60) 184 2.5 140 350 64,400 44.7 60.4 22.4 257,122 178.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 - - - - 64,400 44.72 60.4 22.4 - 178.6 ASSUMPTIONS: Multi-Family Residential Units A = Type of Service Connection H) Maximum day demand peaking factor of 1.35 per 2014 Water & Wastewater Master Plan D) Per wastewater flows x 1.4 per FDEP Total (Phase 1) Lely Resort Phase 1 Tract 12 (Proposed) Clubhouse (Ancillary) -Peak Rate Factor changed from 2.6 per "Updated 2008 Collier County Water and Wastewater Master Plan" to 10 state standards. J) Peak Hourly Factor = (18+ (Population/1000)^.5)/(4+(Population/1000)^.5) (from Recommended Standards for Wastewater Works , 1997) using Ten States Standards (4.5 max). CONCLUSIONS: - The potable water peak hourly demand and average daily water demand were detemined to be 178.6 GPM and 64,400 GPD respectively. - Clubhouse; no additional water demand generated considering it is an ancillary facility to the residential units. Lely Resort Phase 1 Tract 12: The proposed maximum of 184 multi-family residential units was utilized for wastewater calculations. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1x 1x 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: City of Naples Utilities Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 x x x x x x x x x Enviro Review by Craig Brown 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 11 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ________________________________________________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party x x x x Lindsay Robin, AICP 9/15/21 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300, Naples FL 34108-2709 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx September 16, 2021 Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP Collier County Development Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Lely Resort PUD – Tract 12 Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) - PL20210001795 Dear Ms. Gundlach: Enclosed for your review is an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development (PUD), a 2,892.5+/- acre project generally located south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, east of U.S. 41, and west of Collier Blvd. in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The PUDA request is specific to a 9+/- acre section of the PUD, known as Lely Tract 12, located directly adjacent to Collier Blvd., and directly south of Grand Lely Drive and designated as Commercial/Neighborhood (C-3) on the PUD Master Plan. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS The Lely Resort PUD was established in 1992 pursuant to Ordinance 92-15, as amended. The current Ordinance 2015-39/PUD permits a variety of uses including 8,946 dwelling units, 820,000 square feet of commercial uses, 350 hotel rooms, and educational facilities. The PUD has been amended several times through the insubstantial change to a PUD process pursuant to HEX No. 2014-04, HEX No. 2016-32, HEX No. 2017-03, HEX No. 2019-30. These amendments all related to signage deviations. The most recent PUD amendment was completed in 2015 pursuant to Ordinance 2015-39. The amendment allowed a few changes, but as it relates to this request, it allowed multi-family dwellings as a permitted use in the C-3 tracts, specifically the C-3 tract located at the NW corner of Rattlesnake Hammock and Grand Lely Drive. Specifically, the amended condition allows C-3 uses and/or residential dwellings, which allows the C-3 parcel to be developed as a standalone residential development within the overall PUD. The subject parcel is surrounded by Grand Lely Drive, a public roadway, to the north; Celeste Drive, a public roadway, to the west and south; and by Collier Boulevard, a county-maintained arterial public roadway to the west. Access to the parcel is provided on Celeste Drive via an existing stub- 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 2 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx out. For safety reasons, an additional point of vehicular access may be provided at the southern end of Celeste Drive. REQUEST Davis Development, Inc. (“Applicant”) is requesting approval to allow C-3 and/or multi-family residential uses on a C-3 designated portion of the PUD located at the southwest corner of Grand Lely Drive and C.R. 951. The Applicant is proposing to amend Condition 21 of section 6.02 of the PUD document to add this specific C-3 tract in addition to the C-3 tract located at the NW corner of Rattlesnake Hammock and Grand Lely Drive, which permits C-3 uses and/or residential dwellings. The proposed condition reads as follows: 21) The C-3 parcel at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive and the C-3 parcel at the southwest corner of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) and Grand Lely Drive may be developed allowing C-3 uses, as outlined in Section VI of Ordinance 92-15, as amended, and/or residential dwelling units. This proposed amendment is consistent with the 2015 approval, which permitted multi-family residential uses in the C-3 tract. Through this amendment process the Applicant is not seeking any other changes, deviations, reductions in required open space or native preserve, or any increase to the permitted density or intensity. The proposed multi-family development seeks to provide a maximum of 184 dwelling units, which is well below the remaining units in the PUD pursuant to the 2021 PUD Monitoring Report. EVALUATION CRITERIA/COMPLIANCE WITH LDC §10.02.13.B: The request complies with the thresholds for the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria as outlined in LDC §10.02.13.B as follows: a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The proposed multi-family use and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments provided in the PUD provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. Furthermore, the project will provide the required landscape buffers and open space. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 3 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. The documents submitted as part of this application demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain site development approval, which ensures appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Collier County GMP goals, objectives and policies. A further analysis of the compliance with the GMP is provided below. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed amendment will result in a project that is compatible with the surrounding area. The approved uses within the PUD are not proposed to change as part of this amendment and the previous amendment already added the multi-family use to the C-3 tract’s list of permitted uses. The uses approved in the previous PUD amendments were determined to be compatible and continue to be compatible with the change proposed by this request. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is seeking a waiver from the Transportation Impact Statement due to the project being vested and no additional units being requested through this amendment. The project will comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are pursued. Additionally, the PUD document contains developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 4 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Through this amendment request the Applicant is not seeking any deviations. The request is limited to allowing C-3 and/or residential uses on the C-3 tract located at the SW corner of Grand Lely Drive and C.R. 951. REZONE FINDINGS/COMPLIANCE WITH LDC §10.02.08.F: The request complies with the criteria for rezone petitions as outlined in LDC §10.02.08.F as follows: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The property is within the Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). This FLU category is intended for PUDs that include both residential and commercial uses. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be consistent with the GMP. The proposed amendment is also consistent with the following GOPs: FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. The proposed amendment will result in a multi-family development located on a parcel primarily surrounded by roadways. The main land use in the general area is residential, and multi-family is a form of residential. The project will provide the required landscape buffers and open space, which will further enhance the projects compatibility with the surrounding area. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 5 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx FLUE 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: FLUE 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. The proposed amendment will provide access to the site via Celeste Drive, which is a public roadway that leads to Grand Lely Drive, a major collector roadway, and to C.R. 951, a major arterial roadway. The project is part of an overall PUD that provides miles of internal connections via sidewalks and bikeable public streets. Providing a connection to C.R. 951 is not possible as the roadway is considered a controlled access road and access to this parcel is not provided direct access. Access to CR 951 is available from Grand Lely Drive. FLUE 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. FLUE 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. The project provides direct connection to the interior road system that is part of the overall PUD. FLUE 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. The proposed development will provide a housing type and price that is highly desirable in this area of the county. The project will connect to the existing sidewalk network in the PUD as well as providing internal sidewalks in compliance with the LDC. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: the proposed amendment is consistent with the CCME because there are no proposed changes to the environmental provision of the PUD. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 6 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx Transportation Element: the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of the transportation element because no amendments are proposed to the transportation requirements of the PUD. 2. The existing land use pattern. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing land use pattern in this area. The surrounding area contains residential, roadway, and commercial uses, all of which are approved uses in the PUD. Through the use of setbacks and landscape buffers the project will be not only compatible but also complementary to the surrounding uses. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD amendment does not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD and there are no land additions proposed as part of this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The applicant is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. There is a demand for rental housing in this area of the County. Approval of this amendment will provide the County with a variety of housing options and costs. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed amendment will result in a project that includes restrictions through development standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development of this parcel as proposed should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. Furthermore, the residential land use proposed is a 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 7 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx less intensive land use than commercial. Commercial development creates impacts to surrounding residential that a multi-family project would not create such as delivery trucks and traffic associated i.e. very large trucks using the same roads and delivering goods during early morning or evening hours. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this amendment is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The location of the proposed buildings, combined with the setbacks and project buffers will help ensure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since values are driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12.Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 8 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx The proposed amendment and resulting development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the Applicant is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. The Applicant believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district and the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. As previously noted, the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. The Applicant believes the development standards and commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. This petition is intended to be reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The Applicant did not review other sites in conjunction with this petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 9 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. No Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. CONCLUSION: In summary, the proposed amendment will allow for the ability to provide C-3 and/or residential uses on the C-3 tract located at the southwest corner of Grand Lely Drive and C.R. 951. The PUD and the requested amendment will remain consistent with the LDC and GMP; the change meets all criteria for a PUD amendment; and the request will not impact internal or external compatibility of the project. The following items are enclosed for your review: 1. One (1) copy of the Cover Letter/Project Narrative detailing the purpose of the request; 2. One (1) copy of the completed PUDA Application; 3. One (1) copy of the Pre-Application Meeting Notes; 4. One (1) copy of the Current Master Plan; 5. One (1) copy of the Proposed Master Plan; 6. One (1) copy of the PUD document with changes crossed through & underlined; 7. One (1) copy of the Affidavit of Authorization; 8. One (1) copy of the Covenant of Unified Control; 9. One (1) copy of the Evidence of Authority; 10. One (1) copy of the approved Addressing Checklist; 11. One (1) copy of the Property Ownership Disclosure Form; and 12. One (1) copy of the School Impact Analysis. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) September 16, 2021 Page 10 of 10 \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\puda_request_narrative.docx If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 985-5502, or lindsay.robin@stantec.com. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Lindsay F. Robin, MPA, AICP Urban Planner Enclosures cc: Gray Schaufler & Lance Chernow Davis Development, Inc. Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Katie LaBarr, AICP; Ray Piacente, PMP; John Scott, P.E., Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPT ION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 ● www.colliercountyfl.gov July 23, 2021 Mr. Gary Schaufler Davis Development 403 Corporate Center Dr., Suite 201 Stockbridge, GA. 30281 ZLTR-PL20210001505: Zoning Verification Letter for a vacant parcel Folio #55425003255, aka Lely Resort Phase I Tract 12, Naples, FL., located in Section 34, Township 50, Range 26 of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. Folio #55425003255 is comprised of ±9.14 acres. Mr. Schaufler, This letter is in response to a Zoning Verification Letter (ZLTR) Application that you submitted on or about July 7, 2021. The applicant has requested verification of the questions listed below in bold print which are followed by staff’s responses. Documentation supporting staff’s responses follows this letter. Zoning: The current official zoning atlas, an element of the Collier Land Development Cost (LDC), Ordinance 04- 41, as amended, shows that the subject property is in the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development (PUD). Question: 1. What entity is the zoning authority having jurisdiction over the subject parcel? The Collier County Government is the authoritative entity over the subject parcel. 2. What is the current zoning of the subject parcel? The parcel is a part of Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development PUD. 3. Are there any pending rezoning applications, hearings, cases, appeals or other proceedings which would affect the zoning classification of the subject parcel? An application has been submitted (PL20210001795) for the subject parcel requesting a change in the existing PUD to allow for residential uses on C-3 Track 12 which includes the subject parcel. Ord. 15-39 which amended Ord. 92-15, as amended, contains a similar permitted use change “to allow C-3 uses and all types of residential dwelling units as mixed use or stand alone for the C-3 parcel at the corner of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive” Ord. 15-39 §6.02.21 contains the amended language. The information presented in this verification letter is based on the Collier County LDC and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to either of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-PL20210001505 Page 2 of 2 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 ● www.colliercountyfl.gov subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County LDC or related ordinances. This letter represents a determination of Zoning Services Section staff. Should you disagree with this determination, you may request an Official Interpretation by the Zoning Director of the provisions of the Land Development Code pursuant to Sections 1.06.01.A and 10.02.02.F.1 of that Code. The fee for an Official Interpretation is identified in the most recent GMD Fee Schedule Resolution as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. To obtain copies of any document referenced herein, please contact Kathleen VanSickle with the GMD Records Section at (239)252-2536. The LDC may be viewed online at / Municode Library / Florida / Collier County. Validated Ordinances may be viewed online via the Clerk of Court’s website, www.collierclerk.com / Records Search / BMR Records / Boards, Minutes, Records / BMR Validated Ordinances. Disclaimer: Issuance of a development permit by the County does not 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. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (239) 252-1032. Researched and prepared by: Reviewed by: Eric Ortman, Senior Planner Raymond Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Services Section Zoning Services Section 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Zoning Map for Vacant Parcel Folio #55425003255 (Blue arrow points to subject parcel.) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) ORDINANCE NO. 15- 3 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-15, AS AMENDED, WHICH RE-ESTABLISHED LELY, A RESORT COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY REDUCING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 10,150 TO 8,946; BY AMENDING SECTION 2.06 ENTITLED "PROJECT DENSITY" AND SECTION 2.07 ENTITLED "PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS"; BY AMENDING THE MARKET ABSORPTION SCHEDULE; BY AMENDING SECTION 3.02 ENTITLED "MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS"; BY AMENDING SECTION V, C-2 COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL TO PROVIDE THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED AS PART OF A MIXED USE PROJECT; AND BY AMENDING SECTION VI, C-3 COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD TO ALLOW C-3 USES AND ALL TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AS MIXED USE OR STAND ALONE FOR THE C-3 PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AND GRAND LELY DRIVE; BY ADDING SECTION XV, DEVIATIONS, FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE SIZE OF SIGNS; AMENDING EXHIBIT H, THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO MOVE A C-3 PARCEL TO THE EAST OF GRAND LELY DRIVE AND ADJUST ACREAGES TO DECREASE RESIDENTIAL USES AND INCREASE COMMERCIAL USES BY 6± ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 2,892 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD WEST OF C.R. 951, IN SECTIONS 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20140002040] WHEREAS, on March 10, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved Ordinance No. 92-15 which established the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the Board approved Ordinance No. 07-72 which amended the PUD; and 14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108—rev. 6/18/15 Page 1 of 4 Lely Resort—PUDA-PL20140002040 Words st^u^' gh are deleted;words underlined are added. cA 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing Stock Development, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida to further amend Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to Index. The Index to Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to add the following: SECTION XV Deviations from the LDC. 15-1 [applicable to entire PUD unless otherwise notedl SECTION TWO. Amendment to List of Exhibits and Tables. See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TWO: Amendments to Project Density. Section 2.06 entitled "Project Density" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION THREE: Amendments to Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units. Section 2.07 entitled Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION FOUR: Amendment to Estimated Market Absorption Schedule. The estimated Market Absorption Schedule, Table 1, of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: 14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108—rev. 6/18/15 Page 2 of 4 Lely Resort—PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. cq 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) See Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION FIVE: Amendment to Maximum Dwelling Units. Section 3.02 entitled "Maximum Dwelling Units" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: 3.02 Maximum Dwelling Units. A maximum number of i 0 8,946 dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated as "R" except as permitted by Section 2.07 or "C-2" or "C-3" where expressly permitted. SECTION SIX: Amendments to Section V, C-2 Commercial/Professional. Section V, C-2 Commercial/Professional of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION SEVEN: Amendments to Section VI, C-3 Commercial/Neighborhood. Section VI, C-3 Commercial/Neighborhood of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION EIGHT: Amendments to Section XIV, General Developer Commitments. Section XIV, General Developer Commitments of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, (Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to add the following: C. Transportation 10 Prior to SDP as'royal of im•rovements on the C-2 .arcel that has fronta•e on US 41 the owner shall post a performance guarantee such as a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $50,000 in order to secure owner's fair share of transportation improvements to Triangle Boulevard including but not limited to, turn lanes, median modifications and/or a traffic circle along Triangle Boulevard. The performance guarantee shall be released by County upon execution of a developer's contribution agreement by owner or upon creation of a commercial municipal service taxing district and/or benefit unit by County. The amount of the contribution shall be determined at time of execution of the developer's contribution agreement or calculated in accordance with the taxing district. 14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108—rev. 6/18/15 Page 3of4 Lely Resort—PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. C19)., 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION NINE: Amendments to Add Section XV, Deviations from LDC. Section XV, Deviations from LDC of Ordinance Number 92-15, as amended, (Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby added to read as follows: See Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TEN: Amendment to Master Plan. Exhibit H, "Master Land Use Plan" of Ordinance No. 92-15, as amended, (the Lely, A Resort Community Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended as follows: See Exhibit H, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION ELEVEN: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 1' day of J u 1.1 2015. fie Al ra. ATTEST?• g a.. .BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DW bI MfiBRpc1 CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA f }1uJ 9 f( E B Ji iA. i.L By: e,a4ece.„_ Attest as re TIM NANCE, Chairman signature orb .' Approved as to form an. legality: fiD tk(ttK H idi Ashton-Cicko I u\‘ Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—List of Exhibits and Tables Exhibit B — Section II, Sections 2.06 and 2.07 Exhibit C—Estimated Market Absorption Schedule Exhibit D— Section V, C-2 Commercial/Professional Exhibit E—Section VI, C-3 Commercial/Neighborhood Exhibit F—Section XV—Deviations from LDC Exhibit H to Ord. 92-15, as amended—Revised Master PlanThis ordinance filed with the Exhibit Ito Ord. 92-15, as amended - Buffer Exhibit eet tthhtote's Office 615day1u19 and acknowledger'nent of that filing received this T`__ day of -- y its 1L,y 1.:i14-CPS-01392/1188398/1] 108-rev. 6/18/15 Page 4 of 8Y Deputy tiLelyResort-PUDA-PL20140002040 Words strusk-thfeugh are deleted;words underlined are added.r1 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT H Revised Master Land Use Plan (Prepared by Pock, Inc. Filo No. RZ 198 EXHIBIT I BUFFER EXHIBIT TABLE I Estimated Market Absorption Schedule TABLE II A Development Standards `R' Residential Areas TABLE II B Development Standards `R' Residential Areas EXHIBIT A ii Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.06 PROJECT DENSITY The total acreage of the Lely Resort property is approximately 2892.5 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 10,150 8,946. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is approximately 3.15. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary according to the type of housing placed on each parcel of land but shall comply with guidelines established in this document. 2.07 PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS All properties designated for residential uses may be developed at the maximum number of dwelling units as assigned under Section 2.05, provided that the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed -1-0,- 50 8.946. The Development Services Director shall be notified of such an increase and the resulting reduction in the corresponding residential land use or other categories so that the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 10,150 8,946. Approximately 1850 single family units and 5300 7,096 multi-family units have been planned. Variations from these numbers without an adjustment to the maximum number of units within the project shall be permitted provided that the maximum number of dwelling units by type shall not vary by more than twenty (20) percent. The maximum number of dwelling units shall include all caretaker's units but does not include the designated hotel rooms. The project may exceed the variation of twenty (20) percent of the unit types set forth in this section provided that for every single family unit permitted in excess of 2220, the maximum number of dwelling units shall be reduced by 1.667 units. EXHIBIT B 2-1 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words stlk-thfeugh are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) ESTIMATED MARKET ABSORPTION SCHEDULE TABLE 1 PHASE YEAR RESIDENT COMMER. GC EC RC CC UNITS SQ. FT.HOLES STUDENTS HOTEL RMS SEATING I 1985- 264 3,600 18 1990 II 1991- 1328 300,400 36 364 350 Rooms 1995 III 1996- 1482 56,000 736 1850 2000 IV 2001- 1526 2005 V 2006- 1250 90,000 1400 2010 VI 2011- 1300 1,000 100,000 2015 VII 2016- -1-50014(20 135,000 2020 VIII 2021- 1500 1 4096 135,000 2025 TOTALS 40 10,150 8.246 820,000 54 2500 350 Rooms 1850 315,000 S.F. 315,000 SF of hotel commercial space is included EXHIBIT C 2-9 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION V C-2 COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 5.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this sSection is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated on Revised Exhibit H', Master Land Use Plan RZ 198, as `C-2'. The C-2 tract is intended to provide for the professional, office, and business related needs of area residents, supplementing the retail nature of the adjacent C-1 tract. 5.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURE No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1) Business and professional offices; banks; financial institutions. 2) Churches and other places of worship; civic and cultural facilities; educational facilities. 3) Funeral homes. 4) Homes for the aged; hospitals; hospices and sanitoriums, hotels and motels. 5) Medical laboratories; medical clinics; medical offices; mortgage brokers; museums. 6) Parking garages and lots; private clubs. 7) Real estate offices; research design and development activities; restaurants; rest homes; convalescent centers; and nursing homes. 8) Laboratories, provided that: No odor, noise, etc., detectable to normal senses from off the premises are generated; All work is done within enclosed structures; and No product is manufactures or sold, except incidental to development activities. 9) Transportation, communication and utility offices—not including storage or equipment. 10) Water management facilities and essential services. 11) The C-2 parcel fronting U.S. 41 may be developed allowing C-2 and/or C-3 uses, as outlined in Section V and Section VI of Ordinance 92-15, as amended, and up to 175 residential dwelling units to provide for a mixed-use project. 5-1 EXHIBIT D Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struelFthreugh are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added e C) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this district. 2) Caretaker's residence. 5.03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1) Minimum Site Area: As approved under Section 2.04 2) Minimum Site Width: As approved under Section 2.04 3) Minimum Yard Requirements for parcel boundaries: Thirty(30)feet 4) Maximum Height of Structures: Fifty (50) feet above the finished grade of the site, plus ten (10) feet for under building parking. 5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor. 6) Minimum Distance Between Principal Structures: 30' or ''A the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. 7) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and landscaping shall conform with applicable Collier County Regulations in effect at the time permits are sought:, or as approved by a deviation in Section XV of the PUD. 8) The area of the C-2 and C-3 uses referenced in Paragraph 5.02 A.11) above shall be limited to a maximum of 100,000 square feet in the aggregate. This limitation does not apply to the 175 residential dwelling units permitted as part of a mixed use proiect 9) Tho area of each, individual C 2 and C 3 uses referenced in Paragraph 5.02 A.11) above shall bo One (1) building o C-3containigC-2 r uses n -. in P.r. r. .h 02.A 1 i .Il• -. • • .1 101 • _.r- --t of 'r• ••r . A other buildin•s containing C-2 and C- uses shall be limited to 20,000 square feet. 10) 9) Any restaurant uses permitted by or associated with any use permitted by either the C-2 and C-3 land use designations of this Ordinance, only if those uses are located on the C-2 parcel fronting U.S. 41, shall be subject to the following additional regulations: a)No televisions shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas. b) No amplified sounds, including music, shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas after 10:00 p.m. Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 5-2 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) c)No live entertainment shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas after 10:00 p.m. d) All windows and doors shall be closed after 10:00 p.m. 11)IQ)The 175 residential dwelling units and C-3 uses referenced in paragraph 5.02 A.11)above shall be subject to the C-2, Commercial/Professional development standards set forth in this Paragraph Paragraph Section 5.03). • Amid' I-. • . .•• It .61•6. -. • - .16 • - - 6- . ••-t • 6. - frontin. U.S. 41. excluding restaurant uses, which shall be regulated in accordance with paragraph 5.03 9)above. 12 Th- -2 ..r -I r•• '!! s._ . • '.- _ 1.- •• • , -. - • ' • _ ••. ' - .- ":" plantings in accordance with Exhibit 1 along the northeast perimeter of said C-2 parcel, where the commercial building and associated loading area abut the existing lake. The wall will extend from Tr'.n•l- :1 . • , .,••'» . 11 •1u'• • . . • .••. •• •• ..._ h- -n• if ,n . .••. - • , '•1 i • -. -. is i- lei - •-rig•- - • ,- parcel where restaurant uses abut the existing lake. The loading dock shall be on the commercial interior side of the wall. Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9 5-3 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION VI C-3 COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD 6. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated on Revised Exhibit `H', Master Land Use Plan RZ 198, as `C-3'. The C-3 tract''-s are intended to provide residents with conveniently located commercial facilities and services that are typically required on a regular basis. 6.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1) Antique shops; appliance stores; art studios; art supplies; automobile parts stores; automobile service stations. 2) Bakery shops; banks and financial institutions; barber and beauty shops; bath supply stores; blue print shops; bicycle sales and services; book stores. 3) Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation); child care centers; churches and other places of worship; clothing stores; confectionary and candy stores. 4) Delicatessen, drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods stores and department stores. 5) Electrical supply stores. 6) Fish stores; florist shops; food markets; furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 7) Gift shops; gourmet shops. 8) Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; homes for the aged; hospitals and hospices. 9) Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms. 10) Jewelry stores. 11) Laundries—self-service; leather goods and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores. 12) Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care;millinery shops; music stores. 13) Office(retail or professional); office supply stores. 14) Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops; pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office. EXHIBIT E 6-1 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struccik-thfeugh are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 15) Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants. 16) Souvenir stores; stationary stores; supermarkets and sanitoriums. 17) Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores. 18) Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics(no outside kenneling). 19) Watch and precision instrument sales and repair. 20) Water management facilities and essential services. 21) The C-3 e arcel at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake 1mmoc Road and Grand Le Drive may be developed allowing C-3 uses, as outlined in Section VI of Ordinance 92-15, as amended, and/or residential dwelling units. 21)22) Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the !_ _ ._ _ ._ •1'1 • : .. • Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible with the district. B) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1)Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. 2) Caretaker's residence. 6.03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Minimum Site Area: As approved under Section 2.04 2)Minimum Site Width: As approved under Section 2.04 3) Minimum Yard Requirements from parcel boundaries: Abutting non-residential areas: Twenty five(25)feet Abutting residential areas: Thirty five (35) feet in which an appropriately designed and landscaped buffer shall be provided, as determined under Section 2.14. 4) Distance between principal structures: None, or a minimum five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front yard to rear yard. 5) Maximum Height of Structure: Fifty(50)feet above the finished grade of the site. 6) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor. 6- 2 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 7) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and landscaping shall be in conformance with applicable Collier County regulations in effect at the time permits are sought or as approued by a deviation:in Section XV of the PUD, 8) The residential dw .11in' ..' - - -• -. '. - •• • 12.A.21 above shall be subj the re,sidentjal development standards as set forth in Table IL of Ordinance 92-15, except that residential building height shall be limited to a maximum of fifty(50) feet/4 stories, 9 A six-foot tall wall/fence with Alternative T pe `B" plantings in accordance with Exhibit I shall be rovided between the existing lakes on the sout ern perimeter of the C-3 parcel at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive, Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 6-3 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) SECTION XV DEVIATIONS FROM THE I,DC I• ,••i ion • devi. '•n rr-n ,••r•v-• in h- P D h- f•1 o- •i .r- •-in .!o-_ • •- PUD: Deviation 1; Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows tem.or.ry signs on residential. zon-• properties us • 4 sou. - -- in ,r-a or feet in h-iih • .11. . - .• , siin or .ann-r . • • a maximum of 32 s•uare feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in hei_ht: subject to ap.r.v,l . .-r temporary Sian permit procedures in the LDC. The tem.orar si•n or banner shall be limited to 14 day duration not to exceed 2: da •- calend.r ear. This d-vi, ion ,•'lie • - -n ire P D. Wh-.• '100 of the dwellin. units ar- solo i hin each s 'division ilizin. hi •-via ion re•u-st his •-vi, i• terminates and reverts to the LDC for such subdivision. Deviation 2• Deviation fr. P S- ion .0..02.B.6.b whi h .ermi s o 2_!r.und or ,1 . is per entran e to the develo.m-n h . .mbine• si'n .re. of.4 • ,r- -- • allow for two 2 'r• no or wall sins at the entrance to re i.ential .ro'ects within the P D i h . •m.in-d i'n , -a of :1 f per sign, and not to exceed the height or length of the wall upon which it is located. This deviation applies to the entire PUD. Devia ion 3: Deviation from LDC - ti•n .0..02 B.6 whi h •- it . m,xim m sin hei•ht of : - - for us o •roung or wall sins at e. h entr. c- o . m lti-f. it or n•1 -f,mil • -v-lo.m- • allow • maximum heiih of 11 f-- This •evi.ti•n ,..li- • - •n ir- P P. Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC S-c ion 06.02.B.12 a. which permit . maximum of 1 w,11 in pursuant o LDC re•uirement for si'n within non-r-siden i.1 •i ri s , d a maxim m •f tw• 2 ground signs with a height of 8 feet and sign copy area of no more than 32 square feet per sign at the main entrance to internal residential communit amenity facilities, to allow for a maximum of one (1 ground or wall sign for each individual amenity within the Player's Club at Lely Resort, in addition to he main amenit entran e si•ns not to -xc-ed a hei•ht •f t-n 11 f-et , d sin co• area of 64 ..r- feet .er siin. The deviation a•.li-s solel to the P1. ers Cl b at Lel Resort Parcel No. 5542500300. and is limited to a total of six (6) amenity site signs. Deviation • Deviation from LDC Sec ion 5 0..02.B.6 14.b whi h permit one .ound..t marker sign . e. h residential d-velo•ment .ro pert corner with a maximum si!n fa - area of 24 s.uare feet to all.w for one bounda marker sin with a maximum sin face area of 2 s•uare feet at each pro.ert c.rn-r of the C-3 tract at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive. This deviation applies solely to the 20-acre tract desi'nated as `C-3' on Revised Exhibit `H' Master Land Us- Plan and located at the southwest corner of R.ttlesnak- Hamm. k Road . d Grand Lel Drive Parcel No. 535 0100063. 53570100241, and 53570100225). Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.0..04. F.1. which permits an additional pole or !round si'in for parcels havini frontaie of 150 ft. or more on a public street or combined public street fron . 'e of 220 lineal feet where there is a minimum of a 1 000 feet separation between such sins to allow for a maximum •f two 2 si i ns on the C-2 tract that fronts on U.S. 41 one of which ma be located on the US EXHIBIT F 15-1 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck-through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12,2015 Words underlined are added c, 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 41 fr•nta'- an. h- -c•n• hich _ s- • . -. in h- i.n1- : • r• M.I. i .e,_ in' .f411 f— .- w--n sins Thi .-v'. '•. • ..1'- •1- • h- •-. - on Revised Exhibit `H', Master Land Use Plan, and located at the northwest corner of Tamiarni Trail East and Trian•1- Blvd. (Parcel No. 55425001008). Deviation 7: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06,04.F.1.c, which permits a maximum allowable si. • of 80 s•uare feet for a role or aroun• sin I• •s .n .n . - i.1 r. . .av • . x1•w f•r . im ' n a of 1 1 0 • •re feet fora sole or r•~n•l.c. -. on h- -2 r. t n in 4 . • is the C-3 tract at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive. This d-vi.tion a.sli-s solel to the •-acre r. t •- i'n. -• . ` -2' in Revised Ex •s' ` ' u -r . - Plan and locat-d at the northwest corner .f Tami. i Trail East and Tr'. 'le Blv• P.r -I N. 42 001118 .nd the 20-acre tract desi•nat-d as `C-3' •n Revises Exhi•it `H' Ma -r L.n• U - Ph and located at the southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive (Parcel No. 5357)100063, 53570100241, and 53570100225 Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struck through are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added 15-2 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) IL1/h4Wii,Y H•WkCi+WtB.... PR PR r 7?•. Ir: Ifr.- - 1 1. tivo col Jrd L'?J fad R C # c PI:v...J w • PR ql a`. PR ti..( flR y"' a, 0 41 R Z' ?v pA r.R R4F c ac ad ac Y ( ,\ F+ J 1.A e 41 1 i 4tCC u 'i:' t3C ' '.`r'qr tic .,,I R.. ^' 7„? i 543 fl., re R k, 0. )!' S ' Rc /HI 6 h 7-.., S.l/..... R 1 ,°..'')"..!'' 4.'"c 5 R is '1 ' ' R $ C3 R R t( i1 C3 i B a h o a l C l ` aC f` f RLI GC R 7111!.1 i1C pry ap LEGEND PR SYMB ITEM RCR 3 R R ) 0 4. Finn RESIDENTIAL r.w.w.r...rw 1166.0 0 - * R C1 j COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY 38.0 f 1 02j COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 16.0 t sr LCSI COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD 36.0 rail r+,, y,, iBC; EOISOCOLLEGE 44.0 R R R 4.'. pR CC CULTURAL CENTER 46.5 Y fRC RESORT CENTER 49.0 jam t' 4C R... IGCJ GOLF COURSE 49S.0 1"'` J ""` C , CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE 233.0 r CYPRESS PRESERVE 171.5 ti CO PARIS/SCHOOL 21.5 1,'5 ,`.,.f Ca LAKE 405.5 C 4. A MAJOR COLLECTOR 70.5 RIO MINOR COLLECTOR 64.0 y' _ r ' N Et) um LOCAL ROAD 26.5 fz ra; ACREAGE XXX.X 961 R. Q.W. RESERVE 9.0 TOTAL.ACREAGE AREA 2692.0 f TOTAL UNITS 8,945 TOTAL COMMERCIAL SO.FT. 1.135,000 EXHIBIT H Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struelchrough are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added U 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 07Zth->-- zi. 3,3 541. r4' 1W4W1IelIFr,H c,r1.7 cc.'biltxxmC I0113 rs)M M 73 r1-1 IP3 an 03,3 8 Mg P0 Air- -10 PA 411oNliktot MORI 1,011 ri 4 lip 016 ire cn 02 P44114Hi0 2-E 13 FlikiNIfpCOIP-rT-, r9 Api m NW1ANk 1 m > 2 plioato.06, 41%--"— or. I. 1. 4' 0 ASIII" W\ r. 0 om 03 re 111. , n M Po 14 z I cnm 15 WIDEz o z“ol i ",:11101f. ;11 il' 1 Si po 0 ml if ..a 7 EXHIBIT I ON' 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) d FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNERGovernor Secretary of State July 9, 2015 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Ms. Martha S. Vergara, BMR Senior Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 15-39, which was filed in this office on July 9, 2015. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 • Facsimile: (850) 488-9879 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) IL1/h4Wii,Y H•WkCi+WtB.... PR PR r 7?•. Ir: Ifr.- - 1 1. tivo col Jrd L'?J fad R C # c PI:v...J w • PR ql a`. PR ti..( flR y"' a, 0 41 R Z' ?v pA r.R R4F c ac ad ac Y ( ,\ F+ J 1.A e 41 1 i 4tCC u 'i:' t3C ' '.`r'qr tic .,,I R.. ^' 7„? i 543 fl., re R k, 0. )!' S ' Rc /HI 6 h 7-.., S.l/..... R 1 ,°..'')"..!'' 4.'"c 5 R is '1 ' ' R $ C3 R R t( i1 C3 i B a h o a l C l ` aC f` f RLI GC R 7111!.1 i1C pry ap LEGEND PR SYMB ITEM RCR 3 R R ) 0 4. Finn RESIDENTIAL r.w.w.r...rw 1166.0 0 - * R C1 j COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY 38.0 f 1 02j COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 16.0 t sr LCSI COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD 36.0 rail r+,, y,, iBC; EOISOCOLLEGE 44.0 R R R 4.'. pR CC CULTURAL CENTER 46.5 Y fRC RESORT CENTER 49.0 jam t' 4C R... IGCJ GOLF COURSE 49S.0 1"'` J ""` C , CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE 233.0 r CYPRESS PRESERVE 171.5 ti CO PARIS/SCHOOL 21.5 1,'5 ,`.,.f Ca LAKE 405.5 C 4. A MAJOR COLLECTOR 70.5 RIO MINOR COLLECTOR 64.0 y' _ r ' N Et) um LOCAL ROAD 26.5 fz ra; ACREAGE XXX.X 961 R. Q.W. RESERVE 9.0 TOTAL.ACREAGE AREA 2692.0 f TOTAL UNITS 8,945 TOTAL COMMERCIAL SO.FT. 1.135,000 EXHIBIT H Lely Resort PUDA-PL20140002040 Words struelchrough are deleted; Last Revised: June 12, 2015 Words underlined are added U 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [¥] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name:___________________________________________ Municipality:_________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________(Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation:Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning:Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type:SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Lely Resort Tract 12 Collier County 55425003255 7665 Collier Blvd. SW Corner of Grand Lely Drive and C.R 951 Stock Development LLC Lindsay Robin, AICP 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd. #300, Naples FL 34108 239-985-5502 n/a lindsay.robin@stantec.com 9/15/2021 Same PUD PUD Multi Family ✔ 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) \\us0227-ppfss01\workgroup\2156\active\215616630\planning\analysis\puda\initial submittal\tis waiver.docx September 15, 2021 Mr. Michael Sawyer Principal Planner Growth Management Department Transportation Planning 2685 S. Horseshoe Dr. #103 Naples, FL 34104 RE: Lely Resort PUDA (PL20210001795) TIS Waiver Request Dear Mr. Sawyer, Please accept this letter as a request for a waiver from providing a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) with the Lely Resort PUDA application submittal, PL20210001795. The Lely Resort PUD is a vested development, and no other residential units are proposed; therefore, the proposed amendment to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract will have no transportation impacts. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Lindsay F. Robin, AICP Urban Planner Enclosures: Gray Schaufler & Lance Chernow, Davis Development, Inc. Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Katie LaBarr, AICP & John Scott, P.E., Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ Davis Development, Inc. 3330 Cumberland Blvd. SE #425 Atlanta GA 30339 770-644-0075 239-220-9776 770-644-0078 GSCHAUFLER@DAVISDEVELOPMENT.COM 7665 COLLIER BLVD Naples FL 34113 34 50 26 LELY RESORT PHASE I TRACT 12 55425003255 X South County WRF 16 MGD X South County Regional WTP No increase in population within the PUD N/A N/A N/a N/A September 2023 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300, Naples FL 34108-2709 November 12, 2021 Re: NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING LELY RESORT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUDA) (PL20210001795) Dear Property Owner: In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code please be advised that Davis Development, Inc. has filed an application with Collier County. The application is seeking approval of an amendment to the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract located at the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Grand Lely Drive. The proposed amendment does not seek to increase density or to add residential units to the Lely Resort PUD. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 14 at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, Florida, 34113. A virtual meeting option is also available: TEAMS Meeting: https://bit.ly/3D4aTYV or call TOLL FREE: United States, (833) 436-6264 Conference ID: 561 649 706# Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 985-5502, or Lindsay.robin@stantec.com. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Lindsay F. Robin, MPA, AICP Urban Planner 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code the public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. on behalf of Davis Development, Inc., at the following time and location: DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 TIME: 5:30p.m. ADDRESS: South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy., Naples, Florida, 34113 VIRTUAL MEETING OPTION: TEAMS Meeting: https://bit.ly/3D4aTYV or call TOLL FREE: United States, (833) 436-6264 Conference ID: 561 649 706# Davis Development, Inc. has filed an application with Collier County (case number PL20210001795). The application is seeking approval of an amendment to the Lely Resort Planned Unit Development to allow residential uses on the C-3 tract located at the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Grand Lely Drive. The proposed amendment does not seek to increase density or to add residential units to the Lely Resort PUD. Business and property owners and residents are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners’ representatives and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed to: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. c/o Lindsay Robin 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34108 (239) 985-5502 OR Lindsay.robin@stantec.com *The Collier County Library does not endorse or sponsor this project in any way. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 1975 TARPON LLC 2650 TARPON RD NAPLES, FL 34102---0 426 BUILDING INC 226 LEONA ST HOLBROOK, NY 11741---0 8993 CAMBRIA CIRCLE 1901 LLC 1155 PINE LAKE DR WEST WAYNE, NJ 07470---0 9081 ALBION LANE S PROP TRUST 187 LEXINGTON STREET WALTHAM, MA 02452---0 9082 CAPISTRANO STREET NORTH NO. 4806 LLC 55 SALMONS HOLLOW RD BREWSTER, NY 10509---0 9102 CHULA VISTA #11302 LLC 4597 BRENTWOOD DR CLARENCE, NY 14221---6107 9123 DELANO STREET LLC 47 ROCK RD LAKEVILLE, PA 18438---0 9163 DELANO LLC 3325 W 97TH ST EVERGREEN PARK, IL 60805---3037 A GIANNOLA &G R GIANNOLA TRUST 1026 HOLLY CIRCLE LAKE ZURICH, IL 60047---1218 ABBATEMARCO, JAMES J & TISA 13118 S AVENUE N CHICAGO, IL 60633---0 ABERNETHY, DAVID D DANA M ABERNETHY 9016 ALTURAS STREET #2701 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ABRAMOWITZ LIV TRUST 8035 PLAYERS COVE DR UNIT 201 NAPLES, FL 34113---3374 AGOSTINACCHIO REV TRUST 104 AUGUSTA DRIVE MEDFORD, NY 11763---0 ALAMPI, JERRY 8200 SARATOGA DRIVE #403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALBACARYS, ALEXANDER S LOURDES D ALBACARYS 8080 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALBANO JR, JOSEPH A & JOANNE 9068 COVINA DRIVE N #5402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALGIS AUGUSTINE REV TRUST 8992 CAMBRIA CIR #1603 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALICIA A WAGNER REVOC TRUST 9076 RIALTO ST #6201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALISON R HOLMES REV TRUST 9098 CAPISTRANO ST S #7109 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALLEN, CHRISTOPHER M EMILY ANN ALLEN 9064 CAPISTRANO ST N #5006 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALLEN, TIMOTHY ROBIN SLOAN 8145 SARATOGA DR #1802 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ALMA FAYE OSTERMAN TRUST 18010 CONNECTICUT CT ORLAND PARK, IL 60467---0 AMICO, MARIA J & PHILIP T 147 BENGEYFIELD DR EAST WILLISTON, NY 11596---0 AMMAR REV TRUST 8070 PLAYERS COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 AMY BETH SHEVLIN REV TRUST 9121 CHULA VISTA STREET #12202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ANDERSON, JACQUELINE 931 ZANZIBAR LN N MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447---0 ANDERSON, JOHN H & CAROL K 250 WATER #104 PETOSKEY, MI 49770---0 ANDERSON, STEVE & ANNA 8015 TIGER CV #207 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ANGELA LEONE REVOCABLE TRUST 12 JANET DRIVE JOHNSTON, RI 02919---0 ANNE MARIE BARRETTA LIV TRUST 9064 CAPISTRANO ST N #5002 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 APOSTOLICO, JAMES & GINA M 7 DOUGLAS DR SPARTA, NJ 07871---3040 AQUILINA, ANTHONY D & RENEE M 2010 ROSEMILL CT YORK, PA 17403---0 ARLENE C MIKOLAY TRUST 853 HIGHLAND VIEW LN METAMORA, MI 48455---0 ARSENAULT, MARY 8043 PLAYERS COVE CIR DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ASHTON, SCOTT E & SARAH A 8212 SARATOGA DR #103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ASSOCIATED REAL ESTATE SW INC 7995 MAHOGANY RUN LN NAPLES, FL 34113---1625 ASSOCIATED REAL ESTATE SW INC 7995 MAHOGANY RUN LN NAPLES, FL 34113---1625 ATKINSON, LORRAINE 486 SUNRISE HWY WEST BABYLON, NY 11704---6019 AUGUSTUS R SCHROWANG JR TRUST 8145 SARATOGA DR #1804 NAPLES, FL 34113---3026 AULETTA, VINCENT J & LISA B 16 JONI AVENUE HAMILTON SQUARE, NJ 08690---0 AZAERT, DOUGLAS R & AIMEE P 1123 RTE 28 WARRENSBURG, NY 12885---0 B A & C M REYNOLDS JT RV TRUST 9144 DELANO ST UNIT 9503 NAPLES, FL 34113---3302 BAFFA, PATRICK J & TONI 8989 CAMBRIA CIR UNIT 1801 NAPLES, FL 34113---3387 BAILEY, ROBERT L & PATRICIA A 8061 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BALICKI, FRANCIS J & WANDA J 7979 TIGER LILY DR NAPLES, FL 34113---2635 BALZANO, MICHAEL P & DARLENE M 8073 PANTHER TR #1404 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BARBARA A KVITLE REV TRUST 3732 BARCLAY DR QUINCY, IL 62305---0 BARBARA M STUKEY REV TRUST 8208 SARATOGA DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---3041 BARDON, HAROLD & ROCHELLE S 8188 SARATOGA DR APT 703 NAPLES, FL 34113---3036 BARMORE, JUDITH 9140 DELANO ST #9303 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BARTKUS, THOMAS E & SUSAN I 8134 SARATOGA DR #2301 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BASDEKIS, TERI A 27 SUNCREST TERRACE ONEONTA, NY 13820---0 BATCHELOR, STEVEN P DEBORAH J BATCHELOR 11 SILVERBIRCH RD BILLERICA, MA 01821---3016 BAYONA, RAMON J & LIDA S 9020 ALTURAS ST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BECKER, WILLIAM G & MARGARET E 9324 S DAMEN AVE CHICAGO, IL 60643---0 BECKHAM, DAVID W RICHARD & AMY BARNETT 7589 BROOKSTONE DR WEST CHESTER, OH 45069---1467 BELFORD, AGNES PETER J BELFORD 20416 12TH AVE BREEZY POINT, NY 11697---1121 BELLO JR, VINCENT VINCENT BELLO SR MARIE BELLO 6 RIVERVIEW AVE OAKDALE, NY 11769---0 BENES, GLORIA R 9106 CHULA VISTA ST #11503 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BENSINGER, STEPHEN H DEBORA M BENSINGER AMY M BESINGER 9091 COVINA DR S UNIT 6904 NAPLES, FL 34113---3291 BERGER, GREGORY E KATHERINE H BERGER 1017 AUDUBON RD GROSSE POINTE PA, MI 48230---1406 BERLET LAND TRUST 8025 TIGER COVE #306 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BERNARD, LAURA M 103 CIMARRON DR ASHEVILLE, NC 28803---0 BERT, JOHN M & KATHARINE A 370 CARPENTER AVE SEA CLIFF, NY 11579---2029 BISOL, GENE L & BARBARA P 186 ELM ST GARDNER, MA 01440---2375 BISSELL, ROGER A LINDA J BISSELL 86 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR TOLLAND, CT 06084---0 BLACK, CHRISTOPHER M LORRAINE BLACK 14 WHISPER LN SMITHTOWN, NY 11787---0 BLACKBURN JR, BOYD E DARLENE M RESAVAGE 8962 MALIBU STREET #701 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 2 BLAKESLEY, DONALD W & MARY A 14G CASTLE HILL RD AGAWAM, MA 01001---2460 BLANDEBURGO, PETER LISA BLANDEBURGO 100 DANFORTH #104 DOBBS FERRY, NY 10522---0 BLASKO, JACQUELINE MAE W15709 BEAR LAKE RD CHETEK, WI 54728---0 BOATH JR, GEORGE W MARY ELLEN BOATH 10 DEMPSEY CT ANSONIA, CT 06401---0 BOCSA, SANDOR 9078 ALBION LANE S #6604 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BOLTON, JEFFREY J & MELDA D 9140 DELANO ST #9304 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BONNIE JO MATHIS TRUST 8065 PLAYERS COVE DRIVE #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BONTEMPI, WILLIAM J 4 FALCON HEIGHTS WILBRAHAM, MA 01095---0 BORRO TR, JOSE AMARILYS BORRO TR 8992 CAMBRIA CIRCLE #1602 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BOWEN, DAVID N & LESLIE A 1379 OLD OAK HILL DR ADA, MI 49301---0 BRADLEY A PEARLMAN & REBECCA S LIGHT PEARLMAN REV JOINT TRUST 1802 DELTA RIDGE CT CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017---0 BRICKNELL, CLAUDIA 8144 SARATOGA DR #2102 NAPLES, FL 34113---3024 BRINK, AMANDA 9081 ALBION LANE S #6507 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BROBERG, EDWARD & LEDA 18 LANGTON DR HOLMDEL, NJ 07733---0 BRORSON, KURT A JAIME E GONZALEZ 14409 MANCHESTER DR NAPLES, FL 34114---0 BRUNDLE, KATHRYN & ROBERT 9316 IVERNESS RD GRAND BLANC, MI 48439---0 BUCCA, JOSEPH 8945 MALIBU ST #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 BURDEN, JAMES E AILEEN A RYAN 8 SHAWNS WAY LUMBERTON, NJ 08048---0 BURTON, JOSEPH C & JUDY K 1828 PIEDMONT AVENUE DULUTH, MN 55811---0 CABRITA, EDUARDO J LUCIBELL D CABRITA 17 WOODMERE RD MONROE TOWNSHIP, NJ 08831---3283 CABRITA, PEDRO & MARIA 230 NEW RD MONMOUTH JCT, NJ 08852---2323 CADORETTE FAMILY REV TRUST 51 SLEEPY HOLLOW LN EPSOM, NH 03234---0 CAIN, STEPHEN A & ELIZABETH H 35 FAIRWAYS LANE METHUEN, MA 01844---0 CAMPANILE, SANTE A JOANNE LOMANTO 441 COURT STREET #1F BROOKLYN, NY 11231---0 CAMPBELL INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 12101 S 88TH AVE PALOS PARK, IL 60464---0 CAMPOSANO JR, PAUL A & NANCY M 8005 TIGER CV APT 101 NAPLES, FL 34113---1627 CAPACCIO, GEORGE NICHOLAS MARY JOANNE CAPACCIO 9122 CHULA VISTA ST #12101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3276 CAPARRELLI, TERESA GLENN 9071 ALBION LANE N #5704 NAPLES, FL 34113---3184 CAPISTRANO 4005 LLC 9091 COVINA DRIVE #6904 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CAPOGNA, RAYMOND J BARBARA E CAPOGNA 56 NOTT ROAD REXFORD, NY 12148---0 CAPUANO, DOMINICK & MEGAN 115 OSBORN AVE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10308---0 CARLEY, KIMBERLY 802 HILDRETH AVE #107 WILDWOOD, NJ 08260---0 CARLOS REGO TRUST 47 SPRING GROVE RD CHEPACHET, RI 02814---4434 CARMONE JR, THEODORE A OLIMPIA M CARMONE 46 BEACH STREET FOXBORO, MA 02035---0 CARNEVALE, GREGORY M JACQUELYN A CARNEVALE 9110 CAPISTRANO ST S #8405 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CARNEY, ROBERT J & MINH T 9081 CAPISTRANO ST N #5201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CAROL A DAVIS TRUST 8035 TIGER COVE #402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CAROTENUTO ET AL, CARMELA 10425 LOMA PORTAL AVE LAS VEGAS, NV 89166---0 CARROL, WILLIAM GEORGE BARBARA LYNN CARROL 8053 PANTHER TRAIL #1202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CASSANO, JOSEPH & EILEEN 378 JAMAICA AVENUE MEDFORD, NY 11763---0 CASSARA, ALAN S 171 ASHBROOK CIRCLE WEBSTER, NY 14580---0 CASSARA, CHARLES TRACEY L YODICE CASSARA 25 LANDON LN CT ISLIP TERR, NY 11752---0 CASTELLANO, MICHAEL & THERESA 9078 ALBION LN S UNIT 6603 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---0 CASTELLI, MICHAEL J & ANNE 25 DECHIARO LANE WILLISTON PARK, NY 11596---0 CASTIGLIONE, PETER J & DIANE 432 RAYMOND ST ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570---2737 CAVICCHIO FLORIDA TRUST 9145 CHULA VISTA ST UNIT 13002 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CAYABYAB, NELSON MARZAN LULU KRAMER CAYABYAB 8 RUSHINGWIND IRVINE, CA 92614---7409 CECRLE, RICK 9110 CAPISTRANO ST S APT 8402 NAPLES, FL 34113---3245 CHAFFO, JOHN & BARBARA 9132 DELANO STREET #9101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHAMBERLAIN, DAWN 9128 DELANO ST #8903 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHARAK, ADRIENNE & KENNETH 8022 PLAYERS COVE DR UNIT 102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHARLES D GUILLAMS REV TRUST NANCY WOLF GUILLIAMS REV TRUST 8208 SARATOGA DR #204 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHASE, MICHAEL A & SANDRA LYNN 6411 W 133RD TERRACE LEAWOOD, KS 66209---0 CHERRY, STEPHEN J & CARINA J 9072 RIALTO ST #6305 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHILDS REVOCABLE TRUST 8138 SARATOGA DR #2202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHMURA FAMILY TRUST 9076 CHULA VISTA ST #10202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CHOMO, ROBERT J ROBERT G & CHRISTINA A CHOMO 8141 SARATOGA DR APT 1903 NAPLES, FL 34113---3023 CHRISTOPHER M OCONNOR TRUST 28 SEA BREEZE DR BOURNE, MA 02532---0 CHRISTOPHER S COUZINS &ANNETTE M BULAS IRREVOCABLE TRUST 8691 VERMONT HILL RD HOLLAND, NY 14080---0 CHRISTOPOULOS, DEAN & LORI 11613 S HUDSON CT TULSA, OK 74137---0 CHU, DONALD L KIT J CHU HERMAN K M CHU 73 KIM LANE LONG VALLEY, NJ 07853---0 CIANCIULLI ET AL, MARIE A 1914 BRANDON RD NORRISTOWN, PA 19403---0 CIRINO, PETER M BEVERLY M CIRINO 8077 PLAYERS COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CLARK, PATRICIA J 9159 DELANO STREET #9904 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CLASSICS PLANTATION ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC C/O DORRILL MGMT GROUP 5672 STRAND CT #1 NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COABCO INC C/O GRANT DUFF 8157 SARATOGA DR APT 1504 NAPLES, FL 34113---3029 COBURN, PATRICK M & MARY E 9093 CAPISTRANO ST S #7501 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 COBUZIO, RICHARD A & MONICA L 9085 CHULA VISTA ST #10606 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CODERRE III, WILLIAM C CHERYL ANN CODERRE 4227 ARLET CT SE GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546---8276 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 3 COHEN, LISA B PO BOX 772 BRIGANTINE, NJ 08203---0 COL PLAZA REALTY LLC % CARLYLE MANAGEMENT INC 254 KATONAH AVE KATONAH, NY 10536---0 COLBERT, RICHARD W 8055 TIGER CV APT 601 NAPLES, FL 34113---1600 COLEMAN, JOHN & ANDREA 8145 SARATOGA DR APT 1801 NAPLES, FL 34113---3026 COLEMAN, KEITH A & JANICE H 55 HIGHLAND ROAD BROOKLINE, MA 02445---0 COLLETT, CHARLES D 9105 YUBA LN #7901 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 COLLINS, JEFFREY P 9106 CHULA VISTA ST #11502 NAPLES, FL 34113---3268 COLOMBO, PAUL & JANET 10 BEVERLY'S WAY LAKEVILLE, MA 02347---0 CONNOR, THOMAS R BRANDY RAE OBRIEN CONNOR 83 MARSHALL AVE MANSFIELD, MA 02048---0 CONSTANTINE JR, WARREN J 14 SPRING MILL LN COLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426---0 CONTRACT PROPERTIES NAPLES LLC 3245 HAZELTON ETNA RD SW PATASKALA, OH 43062---8532 COOK, THOMAS A & NANCY L 549 COUNTRY MEADOWS TRL ORTONVILLE, MI 48462---0 COPERINE, RICHARD W 8053 PANTHER TRL #1201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CORTESI, CARL M BETHANY ROSE MEYER 8134 SARATOGA DR #2302 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 COTTER, JEANINE M 8157 SARATOGA DR #1503 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 COUSIN, ROBERT 8964 MALIBU LN #1105 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 COYLE, TERRY L & MITZI C 9066 ALBION LN #5140 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 CRESCITELLI, LUIGI & ELIZABETH 1727 ROBERTA LN MERRICK, NY 11566---2814 CRIFASI, STEPHEN D 200 SOUTH ACADEMY ST #1117 GREENVILLE, SC 29601---0 CROWE, ROBERT & RENEE B 5525 FORMAN DR BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301---0 CRUZ, DARRYL NANCY CALDERON 6 AGAR AVE NEW ROCHELLE, NY 10801---5302 CRUZ-HUSAIN, JOANN SALEEM HUSAIN 4 TIFFANYS WAY WARREN, NJ 07059---0 CUNNINGHAM, JOHN M 417 BRANDYWINE AVE FORKED RIVER, NJ 08731---0 CUNNINGHAM, JOHN M SUSAN A CUNNINGHAM 417 BRANDYWINE AVENUE FORKED RIVER, NJ 08731---0 CUSSONS, JACKSON SUSAN HENNESY 6660 SMITHTOWN RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331---0 CYNTHIA A MEYER REV TRUST 2343 ORCHARD CREST BLVD MANASQUAN, NJ 08736---0 D J P CAPITAL I LLC 2909 MOUNT PLEASANT ST RACINE, WI 53404---1837 DAGOSTINO, RAYMOND JOHN CAROL SCOTT DAGOSTINO 8993 CAMBRIA CIR #19-5 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DAGRES, NIKOLAOS & NATALIE 10037 FRANCHESCA LANE ORLAND PARK, IL 60462---0 DALTON P COE TRUST LOUISE D COE TRUST 9450 W TUSCOLA RD FRANKENMUTH, MI 48734---0 DAMBROSIO, VINCENT P LENORA A DAMBROSIO 9070 ALBION LN N #5801 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DANIEL D ROGERS TRUST 206 S GREEN STREET PO BOX 266 PIPER CITY, IL 60959---266 DANIEL D ROGERS TRUST 9103 CAPISTRANO ST S #7708 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DANIELE, DOUGLAS D 9068 COVINA DR N #5403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DAUL, AMY SANSEE E HIETPAS RICHARD HIETPAS W5971 MAINITOWOC RD APPLETON, WI 54915---0 DAVIS, MICHAEL & PAMELA 2972 ORCHARD PLACE ORCHARD LAKE, MI 48324---0 DEANNA HEUSCHEL REV LIV TRUST 1913 W GEORGE ST CHICAGO, IL 60657---0 DECKER FLORIDA TRUST 9081 CHULA VISTA STREET UNIT 10501 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DECKER, STEPHEN J PHYLLIS M MORIARTY 159 HALF MOON MILE LAKE LURE, NC 28746---0 DECONA, RICHARD A & MARY C 10 CHANDON ROAD MANCHESTER TWNP, NJ 08759---0 DEGNAN, KEITH MALLEY DANIELLE ANNE DEGNAN 9607 STALLION CIR WHITEHOUSE, OH 43571---0 DELUCA TR, MARIO J & DIANE L DELUCA TRUST UTD 11/26/96 W234S6660 BIG BEND RD WAUKESHA, WI 53189---9652 DEMATTEO SR, ANTHONY PATRICIA DEMATTEO 36 NOTTINGHAM WAY MAHOPAC, NY 10541---0 DENISON, TIFFANY LEIGH JUSTIN DENSION PO BOX 843 FLOYDS KNOBS, IN 47119---0 DEPAOLA JR, KENNETH J & ROSE 8200 SARATOGA DR #402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DERASMO, PATRICIA 7 REDBUD LN BLAUVELT, NY 10913---0 DESANTIS, NICHOLAS & GERALDINE 3 WATERS EDGE CONGERS, NY 10920---0 DESENZO, DAMON JEANETTE DESENZO 21 ISLAND BREEZE COURT MANAHAWKIN, NJ 08050---0 DESIMONE JR, VINCENT F & SUSAN 303 PLEASANT HILL ROAD FLANDERS, NJ 07836---0 DESTEFANO, JOHN J 245 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10306---0 DICARLO REVOCABLE TRUST 8065 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DICE, BRUCE E & KORRI L 787 PINE VALLEY DR SUITE E PITTSBURGH, PA 15239---0 DIGIROLAMO, DAN & HEATHER 343 ROCKWOOD DR BELGRADE, ME 04917---0 DIMEO, RONALD J & CAROLE A 27 HOLLYBRAE DR HOUSTON, DE 19954---0 DIMIAN, STEVEN & SANDY A PATRICK J MASTERPALO KIMBERLY A MASTERPALO 1500 ALLAIRE AVENUE SUITE 104 OCEAN, NJ 07712---0 DIMMIG, DAVID BRADFORD LORI ANN DIMMIG 8212 SARATOGA DR #104 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DINENO, DOMINIC D & GAIL A 613 GREEN HILL BEACH RD WAKEFIELD, RI 02879---0 DODGE, DAVID C CHRISTINE L ANTHONY 3001 ERIE AVE CINCINNATI, OH 45208---0 DOHERTY, JEREMIAH J & CHARLENE 4293 OLD NEW ENGLAND RD ALLISON PARK, PA 15101---1533 DONALD E BELLEW REV TRUST CONSTANCE A SCHUMAKER TRUST 6604 COSTA CIR NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DONALD J DOUBEK DEC OF TRUST 6626 WYANDOT DR PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463---0 DONATELLI, PAUL R 300 KING RAIL DRIVE #205 LYNNFIELD, MA 01940---0 DORCHAK, BRIAN JAMES AMY MARIE DORCHAK 314 HAWTHORN AVE ROYAL OAK, MI 48067---0 DORRIS, ELAINA A 9144 DELANO ST UNIT 9505 NAPLES, FL 34113---3302 DORSCHNER, JENNIFER N ALEXANDER NICZAJ LI DORSCHNER 9036 ALTURAS ST #3605 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DORTCH, RONALD S 8035 TIGER COVE #403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DOUGLA EST, JULIA % ZACHARY R MANUEL PR 9080 CHULA VISTA ST #10404 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DOUGLAS E WILSON TRUST PAULA C WILSON TRUST 8965 MALIBU LN UNIT 802 NAPLES, FL 34113---3406 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 4 DOUGLAS T SIEGEL REV TRUST 8137 SARATOGA DRIVE #2003 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 DOWLING JR, DENNIS JOSEPH 166 EATON LANE BREWSTER, MA 02631---0 DOYLE, MICHAEL R KRISTA RUXTON DOYLE 23 NELSON ROAD SOUTH WEYMOUTH, MA 02190---0 DVORAK, KENNETH & CAROLYN 1008 SHERINGHAM DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60565---6110 DWYER, JOHN A & MARGARET A 1925 MILLFORD ST HOUSTON, TX 77098---0 DWYER, STEVEN F & CATHY L 8161 SARATOGA DR #1402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 E J & M L MORGAN REV LIV TRUST 9092 CAPISTRANO ST S #6409 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ELIAS, ALEXANDRA LESLEY=& MICHEAL MARRERO 336 RACCOON RD THE VILLAGES, FL 32163---0 ELINOR R HENSEL REV TRUST 8978 MALIBU ST UNIT 1502 NAPLES, FL 34113---3414 ELIZABETH C ARBIR DEC OF TRUST 7N870 COLUMBINE WEST ST CHARLES, IL 60175---0 ELLIOTT, DAVID B 9110 CAPISTRANO ST S #8404 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ELSEN, HUBERT & ROBIN M 2441 REMINGTON DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60565---3440 EMELINE V VASSEL LIV TRUST 22031 VILLAGE PINES DR BEVERLY HILLS, MI 48025---3564 ENGLISH, JAMES G & KATHLEEN M 18850 TIMBER LANE FAIRVIEW PARK, OH 44126---0 ERDSNECKER, MARTIN S 9109 YUBA LN #8001 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ERIC J MORGAN & MARIA L MORGAN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 9092 CAPISTRANO ST S #6409 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ERICKSON, SHANNON KAY 623 SHERWOOD DR GILBERTSVILLE, KY 42044---0 ESBER LYNN REV TRUST 4036 HACKBERRY CT GREEN BAY, WI 54311---4300 ESPOSITO, MARIO ANTHONY 9103 CAPISTRANO ST S #7707 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ESPOSITO, RICHARD 9137 CHULA VISTA ST #12602 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 F A & R WIECKOWSKI J/F TRUST 9051 CAPISTRANO ST N #4302 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FACER TR, DAVID C QTIP AGREEMENT OF 2006 TRUST 166 E 61ST ST APT 20E NEW YORK, NY 10065---8515 FALSO JR, PAUL A & SUSAN A 10 STONY LN SMITHFIELD, RI 02917---0 FARRELLY, SHAUN LEILA KHATER-FARRELLY 218 BERGER STREET SOMERSET, NJ 08873---0 FAUGHNAN, JAMES P & ALICE M PO BOX 526 EAST ISLIP, NY 11730---526 FAY, ROGER L & ROSANNE E 99 SO PARK AVENUE UNIT 205 ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570---0 FAYBRICK, DONALD A 1325 PARK PL PLYMOUTH, MI 48170---0 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORT ASSOC 5600 GRANITE PKWY BLDG VII PLANO, TX 75024---0 FEHR, LESTER H & DOMINIQUE S 18 ALEXANDER DR HAMPTON, NH 03842---2310 FENTON, GREGORY E & KELLY ANN 11333 SUNDANCE WAY WOODBURY, MN 55129---0 FERGUSON JR, THOMAS G SUSAN P FERGUSON 5816 COUNTY CLUB DR EDMOND, OK 73025---0 FERREIRA, LOUIS A & RUTH A 279 FOLEY AVENUE SOMERSET, MA 02726---0 FERRIOL, KENNETH LYNN FERRIOL 9108 CAPISTRANO ST S #7403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FIALK, BARRY & STACY 40 STIRLING CT METUCHEN, NJ 08840---1514 FIEGEL, DOUGLAS & BARBARA 8074 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FILIAGGI, JOSEPH F & ROBERTA A 34046 BEAUFORT LN DAGSBORO, DE 19939---0 FINNEGAN JR, JAMES F & JOCAROL 1815 ROLLINS COURT BEL AIR, MD 21014---0 FISCHETTE, CRAIG & VIRGINIA JASON=& KRISTIELYN FISCHETTE 307 WOODBINE AVE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314---0 FISHMAN, GARY CLAYTON 9017 ALTURAS ST #2803 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FLEMING LAND TRUST 9 LEDGEMONT DR LINCOLN, RI 02865---0 FOR NAPLES LLC 4600 STONEWOOD CT OSHKOSH, WI 54902---7454 FORD, VASSILIKI A LLOYD KEITH FORD 8184 SARATOGA DR #801 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FOSTER, KRISTIN 8874 SHENENDOAH CIR NAPLES, FL 34113---1658 FOSTER, KRISTIN 8874 SHENENDOAH CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FOSTER, LINDA ROBIN 9130 CHULA VISTA ST #12405 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FOUR V'S LLC 135 HALIFAX RD MAHWAH, NJ 07430---0 FOX, ANDREW T 7932 TIGER LILY DR NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FOY, BRIAN J SUSAN M CONWAY 8188 SARATOGA DR #704 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 FRANCIS J SCHAEFER REV TRUST JENNIFER SCHAEFER JANICE K BEECO 1010 MONROE DRIVE WARMINSTER, PA 18974---0 FREEDMAN, DONALD V & DENISE M 186 WOODSTREAM DR GRAND ISLAND, NY 14072---0 FREITAG, WILLIAM C CATHLEEN M FREITAG 108 PLUM POPPY NORTH BALLSTON SPA, NY 12020---0 FRIDAE, ANITA & DENNIS 2212 MOSER LN ALGONQUIN, IL 60102---6089 FRITH, GREG 8181 SARATOGA DR APT 904 NAPLES, FL 34113---3083 FUCIGNA, BRIAN & THERESA 21 BADGER RD MANORVILLE, NY 11949---3201 FUNK, VINCENT J & MARCIE L 1327 MICHAEL COURT MORRIS, IL 60450---0 GABRIELSEN, CLIFFORD SUSAN GABRIELSEN 8145 SARATOGA DR #1803 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GAGLIA, ANTHONY & VINCENZA 17 MARZETZEK CT STATEN ISLAND, NY 10309---0 GAIL MERRILL 2014 REV TRUST 12 BRACKENWOOD DR NASHUA, NH 03062---4527 GALATIOTO, SUSAN 8013 PANTHER TRL APT 802 NAPLES, FL 34113---1603 GALEAZZI 2019 TRUST 1589 SALEM ST NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845---0 GALENO, LOUIS V & CATHERINE M 24 COMTOIS RD MANALAPAN, NJ 07726---0 GALIFI FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 4915 RATTLESNAKE HAMM RD #150 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GALLO, ROBERT L & SHEILA L 131 OLD CREEK RD PALOS PARK, IL 60464---0 GAM REALTY TRUST 51 MILL STREET BLDG D #101 HANOVER, MA 02339---0 GARDOCKI, LYNDA & PETER 9141 CHULA VISTA STREET UNIT 12801 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GARFUNKEL, BEN F & GINA 9076 RIALTO ST #6204 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GENTILE, JEFFREY M & NANCY E 9086 CAPISTRANO ST N #5610 NAPLES, FL 34113---3402 GERARD W BURKE FAM IRREV TRUST 9055 CAPISTRANO ST N # 4201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GIANGREGORIO, IGNATIUS J DIANE C GIANGREGORIO 9081 ALBION LN S #6509 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 5 GIANNOLA, THOMAS A CHRISTINE M GIANNOLA 829 SHIBLEY AVE PARK RIDGE, IL 60068---0 GIBBONS, CLIFFORD R & CHRIS A 105 RIVER RD GREAT RIVER, NY 11739---3025 GILL FLORIDA LAND TRUST 192 TEMPO PL EASTPORT, NY 11941---1613 GILLINGHAM, GAIL P 8080 PLAYERS COVE DR UNIT 202 NAPLES, FL 34113---3363 GILLINGHAM, LISA L THOMAS H ZUKOWSKI 28 1 LOONWOOD DR LINCOLN, NH 03251---0 GLENBOWSKI, MARIA E 226 WINIFRED DR TOTOWA, NJ 07512---0 GOKTURK, TURGUT K GRACE THOMPSON GOKTURK 9092 CAPISTRANO ST S APT 6404 NAPLES, FL 34113---3235 GOMEZ, MARIA E 8043 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3372 GONZALES EST, FRANCES % FIFTH THIRD BANK PR 8065 PLAYER'S COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GORCZYCA REV LIVING TRUST 35 LAKE SINGLETON CT LITTLE EGG HARBO, NJ 08087---0 GORDON, KAREN M 9144 DELANO ST #9502 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GRAGNANI FAMILY LIV TRUST 655 SNIPATUIT RD ROCHESTER, MA 02770---0 GRANDIN, BRUCE E & PAULA A 8964 MALIBU LN #1103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GREAR, PHILIP E & LISA P 9084 CHULA VISTA ST APT 10701 NAPLES, FL 34113---3259 GRECO, JEFFERY A & KIMBERLY A 250 ENCANTO PL AUSTIN, TX 78737---0 GREEN JR, RICHARD A COLETTE M GREEN 2 PERIWINKLE PL LUMBERTON, NJ 08048---5286 GREEN, KIRK S 205 B FARRAGUT CT #208 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403---0 GREGORY & RUBY SCHMID TRUST 49137 COUNTY HIGHWAY 17 VERGAS, MN 56587---0 GREIN, SUZANNE E BRIAN ALAN GEARY 889 PLYMOUTH STREET MIDDLEBOROUGH, MA 02346---0 GREY, KENDRA 9041 ALTURAS ST # 3803 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GRIBBLE, GABRIELLE 9107 CHULA VISTA ST #11403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GROSS, ROSEANNE 8157 SARATOGA DR #1501 NAPLES, FL 34113---3029 GROSSMANN TR, ROBERT LEIGH SK GROSSMAN REV TRUST 1625 KINGS RD PETERSBURG, VA 23805---1118 GUARNIZO, JENNIFER 8975 MALIBU STREET #1304 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 GUELDER ROSE REV TRUST 8949 MALIBU ST UNIT 302 NAPLES, FL 34113---3409 GUPTON, GERALD F & KAY W 305 HENRY ST GREENSBURG, KY 42743---0 GUSTAFSON, MICHAEL & THERESE M 10 E BURLINGTON ST #2H RIVERSIDE, IL 60546---0 HAGAN, HUGH & KATHLEEN 86 PINEHURST CIRCLE MONROE, NY 10950---0 HALL, MERRILL F 8085 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HALL, RICHARD C & LIGIA M 9121 CHULA VISTA ST #12201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HALLENE R SHAFFER REV TRUST 8169 SARATOGA DR #1201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HAMM, DONALD P & MARY JEAN 29 HAMM ROAD HUDSON, NY 12534---0 HANSBERRY, NANCY B 9050 CAPISTRANO ST N #4103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HANSEN, EDITH DIANE 9071 ALBION LANE N #5709 NAPLES, FL 34113---3184 HARBIN, TONY & TINA 9128 WILLOWRUN DR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260---0 HARD, GORDON D & KATHLEEN M 11116 MULLINS COVE RD WHITWELL, TN 37397---0 HAROLD L MIHM TRUST 19 GROVE PARK CIRCLE BETTENDORF, IA 52722---0 HARPER, ALAN 9122 CHULA VISTA ST #12103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HARPER, JAMES G & TRACY JAMES J HARPER 205 SCARLET DRIVE CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 19428---0 HARRISON, DONALD C LINDA SUSAN HARRISON 7 MISSION HILLS FRISCO, TX 75034---0 HARTMAN, MARTIN R MARGARET R HARTMAN 8184 SARATOGA DR #803 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HASSAPIS, LINDA 131 CENTRAL ST NORTH READING, MA 01864---0 HASSE, GORDON D & DIANE G 9759 TROY LN N MAPLES GROVE, MN 55311---0 HASTINGS FAMILY TRUST 9032 ALTURAS ST #3503 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HAYES, GREGORY 7 HAWTHORNE STREET ACTON, MA 01720---0 HAYNES, KEITH B MARIAN L HAYNES 5231 FORBES AVE PITTSBURGH, PA 15217---1101 HEALY 2017 TRUST 3716 MANDEVILLE LN NAPERVILLE, IL 60564---6131 HEARNEY M KEVIN M & LORI A 49 MONTERREY DR ST JAMES, NY 11780---0 HEBERER, EDWARD A & CARMEL A 7 ARBUTUS CT COMMACK, NY 11725---0 HEIDEMANN, HOWARD T & LINDA K 833 NORTH POINTE PORT HURON, MI 48060---0 HEIM, OTTO A & ELFRIEDE M 8957 MALIBU ST CASITA #502 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HEINDL, ANDREW J & LESLIE E 8 HEMLOCK RIDGE LN YORK, ME 03909---5343 HILLMANN, JON P & STEFANIE K 16310 275TH ST LONG GROVE, IA 52756---0 HOCKSWENDER, THOMAS R CHRISTINE HOCKSWENDER 8039 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---3373 HOLTON, CYNTHIA 70 MEMPHIS AVE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 HORN JR, WILLIAM THOMAS KRISTA LEE HORN 11466 CR 52 SYRACUSE, IN 46567---0 HOUSTON REV TRUST 9009 ALTURAS ST #2503 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 HOWELL, EDWARD S & PATRICIA A 1209 NORTH PINE AVENUE ARLINGTON HEIGHT, IL 60004---0 HUTCHINSON, KEVIN P & LAUREN M 1 MUNROE ST #6 LYNN, MA 01901---0 HYLAND, RANDY & KELLY 9040 ALTURAS ST #3904 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 INGEGNO, JOSEPH A & GLORIA 9107 CHULA VISTA STREET #11402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 INVEST4ALPHA LLC 37 SCHANCK RD HOLMDEL, NJ 07733---2122 IORGU, BOGDAN & RUXANDRA 35 AMY CT KINGSTON, NY 12401---6151 IRENE S SOMMER REVOCABLE TRUST 10 WATERGATE SOUTH BARRINGTON, IL 60010---0 IRIS M MOONEY REVOCABLE TRUST ANNA MARIE WAMPOLE 4411 RED ROSE CT MIDDLETOWN, MD 21769---0 ISERNIO, ALBERT & JEAN 8169 SARATOGA DR #1203 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 J P LOMBARDOZZI LIV TRUST 8177 SARATOGA DR APT 1004 NAPLES, FL 34113---3034 JACOBS, DONNA MARIE JON MICHAEL JACOBS PO BOX 87 16243 EAGLES TURN FIFTY LAKES, MN 56448---0 JAMES A WALTER & CINDY L WALTER FAMILY JOINT REV TRUST 3800 WESTBURY LAKE DR RALEIGH, NC 27603---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 6 JAMES J STAMOS TRUST JULIE K STAMOS TRUST 1224 W BRYN MAWR AVE CHICAGO, IL 60660---0 JAMES P BARTELS 1995 REV TRUST 58 GREENFIELD STREET MANCHESTER, NH 03104---0 JAMES P DALEY JR TRUST 8069 PLAYERS COVE DRIVE #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 JAMES, REUBEN E & GILDA B 110 SMALL DR ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909---9458 JAMIE A SCHREMSER DEC OF TRUST 809 TIMBER LANE LAKE FOREST, IL 60045---0 JANET FINANDER SCOTT TRUST 8208 SARATOGA DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---3041 JANICE LYNN GAMMONS TRUST 9072 CHULA VISTA #10101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3253 JANKOWSKI, STEVEN A & HEIDI L W325N6880 NORTH LAKE DR HARTLAND, WI 53029---0 JASON MCDONELL LIVING TRUST LYNDA MCDONELL LIVING TRUST 5021 AVALAIRE PINES DR RALEIGH, NC 27614---0 JEANNE M STEVENS TRUST 2780 BEACON POINT CIR ELGIN, IL 60124---0 JEFFFREY WEIGELE & MAUREEN MCCARREN REV TRUST 2922 CHESTNUT HILL DRIVE ELLICOTT CITY, MD 21043---3412 JEFFREY M GELLMAN LIV TRUST 9121 CHULA VISTA ST #12204 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 JENSEN, DOROTHY 8015 TIGER CV APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34113---2656 JESSE, DAVID A & LISA 9154 CHULA VISTA ST #13301 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 JILL L REMICK REV LIV TRUST 3666 HI DALE DRIVE LAKE ORION, MI 48360---0 JO ANN KELLEY REV TRUST 405 S TARR ST N BALTIMORE, OH 45872---9576 JOAN A SCHEID REV GRANT TRUST 3709 BITTERSWEET ROAD EAU CLAIRE, WI 54701---0 JOHANNESMEYER, KEVIN SHARON L JOHANNESMEYER 5316 FOXPARK DR FAIRVIEW, PA 16415---0 JOHN A MILLER TRUST DIANE M MILLER TRUST 6117 GREENWALT DR SPRINGFIELD, IL 62711---6380 JOHN E STATEN PROPERTIES INC 3400 S DIXIE DR DAYTON, OH 45439---0 JOHN J MALIZIA REV TRUST NANCY C MALIZIA REV TRUST 14 KINGSTON ROAD MT SINAI, NY 11766---0 JOHN T DOOLEY REV TRUST 9093 CHULA VISTA ST #11101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 JOHNS, CLINTON R & CYNTHIA L 9051 CAPISTRANO ST N #4303 NAPLES, FL 34113---3392 JOHNSON JOINT REV LIV TRUST 8035 TIGER CV #404 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 JOHNSON, ELAINI J LORRI DILLON 3120 ALTHORP WAY LEXINGTON, KY 40509---2422 JOHNSON, JOHN J LAURA KRAUS 11 NIAGRA STREET MILLER PLACE, NY 11764---0 JOHNSON, JUDY ROSE 5153 SHERIDAN AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410---0 JONATHAN A WILSON REV TRUST JESSICA D BARRON REV TRUST 2580 HIDDEN COVE RD ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401---0 JONES LIVING TRUST 910 E THIRD ST LAKESIDE, OH 43440---0 JONES, BRYAN R 5216 YAMPA TRAIL FORT WORTH, TX 76137---4705 JOSEPH M MAYER LIVING TRUST 8015 TIGER CV APT 204 NAPLES, FL 34113---2656 JOSEPH N LOMBARDI 19 LIV TRUST 8040 PLAYERS COVE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---3381 JOSEPH R BATTE REV TRUST ANNE S BATTE REV TRUST 240 MARQUESAS COURT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---3536 K R & M B HAAR JOINT REV TRUST 9080 CHULA VISTA ST #10406 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KAPETANAKIS, GEORGE & HAYDEE 8 ALLISON WAY PRINCETON, NJ 08540---0 KAREN J KNIGHT REV TRUST 2120 LOVE POINT RD STEVENSVILLE, MD 21666---0 KARRAT, NAZIH & ELIZABETH ROBERT F KARRAT NICHOLAS KARRAT 135 EVERGREEN LN WHITESBORO, NY 13492---0 KASPEREK, DAVID A & JANET M 9036 ALTURAS ST #3604 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KAY, BARRY 9150 CHULA VISTA ST APT 13104 NAPLES, FL 34113---3287 KELLY, LAUREN 9151 DELANO ST #9705 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KELLY, LISA MARIE 9038 BRONCO CT NAPLES, FL 34113---1672 KELLY, PATRICK & DEBRA 2918 VALLEY RD CUYAHOGA FALLS, OH 44223---1290 KELLY, WILLIAM & JOANNE 16 EAST 60TH ST BRANT BEACH, NJ 08008---0 KENT, JAMES A & MARGARET E 8173 SARATOGA DR #1104 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KENT, JOSHUA S RUTH A DUPONT 9126 CHULA VISTA ST#12305 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KEVIN MICHAEL COLE REV TRUST 8083 PANTHER TRL #1504 NAPLES, FL 34113---2653 KIEFER SR, JAMES R & MARY JO 8165 SARATOGA DR APT 1303 NAPLES, FL 34113---3031 KIMBERLY S HESS REV TRUST 8027 PLAYERS COVE DRIVE #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KING, BRANDON & LISA J 4560 KINGSFORD TERRACE SYRACUSE, NY 13215---0 KISTLER, GRAHAM & FRANCES 809 WASHINGTON ST FRANKLIN SQUARE, NY 11010---0 KLEIN, ZACHARY P JENNIFER BLINDT 8949 MALIBU STREET #305 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KLINK, TIMOTHY & ELIZABETH 9130 CHULA VISTA ST #12401 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KMT LLC 7121 CORONATION CIRCLE FAYETTEVILLE, NY 13066---0 KOCH, CHARLES 9040 ALTURAS ST #3903 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KOCH, JEFFREY & BARBARA 9095 S SAGINAW RD #2 GRAND BLANC, MI 48439---0 KOEHLER RESIDENTIAL LLC 2443 BAGLEY ST DETROIT, MI 48216---1815 KOSKI, GARY L & SUSAN ROSE 9085 CHULA VISTA ST #10603 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KOTULA, ANTHONY & RUTH 21761 AIRPORT RD GRAND RAPIDS, MI 55744---0 KOVACEVIC, SUSAN IRENE 9037 ALTURAS ST #3704 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 KRIZEK, IVO 6195 RESERVE CIR #1303 NAPLES, FL 34119---0 KUHN, DAWN W 505 TIGERTAIL COURT MARCO ISAND, FL 34145---0 LAHR, JOHN & ELAINE 1805 CONEWAGO LN LANCASTER, PA 17601---4648 LAIETA, DANIEL & JENNIFER 8061 PLAYERS COVE CIRCLE #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LALLEY, MARY ANN 8033 PANTHER TRAIL #1001 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LAMBE, ROBERT & LINDA NATHAN=& DARA FERGUSON 3435 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105---0 LANE, MARIA CYNTHIA R GLOVER 526 W ASPEN WAY PEORIA, IL 61614---0 LANG, MICHAEL A & SANDRA A 10 BOB O LINK LN NORTHPORT, NY 11768---3305 LANGELAND, LESTER & INGRID 8149 SARATOGA DR #1701 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LANGER, DONALD S & LISA C 5110 OAK RAMBLING DR KATY, TX 77494---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 7 LANGER, DONALD S & LISA C 5110 OAK RAMBLING DR KATY, TX 77494---0 LAROCHE, MARIA 8382 PALACIA TERRACE S NAPLES, FL 34114---0 LAROCHE, MARIA 8382 PALACIO TERRACE S NAPLES, FL 34114---0 LAROSE, MICHAEL C LORY LYNNE LAROSE 8945 MALIBU ST UNIT 206 NAPLES, FL 34113---3408 LAURA E MITCHELL REV TRUST 1544 3RD ST S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 LAWRENCE H HOMAN TRUST 8035 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LEBHERZ, JOHN B & NANCY O 2303 SAWGRASS RIDGE SAN ANTONIO, TX 78260---0 LECHOWICZ, ROBERT A JOANNE F LECHOWICZ 3783 LIMEKILN PIKE CHALFONT, PA 18914---3613 LEE ROUSE, LORETTA FAYE 1405 INTERNATIONAL AVE SEVIERVILLE, TN 37876---0 LEE, MING & GILDA 68 ALIZE DRIVE KINNELON, NJ 07405---0 LEGER, PIERRE CHRISTIAN LUMINITA ELENA SOLOMON-LEGER 9063 CAPISTRANO ST N #4408 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LELY RESORT MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % VESTA PROPERTY SERVICES 27180 BAY LANDING DR, SUITE 4 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 LELY RESORT MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % VESTA PROPERTY SERVICES 27180 BAY LANDING DR, SUITE 4 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 LENNOX, GAE 8003 PANTHER TRL#702 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LENTINI, LINDA M MARIA L LENTINI 8997 CAMBRIA CIR #2002 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LEON, BEDWAY J & JACQUELINE V 927 OLD STATE RD CLARKS SUMMIT, PA 18411---9431 LEONARD, MARCIA BROOKS WAYNE H BROOKS 5121 BERKELEY DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LEPLEY, DANIEL K & MICHELLE R 9118 CHULA VISTA ST #12003 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LEPRE LIVNG TRUST 8985 CAMBRIA CIR #2103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LESZCZYNSKI, PAUL E LINDA J HULSE PO BOX 626 77 CLOVER PLACE AQUEBOGUE, NY 11931---0 LEUNG, DAVID SEUNG SOON ANNAMAE LEUNG 17 BAYBERRY AVE GARDEN CITY, NY 11530---1708 LEVI, ALLEN & KATHY 21410 HIGHLAND LAKES BLVD N MIAMI BEACH, FL 33179---1661 LEWIN, LEROY W & VIRGINIA J 9111 CHULA VISTA ST #11602 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LEWIS, JOHN H 86-189 KAWILI ST WAIANAE, HI 96792---2934 LIGHT, ALLAN 8953 MALIBU ST #401 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LIGHT, BARRY & LAURIE A 9147 DELANO ST #9605 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LIMPUS, RONALD C & JANE E 320 FIRETHORN LANE SINKING SPRING, PA 19608---0 LINDA JOAN LOWE REV LIV TRUST 9912 WELLINGTON TERR WOODBURY, MN 55125---8456 LINSE, MARK G & MARGARET C 9115 CAPISTRANO ST S #8206 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LISA L HAMILTON LIVING TRUST 9147 DELANO ST #9601 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LITOS, MINAS 8978 MALIBU ST #1501 NAPLES, FL 34113---3414 LITTLESTONE MEMORIAL PROP LLC 499 DERBYSHIRE DR VENICE, FL 34285---0 LOMONACO, JOSEPH GLORIA M ESCAMILLA-LOMONACO 6 WILLIAMS COURT ST JAMES, NY 11780---0 LONGO JR, JOHN F & DARLENE W 111 BRUCE AVE STRATFORD, CT 06615---6102 LONGO, F MICHAEL LAURA G CORCORAN 2640 STEVENSON DR YORK, PA 17404---9183 LONGO, LAURIE & CRISTIAN 9096 COVINA DR #7001 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LOUIS OCCHIONERO FAM TRUST 9103 CAPISTRANO STREET S #7702 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LUCERO, MARK & JENNIFER 9111 CAPISTRANO STREET SOUTH UNIT 8309 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LUETKEMEYER ET AL, ZACHARY 9111 S CAPISTRANO ST #8306 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 LUTZ FAMILY LIVING TRUST 9082 CAPISTRANO ST N #4809 NAPLES, FL 34113---3401 M & M BERGER FAMILY TRUST 8975 MALIBU ST #1302 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 M H K & C A K REV LIV TRUST 8181 SARATOGA DR #903 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MACLEOD, RODERICK & NANCY 14 FIRST AVENUE OLD SAYBROOK, CT 06475---0 MACY, MILLI J 8130 SARATOGA DR # 2401 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MALLOY, THOMAS J 49 ANGELL RD CUMBERLAND, RI 02864---0 MALTESE, ANTHONY 429 COLON STREET STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 MALTESE, ANTHONY J 429 COLON ST STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 MALTESE, ANTHONY J 429 COLON ST STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 MANCHESTER JR, ROBERT T KATHERINE R MANCHESTER 8138 SARATOGA DR APT 2204 NAPLES, FL 34113---3022 MANN, JEFFREY I 8974 MALIBU ST UNIT 1201 NAPLES, FL 34113---3412 MANNING, ROBERT A & ELIZABETH 8173 SARATOGA DR APT 1101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3033 MANNINO, DONALD & PATRICIA 110 SHERMAN STREET BROOKLYN, NY 11218---0 MANZIONE, MARC & LOUISE 1452 FROG HOLLOW RD RYDAL, PA 19046---0 MARCOZZI, DAVID & ANNETTE H 8060 PLAYERS COVE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MARELLO, WILLIAM & CHRISTINE 4 RAMBLING WOODS DRIVE PITTSFORD, NY 14534---0 MARENCHIN, ELLEN R RODNEY DAVID MARENCHIN 9086 CAPISTRANO STREET N #5602 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MARGOLIS, KATHERINE S 9066 ALBION LN N #5103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MARILYNN B KROPP TRUST 8023 PANTHER TRL APT 903 NAPLES, FL 34113---1604 MARION, MARVIN & JOAN STEVEN=& KIMBERLY THEISS 8416 MALLOW LN NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MARKLE, THOMAS J & DEBORAH A V 8015 TIGER COVE #206 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MAROTTA, ANTHONY SUZANNE PRATO 74 COMMONWEALTH AVE MASSAPEQUA, NY 11758---0 MARQUES, SERGIO & ANN MARIE 11 EDITH ST CUMBERLAND, RI 02864---6303 MARTINHO, NELSON D & JOANN M 14 CHRISTINALYNN DRIVE MONROE TOWNSHIP, NJ 08831---0 MARY KATHRYN ELSE R/L TRUST 6290 EASTMOOR RD BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301---1445 MARY PAT UHLAND REV TRUST CASEY MCGUANE 8137 SARATOGA DR #2004 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MARY THERESE ENGLEHART TRUST 12840 SYCAMORE LN PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463---0 MASH MD, MARLENE J 2401 ROMANO CT EAST NORRITON, PA 19401---1875 MATESIC, JEFFREY & ANTOINETTE 733 DRAKE LN RIVER VALE, NJ 07675---0 MATSUDA, JUDITH BENJAMIN 8141 SARATOGA DR APT 1902 NAPLES, FL 34113---3023 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 8 MATTIOLA, R STEVEN & JOAN H 716 S TRAPPE RD COLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426---0 MAWDSLEY, ROBERT & JUDITH S106 W20417 N SHRE DR MUSKEGO, WI 53150---0 MAZZAGETTI, DOMINICK MARIANNE MAZZAGETTI 64 DITMAR BOULEVARD WHITEHOUSE STA, NJ 08889---0 MAZZARELLA, ROBERT L PATRICIA H MAZZARELLA 7683 PUDDINGSTONE DR CHESTERLAND, OH 44026---0 MCCONVILLE, PATRICK F ELISE R MCCONVILLE 170 SONOMA RD NEW LENOX, IL 60451---0 MCDONALD, JERROLD & SUSAN L 9092 CAPISTRANO ST S #6410 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MCDOWELL, JANE & MARK 596 RANCE RD OSWEGO, IL 60543---0 MCENROY, MICHAEL J & JOANNE 108 ROSALIND RD YAPHANK, NY 11980---0 MCKEE TR, PATRICK A CAROL E MCKEE TR PATRICK A MCKEE REV TRUST CAROL E MCKEE TR 8044 PLAYERS COVE DR UNIT 101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3382 MCKINNON, TIMOTHY A & BETH A 8192 SARATOGA DRIVE UNIT 602 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MEADOWS, APRIL 8985 CAMBRIA CIR #2106 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MEANS, MARY C DENNIS P MEANS 9081 CAPISTRANO ST N #5202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MEARS, SANDRA 9017 ALTURAS ST #2801 NAPLES, FL 34113---3350 MEDGULF ENTERPRISES LLC C/O MAURO M DAMICO E A 3430 OCEAN VIEW BLVD STE E GLENDALE, CA 91208---1592 MEEK, HARVEY K & KRISTINA M 9086 ALBION LN S #7303 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MENSCHING, DAVID J LINDA J MARR-MENSCHING 8979 MALIBU STREET #1402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MERENDINO, ANTHONY & CATHLEEN 458 FURNACE DOCK ROAD CORTLANDT MANOR, NY 10567---0 METROPOULOS, GEORGE P PO BOX 4824 BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089---0 METZINGER III, WILLIAM H SUE L METZINGER 8026 PLAYERS COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MEUNKLE JR, ROBERT C & ERIN 60 E GREENTREE DR MEDFORD, NY 11763---0 MICHAEL & KAREN CHERRY FAMILY REV TRUST 9070 ALBION LN N #5805 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MICHAEL J ALESSANDRO & KAMI N ALESSANDRO JOINT REV TRUST 17571 WASHINGTON ST OMAHA, NE 68135---3040 MICHAEL STEWART REICHENBACHER REVOCABLE TRUST 8026 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MICHAEL THOMAS NOONE REV TRUST 9055 N CAPISTRANO ST #4205 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MICHELLE CASAZZA REV TRUST 2175 SUTTON DR SOUTH ELGIN, IL 60177---0 MIDDENDORF, MICHAEL R DONNA J MIDDENDORF 106 SOUTHSHIRE DRIVE SOUTHINGTON, CT 06489---0 MIDLAND TRUST CO 26 BIRCH ST STURBRIDGE, MA 01566---0 MILANOWSKI, DAVID P & NINA 9012 ALTURAS ST UNIT 2601 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MILLER, ANDREW & ANDREA 11 BRUSHY NECK LN WESTHAMPTON, NY 11977---1325 MILLER, DAVID J SARAH A LOGAGLIO 14 SYDNEY ST BOSTON, MA 02125---0 MILLER, STEPHEN B & DEBORAH A 527 CADDY DRIVE DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901---0 MILLEY, JEFFREY W CATHERINE A MILLEY 1212 DAWES AVE WHEATON, IL 60189---6724 MILLS, DOUGLAS T & LAURA M 9065 ALBION LANE NORTH #4909 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MILOSOVIC, MARK A 8161 SARATOGA DR #1401 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MINTO, NORMAN J & LINDA M 8043 PANTHER TRAIL UNIT 1101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MOHN, STANLEY C & MICHELE R 8137 SARATOGA DR APT 2001 NAPLES, FL 34113---3025 MONACO, PAMELA R 8033 PANTHER TRAIL #1003 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MONGIOVI, ANTONIO LISA WONG 15 BROAD ST APT 1430 NEW YORK, NY 10005---1973 MONTALVO-CABANILLAS, RICARDO L NIEVES-SALDANA, CARMEN LAURA 9155 DELANO STREET #9805 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MONTGOMERY, KENNETH R JEFFREY D HARVELL 2001 15TH ST N APT 1105 ARLINGTON, VA 22201---2697 MONTICELLO, ANTHONY 12 HERITAGE DR E HANOVER, NJ 07936---0 MONZIDELIS, CHRISTINE L CHRISTOPHER A MONZIDELIS 3201 LEE PL BELLMORE, NY 11710---5040 MORESCO, LUCIANO DOROTHEA G M VIS-MORESCO 739 LADD RD RIVERDALE BRONX, NY 10471---0 MORIARTY, KEVIN J & KAREN L 9051 CAPISTRANO ST N #4307 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MORRIS, GERARD G SHERRI M CICERO 36 UNION STREET MATAWAN, NJ 07747---0 MORTENSEN, ADRIENNE J RICHARD A MORTENSEN JR 417 RADCLIFFE STREET WYCKOFF, NJ 07481---0 MORTON, LINDA J 9147 DELANO ST #9603 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MOSES JR, STEPHEN C 190 OLD FARM RD LEOMINSTER, MA 01453---0 MURPHY JR, FRANK L PATRICIA A MURPHY 9163 DELANO ST #10002 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MURPHY, ALISEABELLA NANCY K CLOSE 9084 CHULA VISTA ST #10703 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MURPHY, BONNIE FRANK LEO MURPHY JR PATRICIA A MURPHY 8941 MALIBU ST #103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MURPHY, DENNIS E & DIANNE C 182 STEEPLECHASE DR MEDIA, PA 19063---1955 MURPHY, STEPHEN R & PATRICE 4492 SUMMER MEADOW DR DOYLESTOWN, PA 18902---0 MURRAY B SCHNEPS IRREV TRUST THERESA MAURELLI IRREV TRUST 8953 MALIBU ST #403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MUSCATO, VINCIE R 8979 MALIBU ST #1403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 MUSIOL, DEBORAH DUBIN 8045 TIGER COVE #501 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 NAVA, GARY J & DONNA C 116 NORFOLK DR EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937---0 NEAL & ELIZABETH KING TRUST 5455 LANDMARK PL #711 GREENWOOD VILLAG, CO 80111---0 NELSON, DAVID J 8595 190TH AVE NOWTHEN, MN 55303---0 NEUBAUER, SHIELA M 8035 TIGER CV APT 401 NAPLES, FL 34113---2675 NEW LIFE FARMS LLP 342 3RD AVE SE PERHAM, MN 56573---0 NEWTON, DANIEL J 190 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE NE NORTH CANTON, OH 44720---0 NEWTON, DANIEL J & ANGELA 190 CREEKSIDE CIR NE NORTH CANTON, OH 44720---0 NOLA, THOMAS S & ANNE MARIE 70 BUFFINGTON AVE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 NOLAN III, FREDERICK L HEATHER L NOLAN 280 SOUTHERN AVE ESSEX, MA 01929---0 NOLAN, CHRISTOPHER P 38 WEST HILL AVENUE MELROSE, MA 02176---0 NOLTE, GARY E & CONSTANCE A 8073 PANTHER TR #1403 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 NORFLEET, EBEN C & KRISTIN L 9068 COVINA DRIVE N #5401 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 NOVAK, PETER A & L RENEE 2625 BRAEMAR PKWY LAKE SAINT LOUIS, MO 63367---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9 NOVIELLO III, ANTHONY CARRIE J NOVIELLO 53 HANCOCK RD FRANKLIN, MA 02038---0 NOVOSEL, STEVEN & ROSEMARIE 2211 VERMONT DR TROY, MI 48083---0 NUTTALL, BRENDA ANN 9103 CAPISTRANO ST S #7710 NAPLES, FL 34113---3242 O'BRIEN, MICHAEL J & TAMARAH J 15342 68TH PL N MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311---0 OCCHIONERO, ANTHONY JAMES WANDA ELAINE OCCHIONERO 9107 CAPISTRANO ST S #7810 NAPLES, FL 34113---3243 OCCHIONERO, LOUIS 9103 SOUTH CAPISTRANO ST #7702 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 OGANOV, SERGEI LILIA MAILIAN-OGANOVA 3 PIERSON RD MORGANVILLE, NJ 07751---0 OINES, PER ARNE JANE L RUNNING 885 FOREST ST NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845---0 OJEDA, DARCY M 189 MUIRFIELD CIR NAPLES, FL 34113---0 OLSON, BRIAN & HEIDI 3841 OBRIEN CT SW PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372---0 OMARA JR, WILLIAM C & LYNN A 4031 JUPITER DR ALLISON PARK, PA 15101---0 ON THE ROCKS REV TRUST 52 BEACH PLUM WAY HAMPTON BEACH, NH 03842---0 OOLEY, D MICHAEL & DORIS J P.O. BOX 70 BORDEN, IN 47106---0 OOSTDYK, DAVID P 45 WOODRIDGE DR OAK RIDGE, NJ 07438---8954 ORLANDO, CHRISTOPHER P 9086 ALBION LN S #7305 NAPLES, FL 34113---3233 ORLANDO, GUISEPPE & LORRAINE C THOMASINA ARCABASCIO TOMMASO ARCABASCIO 2150 BERGEN AVE BROOKLYN, NY 11234---0 O'ROURKE, JOHN & ANN MARIE 9332 SITKA SPRUCE CT CLARENCE CENTER, NY 14032---9132 ORR FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 8039 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ORR, DENNIS E & DONNA J 18 WALDRON AVENUE KANKAKEE, IL 60901---0 O'SHEA, SHEILA P 97 INTERVALE AVE FARMINGDALE, NY 11735---5828 OUSLEY, NORA J 8015 TIGER CV #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 OUTES, JUAN JOSE 9067 CAPISTRANO ST N #4509 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 OVERMYER, STEVEN R & RUTH 1687 SOLEMAR DR WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47906---0 OWEN JR, RAYMOND E & VALERIE K 8005 TOGER CV #106 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 P P PETTINICCHIO 2017 TRUST 15 SADDLE RIDGE RD HOLLISTON, MA 01746---2253 PACIFIC BLESSINGS LLC 4915 RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD #118 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PAFFIE, DALE D & JAYNE L 2465 CIRCLEVILLE ROAD #110 STATE COLLEGE, PA 16803---0 PAGANO, MERCEDES L & RICHARD JOHN JOSPEH PAGANO 8957 MALIBU ST #501 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PANNONE, JOHN B PHILIP C KELLY 14001 ROCKAWAY BEACH BLVD ROCKAWAY PARK, NY 11694---1241 PARKS, TODD & LINDA 9124 DELANO STREET #8702 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 PASSARELLI, BRUCE A 211 N LAKESHORE DR HYPOLUXO, FL 33462---6072 PATASNIK, RICHARD & ILENE 203 SOPHIA CT WATCHUNG, NJ 07069---0 PATRICK J DOOLEY REVOC TRUST SUSAN J DOOLEY REVOC TRUST 903 BRYN MAWR AVE PENN VALLEY, PA 19072---0 PATTERSON, AMY C & GREG J 9107 CAPISTRANO ST #7803 NAPLES, FL 34119---0 PAUL G & TERESA L ZAHOUR TRUST 8036 PLAYERS COVE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3380 PAUL L OLDENBURG REV TRUST 8073 PLAYERS COVE DR #17-202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PAUL W EASTMAN JR TRUST 9111 CHULA VISTA ST #11604 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PAVSEK, JAMES & MICHELLE 12869 ROSETTA DR CHESTERLAND, OH 44026---0 PAXSON, MICHAEL DENNIS JENNIFER JORDAN PAXSON PO BOX 445 PRINCE FREDERICK, MD 20678---0 PENDLETON, DAVID ALLEN LORI ANN PENDLETON 651 COUNTRY LANE FRANKENMUTH, MI 48734---0 PENNEY SR, WILLIAM J & CAROL 8130 SARATOGA DR APT 2403 NAPLES, FL 34113---3020 PENSCO TRUST CO P OBX 173859 DENVER, CO 80217---0 PERGOLA REVOCABLE TRUST 15102 ASPENWOOD DR PLAINVIEW, NY 11803---0 PERL, JOHN G & JOYCE C 1603 AERIE LN MCLEAN, VA 22101---4662 PETRE, DENIS & JULIA E 9063 CAPISTRANO ST N #4402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PETRUCCI, CLAUDIO A BARBARA CIRIGNANO 15 WASHINGTON AVE CLIFFSIDE PARK, NJ 07010---0 PEYTON, CURTIS S 5833 MUSTANG TERRACE PLAINFIELD, IN 46168---0 PIETROPAOLO, PANFILO & TINA 6764 DEL MAR TERRACE NAPLES, FL 34105---0 PILECKI, JANUSZ & ALINA 9082 CAPISTRANO ST N 4801 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PITTORE, JILL GINA PITTORE 492 MITCHELL DR VALLEY COTTAGE, NY 10989---2208 PLATTE ET AL, MELVIN D 9071 ALBION LN N #5705 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PORSCH, THOMAS JAY REBECCA ANN PORSCH 8975 MALIBU ST #1305 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PORTER FAMILY DEC OF TRUST 13608 PHEASANT CIRCLE HOMER GLEN, IL 60491---9483 POWER, PATRICK & HELENE 5 VULTEE DR FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932---2413 PRICE, EDWARD E 130 N ROSE ST PALATINE, IL 60067---0 PRICE, JAMES A & PATRICIA M 67 MANOR ROAD LYNBROOK, NY 11563---0 PRICE, JUDI A AMY S ZELLNER 9137 CHULA VISTA ST APT 12601 NAPLES, FL 34113---3282 PROFFITT, CLAUDIA M 8045 TIGER COVE #503 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PUCCIA, STEPHEN & LISA 16 REGINALD CIR ROCHESTER, NY 14625---1036 PUGLIELLI, MARCO & CLARA 9163 DELANO STREET #10006 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 PULERA TR, RANDY & PATRICIA RR & PR PULERA LIV TRUST 3716 5TH PL KENOSHA, WI 53144---1092 QUARTAROLO, CATERINA 9111 CAPISTRANO ST S #8304 NAPLES, FL 34113---3246 R P & R K TRAXLER JT/T TRUST 9857 MARGO LANE MUNSTER, IN 46321---0 R W & K E SHMIHLUK LIV TRUST 8035 PLAYERS COVE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RAMIREZ, MAURICIO & FAE L 9124 DELANO ST #8701 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RAMON & RITA MARTINEZ REVOCABLE TRUST 489 WAUBUN DR FONTANA, WI 53135---0 RAMOS, EDUARDO A CORINA GROEGER 295 BEYMOURE STREET KALAMAZOO, MI 49009---0 RAMPINO TR, KENNETH J & SUSAN RAMPINO FAMILY LIV TRUST UTD 6/16/00 7 MORNINGSIDE DR NORTH KINGSTOWN, RI 02852---0 RANDOLPH E & TERRY L GROLEAU REVOCABLE TRUST 8129 S 81ST ST FRANKLIN, WI 53132---8922 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 10 RAUCH, JON L & CYNDI F 2321 LAGUNA CIR #414 NO MIAMI, FL 33181---0 RAYFIELD, BEVERLY 8 POND LANE LINWOOD, NJ 08221---0 REICHLE, CHRIS K & DENICE 9064 CAPISTRANO ST N #5005 NAPLES, FL 34113---3396 REILLY JR, MICHAEL 9092 CAPISTRANO ST S #6407 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 REILLY, MARY RUTH 1301 N DEARBORN ST #401 CHICAGO, IL 60610---0 REYNOLDS, STACEY 13988 CONNEAUT LAKE RD CONNEAUT LAKE, PA 16316---0 RHODES, STEPHANIE 8025 TIGER CV #304 NAPLES, FL 34113---2664 RICE, ALAN H 8134 SARATOGA DR #2304 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RICE, WILLIAM P SALLY J HAMMOND 8997 CAMBRIA CIR #2006 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RICHARD ERIC CAEFER TRUST 9070 ALBION LANE NORTH UNIT 5804 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RICHARD S BOTOFF LIVING TRUST SARA R BOTOFF LIVING TRUST 8023 PLAYERS COVE DRIVE UNIT 201 NAPLES, FL 34145---0 RIDGWAY, STEVEN 8989 CAMBRIA CIR #1806 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RIORDAN, KEVIN & ANGELA 123 WATERWAY MASHPEE, MA 02062---0 RISCH, KARYN L KELLY A REAP 9086 ALBION LN S #7304 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RIZZO JR, VINCENT JAMES MARIA MELISSA RIZZO 1 GARNET LN FREEHOLD, NJ 07728---0 ROBERT G ANDERSON R/L TRUST 1115 FLAGSTONE DRIVE DYER, IN 46311---0 ROBERT THOMAS ODONNELL JR REVOCABLE TRUST MARY ELEANOR ODONNELL REVOCABLE TRUST 8555 KARINA COURT NAPLES, FL 34114---0 RODGERS, ROBERT A & MARGOT M 1080 COLLIER BLVD S #111 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---0 ROGERS, DANIEL D & MELISSA G PO BOX 266 PIPER CITY, IL 60959---266 ROGERS, RUSSELL & BETTY N 8074 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RON H BROWN REV LIV TRUST LUANN A BROWN REV LIV TRUST 22404 HARRISON ST LOWELL, IN 46356---9741 RONALD E LOGEMAN DEC OF TRUST DEBORAH J LOGEMAN DEC OF TRUST 4426 HATCH LN LISLE, IL 60532---0 ROSE MARIE SCHIFANO REV TRUST 8144 SARATOGA DR UNIT 2104 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ROSE, MICHAEL M & JUDITH S 9140 DELANO ST #9301 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ROSENOW REVOCABLE TRUST 90 HICKORY CT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---0 ROSEV WONDERFUL LIFE DECLARATION OF TRUST 5520 PFLUMM ROAD SHAWNEE, KS 66216---0 ROSS, PATRICIA R 8985 CAMBRIA CIR #2105 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ROSS, RICHARD KENNEDY 909 10TH ST S #304 NAPLES, FL 34102---0 ROSS, SARA & MICHAEL 9037 ALTURAS ST #3703 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ROSSETTI, JOSEPH P & BARBARA J 8044 PLAYERS COVE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ROSSI, EDWARD A %BTE HOLDING CORR 586 COMMERCE ST THORNWOOD, NY 10594---0 ROTHENBERG, PETER J 53 LANES POND ROAD NORTHFORD, CT 06472---0 ROYAL EQUITIES OF COOPERSTOWN LLC 5069 STATE HWY 28 COOPERSTOWN, NY 13326---0 ROZANKOWSKI, THOMAS W ROBIN G ROZANKOWSKI 8964 MALIBU LN UNIT 1102 NAPLES, FL 34113---3405 ROZZI, SAMUEL T 8161 SARATOGA DR #404 NAPLES, FL 34113---3030 RUBIN, MICHELLE IANNELLI 138 BALFORD DRIVE ONEONTA, NY 13820---0 RULLI, JOSEPH D & LORI ANN 144 AUTUMN OAK LN MANAHAWKIN, NJ 08050---2579 RUMELT, RICHARD J JEAN H ERLBAUM 8022 PLAYERS COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 RUSTICK, JOSEPH M 15652 WHITE PINE COURT HOMER GLEN, IL 60491---0 RYAN J MCCOMBIE REV TRUST DENISE A MCCOMBIE REV TRUST 1769 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE STATE COLLEGE, PA 16803---0 RYAN, CATHY K 9082 ALBION LANE SOUTH #6704 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SALM, ROBERT D & PAMELA K 1690 DEVONSHIRE LN LAKE FOREST, IL 60045---0 SANCHEZ, RICHARD & MARTHA 51 COPPER WOODS PITTSFORD, NY 14534---0 SANDRA M KRIESS REV TRUST ROBERT K CAMPBELL TRUST KAREN L CAMPBELL TRUST 10931 N RHONDA WAY DUNLAP, IL 61525---9010 SANFORD TR, FREDERICK E MARJORIE A SANFORD TR SANFORD FAMILY TRUST 3 VERNON RD MEDWAY, MA 02053---1307 SAUVE, GARY A & CYNTHIA A 73 PINE TREE DR METHUEN, MA 01844---0 SCARAMELLA, DONATO & ALFONZINA 17 SCARLET OAK RD FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822---0 SCARAMELLA, VALENTINO 10 BAY STREET LANDING 4M STATEN ISLAND, NY 10301---0 SCHAEFER, JENNIFER A 7 WINDY KNOLL DR RICHBORO, PA 18954---0 SCHAFFRAN, WILLIAM A DEBORAH M SCHAFFRAN 1007 ORCHARD LANE BROADVIEW HGTS, OH 44147---0 SCHECKELHOFF, KEVIN A TERRIE HALE SCHECKELHOFF 1315 LA ROCHELLE DR COLUMBUS, OH 43221---0 SCHERER, GARY E & VICKEY R 8073 PLAYERS COVE DRIVE #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SCHOENROCK, MARCO & DOREEN 9067 CAPISTRANO ST N #4503 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SCHULTE, JAMES A & PATRICIA J 39419 MARY LANE OCONOMOWOC, WI 53066---0 SCHWARTZ, ERIC KATHLEEN SCHWARTZ AMANDA SCHWARTZ 7120 AIRPORT HWY PENNSAUKEN, NJ 08109---4302 SCHWEBEL, WALTER RICHARD STALZER 8196 SARATOGA DR APT 502 NAPLES, FL 34113---3038 SDN REALTY GROUP LLC 1585 ARGYLE RD WANTAGH, NY 11793---0 SEBAK, MICHAEL & BETTY 1543 PERRY HIGHWAY MERCER, PA 16137---0 SECRET SQUIRREL LLC 187 EAST WARM SPRINGS ROAD UNIT B 321 LAS VEGAS, NV 89119---0 SHAH TR, MANHAR C & KUMUD M M C & K M SHAH REV TRUST UTD 05/23/08 2585 HILLCREST DR LANSDALE, PA 19446---6061 SHARON LEE BRIA REV TRUST 6 JAMIE LANE STORMVILLE, NY 12582---5708 SHEEHY, MICHAEL C & ERIKA 9154 CHULA VISTA ST APT 13302 NAPLES, FL 34113---3289 SHEIMO, KEVIN O & JILL 8045 TIGER COVE #508 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SHELL, ROGER & RUTH 466 BROOKSIDE LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NJ 08844---0 SHELLY A BASSO LIV TRUST N39 W23888 BROKEN HILL CIR N PEWAUKEE, WI 53072---0 SHERWOOD, BRAD A & NANCY J 9036 ALTURAS ST #3601 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SHERWOOD, ROBERT N & LISA J 1206 W KELLY ST ARLINGTON HTS, IL 60004---0 SIGNORE, THOMAS A & MARY B DOMINICK=& JULIE SAVINO 29 S LAKE SHORE DR BROOKFIELD, CT 06804---1431 SILVA, JOSE A & RAYSA Y 9067 CAPISTRANO ST N # 4507 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 11 SILVERMAN FAMILY TRUST 9055 CAPISTRANO ST N #4208 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SISSEL, GARY L & CAROLE M 8035 PLAYERS COVE DR #9202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SKRZYPCZAK, DAVID VICKIE MAXEY 341 DIXI HILL RD SPENCER, IN 47460---0 SLIFER, DENISE M 11 VICTOR AVE GLEN RIDGE, NJ 07028---2016 SLIFER, STEPHEN & DONNA 8993 CAMBRIA CIR #1906 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SMALL, BARRY WILLIAM LINDA CAROL SMALL 8196 SARATOGA DR #501 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SMART, LINDA A 8153 SARATOGA DR APT 1602 NAPLES, FL 34113---3089 SMITH, DAVID A & PHYLLIS A 8047 PLAYERS COVE DR NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SMITH, EDWIN W & JENNIFER M 5274 W 53RD ST FAIRVIEW, PA 16415---0 SMITH, IRVING THOMAS & YVONNE 8181 SARATOGA DR #901 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SMITH, JEFFREY DAVIES 8208 SARATOGA DRIVE #2101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SMITH, JEFFREY L & KIMBERLY L 3506 DOLOMITE DR GREEN BAY, WI 54311---0 SMITH, RICHARD T & MARY ANN WILLIAM=& MARY MINARICH 4709 GALWAY RD JOLIET, IL 60431---8674 SMITH, STEVEN W 24 INVERNESS RD FALMOUTH, ME 04105---0 SMITH, TERRANCE & SHERLLYN 23 PARK HILL CIR LAKE ST LOUIS, MO 63367---2079 SMYLIE, CLAIRE 8149 SARATOGA DRIVE #1702 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SNEDDON FAMILY REV TRUST 8070 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SNOOK, DEBORAH A 8985 CAMBRIA CIR #2101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 SOLOMON, BRIAN J & DEBORAH L 8 LAKEVIEW EST MIDDLEFIELD, CT 06455---0 SOUPCOFF FAMILY TRUST 63 MARLBORO ST NEWBURYPORT, MA 01950---3130 SPIEKER, JOYCE DOUGLAS ZIMMERMAN 188 INVERNESS DR W #120 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112---0 SPIRIDIGLOZZI, SHARI BRIAN YELINKO 7 FLANDERS DR NETCORG, NJ 07857---0 SPOSATO, LUCIA LOUIS M VIOLANTE DIANA J VIOLANTE 79 HERITAGE CT TOWACO, NJ 07082---0 SPRAKER, MARK & MURENE L 122 NORTHERN BOULEVARD HAGAMAN, NY 12086---0 ST GEORGE, RALPH P & PAULA L 5 BRIGHAM ROAD PAXTON, MA 01612---0 STAFFORD, MICHELLE LOUISE 8074 PLAYERS COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---3362 STANLEY JR, GEORGE S KAROLINA J STANLEY 9108 CAPISTRANO ST S #7405 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 STARMANN, GEORGE H CATHERINE W STARMANN 8192 SARATOGA DR #603 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 STATON, SYLVIA ERLEEN 9155 DELANO ST #9801 NAPLES, FL 34113---3312 STEEL, THOMAS EUGENIA V STEEL 6969 S BETSIE RIVER RD INTERLOCHEN, MI 49643---9796 STEFANI, ANTHONY & CONCETTA 5 ROSSITER CIR NEW HOPE, PA 18938---9285 STEPHEN M JARMAN REV TRUST 9163 DELANO ST #10005 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 STEPHENS, DAVID PHILIP MIRIAM G VALDIVIA GALLARDO 9055 CAPISTRANO ST N #4206 NAPLES, FL 34113---3394 STEWART, KENNETH W 9066 ALBION LN N #5105 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC 2639 PROFESSIONAL CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34119---0 STOKES, DONALD R WILLIAM R DOGGETT 9115 CAPISTRANO ST S #8209 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 STOKES, PAULINE M 2112 SWAYING OAKS RD WENTZVILLE, MO 63385---2302 STORER FAMILY TRUST 8026 PLAYERS COVE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 STURGILL, FREDDIE C & LINDA S 437 HILLTOP COURT NEW FREEDOM, PA 17349---0 SUTARIS, JOSEPH E 7816 STATE HIGHWAY 28 RICHFIELD SPRING, NY 13439---0 SUTHERLANDSRMR LLC 27700 HICKORY BOULEVARD BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 SWANSON, EDWARD M & BETH A 1149 FORREST HILL DRIVE LOWER GWYNEDD, PA 19002---0 TADROS, MAHFOUZ & RENEE 197 HOOVER DRIVE CRESSKILL, NJ 07626---0 TADROS, RENEE 197 HOOVER DR CRESSKILL, NJ 07626---1760 TADROS, RENEE 197 HOOVER DR CRESSKILL, NJ 07626---1760 TADROS, RENEE 197 HOOVER DR CRESSKILL, NJ 07626---1760 TADROS, RENEE 197 HOOVER DR CRESSKILL, NJ 07626---1760 TADROS, RENEE 197 HOOVER DRIVE CRESSKILL, NJ 07626---1760 TAI, PO YEE L 39 WHITNEY FARM PL MORRIS TOWN, NJ 07960---5988 TAMMY HUNTER FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 42 NOONAN, ND 58765---42 TAMRA L MITCHELL REV TRUST 9077 RIALTO ST #6103 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TANYA TAYLOR 2007 TRUST 389 S WALNUT RIDGE CT FRANKFORT, IL 60423---2131 TARDIF, NORMAN CHARLES KATHERINE A TARDIF 9077 RIALTO ST #6104 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TAUCCI, VERONICA 8063 PANTHER TRAIL #1304 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TAVARES II, DANIEL & ELLEN M 50 MAYFLOWER DR SEEKONK, MA 02771---0 TAYCO LLC 1250 MESSINA AVE CORAL GABLES, FL 33134---2377 TAYLOR STEPHEN R & KATHLEEN H 99 BLUEBERRY DRIVE EAST GREENWICH, RI 02818---0 TERRELL III, ROBERT M 9009 ALTURAS STREET #2501 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TERRY LIVING TRUST 23 VIRGINIA RAIL DRIVE MARLBOROUGH, CT 06447---0 TERSIGNI, RICCARDO 3131 NE 7TH AVE #2105 MIAMI, FL 33137---0 TEWMEY REVOCABLE TRUST 9051 CAPISTRANO ST N #4306 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 THEUS, JACQUES & MAY 23 FRANK STREET SMITHTOWN, NY 11787---0 THIELEN, JOHN 8130 SARATOGA DR #2402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 THOMAS F CLANCY FAM TRUST 9089 CHULA VISTA ST #10901 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 THOMPSON, PAUL R EVANGELINE I TUTHILL 9077 CAPISTRANO ST N #4702 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 THOMPSON, R BARCLAY MARSHA GORDON THOMPSON 8491 CHASE PRESERVE DR NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TIMOTHY V & M G STOVER TRUST 8134 SARATOGA DR #2303 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TMB NAPLES INVESTMENTS LLC 7988 TIGER LILY DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TOPOL, BRUCE M & BRENDA C 8013 PANTHER TRL #803 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 12 TOPSHE, JOYCE-ANN D RICHARD S TOPSHE 614 GREEN HILL BEACH ROAD WAKEFIELD, RI 02879---0 TORO, SALVATORE W 8063 PANTHER TRL APT 1301 NAPLES, FL 34113---2605 TOSTI, LOUIS J & SUSAN M 9127 DELANO STREET #8802 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TOTIN, JODY 748 110TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34108---0 TOUSSAINT, CHASE JORDAN M CHRISTINE L TOUSSAINT 9092 CAPISTRANO ST S #6402 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TREMBALY DANIEL J & KRISTEN N 14 BOARDMAN LN SOUTH HAMILTON, MA 01982---0 TRIPETAIL PROPERTIES LLC 78 CLEARWATER DR AMHERST, NY 14228---0 TRIPP REALTY TRUST 40 IRVING RD EAST FALMOUTH, MA 02536---0 TSOUFIOU FAMILY TRUST 3507 OLD HICKORY LANE MEDINA, OH 44256---0 TUPIKOW, JURIJ D 9122 CHULA VISTA ST #12102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 TYURIN, DMITRY Y 2583 ELK VALLEY RD EVERGREEN, CO 80439---0 UPSON, ROBERT & SUZANNE 5056 BELLE MEADE DRIVE AIKEN, SC 29803---0 URBANKOWSKI, EDWARD & CELINA DANIEL URBANKOWSKI PATRICK URBANKOWSKI 29 PINE ST WALLINGTON, NJ 07057---0 URSO, JOSEPH J & MARY P 9121 CHULA VISTA ST #12203 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 UTTER, BRETT & CHRISTINE 3 PEMBROKE CT MARLBORO, NJ 07746---0 V J FARRUGIA REV LIV TRUST %NAPLES TRUST PROPERTY MNGMT 6300 TRAIL BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108---0 V J FARRUGIA REV LIV TRUST C/O NAPLES TRUST PROPERTY MGMT 6300 TRAIL BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108---0 VALE, DAVID NICHOLAS 9065 ALBION LANE N #4906 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 VALE, ELIZABETH A DONNA M VALE 9055 CAPISTRANO ST N #4204 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 VALE, MICHAEL J 9137 CHULA VISTA ST, #12603 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 VALENZA, COLLEEN M 8 CRESTVIEW LANE SPARTA, NJ 07871---0 VARNER, TERRY R & SONDRA K 150 MOSSY GLEN RD STATE COLLEGE, PA 16801---0 VELONIS, STEPHEN G JULIA VELONIS 21 LARKSPUR CIR GEORGETOWN, MA 01833---0 VERANDAS AT LELY FLAMINGO ISL CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC %SANDCASTLE COMM MGNT 9150 GALLERIA CT #201 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 VERDUZCO, JOHN & DENISE 9126 CHULA VISTA STREET #12301 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 VERONAWALK COMM DEVEL DIST % SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES THE OAKS CENTER 2105A BURNS RD PALM BEACH GARDE, FL 33410---0 VERONAWALK COMM DEVEL DIST % SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES THE OAKS CENTER 2501 BURNS RD STE A PALM BEACH GARDE, FL 33410---5207 VERONAWALK COMM DEVEL DIST % SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES THE OAKS CENTER 2501 BURNS RD STE A PALM BEACH GARDE, FL 33410---5207 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LANE STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LANE STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LN #1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LN #1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LN STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LN STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LN STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC 8090 SORRENTO LN STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34114---0 VERPLOEGH, ALAN A & DENISE L 8031 PLAYERS COVE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 VETOR, CHRISTOPHER A ANDREA L VETOR 4451 KENSINGTON CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 VIANA, PAUL G SUZELIA NARCISO VIANA 8 WEDGEWOOD CT MONROE, NJ 08831---0 VICEDOMINI, ROBERT B & SUSAN 7716 COTTESMORE DR NAPLES, FL 34113---3179 VINSON SR, MICHAEL A TIFFANY A VINSON 25652 KENSINGTON LN MONEE, IL 60449---0 VIOLANTE ET AL, CIRO 5 WEDGEWOOD DR MONTVILLE, NJ 07045---0 VOGEL, CRAIG T & COLETTE C 9130 CHULA VISTA ST #12404 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 VOLOSHCHUK, YEVGENIY & NATALYA 92 BARLEY SHEAF RD FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822---0 VOSBRINCK, VIVIAN 951 MILLSTONE CT TOMS RIVER, NJ 08753---0 VR REAL ESTATE TRUST 1164 DEL MAR CT UNION, KY 41091---0 VUOSO, EVELYN ANTHONY JR & STACY CAMBRIA 8941 MALIBU STREET #105 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 WALLWORK FAMILY TRUST 8039 PLAYERS COVE DR UNIT 102 NAPLES, FL 34113---3373 WALSH JR, DONALD J & MARIE C 8044 PLAYERS COVE DRIVE #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 WALTON EST, DOROTHY A 8196 SARATOGA DR #503 NAPLES, FL 34113---3038 WARRICK, SCOTT H & JANE M 2068 CHARLES DRIVE HELLERTOWN, PA 18055---0 WARTELL, PAUL & MICHELE 9096 COVINA DR S #7003 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 WAUGH, DARCY A 7609 WALNUT BEND DR PEORIA, IL 61614---0 WEATHERWAX FAMILY TRUST 8060 PLAYERS COVE DR #24-201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 WEEGAR, JEFFREY P 8043 PANTHER TRL #1102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 WEINERT TR, CRAIG S PATRICIA & GARY WEINERT TRUST 15 YORK RD GLENMONT, NY 12077---3241 WEINS, DEBORAH S 8941 MALIBU ST #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---3407 WESLEY, ROBERT 578 SHELDON RD GROSSE POINTE SH, MI 48236---0 WHALLEY, CHRISTOPHER L LAURA A WHALLEY 31 BICENTENNIAL DR NASHUA, NH 03062---0 WHITE, ALFRED CHRISTINE K WHITE 80 BROAD ST #209 BOSTON, MA 02110---0 WICKEL, W LANCE & CHRISTINE L 8141 SARATOGA DR #1904 NAPLES, FL 34113---3023 WIEBER TR, MARY ELLEN & LEON J MARY ELLEN WIEBER TRUST UTD 01/23/08 9115 CAPISTRANO ST S APT 8205 NAPLES, FL 34113---3250 WIEGE, ROBERT DALE & LYNN A 8379 PALACIO TERRACE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34114---0 WIEGING, JEFFREY & JAMIE 1102 PINNACLE CLUB DR GROVE CITY, OH 43123---0 WILHELM JR, CLAYTON R KATHLEEN WILHELM 606 BRILL COURT NEWARK, DE 19711---0 WILLIAMS, ERIC EVAN NICOLE ELIZABETH WILLIAMS 144 OAKSHIRE DR E GLEN CARBON, IL 62034---0 WILLIAMS, ROBERT V & JUDITH 312 WATERFORD CT CRANBERRY TOWNSH, PA 16066---3926 WILLIAMS, STEVEN 4892 CORNISH HGHTS PKWY SYRACUSE, NY 13215---0 WILSON, ALAN R & MARLENE 2000 CAMBRIDGE AVE #350 WYOMISSING, PA 19610---0 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 13 WITZKE, ERIC FREDERICK 9085 CHULA VISTA ST #106-5 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 WOLFF, KIRK T & ELIZABETH R 5405 CAYMAN DR CARMEL, IN 46033---0 WYAN, MARK 3439 HEARTWOOD LN ATLANTA, GA 30340---4036 WYCHRIJ, PETE & LARISSA 7663 HERNANDO CT NAPLES, FL 34114---0 YELINKO, BRIAN SHARI SPIRIDIGLIOZZI 2176 GLENBROOK DIVIDE STROUDSBURG, PA 18360---0 YIH, ROY Y & MADELINE W 9046 CAPISTRANO ST N #4601 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 YOLLES, MICHAEL M & ANNE L 8165 SARATOGA DRIVE UNIT 1304 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ZABIT, WILLIAM N 9111 CAPISTRANO ST S #8302 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ZABRE, MICHAEL L RUTH ANDERSON-ZABRE 9153 CHULA VISTA STREET UNIT 13202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ZAHRAY, ELLEN 9076 CHULA VISTA ST #10203 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ZAK, TODD A & CONNIE S 9127 DELANO ST #8801 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ZALESNAK, LUBOMIR 8958 MALIBU ST # 601 NAPLES, FL 34113---3130 ZAMBERLAN, JAMES & SHARON 5746 CHESTNUT RIDGE DR CINCINNATI, OH 45230---0 ZDANOWSKI, JEFFREY ANNE MARIE ZDANOWSKI 690 COUNTRY LN FRANKENMUTH, MI 48734---0 ZEKRI, NANCY M 8138 SARATOGA DR #2203 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 ZIRILLI, SALVATORE C & JANET M 19 CENTRE LANE WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132---0 2294948 ONTARIO INC 494 ROSELAWN AVE TORONTO M5M 1J8 CANADA AGOZZINO, ANNA MARIA & TONY GUISEPPINA IANNICIELLO ET AL 867 CEDARBRAE AVE MILTON L9T 3W9 CANADA AGOZZINO, ANTHONY LUCIANO STEFANIE PAGLIA-AGOZZINO 243 VIA TEODORO WAY WOODBRIDGE L4G 0X6 CANADA ALLWORTH, BRUCE & MARY 1233 WOODVIEW DRIVE OAKVILLE L6M 2M5 CANADA ANTON, DENISE 494 BEAUMONT CRESCENT KITCHENER N2A 0C4 CANADA ANTON, ROBERT & KRISTA 2162 KINGSRIDGE DR OAKVILLE L6M 4Z2 CANADA BANWAIT FAMILY LAND TRUST 19 RIVOLI DR VAUGHAN L4H 3X2 CANADA BARTLETT, FRED & LOUISE 4222 GREEN GABLES LANE OTTAWA K1V 1W8 CANADA BELLIVEAU, DALE & LUCY 544 MOUNTBATTEN WINDSOR N8P 0G1 CANADA BISHOP, GRAHAM W & HELENA M 80 HIGHLAND AVENUE ROTHESAY E2E 5N9 CANADA BOYLE, PATRICK & JANICE 7-669 LONG RIDGE DRIVE KELOWNA V1V 2R9 CANADA BRANDA, ANA MARIA 33 WATER ST PO BOX 197 NEW DUNDEE N0B 2E0 CANADA CANCELLI, ENNIO & LUISA MARIA 318 MAPLE LEAF DR NORTH YORK M6L 1P6 CANADA CARDIAC CONSULTING NIAGARA INC 5803 MAIN ST NIAGARA FALLS L2G 5Z6 CANADA CARON, MARC & DANIELLE 6 BLUE RIDGE TRAIL STOUFFVILLE L4A 2L4 CANADA CATALANO FLORIDA LAND TRUST 1839 APPLEVIEW RD PICKERING L1V 1T7 CANADA CELUSZAK COTTON FLORIDA TRUST 1701 GREEN OAK TERRACE VICTORIA V8S 2A9 CANADA CHEN, SUNG CHOU BONNIE TAM 51 ALAMOSA DRIVE TORONTO M2J 2N8 CANADA CORDONE-FALCONER, JACQUELINE CLAUDETTE CORDONE 315 CHURCHILL AVE KING L7B 0G9 CANADA COYNE, GORDON & LYNNE 7 CORBIERE CLOSE NORTHFIELD GREEN SUNDERLAND TYNE &WEAR SR3 2SP ENGLAND CREATIVE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES INC 9404 RUE DU SAGUENAY STREET ST LEONARD H1R 3Z8 CANADA CREATIVE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 9404 RU DU SAGUENAY MONTREAL H1R 3Z8 CANADA CRIJAN, MICHAEL D JESSICA CATANA 35 TRILLIUM DR #1 KITCHENER N2E 0H2 CANADA DAVID HICKLING TRUST 100 LAKESHORE ROAD EAST #701 OAKVILLE L6J 6M9 CANADA DE BACKER, DIRK PELKEMSTRAAT #2 WAASMUNSTER B-9250 BELGIUM DEWE, MICHAEL & SILVANA 16 SALINAS COURT TORONTO M6B 4L3 CANADA DICKENSON, WILLIAM & MAIREAD 188 N SANDY PLAINS RD SEQUIN P2A 2W8 CANADA DRAKE, JOHN P & TANYA M 31 ROSEWOOD AVE MIDHURST L9X 0P3 CANADA ENLAIR HOLDINGS CO LLC 11 PLASTICS AVE TORONTO M8Z 4B6 CANADA ENLAIR HOLDINGS CO LLC BANWAIT FAMILY LAND TRUST 19 RIVOLI DR VAUGHAN L4H 3X2 CANADA FAWSON, MICHAEL & RHONDA 2267 LAKE SHORE BLVD W #104 TORONTO M8V 3X2 CANADA FOROODI, FARINDOKHT 3971 GALLAGHERS CIR KELOWNA V1W 3Z9 CANADA GAROFOLI, ANTONIO MARIA G DIMARZIO 2 VIA SANT AGOSTINO WOODBRIDGE L6A 1T1 CANADA GERRITZEN, ARNOLD & KATHLEEN 1104 FORESTVALE DR BURLINGTON L7P 4W3 CANADA GHERT FLORIDA RES TRUST C/O COPP HOLDINGS INC 250 DAVISVILLE #108 TORONTO M4S 1H2 CANADA GOUGH, KEVIN JOHN ELAINE DAWN GOUGH 15 BUCKLAND GARDENS LYMINGTON, HAMPSHIRE ENGLAND SO41 8QL UNITED KINGDOM GREEN, GORDON DAWN ZIVANOVICH 83 KOPPERFIELD LANE MOUNT HOPE L0R 1W0 CANADA GRISHAKOV, MAXIM & ELENA ISAKOVSKOGO 39/1 APT 35 MOSCOW , 123181 RUSSIA HENDERS, GREGORY DALE DEBRA ANN HENDERS 24 HERITAGE ISLE HERITAGE POINTE T1S 4J7 CANADA HENGEN, AMBROSE ALOYSIUS SHERYL PATRICIA HENGEN 1594 DIEPPE CRESCENT ESTEVAN S4A 1W7 CANADA HICKS, BLAIN & KATHLEEN 200 BRITTEN TRAIL AURORA L4G 7T1 CANADA HIRAM FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 11 FORSYTH CRESCENT BARRIE L4N5K4 CANADA J & C PIZZOFERRATO FAM TRUST 12 TRIO AVENUE TORONTO M9P 3V1 CANADA JONES, DOUGLAS & DIANE 2-50 ALLEN STREET WEST WATERLOO N2L 6H2 CANADA JUHAN M E LAUR LIV TRUST KATHERINE L MARSE LIV TRUST 17 HARTFIELD ROAD ETOBICOKE M9A 3C5 CANADA LEPORE, ANGELO 14 CANTERBURY LANE FALL RIVER B2T 1A4 CANADA MARK WOOLLAM LIV TRUST KAY WOOLLAM LIV TRUST CHRISTOPHER WOOLLAM LIV TRUST LAURA WOOLLAM LIV TRUST 2096 MUNNS AVENUE OAKVILLE L6H 4K4 CANADA MARRONE, RENZO & IRENE 69 SKYLINE TRAIL NOBLETON L7B-1N3 CANADA MARTINI NAPOLI TRUST PIETRO PAGLIA 88 SHAMROCK CRESCENT VAUGHAN L4H 1A3 CANADA MEDRI, EINAR & SYLVIA INGRID 18 LACEWOOD CRESCENT TORONTO M3A 2Z4 CANADA MELIN, JOHAN E ANNA B MELIN FRANKLIN HANGVAR SKOLA 710 LABRO SE 62454 SWEDEN MILLER, BRENDA J 4519 LAKESHORE ROAD E BURLINGTON L7L 1B3 CANADA OSULLIVAN, GERARD & SUSAN 6 TEETON MILL PL NEWBURY BERKSHIRE RG14 7GN UNITED KINGDOM POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 14 PAIDEL, VICTOR & MARJORIE 615 DONALD STREET ESTERHAZY S0A 0X0 CANADA PHILLIPS, ANDREW & MARGARET 91 HARWOOD GATE BEACONSFIELD H9W 3A4 CANADA PINHO FAMILY TRUST 5 DARLINGBROOK CRESCENT ETOBICOKE M9A 3H4 CANADA POLIQUIN LIVING TRUST 4A-1200 DE MAISONNEUVE WEST MONTREAL H3A 0A1 CANADA RAMACHANDRAN, GOMATHI 303 CROSSING BRIDGE PLACE AURORA L4G 7Z7 CANADA RICARD, DANNY & CHRISTIANNE 89 GRANDE LIGNE ST ISIDORE G0S 2S0 CANADA RONALD BRYAN KEELER LIV TRUST LOUISE LANCTOT LIVING TRUST 14924 YONGE ST #512 AURORA L4G 6H7 CANADA SACCONE, NICOLA & SANDRA 103 GLEN LONG AVE TORONTO M6B 2M4 CANADA SCHENK, ROBERT & STACEY JOHN SCHENK AUDREY SCHENK 3395 BRENNAN LINE SEVERN L3V 0 CANADA SIESTO, ANTONIO & FRANCA 721 GLENGROVE AVENUE TORONTO M6B 2J4 CANADA SINGER, ALLEN & NANCY 7 POTTS LANE PORT HOPE L1A 0A4 CANADA SINGLETON, WAYNE F & RUTH ANN 804 HUDSON ST COBOURG K9A 0G4 CANADA SPECTOR, DONNA EATON 103 ELLEN LANE COLLINGWOOD L9Y 4W4 CANADA STANESCU, BOGDAN & ANGELA 2 RIGGS CT RICHMOND HILL L4C9N7 CANADA STEIN, JASMINE 177 COCHRANE STREET PORT PERRY L9L 1L6 CANADA SYMONS, G VERNON & LENORA 11-376 HERITAGE DRIVE ESTEVAN S4A 0P9 CANADA TALARICO, ANTONIETTA 2161 RICE AVENUE OTTAWA K2A 0C5 CANADA TIGER COVE 8055 LAND TRUST 792 HARRY SYRATT AVENUE NEWMARKET L3X 0A3 CANADA VAN DEMARK, KENNETH & HELEN 3500 LAKESHORE RD W #522 OAKVILLE L6L 0B4 CANADA WALLISER ET AL, CAROLYN COLLEN M HOYER TRUST 206 PERKINS ST ESTEVAN S4A 2K1 CANADA WEST PALM BEACH GROUP LLC 1467 WOODEDEN DRIVE MISSISSAUGA L5H 2V1 CANADA WIKSTON, RICHARD GEORGE CARRIE MARIE WIKSTON 155 SILVERWOOD AVE WELLAND L3C 0C4 CANADA MR. GARY ROGERS 7989 GRAND LELY DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34113 MR. BOB MURRAY 9087 MICHAEL CIRCLE #1 NAPLES, FL 34113 POList_500.xls 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 412Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 413Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 414Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 415Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 416Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 417Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 418Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 419Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 420Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 421Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 422Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 423Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 424Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment G-Application 6-20-22 (22484 : PL20210001795 - Zoning Petition - Lely Resort PUDA) 07/07/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow development of safety services and related government uses as an essential service in the Conservation Zoning District within the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment Overlay (CON-ACSC/ST) pursuant to Section 2.03.09.B.1.c.2, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The property is 1.83+- acres and is described as Lots 18 and 19 of Paolita Acres, an unrecorded subdivision, and is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) approximately 0.85 miles from Collier County's eastern boundary in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] Meeting Date: 07/07/2022 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 06/14/2022 2:32 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 06/14/2022 2:32 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/16/2022 3:06 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/16/2022 3:36 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 06/21/2022 9:50 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 06/21/2022 10:08 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/21/2022 2:30 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 07/07/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 428 CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 1 of 11 June 21, 2022 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 7, 2022 SUBJECT: PL20190000360; SEMINOLE TRAIL GOVERNMENT CENTER CONDITIONAL USE (CU) ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: STOF Holdings LTD Agent(s): Seth Behn, Esq. 6300 Stirling Road Lewis, Longman & Walker, PA Hollywood, FL 33024 515 N Flagler Dr. Ste. 1500 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider establishment of a Conditional Use to allow for safety services and related government uses within the Conservation (CON) zoning district and Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC- ST), as provided in Section 2.01.03.G.2.b and Section 2.03.09.B.1.c.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), on +1.83 acres located at 57257 Tamiami Trail East. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject parcel is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 0.85 miles from the Collier/Dade County line in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, Collier County, Florida. The property address is 57257 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida. (See location map on the following page) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 2 of 11 June 21, 2022 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 3 of 11 June 21, 2022 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject site is +/-1.83 acres near the southeastern limits of Collier County. The site is within the Conservation designation and Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) on the Future Land Use Map and is zoned Conservation zoning district and Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (CON-ACSC/ST). The site is not on Seminole Reservation property and therefore is subject to Collier County land use, zoning, and development standards. The Tribal Council, the governing body of the Seminole Tribe, requests Conditional Use approval for an essential service facility, including safety services and related government uses. The petitioner seeks to meet a growing need for access to information regarding public safety, basic medical services, community meeting space, and hurricane shelter access. The petitioner proposes this facility to help address health, safety and general welfare interests serving Tribal members whose homes are in proximity along the along Tamiami Trail. The site has been altered previously including a 2,040-square foot garage dating back to 1971. The Concept Plan submitted with the petition depicts a proposed two-story 14,712 square foot building that will offer a range of services and will be constructed to hurricane shelter standards and sized to accommodate the Tribal members in the vicinity. Main Entrance Rendering (Sheet A-900) by Bermello Ajamil & Partners dated 10 -19-2018 Land Development Code Section 4.02.14 and the Florida Administrative Code establish strict design standards for development in the Big Cypress ACSC/ST Overlay district. Absent an agreement between Collier County and the state land planning agency (Florida Department of Economic Opportunity [DEO]) pursuant to Chapter 380.032(3), Florida Statutes, site alteration is limited to 10% of the site (but with a minimum allowance of 2,500 s.f.) and non-permeable surfaces cannot exceed 50% of that 10%. The proposed development occupies more of the site than prescribed by these standards, so an agreement is proposed for approval by the Board of County Commissioners and Florida DEO. The proposed agreement establishes the allowance for 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 4 of 11 June 21, 2022 a maximum of 50,000 square feet of site alteration, 38,000 square feet of impermeable surface, and 15,000 square feet of building floor area under air. This equates to allowing 62.38% of the property to be altered, and 76% of the altered area to be nonpermeable surfaces. The County uses the agreement to recognize the granting of a variance to allow the proposed development per Rule 28-25-011, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that local variance procedures shall apply to the Big Cypress ACSC, provided that no variance shall be granted unless such development is designed, to have minimum adverse impact on the Area’s water storage capacity, surface water and estuarine fisheries consistent with Big Cypress Area regulations. The agreement is attached for information purposes only; it will be acted upon by the Board of County Commissioners when the BCC, sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, hears this Conditional Use petition. The Concept Plan submitted with the Conditional Use request depicts a single access point from Tamiami Trail East, generally in the same place as the existing driveway for the site. Buffers are proposed, including a 15-foot wide Type-B buffer along the southeast property line, a Type-D buffer along Tamiami Trail frontage, and a 10-foot wide Type-A buffer along the northwest property line. Native preserve occupies the northeast property line. A Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20190000223) has also been submitted concurrently with the Conditional Use request. It is proposed to conform with County height, setback, and buffer standards; no deviations are requested. Section 4.02.14.F sets forth that approval of a site alteration plan or site development plan for development in the ACSC/ST district requires review by the Planning Commission and Environmental Advisory Council and approval by the Board of County Commissioners, except that the site development plan may be administratively approved if a conditional use has been approved. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property, which is zoned Conservation with Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (CON-ACSC/ST). The majority of land in the surrounding area is part of the federal reservation lands for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Northwest: Undeveloped acreage zoned CON-ACSC/ST Northeast: Improved, zoned CON- ACSC/ST Southeast: Improved, residential, zoned CON-ACSC/ST Southwest: Undeveloped Acreage and residential across Tamiami Trail East, zoned CON- ACSC/ST 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 5 of 11 June 21, 2022 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Conservation as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan. The overall purpose of the Conservation Designation is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of Collier County and their associated environmental, and recreational and economic benefits. All native habitats possess ecological and physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. Barrier Islands, coastal bays, wetlands, and habitat for listed species deserve particular attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. It is because of this that all proposals for development in the Conservation Designation must be subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values. Relevant to this petition, Conservation designated lands allow for essential services necessary to ensure public safety. Based upon the petition proposing essential service uses capable of providing hurricane shelter as well as training, information sessions and direct assistance on matters of security, fire safety, and personal welfare , and these uses being deemed allowed within the FLUE designation, this proposed Conditional Use may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. The subject property is also within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. The ACSC Regulations limit site alteration to no more than 10% of the total site size and installation of non-permeable surfaces to no more than 50% of any such area, except as provided by Agreement pursuant to Chapter 380.032(3), F.S. The Concept Plan submitted with this application proposes to alter more than 10% of the total site size. Thus an Agreement between the State and County is needed to authorize a variance under Rule 28-25.011, F.A.C. to establish the minimum standards/maximum development to allow for reasonable use of the property to provide safety and government services, consistent with the County’s Growth Management Plan and in compliance with the LDC. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s February 26, 2021, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 6 of 11 June 21, 2022 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: According to the Conditional Use application provided by the applicant up to 14,712 square feet of government and safety service facilities are proposed. Staff evaluated the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) which indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately +/- 25 two-way PM peak hour net trips on the adjacent road network Tamiami Trail East (US 41). According to the current 2021 AUIR, Tamiami Trail East (US 41) from State Road 29 (SR 29) to Dade County Line has a current service volume of 3,100 and a remaining capacity of approximately 1,033 north bound trips and is currently operating at LOS “C.” Based on the information in the TIS provided with this petition the subject roadway links noted above have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, Transportation Planning staff finds the petition in compliance with the GMP and is recommending approval with the following condition: • Transportation Planning Staff Recommended Condition of Approval: The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 25 two-way PM peak hour net 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. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review staff has found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of 0.70 acres of native vegetation onsite. A minimum of 0.63 acres of preserve is required; the preserve shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: This Conditional Use petition may only be deemed consistent with the Conservation Designation of the Growth Management Plan if an Agreement between Collier County and the State of Florida under 380.032(3), FS is fully executed. Then the Conditional Use petition will be consistent with the GMP. • Staff Recommended Condition of Approval: The Conditional Use is not effective until the Agreement between Collier County and the State of Florida under 380.032(3), FS is fully executed, and no other development orders will be approved until said execution. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 7 of 11 June 21, 2022 STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based. This evaluation is completed as part of the Zoning and Land Development Review provided below. In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the Conditional Use petition to address environmental concerns. The property is located within the Area of Critical State Concern- Conservation/Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC/ST-CON). A majority of the property has been historically cleared and used for Seminole Tribe activities since the 1970s and early 1980s. The Concept Plan provides a total of 0.68 acres of preservation; the preserve will include 0.11 acres of wetland restoration. The ACSC Agreement limits site alteration to a maximum of 50,000 square feet. The preservation requirement is being met in accordance with an ACSC Agreement per Florida Statue Section 380.032. The environmental data indicates the proposed project is in an area that has the potential to contain a variety of protected plant and animal species. The only listed species observed onsite was an American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). The proposed impacts will occur in areas that have historically been developed; therefore, any American Alligators utilizing the site will be unaffected by the proposed project. The proposed project is located within core foraging ranges for eight Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) colonies; the nearest colony is 18.6 miles from the subject property; no Wood Storks were observed on-site. The loss of wetlands on site will be required to be mitigated, which will address the loss of wood stork foraging habitat. The proposed project is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted bats (Eumops floridanus). Although there are native vegetated areas present on-site, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized by Bonneted Bats. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicate the presence of Black bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review to address garbage containment and to provide awareness for people visiting the property. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within (FWS) Primary Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) habitat. There were no observations of panthers on-site and the telemetry data indicates Florida panthers are not present within the boundary of the proposed project. However, because of the property’s location, the surrounding areas contain habitats preferred by the Florida panther (freshwater forest). Consultation with FWS to obtain panther mitigation may be required. Before approval of the first SDP/PPL, a second protected species survey of the subject property will be required to ensure construction activity will not impact listed species. The second listed species survey will primarily be focused on Bonneted Bat; however, all listed species will be evaluated for their presence within the subject property boundary. Consultation with the US Federal Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required prior to construction. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 8 of 11 June 21, 2022 This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project does meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is a Conditional Use within the Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment (ACSC/ST) zoning overlay. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition, the following conditions of approval: • Environmental Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval: All outdoor lighting must be held to the minimum necessary for security and safety in accordance with state and federal guidelines for listed species. The Developer shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable, at the time of PPL/SDP approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and recommends approval. Landscape Review: A landscape plan will be reviewed during Site Development Plan review to ensure compliance with the LDC requirements for perimeter landscape buffers and plantings. Conditional Use Findings: Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Section 2.03.09, of the LDC permits conditional uses in the Conservation zoning district. The requested use for safety services and associated government services is allowed as conditional uses in the Conservation zoning district, subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, conditional uses procedures, of the LDC. 2. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Subject to a fully executed agreement between Collier County and the State of Florida under 380.032(3), F.S., this request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and, with the conditions proposed by staff, this project will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC). The Concept Plan and building are designed to an appropriate scale for the purpose and location. No deviations are requested. 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 9 of 11 June 21, 2022 Ingress and egress to the subject property is limited to a single access point from Tamiami Trail East (US 41) as shown on the Concept Plan. The existing driveway is proposed to be widened and improved to meet FDOT standards. The Concept Plan provides for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The relatively limited scale of the development ensures that no significant traffic impacts are anticipated. Accommodation of fire and emergency vehicle access and circulation is depicted on the Concept Plan. The TIS submitted by the petitioner indicates that the adjacent roadway network has capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. The maximum trip generation for the Conditional Use shall not exceed 25 two-way p.m. peak-hour net trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 4. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. The development will be reviewed during Site Development Plan review to ensure compliance with the LDC requirements for perimeter landscape buffers and setbacks. This compliance with the compatibility standards imposed by the LDC will assist in mitigating any effects the proposed Conditional Use will have on the neighboring properties. Due to the remoteness of the site, central utility facilities are not available. In these situations, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirements apply, and the following standard condition of approval is recommended by staff. • Staff Recommended Condition of Approval: Design of the septic system will be determined based on final building size and daily staffing and operations, in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirements at the time of SDP. Washing of vehicles would be considered industrial waste and would need to be reviewed by FDEP for the how disposal of this water will be handled. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. The petitioner proposes development of an already impacted site, and the site is designed to be compatible relative to the adjacent properties. Most of the surrounding area is undeveloped, natural lands. The petitioner has indicated that the development and design of the plans was coordinated with the owner of the adjacent residential property to the east. Proposed building design is represented in the petitioner’s submittal of the Main Entrance Rendering (Sheet A- 900) by Bermello Ajamil & Partners dated 10-19-2018. • Staff Recommended Condition of Approval: Architecture shall be similar to the image depicted on the Main Entrance Rendering (Sheet A-900) by Bermello Ajamil & Partners dated 10-19-2018. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 10 of 11 June 21, 2022 HISTORICAL / ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW: Archeological sites are identified in proximity to the subject site on Collier County’s “Map of Areas of Historical/Archaeological Probability.” A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment was prepared by the applicant. The Assessment found that two features eligible for the Tribal Register of Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places are: 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail (within 98 feet of the subject site), and 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal (within and along the subject site). The Assessment concluded no adverse impact by proposed development. Additionally, Land Development Code Section 2.03.07.E.2.ii outlines that activity shall immediately stop and protective procedures must be followed if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, an historic or archaeological artifact, or other indicator is found. • Staff Recommended Condition of Approval: Excavation shall be monitored by a certified archeologist. In accordance with Land Development Code Section 2.03.07.E.2.ii, activity shall immediately stop and protective procedures must be followed if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, an historic or archaeological artifact, or other indicator is found. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project does meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is a conditional use within the Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment (ACSC/ST) zoning overlay. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the conditions enumerated in the Staff Recommendation on the following page for the Conditional Use. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM was held on Tuesday, August 31, 2021, at 57303 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, which is immediately adjacent to the southeast of the subject site. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m., and the duration was approximately ten minutes. Twenty local residents and Tribal members attended and two people dialed into the phone line. The petitioner’s representative Seth Behn, Esq. presented the background, reasons, and design for the proposed facility, noting it will support hurricane shelter needs in the area. The Concept Plan and architectural rendering were displayed and explained, and an opportunity was given for attendees to ask questions. No commitments were made by the petitioner. A NIM summary is included in Attachment C. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) CU-PL20190000360; Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use Page 11 of 11 June 21, 2022 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PL20190000360 on June 8, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU- PL20190000360 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the three-page Concept Plan accompanying the proposed resolution and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use is not effective until the Agreement between Collier County and the State of Florida for building within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern under 380.032(3), F.S. is fully executed, and no other development orders will be approved until said execution. 2. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 25 two-way PM peak hour net 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. 3. Architecture shall be similar to the image depicted on the Main Entrance Rendering (Sheet A-900) by Bermello Ajamil & Partners dated 10-19-2018. 4. Design of the septic system will be determined based on final building size and daily staffing and operations, in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirements at the time of SDP. Washing of vehicles would be considered industrial waste and would need to be reviewed by FDEP for the how disposal of this water will be handled. 5. Excavation shall be monitored by a certified archeologist. In accordance with Land Development Code Section 2.03.07.E.2.ii, activity shall immediately stop and protective procedures must be followed if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, an historic or archaeological artifact, or other indicator is found. 6. All outdoor lighting must be held to the minimum necessary for security and safety in accordance with state and federal guidelines for listed species. 7. The Developer shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable, at the time of PPL/SDP approval. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Sketch of Boundary & Topographic Survey 3. Application/Backup Material 4. Proposed Agreement per Sec. 380.032(3), F.S. dated May 16, 2022 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: CU-Staff Report 6-21 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Resolution - 061422 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. HWY 41) YYYOKNNGTNGIIEQO ÄÄ¢(CZ ÄÄ (V.CWFGTFCNG(NQTKFC¢Ä 5QWVJ(NQTKFC1HHKEG 0#PFTGYU9C[ SKETCH OF BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Att 2 - Survey Update July 2019 (01170605xBA9D6) - Prepared (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 1 of 12 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: CONDITIONAL USE LDC Section 10.08.00 & Code of Laws section 2-83 2-90 Chapter 3 C.1 of the Administrative Code PETITION NO (PL) PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED A CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD BY THE OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s):______________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: __________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _____________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone:____________________ Cell:____________________ Fax: ___________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent(s):_____________________________________________________________ Firm: _________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _____________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. To be completed by staff ˝–·…•†„›ł”ææ¿˝–·…•†„›‹… Œ ˝‹•fi·•†„˛–¿…–··§'––… ¿•¿†»”·»fi›»‡‹fi•»‰–‡ ¿fi¿«‚§›fl »'•›–†„‡¿†œ ¿·»fi — ºº·¿„·»fi fi•“»˝‹»º—¿·‡»¿‰‚ ºŒŒŁ ºŒŒŁ «‚§‰–‡˝»‚†‰–‡ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 2 of 12 ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ PROPERTY INFORMATION On separate page, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include separate legal description for property involved in each district; The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale),if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Property I.D. Number:____________________________Plat Book:_______ Page #: _______ Section/Township/Range:_______ /_______ /_______ Subdivision: __________________________________________Lot: ________ Block: ________ Metes & Bounds Description: _____________________________________________________ Size of Property: _____ft. X ______ ft. = _______ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _____________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ æ ŁŒŁ æ Œ º˝ æ Ł ˝»»¿‹‹¿‰‚»… Ł Ł ‰ ºØºØ ¿‡•¿‡•fi¿•·¿›‹‰‚–»»†‹‚»–fi‹‚›•…»–”¿‡•¿‡•fi¿•· ¿fi–¤•‡¿‹»·§Łº‡•·»›”fi–‡–··•»fi –«†‹§ø›»¿›‹»fi†–«†…¿fi§ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 3 of 12 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on a separate page) Section/Township/Range:// Lot: Block: Subdivision: __________________________________________ Plat Book:Page #: Property I.D. Number:____________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: ________________________________________________ CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST DETAIL Type of Conditional Use: This application is requesting a conditional use as allowed, pursuant to LDC section 2.03.00, of the _______________________ zoning district for _______________________ (type of use). Present Use of the Property:__________________________________________ –†›»fi“¿‹•–†˝æ˝–†›»fi“¿‹•–†æ ˝ –†›»fi“¿‹•–†˝æ˝–†›»fi“¿‹•–†æ ˝ –†›»fi“¿‹•–†˝æ˝–†›»fi“¿‹•–†æ ˝ –†›»fi“¿‹•–†˝æ˝–†›»fi“¿‹•–†æ ˝ –†›»fi“¿‹•–†››»†‹•¿·˝»fi“•‰»› ˚¿‰¿†‹fi»›•…»†‹•¿· 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 4 of 12 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.08.00 and Chapter 3 C.1 of the Administrative Code to the reviewing body shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met. Further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. On a separate page, provide a narrative statement describing a request for a conditional use and a detailed response to the criteria listed below.Specify how and why the request is consistent with each of the criteria. a.Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan.Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. b.Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. c.Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact,and odor. d.Describe the s ther properties in the district. e.Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. Deed Restrictions:The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions;however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property:To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? No Yes (If yes please provide copies.) –†» 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 5 of 12 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s):___________________________________________________________ Address:______________________________City:___________ State:________ ZIP:_______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ___________________________________________ City:________________ State:__________ ZIP:___________ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range:// Lot: Block: Subdivision: _______________________________________________ Plat Book:Page #: Property I.D. Number:_________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _____________________________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name:____________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): ___________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System PROVIDE NAME_______________ d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be served: ____________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A.Water-Peak: _______Average Daily: ________ B.Sewer-Peak: _______Average Daily: ________ ˝–·…•†„›ł”ææ¿˝–·…•†„›‹… Œ ˝‹•fi·•†„˛–¿…–··§'––… ¿•¿†»”·»fi›»‡‹fi•»‰–‡ ºØºØ ¿‡•¿‡•fi¿•·¿›‹ ‰‚–»» Œ º˝ Ł æ ŁŒŁ ˝»»¿‹‹¿‰‚»… ¨ ¨ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 6 of 12 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________ Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. ¿··–†›»‹•‰‹¿†•›fi–“•…»…–†‹‚»›•‹» 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 7 of 12 RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitme nts or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance.The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of F.S. §695. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the assigned Principal Planner, Zoning Services Department, within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 11 of 12 Public Participation Requirements LDC Section 10.03.06 B. or C. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code Notice for Minor Conditional Use Petitions Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements:Applicant must conduct a application materials in accordance with the applicable sections of the Administrative Code. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to the property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. Mailed Notice:Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing. Newspaper Advertisements:The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: Date, time, and location of the hearing; Description of the proposed land uses; and 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. Sign:A sign shall be posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date. Public Hearing for Minor Conditional Use Petitions Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. See Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code for the Office of the Hearing Examiner procedures. Notice for Conditional Use Petitions Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements:Applicant must conduct a NIM at least 15 days prior to the advertised public hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to the property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 12 of 12 Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.The advertisement shall include at a minimum: Date, time, and location of the hearing; Description of the proposed land uses; and 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. Sign:A sign shall be posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date. Public Hearing for Conditional Use Petitions Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC):The EAC shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing,if required. Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC): The CCPC shall hold at least 1 public hearing. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA): The BZA shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 1 Project Narrative Seminole Tribe of Florida’s Government Services Building Site Development Plan and Conditional Use SDP – PL20190000223 CU – PL20190000360 I.Introduction – History of the Seminole Indians in South Florida The Seminole Tribe of Florida is a sovereign Indian Tribe with a rich and diverse heritage. The Seminoles are justly proud of their independence and self-reliance, having survived the violent assimilating forces that threatened to destroy all Indian communities in the United States. In the past one hundred years, the Seminole Tribe’s industry has grown from hunting, fishing, and trapping, to selling crafts and operating roadside tourist attractions, to now owning and operating a world-renowned international hospitality brand. The challenge the Seminoles now face is how to maintain their unique culture, in the face of the pressures placed upon them by the mainstream economy and the corroding influences of popular culture. One of the most powerful tools that the Seminoles have in this modern battle is their connection to the land, where they have resided for generations. In Florida, the Seminole Tribe’s engagement with the land extends far beyond the borders of the federal reservation lands that have been set aside for them. This fact is acknowledged in both Federal and State laws which describe and protect the Seminoles’ rights to continue their usual and customary use and occupancy throughout the south Florida region. Those rights extend into the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. In 1928, Tamiami Trail was completed, bisecting the Everglades and connecting the east and west coasts of Florida. During the period that followed, scores of Tribal members relocated near the Trail to sell native crafts, create tourist camps, and put on shows for the public. As a result of both this trend and their natural dispersal throughout the region, numerous “homesites” were established in proximity to Tamiami Trail, where Tribal members continue to reside. In 1974, Federal Public Law 93-440 created the Big Cypress National Preserve. The Preserve contains over 729,000 acres, and more than one-half million of those acres are located in Collier County. Members of the Seminole Tribe, Miccosukee Tribe, and “Independent” Indians live, hunt, and fish throughout the Preserve. This Federal Law recognizes the Indians’ rights to continue to reside and conduct their traditional way of life in the Preserve. The Seminole Tribe maintains governmental facilities on the Big Cypress Indian Reservation and in the City of Hollywood. The Big Cypress Indian Reservation lies at the northern end of the Big Cypress National Preserve. However, there is no direct north-south link between the Reservation and Tamiami Trail, making travel to the reservation onerous for Tribal members living along the Trail. The distance to Hollywood from the Tribe member’s homes along Tamiami Trail is similarly problematic. II.Need for Access to Basic Governmental Services 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 2 The Tribal Council, the governing body of the Seminole Tribe, has recognized a growing need to provide access to various basic governmental services to the Tribal members that live in the Tamiami Trail region. These services include ready access to information regarding public safety, basic medical services, community meeting space, and hurricane shelter access. Due to the remoteness of the homes of the Tribal members along Tamiami Trail, significant health, safety and general welfare concerns cannot be easily addressed. Beginning in the early 2000s, members of the Tribe’s real estate staff began looking for property along Tamiami Trail that could support a governmental services building. This proved to be challenging, as the vast majority of the land in this region is owned by governmental entities for preservation and conservation. The difficulty is exacerbated by the sensitive and unique ecological habitat that comprises the majority of the Big Cypress National Preserve. Finally, the site needed to be large enough to support the basic government functions desired. III.Subject Property In 2012, the Seminole Tribe staff located and purchased a parcel of property on the north side of Tamiami Trail, near Collier County’s eastern boundary. The property is located at 57257 Tamiami Trail, and contains approximately 1.83 acres (hereinafter, the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property was purchased from Jacqueline Glover, who owned the property since at least 1976. A REDI map aerial from 1977 attached herewith shows the site was largely cleared and developed with a home at that time. The Subject Property is owned by STOF Holdings, LLC, formerly known as S.T.O.F. Holdings, Ltd. The Seminole Tribe of Florida is the owner of STOF Holdings, LLC. The managers of the LLC are one in the same with the Tribal Council. The Subject Property has several advantages that made it attractive to the Seminole Tribe. In addition to remaining in private ownership, the site has been largely filled and developed since at least 1977. The Subject Property is also located in an advantageous location for the Tribe, roughly equidistant to both coasts, and central to the community that lives proximate to Tamiami Trail. A recent environmental survey of the Subject Property revealed that there are approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands remaining on the site, with the remaining +/- 1.1 acres previously cleared and filled. This cleared area permits the development of the site with only very limited impacts to existing wetlands (less than 0.3 acres.) The development proposes the restoration of .1 acres of previously impacted wetland habitat, with .407 acres being placed under a conservation easement, and an additional .065 acres of wetlands retained within the 10’ conservation area setback. IV.Regulatory Authority The Subject Property lies within unincorporated Collier County and is subject to the County’s Land Use and Zoning regulations. The Collier County Growth Management Plan (“GMP”) indicates a future land use of “Conservation” for the Subject Property. The zoning designation is similarly Conservation (“CON”). The site is also within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 3 Concern Special Treatment Overlay (“ACSC-ST”). In addition to the zoning requirements, the Collier County Land Development Code (“LDC”) contains additional relevant environmental regulations regarding the use of the site. The County’s Area of Critical State Concern regulations are drawn from Florida Statute and the Florida Administrative Code rules which established this protection area and the basic rules regulating development within the region. Florida Statutes Section 380.55, titled “The Big Cypress Conservation Act of 1973”, established the boundaries of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern; an area dominated by the Big Cypress National Preserve. The Preserve is almost entirely owned by state and federal agencies. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 28-25 provides the State’s regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. The stated purpose under the Code is to conserve and protect the natural, environmental and economic resources and the scenic beauty of the Big Cypress area. The regulations contained therein are intended to “provide a land and water management system that will preserve water quality, provide for the optimum utilization of the limited water resources of the area, facilitate orderly and well-planned development, and protect the health, welfare, safety and quality of life of the residents of the state.” (F.A.C. 28-25.002). Site development will be subject to State and Federal environmental permitting as further detailed in the Natural Resource Assessment, included in the submittal to the County. V.Proposed Development and Use As noted, the goal of the project is the development of a Governmental Services building to serve the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s Tribal Members that live on or near Tamiami Trail. To that end, the Tribe assembled a development team to design a facility that will accommodate their anticipated needs in the region. In addition to meeting the Tribe’s needs, the design goals include an effort to locate the development envelope within the previously developed portions of the Subject Property, to the greatest extent possible. Retention and conservation of the higher-quality wetlands on the site is also a priority, and wetland restoration is to be carried out where possible. The proposed structure is a two-story multi-function building containing office space, meeting rooms, and a larger multi-purpose room. The total square-footage under air is 14,712 square feet. The site will include 44 parking spaces. Landscaping is consistent with the County’s LDC, while remaining cognizant of the important surrounding ecological environment. The LDC required buffers will be provided along the right-of-way and property boundaries. The building’s architecture will meet the County’s design standards, and is considerate of the low-scale context of the immediate surroundings and the natural environment. The building will allow for routine and specialized health, safety, and cultural programming. While the Tribe does not have public safety jurisdiction in this area, their programming includes training, information sessions, and direct assistance on matters of security, fire safety, and personal welfare. In addition, a variety of health and human services are regularly provided on a scheduled or as-needed basis for Tribe members. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 4 The use of the property during business hours will typically be 4 to 7 full time Tribal Government Employees that work and coordinate the programs for Tribal members along the Trail. On a weekly basis also during business hours, additional staff or contracted professionals will utilize the building for a variety of services, including physical and mental health, counseling, safety and security programming, elder care, family support, youth groups, and cultural studies and activities. These activities would bring the utilization of the building to approximately 30-40 staff and Tribal Members seeking services. The primary use of the facility outside of business hours is for the monthly Trail Community Meeting, during which general governmental issues and items of concern to the community are discussed, and special presentations are given. These events typically have a total of 40 Tribal Members and Staff in attendance, while a maximum of 60 people was utilized for building planning purposes. The most important, albeit infrequent, proposed and designed use is as a hurricane shelter for the local Tribal members. The building will be built to hurricane standards, and a permanent generator will be located on the property. The estimated maximum Tribal population that could require localized sheltering in the foreseeable future is 100 people. The building’s “Multi-Purpose Shelter Room” will meet the majority of the sheltering needs. The Florida 2018 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan standard is 20 square feet per person for the general population. The proposed “Shelter Room” contains 1,904 square feet, giving it a maximum capacity of 95 people during a sheltering event. The 2018 Shelter Plan also recommends 60 square feet for anyone with special needs. The “Break Room” on the first floor of the building contains 549 square feet, and can thus accommodate 9 special needs members. Additional space in the building can be utilized as needed for individual situations. VI.Required Development Approvals The Subject Property will require approval of the site development plan by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. In addition, the proposed Governmental Services use is classified as a “Conditional Use” by the LDC, requiring review by the Planning Commission and final approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Government Services building has been located in conformity with all County dimensional standards, including height, setbacks, and lot coverage requirements. The parking provided is based upon an analysis of the function and unique nature of the use, as discussed in detail below. The development will also require relief from the Area of Critical State Concern (“ACSC”) regulations, as found in the Florida Administrative Code, and reiterated in the County’s LDC. VII.Area of Critical State Concern Standards under Agreement with State 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 5 The State rules permit a variance from the ACSC regulations, which the County may implement through an “Agreement pursuant to Chapter 380.032(3), F.S.” (Collier County Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element, Sec. V.A.; Collier County LDC § 4.02.14.A.) To that end, the Seminole Tribe has coordinated with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and Collier County in the drafting of an agreement for approval by the State and County. The typical ACSC standard requires site alteration be limited to 10% of the total site size, and non-permeable areas to only occupy half of that 10%. Due to the relatively small nature of the Subject Property, the ACSC regulations would unduly restrict the Tribe’s ability to develop the necessary structure. However, by arranging the proposed development almost entirely on the portions of the property that have been cleared and developed for at least 40 years, there is extremely limited loss of habitat and virtually no impact to the surrounding hydrology. Under the proposed agreement between the State and Collier County, a maximum of 50,000 square feet of site alteration is permitted (62.38% of the site), 38,000 square feet of impermeable surface (76% of the altered area, or 47.4% of the overall site area), and 15,000 square feet of building area. (These numbers slightly exceed the current site plan approval, to account for minor modifications that may occur through the permitting and construction process.) The majority of the high-quality wetlands on the site are to be preserved and placed into conservation. The development of the site is largely focused within the previously developed portions of the property. A conservation easement will be placed over the wetlands on the site, with an additional 10’ setback area of undisturbed wetlands between the conservation area boundary and the developed areas of the project. The conservation area, plus setback area, contains a total of .475 acres of wetlands, of which .10 acres will consist of restored wetlands from an area previously filed. The area protected by the conservation easement will contain 17,725 sq. ft of wetlands (.41 acres / 22.2% of the overall site). The conservation area setback contains 2,843 sq. ft. of wetlands (.065 acres / 3.6% of the overall site). VIII.Standards for Site Development Approval LDC Sec. 10.02.03 provides the standards of review for a Site Development request. The stated intent is to ensure compliance with the appropriate land development regulations. The review will also consider consistency with the GMP, the overall site arrangement, traffic, parking, drainage, and compatibility with the surrounding area. The plans as submitted reflect a development that meets or exceeds all dimensional requirements of the LDC. All setbacks, landscape buffers, building height, open space, and impervious requirements have been met. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 6 Development of the site has been largely confined to the portions of the Subject Property that have been previously developed since at least the mid-1970s. The northeastern portion of the site retains its natural wetland function which will be preserved and protected, consistent with the County’s regulations. Site access is from Tamiami Trail. An existing canal/swale crossing will be shifted slightly to the west to accommodate the driveway alignment with the parking layout. Stormwater is handled through an onsite chambered detention system below the vehicular circulation system, as detailed in the submitted plans and drainage report. Wells on site will provide both potable water and water for fire safety. A septic system has been designed to handle wastewater on the site. A fully enclosed dumpster is included on the property. The landscape plans are consistent with the LDC requirements and are sensitive to the surrounding ecological communities. Native material is proposed for all trees and shrubs. Foundation planting is including around the building. A Type-D buffer runs along the Tamiami Trail frontage. A Type-B buffer is provided along the east property lien and a Type-A along the west property lines, outside of the wetland preserve. The building consists of a two-story concrete structure, with a low pitched metal roof. Massing has been varied through a recessed central panel, emphasizing the entryway. An architectural shade awning structure wraps the building above the second story windows, providing visual interest and shading the windows along that course. A muted color palate and significant front setbacks insure that the building does not create an undue visual imposition along Tamiami Trail. The project also meets the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Plan goals 6.1 and 7.1. The Tamiami Government Center site is approximately 2.5 acres in size. Of the existing native vegetation onsite (0.63 acres), 0.34 acres will be preserved, and an additional 0.10 acres will be restored to cypress swamp. This 0.44 acres will be placed under a conservation easement and subject to a preserve area management plan to ensure its long-term function and protection consistent with the Objectives and Policies under Goals 6 and 7 as applicable Parking Requirement Determination Upon County review, the County staff directed applicant to apply the parking standards found in the code for “Public Buildings.” The code requirement calls for: “1 per 200 square feet for administrative office area and 2 per employee of the largest shift for all other areas plus 1 per 5 prisoners based on the maximum holding capacity for any jails.” Applying this standard to the development program provides a requirement of: 1,772 square feet of administrative office area = 9 spaces Maximum 10 employees at all other areas = 20 spaces 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 7 Thus the site must provide 29 spaces, and the site plan as proposed provides 44 spaces. The additional spaces will be important to the Tribe during monthly community meetings and during emergency hurricane shelter operations. IX.Conditional Use Request Review The Subject Property is located in the zoning Conservation district. LDC Sec. 2.03.09.B.1.c.2. allows for a conditional use for “essential services” in this district. LDC Sec. 10.08.00.D. states that approval of a conditional use shall be reviewed to insure there are no adverse impacts to the public. Specific requirements are: 1.Consistency with the LDC and Growth Management Plan. Finding: The Subject Property has been designed to comply with the LDC and Growth Management Plan regulations. There are no variances required for the Site Development Plan, and the configuration and design have been developed with careful consideration of the surrounding properties and ecological environment. The building is designed to an appropriate scale for the location. 2.Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Finding: The proposed site plan provides clear and open vehicular circulation and safe pedestrian access. The relatively limited scale of the development insures that there is no significant impact from traffic flow. Fire and emergency access and circulation have been provided for. 3.The effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. Finding: The proposed use and design of the site will have no negative effects on the neighboring properties. The use will generate virtually no noise, glare or odor effects. While the investment in this property for government services will increase its value, the nature of this conservation district is such that no broader economic impacts will occur. 4.Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Finding: The proposed use and design of the site is compatible with adjacent properties. The vast majority of the surrounding area is undeveloped, natural lands. The development and design of the plans was coordinated with the owner of the adjacent residential property to the east. Based upon these findings, applicant requests approval of the requested conditional use. X.Conclusion The Seminole Tribe has a long and proud history in south Florida, living and subsisting throughout the region. It is the desire of many members of the Tribe to continue to reside in the areas in and around Tamiami Trail. The Seminole Tribe seeks approval for a Governmental Services building capable of providing basic essential services, hurricane shelter, and community 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406979-4 8 information to its Tribal members in this area of Collier County. The Subject Property represents one of the few opportunities to construct the desired building in the region. The proposed design minimizes impacts to the surrounding environment while meeting the Tribe’s urgent needs. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Collier Co PA, SFWMD GIS Services, State of Florida, Maxar, Microsoft, County of Collier, Esri, HERE, Garmin, iPC University of South Florida, County of Collier, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS University of South Florida, County of Collier, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS STOF Govt. Services Parcel 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Note:Location of Government Center determined by georectifying the USGS map to the current aerial for Collier county and indicating the Collier County Property Appraiser's Parcel for the site. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Attorneys at Law llw-law.com 01595100-1 JACKSONVILLE 245 Riverside Ave. Suite 510 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 T: 904.353.6410 F: 904.353.7619 ST. PETERSBURG 100 Second Ave. South Suite 501-S St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 T: 727.245.0820 F: 727.290.4057 TALLAHASSEE 315 South Calhoun St. Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T: 850.222.5702 F: 850.224.9242 TAMPA 301 West Platt St. Suite 364 Tampa, Florida 33606 T: 813.775.2331 WEST PALM BEACH 360 South Rosemary Ave. Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 T: 561.640.0820 F: 561.640.8202 See Things Differently® Seminole Tribe Trail Government Services Building Neighborhood Information Meeting Report PL20190000223(SDP) / PL20190000360(CU) August 31, 2021 A neighborhood information meeting was held on August 31, 2021, following published notice. The meeting was held at 57303 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida, adjacent to the subject property. Prior to the meeting, a display of the site plan and architecture was displayed for Tribal members living in the area. Approximately 20 local residents and tribal members attended. Attendees were welcome to walk the subject site. A tent was arranged for the event. A handout was provided to everyone in attendance and is attached herewith. A phone line was also opened as provided in the notice and 2 people were shown as having dialed in. Seth Behn, Esq., AICP presented the background, site plan, and architecture. Attendees were able to ask questions about the proposal. An audio recording of the presentation was prepared and is submitted herewith. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01524223-3 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by Seth Behn of Lewis, Longman, & Waler, P.A., representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida and STOF Holdings, LLC on: Tuesday, August 31st at 5:30 p.m. at 57303 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, FL 34141 The meeting is to discuss the Subject Property located at: 57257 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, FL 34141, approximately 31 miles east of the intersection of State Road 29 and Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41). The property owner is petitioning Collier County to approve a Site Development Plan (PL20190000223) and Conditional Use (PL20190000360) to permit a Governmental Services center containing approximately 14,712 square feet on a 1.83 acre property, to include parking and wetland conservation. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner/developer and Collier County staff. You may also attend via telephone conference by dialing into: (561) 701-8540 and when prompted entering participant passcode 50557570-# If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, you can contact Seth C. Behn, Esq., AICP / Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 360 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-640-0820; SBEHN@LLW-LAW.COM SUBJECT PROPERTY AND MEETING LOCATION 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463621-2 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SEMINOLE TRAIL GOVERNMENT CENTER August 31, 2021; 5:30 p.m. Meeting Location: 57303 Tamiami Trail; Ochopee, FL 34141 The Seminole Tribe of Florida is proposing to construct a 14,712 square foot Governmental Center at 57257 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida. This project is critical for the Tribal Members living along Tamiami Trail who have limited access to health, safety, and other governmental services. The project will also provide a critically needed hurricane shelter for the Seminole community. The project site was selected after a long and diligent search. Very few properties in the region are privately owned as the vast majority are within State and Federal preserves. The project site has the additional advantage that the majority of it had been cleared and developed for many decades, with few remaining environmental resources. The site is 1.83 acres in size. The project is proposing a .407 acre conservation area comprised of preserved and restored wetlands. An additional 25’ natural buffer will be retained along the border of the conservation area. The remaining site will host the building, parking, landscaping, and drainage. To utilize the site as desired, a Conditional Use is being requested from Collier County to permit “Essential Services.” This use allows the provision supporting safety, fire, and medical services to the Tribal Community. The site will be constructed to the necessary standards to operate as a hurricane shelter and will have an electrical generator on the property. The property has a “Conservation” zoning designation. Under this designation, the following uses are currently allowed, without a Conditional Use: 1. On privately held land only, single family dwelling units, and mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists. 2. On publicly and privately held lands only, dormitories, duplexes and other types of housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses. 3. Passive parks, and other passive recreational uses, including, but not limited to: a) Open space and recreational uses; b) Biking, hiking, canoeing, and nature trails; c) Equestrian paths; and d) Nature preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 4. Habitat preservation and conservation uses. 5. Family Care Facilities and Group Care Facilities. 6. Sporting and Recreational camps incidental to conservation uses on public lands; or, on privately held lands. 7. Agricultural uses that fall within the scope of Sections 163.3162(4) and 823.14(6) Florida Statutes. 8. Oil and gas exploration subject to applicable state drilling permits and Collier County non-environmental site development plan review procedures. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional SEMINOLETRAIL-GOVERNMENTCENTER9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 481Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 482Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 483Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463364-2 THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY &RETURN TO: NAME:MICHELLE DIFFENDERFER, ESQ. LEWIS,LONGMAN &WALKER,P.A. ADDRESS:360 S. ROSEMARY AVE. SUITE 1100 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 PARCEL I.D.#01238680000 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT given this _______ day of __________________________, 20____, by STOF HOLDINGS, LLC (hereinafter ”STOF” or “Grantor”), whose address is 6300 STIRLING ROAD HOLLYWOOD, FL 33024, to Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter “Collier County” or “Grantee”). Grantor and Grantee may hereafter be collectively referred to as the “parties.” WHEREAS, STOF is the owner of that certain tract of land located in Collier County, Florida described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “property”); and WHEREAS, STOF has requested approval of a Site Development Plan (County Project PL20190000223), and said plan includes a wetland preserve and wetland preserve management plan; and WHEREAS, in support of the Site Development Plan, Collier County is requiring that this Conservation Easement (“Easement”) be entered into and recorded in the land records of Collier County to bind STOF; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to establish their respective rights and responsibilities relative to the use and maintenance of the conservation area described in the attached Composite Exhibit “B” (the Easement Property). NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby conveys a Conservation Easement to Collier County as follows: 1. Grantor, its successors, heirs, assigns and/or transferees, hereby grants a non- exclusive easement to Collier County over and across the property described as Exhibit “B” for the purpose of conservation. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of the conservation easement. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463364-2 2. No buildings, structures or impediments of any nature may be constructed, placed or permitted on, over or across the Easement Property. No dumping or placing of soil or other substances such as trash or unsightly or offensive materials shall be permitted on the Easement Property. There shall be no removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation with the exception of exotic/nuisance vegetation removal. Excavation, dredging or removal of soil material, peat, rock or other material substance in such a manner as to affect the surface shall be prohibited on the Easement Property. No dikes or fencing shall be permitted on the Easement Property. There shall be no other activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation or preservation permitted on the Easement Property. The Easement Property shall be in no way altered from its natural or permitted state. The following exceptions apply: a. Archaeological surveys or excavations are permissible for areas designated as archaeological sites by the State or Federal governments or by Grantee; or b. Uses as permitted by Section 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code. In accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.d, oil extraction and related processing operations are uses which are exempt from the restrictions herein and shall remain allowed uses on the lands described herein, provided it is an allowable use in the underlying zoning district. 3. Grantor, its heirs, successors or assigns shall bear the responsibility for maintaining the Easement Property, including, but not limited to, regular maintenance as may be required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction relative thereto. The Easement Property shall at all times be maintained in accordance with applicable requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code. 4. No right of access by the general public to any part of the Easement Property is being conveyed. Collier County shall have the right to access and use of the Easement property for the purpose of making inspections; however, Collier County shall have no obligation to maintain the Easement Property, nor shall Collier County have the right to use the Easement Property for any purpose inconsistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement. 5. Grantor reserves all rights as owner of the Easement Property, including the right to engage in uses of the Easement Property that are not prohibited herein and which are not inconsistent with any County ordinance, regulation or development permit, and the intent and purposes of this Conservation Easement. 6. Grantor shall pay any and all real property taxes and assessments levied by competent authority on the property. 7. Grantor shall insert the terms and restrictions of this Conservation Easement in any subsequent deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself of any interest in the property. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463364-2 8. All notices, consents, approvals or other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party or successor in interest. 9. This Conservation Easement may be amended, altered, released or revoked only by written agreement between the parties hereto or their heirs, successors or assigns, which shall be filed in the public records of Collier County. 10. This Conservation Easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all present and future owners of any portion of the Property and their successors and/or assigns, it being the intention of the Grantor that this Conservation Easement be perpetual. 11. If any provisions of the Conservation Easement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation Easement shall not be affected thereby, as long as the purpose of the Conservation Easement is preserved. 12. Enforcement of the terms, provisions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall be at the reasonable discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance on behalf of Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any breach hereof by Grantor, shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Grantee’s rights hereunder. 13. The terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement may be enforced by the Grantee by injunctive relief and other appropriate available remedies, and Grantor consents that venue of such enforcement actions shall lie exclusively in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In any enforcement action in which the Grantee prevails, Grantee shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the trial and appellate courts in addition to the cost of restoring the land to the natural vegetative and hydrologic condition existing at the time of execution of this Conservation Easement or to the natural vegetative state required for a development permit. These remedies are in addition to any other remedy, fine or penalty, which may be applicable under Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunder set its hand and seal the day and year first above written. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463364-2 Sign, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WITNESSES: STOF HOLDINGS, LLC ______________________________ Printed Name:__________________ _____________________________ By:________________________ Printed Name:____________________ Its: _______________________ STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization, this ______ day of _________________, 20__ by ___________________________ , as ______________________, of STOF HOLDINGS LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or has produced _____________________________as identification. ______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Printed Name: __________________ My Commission Expires: Acceptance by Grantee: ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ________________________ ____________________________________ Deputy Clerk William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: _____________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attorney 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463364-2 EXHIBIT A PARENT TRACT 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01463364-2 EXHIBIT B CONSERVATION TRACT 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Seth Behn From:BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:16 PM To:Seth Behn Cc:FinnTimothy Subject:RE: Historic Preservation Board External Email Good afternoon, Yes, the HAPB had a quorum and the Cultural Resource Survey was officially ratified and that approval will be incorporated into the conditional use application. Respectfully, Ray Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expectations, every day! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. From:Seth Behn Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:57 PM To:BellowsRay Subject:Historic Preservation Board EXTERNAL EMAIL:This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Ray, I meant to ask prior to the meeting, but did the HAPB Meeting manage to have quorum last Friday? If so, was the Seminole Trail Government Center approval ratified? Thanks, Seth C. Behn, AICP | Attorney 515 North Flagler Drive,Suite 1500 | West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 sbehn@llw-law.com | (o)561.640.0820 | (c) 561.602.3771 vCard |Website |Bio | join us online 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional TEL:813 620 1460 February 26, 2021 Mr. Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning Collier County 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Re:Seminole Trail Government Center Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Sawyer, Pursuant to conversation with County staff on July 15, 2019 and comments received on January 21, 2021, the purpose of this letter is to document the updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Seminole Trail government center to be located at 57257 Tamiami Trail East (US 41) in Ochopee, Florida. A site plan is attached for reference. The existing project site is currently vacant. The Applicant is seeking approval for up to 14,712 square feet of government office building use. For the purposes of this analysis, the buildout of the development is anticipated in 2022. Access to the site is to be provided via an existing full-access connection along Tamiami Trail East (US 41). Pursuant to discussions with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) staff on February 24, 2021, the existing driveway is proposed to be widened and improved to meet FDOT standards. The correspondence with FDOT is attached for reference. Per your guidance regarding the requirements of a TIA in an email dated July 15, 2019, a trip generation analysis was conducted for the government office building land use. To appropriately address the transportation impacts related to the proposed development, the analysis was undertaken in accordance with the Collier County Guidelines and Procedures for a “Small Scale Study.” Small Scale Study Project Trip Generation:The trip generation potential for the proposed development was based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition,for land use code (LUC)730 (Government Office Building). As previously discussed with County staff, the highest and most-intense independent variable will be used to estimate the proposed development’s trip generation potential. The 14,712 square-foot government office building will employ up to 12 people per day. As indicated in Table 1, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 49 net, new external trips (37 entering, 12 exiting) during Suite 150 655 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Page 2 TEL:813 620 1460 the a.m. peak-hour and 25 net, new external trips (6 entering, 19 exiting) during the p.m. peak-hour. Pass-by and internal capture trips were not considered in this analysis. The proposed development is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net, new total peak-hour trips; therefore, no significant operational or roadway impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed development per the Collier County Guidelines and Procedures for a “Small Scale Study.” Table 1: Project Trip Generation ITE TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use LUC Scale Units1 Peak-hour Equation In Out In Out Total Government Office Building 730 14.712 KSF AM T=3.34(X)75%25%37 12 49 PM T=1.71 (X)25%75%6 19 25 12 EMP AM LN(T)=0.56*LN(X)+1.81 75%25%19 6 25 PM LN(T)=0.87*LN(X)+0.18 20%80%2 8 10 1: The trip generation potential of the proposed development is based on the conservative estimate using the in dependent variable, KSF. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment:For the proposed government office building use, new traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was distributed and assigned to the adjacent roadway of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) based upon Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) historical Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data for count station 030011. The distribution of project traffic is anticipated to be 50% from the east and 50% from the west along Tamiami Trail East (US 41). The FDOT AADT data attached for reference.Figure 1 illustrates the project trip distribution at the project driveway.Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the a.m. and p.m. peak-hour project traffic at the project driveway. Roadway Network Link Analysis:The roadway segment capacity and existing available peak directional volume were provided in the 2020 Annual Update & Inventory Report (AUIR) published by Collier County. As indicated in Table 2, the directly-accessed roadway segment of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) from SR 29 to Dade County Line will not exceed 110% of the adopted service capacity with or without the addition of the proposed project trips. The 2020 peak-hour peak directional volume provided in the AUIR for US 41 was utilized as the eastbound through volume and the westbound through volume for purposes of the turn lane analysis. The 2019 AUIR indicted a growth rate of 11.76%for the roadway segment of US 41 from SR 29 t o D ade County Line; therefore, the peak-hour peak directional volume was increased by 11.76% annually for two years to calculate future background volumes in the buildout year of 2022. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the a.m. and p.m. peak-hour future traffic at the project driveway. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 499Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Page 4 TEL:813 620 1460 Turn Lane Review:Based upon the FDOT Access Management Guidebook, a right-turn lane may be warranted for a roadway with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour or greater if the right-turn volume is between 35 and 55 vehicles during the peak hour. No more than 19 ingress, westbound right-turns per hour are anticipated during the peak-hours; therefore, an exclusive right-turn lane is not warranted at the project driveway. Exclusive left-turn lanes are not provided in the vicinity of the development along the segment of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and no more than 19 ingress, eastbound left-turns are anticipated during the peak-hours; therefore, an exclusive left-turn lane is not recommended at the project driveway. Conclusion Based upon the results of the an alysis, the existing roadway network is anticipated to be adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed Seminole Trail government center development. The maximum trip generation for the Conditional Use shall not exceed 25 two-way p.m. peak-hour net trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. We will follow-up to see if you have any questions regarding this analysis. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Christopher Hatton, P.E.Addie Kraemer, P.E. Senior Vice-President Transportation Analyst Attachments:Conceptual Site Plan FDOT AADT Information 2019 Annual Update & Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element 2020 Annual Update & Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Table 2: Roadway Segment Analysis 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 1 ø †‹ø ºß ºß w N ˝ Legend Roadway Study Intersection XX% Entering Project Traffic Distribution (XX%)Exiting Project Traffic Distribution •„«fi» —fi–¶»‰‹ fi¿””•‰ ››•„†‡»†‹ ˝»‡•†–·» fi¿•· –“»fi†‡»†‹ »†‹»fi –··•»fi –«†‹§ ·–fi•…¿ Site 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 1 ø †‹ø w N ˝ Legend Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak-Hour Project Traffic •„«fi» —»¿–«fi —fi–¶»‰‹ fi¿””•‰ –··•»fi –«†‹§ ·–fi•…¿ Site 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 1 ø †‹ø w N ˝ Legend Roadway Study Intersection XX P.M. Peak-Hour Project Traffic •„«fi» — —»¿–«fi —fi–¶»‰‹ fi¿””•‰ –··•»fi –«†‹§ ·–fi•…¿ Site 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 1 ø †‹ø º º w N ˝ Legend Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak-Hour Future Traffic •„«fi» —»¿–«fi «‹«fi» fi¿””•‰ –··•»fi –«†‹§ ·–fi•…¿ Site 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 1 ø †‹ø º º w N ˝ Legend Roadway Study Intersection XX P.M. Peak-Hour Future Traffic •„«fi» º — —»¿–«fi «‹«fi» fi¿””•‰ –··•»fi –«†‹§ ·–fi•…¿ Site 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 1 Kraemer, Addie From:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:17 PM To:Kraemer, Addie Cc:Hatton, Christopher; Sansaricq, Brandon; Schaill, Leanna; DeBoy, Brian T; Bliven, Rob Subject:RE: Seminole Trail Government Center - FDOT Access Categories:External Addie, Access Management has reviewed the concept plan for this parcel and provides the following comments and concerns: This segment of US 41 has an Access Management classifi cation of 4 with a posted speed limit of 60 mph, driveway spacing between connections is 660 feet and full median opening spacing is 2640 feet. The concept plan reflects the site being redeveloped to include a new government building, with internal site circulation and parking area. The concept plan proposes to use the existing driveway by widening it to 24’ width. In evaluating the access point, while the existing location does no t meet the driveway spacing standards mentioned above, the Department would consider issuing Non-conforming driveway at the existing location. The driveway will have to be design to meet FDOT’s Standard Plans for driveway modifications and being design to conform to District One standards to include a 16’ inbound lane , 12’ outbound lane and a minimum of 35’ radii for the returns. Please note the plans seem to reflect curb and gutter incorporated into the driveway design, this i s not a curb and gutter section of US 41, no curbing can be introduced within FDOT’s right of way. As stated, the driveway would be Non-conforming, typically cross-access is required when a Non-conforming driveway is permitted. I would expect at a mi nimum a cross-access easement will be required to obtain this permit , as the Department is required by law to have a means to bring non-conforming driveways up to standards when conforming access becomes available. The site would appear to fall into a category “B” permit, this category will not require a full traffic study, a simple traffic assessment should be sufficient for this review. All improvements within FDOT right of way must be designed to conform to FDOT’s Standard Plans and or the Florida Design Manual. All necessary plans and or required data to review this submittal should be submitted via the One Stop Permitting site . Please note: For future reference, please note the Department measures driveway spacing from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, and median opening spacing from centerline to centerline. Per F.A.C. 14-96.003(4): “Traffic control features and devices in the right of way such as traffic signals, channelizing islands, medians, median openings, and turn lanes are operational and safety characteristics of the State Highway System and are not means of access. The Department may install, remove, or modify any present or future traffic control feature or device in the right of way to promote traffic safety in the right of way or promote efficient traffic 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 2 operations on the highway. A connection permit is only issued for connections and not for any present or future traffic control devices at or near the permitted connections. The permit may describe these features and/or devices, but such description does not create any type of interest in such features.” The items discussed in this email were based upon conceptual information provided to the Department at the time of this request and are subject to change pending any changes to the development plans for the property, changes to the existi ng state roadway system, or changes to the department’s standards or specifications that could impact the development of said property. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. From:Kraemer, Addie <Addie.Kraemer@kimley-horn.com> Sent:Monday, February 22, 2021 2:42 PM To:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us>; Schaill, Leanna <Leanna.Schaill@dot.state.fl.us>; DeBoy, Brian T <Brian.Deboy@dot.state.fl.us> Cc:Hatton, Christopher <Christopher.Hatton@kimley-horn.com>; Sansaricq, Brandon <brandon.sansaricq@kimley- horn.com> Subject:RE: Seminole Trail Government Center - FDOT Access Good Afternoon Mark, Thank you for beginning the review, we appreciate it! We have provided answers to your questions in green text below. We are in the final stages of review with Collier County and are anticipating acceptance of all other aspects of the site plan in the next submittal. Please see the attached aerial exhibit which shows that the site is proposing to widen and improve the existing driveway connection to access the proposed government center. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you! Addie Addie Kraemer, P.E. Kimley-Horn |655 North Franklin Street, Suite 150, Tampa, FL 33602 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 3 Direct: 813 635 5517 |Mobile: 561 319 4759 Connect with us:Twitter |LinkedIn |Facebook |Instagram |Kimley-Horn.com »·»fi¿‹•†„ §»¿fi› ¿› –†» –” ˛¸› »›‹ –‡¿†•»› ‹– –fi –fi From:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent:Monday, February 22, 2021 9:26 AM To:Kraemer, Addie <Addie.Kraemer@kimley-horn.com> Cc:Hatton, Christopher <Christopher.Hatton@kimley-horn.com>; Sansaricq, Brandon <brandon.sansaricq@kimley- horn.com>; Schaill, Leanna <Leanna.Schaill@dot.state.fl.us>; DeBoy, Brian T <Brian.Deboy@dot.state.fl.us> Subject:RE: Seminole Trail Government Center - FDOT Access Good Morning Addie, I have a few questions I hope you can help me with , as I continue this review for the par cel at 57257 Tamiami Trail in Collier County: 1.Aerials reflect the site’s existing access being utilized by the adjacent parcel to the south for close to a decade. Please provide clarification on the impacts to the existing uses of the driveway with the proposed changes. The existing driveway to the property is proposed to be improved and expanded to be 24’ wide, as shown in the attached aerial exhibit. The existing buildings on the site are proposed to be demolished. We are far along in the si te plan process with Collier County and due to the w etland locations and the fact that the driveway is currently existi ng, the site was designed utilizing the existing access point location. 2.The driveway spacing requirements in this area is 660 feet, the parcel does not have adequate frontage to meet these requirements. Has the developer explored the potential for a joint use access location, or cross-access to an existing driveway? The existing driveway is proposed to be improved and expanded to be 24’ wide. The existing driveway does not currently meet spacing criteria; however, exclusive turn lanes into the site are not warranted which is typically a main cause for the need for standard driveway spacing criteria to be met. It is intended to utilize the existing driveway to provide access to the proposed use of government center and to not have shared access between the proposed government center and the existing uses to the south. Due to the condition of the buildings to the south and the different uses between the project site (proposed government building owned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida) and the adjacent parcels (agricultural use to the south owned privately and agricultural use to the north owned by Salvation Army according to Collier County Property Appraiser), a shared access is not preferable or appropriate. 3.The proposed driveway location does not provide the best possible driveway spacing, has the developer explored relocating the access to the northern property line to achieve maximum driveway separation in this area? Due to the wetland locations and the fact that the driveway is currently existing, the si te was designed utilizing the existing access point location. Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 4 From:Kraemer, Addie <Addie.Kraemer@kimley-horn.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 11:30 AM To:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us>; DeBoy, Brian T <Brian.Deboy@dot.state.fl.us> Cc:Hatton, Christopher <Christopher.Hatton@kimley-horn.com>; Sansaricq, Brandon <brandon.sansaricq@kimley- horn.com> Subject:Seminole Trail Government Center - FDOT Access EXTERNAL SENDER:Use caution with links and attachments. Good Morning Mark, Hope you are doing well! We are working on a project in Collier County along US 41 to propose up to 14,712 square feet of government office building use. We received comments from Collier County on January 21, 2021 to coordinate with FDOT regarding the proposed access and drainage along US 41. The site is located at 57257 Tamiami Trail. The site is currently vacant/not in use. The proposed plan includes relocating the existing driveway to the northwest to provide full-access to the government office building. US 41 is a Class 4 roadway in this vicinity with a speed of 60 mph. We understand that spacing criteria (660’ for a ccess connecti ons) are not met at this location; however, it is requested that the proposed driveway location is approved as turn lanes are not warranted based on the anticipated turning volumes or through volumes according to the FDOT Driveway Information Guide and the methodologies for determining the need for left-turn lanes by the NCHRP. A summary of the transportation analysis is provided below: Trip Generation:The trip generation potential for the proposed development was based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, for land use code (LUC) 730 (Government Office Building). The proposed development is anticipated to generate up to 49 net, new external trips (37 entering, 12 exiting) during the a.m. peak-hour and 25 net, new external trips (6 entering, 19 exiting) during the p.m. peak-hour. Pass-by and internal capture trips were not considered in this analysis. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment:For the proposed government office building use, new traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was distributed and assigned to the adjacent roadway of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) based upon Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) historical Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data for 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 5 count station 030011. The distribution of project traffic is anticipated to be 50% from the east and 50% from the west along Tamiami Trail East (US 41). The FDOT AADT data attached for reference. Roadway Network Link Analysis:As indicated in the attached table, the directly-accessed roadway segment of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) from SR 29 to Dade Coun ty Line will not exceed 110% of the adopted service capacity with or without the addition of the proposed project trips. Turn Lane Review:Based upon the FDOT Driveway Information Guide, a right-turn lane may be warranted for a roadway with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour or greater if the ri ght-turn volume is between 35 and 55 vehicles during the peak hour. No more than 19 ingress, westbound right-turns per hour are anticipated during the peak-hours; therefore, an exclusive right-turn lane is not warranted at the project driveway. Exclusive left-turn lanes are not provided in the vicinity of the development along the segment of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and no more than 19 ingress, eastbound left-turns are anticipated during the peak-hours; therefore, an exclusive left-turn lane is not recommended at the project driveway. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we need to set up a call to discuss. Thank you so much! Addie Addie Kraemer, P.E. Kimley-Horn |655 North Franklin Street, Suite 150, Tampa, FL 33602 Direct: 813 635 5517 |Mobile: 561 319 4759 Connect with us:Twitter |LinkedIn |Facebook |Instagram |Kimley-Horn.com »·»fi¿‹•†„ §»¿fi› ¿› –†» –” ˛¸› »›‹ –‡¿†•»› ‹– –fi –fi 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 511Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 513Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole —¿„» –” Ø9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 514Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Natural Resource Assessment Tamiami Government Center Collier County,Florida January 2020 Prepared for: Seminole Tribe of Florida 043239003 January 2020 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2020 CA Number 00000696 445 24th Street, Suite 200 Vero Beach, FL 32960 (772) 794-4100 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL i January 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................5 3.1 SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................6 3.2 LAND COVER AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES ...........................................................................6 3.3 WETLANDS, TIDAL WATERS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS ..............................................6 3.4 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION ..................................................................................................................9 3.5 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN .................................9 3.6 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................15 3.7 FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION .......................................................................................................15 4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................17 4.1 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES..................................................................................17 4.2 STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................17 4.3 FEDERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................18 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................20 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map .........................................................................................................2 Figure 2: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map ..................................................................................3 Figure 3: Wildlife Survey Transect Map...........................................................................................5 Figure 4: Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Map ............8 Figure 5: FEMA Flood Zones Map...................................................................................................16 TABLES Table 1:Potential Listed Species Occurrence ......................................................................................10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL ii January 2020 APPENDICES Appendix A FNAI Data Report (Unofficial) Appendix B USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report Appendix C Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake Appendix D SHPO Florida Master Site File Report Appendix E UMAM Data Forms and USACE Data Sheets 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 1 January 2020 Natural Resource Assessment Technical Memorandum Tamiami Government Center Collier County,Florida 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following technical memorandum summarizes a review of readily available documentation and the results of field reconnaissance conducted at the project site.The purpose of this Natural Resource Assessment was to characterize the existing conditions of the project site relative to threatened and endangered species and their habitat, ecological commun ities, land cover and vegetation, wetlands, soils, hydrology, archaeological and historical resources, and floodplains.The scope of work also included a brief review of regulatory requirements,an assessment of the existing wetlands,and an evaluation of potential mitigation costs. The project site is located north of Tamiami Trail in Collier County, Florida (Section 36,Township 53 South, Range 34 East).A site location map is attached as Figure 1.The project site has been previously developed into a religious center.A portion of the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5- Minute Perry, Florida quadrangle map depicting the location of the subject site is attached as Figure 2.Site elevations, typically mapped on the USGS quad, was not available for the project site due to the presence of wetlands within and surrounding the project site. Also shown on the USGS map is a Trail Gospel Center, which was located on the project site, and an adjacent Indian Village. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional © 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone (772) 794-4100 Fax (561) 863-8175 www.kimley-horn.com FIGURE 1 Legend Project Limits Project Location Map 1 inch =500 feet Collier County Service Layer Credits:©OpenStreetMap (and)contributors,CC-BY-SA Seminole Tribe of Florida Tamiami Government Center 57257 US-41 Ochopee, FL PROJECT NUMBER: 043239003 JANUARY 2020 Project Location ¹0 500250 Feet 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional © 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone (772) 794-4100 www.kimley-horn.com Seminole Tribe of Florida Tamiami Government Center 57257 US-41 Ochopee, FL PROJECT NUMBER: 043239003 JANUARY 2020 FIGURE 2 Legend Project Limits USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map 1 inch =650 feet Source:Map provided by USGS 0 500 Feet ¹ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 4 January 2020 2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology for this updated assessment included a review of the following resources: Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Biodiversity Matrix (http://www.fnai.org/biointro.cfm) Various Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) [(http://legacy.myfwc.com/bba/data/default.asp)and (https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx)] USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) / Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Florida Master Site File (http://www.flheritage.com/) USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps (Web-based maps available from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM; Web-based maps available from http://msc.fema.gov/) United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Maps, Land Boundary Information System (LABINS; http://www.labins.org) South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) GIS data, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)MapDirect GIS Collier County Land Development Code Wetland delineation was conducted as part of the field reconnaissance based on the Florida unified wetland delineation methodologies in accordance with Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Field visits were conducted on June 21, 2018 and June 19, 2019.The pedestrian transects walked during the June 19, 2019 site visit are shown on Figure 3. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional © 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone (772) 794-4100 www.kimley-horn.com Seminole Tribe of Florida Tamiami Government Center 57257 US-41 Ochopee, FL PROJECT NUMBER: 043239003 JANUARY 2020 FIGURE 3 £¤41 Legend Florida bonneted bat Transects (August 2019) Wildlife Transects (August 2019) Project Limits Wildlife Survey Transects Map 1 inch =67 feet Source:Aerial courtesy of ESRI;Wildlife data courtesy of KHA 0 50 Feet ¹ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 6 January 2020 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 SOILS The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) / Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida,does not have any soil data for the project site. On-site excavation of soils found rocky fill soil in the uplands and hydric soils within the wetlands. 3.2 LAND COVER AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES Vegetative communities within the project site were identified through pedestrian transects and aerial photograph interpretation. Vegetative communities were classified according to the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS, Florida Department of Transportation, 1999)and the FLUCFCS map was updated from the 2014 mapping (See Figure 4). A description of the upland land cover, included below, characterizes dominant vegetation observed along random pedestrian transects, and does not represent an all-inclusive vegetative inventory. The acreage provided for each land cover is approximate, based on aerial interpretation. FLUCFCS 740 Disturbed Land (±1.06 Ac.) This land use type is found within the previously developed sections of the project site. Historic aerial photography shows that the project site was developed prior to 1980. Vegetation found within this area is made up of sparsely distributed white top sedge (Rhynchospora colorata), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), and St.Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum). This area is littered with various debris across the site, including tires, oil tanks, buckets, and rocks. 3.3 WETLANDS, TIDAL WATERS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS The presence of wetlands was evaluated based on the Florida unified wetland delineation methodologies in accordance with Chapter 62-340,Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and the U.S. USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. These methods consider prevalence of wetland vegetation, hydric soil indicators, and wetland hydrology. Based on an assessment of the vegetative communities, hydrologic conditions, and soils observed during field reconnaissance, wetlands do occur within the proposed project site. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 7 January 2020 FLUCFCS 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods (±0.12 Ac.) This land use type is located along the northern and eastern edge of the property. Vegetation consists of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), cocoplum (Chrysoblanus icaco), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) and scattered cypress (Toxodium spp.). FLUCFCS 621 Cypress (±0.58 Ac.) This land use type comprises the northwestern portion of the project site consisting almost exclusively of mature cypress trees with standing water within. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional © 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone (772) 794-4100 www.kimley-horn.com Seminole Tribe of Florida Tamiami Government Center 57257 US-41 Ochopee, FL PROJECT NUMBER: 043239003 JANUARY 2020 FIGURE 4 £¤41 740 621 617 617 Legend FLUCFCS Code:Description 617:Mixed Wetland Hardwoods (±0.12 ac.) 621:Cypress (±0.58 ac.) 740:Disturbed Land (±1.06 ac.) Florida Land Use,Cover,Forms and Classification System Map 1 inch =70 feet Source:Aerial courtesy of ESRI 0 70 Feet ¹ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 9 January 2020 3.4 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION Evidence of wildlife utilization observed during field reconnaissance included turkey vulture, American crow, red-shouldered hawk, lubber grasshopper, and the American alligator. 3.5 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN A listing of species potentially occurring within the project vicinity was reviewed using the databases described in the Section 2.1 Methodology.The results of the database review are as follows: FNAI FNAI found one documented listed species occurrence, the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)(see Appendix A FNAI Data Report).The following listed plants were noted by FNAI as possibly occurring in the project areas (as summarized in Table 1,below): wild-mercury, Cuban snake-bark, few-flowered fingergrass, clamshell orchid, pineland jacquemontia, S climbing vine fern, Florida royal palm, and Florida filmy fern. None of the above-listed plant species, or any other pr otected plant species,were observed during the August 2018 and August 2019 site inspections. FWC There are no known bald eagle nests within five miles from the project site. The closest wading bird rookery is located approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the project site. There are no known listed species observations recorded by FWC within two miles from the site. USFWS Consultation Areas The project site is within the USFWS consultation areas for the crested caracara, Florida panther,Florida bonneted bat,and Everglade snail kite. USFWS Wood Stork Colonies The project site is within 8 wood stork core foraging areas (CFAs): Jetport, Jetport South, L-28 Crossover North, L-28 Crossover South, L-28 Gap, Big Cypress Mitchell Landing, Cabbage Bay, and Lostmans Creek. A CFA within Collier County is 18.6 miles. USFWS IaPC Data Several species were included in the IPaC Trust Resources Report because USFWS includes historic data. However, when comparing current conditions for the project site, it was determined that many of these species would not occur within the site (e.g. West Indian manatee, piping plover, red cockaded woodpecker, loggerhead sea turtle, and Gulf sturgeon). Therefore, these 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 10 January 2020 species are not discussed further in the document (see Appendix B USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report). USFWS Critical Habitat-The project site is not within any USFWS critical habitats. Based on field reconnaissance and database reviews, a listing of the state and federally listed species potentially occurring within the immediate vicinity of the project site has been compiled. Table 1 lists species that may occur and their likelihood of occurrence. Likelihood of occurrence is based on actual observation of the species, sign of the species (burrows, tracks, scat, etc.), observance of suitable habitat, or documented occurrences of the species within various databases. TABLE 1 Potential Listed Species Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Comments Likelihood of Occurrence Mammals Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A Medium Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Roosting and foraging Medium Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus NL*NL* Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Denning and foraging Low West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoidea borealis E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Everglade snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Cape Sable seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mariabilis E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Florida grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum floridanus E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 11 January 2020 warbler Setophaga kirtlandii E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Red knot Calidris canutus rufa T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja NL ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Nesting and Foraging Medium Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor NL ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Nesting and Foraging Medium Little blue heron Egretta caerulea NL ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Nesting and Foraging Medium Piping plover Charadrius melodus T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Wood stork Mycteria americana T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Marginal Habitat Type: Marginal Foraging Medium crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A ?Marginal foraging? Low Florida burrowing owl Athene cunicularia floridana NL ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Florida sandhill crane Grus Canadensis pratensis NL ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Marginal Habitat Type: Marginal Foraging Low Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus NL**NL** Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Nesting and limited foraging Low Reptiles Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Marginal Habitat Type: Marginal Foraging Low Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus C ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)FT Observed On-site: Yes Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Nesting and foraging High American crocodile Crocodylus acutus T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: Nesting and foraging Medium Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 12 January 2020 Plants - mercury Argythamnia blodgettii C SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Cuban Snake- bark Colubrina cubensis var. floridana NL SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Few-flowered fingergrass Digitaria pauciflora C SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Clamshell orchid Encyclia cochleate NL SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: N/A Medium Pineland jacquemontia Jacquemontia curtissii NL ST Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None flax Linum carteri NL SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Climbing vine fern Microgramma heterophylla NL SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Florida royal palm Roystonea elata NL SE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: Yes Habitat Type: N/A Low Florida filmy fern Trichomanes punctatum E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Florida prairie- clover Dalea carthagenensis floridana E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None spurge Chamaesyce garberi T FT Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Insects hairstreak butterfly Strymon acis bartrami E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Florida leafwing butterfly Anaea troglodyte E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None Miami blue butterfly Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri E FE Observed On-site: No Observed in Proximity: No Habitat present: No Habitat Type: N/A None 1 Based on updated December 2018 available on http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/. Federal Status: E Endangered; T Threatened; T(S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance; C Candidate Species; NL Not Listed State Status: FE Federally Endangered; FT Federally Threatened; FT(S/A) Federally Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance; ST State Threatened. Note: Coordination is not required with FWC for federally listed species. *The Florida black bear is protected by F.A.C. 68A-4.009. **The bald eagle is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 13 January 2020 Based on the database review and field reconnaissance the following species could occur on-site or require additional evaluation, survey or permitting Florida Panther Florida panthers are located primarily in southwest Florida, south of the Caloosahatche River. The project site does fall within the Primary Zone for the panther. Based on the Florida Panther Effect Determination Key, the proposed project will qualify for a may affect determination. Coordination with the USFWS will be required and a Biologic al Opinion for the species will likely need to be submitted to the USFWS. Florida Bonneted Bat The Florida bonneted bat is the largest bat species endemic to Florida. This species only occurs in south Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward, Collier, Hendry, Lee, Charlotte, Glades, Highlands, Desoto, and Polk counties). This species is known to roost in natural tree cavities and tree cavities created by woodpeckers and other species. The project site is within the USFWS consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat.No individuals were observed during field reconnaissance. A formal Florida bonneted bat roost survey was conducted on June 19, 2019. Per the USFWS Draft Protocol for Florida Bonneted Bat Roost Surveys, a survey was conducted throughout the project site and two on- site snags were observed to have cavities within the site. Both snags were then scoped with a cavity peeper camera. No bats, guano, or evidence of bats were observed within the on-site cavities.In addition to on-site natural structures, one artificial structure is present on the project site in the form of a dilapidated building. The majority of the roof structure has caved in and provided minimal habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. Regardless, the building was inspected for guano and cavities and an auditory inspection was conducted for the Florida bonneted bat chirping sounds. No guano, cavities, or chirping was observed within the building.Based on the results of the Florida bonneted bat survey, it is not anticipated that the project site is being utilized by the Florida bonneted bat. Coordination with the USFWS is recommended regarding the results of the Florida bonneted bat survey prior to site development to ensure no further surveying for the bat would be required. Wood Stork 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 14 January 2020 Although this species was not observed during field reconnaissance, there is marginal habitat for this species on-site in the forested wetlands. This habitat type could provide foraging habitat for the wood stork. Because impacts are proposed to the wetlands, mitigation will be required for the loss of wood stork habitat. However, wetland mitigation required will likely be sufficient to offset the lost wood stork habitat. r crest, red facial skin, white and black banded tail with a wide, dark terminal band and have black and white barring at the base of the primaries.Immature caracaras are similar in appearance but duller in color. Caracaras prefer open land including pastures and dry prairie with cabbage palm and/or live oak hammocks and shallow ponds or sloughs.Nesting occurs within cabbage palm trees or live oaks, if cabbage palms are not present.Two to three eggs are laid in late winter and typically a pair will maintain the same territory for several years. They feed on reptiles, birds, mammals and carrion.Loss of habitat from improved pastures and citrus has contributed to the species decline. Although the project is located within the USFWS consultation area, habitat is not present within the site and no individuals were observed during field reconnaissance. No further action should be required. Eastern Indigo Snake Although this species was not observed during field reconnaissance, there is some marginal habitat for this species.Based on the Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key South Florida (July 2017),the proposed project will qualify for a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination if it incorporates the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake during construction because this project will impact less than 25 acres of xeric habitat and there are no gopher tortoise burrows within the site. Standard protection measures,Appendix C,include signage and educational materials made available to construction personnel.With the implementation of these standard protection measures and because impacts will not occur to more than 25 acres of indigo snake habitat, no further action is required regarding this species. Listed Plant Species Endangered Plants, was consulted to assess habitat requirements for listed plant species. Six (6) state- 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 15 January 2020 listed plants and three (3) federally-listed plants were noted by FNAI as possibly occurring in this area. None were observed during field reconnaissance. The site has been disturbed and there is limited suitable habitat for listed plant species. No further action will be required regarding listed plant species. 3.6 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Kimley-Horn requested an inquiry from the Department of State, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Division of Historical Resources Florida Master Site File (FMSF) regarding the presence of known historical or archaeological findings within the site (see Appendix D). Data was also reviewed from the SHPO FMSF available from the Florida Geographic Data Library (http://www.fgdl.org). The FMSF indicates that there are two archeological sites, two resource groups, and one historical structure within the project vicinity.US-41 and the Tamiami Canal are both listed as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places and may be impacted by development of the project site. Further coordination with SHPO and the Seminole Tribe is recommended before construction activities commence. 3.7 FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION The FEMA FIRM panel 1200671125D indicates that the project site is located within Zone D areas determined to be outside of special flood hazard areas.Flood zone impacts will require floodplain compensation, which will be handled during the permitting process (see Section 4.2 State Regulatory Requirements below for more details). The FEMA flood zones are depicted in Figure 5. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional © 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone (772) 794-4100 www.kimley-horn.com Seminole Tribe of Florida Tamiami Government Center 57257 US-41 Ochopee, FL PROJECT NUMBER: 043239003 JANUARY 2020 FIGURE 5 £¤41 Legend Project Limits FEMA Flood Zone Zone D:Area Located Outside Special Flood Hazard Area FEMA Flood Zone (FIRM Panel 1200671125D)Map 1 inch =85 feet Source:Flood zone data courtesy of FEMA 0 85 Feet ¹ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 17 January 2020 4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 4.1 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES Based on a review of the municipal codes and ordinances for Collier County, there are environmental ordinances pertaining wetlands, wildlife habitat for rare and endangered species, and tree protection measures.In general, potential impacts to these resources are prohibited unless acceptable actions are permitted through the required agencies. A management plan must be created for all sites with listed species which potentially utilize the site. The project site falls within the Florida panther Primary zone. Collier County requires all development within primary panther zones to focus development to currently disturbed areas and avoid preferred panther habitats such as pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. Development of a management plan describing the Best Management Practices utilized during construction to avoid negative impacts to Florida panther habitat will be required. Any vegetation removal for the project will require a vegetation removal or vegetation removal and fill permit from the County. 4.2 STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Wetland and Stormwater Permitting Site development, including impacts to wetlands and surface waters,will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from SFWMD. A discussion of avoidance and minimization and a mitigation plan will be required. Mitigation could include on-site or off-site mitigation or purchase of mitigation bank credits.Mitigation would be required for the direct impacts as well as a negotiated secondary impact area (generally 25 feet from impact). For wetlands preserved on-site, a minimum 15-foot, average 25-foot buffer is required. If mitigation includes a purchase of mitigation bank credits, Panther Island Mitigation Bank Expansion services this area and has freshwater forested credits available for purchase. This bank has both state and federal credits available and uses the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The forested credits are available for purchase for $95,000 per credit. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 18 January 2020 The onsite wetland systems were assessed based on the UMAM criteria and the UMAM composite score for the on-site cypress/mixed wetland hardwoods system was 0.70 (see Appendix E UMAM Data Forms). The UMAM scores provided are subject to review and approval by the SFWMD and the mitigation cost is approximate for budgeting purposes. If SFWMD accepts this UMAM score and the anticipated 0.20 acres of wetland (based on the most current site plan)will be impacted, the functional loss of this wetland would be 0.14. Therefore, if purchasing credits at Panther Island Mitigation Bank, the cost for direct impacts only would be approximately $13,300 (0.14 x 95,000 = 13,300). This does not include secondary impacts to the wetlands, which will be determined during permitting. State Listed Species Permitting No state listed species were observed thus, no further surveying or permitting is required at this time. 4.3 FEDERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permitting Due to a direct connection to offsite cypress swamps and roadside ditches, it is our preliminary opinion that the wetlands occurring onsite will be claimed as jurisdictional by USACE. As the wetlands are under USACE jurisdiction, a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be required. If all wetlands onsite are proposed to be impacted then a Standard Permit will be required, which typically takes approximately 12 months to process. A Standard Permit will require an alternatives analysis, including avoidance and minimization, in order to demonstrate that the project alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. USACE also coordinates with USFWS and other federal agencies,as needed. Federally listed species that could be impacted by the project are discussed below and would be addressed as part of the permitting process.USACE mitigation policy prefers the use of mitigation banks or other regional mitigation areas;therefore, the mitigation plan should be confirmed by USACE before purchasing credits at a mitigation bank. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 19 January 2020 Federally Listed Species Permitting Wood storks Based on the presence of suitable foraging habitat on-site within the wetlands, impacts to wood storks would be addressed as part of the USACE dredge and fill permitting. It is anticipated that mitigation approved for the wetland impacts will be sufficient to offset lost wood stork foraging habitat. Florida panther Due to the project site being within the Focus Area for the Florida panther and it being classified as may affect by the Florida Panther Effect Determination Key, consultation with the USFWS will be required and a Biological Opinion will likely need to be prepared and submitted to the service in conjunction with the Section 404 Permit. Florida bonneted bat The project is located within the consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat and suitable habitat was found on-site. A formal Florida bonneted bat roost survey was conducted and no signs of the Florida bonneted bat were found, therefore, it is not anticipated that the project site is being utilized by the Florida bonneted bat. Consultation with USFWS is recommended prior to site development to ensure no further surveying for the bat would be required. Eastern indigo snake No additional surveys or permitting will be required for the eastern indigo snake, however the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake will need to be incorporated during construction. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL 20 January 2020 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the Florida Master Site File, two sites (eligible for the NRHP) were identified on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Further coordination with SHPO is anticipated. Implementation of the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake during construction is recommended per the USFWS key. These measures consist of signage and construction crew educational materials to identify and avoid impacts to the species. A formal Florida bonneted bat roost survey was conducted and it is not anticipated that the project site is being utilized by the Florida bonneted bat. Consultation with USFWS is recommended prior to site development to ensure no further surveying for the bat would be required. Coordination with the USFWS will be required regarding the onsite panther habitat. A biological opinion may be required to submit to the service in conjunction with the 404 dredge and fill permit. An ERP will be required to develop this site and mitigation will be required to offset the wetland loss. Mitigation can include on-site or off-site mitigation or purchase of mitigation bank credits. Forested credits are available from Panther Island Mitigation Bank Expansion for $95,000/credit. It appears some wetlands on-site are connected to off-site wetlands, therefore a USACE JD is recommended to determine USACE jurisdiction. Wetlands that are jurisdictional will require a Section 404 dredge and fill permit. The wetland mitigation plan will need to be included in the Section 404 permit application. Mitigation will be required to off-set lost wood stork foraging habitat.However, mitigation provided for wetland impacts will likely be sufficient to mitigate lost wood stork foraging habitat. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL January 2020 APPENDIX A FNAI DATA REPORT (UNOFFICIAL) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL January 2020 APPENDIX B USFWS IPAC TRUST RESOURCES REPORT 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL January 2020 APPENDIX C STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 12, 2013 The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan)below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below (North Florida Field Office:jaxregs@fws.gov; South Florida Field Office: verobeach@fws.gov;Panama City Field Office: panamacity@fws.gov). As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the applicant may move forward with the project. If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e- mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements. The Plan materials should consist of:1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster Information section below);and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated (see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below). POSTER INFORMATION Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11” x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached): DESCRIPTION:The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled. LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands 1 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below-and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 -12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking”of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take”is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted. Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so. IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference; Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent,and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day)with further guidance as to when activities may resume. IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent,and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909 2 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached. 2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects)to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites. 3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the referenced posters and brochures. DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may b e utilized to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows). 2.If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance which may result in further project consultation. 3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen. POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed on page one of this Plan. 3 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL January 2020 APPENDIX D SHPO FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE REPORT 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. July 2, 2018 Shelby Moran Kimley-Horn 445 24th St, Suite 200 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: 772.794.4037 Email: Shelby.Moran@kimley-horn.com In response to your inquiry of July 2, 2018 the Florida Master Site File lists two archaeological sites, two resource groups, and one historic structure at the designated area of Collier County, Florida: 25°48'51.87"N, 80°52'57.79"W with a quarter mile APE as shown on the corresponding map. When interpreting the results of our search, please consider the following information: This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. Because vandalism and looting are common at Florida sites, we ask that you limit the distribution of location information on archaeological sites. While many of our records document historically significant resources, the documentation of a resource at the Florida Master Site File does not necessarily mean the resource is historically significant. Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Cody VanderPloeg Archaeological Data Analyst Florida Master Site File Cody.VanderPloeg@dos.myflorida.com 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 80°52'57.79"W,25°48'51.87"N CR00927 CR00928 Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,Copyright:©2013 National Geographic Society,i-cubed,Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS, AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community Cultural Resource Search Quarter Mile APE Collier County July 2018 ¯ 0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.280.035 Miles Legend 043239003 %2 Florida Structures Florida Sites HistoricalBridges Historical Cemeteries National Register Resource Groups 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 563Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Natural Resource Assessment Collier County, FL January 2020 APPENDIX E UMAM DATA FORMS 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional ˝•‹»æ—fi–¶»‰‹ ¿‡»·•‰¿‹•–† «‡»fi ››»››‡»†‹ fi»¿ ¿‡» –fi «‡»fi ‡¿‰‹ –fi •‹•„¿‹•–† ˝•‹»Æ ››»››‡»†‹ fi»¿ ˝•ƒ» ››»››‡»†‹ ‰–†…«‰‹»… §››»››‡»†‹ …¿‹»ł› –fi‡ Œºł ¯ »””»‰‹•“» …¿‹» ˆ –fi• ¿‰‚»·»fi ¿†… fi¿† ˝«¿fi»ƒØææŁ »‹·¿†… •› ‰–††»‰‹»… ‹– –””›•‹» '»‹·¿†…› '‚•‰‚ ¿fi» fi»·¿‹•“»·§ •†‹¿‰‹ †‹¿‰‹ ‰§fi»›› ›'¿‡› ¿fi» »‰–‡•†„ «†•fl«» ……•‹•–†¿· fi»·»“¿†‹ ”¿‰‹–fi› †‹•‰•¿‹»… '•·…·•”» •†‰·«…»› '¿…•†„ •fi…› •†‰·«…•†„ '––… ›‹–fi –‹‚»fi •fi… ›»‰•»› ·–fi•…¿ ¿†‹‚»fi ›‡¿·· ‡¿‡‡¿·›––… ›‹–fi ł ·–fi•…¿ ¿†‹‚»fi ł —fi–¶»‰‹ •› '•‹‚•† ‹‚» “»fi„·¿…»› ¿‹•–†¿· —¿fi ˝–‡» fi•‡¿fi§ fi–…«‰‹•–† †«‹fi•»†‹ ‹fi¿†›–fi‹ ¿†… ‰§‰·•†„ ”–fi¿„•†„ ›¿'†•†„ ¿†… †«fi›»fi§ ‚¿•‹¿‹ ”–fi ›–‡» ”•›‚ ¿†… •†“»fi‹»fi¿‹»›æ •·…·•”» –›»fi“»… •†‰·«…» ‹«fi»§ “«·‹«fi» ‡»fi•‰¿† ‰fi–' fi»…›‚–«·…»fi»… ‚¿' ·«»fi „fi¿››‚–»fi ¿†… ‡»fi•‰¿† ¿··•„¿‹–fi ›»fi“»… “•…»†‰» –” •·…·•”» ¸‹•·•ƒ¿‹•–† ł•›‹ ›»‰•»› …•fi»‰‹·§ –›»fi“»… –fi –‹‚»fi ›•„†› ›«‰‚ ¿› ‹fi¿‰› …fi–•†„› ‰¿›•†„› †»›‹› »‹‰ †‹•‰•¿‹»… ¸‹•·•ƒ¿‹•–† § •›‹»… ˝»‰•»› ł•›‹ ›»‰•»› ‹‚»•fi ·»„¿· ‰·¿››•”•‰¿‹•–† ł ˝˝ ‹§» –” «›» ¿†… •†‹»†›•‹§ –” «›» –” ‹‚» ¿››»››‡»†‹ ¿fi»¿ †‹•‰•¿‹»… •·…·•”» ¸‹•·•ƒ¿‹•–† ¿›»… –† •‹»fi¿‹«fi» ˛»“•»' ł•›‹ –” ›»‰•»› ‹‚¿‹ ¿fi» fi»fi»›»†‹¿‹•“» –” ‹‚» ¿››»››‡»†‹ ¿fi»¿ ¿†… fi»¿›–†¿·§ »¤»‰‹»… ‹– » ”–«†… (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) æ ˝»‰•¿· ·¿››•”•‰¿‹•–† ł•» — –‹‚»fi ·–‰¿·æ›‹¿‹»æ”»…»fi¿· …»›•„†¿‹•–† –” •‡–fi‹¿†‰»””»‰‹»… ¿‹»fi–…§ ł·¿››¿›•†æ ¿‹»fi›‚»… ¿‡»æ«‡»fi ¿‡•¿‡• –“»fi†‡»†‹ »†‹»fi ¸› ‰–…» ŒØæŒ ˝»¿„fi¿›› »…‡¿‰‹Ø ‰fi»› «fi‹‚»fi ‰·¿››•”•‰¿‹•–† ł–‹•–†¿· »–„fi¿‚•‰ fi»·¿‹•–†›‚• ‹– ¿†… ‚§…fi–·–„•‰ ‰–††»‰‹•–† '•‹‚ '»‹·¿†…› –‹‚»fi ›«fi”¿‰» '¿‹»fi «·¿†…› «†‰‹•–†›•‹•„¿‹•–† ”–fi fi»“•–«› »fi‡•‹æ–‹‚»fi ‚•›‹–fi•‰ «›» ˝•„†•”•‰¿†‹ †»¿fi§ ”»¿‹«fi»› ››»››‡»†‹ ¿fi»¿ …»›‰fi•‹•–† ››»››‡»†‹ ¿fi»¿ ‰–†›•›‹› –” ‹'– ‹§»› –” ”–fi»›‹»… '»‹·¿†…› ‰§fi»›› ›'¿‡ ¿†… ‡•¤»… '»‹·¿†… ‚¿fi…'––…› §fi»›› ›'¿‡ “»„»‹¿‹•–† •†‰·«…»› ¿·‡–›‹ »¤‰·«›•“»·§ ¿·… ‰§fi»›› ł¿¤–…•«‡ …•›‹•‰‚«‡ '‚•·» ‹‚» ‡•¤»… '»‹·¿†… ‚¿fi…'––…› ‰–†›•›‹› –” fi¿ƒ•·•¿† »»fi ł˝‰‚•†«› ‹»fi»•†‹‚•”–·•«› ¿fi–·•†¿ '•··–' ł˝¿·•¤ ‰¿fi–·•†•¿†¿ ‰–‰–·«‡ ł‚fi§›–·¿†«› •‰¿‰– ›¿' ¿·‡»‹‹– ł˝»fi»†–¿ fi»»†› ¿†… '¿¤ ‡§fi‹·» ł–fi»··¿ ‰»fi•”»fi¿ ¸†•fl«»†»›› ł‰–†›•…»fi•†„ ‹‚» fi»·¿‹•“» fi¿fi•‹§ •† fi»·¿‹•–† ‹– ‹‚» fi»„•–†¿· ·¿†…›‰¿» –fi»›‹»… '»‹·¿†… •› ‰–††»‰‹»… ‹– ·¿fi„»fi '»‹·¿†…› –””›•‹» ‹– ‹‚» †–fi‹‚ ¿†… '»›‹ »‹·¿†…› ¿fi» ¿·›– ‰–††»‰‹»… ‹– ¿ fi–¿…›•…» …•‹‰‚ ¿·–†„ ¸˝ •›‹«fi»… «·¿†…› łfi»“•–«›·§ …»“»·–»… ¿fi» ¿·›– ¿…¶¿‰»†‹ ‹– ‹‚» '»‹·¿†…› 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 'æ– fi»› –fi ‰«fifi»†‹ 'æ– fi»› –fi ‰«fifi»†‹ 'æ– fi»› –fi ‰«fifi»†‹ ‰«fifi»†‹ –fi 'æ– fi»› Not Present (0) ŒææŁ Moderate(7)Minimal (4)˝‰–fi•†„ «•…¿†‰» ‚» ›‰–fi•†„ –” »¿‰‚ •†…•‰¿‹–fi •› ¿›»… –† '‚¿‹ '–«·… » ›«•‹¿·» ”–fi ‹‚» ‹§» –” '»‹·¿†… –fi ›«fi”¿‰» '¿‹»fi ¿››»››»… Ø –fi‡ Œºł ¯»””»‰‹•“» …¿‹» ˆ Ø —fi»›»fi“¿‹•–† ¿…¶«›‹‡»†‹ ”¿‰‹–fi ª …¶«›‹»… ‡•‹•„¿‹•–† …»·‹¿ ª »·‹¿ ª ¯'•‹‚‰«fifi»†‹ˆ Ø '•‹‚ •†•‡¿· ·»“»· –” ›«–fi‹ –” '»‹·¿†…曫fi”¿‰» '¿‹»fi ”«†‰‹•–†› Optimal (10) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) ¿‡•¿‡• –“»fi†‡»†‹ »†‹»fi ‡¿‰‹–fi• ¿‰‚»·»fi ¿†… fi¿† ˝«¿fi»ƒ ˝•‹»æ—fi–¶»‰‹ ¿‡»·•‰¿‹•–† «‡»fi ››»››‡»†‹ fi»¿ ¿‡» –fi «‡»fi ‡¿‰‹ –fi •‹•„¿‹•–†››»››‡»†‹ …¿‹»››»››‡»†‹ ‰–†…«‰‹»… § ºłŒł ¿‹»fi †“•fi–†‡»†‹ ł†æ¿ ”–fi «·¿†…› ˚»„»‹¿‹•–† ¿†…æ–fi »†‹‚•‰ –‡‡«†•‹§ ºłŒł¿ –‰¿‹•–† ¿†… ¿†…›‰¿» ˝«–fi‹ '•‹‚ ˇ«¿·•‹§ –” ‚¿•‹¿‹ ›«–fi‹ –«‹›•…» –” '»‹·¿†… •› ‡»…•–‰fi» – ‹‚» †–fi‹‚ ¿†… »¿›‹ fi»›•…»†‹•¿· …»“»·–‡»†‹ »¤•›‹› –'»“»fi ‹– ‹‚» †–fi‹‚'»›‹ »¤•›‹› •†‹¿‰‹ ‰§fi»›› ›'¿‡ ‚•› ‰§fi»›› ›'¿‡ •› ¿ ¿fi‹ –” ‹‚» “»fi„·¿…»› ¿‹•–†¿· —¿fi ˛«†–”” ”fi–‡ ‹‚» «·¿†…› ‰–«·… †»„¿‹•“»·§ •‡¿‰‹ ‹‚» ‰§fi»›› '‚•‰‚ •› …•fi»‰‹·§ ¿…¶¿‰»†‹ ‹– ‹‚» …»“»·–‡»†‹ •·…·•”» ‰¿† ¿‰‰»›› ‹‚» '»‹·¿†… “•¿ ‹‚» ‰§fi»›› ›'¿‡ ‹‚¿‹ •› ›«fifi–«†…•†„ ‹‚» '»‹·¿†… –†…•‹•–† •› •†›«””•‰•»†‹ ‹– fi–“•…» '»‹·¿†…曫fi”¿‰» '¿‹»fi ”«†‰‹•–†› –†…•‹•–† •› –‹•‡¿· ¿†… ”«··§ ›«–fi‹› '»‹·¿†…曫fi”¿‰» '¿‹»fi ”«†‰‹•–†› –†…•‹•–† •› ·»›› ‹‚¿† –‹•‡¿· «‹ ›«””•‰•»†‹ ‹– ‡¿•†‹¿•† ‡–›‹ '»‹·¿†…曫fi”¿‰» '¿‹»fi”«†‰‹•–†› ¿‹»fi …»‹‚ '¿› ¿fi–fi•¿‹» ”–fi ‰§fi»›› „fi–'‹‚ ¿·‹‚–«„‚ '¿‹»fi fl«¿·•‹§ '¿› ·–' …•fi»‰‹·§ ¿…¶¿‰»†‹ ‹– ‹‚» …»“»·–‡»†‹ fi¿›‚ '¿› †–‹»… '•‹‚•† ‹‚» '»‹·¿†… ¿†… ‚«‡¿† …•›‹«fi¿†‰» ł“•¿ –¿‹ ›‰¿fifi•†„ '¿› †–‹»… '•‹‚•† ‹‚» '»‹·¿†… ‚»fi» '¿› †– '¿‹»fi fi»›»†‹ '•‹‚•† ‹‚» ‡•¤»… '»‹·¿†… ‚¿fi…'––…› ‹ •› ·•»·§ ‹‚¿‹ '¿‹»fi »†“•fi–†‡»†‹ •‡fi–“»› ¿› §–« ‹fi¿“»· ”«fi‹‚»fi ”fi–‡ …»“»·–‡»†‹ '•‹‚•† ‹‚» '»‹·¿†… fi–fi•¿‹» ›»‰•»› '»fi» ”–«†… '•‹‚•† ‹‚» ‰§fi»›› ›'¿‡ ł¿·… ‰§fi»›› ˝–‡» »¤–‹•‰› '»fi» fi»›»†‹ '•‹‚•† ‹‚» ‡•¤»… '»‹·¿†… ‚¿fi…'––… łfi¿ƒ•·•¿† »»fi ¿†… ›–‡» †«•›¿†‰» ›»‰•»› '»fi» fi»›»†‹ ł¿fi–·•†¿ '•··–' ‚–'»“»fi ‹‚»fi» '»fi» ›–‡» †¿‹•“» ›»‰•»› ¿› '»·· ł'¿¤ ‡§fi‹·» ¿·… ‰§fi»›› ›¿' ¿·‡»‹‹– Ł ˝‰–fi» ª ›«‡ –” ¿–“» ›‰–fi»›æ ł•” «·¿†…› …•“•…» § '•‹‚ '•‹‚ ºłŒł‰–‡‡«†•‹§ ›‹fi«‰‹«fi» Œ •‡» ·¿„ ł‹”¿‰‹–fi ª ˛•› ”¿‰‹–fi ª ” ‡•‹•„¿‹•–† –fi •‡¿‰‹ ¿››»››‡»†‹ ¿fi»¿› ª …»·‹¿ ¤ ¿‰fi»› ª –fi ‡•‹•„¿‹•–† ¿››»››‡»†‹ ¿fi»¿› ˛ ª …»·‹¿æł‹”¿‰‹–fi ¤ fi•› ª ” fi»›»fi“¿‹•–† ¿› ‡•‹•„¿‹•–† 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ¿‡•¿‡•–“»fi†‡»†‹»†‹»fi –··•»fi –«†‹§ŒææŁ ˝»‡•†–·»fi•»¸·¿†… –fi•¿‰‚»·»fi fi¿†˝«¿fi»ƒ˝Œ º˝–«‹‚˛¿›‹ ºŁøºŁ Ł ºøºŁ ¸††–'† ¨ ˝–•·›¿»¿fi»…‹–»”•··‡¿‹»fi•¿·¿†…'»'»fi»«†¿·»‹–…•„»·–'¿fi–¤•‡¿‹»·§Œ •†‰‚»›˝•‹»'¿›…»“»·–»…•†‹‚»Ł›'•‹‚¿fi»·•„•–«›‰»†‹»fi ˙ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Interim Version VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species?Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below). ¸·¿†… ˝‹»†–‹¿‚fi«‡›»‰«†…¿‹«‡ —¿›¿·«‡†–‹¿‹«‡ —¿†•‰«‡fi»»†› ˛‚§†‰‚–›–fi¿‰–·–fi¿‹¿ »†‹»··¿› ¸— ¸— ¸— º º º ˙ ˙ ˙ ˛•‰‚¿fi…•¿›‰¿fi¿ º 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)(LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: ¸·¿†… ˙˛æ ˛–‰›‡•¤»…•† ˝»“»fi¿·›–•·•‹›'»fi»…«„‚–'»“»fi '»‰–«·…†–‹…•„¿›‹¿fi–¤•‡¿‹»·§Œ •†‰‚»›˝–•·¿»¿fi»…‹–»fi»“•–«›·§…•›‹«fi»…ł–››•·§”•··‡¿‹»fi•¿· 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional © 2022 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone (772) 794-4100 www.kimley-horn.com Seminole Tribe of Florida Tamiami Government Center 57257 US-41 Ochopee, FL PROJECT NUMBER: 043239003 FIGURE 3 !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( £¤41 Preserve *Preliminary wetland delineation conducted by Kimley-Horn in August 2018. Wetland lines are subject to review and approval by SFWMD, USACE and Collier County. Legend (! Wetland Delineation Flags* Proposed Wetland Restoration (±0.10 acres) Preserve Limits (±0.41 acres) - includes restored wetlands Permanent Wetland Impacts (±0.29 acres) Proposed Demolition Limits Native Vegetation Preserved Map 1 inch =57 feet Source:Aerial courtesy of ESRI 0 70 Feet¹ FEBRUARY 2022 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Preserve Area Management Plan 1.0 Introduction Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. scientists performed a site visit on August 2019 in order to evaluate the preserve area proposed as part of the Seminole Government Center project. The project site is located north of Tamiami Trail in Collier County, Florida (Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East). A portion of the project site has been previously developed into a religious center.The proposed preserve encompasses approximately 0.41 acres within the northeastern portion of the subject property. The purpose of the site visit was to assess the current condition of the preserve in order to develop the Preserve Management Plan. 2.0 Existing Conditions The preserve area contains a cypress swamp community (FLUCFCS 621 Cypress Swamp) with significant coverage of a forested canopy with little to no shrubs or ground covers. The canopy contained exclusively pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens). There are no exotics within the cypress swamp. Another portion of the proposed preserve currently contains disturbed land (FLUCFCS 740). This area contains no vegetation, however it will be planted (as described below) and will be included within the preserve limits. 3.0 Supplemental Planting Plan As part of the Preserve Management Plan, existing native vegetation within the proposed preserve limits will be retained and protected. There are no existing exotic species therefore there is no proposed treatment for existing exotics. However, herbicide treatment of invasive-exotic species will take place if these species appear within the preserve. Supplemental plantings will take place within the disturbed land after this area is graded to the same elevation as the adjacent cypress swamp. The plantings will consist of pond cypress, which has been selected in order to mimic the existing natural plant community onsite.Cypress will be a minimum of 10 feet tall. In addition, although existing shrub and herbaceous groundcover is minimal throughout the cypress swamp, to prevent recruitment of exotics within the disturbed land, shrub and herbaceous groundcovers will be planted within this area. Shrubs will include pond apple (Annona glabra) and buttonbush (Cephalantus occidentalis). Both of these shrubs will be a minimum of 6 feet tall and spacing will be 6 feet on center. Groundcovers will include blue hyssop (Bacopa caroliniana), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and needle spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis). The groundcover species will be planted bareroot. Details regarding each plant species is shown on the below table. All plants will be obtained from a local native nursery. 4.0 Preserve Management The preserve area will be protected,and its status monitored by the assigned Preserve Manager, which will be the Seminole Tribe of Florida.Activities precluded from the preserve area include any type of development, the removal of native vegetation, dumping, and mowing. Protective signage will be placed on each side of the preserve to identify and protect it. This will include a total of three below. Due to the preserve being adjacent to cypress swamp, no fire management activities or additional wildlife habitat management strategies are recommended. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The preserve will be monitored on an annual basis, or more frequently if required, to ensure it functions as intended. Following each monitoring event, a report will be prepared to include the percent coverage of native and invasive-exotic species,photographs taken from the permanent field locations, and any recent maintenance activities. The report will also address the following success criteria to be demonstrated five years following the installation of the plant material: a) 80% vegetative coverage has been attainted within the preserve. b) Native vegetation is within the range of species diversity, density and distribution documented within reference sites or from literature references for the specific habitat types. c) Native vegetation characteristic of the habitat type are reproducing in the vegetative or seeding manner typical of the species. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - - - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Several members of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) contributed to this project. First, the Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Archaeology Section (STOF -TAS) would like to thank the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Paul Backhouse, THPO Director Anne Mullins, and THPO Assistant Director Juan Cancel. Research Assistant Dave Scheidecker conducted a records search of the Seminole Site Files. Architectural Historian Carrie Dilley reviewed the project for possible impacts to standing structures. The project was supervised by Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Mahoney. Fieldwork was performed by Karen Brunso and Maureen Mahoney (Archaeologists). Former Compliance Review Supervisor Bradley Mueller, Current Compliance Review Supervisor David Echeverry, and Compliance Review Specialist Victoria Menchaca offered insight regarding compliance with the STOF Cultural Resource Ordinance (CRO) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). We also wish to acknowledge the Environmental Resource Management Department (ERMD), for providing essential help and information throughout this project. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The Glover Property project (THPO Project Number 2013-050) involves the construction of a governmental building, which includes utilities, water, sewer, cable, and internet (see Appendix 1 for site plan). According to Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), no construction will occur around the canal and no new plants will be added; existing plants will remain in that area. The project is receiving funding from the Seminole Tribe of Florida, though it requires a compliance review pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, investigations and a compliance review are also required pursuant to the STOF CRO (C-01-16). The Glover Property area of potential effect (APE) is rectangular in shape and measures at its greatest extent approximately 135 meters (432 feet) north to south by 61 meters (198 feet) east to west. The total area of the APE is 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres). The 2013-050 APE is located on the Tamiami Trail, Collier County, Florida, within Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East. The APE is bound to the north by a vacant lot, to the east by parking lots, to the south by buildings, and to the west by the Tamiami Trail. In order to investigate the Glover Property APE, the TAS completed both background archival research and a cultural resources field survey. The background archival research was undertaken so as to identify potentially significant resources or previously conducted determination of an appropriate field investigation methodology. Background research identified six sites and two resource features that are located within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE. One resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, overlaps the current APE. The other resource feature, 08CR00927, US-41, is within 30 meters (98 feet) of the current APE. Both resource features are eligible for the Tribal Register of Historic Places (TRHP) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A review of the THPO Database also shows that there are six previously completed surveys within 1,000 meters (3,28 feet1) of the APE. None of these surveys overlap the current APE. Field investigations, which included a pedestrian survey and shovel testing, recorded no new sites. However, since 08CR00928 (Tamiami Canal) and 08CR00927 (Tamiami Trail) are within the APE or within 30 meters (98 feet) of the APE, it was necessary to assess these resource features for impacts by the current undertaking. Based on this assessment, the TAS agrees with previous recommendations that both resource features are eligible for the NRHP. Additionally, the TAS recommends that both resource features are eligible for the TRHP. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Based on the investigations for the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends that re- source feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature 08CR00928, Tamiami Ca- nal, are eligible for listing on the TRHP, under criterion i, a property that the Seminole peo- ple consider important to history. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a finding of cultural resources not adversely affected. Based on the investigation of the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends, in con- currence with previous findings by the SHPO, Janus Research, Inc., and Archaeological Consulting, Inc., that resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal are eligible for listing on the NRHP, under criteria A, Commu- nity, Planning, and Development, and C, Engineering. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Direc- tor), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a find- ing of historic properties not adversely affected per Section 106 of the NHPA. The TAS finds no other issues of concern regarding cultural resources and recommends that the undertaking, as originally proposed in THPO Project Request Number 2013-050 be permitted to proceed. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Section 106 Compliance: Assessing Historic Properties 2 1.2.1 Criteria for Evaluation 2 1.2.2 Criteria Considerations 2 1.2.3 Integrity 3 1.3 Seminole Tribe of Florida Cultural Resource Ordinance Compliance: Assessing Cultural Resources 4 1.3.1 Criteria for Evaluation 4 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Research Design 5 2.2 Archival Research 5 2.3 Architectural Analysis 9 2.4 Seminole Cultural Site Analysis 9 2.5 Archaeological Field Survey 9 2.5.1 Pedestrian Survey Methods 9 2.5.2 Shovel Test Methods 9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.1 Environmental Context 12 3.1.1 Geomorphology and Soil Assessment 12 3.1.2 Fauna and Vegetation 13 3.2 Cultural Context 15 3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000 7500 BC)15 3.2.2 Archaic Period (500 BC -AD 1750)15 3.2.3 Formative Era (1000 BC AD 1700) 16 3.2.4 Contact Period to the Seminole Wars 19 3.2.5 Seminole War Period (1816-1858 AD)25 3.2.6 Post War Seminoles in the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp 26 3.3 The 20th Century in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades 28 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 4.1 Archival Research Results 33 4.1.1 Probability Zones Assessment 34 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 4.2 Architectural Analysis Results 35 4.3 Archaeological Field Survey Results 35 4.3.1 Pedestrian Survey Results 35 4.3.2 Shovel Test Results 35 4.4.3 Resource Feature Results 39 4.4 Field Photographs 64 4.5 Conclusion and Recommendations 66 4.6 Unanticipated Discoveries 68 SURVEY LOG 69 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FORMS 71 APPENDIX 1 75 REFERENCES CITED 76 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Figure 1. 2013 Aerial Photograph of the Glover Property APE.6 Figure 2. Topographic Map of the Glover Property APE.7 Figure 3. 1980 Aerial Photograph of the Glover Property APE.8 Figure 4. Probability Zone Locations within the Glover Property APE.11 Figure 5. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of the Glover Property APE. 14 Figure 6. Florida Indigenous Settlements in the early 1700s.24 Figure 7. 1930 Map of Seminole Camp Locations made by Indian Agent Roy Nash.32 Figure 8. Shovel Test Locations within the Glover Property APE.37 Figure 9. Location of Resource Groups Overlapping and within 30 Meters of the Glover Property APE.38 Figure 10. Map of Resource Feature 08CR00927.44 Figure 11. Map of Resource Feature 08CR00928.58 Table 1. Previous Surveys within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) of the Glover Property APE.33 Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites and Resource Features within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the Glover Property APE.34 Table 3. Shovel Test Descriptions for the Glover Property APE.36 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Photograph 1. Captain James F. Jaudon.45 Photograph 2. Blazing a Trail Through Swamps and Everglades.45 Photograph 3. Tamiami Trail Blazers holding sign.46 Photograph 4. Barron G. Collier.46 Photograph 5. Seminole Indians on the courthouse steps in Everglades City during opening of the Tamiami Trail.47 Photograph 6. Town of Everglades celebrates the opening of the Tamiami Trail.47 Photograph 7. View down the road along canal.48 Photograph 8. Two cars running on the road by canal.48 Photograph 9. Along Tamiami Trails in the Florida Everglades.49 Photograph 10. Seminole on the Tamiami Trail, Florida.49 50 Photograph 12. Seminole Indian John Osceola and his daughter doing the family wash on the Tamiami Trail, 1956. 50 Trail.51 51 Photograph 15. Aerial view of the Tamiami Trail at Miami-Dade County, Florida.52 Photograph 16. Seminole Indian village along the Tamiami Trail in Florida.52 Photograph 17. A dredge at work in the Tamiami Canal, Miami Region, Florida.59 Photograph 18. Palms along the Tamiami Canal.59 Photograph 19. Barges on the Tamiami Canal, Tamiami Trail, Florida.60 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Photograph 20. Seminoles in canal bordering the Tamiami Trail, Everglades.60 Photograph 21. Seminole woman Nellie Tommie and her son in a wooden canoe.61 Photograph 22. Seminole Indians in the heart of the Florida Everglades.61 Photograph 23. Seminole Indian village along Tamiami Trail in Florida.62 Photograph 24. Indian village on the Tamiami Trail.62 Photograph 25. Landscape view taken from the Tamiami Trail.63 Photograph 26. General view of the APE facing north from Shovel Test 1.64 Photograph 27. General view of the APE facing east from Shovel Test 1.64 Photograph 28. General view of the APE facing south from Shovel Test 1.65 Photograph 29. General view of the APE facing west from Shovel Test 1.65 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional -01-16), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800.16 (d), a cultural resources survey must be completed in order to determine if cultural resources or historic properties will be impacted by a proposed undertaking (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). In order to fulfil these requirements, the Tribal Archaeology Section (TAS) conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glover Property (THPO Project Number 2013-050) project on June 4, 2013. area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the the full range of possible impacts, both direct and indirect must be considered. This includes effects that may result from the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements on a historic resources setting. The proposed Glover Property project consists of the construction of a governmental building, which includes utilities, water, sewer, cable, and internet (see Appendix 1 for site plan). According to Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), no construction will occur around the canal and no new plants will be added; existing plants will remain in that area.The initial project request was submitted by Whitney Sapienza (Environmental Resources Management Department) through the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (STOF) and was assigned a Project Number of 2013-050 (Figure 1). The APE is rectangular in shape and measures at its greatest extent approximately 135 meters (432 feet) north to south by 61 meters (198 feet) east to west. The total area of the APE is 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres). The 2013-050 APE is located on the Tamiami Trail, Collier County, Florida, within Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East. The APE is bound to the north by a vacant lot, to the east by a parking lot, to the south by buildings, and to the west by the Tamiami Trail. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Cultural resources identified during this survey were evaluated to determine their NRHP eligibility. When conducting this evaluation the following factors are considered (from Na- tional Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation). The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: a. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of con- struction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic val- ues, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their orig- inal locations,reconstructed historic buildings,properties primarily commemorative in na- ture, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following cat- egories: a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic dis- tinction or historical importance; or b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most im- portantly associated with a historic person or event; or c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; or 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional d. A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of trans- cendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbol- ic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Properties must also retain integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. Seven Aspects of Integrity Location Design Setting Materials Workmanship Feeling Association To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Cultural resources identified during this survey were evaluated to determine their TRHP eligibility. When conducting this evaluation the following factors are considered (from the Tribal Register of Historic Places Guide). a.A property that is an important event in Seminole history. b.A property that is important because of a contributing person or group in Semi- nole history. c.A property that is associated with cultural practices or beliefs of the Seminole maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community; or (c) holds sig- d.A property that is associated with human remains (e.g. burial, mortuary complex, cemetery). e.A property that is associated with other significant sites or cultural landscapes in the immediate vicinity. f.A property that is associated with a significant artifact that is unique, diagnostic, ceremonial, or funerary. g.A property that is located in a unique environmental setting for which there is few or no other examples. h.A property with architectural value that is associated with a distinct architectural style, built by a significant tribal member/ architect, displays unique craftsman- ship, age, or significant architectural features. i.A property that the Seminole people consider important to history. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The primary goals of the Phase I survey and assessment of the Glover Property project were: To identify cultural resources within the APE; To assist the STOF in preserving their cultural heritage by fulfilling the requirements of the STOF CRO; To, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, identify and evaluate the significance of any district, site, building, structure, or object that maybe be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and To develop recommendations for future management of historic properties based on their significance, as appropriate. The following sections describe methods used to complete the survey and assessment of the Glover Property project, including archival research and field survey. The TAS conducted archival research for the Glover Property project on May 21, 2013. The research consisted of determining already known site locations, the location of previous surveys, and determining the probability level for identifying additional cultural resources within the APE. In accordance with the standards and guidelines contained in Rule 1A-46, F.A.C., resources utilized for this research included public records on file with the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), the FMSF GIS layer, the STOF -THPO GIS database (Figure 1), the Seminole Site File (SSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (Figure 2), 1980 aerial photography (Figure 3), and the USDA -NRCS soil survey (Figure 4), as well as unpublished cultural resource documents on file at the STOF -THPO. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional An architectural analysis is conducted of the project's APE for the presence of historic structures/buildings. Archival and documentary investigations focused on those structures fifty years old or older. Historic physical integrity is determined from background research including site observations, analysis of field data, and examination of photographic documentation. This analysis is performed in consultation with an Architectural Historian. Seminole Cultural Sites (i.e., clan camps, medicinal plant gathering areas, etc.). This analysis is performed in consultation with Tribal advisers. The archaeological field survey included pedestrian walkover and shovel test excavation across the APE. Prior to fieldwork the TAS conducted background research that highlighted cultural and environmental features of the APE, through which the TAS determined that the APE contained both moderate and low probability zones with respect to the likelihood of containing cultural resources (Figure 4). The moderate probability zone was located in the northern portion of the APE due to the presence of a cypress dome in that area and since oral histories suggest that the edges of these regions were used for cleaning animals after hunting. The low probability zone was situated in the southern portion of the APE due to previous development in that region. The pedestrian survey conducted by the TAS included examination of the ground surface and of any exposed tree roots, tree falls, etc., when moving between shovel test locations. The pedestrian survey serves the dual purpose of identifying cultural material and also determining if there are elevation changes within the APE. Fluctuations in land elevation are usually associated with Tree Island hammocks which are approximately 20 to 30 centimeters (8 to 12 inches) higher than surrounding landforms. Site locations often correlate with these hammocks. As part of the moderate probability methodology, the TAS field crew excavated shovel tests at 40 meter (131 foot) intervals within the APE. Shovel tests were not excavated in areas that had standing water.No shovel tests were excavated in the low probability zone since it contained previous development and construction fill. Shovel tests measured 50 centimeters (20 inches) in diameter and were excavated to a depth of 100 centimeters (39 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional inches) below the ground surface (cmbs) unless bedrock, water, or compact marl/calcium carbonate was encountered.All excavated soils were sifted through 6 millimeter (0.25 inch) wire mesh in order to recover any cultural materials that may be present. Shovel test infor- mation was recorded using standard TAS shovel test forms which provide fields for record- ing data including soil type and color (using Munsell Soil Color Chart Notation), soil strata depth relative to the ground surface, soil disturbance types and extent, artifact content, UTM coordinates (using NAD 83), and local environmental type. All hard-copy forms and related information are stored on the Big Cypress Reservation in the THPO building in the associated project folder, and stored electronically in the THPO Database in its correspond- ing electronic project folder (2013-050). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional To understand and evaluate cultural resources, it is necessary to identify the larger context within which they occur. In this chapter, we present details about the local environment to provide a context to use in assessing cultural resources. The landscape within the area of the Tamiami Trail formed due to successive layers being deposited by periods fluctuating between high and low sea levels. Low sea levels were marked by weathering and erosion. These events created the bedrock and cap rock that abounds near the Tamiami Trail. Further successive sea level changes created the marls that would produce the limestone and fill the solution holes and empty places left by the original deposits. Marl normally occurs in wet prairie plant communities, or as lenses in the organic layer. Due to the accumulation of activity that occurred ca. 5,000 BP, it is probable that the peat deposits began at that time. The date of marl deposit is particularly important since cultural material is often found under the marl. Presently, the Tamiami Trail geology can be described as consisting of undifferentiated Pleistocene/Holocene and shelly Pleistocene deposits (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2001: Florida Geologic Stratigraphy Data, Map Series 146). The landscape of Tamiami Trail crosses through part of the Big Cypress Swamp which constitutes lands directly to the south of Lake Okeechobee. The Trail also crosses through multiple sloughs and marshes which are part of what remains of the Everglades post drainage (McVoy, et al. 2011). Prior to drainage, the Big Cypress Swamp was comprised mostly of inundated areas, though tree island hammocks did abound. These hammocks, or tree islands, generally remained dry due to the fact that they rose 20-40 centimeters (8-16 -drop shape with a blunt, rounded, up-gradient head and a long, drawn- 31). The shape was presumably caused by flooding that frequently occurs in the Big Cypress Swamp. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The USDA-NRCS soil survey indicated that there are two soil types present within the APE: Tamiami and Holopaw Sand (Figure 5). The USDA-NRCS defines the Tamiami series as consisting of very poorly drained organic soils that are moderately deep and deep to limestone. The Holopaw series consists of deep and very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils formed in sandy marine sediments. Due to climate changes the landscape in the area of the Tamiami Trail has undergone numerous vegetation changes. For example, the climate of 18,000 BP consisted of a cooler, drier, and windier weather that led to a largely treeless vegetation (Griffin 2002). Over the course of the next 13,000 years, the climate become wetter. This change brought about a diversity of flora, specifically oak (Quercus virginiana ), myrtle (Quercus mrytifolias), hazelnut, birch (Betula populifolia), ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), willow (Sideroxylon salicifolium), cypress (Taxodium distichum), cattail (Typha latifolia), and elm (Ulmus Americana). By 5,000 BP, the basic modern flora was in place. This flora included some plants with tropical affinities, but for the most part, temperate species dominated and were the most abundant (Griffin 2002). The plant species consist most notably of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), saw palmetto (Serenoa serrulata), citrus trees (Citrus aurantium), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), green briar, ivy, pasture grass (Ischnodemus variegatus), soda apple (Solanum viarum), gator flag, and the previously noted species. Normally, tree island hammocks contain palm, palmetto, oak, wild coffee, and citrus. Fauna near the Tamiami Trail included a wide variety of fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals. Griffin (2002:339-348) provides an exhaustive list of the different species. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The first Prehistoric occupants of Florida consisted of the Paleo-Indian population (10000 BC 7500 BC). The earliest documented evidence for human occupation in South Florida comes from the Little Salt and Warm Mineral Springs sites in Sarasota County (central west Florida) where radiocarbon dates of 10000 and 8000 BC have been obtained. The Gulf -Indian occupations presently is limited to a few sites. Excavations at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County have yielded significant data on this little known period. Many Paleo-Indian sites can be found near deep springs, small watering holes, and shallow allowed access to was not only to utilize the water source, but also to be near game, including mega fauna, as a food source. An example of such activity can be seen at sites such as Little Salt Springs. After about 7500 BC glaciers melted and sea levels rose. The climate, therefore, became wetter and provided more water sources around which the Paleo -Indian groups could camp. With the appearance of more water sources for Paleo-Indian camps. Later, Paleo-Indian populations were able to transition from nomadic to semi- nomadic (Milanich 1994). Their campsites tended to be located near water sources, as well as by outcrops of chert-bearing limestone. Paleo-Indian sites can generally be identified by -convex, steeply - Indian occupation of the Big Cypress Reservation. This is primarily because the majority of Paleo-Indian sites are located offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. - Cultural development, sedentary living, and environmental changes characterized the Archaic period, which was brought on by the onset of the Holocene. Within the Archaic period there are three separate periods of cultural activity: Early (7500 BCE 5000 BC), Middle (5000 BC 1600 BC), and Late Archaic (1600 BC 500 BC). The climate was much wetter than before, but drier than the modern climate (Milanich 1995). After 5000 BC, the climate began to ameliorate, becoming more like modern conditions. By the Late Archaic period, the environment of Florida was essentially like the modern climate (Milanich 1995). The archaeological record demonstrates that as the population became less nomadic, the size of settlements increased. Decreases in large game animals and the demand of a large population caused a switch to coastal and riverine resources for a stable food supply. Depending upon the number of resources available, the people started splintering into smaller family groups and tribal bands. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Larger bands that had spent months collecting specific food resources as a single entity now began to divide into smaller units in order to meet demands of their growing bands. Florida dating from the Archaic Period. Due to the changes in faunal populations, many of the projectile points utilized in the Paleo-Indian period were no longer produced in the Archaic period due to large scale changes in faunal population. This was primarily due to the demise of many mega fauna species at the close of the Pleistocene. The tools during the Archaic period seem to have been produced quickly and show use-wear patterns, which imply the usage of tools for mul- tiple tasks. Many bone tools also date to the Archaic period and have been extensively col- lected from Florida rivers. This again illustrates a change to water resources for both foods and tools. The specialization of tools seems to have been perfected during this time period. Pottery making emerged during the Late Archaic period. The Late Archaic peoples inhabit- and a less arid climate. Hardwood forests and savannas were replaced eventually by pine forests. Seasonal exploitation of the food resources resulted from this changing environ- ment. The food resources seem to have included small game, nuts, plants, and marine and freshwater resources. Coastal resources were heavily used during the Archaic period along the Gulf of Mexico. The Formative Era in South Florida is divided into three cultural regions: Okeechobee, Ca- loosahatchee, and Glades. However, many scholars argue that these people shared similar cultural practices (Milanich 1994:77). The location of the Glover Property APE lies within the Glades cultural region. The Glades peoples occupied the Everglades throughout Hendry, Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties; as well as the Big Cypress Swamp located west of the Ever- glades in Collier County; and the saltwater marshes and mangrove forests in Broward and Dade Counties (Milanich 1994). Glades people relied on both marine and terrestrial species for subsistence.; peoples of this period range widely in settlement patterns. The TAS recognizes the Glades culture as being divided into three distinct periods: Glades I (500 BC AD 750), Glades II (750 BC AD 1200), and Glades III (AD 1200 1750). These periods are distinguished by the various types of ceramics which appeared throughout the archaeological record.The Glades cultural region was associated with ce- ramics that were shaped by the coiling method. Also, bowls with incurving walls and rims were typically associated with these sites. In some cases, modeled pottery was also found in context with Glades period sites. Motifs for Glades decorative ceramics include linear and curvilinear incision and rim ticking. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The ceramic type Glades Tooled, which appears late in the pre-Columbian period, exhibits elaborate lip treatments, either pitched, folded or dowel impressed (Milanich; 1994). Other decorated pottery types included incised, punctuated, check stamp, and plain wares that were different from one area to the next in tempering and paste. Chert deposits have not been found within the Glades cultural region. Tools were made from imported chert, sedimentary rocks (such as limestone and sandstone), shell, or faunal bone (Milanich 1994). Tools created from sedimentary rocks and shell include: hones, abraders, hammers, plummets, picks, adzes, celts, gouges, chisels, awls, knives, scrapers, cups, and dippers. Tools made from faunal bone include: pins, awls, fids, points, perforators, as well as cutting and engraving tools. The most commonly used resources for utilitarian tools were deer bone or antler, fish spines, stingray tail spines, and shark teeth (Milanich 1994). The extensive use of faunal remains further exemplifies the versatility of the Glades people of South Florida. Glades peoples constructed earthworks along ponds, canals, rivers, borrows, ditches, and mounds. Although regional differences occurred, archaeologists argue that Glades people utilized waterways and constructed complex social groups around these environments. Within the interior of South Florida, Glades peoples inhabited the small tree islands or hammocks. These islands were inhabited for the flora, fauna, and surrounding wetland resources. The Glades I period is very well represented in the Big Cypress Swamp (Widmer 1988). The Glades I period can be subdivided into: Glades IA 500 BC AD 500: No decorated ceramics appear, but the period contains sand-tempered and Glades Plain. Glade IB 500 BC AD 750: Includes Sanibel Incised, Fort Drum Incised and Punctuated. Ceramic decoration in south Florida was developed by AD 500 (though sand tempered plain ware continued to be used) with the inception of the Fort Drum decorated series. This period can accurately be subdivided into three sub periods based on the frequency of decorated ceramic styles. Glades IIA AD 750-900: Includes the appearance of Key Largo Incised, Opa Locka Incised and Miami Incised. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Glades IIB AD 900-1100: Key Largo incised is still the majority decorated type of pottery; some incisions on rim and lip grooving; Matecumbe Incised appears as does more incurving bowls (Milanich 1994). Glades IIC AD 1100-1200: Decorated ceramics begin to cease in majority. Some ceramics have grooved lips that appear. Plantation Pitched is seen in small amounts. During the Glades III period, the use of incised decorations returned and trade wares become more prevalent. The emerging prevalence of trade ware reflects a sociopolitical transition. This demonstrates what scholars refer to as a pan-Florida trading network (Widmer 1988). By the end of the Glades III period, European trade goods are also introduced in the region. This time period is associated with many ethnohistorical groups such as the Tequesta, the Key Indians, and the Calusa. Glades IIIA AD 1200-1400: One particular ceramic type of this period is the Surfside Incised, which is similar to Mississippian-like wares present in the north. than other pottery types, the appearance of Safety Harbor Incised symbols and motifs can be found within this period. Glades III AD 1300-1500: This period is marked by a decrease in the decorated ceramic types. The majority of the type present is Glades tooled rims. The bodies of these vessels are undecorated with a shallow bowl appearance (Milanich 1994). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The first contact between the indigenous people of Florida and Europeans occurred in 1513 when Ponce de Leon arrived in Florida near present day Tampa. Documentary evi- dence written by Euro-American scholars suggests that, following this arrival, the popula- tions of Florida were decimated by warfare and pathogens to the point that not a single liv- itants of Florida were destroyed over the period of 1513 to 1763, the story concludes and the people known today as Seminoles are an indistinct amalgam of survivors from tribes noles were thought of as outsiders, originating elsewhere and coming to Florida in a series of migrations, settling on land and sites that were once occupied by now extinct people (Wright 1986:5). It is problematic for Americans to state that Florida had lost its entire pop- ulation of indigenous groups for two primary reasons. First, this glosses over large amounts of contradictory evidence from oral histories and radiocarbon dates that highlight the an- cestral claim the Seminoles have on Florida. Second, this belief means that the indigenous people who later occupied Florida could have no prior claim on the land, making the area open for settlement by the Europeans and Americans (Wickman 1999:1). - contact groups from Florida and other southeastern populations. The people the Spanish encountered belonged to a Mississippian tradition that spanned the United States and in- hough not encountered by the Spanish, the interior of South Florida was also populated at this time with occupants settled on tree islands throughout the Everglades. These people participated in long distance trade and created platform mounds, many of which are still visible on the landscape today. Many oral histories from modern day Seminoles highlight the connection between these people and their ancestors. For example, a recording made at the Green Corn Dance ceremony on the Brighton Reservation in 1932 features songs about the Calusa and reveals an ancestral link (Densmore 1956). The Green Corn ceremony itself suggests a link between the modern and Mississippian people since this ritual has its roots in the platform mounds that were common throughout the Mississippian period (Wickman 1999:30). Seminole Tribe member Marty Bowers was always taught that he was a part of the Calusa, the Tequesta, or the Jaega (Bowers and Brindenstine 2017:25). The belief that these ancestral groups are extinct most likely stems from the cultural changes that each were undergoing during the post-contact period. For Europeans, the Calusa, Tequesta, and other cultural groups were static and non-adaptive, and their cultural makeup could only include what was written about them upon their encounter (Wickman 1999:2). If their cul- tural makeup changed, it meant that the group simply no longer existed. In the 1800s, the United States purposefully went out of their way to make sure that the native people in 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Florida were thought of as outsiders. In order to make use of the fertile soil within Florida, the United States simply declared all indigenous populations in that area to be part of the Creek Nation. Like other native populations at the time, the Creek were labeled as such based on the English word that merely described the environment in which the people lived. In actuality, those labeled as Creeks consisted of at least 150 different linguistic groups (Wright 1986: 2, Wickman 1999:36). These groups were then lumped together as the Creek Nation. From this linguistic group comes the phrase isti Semoli their Creek allies began to refer to these people as Seminole. By changing the terminology, the United States government modified how these people were viewed, primarily so that land acquisition could occur easily (Frank 2014:278). Although the term Seminole has often been thought to have derived from the Spanish term cimmarron, the meaning and essence of names of the people living in and using the territory of Florida were of European construct and were not created by the native populations themselves. Instead, there were a variety of groups in Florida that were once known by different names and were simply lumped into the broad category of Seminole Creek by the Europeans, the United States, and Creek allies. While these people were comprised of different groups, it is likely that they were all interconnected through lines of communication, trade, warfare, and reciprocity (Wickman 1999:72). descended from both native pre-contact Floridians as well as people that the Europeans encountered in Georgia, Alabama, and other locations throughout the southeast. Although - contact and contact periods came and went freely across state boundaries for thousands of years. People could have been moving during this time because of warfare, trade, communications, hunting, or marriage purposes (Wickman 1999:55). For example, fight [Creek War] and Creek leaders have always known the Everglades, they hunted and -5). Seminole Tribal member Billy Walker, a fourth generation descendant from those who fought in the Seminole Wars, noted that his clan, Panther Clan, is an older clan and comes from those Creek people who traveled to South Florida and had children with members of the Calusa Furthermore, groups of indigenous people, such as the Shawnee, who now reside outside of Florida, remember the territory once serving as their home (Wickman 1999:37). One Shawnee elder in Ohio recounted in 1819 that he came from West Florida near the Suwanee River and the sea. These accounts demonstrate a stark contrast to previous research that suggests that the Seminoles are not the direct descendants of the pre-contact Florida Natives, simply because they would not have crossed modern geopolitical boundaries (Wickman 1999:11). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Information regarding contact period settlements in the literature is relatively sparse. Sites in South Florida dating prior to the eighteenth century are generally labeled as being related to particular cultural groups, though archaeologists rarely make ties between these groups and the Seminole. Settlements specifically associated with the Seminoles do not emerge in the literature until the eighteenth century and their characteristics are often based on early European accounts. Archaeological evidence of occupations at sites prior to this time and continuing into the eighteenth century would potentially highlight the tie between suppos- edly culturally extinct groups and modern Seminoles. For example, one site on the Brighton Reservation shows continuous occupation from approximately 375 B.C. until at least 1630 AD and highlights that the area was used even after Spanish contact. Due to the lack of in- formation available regarding pre-eighteenth century sites and their ties to modern day Seminole, this cultural summary will primarily focus on the historical documentation of set- tlements beginning in the early 1700s. However, future archaeological work focused on this period will allow us to gain more knowledge about the changing cultures and understand how this is reflected in the settlement make up. Investigation of contact period sites within South Florida generally focus on Spanish ac- counts of the people living there. Radiocarbon dates from sites in this region show occupa- tion of large sites until roughly 1715 AD, approximately 200 years after the Spanish made contact with this area (Thompson et al 2016). According to Worth (2013:769), the sites of Mound Key and Pineland, both important Calusa centers, continued to be occupied from the time of Spanish contact until potentially the eighteenth century. However, at Pineland, the level of occupation during these latter periods was substantially less than the pre- contact occupations. Archaeologically, the Spanish arrival is noted in the appearance of Eu- ropean cultural material, such as Spanish majolica, though most of these items were only associated with the elite (Worth 2013:777). Although cultural material from this time is clear in the archaeological record, it is not known yet how site settlement patterns and lay- out changed within this period. While the Spanish made definitive contact with those people living along the southwest terior populations. As mentioned previously, one site, 77BR00010, on the Brighton Reser- vation has a clear radiocarbon date from 1630 AD. Two sites on the Big Cypress Reserva- tion, 77BC00056 and 77BC00116, have four dates from faunal bone that date roughly to a from 1570 +/-20 AD to 1640 +/-20 AD. This site also has clear documented use within the 19th century as a trading post for Waxy Hadjo. While there are very few sites within South Florida that have known 18th century radiocarbon dates, there are numerous villages 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional and towns in northern Florida that date to that period. However, these later sites are often labeled as Creek towns without thought for any pre-existing Florida populations living within them. Information regarding settlements in the 1700s is relegated to north and central Florida and predominately relates to people moving from Georgia and Alabama to the Alachua savanna of Florida. According to the STOF THPO GIS Portal (a web based map showing all Semi- nole related sites throughout the world), only three sites are associated with this period (Figure 6). Towns from the early eighteenth century were generally located in oak-hickory uplands, around ponds or lakes, or on ridgelines (Weisman 1989:4). The sites have a low artifact density, contain brushed pottery, and often go undiscovered. However, some of the early sites listed as pioneer cabins may have been inaccurately labeled and were actually in- digenous homesteads from this period (personal communication, Gary Ellis, 2016). By the mid-1700s, the villages encountered by Europeans were large and permanent in na- ture. By 1774, there were a number of documented, autonomously functioning Seminole towns (Weisman 2014:396). The largest of these towns were located on the banks of the Suwanee, the hammocks of the middle St. Johns River, and on the Chocachatti Prairie near Brooksville (Weisman 2014:396) (see Figure 6). During this time, people living in these towns were matrilocal, meaning that married couples resided in domiciles near or with the scent, where everything, including social status and clan membership, was inherited through tations, often had outlying settlements, and contained a squareground (Weisman 1989:43). Individual domiciles would also be located around this squareground area. The square- ground in these towns was the center of both the social life and settlements of the Creek and early Seminoles (Covington 1993; Weisman 1989, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). The central squareground was typically surrounded by four pavilions, which were constructed on the north, south, east, and west sides of the square. Usage of the number four, as seen in the construction of the squareground, remained pivotal in later camps; for example, when four logs were used to build the fire. To date, the number four remains important to the Semi- nole Tribe as it is an important piece of their religious functions. This highlights that while construction styles and settlement types changed, the basic cosmographic facets remained relatively constant. Artifacts recovered from these early towns include Lamar and Chatta- hoochee Brushed pottery as well as the Leon-Jefferson series, which is associated with the Florida Mission period. Other artifacts from this time period include British military but- tons, razors, and knives, as well as personal adornments, such as buckles, silver coins, and glass beads. Although the pottery is of utilitarian ware, the metal and glass objects suggest trade with Europeans during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, there is evidence of change in settlement patterns. This new pattern was better-suited for an agro- pastoralist subsistence lifestyle in which both agriculture and livestock were important commodities. This agro-pastoralist settlement style featured domiciles that were more widely dispersed and no longer centered around a squareground. These settlements were situated to maximize the subsistence potential of the land. Ideal land would include well- drained upland soils for crops such as maize, wetlands for rice agriculture, and pasture land for horses and cattle (Covington 1993; McReynolds 1957; Milanich 1995, 1998; Weisman 1989, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). Along with more dispersed domiciles, there were also multiple outbuildings that were historically documented to have been used as corn cribs, stables, cleared agricultural fields (Weisman 2000b:145). A similar type of structure was recorded at the Billy Bowlegs III camp on the Brighton Reservation. This structure, termed a tufto, was round in shape and was once thought to have been used to dry corn and other food, but structure at any other camp on Brighton, but stated that her grandmother Lucy had told her that she had a tufto at the camp where she grew up, though this location is unknown of the older camps once had these structures but they had gone out of fashion over people used these structures during the Seminole war period since camps during that time were constantly being moved due to prolonged warfare. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The nineteenth century witnessed three distinct wars fought on Florida soil: the First Seminole War (1816-1818), the Second Seminole War (1835-1842), and the Third Seminole War (1855-1858). It was the second of these wars that split the Seminole people into two separate groups. This war was fought over the Removal of the Seminoles from Florida and into reservation lands in Oklahoma. While this war never actually ended (Weisman [2000a] claims it simply faded away), the Americans removed several thousand Seminoles to Oklahoma over the course of the war. Hundreds more were removed to Oklahoma at the end of the Third Seminole as well, which left only an approximate two hundred Seminole in the Florida Peninsula. Weisman (2000a:302) stated that: By 1860, approximately 200 Seminoles remained in Florida, drastically reduced from an deported during the war era, numbering at least 4,000, were the founding population for the federally recognized Seminole [Nation] of Oklahoma. During this time period, there was a great deal of change in Seminole culture, especially during the Second Seminole War. Prior to the Second Seminole War, settlement patterns continued to follow the plantation-style settlements. The war, however, brought a disruption to this pattern. During, as well as after, the war the Seminoles in Florida began following a settlement pattern that was more traditional. This settlement form was based on the Creek huti, which were the matrilocal residences that made up a talwa. Alexander Spoehr (1941) called these istihapo. These clan camps were centered around a square ground (MacCauley 1887; Weisman 1989, 1999). This is clearly a reversion to former traditions. One change from the older squareground pattern was that rather than utilizing framed domiciles, the use of the famous Seminole chickee gains popularity. These constructions greatly resemble the buildings that surround the actual square ground in the traditional Creek talwa settlements in that they are a thatched roof over a wooden platform (these would have been wooden benches in the construction that surrounded the talwa squareground. Another of these reversions lies in the realm of material culture. Prior to the Second Seminole War the Seminole used European and American ceramics in overwhelming percentages over their indigenous brushed form of pottery. During and after the war, however, European and American ceramics are completely lacking from Seminole archaeological sites, while Seminole brushed pottery is found in abundance (Weisman 2000a). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional During the war we see the rise to prominence many of the miccos such as Micanopy and Coacoochee, as well as war leaders such as Asi Yahola. The tradition of changing leadership during times of war and peace persisted during this time. Scholars agree that during this time a singular authority arose among the Seminole peoples in Florida. There were several miccos operating during this time (each one associated with a specific clan), but they deferred to a paramount micco, who during the war was Micanopy (Covington 1993; MacCauley 1887; Mahon 1967; McReynolds 1957; Missall and Missall 2004; Porter 1996; Weisman 1999). This continued in Florida throughout the remainder of this temporal period. While the Green Corn Dance was practiced before and after the wars, it provided the Seminoles with a sense of group cohesion which meant a larger pool of warriors to draw from for the conflict. While there are no descriptions of the actual ceremonies that took many more held throughout the state. Directly after the war, however, there were additions to the ceremony. They added the use of medicine bundles. This was unique among the groups of the Southeast that practiced this ceremony (Hudson 1975; Weisman 1999). According to Weisman (1999), these medicine bundles were utilized in ceremony to give warriors supernatural powers in war. The end date for the Third Seminole War is used to determine the resolution of this period in history. In March 1858, Billy Bowlegs gathered with white officials to discuss removal of the Seminoles to what is known today as Oklahoma, yet no treaty was signed (Missall and Missall 2004). While research shows that there was a period of nearly unbroken violence from 1680 to 1858, the Seminole Wars, according to historians, started in 1816 with the First Seminole War (Missall and Missall 2004). The year 1856 marks the time during the Third Seminole War when the Florida Governor increased the number of federal troops to protect the Florida settlers (Covington 1993). After the end of the Seminole Wars in 1858, the remaining indigenous populations, consisting of what are now called Seminole, Miccosukee, and Traditionalists/Independents, continued to live in isolation. They made their camps around Lake Okeechobee and in the dense thickets of the Big Cypress Swamp and the Everglades. The Seminoles that settled in the swamps used elevated areas usually containing clumps of palm or oak trees called tree 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional -thatched open-sided houses built around family in the camp had its own house. This dwelling served as sleeping quarters, a storage place for clothes, food, bedding, and other equipment in the house. According to Covington (1993:205), the equipment included mosquito nets, sewing machine, and in some cases, lard cans, and portable phonograph and records. The members of the permanent camps cultivated small plots during the summer and hunted from temporary camps for skins and meats during the winter. These Seminole camps contained garden plots that had potatoes, squash, corn, pumpkins, and bananas. All members of a clan lived in the same camp, except the married men who, due to the camps (Covington 1993: 149). The only time these camps came together was for occasions such as the Green Corn Dance and the Hunting Dance. The location of the Seminole camps made it difficult for anyone other than a Seminole to find the camp. One ethnographer, Clay MacCauley (1884), wrote that he had difficulty locations of the homes of the Seminole and also to the absence of routes of travel in Seminole camps or individual Seminoles, very few spoke English, making conversations scarce. For this reason, very few settlers, including MacCauley, reached and communicated with the Seminoles. Although reaching Seminole Camps was difficult, some ethnographers, such as MacCauley, were able to still garner information about the Seminole camps and life ways. MacCauley states: The Florida Indians are not nomads. They have fixed habitations: settlements in well-defined districts, permanent camps, houses or wigwams which, remain from year to year the abiding places of their families, and gardens and fields which for indefinite periods are used by the same owners [1884:25]. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The 20th Century brought drastic changes to the Big Cypress Swamp and the Everglades region. There were plans in motion to drain the Everglades, a land boom was occurring on the east coast of Florida, and the railroad had found its way to Miami. People had been moving down the west coast of Florida as well, and trading posts started popping up to accommodate the influx of settlers. This meant that there was more access than ever before to the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp which allowed white settlers the opportunity to hunt and fish in the same areas that the Seminoles had been using. In the early 1900s, the Seminoles continued to live their traditional way of life deep in the heart of the Big Cypress and Everglades swamps. They had several camps set up throughout the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades. Some were permanent in the dryer areas, while others were temporary hunting and fishing camps used to process fish and game before heading back to their primary camps. They had mastered the art of travel in the swamp lands by making shallow-draft dugout canoes from cypress trees which allowed them to travel several miles outside of their immediate camp area. They used miles of paths cut through the sawgrass to access remote areas of the swamp which allowed them to find the most productive areas to gather the resources needed to survive (Kersey Jr. 1935). By the 1910s the large influx of white settlers that had moved on to the fringes of the swamp needed a place to sell and trade their goods for supplies. Small trading posts began located in Chokoloskee, on the southwest edge of the Big Cypress Swamp, became popular spots for the Seminoles to bring furs, pelts, and plumes to trade. Opening in 1906, of the store, Ted Smallwood, was very accommodating to the Seminoles and over time he had earned the trust of the Seminoles. They would leave their money there and Mr. recollects what it was like having the Seminoles frequent the store in an interview with Charlton Tebeau of the Chokoloskee Bay Country newspaper: To the store the Indians brought mostly alligator hides and other skins. alligator hides from Miami Billy, Little Jim Dixie, Little Charlie Jumper, Little Boy Jim, Jim Tiger, Charlie Billie, Charlie Doctor and Jack Osceola. The way the account is kept shows he might have been advancing them supplies and crediting them with the hides they brought in. Seven foot hides are marked at from ninety cents to a dollar a piece. Indians kept the islanders supplied with fresh venison and wild turkeys. Sometimes they tanned deer hides and brought in the buckskin. In season 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional they might bring in such wild fruits as huckleberries. Billy Jim used to sit at his camp near the shore on the beach and carve small canoes of wood, charging from twenty-five cents to a dollar depending on the size. Father sold to the Indians hand sewing machines, sewing thread and needles, yards of calico, phonographs and records and accordions. For food he sold them mostly sugar, flour and grits. Their principle item of food was sofkee which they liked to make from coarse grits and cook for hours. Formerly, they had grown their own corn and prepared it with mortar and pestle to make the sofkee. When we first knew them they would often roast garfish or turtles or bear meat at their camp fires, but more and more as time went on they bought grits and boiled the sofkee (Kersey Jr. 1935). For the Seminoles, the trips to the trading post may have been some of the only friendly encounters with white folks they had ever had. They generally kept their distance from whites while out in the swamp, but that was becoming more and more difficult as the local population grew. By the 1920s, the Seminoles were in direct competition for resources with some of the white settlers that had also mastered the art of survival in the swamp. These The Gladesmen The Gladesmen were a group of early settlers that lived on the outskirts of the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades in pioneer homesteads. Before they were given the term Gladesmen, they were referred to as Florida Crackers. They came to Florida in the early 1800s from neighboring states like Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, in the practices used to herd cattle and the cracking sound their whips made. These early set- tlers relied mainly on agriculture for their livelihood by herding free range cattle left behind by the Spanish in the early 1820s (Denham 1994). In the early 1900s, white settlers, or at that time Florida Crackers had begun to move south with the understanding that the Everglades was to be drained. They planned on raising live- stock and farming the rich soil left once the water level dropped. Realizing that their new environment could provide a source of income and sustain their way of life, many aban- doned their free range cattle practices and begun to rely on the environment to survive. They lived in pioneer homesteads on the dry land and set up temporary hunting camps throughout the swamps and wetlands for hunting and fishing. Like the Seminoles, the Gladesmen traded their hides, pelts, and bird plumes at nearby trading posts, tended gar- dens at their homesteads, and were completely self-sufficient (Smith 2011). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The Tamiami Trail and Tourism In 1928 the first paved road through the Everglades was completed connecting the east and west coasts of Florida. The road started in Tampa and continued down the west coast, turning east at Naples, then across the Everglades in to Miami, hence the name, Tamiami Trail. The Tamiami Trail initially had a negative effect on the Seminoles because it cut across their canoe trails and impeded their traditional manner of travel (West 1998:84). However, the completion of the Tamiami Trail and Tamiami Canal led to an increase in tourism in south Florida, as well as a subsequent increase in the number of Seminole men who became Jungle (Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum website). Other Seminoles with camps along the Tamiami Trail included William McKinley Osceola, Josie Billie, Chestnut Billie, Corey Osceola, John- ny Osceola, Ingram Billie, and Robert Billie (West 1998:84). Use of these camps was a good way for the Seminoles to trade with coastal towns and the villages replaced the white- owned exhibition villages (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). The tourist camps were also Americans separate from the white- noles charged admission and sold patchwork clothing, dolls, sweetgrass baskets, and wood carvings (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438).One of the earliest Indian owned and operat- ed tourist attractions established on the Tamiami Trail was run by Effie and Ingraham Bil- lie; Billie was a traditional councilman, doctor, and medicine bundle carrier (West 1998:82). The Tamiami Canal was also convenient for travel in dugout canoes. The Tamiami Trail also led to many Seminoles being hired as hunting guides or to being contracted to procure games for clients, because the Seminoles did not have to acquire a license to hunt and could hunt year round (West 1998:88). Those Seminoles living along the Tamiami Trail could also supplement their income through seasonal crop picking (West 1998:92). Additionally, the Tamiami Trail helped to integrate groups that were previously separated by geography, and many villages along the Tamiami Trail were used as off-season abodes for those who living in Big Cypress of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region (West 1998:92-93). According to West (1998:85), Tamiami Trail villages were typically surrounded by an 8-foot fence made of palmetto fronds with a modest selection of crafts and clothing for sale; visi- tors entered through a chickee where an attendant collected the entrance fee. In 1930 Roy Nash made a map showing the locations of Seminole Camps located throughout Florida (Figure 7). Roy Nash was an Indian agent who visited with the Seminoles in the 1930s to try and learn more about them in order to advise the government on how to help them as- lie, Ingraham Billie, Doctor Tiger, Charlie Cypress, Charlie Tommie, and Charlie Jumper, all 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional to this day, live along the Tamiami Trail and surrounding areas in chickees and practice tra- ditional Seminole ways. National Parks While development and settlers certainly affected the landscape of the Everglades and Big Cypress swamp, the creation of the Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve further shaped how people used and occupied this region. Everglades National Park In 1947, the National Park Service set aside 1.5 million acres of land and created the Ever- glades National Park in order to help protect the largest sub-tropical wilderness in the Unit- ed States (National Geographic 2009). Overdevelopment and draining had caused serious harm to the flora and fauna of the Everglades and altered the flow of water causing irre- versible damage. An agreement between the Miccosukee Tribe and the Federal Govern- ment allowed the Miccosukee to settle in the areas along the Tamiami Trail, and also allows both the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes to continue to utilize the Everglades for their traditional cultural purposes. The creation of the park also helped to protect the remaining Everglades ecosystems and environment and to preserve what remains of the native land- scape that the Seminole and Miccosukee Indians call home. Big Cypress National Preserve The Big Cypress National Preserve is a 720,000-acre preserve located in southwest Florida, on the northwestern corner of the Everglades. The Big Cypress National Preserve was es- tablished in 1974, along with Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas, as the first national preserves in the National Park System (National Park Service 2018). The preserve was created to prevent development and urban sprawl from destroying the many ecosystems that make up the Big Cypress swamp. Originally, the Big Cypress swamp was supposed to part of Everglades National Park, but those that utilized the swamp for Cypress to fall under the auspices of the National Park Service. With the creation of a na- tional preserve, those who wanted were allowed to continue accessing Big Cypress for spe- cific activities legislated by Congress for things like hunting, camping, hiking, and using rec- reational vehicles. More importantly, this allowed the Seminole and Miccosukee Indians to continue using the land for recreational and traditional cultural purposes (National Park Service 2018). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The TAS reviewed the THPO GIS geodatabases which indicated that six cultural resource surveys have been previously completed within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE (Table 1). None of these surveys overlap the Glover Property APE. - -- 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional A review of the Florida Master Site File and Seminole Site File indicates that six sites and two resource features have been discovered within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE (Table 2). One of the resource features, CR00928, Tamiami Canal, overlaps the current APE (Figure 9). The other resource feature, CR00927, US-41, is within 30 meters (98 feet) of the current APE. This review included National Register Listed Properties, Pending National Register Nominations and National Historic Landmarks. - - - - -- - Based on the background information, the TAS labeled the APE as containing both moder- ate and low probability zones. The moderate probability zone was located in the northern portion of the APE due to the presence of a cypress dome in that area and since oral histo- ries suggest that the edges of these regions were used for cleaning animals after hunting. The low probability zone was situated in the southern portion of the APE due to previous development in that region. While the southern portion of the APE does contain 8CR00928, the Tamiami Canal, this is a linear, built up resource in which further shovel sess this resource feature. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Archival and documentary architectural investigations were conducted on April 30, 2013 by Carrie Dilley (Architectural Historian, THPO). The document analysis focused on those structures fifty years old or older. Historic physical integrity was determined from back- ground research including examination of photographic documentation and previously completed field analyses. The architectural historian determined that no historic structures or buildings are present within the APE and therefore no historic structures will be impact- ed by the undertaking. The fieldwork portion of the Glover Property investigations included pedestrian walkover and subsurface shovel testing components. The pedestrian survey revealed that the APE is located in an area of total disturbance due to the previous construction of multiple buildings, a driveway, utilities, and construction fill. Vegetation within the APE consists of melaleuca and grasses. No cultural resources were discovered during the pedestrian survey. The TAS excavated 2 shovel tests as part of the 2013-050 project (Figure 8). Of these shov- el tests, both were negative for cultural material. The shovel testing revealed the presence of one stratigraphic layer within the APE (Table 3). The layers of stratigraphy consisted of brown and very dark brown sands and fill. The shovel tests ranged in depth from 20 centimeters (8 inches) below the ground surface (cmbs) to 29 cmbs (11 inches). These shovel tests were terminated prior to reaching 100 cmbs (39 inches) due to encountering water. Disturbance within the APE was total due to the previous construction of buildings. Both shovel tests were offset due to standing water. No shovel tests could be excavated in the northwestern portion of the APE due to standing water. No shovel tests could be excavated in the southern portion of the APE due to devel- opment and dense construction fill. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 08CR00927 Tamiami Trail Historic Road -American 20th Century Historic Road Royal Palm Hammock, Ochopee, Burns Lake, Gator Hook Swamp, Monroe At central portion of resource feature -N 2862286 E 476144 The resource feature is linear in shape and measures 101,970 meters (334,547 feet) long by 7 meters (24 feet) wide. The total area of the resource feature is 71 hectares (176 acres). Basinger, Boca, Ft. Drum, Malabar, Hallandale, Holopaw, Hilolo, Jupiter, Immokalee, Riviera, Oldsmar, Pineda, Udorthents, and Urban Land Fine Sands; Durbin and Wulfert Muck; Estero and Peckish Soils; and Kesson Muck Vegetation within the resource feature boundary consists of plants commonly found in the Everglades environment, which may include palm, palmetto, oak, pine, mela- leuca, wild coffee, Brazilian pepper, smilax, ivy, muscadine grape, beauty berry, grasses, 0% due to the presence of asphalt Disturbance within the resource feature boundary is total in places where the road has been widened and intersections and guardrails have been added. Previous Investigations In 2008, the SHPO determined that the portion of the Tamiami Trail which starts from the north boundary of Collier-Seminole State Park running eastward to CR-92 was potentially eligible for the NRHP (Figure 10). The SHPO also noted that the eligibility status possibly continued east of CR-92. Investigations by Janus Research Inc. in 2005 and 2006, as well as by Archaeological Consulting, Inc. (ACI) in 2011 and 2014 determined this portion of the Trail was eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Community, Planning, and Development for the critical role the Trail played in the development of Florida by linking two of its major cities (Tampa and Miami), as well as for historic associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon (Hooks 2011). Further, the Tamiami Trail is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C in the area of Engineering for its pioneering efforts in the dredge- and-fill practices to traverse the Everglades, as well as South Florida waterway management (Hooks 2011). Based on the FMSF documents, no shovel tests have been excavated in the resource fea- ture boundary. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Resource Feature History ACI identified the period of significance for the Tamiami Trail as being 1913-1928 which covers the time from the initial surveys for the Tamiami Trail through its completion (Hooks 2011). In 1913, a Miami developer named James F. Jaudon (Photograph 1) came up with the idea of constructing a roadway that would cut through the Everglades and run from Miami to Fort Myers (Hooks 2011). A Tampa businessman, E.P. Dickey, suggested (Hooks 2011). Surveying for the Tamiami Trail began in 1915 and was led by Seminole guides (Johnston n.d.:87-90). The total cost of this undertaking would end up costing $13 million (Hooks 2011). In 1917, twenty thousand acres of land in the Everglades was purchased by Jaudon and two other businessmen, L.T. Highleyman and R.R. McDonald, from the Internal Improvement Board (Hooks 2011). Funding was provided by J.B. McCrary Co. of Atlanta, Georgia, and the bid to begin the work of building the first paved road through the Everglades was awarded to the Morgan Paving Co. (Hooks 2011). The work encountered some difficulties in 1918, when the Morgan Paving Co. had to halt work due to fluctuations in water level as well as financial difficulties caused by World War I (Hooks 2011). However, Jaudon was not deterred and continued surveying and in 1923, he organized a ami Trail (Photographs 2-3) (Gaby 1993:63). The expedition was problematic but ultimately successful and it managed to generate enough publicity to get the Tamiami Trail completed, even though the completion was under new leadership, with new funding, and across new Collier (Photograph 4) (Hooks 2011). Construction resumed under Collier, who owned over a million acres in Lee County (Hooks 2011). In 1923, Collier guaranteed the Tamiami Trail would be completed as long as that the road would be re-routed through a new coun- ty that would be established and named after him (Burnett 1988:41-44). Jaudon was not happy about the re-routing because it superseded his original Chevalier Bay tract (Hooks 2011). Collier hired D. Graham Copeland as the chief engineer of his firm, Alexander, Ramsey, & Kerr, Inc. in order to complete the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). It took five years and forty thousand pounds of dynamite to remove the limestone rock which was used to support the adjacent roadway (Hooks 2011). Once the Tamiami Trail was completed on April 26, 1928, it became the only reliable east- west transportation route across South Florida (Photographs 5-8) (Taylor 2006). The Tami- ami Trail made transportation across state, as well as the transportation of goods, easier; it also encouraged settlement in the region and provided scenic views of the Everglades for travelers and tourists (Taylor 2006). Over time, changes were made to the original Tamiami Trail. For example, according to the USACE and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in 1946, the state of Florida 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional funded the construction of several bridges so that water could pass beneath the Tamiami Trail. In 1951, these bridges were removed and culverts were placed under the road to al- low water to flow underneath the Tamiami Trail. Hooks (2011) added that 41 bridges had construction dates originating from 1941 to the mid- ing a bridge maintenance pattern in 1949, 1956, and 1965. Reconstruction of the bridges included modifications of the original form, features, and details; the bridges were main- tained in situ and some of the bridges original components remained intact (Hooks 2011). Furthermore, the 41 bridges and one culvert are considered non-contributing resources as they replaced the wooden bridge from 1928, and, therefore do not date to the period of sig- nificance for the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Trail passes through Old Florida towns such as Ochopee and Carnestown. The roadsides feature views of the Everglades, as well as a few commercial establishments which support ecotourism. The Tamiami Trail also passes through areas with Native Amer- ican villages and natural preserves (Hooks 2011)(Photographs 9-10). The Tamiami Trail initially had a negative effect on the Seminoles because it cut across their canoe trails and impeded their traditional manner of travel (West 1998:84). However, the completion of the Tamiami Trail and Tamiami Canal led to an increase in tourism in south Florida, as well as a subsequent increase in the number of Seminole men who became owners of tourist -Tah-Thi- Ki Museum website). Other Seminoles with tourist camps along the Tamiami Trail included William McKinley Osceola, Josie Billie, Chestnut Billie, Corey Osceola, Johnny Osceola, Ingram Billie, and Robert Billie (West 1998:84) (Photographs 11-16). Use of these camps was a good way for the Seminoles to trade with coastal towns and the villages replaced the white-owned exhibition villages (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). The tourist camps Native Americans separate from the white- Seminoles charged admission and sold patchwork clothing, dolls, sweetgrass baskets, and wood carvings (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). One of the earliest Indian owned and operated tourist attractions established on the Tamiami Trail was run by Effie and Ingra- ham Billie; Billie was a traditional councilman, doctor, and medicine bundle carrier (West 1998:82). The Tamiami Canal was also convenient for travel in dugout canoes. The Tamiami Trail also led to many Seminoles being hired as hunting guides or to being contracted to procure games for clients, because the Seminoles did not have to acquire a license to hunt and could hunt year round (West 1998:88). Those Seminoles living along the Tamiami Trail could also supplement their income through seasonal crop picking (West 1998:92). Additionally, the Tamiami Trail helped to integrate groups that were previously separated by geography and many villages along the Tamiami Trail were used as off-season abodes for those who living in Big Cypress of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region (West 1998:92-93). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional According to West (1998:85), Tamiami Trail villages were typically surrounded by an 8 foot fence made of palmetto fronds with a modest selection of crafts and clothing for sale; visi- tors entered through a chickee where an attendant collected the entrance fee. According to Taylor (2006): There is a noticeable change in the character, setting, and feeling of the road at the northern boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park, which also marks the begin- ning of the Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway and National Scenic Byway. The 50-mile Scenic Highway and Byway travels east through the Picayune Strand State Forest, the Fakahatchee Stand State Preserve, and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. In this section, the roadway and canal travel through natural areas with scenic vistas that continue to convey a sense of the past. Within this portion of the Tamiami Trail, modem development disappears, the road narrows, and a canopy of vegetation en- gulfs the road. ance, setting, or feeling of a rural road through unspoiled wilderness...modern housing de- velopments increasingly encroach into the setting, and in places, the Canal is no longer Resource Feature Components Historically, the Tamiami Trail was composed of shellrock and/or limestone and had no barriers flanking the road (Taylor 2006). The subtropical environment around the Tamiami Trail has been replaced in many areas by development. Today, the Tamiami Trail is approx- imately 443 kilometers (275 miles)in length and 7 meters (24 feet)wide and consists of two 4 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (2 feet) shoulders. The Tamiami Trail was initially only 6 meters (20 feet) wide, but has expanded due to the addition of shoulders and guardrails in 1968. The Tamiami Trail is now paved with asphalt and flanked with metal guardrails on both sides of the road that also separate it from the Tamiami Canal (Taylor 2006). Intersec- tions and turn lanes have been added, along with traffic lights (Taylor 2006). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional TAS Recommendation The TAS recommends that resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, is eligible for list- ing on the TRHP under criterion i, a property Seminole people consider important to histo- ry due to its role in shaping Seminole involvement in the tourist industry. with the SHPO, recommended that a portion of resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, is eligible for listing on the NRHP under criterion A, Community, Planning, and De- velopment, for the critical role it played in the development of Florida by linking two of its major cities, Tampa and Miami, as well as for its historical associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon. Resource feature 08CR00927 is also eligible under criterion C in the area of engineering for its pioneering effort in dredge-and-fill practices in order to traverse the Everglades. This technique became an adopted and responsible technique that was vital to Everglades and South Florida waterway management. The portion of 08CR00927 which is eligible for listing on the NRHP stretches from the north boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park eastward to CR-92. The TAS agrees with the above stated previous recommen- dations of ACI and the SHPO. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional --- - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 08CR00928 Tamiami Canal Historic Canal -American 20th Century Canal Royal Palm Hammock, Ochopee, Burns Lake, Gator Hook Swamp, Monroe At central portion of resource feature -N 2862286 E 476144 The resource feature is linear in shape and measures 101,970 meters (334,547 feet) long by 18 meters (59 feet) wide. The total area of the re- source feature is 184 hectares (454 acres). Basinger, Boca, Ft. Drum, Malabar, Hallandale, Holopaw, Hilolo, Jupiter, Immokalee, Riviera, Oldsmar, Pineda, Udorthents, and Urban Land Fine Sands; Durbin and Wulfert Muck; Estero and Peckish Soils; and Kesson Muck Vegetation within the resource feature boundary consists of plants commonly found in the Everglades environment, which may include palm, palmetto, oak, pine, mela- leuca, wild coffee, Brazilian pepper, smilax, ivy, muscadine grape, beauty berry, grasses, 0% due to the presences of water. Disturbance within the resource feature boundary is moderate in places where dredging has occurred. Previous Investigations In 2008, the SHPO determined that the portion of the Tamiami Canal which starts from the north boundary of Collier-Seminole State Park and runs eastward to CR-92 was potentially eligible for the NRHP (Figure 11). The SHPO also noted that the eligibility status possibly continued east of CR-92. Investigations by Janus Research Inc. in 2005 and 2006, as well as by Archaeological Consulting, Inc. (ACI) in 2011 and 2014, determined this portion of the Tamiami Canal was eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Community, Planning, and Development for the critical role the Trail played in the development of Flor- ida by linking two of its major cities (Tampa and Miami),as well as for historic associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon (Hooks 2011). Further, the Tamiami Canal is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C in the area of Engineering for its pioneering efforts in the dredge-and-fill practices to traverse the Everglades, as well as South Florida waterway man- agement (Hooks 2011). Based on FMSF documents, no shovel tests have been excavated in the resource feature boundary. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Resource Feature History ACI identified the period of significance for the Tamiami Canal as being 1913-1928 which covers the time from the initial surveys for the Tamiami Canal through its completion (Hooks 2011). The construction of the Tamiami Canal is inextricably linked to the con- struction of the Tamiami Trail. Materials dredged from the canal were used to form the roadbed of the Tamiami Trail. In 1913, a Miami developer named James F. Jaudon came up with the idea of constructing a roadway that would cut through the Everglades and run from Miami to Fort Myers (Hooks 2011). A Tampa businessman, E.P. Dickey, suggested this route be extended to the Tamiami Trail began in 1915 and was led by Seminole guides (Johnston n.d.:87-90). The total cost of this undertaking would end up costing $13 million (Hooks 2011). In 1917, twenty thousand acres of land in the Everglades was purchased by Jaudon and two other businessmen, L.T. Highleyman and R.R. McDonald, from the Internal Improvement Board (Hooks 2011). Funding was provided by J.B. McCrary Co. of Atlanta, Georgia, and the bid to begin the work of building the first paved road through the Everglades was awarded to the Morgan Paving Co. (Hooks 2011). The work encountered some difficulties in 1918, when the Morgan Paving Co. had to halt work due to the environment as well as financial difficulties caused by World War I (Hooks 2011). However, Jaudon was not deterred and continued surveying and, in 1923, he organized a ami Trail (Gaby 1993:63). The expedition was problematic, but ultimately successful and it managed to generate enough publicity to get the Trail completed, even though the comple- tion was under new leadership, with new funding, and across new lands that were acquired struction resumed under Collier, who owned over a million acres in Lee County (Hooks 2011). In 1923, Collier guaranteed the Tamiami Trail would be completed as long as the road was re-routed through a new county that would be established and named after him (Burnett 1988:41-44). Jaudon was not happy about the re-routing because it superseded his original Chevalier Bay tract (Hooks 2011). Collier hired engineer D. Graham Copeland as the chief engineer of his firm, Alexander, Ramsey, & Kerr, Inc. in order to complete the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). It took five years and forty thousand pounds of dynamite to remove the limestone rock which was used to support the adjacent roadway (Hooks 2011). to the pioneer period in Collier County and indeed South Florida, as the real estate boom 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Once the Tamiami Trail was completed, it became the major east-west transportation route across South Florida (Photographs 17-19) (Taylor 2006). The Tamiami Trail made trans- portation across state, as well as the transportation of goods, easier; it also encouraged set- tlement in the region and provided scenic views of the Everglades for travelers and tourists (Taylor 2006). Over time, changes were made to the original Tamiami Trail. For example, according to the USACE and FDOT, in 1946, the state of Florida funded the construction of several bridges so that water could pass beneath the Tamiami Trail. In 1951, these bridges were removed and culverts were placed under the road to allow water to flow underneath the Tamiami Trail. Hooks (2011) added that 41 bridges had construction dates originating from 1941 to the mid- 1956, and 1965. Reconstruction of the bridges included modifications of the original form, features, and details; the bridges were maintained in situ and some of the bridges original components remained intact (Hooks 2011). Furthermore, the 41 bridges and one culvert are considered non-contributing resources as they replaced the wooden bridge from 1928, and, therefore do not date to the period of significance for the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Trail passes through Old Florida towns such as Ochopee and Carnestown. The roadsides feature views of the Everglades, as well as a few commercial establishments which support ecotourism. The Tamiami Trail also passes through areas with Native Amer- ican villages and natural preserves (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Trail initially had a negative effect on the Seminoles because it cut across their canoe trails and impeded their traditional manner of travel (West 1998:84). However, the completion of the Tamiami Trail and Tami- ami Canal led to an increase in tourism in south Florida, as well as a subsequent increase in the number of Seminole men who became owners of tourist camps and trading posts, such -Tah-Thi-Ki Museum website). Other Seminoles with tourist camps along the Tamiami Trail included William McKinley Osceola, Josie Billie, Chestnut Billie, Corey Osceola, Johnny Osceola, Ingram Billie, and Robert Billie (West 1998:84). Use of these camps was a good way for the Seminoles to trade with coastal towns and the villages replaced the white-owned exhibition villages (Sturtevant and Catteli- economic independence for these Native Americans separate from the white-operated at- clothing, dolls, sweetgrass baskets, and wood carvings (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). One of the earliest Indian owned and operated tourist attractions established on the Tami- ami Trail was run by Effie and Ingraham Billie; Billie was a traditional councilman, doctor, and medicine bundle carrier (West 1998:82). The Tamiami Canal was also convenient for travel in dugout canoes. The Tamiami Trail also led to many Seminoles being hired as hunting guides or to being contracted to procure games for clients, because the Seminoles did not have to acquire a license to hunt and could hunt year round (West 1998:88). Those Seminoles living along the 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Tamiami Trail could also supplement their income through seasonal crop picking (West 1998:92). Additionally, the Tamiami Trail helped to integrate groups that were previously separated by geography, and many villages along the Tamiami Trail were used as off-season abodes for those who living in Big Cypress or the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region (West 1998:92-93). According to West (1998:85), Tamiami Trail villages were typically surrounded by an 8 foot fence made of palmetto fronds with a modest selection of crafts and clothing for sale; visi- tors entered through a chickee where an attendant collected the entrance fee. According to Taylor (2006): There is a noticeable change in the character, setting, and feeling of the road at the northern boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park, which also marks the begin- ning of the Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway and National Scenic Byway. The 50-mile Scenic Highway and Byway travels east through the Picayune Strand State Forest, the Fakahatchee Stand State Preserve, and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. In this section, the roadway and canal travel through natural areas with scenic vistas that continue to convey a sense of the past. Within this portion of the Tamiami Trail, modem development disappears, the road narrows, and a canopy of vegetation en- gulfs the road. ance, setting, or feeling of a rural road through unspoiled wilderness...modern housing de- velopments increasingly encroach into the setting, and in places, the Canal is no longer Resource Feature Components The Tamiami Canal itself is approximately 161 kilometers (100 miles) long (Hooks 2011). Historically, the Tamiami canal was directly adjacent to the Tamiami Trail and there was no separation guardrail or berm (Hooks 2011). The original crossings over the waterways were wooden trestle bridges. These were all replaced with modern structures which are mostly concrete slab bridges (Hooks 2011). Furthermore, the Tamiami Canal has been dredged multiple times over the years, causing a gradual widening, as well as the berms to the north and south the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). The berm to the north was created from the dredge spoil in the early to mid- meters (20 feet) wide, although in places it widens with changes in vegetation along the cor- ridor (Hooks 2011). Metal guardrails have also been added along the length of the south side of the Tamiami Canal (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Canal currently provides a naviga- ble waterway for ecotourism activities in the area (Hooks 2011). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional TAS Recommendation The TAS recommends that resource feature 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, is eligible for list- ing on the TRHP under criterion i, a property Seminole people consider important to histo- ry because of the increase in tourism money brought in by the Tamiami Canal. This in- crease in money helped lead Tribal members to economic independence from the U.S. gov- ernment. ture 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, is eligible for listing on the NRHP under criterion A, Community, Planning, and Development, for the critical role it played in the development of Florida by linking two of its major cities, Tampa and Miami, as well as for its historical associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon. Resource feature 08CR00928 is also eli- gible under criterion C in the area of engineering for its pioneering effort in dredge-and-fill practices in order to traverse the Everglades. This technique became an adopted and re- sponsible technique that was vital to Everglades and South Florida waterway management. The portion of 08CR00927 which is eligible for listing on the NRHP stretches from the north boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park eastward to CR-92. The TAS agrees with the above stated previous recommendations of ACI and the SHPO. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional - 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The following photographs depict current conditions within the APE. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional The Glover Property project (THPO Project Number 2013-050) involves the construction of a governmental building, which includes utilities, water, sewer, cable, and internet (see Appendix 1 for site plan). According to Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), no construction will occur around the canal and no new plants will be added; existing plants will remain in that area. The project is receiving funding from the Seminole Tribe of Florida, though it requires a compliance review pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, investigations and a compliance review are also required pursuant to the STOF CRO (C-01-16). The Glover Property area of potential effect (APE) is rectangular in shape and measures at its greatest extent approximately 135 meters (432 feet) north to south by 61 meters (198 feet) east to west. The total area of the APE is 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres). The 2013-050 APE is located on the Tamiami Trail, Collier County, Florida, within Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East. The APE is bound to the north by a vacant lot, to the east by parking lots, to the south by buildings, and to the west by the Tamiami Trail. In order to investigate the Glover Property APE, the TAS completed both background archival research and a cultural resources field survey. The background archival research was undertaken so as to identify potentially significant resources or previously conducted determination of an appropriate field investigation methodology. Background research identified six sites and two resource features that are located within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE. One resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, overlaps the current APE. The other resource feature, 08CR00927, US-41, is within 30 meters (98 feet) of the current APE. Both resource features are eligible for the Tribal Register of Historic Places (TRHP) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A review of the THPO Database also shows that there are six previously completed surveys within 1,000 meters (3,28 feet1) of the APE. None of these surveys overlap the current APE. Field investigations, which included a pedestrian survey and shovel testing, recorded no new sites. However, since 08CR00928 (Tamiami Canal) and 08CR00927 (Tamiami Trail) are within the APE or within 30 meters (98 feet) of the APE, it was necessary to assess these resource features for impacts by the current undertaking. Based on this assessment, the TAS agrees with previous recommendations that both resource features are eligible for the NRHP. Additionally, the TAS recommends that both resource features are eligible for the TRHP. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Based on the investigations for the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends that re- source feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature 08CR00928, Tamiami Ca- nal, are eligible for listing on the TRHP, under criterion i, a property that the Seminole peo- ple consider important to history. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a finding of cultural resources not adversely affected. Based on the investigation of the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends, in con- currence with previous findings by the SHPO, Janus Research, Inc., and Archaeological Consulting, Inc., that resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal are eligible for listing on the NRHP, under criteria A, Commu- nity, Planning, and Development, and C, Engineering. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Direc- tor), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a find- ing of historic properties not adversely affected, per Section 106 of the NHPA. The TAS finds no other issues of concern regarding cultural resources and recommends that the undertaking, as originally proposed in THPO Project Request Number 2013-050 be permitted to proceed. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Should future activities in this APE uncover any archaeological remains, activity in the im- mediate area must be stopped until a professional archaeologist from the TAS can evaluate the discovery. In the event that human remains are found during construction or mainte- nance activities, the STOF maintains compliance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). If human remains, funerary objects, or sacred objects are discovered inadvertently, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), Tribal Bioarchaeologist, and the Seminole Police Department must be notified immediately by telephone and all further activity ceased. Additionally, a reasonable effort must be made to leave the discovery in place. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Advasio, J.M., and Jake Page 2002 . Random House, New York. Almy, Marion, Lee Hutchinson, and Kim Hinder 2001 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey State Road 50 PD&E Study Lake and Orange Counties, Florida.Report prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Florida Department of Transportation, District Five by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum Website. n.d.A Timeline for Survival: 500 Years of Seminole History. https:// www.semtribe.com/STOF/history/timeline. Accessed August 20, 2019. Austin, Robert 2005 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Oakland Development Property, Orange County, Florida.Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historic Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. Bowers, Marty and Stephen Bridenstine 2017 Preservation Office, the Miccosukee Perspective. In We Come for Good: Archaeology and Tribal Historic Preservation at the Seminole Tribe of Florida, edited by Paul N. Backhouse, Brent R. Weisman, and Mary Beth Rosebrough, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Bullen, Ripley 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville, Florida. Bullen, Ripley P., and Laurence E. Beilman 1973 The Nalcrest Site, Lake Weohyakapka, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 26:1-22. Burnett, G.M. 1988 Press: Sarasota, Florida. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Butler, David 2008 The Blueberry Site Phase I Excavation: A Case Study in Goal Oriented Public Archaeology.Report prepared for Anne Reynolds and Reynolds Fruit Company, Inc., by Earthmovers Archaeological Consultants, LLC.Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Chance, Marsha 1988 The Phase I Archaeological Assessment of a Florida Gas Transmission Company Proposed Corridor Expansion Project. Report prepared for Florida Gas Transmission Company. On file, Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Clewiston, Florida. Covington, James W. 1993 The Seminoles of Florida.University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Dunbar, James S., and C. Andrew Hemmings 2004 Florida Paleo-Indian Points and Knives. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley Lepper and Robson Bonnichsea. Denham, James M. 1994 - counts. The Florida Historical Quarterly LXXII:453-468. Densmore, Frances 1956 Recording for the Bureau of Music, Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin No. 161, Washington DC. Ellis, Gary 2016 Personal Communication with THPO Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Ma- honey. Florida Memory Site n.d.Florida Memory Site. State Archives of Florida. Accessed August 1 and 2, 2019. Frank, Andrew 2014 Creating a Seminole Enemy: Ethnic and Racial Diversity in the Conquest of Florida. FIU Law Review, 9(2). Gaby, Donald C. 1993 The Miami River and its Tributaries. The Historical Association of South Florida: Miami. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Gallagher, Peter B. 2013 Blazing a Trail Through Swamps and Everglades. The Seminole Tribune. July 22, 2013. http://seminoletribune.org/blazing-a-trail-through-swamps-and- everglades/. Accessed August 1, 2019 Garbarino, Merwyn S. 1972 Brighton: A Changing Seminole Community. Hold, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York, NY. Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36 (1-2):40-66. Gopher, Lorene 2012 Personal Communication with THPO Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Ma- honey. Griffin, John W. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. Edited by Jerald T. Milanich and James T. Miller. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. History Miami. n.d.http://everglades.fiu.edu/reclaim/bios/jaudon.htm Accessed August 1, 2019. Hooks, Kisa 2011 US 41 Tamiami Trail Bridge Guardrail Retrofit and Shoulder Improvements. Archaeological Consultants, Inc.: Sarasota, Florida. Hudson, Charles. 1976 Southeastern Indians. University of Knoxville, Tennessee. Janus Research 2003 Study: From US 192 to SR 50 (Clermont), Orange and Osceola Counties. Report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike Enterprise by Janus Research.Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Jaudon, James Franklin 1924 Letter to the Editor of the Miami Daily News and Metropolis. July 14, 1924. James Franklin Jaudon Papers, Box 11, Folder 6. On file at the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Johns, Willie and Stephen Bridenstine 2017 Tribal Historic Preservation Office, the Creek Perspective. In We Come for Good: Archaeology and Tribal Historic Preservation at the Seminole Tribe of Florida, edited by Paul N. Backhouse, Brent R. Weisman, and Mary Beth Rosebrough, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Johnston, Sidney n.d. Form. Deland: Bland & Associates, Inc. Jones, Martha 2012 Personal Communication with THPO Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Mahoney. Kersey Jr., Harry A. 1935 Pelts, Plumes, and Hides: White Traders among the Seminole Indians 1870- 1930. University Press of Florida: Gainesville. 1996 An Assumption of Sovereignty: Social and Political Transformation among the Florida Seminoles 1953-1979. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Kenneally, Michael 2005 CRAS of US-41 from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Drive. Janus Research, Inc.: Tampa, Florida. Klein, Rebecca, Christopher Rayle, Martin Dickinson and Lucy Wayne 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment, Hull Island, Orange County, Florida.Report prepared for Land Water Consulting, Inc., by Southarc, Inc.Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. MacCauley, Clay 1887 The Seminole Indians of Florida. Smithsonian Institution-Bureau of Ethnology. Dodo Press. Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. McCudden, Anne C., Billy L. Cypress, W.S. Steele, and Rick Trnka 2004 Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation Jones Loop Road Improvements, Glades County, Florida. Report Prepared by the Seminole Tribe of Florida, Tribal Historic Preservation Office. On file, Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Clewiston, Florida. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional McReynolds, Edwin 1957 Seminoles. University of Oklahoma Press. McVoy, Christopher W., Winifred Park Said, Jaynatha Obeysekera, Joel A. Van Arman, and Thomas W. Dreschel 2011 Landscapes and Hydrology of the Predrainage Everglades. University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1998 .University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Miller, Susan A. 2003 . University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Missall, John, and Mary Lou Missall 2004 University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. National Geographic. 2009 Everglades National Park. November 5, 2009. www.nationalgeographic.com. Accessed August 26, 2019. National Park Service. 2018 Big Cypress. September 26, 2018. www.nps.gov. Accessed August 28, 2019. National Parks Conservation Association. n.d. Find a Park. Www.npca.org. Accessed August 28, 2019. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Parker, Garald G. 1984 Hydrology of the Predrainage System of the Everglades in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II, edited by P.J. Gleason, pp.28-37. Miami Geological Society Coral Gables. Porter, Kenneth Wiggins 1996 The Black Seminoles: History of a Freedom-Seeking People. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Spoehr, Alexander 1941 Camp, Clan, and Kin among the Cow Creek Seminole of Florida. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series 22(1):1-27. Smith, G.C. 2011 Traditional Cultural Properties of the Modern Gladesmen Culture. Compre- hensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Southern Florida. New South Associ- ates: St. Augustine, Florida. Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley 2004 The North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor: A Possible Palaeolithic Route to the New World. World Archaeology, 36(4): 459-478. Ste. Claire, Dana 1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. Florida Anthropologist 43, pp 189-197. Steele, W.S. 1997 Archaeological and Historical Perspectives of the Brighton Indian Reservation. Paper presented at Florida Anthropological Society Meeting. Steele, W.S., and Robert S. Carr 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Brighton Seminole Reservation, Glades County, Florida.AHC Technical Report #116. Report prepared for the Seminole Tribe of Florida, by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami, Florida. Steiner, Mary C. et al. 1995 Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22: pp 223-237. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Sturtevant, William C. and Jessica R. Cattelino 2004 Florida Seminole and Miccosukee. In Handbook of North American Indi- ans, vol. 14, Southeast. Raymond D. Fogelson, vol., ed. Pp. 429-449. Wash- ington: Smithsonian Institution. Taylor, Rob 2006 CRAS of US 41 from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Drive. Janus Re- search: Tampa, Florida. Thompson, Victor D., William H. Marquardt, Alexander Cherkinsky, Amanda D. Roberts Thompson, Karen J. Walker, Lee A. Newsom, Michael Savarese 2016 From Shell Midden to Midden-Mound: The Geoarchaeology of Mound Key, an Anthropogenic Island in Southwest Florida, USA. Plos One 11(4). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2013 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed May 17, 2013. Walker, Billy 2019 Oral History with Justin Giles, Jack Chalfant, Shawn Keyte, and Brandy Norton. Recording on File with the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum, Clewiston, Florida. Weisman, Brent 1989 Like Beads on a String: A Cultural History of Seminole Indians in Northern Peninsular Florida.University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 1999 Unconquered People: Florida's Seminole and Miccosukee Indians. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2000a Archaeological Perspectives on Florida Seminole Ethnogenesis. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 299-317. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2000b The Origins of the Seminole Plantation System and its Role in Florida's Colonial Economy. In Colonial Plantations and Economy of Florida, edited by Jane Landers. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2014 The Background and Continued Cultural and Historical Importance of the Seminole Wars in Florida. FIU Law Review, 9(2). 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional West, Patsy 1998 The Enduring Seminoles: From Alligator Wrestling to Ecotourism. Univer- sity Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. Wickman, Patricia 1999 The Tree that Bends: Discourse, Power, and the Survival of the Maskoki People. University of Alabama Press, Birmingham, Alabama. Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Non-Agricultural Chiefdom of the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tusculoosa, Alabama. Worth, John E. 2013 Pineland during the Spanish Period. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50-1710, edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Wright, J. Leitch Jr. 1986 Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Musco- gulge People. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Att 3 - PL20190000360 Sem Tribe CU Meeting Package (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional 01406842-2 Page 1 of 7 May 16, 2022 AGREEMENT REGARDING A SEMINOLE TRIBE GOVERNMENT SERVICES BUILDING WITHIN THE BIG CYPRESS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN UNDER SECTION 380.032(3), FLORIDA STATUTES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Collier County (“County”) and the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity ("DEO"). The County and DEO may each individually be referred to herein as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, DEO is the state land planning agency having the power and duty to exercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (“Act”), which includes provisions relating to designated Areas of Critical State Concern; and WHEREAS, DEO is authorized by section 380.032(3), Florida Statutes, to enter into agreements with any landowner, developer, or governmental agency as may be necessary to effectuate the provisions and purposes of the Act or any rules promulgated thereunder; and WHEREAS, the County is a governmental agency, as defined by the Act, and a portion of the County is within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, as designated by Section 380.055, Florida Statutes, and which is regulated by Rules 28-25.001 – 28-25.016, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has brought to the attention of DEO and Collier County that members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida who reside and use the region in and around the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern lack ready access to information regarding governmental services including public safety and medical care, lack an emergency hurricane 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 01406842-2 Page 2 of 7 May 16, 2022 shelter, and lack community meeting space and cultural training facilities, among other uses (“Government Services”); and WHEREAS, DEO and Collier County recognize that there are limited properties in private ownership within or near the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern that have been previously developed and that could support a facility for the provision of Government Services to Seminole Tribe members; and WHEREAS, DEO and Collier County recognize that the Property would be difficult to develop as contemplated by the Seminole Tribe for Government Services under a strict application of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Regulations in Rule 28-25, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the purposes of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 and the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern include protection of natural resources and the environment (§§ 380.021 and 380.055, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-25.002); and WHEREAS, rule 28-25.011, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the use of local variance procedures shall apply to the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, provided however, that no variance shall be granted unless such development is designed, consistent with Big Cypress Area regulations, to have minimum adverse impact on the Area's water storage capacity, surface water and estuarine fisheries; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code provide that this Agreement shall serve as the variance procedure for properties within the Area of Critical State Concern, allowing the State and Collier County to ensure that the intent of the controlling statutes and rules are met; and 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 01406842-2 Page 3 of 7 May 16, 2022 WHEREAS, the County finds that this Agreement provides the minimum standards making possible the reasonable use of the Property for Government Services, and that this Agreement is consistent with the County’s Growth Management Plan and in compliance with the County’s Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, DEO and the County desire to clarify and establish the proper application of the variance procedures in the Big Cypress Area by providing the appropriate scope of development of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, DEO and the County agree as follows: 1.Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and are essential elements hereof. 2.Area Affected. This Agreement shall apply to the Property as more specifically described on Exhibit "A”. 3.Maximum Development. A development order which authorizes up to the following development on the Property (“Maximum Development”) shall be an appropriate variance under Rule 28-25.011, Florida Administrative Code: Any and all land development permits for site alteration, including dredging and filling, to permit the construction of a Government Services building, allowing a maximum of 50,000 square feet of site alteration, 38,000 square feet of impermeable surface, and 15,000 square feet of building floor area under air. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, no more than 62.38% of the Property acreage may be altered, and nonpermeable surfaces may only comprise up to 76% of said altered area (i.e., 47.4% of the Property acreage). 4.Variance Applicability. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 01406842-2 Page 4 of 7 May 16, 2022 a. As it relates to DEO, this Agreement and the Maximum Development limitations provided herein, shall serve as a variance from the following regulation: i. Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-25.006(1), Site Alteration b. As it relates to the County, this Agreement and the Maximum Development limitations provided herein, shall serve as a variance from the following regulations: i. Collier County Growth Management Plan: 1. Future Land Use Element; Future Land Use Designation Description Section; V. Overlays and Special Features; A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay; 1. Site Alteration 2. Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Policy 6.2.3(2) ii. Collier County Land Development Code; Section 4.02.14(C). 5.Development Orders. Any future development order for the Property shall be rendered to DEO in accordance with section 380.07, Florida Statutes. Nothing herein limits DEO’s authority to review any future development order, including any order related to the Property, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Consistent with the requirements of rule 28-25.011, F.A.C., any future development order for the Property shall require development permitted thereunder be designed to have minimum adverse impact on Big Cypress Area’s water storage capacity, surface water and estuarine fisheries, and the applicant shall have the affirmative burden of establishing that the development will not have an adverse impact on such resources. 6.Preservation of Wetlands. The County shall ensure all development orders for the Property shall require, as a condition of their issuance, to the extent possible consistent with the Maximum Development permitted in paragraph 3, the preservation of any remaining wetlands on the site and 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 01406842-2 Page 5 of 7 May 16, 2022 a stormwater control system that mimics the historic water flow, as may be allowed consistent with any applicable rules, regulations, and permit requirements. 7.Entirety of Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire and exclusive understanding and agreement among the Parties and may not be modified in any manner except by an instrument in writing and signed by the Parties to this Agreement. 8.Duplicate Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose. 9.Enforcement. In the event of a breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with any condition of it or if it has been based upon materially inaccurate information, DEO may enforce the County’s compliance with this Agreement as provided in sections 380.07 and 380.11, Florida Statutes. 10.Scope of Authority. This Agreement is not intended to influence or determine the authority or decisions of any state or local government or agency other than the Parties in issuance of any permits or approvals that might be required by federal, state, or local laws and regulations for any development contemplated by this Agreement. 11.No Third-Party Rights. No property owner or developer shall incur any obligations or make changes in position in reliance on any terms of this Agreement. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof or agreement or provision included herein by reference shall operate or be construed as being for the benefit of any person or entity not a Party hereto, or grant a third party a right to enforce this Agreement. 12.Date of Execution. The date of execution of this Agreement shall be the date that the last party signs and acknowledges this Agreement. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 01406842-2 Page 6 of 7 May 16, 2022 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties by and through their respective undersigned duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement on the dates and year below written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BY: ________________________________ BY: ________________________________ William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman ________________________, Director Division of Community Development Date: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________ Attest: Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk By: __________________________ Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: _____________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attorney Approved as to form and legal sufficiency, subject only to full and proper execution by the Parties. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY By: ________________________________ Approved Date: ______________________ 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 01406842-2 Page 7 of 7 May 16, 2022 EXHIBIT A – Property Description Parcel No.: 01238680000 Site Address: 57257 TAMIAMI TRL E, OCHOPEE, FL 34141 TRACTS 118 AND 119 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 53 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY R/W LINE OF U.S. HWY 41 RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY R/W LINE OF U.S. HWY 41 FOR A DISTANCE OF 4545.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY R/W LINE OF U.S. 41 FOR A DISTANCE OF200 FEET, TO A POINT; THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90° RUN NORTHEASTERLY FOR A DISTANCE OF 400 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90° RUN SOUTHEASTERLY FOR A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90° RUN SOUTHWESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 400 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Att 4 - ACSC Agreement Seminole Government Center 5-16-22 (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Sign Posting Affidavit Seminole Trail CU (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use) ,/•IRfig&gi W 'ft | IPr ESS K f••"*SiiOyHHfk I:h*W5&w t L w•is v?.Hifj1. 'i-m II-^i *rr* PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE rfSm%4 3m3 H •iSEMINOLETRAILGOVERNMENTCENTER Conditional Use Petition No.20190000360 CCPC:July 7,2022 -9:00 a.m. BCC:September 13,2022 -9:00 a.m. Collier Government Center 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL 34112 Laura DeJohn:239-252-5587 ss tSfslifi 9 5VA *•, J" ijf®£ #§B®i ' immSmdSi fxi sS9ba:IJJfp-1B|M| ^.V!PPb&:4 sfr" |ft£59J 1 "--*&£v&c HH .EI MMl *,J IKr--HIwj?:.: pp^:,->>- -•id :'',:• v .,49^ --.•'^•.sy^,Y:A jiwHr* g*sSs^'a ^§0ki^ •:*'• pato m w&^i •» im.•..:.-.KggSgtSBacSSs^a^g ** ""§i |WtPi-Mv -»r•%>;.-t.v J-.-,"*0H 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Sign Posting Affidavit Seminole Trail CU (22573 : PL20190000360 - Seminole Trail Government Center Conditional Use)