Agenda 12/12/2023 Item # 9E (Ordinance - Amending Marco Shores Golf Course, PUD)12/12/2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that all participants be sworn in, and Commission members provide ex -parte disclosure.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Marco Shores Golf Course Community (Marco
Shores) Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, to increase the maximum
number of residential multi-family dwelling units from 1,580 units to 1,670; adjust off-street parking
standards, and add an Airport Disclosure and Permitting Commitment; for property located near the Marco
Island Executive Airport, on the north side of Mainsail Drive and 1.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in
Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20220003791]
______________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding
the above-referenced petition and render a decision regarding the petition and ensure the project is in harmony with
all the applicable codes and regulations to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject 4.04 acre site is a portion of the 314.7 acre Marco Shores Golf Course
Community PUD, specifically Ordinance 81-6, recorded on February 10, 1981, as amended. (See Attachment A-1-
Ordinance 81-6.) The PUD is vested for 1,980 dwelling units under the provisions of Chapter 380 of the Florid
Statutes. The PUD is currently approved for 1,580 dwelling units. (Ordinance 16-37.) The petitioner proposes an
additional 90 dwelling units or 1,670 dwelling units, less than the 1,980 vested units. The PUD density will increase
from 5.0 dwelling units per acre (DUAs) to 5.3 DUAs.
The Master Plan will be amended to show the redesignation of the Utility site and the Park site to a 4.04 acre
Residential parcel. Their respective municipal authorities abandoned the Utility and Park sites, and the property
was deeded to the developer.
Because this PUD is 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 provided the proposed changes in a strike-thru/underlined format, showing
the new information in underlined text and the text to be removed in a strike-thru format. There are no deviations
proposed. See Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD Amendment (PUDA) by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County.
There is no guarantee that the project, at build-out, will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if
the PUDA is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and the new development will impact Collier
County's public facilities.
The County collects impact fees before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset the impacts of each new
development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement
Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public
facilities. Other fees collected prior to the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please
note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning
Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed
PUDA, and the subject petition is consistent with the GMP's Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard Petition
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Petition PUDA-PL20220003938, on
October 5, 2023, and voted 7-0 to forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to
the petitioner meeting with Marco Shores PUD HOA representatives, Marco Executive Airport officials, and
county officials to potentially agree to the landscaping of Mainsail Drive.
Thereafter, the petitioner met with Marco Shores PUD HOA representatives, Marco Executive Airport officials,
9.E
Packet Pg. 465
12/12/2023
and county officials and discussed the landscaping of Mainsail Drive, but no agreement was made. However, this
meeting satisfied the CCPC’s stipulation.
There is one letter of opposition; therefore, this petition has been placed on the Regular Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District for
a project known as Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, a Planned Unit Development. The burden falls
upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezoning is consistent with all the criteria below. Should it consider
denying the rezone, the burden shifts to the Board of County Commissioners to determine that such denial would
not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does
not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for PUD Amendments
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other
utilities.
2. Is there adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contracts, or other
instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or
provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are
not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be
made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: The conformity of the proposed PUD Amendment with the Growth Management Plan's goals,
objectives, and policies.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) to assure the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The subject property's and surrounding areas' ability to accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes
to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map, and the
Growth Management Plan elements?
10. Will the proposed PUD Amendment be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested PUD Amendment result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to
adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditi ons on
the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic
deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular
traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in
accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner
as contrasted with the public welfare.
9.E
Packet Pg. 466
12/12/2023
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance with existing
zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration that would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning
classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD Amendment on the availability
of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD Amendment request that the Board of
County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare?
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials
supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from
interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria.
Should this item be denied, Florida Statutes section 125.022(3) requires the County to provide written notice to the
applicant citing applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial.
This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval.
(DDP)
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the request for Petition PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course
Community PUD.
Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (PDF)
2. Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (PDF)
3. Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (PDF)
4. Attachment B-Comprehensive Planning Memorandum (PDF)
5. Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (PDF)
6. [Linked] Attachment D-Application 9-12-23 (PDF)
7. Letter of Objection-Paniccia 10-4-23 (PDF)
8. SIgn Positing Exhibit and Affidavit 9-25-23 (PDF)
9. legal ad - agenda ID 26806 (PDF)
9.E
Packet Pg. 467
12/12/2023
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.E
Doc ID: 26806
Item Summary: This item requires that all participants be sworn in, and Commission members provide ex-parte
disclosure. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Marco Shores Golf Course Community (Marco
Shores) Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, to increase the maximum number
of residential multi-family dwelling units from 1,580 units to 1,670; adjust off-street parking standards, and add an
Airport Disclosure and Permitting Commitment; for property located near the Marco Island Executive Airport, on
the north side of Mainsail Drive and 1.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20220003791]
Meeting Date: 12/12/2023
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
10/10/2023 5:27 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Zoning Director – Zoning
Name: Mike Bosi
10/10/2023 5:27 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 10/12/2023 8:41 AM
Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Completed 11/01/2023 4:10 PM
Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch Growth Management DepartmentCompleted
11/03/2023 6:34 PM
Growth Management Community Development Department James C French Growth Management Completed
11/04/2023 1:50 PM
County Attorney's Office Derek D. Perry Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 12/04/2023 2:41 PM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/04/2023 2:44 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 12/04/2023 2:57 PM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 12/05/2023 10:27 AM
County Manager's Office Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/05/2023 10:37 AM
Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 12/12/2023 9:00 AM
9.E
Packet Pg. 468
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 1 of 15
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING &
REGULATION
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2023
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20220003791, MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE
COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
_______________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS:
Property Owner/Applicant:
SK Holdings Real Estates LLC
6646 Willow Park Drive, # 1
Naples, FL 34109
Agents:
Christopher O. Scott, AICP Noel Davies, Esquire
Peninsula Engineering Davies Duke, PLLC
2600 Golden Gate Parkway 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 442
Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34109
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 81-
6, as amended, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community (Marco Shores) Planned Unit
Development (PUD), to increase the maximum number of residential multi-family dwelling units
from 1,580 units to 1,670, adjust off-street parking standards, and add an Airport Disclosure and
Permitting Commitment, by providing for amendment to the Master Plan; and by providing an
effective date.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 4.04 acre property is a portion of the 314.7 acre Marco Shores Golf Course Community
PUD. It is near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 2 of 15
9.E.1Packet Pg. 470Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 3 of 15
CURRENT MASTER PLAN
9.E.1Packet Pg. 471Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 4 of 15
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN 9.E.1Packet Pg. 472Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 5 of 15
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
As previously stated, the subject 4.04 acre site is a portion of the 314.7 acre Marco Shores Golf
Course Community PUD, specifically Ordinance 81-6, recorded on February 10, 1981, as amended.
(See Attachment A-1-Ordinance 81-6.) The PUD is vested for 1,980 dwelling units under the
provisions of Chapter 380 of the Florid Statutes. The PUD is currently approved for 1,580 dwelling
units. (Ordinance 16-37.) The petitioner proposes an additional 90 dwelling units or 1,670 dwelling
units, which is less than the 1,980 vested units. The PUD density will increase from 5.0 dwelling
units per acre (DUAs) to 5.3 DUAs. (See Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance.)
The Master Plan will be amended to show the conversion of the Utility and Park sites to a 4.04 acre
Residential parcel. Their respective municipal authorities abandoned the Utility and Park sites, and
the developer deeded the property.
Because this PUD is 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/underlined format, showing the new information in underlined text and the text to be removed
in a strike-thru format. There are no deviations proposed. See Attachment A–Proposed PUD
Ordinance.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (of Subject Parcel):
North: Drainage easement, then farther north is conservation land with a Conservation Special
Treatment (CON-ST) zoning designation.
East: Marco Island Airport with a Public Use (P) zoning designation.
South: Mainsail Drive, then farther south, is a golf course with a zoning designation of Marco Shores
Golf Course Community PUD.
West: Multi-family residential with a Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD zoning
designation.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 6 of 15
AERIAL PHOTO-CLOSE UP
AERIAL PHOTO-FAR AWAY
Subject Site
Subject Site
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 7 of 15
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and found it consistent
with the GMP's Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Please see Attachment B-Comprehensive
Planning Memorandum.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends
the following:
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
“The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration
of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or
application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR
or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or
which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently
operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five
year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or
application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occurs:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffi c is equal to
or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is
equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and
submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on
all roadways.”
Staff finding: In evaluating the Marco Shores PUDA, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) dated May 25, 2023, for consistency using the applicable 2022 Annual Update and
Inventory Report) AUIR). According to the TIS and PUD document, the applicant proposes the
development of 90 multi-family dwelling units within the Marco Shores PUD. The TIS projects an
additional +/- 35 PM peak hour Two-Way trips on the adjacent roadway network. Further, the project
overview correctly notes that the additional 90 units proposed with this Amendment increase the total
number of units within the PUD to 1,670 units, which is less than the 1,980 units vested for this
development.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 8 of 15
According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways:
Existing Roadway Conditions:
Roadway/
Link #
Link
Location
2021
AUIR
LOS
P.M. Peak
Hour Peak
Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2021 AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Projected
P.M. Peak
Hour/Peak
Direction
Project
Traffic (1)
2022
AUIR
LOS
2022
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Collier
Blvd
37.0
Manatee
Road to
Mainsail
Drive
D 2,200/North 249 7/NB
D 169
(2)
Collier
Blvd
38.0
Mainsail
Drive to
Marco
Island
Bridge
D 2,200/North 426 9/NB D 329
(2)
1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is from the petitioner's May 25, 2023, Traffic Impact Statement.
2. Projected deficiencies for these segments are due to background traffic from the trip bank not caused by this development.
Network improvements north of the impact area are anticipated to potentially address the deficiencies. The deficiency
currently exists and is not caused by this development. See applicable portions of Florida Statute 163.3180 below. Existing
deficiencies. 6-lane improvement FDOT funding for ROW within the 5-year planning period and continue monitoring. Staff
further notes that this PUD is vested for more dwelling units than proposed with this petition.
Florida Statutes Section 163.3180:
▪ Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their
proportionate fair share.
▪ Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected
background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the
proportionate share calculation.
▪ The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of
the maintaining entity.
▪ Applicant must receive credit for the anticipated road impact fees.
Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
“Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted
by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system’s
capacity and integrity.”
Staff finding: This development proposes access on Mainsail Drive, which is signalized at the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and Mainsail Drive. Staff recommends approval of the proposed
access shown on the master plan for this petition.
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 9 of 15
“The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between
developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify
the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring
developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local
streets.”
Staff finding: The proposed development is interconnected with the residential development to the
west. Staff recommends approval of the proposed interconnection shown on the master plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found
this project consistent with the CCME. The project site is 4.04 acres and has been partially cleared;
no preservation is required.
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 for their recommendation to the Board of
Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who 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 property has been partially cleared. There is vegetation on-site
containing a mixture of invasive exotic plants and mangroves; however, since the original Master
Plan (Ordinance 81-6) does not show a preserve, no minimum preservation is required. No listed
animal species were observed on the property.
This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not
meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier
County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with
the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval.
Utility Review: The project lies within the City of Marco Island’s potable, reclaimed, and
wastewater service areas. The City of Marco Island provided a service availability letter for the
project.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 10 of 15
School Board Review: Currently, 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 capacity. The Development of Regional Impact (DRI) within
which the proposed project is located was approved before 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 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 convert a utility parcel and a park parcel totaling 4.04
acres to a multifamily parcel. The petitioner also proposes to increase the number of dwelling units
from 1,580 to 1,670 units in the 314.7 acre Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. The
proposed 1,670 units are less than the 1,980 vested units. The density will increase from 5.0 DUAs
to 5.3 DUAs.
The subject site is surrounded by a conservation water body to the north, the Marco Island Executive
Airport to the east, Mainsail Drive to the south, and multi-family to the west. The proposed multi-
family project is compatible with the adjacent development to the south and west and the conservation
water body to the north. To mitigate the impact of the potential incompatibility with the adjacent
Airport, the following commitments, A and B, have been added to the PUD Document:
A. The developer, its successors or assigns of Marco Shores Unit One, Tracts N and P,
acknowledges the property’s proximity to the Marco Island Executive Airport and the
potential for noises created by and incidental to the operation of the airport. Notice
shall be provided to potential homeowners and/or residents through the provision of
the following disclosure statement on any plat and in association documents for
condominium, property owner and homeowner associations, or lease documents:
“The Marco Island Executive Airport is located less than one mile to the east of (insert
plat/condominium/development, as appropriate). Owners and/or residents can expect
recurrent noises and disturbances created by, and incidental to, the airport's
operation.”
B. The developer, its successors, or assigns of Marco Shores Unit One, Tracts N and P
shall provide a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Obstruction
Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) at the time of Site Development
Plan (SDP) submittal, in accordance with LDC Section 4.02.06.
There are no proposed revisions to the currently approved residential development standards.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 11 of 15
REZONE FINDINGS:
Staff offers the following analysis:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, 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 public use, residential conservation, and golf course.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The subject parcel is of sufficient size and will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and
nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by 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.
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 utility and park development to multi-family residential development will
not change the overall intensity of land uses allowed by the current PUD. The proposed change from
utilities and park development to residential development should be more compatible with the
adjacent residential development than utility development. Therefore, the proposed change should
not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 12 of 15
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). The project’s development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency
management regulations when development approvals are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to
the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The proposed PUD Amendment is anticipated to 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 on anticipated results, which may be internal or external to
the subject property. Property valuation is affected by various factors, including zoning; however,
zoning by itself may or may not affect values since value determination is driven by market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
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 the 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, a public policy statement supporting zoning actions
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.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 13 of 15
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 neighborhood's or the county's needs.
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 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.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services is
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 not adversely impact public utilities facility
adequacy.
18. Other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem
important in protecting 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 the
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,
and other utilities.
The project lies within the City of Marco Island’s potable, reclaimed, and wastewater service areas.
The City of Marco Island provided a service availability letter for the project.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 14 of 15
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 the developer will provide appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing
operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the GMP's goals, objectives, and
policies.
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.
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.
The project lies within the City of Marco Island’s potable, reclaimed, and wastewater service areas.
The City of Marco Island provided a service availability letter for the project.
7. The ability of the subject property and surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including adjacent City of Marco Island 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 a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the 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.
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PUDA-PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD August 23, 2023
Page 15 of 15
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM meeting on July 18, 2023, at the South Regional Library at 8065 Lely
Cultural Parkway, Naples, Florida. Approximately ten residents attended the meeting in person, and
approximately 15 persons attended remotely along with the Agent’s team and Applicant.
For further information, see Attachment C-NIM Synopsis.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on August 22, 2023.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-
PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, to the BCC with a recommendation
of approval.
Attachments:
Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance
Attachment A-1-Ordinance 81-6
Attachment B-Comprehensive Planning Memorandum
Attachment C-NIM Synopsis
Attachment D-Application
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Marco Shores Staff Report 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.2Packet Pg. 490Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791,
9.E.2Packet Pg. 491Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 7-20-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791,
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment A-1- Ordinance 81-6 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 2
Growth Management Community Development Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, ASLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services
From: Kathy Eastley, AICP, Planner III, Comprehensive Planning
Date: July 13, 2023
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL20220003791
PETITION NAME: Marco Shores Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
REQUEST: To amend the Marco Shores Country Club PUD, originally approved via Ordinance #81-06 to increase
the maximum number of dwelling units from 1,580 dwelling units to 1,670 dwelling units.
LOCATION: The ±314.7-acre site is on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 4.5 miles south
of US 41 in 26, 27, and 28, Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban Designation,
Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, Coastal High Hazard Area as identified on the countywide
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Ordinance 81-06 approved the rezone from Agriculture (A) to Marco Shores Country Club PUD. The development
was approved for a maximum of 1,980 dwelling units. The most recent Monitoring Report states that 1,580 dwelling
units have been approved to be built. The current PUDA request an additional 90 dwelling units which will increase
the number of approved units to 1,670 dwelling units which is within the maximum allowances in the PUD.
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in
bold].
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 (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition
in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis. However, staff would note that in reviewing the
appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a
review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and
densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building
location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.]
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment B-Comprehensive Planning Memorandum (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2
FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting connector and
arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirement of
the Land Development Code.
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.
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points
wit 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.
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.
[Marco Shores County Club PUD existing access is from Collier Boulevard. The PUD is an isolated
development adjacent to the Marco Island Airport, therefore interconnection to other developments is not
applicable. The community includes sidewalks and a golf cart path for walkability.]
CONCLUSION:
The additional 90 dwelling units are within the maximum thresholds permitted in the PUD therefore, b ased
upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
James Sabo, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment B-Comprehensive Planning Memorandum (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores MPUDA
NIM Summary Page 1
2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797
Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479
Memorandum
Date: July 21, 2023
To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM
From: Christopher Scott, AICP
RE: Marco Shores PUDA (PL20220003799) NIM Summary
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was conducted for the above referenced project on Tuesday, July 18,
2023 at 5:30 pm at the South Regional Library Meeting Room, located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway.
Approximately nine (9) individuals from the public attended the meeting (see attached sign-in sheet). The meeting
was simultaneously conducted through Zoom, which had approximately fifteen (12) connections.
Individuals associated with the project team that were in attendance included the following:
• Christopher Scott, Peninsula Engineering
• John English, Peninsula Engineering
• Norm Trebilcock, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions
• Noel J. Davies, Esq., Davies Duke LLLC
• Jonathon Kassolis, SK Land Holdings, LLC
• Giselle Chaar-Johnson, Mainsail Apartments Manager
Chris Scott opened the meeting at 5:31 pm and provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the details of the
proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment.
Following the presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees for comments and questions. The following is
a summary of the questions asked, and comments made, by the attendees and responses given by the project
team.
Question/Comment 1: (David Wuellner, 1528 Mainsail Dr). I have noticed in the past week some utility work at
the parcel closest to the airport; specifically appears they are doing work under the road
from a holding pond on the south side to the north side. I’m wondering what that was.
Second question is I know they purchased the property from City of Marco last year at a
lower price because it does not have any density credits. I’m wondering what the status
of those density credits is.
Response: (Chris Scott) In regards to the density, the property is currently designated as a utility
and park site on the Master Concept Plan so it does not allow for residential
development. This amendment seeks to change those designations to Residential
Parcel Two-A and add ninety (90) dwelling units to the PUD to be used on this property.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 2
Currently, the PUD has some available density that is held by a third party for the
existing undeveloped sites near Collier Boulevard.
In regards to the utility improvements being made, I’m not aware of anything. It sounds
like it may be a drainage easement related. I know the water service utilities were
owned by the City of Marco and there are existing easements within the right-of-way,
so any work being done there is likely from a utility provider.
(Jon Kassolis) I can say it is nothing to do with anything we are doing. If there is work
going on there it is from a utility provider and we have not done it.
Question/Comment 2: (Marlene Mahoney, 1425 Mainsail Dr) I was wondering when the rest of the hearings
were?
Response: (Chris Scott) Nancy Gundlach with Collier County is here with us this evening. Once the
application is found sufficient, it usually takes 45-60 days to get the hearing scheduled
or to get on the agenda. I would expect it would be scheduled sometime in the next
three months. Again, there would be notices sent out to adjacent property owners, so
if you received a letter for this meeting, you would get a new letter from the County,
and there would be another legal advertisement, prior to the hearing. Those letters go
out 15 days prior to the hearing.
Questions/Comment 3: (Unintelligible)
(Chris Scott) The question is whether we have plans of the buildings or schematic of the
what the site will look like. At this time, this is just for zoning approval. There has been
some preliminary site layouts done to make sure the unit count would fit on the
property, but nothing is finalized. MHK will be the architect, and they did the existing
buildings so any new structures will have the same look, feel and size as the existing
buildings.
Question/Comment 3: (TA Woodson, 1042 Mainsail Dr) How was it determined that 90 units would fit on the
property, is it a financial thing or what? It seems like a lot to fit on 4-acres.
Response: (Chris Scott) We did a preliminary fit study utilizing the same architectural design as the
existing buildings – a four-story apartment complex, and ninety units could fit on the
site with the associated parking, stomwater, buffers and setbacks that are required by
the County.
For those people coming in, there is a sign-in sheet. If there are no more questions from
the audience, then I’m going to go to the Zoom participants. Give me one second. My
apologies…I’ll run through those screens again. Apparently, I forgot to share my screen
when the meeting started. My apologies.
(At this time, Chris Scott went through the PowerPoint presentation again for those that
arrived late and Zoom attendees)
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 3
Question/Comment 4: (Rus Watson, Mainsail Dr) What’s wrong with the idea of a park? Isn’t that what it is zoned
for?
Response: (Chris Scott) The Master Concept designates area as a Park, but it has historically been
used as a utility site and open storage. The intent is to use the site as additional
multifamily residential
Whose intent? The developer who bought it? Why would they buy it if it is supposed to
be a park – its already zoned
The question is “who’s intent is it to redesignate the property for residential,” and that
would be the applicant who is also the developer of this project. The original PUD was
approved in 1982 and it was designated as a park by the Deltona Corporation. It was
never developed. It was sold and utilized as a utility site since that time. Once the
utilities were removed, the property was sold to a private developer who is looking to
develop it for residential use.
So currently, you have the correct zoning on one parcel but not the other, is that correct?
One area is zoned for development and one area is zoned for park?
Let me go back a few slides. The parcel with the water tank, is currently designated as
a utility site on the PUD Master Plan. The parcel to the right, which was used for a water
treatment facility and open storage by one utility provider and then by the City of Marco
Island Utilities is designated as a park on the Master Concept Plan. Both of these are
being requested to be changed to Residential Parcel Two-A.
Question/Comment 5: (Rus Watson, Mainsail Dr) Is this one of those railroad jobs that the Isle of Capris people
had to go through? Its all done and the appropriate people have been greased and now
you have to have all these meetings to satisfy the environmental people…I mean, isn’t
that how things are done in Naples, Florida?
Response: (Chris Scott) I can’t speak to the other application you are referring to. Again, this is a
Planned Unit Development Amendment so there are certain requirements so there are
certain requirements to amend the zoning. An application is made to the County, which
is reviewed by staff. As part of the application we are required to have a NIM to advise
residents within the area what the application is. Once it is found sufficient there will
be an advertised public hearing before the Planning Commission, where the public can
come in and speak in favor or opposition or to express concerns.
Like the Isle of Capris people did.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. I personally haven’t had any discussions with public officials other than
staff regarding this application. That is the process for this application.
Question/Comment 6: (Nicky) Unintelligible
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 4
Response: (Chris Scott) Question from Nicky is whether this is for low income people. The intent is
this will be a second phase of the existing Mainsail apartments. I think the existing
average rent is around $2,400.
Question/Comment 7: (Romana Brodak, 1356 Mainsail Dr) All of those meetings are when nobody is around.
Why are they not when people are here?
Response: (Chris Scott) In regards to timing of meetings, it just works out as to when the County
finds the application sufficient. Usually about 45-60 days after it is found sufficient. I
will note that Collier County does simulcast their meetings through Zoom, similar to this
NIM. All notices are mailed to addresses listed with the Appraiser’s office. Most people
that don’t live here full time utilize their out-of-state mailing address. I’ve had many
conversations with people who are not in town asking to participate on this NIM
through Zoom. Collier County allows people to participate through Zoom even if they
are not here locally. I also believe the County is not holding any land use hearings that
are of great public concern during summer months when most people vacation, in July
and August. This wouldn’t be heard until September at the earliest or October.
(unintelligible)
The question is whether we (the applicant) or the public can request the meeting be
postponed. It is not the intent of the application to request the Amendment hearings
be postponed. As a resident, it is a public process, could certainly reach out to their
Commissioners if they have concerns.
Question/Comment 8: (Marlene Mahoney) Just a couple comments. When the other ninety units went up, we
were told after they were approved. We’re not the type of people who don’t want this in
my yard; that’s not the reason we’re here. It’s traffic, fire engines, we have a lot of people
that walk and bike in the street. We have seen increase in speeding. I just want to say one
other thing. When WCI approached Tropic Schooner and Mainsail when they wanted to
add another level onto their building, we were promised that we would have some
beautification down the median. They put trees but stopped it early. Then WCI sold and
nothing else was done. We can’t stop progress; we know that. For us to do something, I
think it would be nice if you did something.
(Chris Scott) Thank you for your comments. I will note when the first phase, the existing
100 units, went up the property was already zoned for residential so it was an
administrative decision and there was no requirement for public notification.
Questions/Comment 9: (Connie Wuellner, 1528 Mainsail) If they are going to add ninety units, are they going to
better maintain and monitor that street? Because, like she said, it’s not just that people
walk and bicycle on the street, its that on a regular basis that speed limit is 30 mph and
people are going 55 mph. Like she said, there are areas that need to be maintained and
beautified. Every year the County marks the sidewalks for improvements and then the
rain and weather wash it away. Finally, this year it was improved, but only beautify in
some areas where they did damage to the lawns and shoulders and median strip. So I
know when the first set of buildings went up there were lots of contractors and
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 5
equipment going back and forth things were really ugly on parts of the street and parts
of it still remain really ugly. I just want to know what the County is going to do to make
sure that speed limits are going to be enforced and the park strips and shoulders are
maintained because it feels like were forgotten because we’re the last stop before Marco.
My concern…and the reason people use the road is because the sidewalks are in disrepair
for so many years. And we walk and drive that road and there is a contractor sign up and
I believe it is the same contractor who did the first units and it is in a different spot but in
a new spot…
(cross talk – unintelligible)
Response: (Chris Scott) There was an additional comment regarding construction workers being
some of the worst offenders when it comes to speeding through the neighborhood. I
will note that again this is a zoning amendment application to add 90 units, so some of
the comments that you are making I certainly sympathize with but it is not entirely
germane to this request. The County does have what is known as a Neighborhood
Transportation Improvement Program (NTIP) that communities such as Marco Shores
could initiate to implement traffic calming measures. I don’t know if you have a Master
Association; I know there are lot of individual condo associations, but you could
certainly reach out to Collier County Transportation Department for that process. That
would identify ways you could do traffic calming along Mainsail. I believe Mainsail is a
public road; I’m not sure if it is maintained by the public or is it maintained by the
property owners association? County? OK. If you notice disrepair then you would
probably want to reach out to the County Transportation Department.
Question/Comment 10: (unintelligible) But I think it would behoove people who are going to develop this to have
us with them. What was done to us before, and I’ve been here 21 years and I’ve seen
changes, and we would like to do it in keeping with our properties. And now that whole
area is going to be apartments. Once we found out it was going to be $2500 apartments
we were happier because what we heard was I don’t want to say what we heard. So if
your people could show us renderings when they get them. I don’t think we are trying to
kill the deal. I think we are trying to work with you and make it acceptable to us so our
properties and values are upheld.
(unintelligible crosstalk)
(Chris Scott) Thank you. Again this is a public information meeting. The public hearings
take place before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
Question/Comment 11: So this is an Information Meeting and you said you have to submit a recording of this so
the County will hear what our concerns are correct?
Response: (Chris Scott) Yes, it’s part of our summary of the NIM. We provide an audio recording of
what was said and I’ll also prepare a summary of the questions, comments and concerns
expressed at the meeting. We provide that to staff. I know the Planning Commission is
looking at those summaries and listening to the meetings and the Board of County
Commissioners also take those into account.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 6
(Giselle Chaar-Johnson) Hi everyone, I’m Giselle Chaar-Johnson, the property manager
of Mainsail. I’ve been here almost two years and am very proud of my community. I do
respect and understand your concerns. We are trying so hard to build a community. We
don’t present ourselves as just another apartment community like everyone else. We
really push the community factor. Our owner, Jon, is here; that’s one of the reasons I
took this position. They’re here to develop, not to do what others have done. And we’re
not here to deceive. We just know there is really a need for this. I can tell you personally
as a renter myself, I hear your concerns and can promise you tomorrow I will send out
a notice to my residents. If we are culprits in that to let them know to be more cautious.
I don’t want to hinder you guys; we just want to improve. Our rents as you can see are
a decent amount. I’ve personally leased the units myself…I’m sort of a one-woman
show. So every person who rents in that community have rented through me. You can
blame me. You are all welcome to come into the clubhouse, talk to me, I’ll give you a
tour, show you a unit, you can go to my resident functions. I want us all to work together
and work together. And I’m sorry for the past or whats happened, it has nothing to do
with us, but we want to be different. I’m so proud of this community. And if the next
one happens, God willing, I’m going to be even more proud of. So I want us to work
together; I value everyone’s concerns. If I can take care of it I will do my best.
Question/Comment 12: (unintelligible)
Response: (Giselle Chaar-Johnson) What would you like? I don’t have any pull, but I can pretend.
(unintelligible – asking about landscaping in median)
That’s out of my hands but I’m right there with you. That area is absolutely beautiful
and peaceful and that’s why we get people that want to rent there and want to live
there. It does feel more like a home and not an apartment complex. It’s quiet. And I
want to maintain that as well, I promise you. I’m actually going to be moving on site in
spring, so their going to have an on-site security – me! So, you guys, I’m always in the
office and I can give you my personal cell. Concerns that I can handle. Anything you’re
seeing, please come tell me.
Question/Comment 13: (unintelligible – concerns about lanai with excessive plantings – looks like a “jungle.”)
Response: (Giselle Chaar-Johnson) Because of the hurricane we had to take down screens for
cleaning. It’s people’s discretion (as to what to have on their lanai). There are certain
things I don’t want them to have out their, but it is ok for plants.
(Chris Scott) I just want to make sure that we are getting all comments recorded and
the microphone wasn’t going back and forth on your two-way conversation. There was
concerns about people putting a lot of plants on their lanais on the apartments. I’m
going to take a couple more questions and I do have to get to the Zoom questions.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 7
Question/Comment 14: I think that everyone can agree that Mainsail Drive after you get by Hammock Bay could
really use some improvement and can look at this development as an opportunity to
petition or influence the county pay more attention to the eastern end of Mainsail Drive.
This area is hardly maintained; this time of year it is hardly ever mowed. When they
developed the first 100 units here they would cut through the median to get to the far
east parking lot – people drove across the grass into the median. So maybe with this
addition to your community you can influence the county to work with you – it only
enhances your value to get the County to spend more time and effort maintaining
Mainsail Drive. Its like we’re the red-headed step child street of Collier County. They’re
responsible for it and it looks terrible especially this time of year.
Question/Comment 15: (TA Whitsitt) Question for Giselle. What’s the average age of the renters?
Response: (Giselle Chaar-Johnson) I can’t answer that due to Fair Housing. I welcome you to come
visit and come to our events.
Question/Comment 16: (unintelligible) Question about background checks
100% absolutely. I wouldn’t have a job if I didn’t. Income verification and we do
backgrounds, absolutely. Even if someone is just an occupant, meaning they’re staying
there but are not on the lease, I do criminal check.
(Chris Scott) The question was whether residents at the existing apartments go through
background checks, both financial and criminal. Before we take any additional
questions from those attending in person, I want to go through the Zoom chats real fast.
Question/Comment 17: Are the apartments similar to the existing apartments and is the rent going to be similar
Response: (Chris Scott) I believe this was addressed earlier in the presentation, but the answer is
yes. These will similar products, the same design team as the existing apartments and
rents will be the same or comparable to the first phase.
(cross talk – question about dog sizes)
(Giselle Chaar-Johnson) We do have weight restrictions but that would not apply to
documented support animals.
(cross talk – unintelligible)
(Chris Scott) Again, I just want to go on record that this meeting has to be recorded and
submitted to the Planning Commission. If we get to a point where we can’t be heard or
voices can’t be heard due to cross talk in the background then that reflects poorly on
the Neighborhood Meeting so I would politely ask that you be recognized to speak and
then speak into the microphone from here on out.
(Jon Kassolis) I wanted to address the question regarding the quality of the ninety
additional units. I guess the best way to answer that is to say if you feel the existing
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 8
development is quality of design and quality of construction, then what I can say is if
we are granted this PUD Amendment with the additional density credits added then
these new units will be built by the same general contractor, designed by the same
architect, with site work done by the same engineers so it will be much of the same as
what already exists.
Question/Comment 18: Are you going to be maintaining those units 25 years from now?
Response: (Jon Kassolis) I have trouble committing to my wife what I’m going to be doing in six
months let alone 25 years. In this case I will say that we are not a merchant developer.
We are what’s called a legacy developer. That is not a promise that I w ill not sell these
in the next 25 years, but what I can say is that out company and our philosophy on
building – this is not the only building that we have; we do retail and office construction
– and when we start the building process, much like we did at Mainsail 1, our intention
is to never go into it with an exit strategy. Our intention is to go into it to leave it to our
grandchildren and that’s what I mean by legacy developers. My opinion about the
difference between a merchant and a legacy developer is quality of workmanship as
opposed to someone who is looking to quickly flip it and sell it; they’re not going to be
interested in the workmanship or maintaining it as well as someone who, again, has
every intention – not a promise, but intention, to stay in that property for a very long
time.
Question/Comment 19: (Marlene Mahoney) We all know that we’re only as good as the inmates that are running
it. So what you choose to allow, with trees on lanais and screens (crosstalk). I want to
know how much responsibility your going to take in maintaining it because you have
people coming and going.
Response: (Jon Kassolis) We are absolutely committed to maintaining the property. Giselle is our
enforcer. I’m a little confused about your comment about after the hurricane. We had
a process where we had a lot of dirty lanais – I think we all did. The process we had to
do in order to power wash them; we actually had to unseal all of the lanais because we
couldn’t go into each apartment but access it from the outside. We had to detach the
lanai and power wash from the outside. So that may be a bit of what you saw.
In terms of the jungle that you saw.
This was in the last month or two.
OK
(Giselle Chaar-Johnson) I know which one they are referring to.
(Jon Kassolis) It is our intention to have a beautiful building and tenants who are a good
member of the community. It’s not our intention to have out-of-control plants and I’m
sure we can address that.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 9
(Giselle Chaar-Johnson) I know exactly who they mean. I know all my residents. It's the
first floor, 101, and she tends to have a lot of plants. She’s very clean otherwise, she
just has a lot of plants. I can address that. If you are noticing that, it matters to me.
(cross talk)
(Chris Scott) Let me get through these Zoom comments and questions because they
have been waiting patiently. And I will note, Giselle, I don’t want to speak for you – but
a lot of these issues seem to be more specific to the existing community, so if you w ant
to stay around after the meeting you can discuss with Giselle and she can provide her
contact information to you as well.
I’m going to go through these quickly.
Question/Comment 20: It appears the existing apartments are nowhere near capacity, why is the developer
wanting to build more when the existing building appears to be mostly unsold?
Response: (Jon Kassolis) As of today we are 99% occupied.
Question/Comment 21: Please explain why density needs to increase for this project when there are 418 units still
available. Did the first apartment building have to petition for an increase and if not why?
Response: (Chris Scott) There are units available within the PUD that are owned by another
developer who has the controlling interest in the vacant parcels adjacent to Collier
Boulevard. The first phase did not have to go through a rezone. It was already zoned
residential.
That is it for questions…there are a lot of comments. If there are any more questions in
the audience…
(Jon Kassolis) Just to clarify. The first phase was not only designated and zoned
residential, but we purchased it with the 100 density credits so not only did we not have
to amend the PUD to change it to residential, there was also no requirement to add
additional density credits. For the first phase. The question was whether the first phase
had to go through a rezoning.
Question/Comment 22: (Name not provided) The only thing I want to add and it doesn’t have to be on the record
is that whatever they’ve done down there…..their certainly not an asset to the
community; their just down there at the end of the road and its more traffic, more cars
and so on, but its not monumental to this point. But I don’t see that as justification for
doubling it.
Question/Comment 23: (Unintelligible)
Response: (Chris Scott) The question was whether or not the developer will fix the road for damage
from construction already done or with continuation of the second phase. I’m not
aware of any damage.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
PL20220003799, Marco Shores PUDA
NIM Summary Page 10
(Jon Kassolis) Specifically, you are asking about damage we did during construction?
Yes (unintelligible) (comment about trash)
(Jon Kassolis) Right, I believe we’ve already remedied the median situation. The trash
situation we had a final cleanup before we opened. If you can think of other damage
that was done, then…
(crosstalk)
To my knowledge it has. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’m not aware of any
damage that is still existing.
(Chris Scott) If I may, should this be approved and the second phase is being done. This
is a County right-of-way, there will be a county right-of-way permit required to access
the site. Prior to any Certificate of Occupancy, Collier County Development Review staff
will come out and do an inspection, including that any damage would be cleaned up
before they issue a CO. So, my assumption based on the fact that the first phase is open,
that they have satisfied all of Collier County’s requirements. Again, it is a public road so
if there are issues that you see, those should be reported to Collier County
Transportation.
Let me see if anything else popped up on Zoom…one other question.
Question/Comment 24: Please ask the developer if they are interested in returning to the community a median
landscape from the airport to Hammock Bay?
Response: (Chris Scott) This project has its own landscape requirements and they are required to
put in landscape buffers including along the frontage. I’m not aware of any
requirements to provide landscaping within the buffers.
Question/Comment 25: (TA Whisitt) With these 90 units in Phase 2 and the two towers that can go up, is that it?
You just mentioned something about another developer and a parcel on Collier.
Response: (Chris Scott) I know there are two existing parcels up near Collier Boulevard.
On Mainsail?
(Jon Kassolis) what you are referring to is the two tower sites. The two tower sites is
the remaining units and that will be it. If the PUDA is approved, then it would be that
ninety plus the two towers.
(Chris Scott) I will just clarify that unless someone else comes forward in the future to
amend the PUD.
End of Neighborhood Meeting.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
17:36:12 From Maria Rizzuti to Chris Scott(Direct Message) : can you share your screen?
17:38:53 From Lisa’s iPad : We don’t see the shared screen
17:39:16 From johnf : Me too
17:39:25 From Feeneys : no one can see the items you are talking about
17:41:23 From johnf : Now we can't hear either
17:42:57 From Lisa’s iPad : Can you please;unmute us so we can ask questions
17:47:04 From Kerry VanderVelde : We can hear, just can’t see slides
17:47:05 From Gary Broad : Yes
17:47:35 From Kerry VanderVelde : no screen
17:47:38 From Feeneys : no
17:47:43 From johnf : Nope
17:50:23 From Gary Ceremuga : Are the apartments similar to the existing apartments? And is
the rent $$ also going to be similar?
17:54:16 From Lisa’s iPad : GREAT QUESTION
17:55:03 From johnf : Wish I could hear the questions
17:56:28 From Lisa’s iPad : GREAT POINT
17:59:28 From Gary Ceremuga : We have seen a substantial increase in traffic since the
completion of the existing 100 unit complex and have serious safety concerns. Another 90 units brings
the potential 180 cars. Mainsail Dr is very popular for walkers joggers and bikers.
18:00:10 From johnf : YES YES YES
18:01:07 From Maria Rizzuti : Agree and most drive over the speed limit.
18:01:55 From Kerry VanderVelde : My main concern is lack of enforcement of speed limits. This
issue will need to be brought up at the county commissioners meeting.
18:05:02 From Gary Ceremuga : We are losing our quiet dead end street. The developer is
asking a LOT to have this property re-zoned. I think we as the Marco Shores Community should get
something in return... landscaping the median strip from the airport to Hammock Bay
18:05:18 From Kerry VanderVelde : Reacted to "We are losing our qu..." with
18:05:30 From Lisa’s iPad : Agreed
18:05:47 From Gary Ceremuga : No master association...
18:06:31 From Gary Ceremuga : landscaping the median would help to slow traffic
18:08:45 From Gary Ceremuga : We are also concerned about our market values and how
increased traffic from another 180 cars would affect that...
18:10:23 From Lisa’s iPad : I would like to see the traffic flow study
18:12:08 From Gary Ceremuga : Me too...
18:12:49 From Joseph Hoffman : It appears that the current apartments are no where near
capacity. Why is the developer wanting to build more before the current building appears to be mostly
unsold?
18:14:17 From Lisa’s iPad : I believe these are just rentals
18:15:37 From Gary Ceremuga : great question, but we all know the migration to Florida is
immense and will only get greater in the future
18:17:33 From Maria Rizzuti : Concern if renters elect to rent and then turn into an Airbnb
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
18:21:31 From Pat Thurston to Chris Scott(Direct Message) : Please explain why density needs
to increase for this project? Why would the 90 units not come from the 418 units still available. Did the
first apartment building have to petition for an increase? If not why not? What is different.
18:23:55 From Gary Ceremuga : With regard to traffic, please keep in mind there will be another
240 homes once Hammock Bay completes the pre-approved 2 more towers...
18:25:34 From Lisa’s iPad : This is sounding like a traffic nightmare
18:29:41 From Gary Ceremuga : We are losing our quiet dead end street. The developer is
asking a LOT to have this property re-zoned. I think we as the Marco Shores Community should get
something in return... landscaping the median strip from the airport to Hammock Bay... Please ask the
developer if they are interested in returning to the community a median landscape from airport to
Hammock Bay??
18:30:42 From Lisa’s iPad : I agree with Gary
18:31:57 From Lisa’s iPad : Traffic flow study
18:32:34 From Gary Ceremuga : Palm trees in the median from the developer would go a long
way to get support from the community for their re-zone request
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf
MARCO SHORES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA)
PL20220003791
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
JULY 18, 2023
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
ZOOM TUTORIAL
•Please keep your speaker on MUTE during the presentation
•Following the presentation, we will open the meeting for Q&A
•Please type in questions using the “Chat” Tool. Submitted questions
will be read aloud prior to response
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
APPLICANT:
SK Holdings Real Estate, LLC
•Jonathan Kassolis, President
CONSULTANT TEAM:
Davies Duke, PLLC
•Noel J. Davies, Esq.
Peninsula Engineering
•Christopher Scott, AICP
•David Hurst, PE
•Bruce Layman, Ecologist
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions
•Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
LOCATION MAP
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
ZONING REQUEST
Amend the Marco Shores PUD (Ord 81-
06, as amended):
•Increase total number of permitted
dwelling units from 1,580 to 1,670
(+90 du)
•Update Master Concept Plan to
extend Residential Parcel Two A
designation to the Utility and Park
sites (4.04-acres)
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
EXISTING MASTER CONCEPT PLAN
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
PROPOSED MASTER CONCEPT PLAN
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
HISTORICAL USE
Historically, both sites were owned and
used for utility purposes by the City of
Marco Island as a Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Reclaimed Water Storage Tank, Pump
Station and Open Storage.
Improvements removed 2018-2020 as part
of City’s utility improvements and property
sold to SK Holdings Real Estate
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
ZONING REQUEST
The PUDA allows for the development of
the Mainsail Apartments Phase 2.
Phase 1 (2022) includes 100 units.
Phase 2 intended to include 90-units.
TIS: +35 Two-Way PM Peak Hour Net Trips;
Roadway segments will operate at
acceptable levels of service with the
addition of project traffic.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
NEXT STEPS…
PUDA Application being reviewed by Collier County Staff
Collier County Planning Commission –Public Hearing
Board of County Commissioners –Public Hearing
Site Development Plan Submittal
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
QUESTIONS
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
STAY CONNECTED
Chris Scott, Peninsula Engineering
CScott@pen-eng.com
239-403-6700
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment C-NIM Synopsis (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco
From: gianina judy <gianicia@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:16 PM
To: Nancy Gundlach
Subject:Re: Marco Shores PUDA
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 really don’t understand why this company wants to build another building, as it is, we all know that
they are including garages for free to new renters right now because they don’t have enough people
leasing their apartments, what is the reason for another building? Money?
Why can the zoning be left as it is?
What is the benefit to the public?
How does it benefit our community?
To the contrary it will hurt our living style. Mainsail is a quit road where people like jogging, biking and
enjoy nature. With the increasing traffic because of the buildings it will be almost impossible to
continue enjoying our places. On the other hand our properties value will go down because this place is
going to be more crowded and busy with the traffic
And also what about the animals that live in that area.
This is a beautiful and peaceful place as it is, why ruining it?
When is it going to stop?
Everything is not about just getting more money we should respect more the nature around us instead
of keep destroying it.
Gianina Paniccia
1516 Mainsail dr unit 6
Naples, FL 34114
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Letter of Objection-Paniccia 10-4-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.8Packet Pg. 551Attachment: SIgn Positing Exhibit and Affidavit 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD
PUDA, PL20220003791
Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
Public Hearing Sign Posting – September 19, 2023
9.E.8
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: SIgn Positing Exhibit and Affidavit 9-25-23 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)
9.E.9
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: legal ad - agenda ID 26806 (26806 : Zoning Petition -PL20220003791, Marco Shores Golf Course CPUD)