Loading...
Commissioner SaundersEx parte Items – Commissioner Bill McDaniel COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA January 23, 2024 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS – None ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS – 9.A. This item requires the Commission members to provide ex-parte disclosure. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an ordinance for the property from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, to allow construction of up to150 multi-family rental units with affordable housing on property located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately 828 feet from the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 5.88± acres. [PL20220001011] (This is a companion to item 9B). (District 2) (27402) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings Correspondence e-mails Calls CONSENT AGENDA – None SUMMARY AGENDA – None Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt L. Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA JANUARY 23, 2024 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE CONSENT AGENDA - NONE SUMMARY AGENDA - NONE 1 Cristina Tiberia Subject:FW: Meeting w/Commissioner McDaniel re: Mattson @Vanderbilt Location:3299 Tamiami Trial E #303 Start:Mon 1/22/2024 1:00 PM End:Mon 1/22/2024 1:30 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Richard Yovanovich -----Original Appointment----- From: Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:31 PM To: Richard Yovanovich; Cristina Tiberia Subject: Meeting w/Commissioner McDaniel re: Mattson @Vanderbilt When: Monday, January 22, 2024 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: 3299 Tamiami Trial E #303 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. Diane Green-Kelly, Director/Past President of Village Walk Homeowners Assoc. of Naples, Inc. Geoffrey Kelly, Resident 3243 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: I (Diane) am a Director and past President of the Board of Directors of the Village Walk Homeowners AssociaƟon of Naples, Inc. (“VWHOA”). My husband, Geoff, and I have owned in Naples for more than ten years, are registered voters and are full Ɵme residents of VWHOA. VWHOA is a stone’s throw from the proposed development known as MaƩson on Vanderbilt (“MaƩson”), located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. I (Diane) am a recently reƟred liƟgaƟon Partner from the Chicago office of Reed Smith LLP, the 11th largest internaƟonal law firm with offices world-wide. My husband is the reƟred former owner of an environmental remediaƟon business and former construcƟon contractor who has built homes on Jupiter Island, Florida, Texas, and California (San Francisco area). We respecƞully write to oppose MaƩson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviaƟons, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for mulƟ-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservaƟon to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. A hearing on MaƩson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23rd at 9 a.m. In short, MaƩson’s request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negaƟvely affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its jusƟficaƟons for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but parƟcularly when snowbirds return. MaƩson jusƟfies its peƟƟon by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house reƟred residents who do not commute and add to road congesƟon. In contrast, MaƩson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congesƟon. One adjacent project offers shuƩle service and has sufficient open space internally to have vehicles pick up residents within the project. MaƩson, in contrast, merely offers to provide an easement immediately adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, to accommodate public bus service. That will both (1) add congesƟon by slowing down traffic as buses slow down to pull over to the side of Vanderbilt Beach Road to stop and pick up passengers, and (2) cost the County money to provide bus service. Second, approval will increase traffic safety hazards. There is only one ingress/egress to MaƩson. To travel East when leaving, residents will have to quickly cross over two lanes of busy traffic on Vanderbilt Beach to reach the leŌ turn opening in the median strip. LeŌ turns are not permiƩed at the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt, and changing that to allow such turns will merely slow down leŌ turning traffic. Vanderbilt and Livingston already experience too many car accidents. MaƩson’s increased density and proposed resident demographic will increase car accidents. Third, MaƩson proposes to reduce the open space requirement of 60% to 40% to accomplish its objecƟves. It argues that “]d]ue to the size of the infill parcel, meeƟng the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed 4-story height.” The answer, then, is to reduce the height of the project, not to deviate from a reasonable standard and create safety hazards and traffic congesƟon for the thousands of residents in the nearby vicinity, including VWHOA. The developer’s profits are not anyone else’s concern. Build a project that conforms, or do not proceed at all. Fourth, MaƩson’s jusƟficaƟon for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. MaƩson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set-aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters leave (and renters do not stay long), MaƩson will be free to rent to whomever they please without restricƟon. They promise to adverƟse to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, thereby completely defeaƟng their jusƟficaƟon. Renters do not stay long term. This is an example of the government aƩempƟng to fix a problem (insufficient housing for service providers) that will have a very short life in pracƟce. Personally, although I understand the need to let people live near their places of employment, such condiƟons are not a guarantee in life. When I entered the workforce, I commuted 1.5 hours each way into the city of Chicago for employment for years because I could not afford housing in the city center. And I am not alone in this experience. No one is guaranteed housing just down the road from a beauƟful beach, in the center of an aƩracƟve area close to his/her place of employment. FiŌh, MaƩson’s jusƟfies it request for a significant reducƟon in available parking on site because the “developer has extensive experience in creaƟng successful mulƟ-family dwelling units throughout the United States.” I am not impressed with what the developer has done elsewhere. They say nothing about how their request to reduce parking here will impact the people renƟng those projects and/or what the impact will be on surrounding residents here. Certainly, if the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. MaƩson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means that many residents will be two people living in one unit. Each will have to have a car. And MaƩson also will have 2- and 3-bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? MaƩson does not address this issue. Finally (although I could conƟnue), Vanderbilt Road is already a very busy road, even in the off season. I am aware of the traffic studies that purport to show the effect of the proposed development, but do not believe they take into account the added traffic that also is expected from an addiƟonal already approved development -- Ascend Naples -- which will be located about a mile east of VWHOA on Vanderbilt, across from the entrance to Island Walk Homeowners AssociaƟon. Ascend Naples plans to include 208 resident rental units, also with a percentage set aside for affordable housing. Each one of these two proposed developments will unacceptably increase traffic on Vanderbilt. But both projects in combinaƟon will far exceed any degree of acceptability. Importantly, Bermuda Apartments already offers rentals right across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the proposed MaƩson project. Do we really need to add 150 more when the affect on the rest of the area will be increased congesƟon and safety hazards? Residents, such as my husband and I, purchased in this area of North Naples ten years ago precisely because it consists primarily of single-family home communiƟes, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then exisƟng zoning standards. MaƩson and Ascend will conƟnue to thwart the expectaƟons of exisƟng homeowners that have been created by exisƟng zoning. We do not need more traffic congesƟon, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negaƟvely affected by 150 new residenƟal rental units at the MaƩson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please reject MaƩson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respecƞully, Diane Green-Kelly and Geoffrey Kelly 3243 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 To The Honorable District Representative: We are writing to you in regards of the proposal to be voted on October 24, 2023 for the 2 new developments proposed on Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples. The new housing will have 358 units in total. Our family has property in Naples in Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor from 2012. We have lived here permanently for almost 5 years. Over this period of, the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road has changed drastically for the worse. Formerly a quiet road, it has become like an industrial road or Manhattan type street. The morning and evening commute is very busy, even during the summertime off-season when schools are closed and snowbirds are gone. During winter season, the traffic is heavy all day long. The intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road is particularly busy and has become dangerous. The same conditions exist at other intersections long Vanderbilt Beach Road. Also, Vanderbilt Beach Road reduces to a two-lane road West of Airport Pulling to Rt 41. The traffic is not our only concern. The proposed number of rental units require other supportive infrastructures that need to be addressed. Most important is a school. The addition of 358 proposed units could potentially add 400-500 new students at existing schools. Will this require additional classrooms, teachers, custodians, equipment, Sheriff deputy monitoring, buses, etc? While the proposed development would create a larger tax paying base, will it even come close to covering the increased costs? Will this translates into higher taxes being assessed against existing residents? Our surrounding infrastructure, such as stores, restaurants, patron parking, etc. in the general vicinity of these proposed new developments are already at maximum capacity. EMS services will require more time to reach people in need and navigating the troublesome traffic that currently exists is already a serious problem without the addition of these two new developments. The developers are naturally interested in building new units and generating profits. But they or Collier County government should be responsible for building the infrastructure to serve those communities first, and not at the expense of existing residents. Our family requests that the Council address these issues prior to any decision to approve these unsustainable and unwanted projects. The Council represents the interests of the voters and rezoning is definitely NOT in the interest of the citizens of this area. Respectfully, Kisenishsky family: Olga, Alexander, Elizabeth. 3231 Benicia Ct., Naples, Fl 34109 Phone 239-451-4641 Ref: Units to be built: 208 Ascend Naples, a proposed multifamily rental community located on Vanderbilt Beach Road, just east of Logan Boulevard, in the urban Golden Gate Estates. Units to be built: 150 Vanderbilt Beach Rd and Livingston Rd Mattson at Vanderbilt Residential Subdistrict Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Petition Number: PL20220001010 and Mattson at Vanderbilt Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rezone Petition Number: PL20220001011 Nora and Kenneth Marks Village Walk of Naples Residents 4214 Los Altos Ct. Naples, FL 34109 January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: We, my husband and I, are homeowners in Village Walk on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We have owned our home at Village Walk for eight years, and are registered voters in Collier County, Florida. Village Walk is a community located directly across the street from the proposed develo pment known as MaƩson on Vanderbilt (“MaƩson”). We respecƞully write to oppose MaƩson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow devia Ɵons which will have the effect of significantly increasing traffic and safety concerns on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. A hearing on MaƩson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23 rd at 9 a.m. In short, MaƩson’s request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negaƟvely affect Village Walk residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its jusƟficaƟons for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but parƟcularly when snowbirds return. MaƩson jusƟfies its peƟƟon by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house reƟred residents who do not commute and add to road congesƟon. In contrast, MaƩson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congesƟon. One adjacent project offers shuƩle service and has sufficient open space internally to have vehicles pick up residents within the project. MaƩson, in contrast, merely offers to provide an easement immediately adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, to accommodate public bus service. That will both (1) add congesƟon by slowing down traffic as buses slow down to pull over to the side of Vanderbilt Beach Road to stop and pick up passengers, and (2) cost the County money to provide bus service. Second, approval will increase traffic safety hazards. There is only one ingress/egress to MaƩson. To travel East on Vanderbilt Beach Road or South on Livingston Road when leaving, residents will have to quickly cross over three lanes of busy traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road to reach the leŌ turn lane in the median strip. When pulling into the MaƩson development cars will have to slow down and get into a right turn lane which will impact traffic flow on this high speed congested road. It will also interfere with the proposed bus easement. Vanderbilt and Livingston already experience too many car accidents. There are frequent instances of accidents and police cars at this intersecƟon and a few years ago there was a terrible double fatality accident due to a leŌ turn at this intersecƟon. MaƩson’s increased density and proposed resident demographic will increase traffic and car accidents and adversely affect auto safety. Third, MaƩson’s jusƟficaƟon for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. We strongly support the need for affordable housing for workers in the Naples area. MaƩson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set-aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters leave (and renters do not stay long), MaƩson will be free to rent to whomever they please without restricƟon. They promise to adverƟse to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, thereby completely defeaƟng their jusƟficaƟon for affordable housing. Renters do not stay long term. This is an example of the government aƩempƟng to fix a problem (insufficient housing for service providers) that will have a very short life in pracƟce. The requirement to provide affordable housing should be for a reasonable Ɵme period like 15 or 20 years to ensure that this intent is accomplished. Fourth, MaƩson’s jusƟfies it’s request for a significant reducƟon in available parking on site because the “developer has extensive experience in creaƟng successful mulƟ-family dwelling units throughout the United States.” I am not impressed with what the developer has done elsewhere. Naples is a somewhat unique city with a strong dependence on automobiles due to limited availability of public transportaƟon. If the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. MaƩson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means that many residents will be two people living in one unit. Each will have to have a car. And MaƩson also will have 2- and 3-bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? MaƩson does not address this issue. I believe there will be more cars parking in the development and using the roads than MaƩson esƟmates. Finally , Vanderbilt Road is already a very busy road, even in the off season. I am aware of the traffic studies that purport to show the effect of the proposed development, but do not believe they take into account the added traffic that also is expected from an addiƟonal already approved development -- Ascend Naples -- which will be located about a mile east of Village Walk on Vanderbilt, across from the entrance to Island Walk. Ascend Naples plans to include 208 resident rental units, also with a percentage set aside for affordable housing. Each one of these two proposed developments will unacceptably increase traffic on Vanderbilt Road. But both projects together will far exceed any degree of acceptability. Importantly, TGM Bermuda Apartments right across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the MaƩson project, along with the already approved Ascend Naples development will offer many rentals in this area. Do we really need to add 150 more when the effect on the rest of the area will be increased congesƟon and safety hazards? Residents, such as my husband and I, purchased in this area of North Naples eight years ago precisely because it consists primarily of single-family home communiƟes, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then exisƟng zoning standards. MaƩson and Ascend will change the expectaƟons of exisƟng homeowners that have been created by exisƟng zoning. We do not need more traffic congesƟon, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negaƟvely affected by 150 new residenƟal rental units at the MaƩson at Vanderbilt RPUD, we are asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not live or vote here and whose interests should not override the interest of the residents of Village Walk, and other nearby residents. Thank you for your consideraƟon. Please reject MaƩson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respecƞully, Nora and Ken Marks 4214 Los Altos Court, Naples, FL 34109 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Opposition to Mattson's Request for Ordinance Amendment To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: I am writing to express my strong opposition to Mattson's request for the approval of an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendments, including the reduction of open space, parking space, and tree preservation requirements, raise significant concerns for the community, particularly those residing in the surrounding area. First and foremost, the proposed project's increased density will undoubtedly contribute to heightened traffic congestion on Vanderbilt Beach Road. While Mattson draws comparisons to adjacent developments catering to retired residents, it fails to acknowledge the fundamental difference in its intention to house individuals who actively work and commute. The provision of an easement for public bus service, as opposed to internal shuttle services, is insufficient and will only exacerbate traffic issues while costing the County additional resources. Moreover, the proposed project poses safety hazards by limiting its ingress/egress to a single point, requiring residents to navigate across busy traffic lanes. This raises concerns about increased traffic accidents, especially given the existing challenges at the intersection of Vanderbilt and Livingston. Mattson's argument for reducing the open space requirement is unconvincing, as it suggests that adhering to the 60% standard would render the site unusable for a 4-story structure. Instead of compromising safety and traffic flow, the developer should consider adjusting the project's height to meet established standards without jeopardizing the well-being of nearby residents. The promise of dedicating 30% of units to income-restricted affordable housing is undermined by the transient nature of renters. Once initial occupants vacate, Mattson can freely rent to anyone without restrictions, rendering the justification for increased density moot. Such short-term solutions do not effectively address the long-term need for affordable housing for service providers. Additionally, the justification for a reduction in on-site parking is vague, and Mattson's claims of success elsewhere do not consider the unique needs and demographics of the Vanderbilt Beach area. The lack of clarity on the impact of reduced parking on residents and the surrounding community is a significant concern. Lastly, the cumulative effect of increased traffic from the proposed Mattson project, combined with an already approved development like Ascend Naples, will undoubtedly lead to unacceptable levels of congestion on Vanderbilt Beach Road. As a resident and voter, I urge you to prioritize the interests of the community over those of the developer. I request that you reject Mattson's request for the proposed Ordinance amendment at the upcoming hearing. Residents should not bear the brunt of compromised safety, increased congestion, and the deviation from existing zoning standards. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will represent the concerns of the voters in our district and make decisions that prioritize our collective well-being. Respectfully, Christopher and Ricki Soule 3202 Benicia CT Naples, FL 34109 239-449-9140 Christopher B. Walters, LtCol USMC (Ret.) and Milenes Walters 3339 Cerrito Court Naples, FL 34109 January 23, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: We are owner residents of our home in Village Walk, Naples. We oppose the below proposed project and agree with all the points raised by our fellow Village Walk neighbor, Diane Green Kelly, in her leƩer copied below. Thank you for your consideraƟon. We respecƞully write to oppose MaƩson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviaƟons, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for mulƟ-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservaƟon to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. A hearing on MaƩson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23 rd at 9 a.m. In short, MaƩson’s request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negaƟvely affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its jusƟficaƟons for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but parƟcularly when snowbirds return. MaƩson jusƟfies its peƟƟon by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house reƟred residents who do not commute and add to road congesƟon. In contrast, MaƩson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congesƟon. One adjacent project offers shuƩle service and has sufficient open space internally to have vehicles pick up residents within the project. MaƩson, in contrast, merely offers to provide an easement immediately adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, to accommodate public bus service. That will both (1) add congesƟon by slowing down traffic as buses slow down to pull over to the side of Vanderbilt Beach Road to stop and pick up passengers, and (2) cost the County money to provide bus service. Second, approval will increase traffic safety hazards. There is only one ingress/egress to MaƩson. To travel East when leaving, residents will have to quickly cross over two lanes of busy traffic on Vanderbilt Beach to reach the leŌ turn opening in the median strip. LeŌ turns are not permiƩed at the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt, and changing that to allow such turns will merely slow down leŌ turning traffic. Vanderbilt and Livingston already experience too many car accidents. MaƩson’s increased density and proposed resident demographic will increase car accidents. Third, MaƩson proposes to reduce the open space requirement of 60% to 40% to accomplish its objecƟves. It argues that “]d]ue to the size of the infill parcel, meeƟng the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed 4-story height.” The answer, then, is to reduce the height of the project, not to deviate from a reasonable standard and create safety hazards and traffic congesƟon for the thousands of residents in the nearby vicinity, including VWHOA. The developer’s profits are not anyone else’s concern. Build a project that conforms, or do not proceed at all. Fourth, MaƩson’s jusƟficaƟon for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. MaƩson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set-aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters leave (and renters do not stay long), MaƩson will be free to rent to whomever they please without restricƟon. They promise to adverƟse to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, thereby completely defeaƟng their jusƟficaƟon. Renters do not stay long term. This is an example of the government aƩempƟng to fix a problem (insufficient housing for service providers) that will have a very short life in pracƟce. Personally, although I understand the need to let people live near their places of employment, such condiƟons are not a guarantee in life. When I entered the workforce, I commuted 1.5 hours each way into the city of Chicago for employment for years because I could not afford housing in the city center. And I am not alone in this experience. No one is guaranteed housing just down the road from a beauƟful beach, in the center of an aƩracƟve area close to his/her place of employment. FiŌh, MaƩson’s jusƟfies it request for a significant reducƟon in available parking on site because the “developer has extensive experience in creaƟng successful mulƟ-family dwelling units throughout the United States.” I am not impressed with what the developer has done elsewhere. They say nothing about how their request to reduce parking here will impact the people renƟng those projects and/or what the impact will be on surrounding residents here. Certainly, if the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. MaƩson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means that many residents will be two people living in one unit. Each will have to have a car. And MaƩson also will have 2- and 3-bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? MaƩson does not address this issue. Finally (although I could conƟnue), Vanderbilt Road is already a very busy road, even in the off season. I am aware of the traffic studies that purport to show the effect of the proposed development, but do not believe they take into account the added traffic that also is expected from an addiƟonal already approved development -- Ascend Naples -- which will be located about a mile east of VWHOA on Vanderbilt, across from the entrance to Island Walk Homeowners AssociaƟon. Ascend Naples plans to include 208 resident rental units, also with a percentage set aside for affordable housing. Each one of these two proposed developments will unacceptably increase traffic on Vanderbilt. But both projects in combinaƟon will far exceed any degree of acceptability. Importantly, Bermuda Apartments already offers rentals right across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the proposed MaƩson project. Do we really need to add 150 more when the affect on the rest of the area will be increased congesƟon and safety hazards? Residents, such as my husband and I, purchased in this area of North Naples ten years ago precisely because it consists primarily of single-family home communiƟes, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then exisƟng zoning standards. MaƩson and Ascend will conƟnue to thwart the expectaƟons of exisƟng homeowners that have been created by exisƟng zoning. We do not need more traffic congesƟon, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negaƟvely affected by 150 new residenƟal rental units at the MaƩson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please reject MaƩson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respecƞully, Christopher B. Walters and Milenes Walters 3339 Cerrito Ct Naples, FL 34109 Diane Green-Kelly, Director/Past President of Village Walk Homeowners Assoc. of Naples, Inc. Geoffrey Kelly, Resident 3243 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: I (Diane) am a Director and past President of the Board of Directors of the Village Walk Homeowners AssociaƟon of Naples, Inc. (“VWHOA”). My husband, Geoff, and I have owned in Naples for more than ten years, are registered voters and are full Ɵme residents of VWHOA. VWHOA is a stone’s throw from the proposed development known as MaƩson on Vanderbilt (“MaƩson”), located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. I (Diane) am a recently reƟred liƟgaƟon Partner from the Chicago office of Reed Smith LLP, the 11 th largest internaƟonal law firm with offices world-wide. My husband is the reƟred former owner of an environmental remediaƟon business and former construcƟon contractor who has built homes on Jupiter Island, Florida, Texas, and California (San Francisco area). We respecƞully write to oppose MaƩson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviaƟons, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for mulƟ-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservaƟon to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. A hearing on MaƩson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23rd at 9 a.m. In short, MaƩson’s request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negaƟvely affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its jusƟficaƟons for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but parƟcularly when snowbirds return. MaƩson jusƟfies its peƟƟon by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house reƟred residents who do not commute and add to road congesƟon. In contrast, MaƩson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congesƟon. One adjacent project offers shuƩle service and has sufficient open space internally to have vehicles pick up residents within the project. MaƩson, in contrast, merely offers to provide an easement immediately adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, to accommodate public bus service. That will both (1) add congesƟon by slowing down traffic as buses slow down to pull over to the side of Vanderbilt Beach Road to stop and pick up passengers, and (2) cost the County money to provide bus service. Second, approval will increase traffic safety hazards. There is only one ingress/egress to MaƩson. To travel East when leaving, residents will have to quickly cross over two lanes of busy traffic on Vanderbilt Beach to reach the leŌ turn opening in the median strip. LeŌ turns are not permiƩed at the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt, and changing that to allow such turns will merely slow down leŌ turning traffic. Vanderbilt and Livingston already experience too many car accidents. MaƩson’s increased density and proposed resident demographic will increase car accidents. Third, MaƩson proposes to reduce the open space requirement of 60% to 40% to accomplish its objecƟves. It argues that “]d]ue to the size of the infill parcel, meeƟng the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed 4-story height.” The answer, then, is to reduce the height of the project, not to deviate from a reasonable standard and create safety hazards and traffic congesƟon for the thousands of residents in the nearby vicinity, including VWHOA. The developer’s profits are not anyone else’s concern. Build a project that conforms, or do not proceed at all. Fourth, MaƩson’s jusƟficaƟon for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. MaƩson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set-aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters leave (and renters do not stay long), MaƩson will be free to rent to whomever they please without restricƟon. They promise to adverƟse to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, thereby completely defeaƟng their jusƟficaƟon. Renters do not stay long term. This is an example of the government aƩempƟng to fix a problem (insufficient housing for service providers) that will have a very short life in pracƟce. Personally, although I understand the need to let people live near their places of employment, such condiƟons are not a guarantee in life. When I entered the workforce, I commuted 1.5 hours each way into the city of Chicago for employment for years because I could not afford housing in the city center. And I am not alone in this experience. No one is guaranteed housing just down the road from a beauƟful beach, in the center of an aƩracƟve area close to his/her place of employment. FiŌh, MaƩson’s jusƟfies it request for a significant reducƟon in available parking on site because the “developer has extensive experience in creaƟng successful mulƟ-family dwelling units throughout the United States.” I am not impressed with what the developer has done elsewhere. They say nothing about how their request to reduce parking here will impact the people renƟng those projects and/or what the impact will be on surrounding residents here. Certainly, if the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. MaƩson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means that many residents will be two people living in one unit. Each will have to have a car. And MaƩson also will have 2- and 3-bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? MaƩson does not address this issue. Finally (although I could conƟnue), Vanderbilt Road is already a very busy road, even in the off season. I am aware of the traffic studies that purport to show the effect of the proposed development, but do not believe they take into account the added traffic that also is expected from an addiƟonal already approved development -- Ascend Naples -- which will be located about a mile east of VWHOA on Vanderbilt, across from the entrance to Island Walk Homeowners AssociaƟon. Ascend Naples plans to include 208 resident rental units, also with a percentage set aside for affordable housing. Each one of these two proposed developments will unacceptably increase traffic on Vanderbilt. But both projects in combinaƟon will far exceed any degree of acceptability. Importantly, Bermuda Apartments already offers rentals right across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the proposed MaƩson project. Do we really need to add 150 more when the affect on the rest of the area will be increased congesƟon and safety hazards? Residents, such as my husband and I, purchased in this area of North Naples ten years ago precisely because it consists primarily of single-family home communiƟes, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then exisƟng zoning standards. MaƩson and Ascend will conƟnue to thwart the expectaƟons of exisƟng homeowners that have been created by exisƟng zoning. We do not need more traffic congesƟon, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negaƟvely affected by 150 new residenƟal rental units at the MaƩson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please reject MaƩson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respecƞully, Diane Green-Kelly and Geoffrey Kelly 3243 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 Diane Green -Kelly, Director/Past President of Village Walk Homeowners Assoc. of Naples, Inc. Geoffrey Kelly, Resident 3243 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: I (Diane) am a Director and past President of the Board of Directors of the Village Walk Homeowners Association of Naples, Inc. ("VWHOA"). My husband, Geoff, and I have owned in Naples for more than ten years, are registered voters and are full time residents of VWHOA. VWHOA is a stone's throw from the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt ("Mattson"), located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. 1 (Diane) am a recently retired litigation Partner from the Chicago office of Reed Smith LLP, the 11th largest international law firm with offices world-wide. My husband is the retired former owner of an environmental remediation business and former construction contractor who has built homes on Jupiter Island, Florida, Texas, and California (San Francisco area). We respectfully write to oppose Mattson's request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi -family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. A hearing on Mattson's request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23`d at 9 a.m. In short, Mattson's request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its justifications for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but particularly when snowbirds return. Mattson justifies its petition by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house retired residents who do not commute and add to road congestion. In contrast, Mattson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congestion. One adjacent project offers shuttle service and has sufficient open space internally to have vehicles pick up residents within the project. Mattson, in contrast, merely offers to provide an easement immediately adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, to accommodate public bus service. That will both (1) add congestion by slowing down traffic as buses slow down to pull over to the side of Vanderbilt Beach Road to stop and pick up passengers, and (2) cost the County money to provide bus service. Second, approval will increase traffic safety hazards. There is only one ingress/egress to Mattson. To travel East when leaving, residents will have to quickly cross over two lanes of busy traffic on Vanderbilt Beach to reach the left turn opening in the median strip. Left turns are not permitted at the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt, and changing that to allow such turns will merely slow down left turning traffic. Vanderbilt and Livingston already experience too many car accidents. Mattson's increased density and proposed resident demographic will increase car accidents. Third, Mattson proposes to reduce the open space requirement of 60% to 40% to accomplish its objectives. It argues that "]d]ue to the size of the infill parcel, meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed 4-story height." The answer, then, is to reduce the height of the project, not to deviate from a reasonable standard and create safety hazards and traffic congestion for the thousands of residents in the nearby vicinity, including VWHOA. The developer's profits are not anyone else's concern. Build a project that conforms, or do not proceed at all. Fourth, Mattson's justification for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. Mattson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set -aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters leave (and renters do not stay long), Mattson will be free to rent to whomever they please without restriction. They promise to advertise to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, thereby completely defeating their justification. Renters do not stay long term. This is an example of the government attempting to fix a problem (insufficient housing for service providers) that will have a very short life in practice. Personally, although I understand the need to let people live near their places of employment, such conditions are not a guarantee in life. When I entered the workforce, I commuted 1.5 hours each way into the city of Chicago for employment for years because I could not afford housing in the city center. And I am not alone in this experience. No one is guaranteed housing just down the road from a beautiful beach, in the center of an attractive area close to his/her place of employment. Fifth, Mattson's justifies it request for a significant reduction in available parking on site because the "developer has extensive experience in creating successful multi -family dwelling units throughout the United States." I am not impressed with what the developer has done elsewhere. They say nothing about how their request to reduce parking here will impact the people renting those projects and/or what the impact will be on surrounding residents here. Certainly, if the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. Mattson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means that many residents will be two people living in one unit. Each will have to have a car. And Mattson also will have 2- and 3-bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? Mattson does not address this issue. Finally (although I could continue), Vanderbilt Road is already a very busy road, even in the off season. I am aware of the traffic studies that purport to show the effect of the proposed development, but do not believe they take into account the added traffic that also is expected from an additional already approved development -- Ascend Naples -- which will be located about a mile east of VWHOA on Vanderbilt, across from the entrance to Island Walk Homeowners Association. Ascend Naples plans to include 208 resident rental units, also with a percentage set aside for affordable housing. Each one of these two proposed developments will unacceptably increase traffic on Vanderbilt. But both projects in combination will far exceed any degree of acceptability. Importantly, Bermuda Apartments already offers rentals right across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the proposed Mattson project. Do we really need to add 150 more when the affect on the rest of the area will be increased congestion and safety hazards? Residents, such as my husband and I, purchased in this area of North Naples ten years ago precisely because it consists primarily of single-family home communities, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then existing zoning standards. Mattson and Ascend will continue to thwart the expectations of existing homeowners that have been created by existing zoning. We do not need more traffic congestion, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negatively affected by 150 new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please reject Mattson's request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respectfully, Diane Green -Kelly and Geoffrey Kelly 3243 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 10, 2024 2:14 PM To:Cristina Tiberia Subject:Meeting Request: BCC Item Mattson 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, Rich would like to meet with the Commissioner regarding the upcoming BCC agenda item: Mattson at Vanderbilt GMPA/PUDZ. Availability: Friday, January 19th anytime Monday, January 22nd anytime Thank you. Dianna Quintanilla Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Legal Assistant The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 P : 239.435.3535| F : 239.435.1218 dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com or call (239) 435-3535, and permanently dispose of the original message. 1 Cristina Tiberia From:JOHN SIELLER <johnsie44@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2024 1:23 PM To:Bill McDaniel Subject:The Mattson at Vanderbilt 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 Commissioner McDaniel - The proposed Mattson at Vanderbilt development planned for the 5.8 acres across from Village Walk has been approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. The development will fill the space previously filled by the Naples Animal Hospital. I believe the plan needs to be modified due the following aspects of the development -  Lack of open space: “Packing in” 150 apartments on 5.88 acres does not fit spatially or visually with any of the surrounding developments. The closest three surrounding developments - Sandalwood Village, Bradford Square and TGM Bermuda Island Apartments - have much greater setbacks from Vanderbilt Beach Road, and also have much more open space around their buildings.  Height of the building: The building will be up to 60 feet tall in an area zoned for 50’ high buildings, and due to the minimal setbacks to the parking lots and main entrance they will appear even taller from the road than the neighboring developments.  Lack of screening/vegetation from the road: There will be only a 15’ planting area separating the parking lot spaces from Vanderbilt Beach Road, and only 10’ deep planting beds from the side properties. The vegetation will need to be relatively small and offer very limited visual blockage of the parking lots - which surround the entire proposed building. This will be a lot of blacktop with little space for grass or greenery.  Lack of open space for residents: The only outdoor common recreation space will be a pool in the center courtyard. The building and surrounding parking areas take up the majority of the 5.8 acres.  More traffic congestion: The number of cars coming out of 150 working family apartments will be significant - the commuter traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road which already backs up for hundreds of yards at each traffic light. The cars pulling out and switching into multiple lanes of high speed traffic are going to be extremely unsafe during commuter hours. This will also create many more U-turns at the Livingston Road intersection by the residents needing to travel East. In summary, this development appears to be trying to “pack in” as many (150) apartments on 5.88 acres, and it does not fit in either spatially or visually with any of the quality surrounding developments. In light of this I’m asking the Board of Commissioners to direct the Planning Commission to reduce the number of apartments, height of the building, and the size of the parking area to better fit in with the surrounding developments. Sincerely, John Sieller 3236 Benicia Ct Naples 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Diane Kelly <vwboardfortransparency@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 9:32 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Objection to Mattson on Vanderbilt Request for Ordinance Attachments:CCF_000600.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. Honorable Commissioners, This is our second letter to you opposing the scope of the project being proposed by Mattson on Vanderbilt, which is up for a hearing tomorrow morning for an Ordinance that we oppose. I intend to appear and speak via Zoom. Please consider the attached arguments for opposing the Ordinance and vote against its approval. Thank you for your service. Regards, Diane Green-Kelly, Director and past President of Village Walk Homeowners Association of Naples, Inc. Geoffrey Kelly, resident of Village Walk 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Ray O'Riorden <RayORiorden@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 10:43 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Mattson's request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations 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. January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: My wife and I have owned in Naples for more than twelve years, are registered voters and are full time residents of VWHOA. VWHOA is a stone’s throw from the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt (“Mattson”), located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. We respectfully write to oppose Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. A hearing on Mattson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23rd at 9 a.m. In short, Mattson’s request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its justifications for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but particularly when snowbirds return. Mattson justifies its petition by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house retired residents who do not commute and add to road congestion. In contrast, Mattson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congestion. One adjacent project offers shuttle service and has sufficient open space internally to have vehicles pick up residents within the project. Mattson, in contrast, merely offers to provide an easement immediately adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, to accommodate public bus service. That will both (1) add congestion by slowing down traffic as buses slow down to pull over to the side of Vanderbilt Beach Road to stop and pick up passengers, and (2) cost the County money to provide bus service. Second, approval will increase traffic safety hazards. There is only one ingress/egress to Mattson. To travel East when leaving, residents will have to quickly cross over two lanes of busy traffic on Vanderbilt Beach to reach the left turn opening in the median strip. Left turns are not permitted at the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt, and changing that to allow such turns will merely slow down left turning traffic. Vanderbilt and Livingston already experience too many car accidents. Mattson’s increased density and proposed resident demographic will increase car accidents. Third, Mattson proposes to reduce the open space requirement of 60% to 40% to accomplish its objectives. It argues that “]d]ue to the size of the infill parcel, meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for buildings at the proposed 4-story height.” The answer, 2 then, is to reduce the height of the project, not to deviate from a reasonable standard and create safety hazards and traffic congestion for the thousands of residents in the nearby vicinity, including VWHOA. The developer’s profits are not anyone else’s concern. Build a project that conforms, or do not proceed at all. Fourth, Mattson’s justification for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. Mattson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set-aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters leave (and renters do not stay long), Mattson will be free to rent to whomever they please without restriction. They promise to advertise to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, thereby completely defeating their justification. Renters do not stay long term. This is an example of the government attempting to fix a problem (insufficient housing for service providers) that will have a very short life in practice. Personally, although I understand the need to let people live near their places of employment, such conditions are not a guarantee in life. When I entered the workforce, I commuted 1.5 hours each way into the city of Chicago for employment for years because I could not afford housing in the city center. And I am not alone in this experience. No one is guaranteed housing just down the road from a beautiful beach, in the center of an attractive area close to his/her place of employment. Fifth, Mattson’s justifies it request for a significant reduction in available parking on site because the “developer has extensive experience in creating successful multi-family dwelling units throughout the United States.” I am not impressed with what the developer has done elsewhere. They say nothing about how their request to reduce parking here will impact the people renting those projects and/or what the impact will be on surrounding residents here. Certainly, if the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. Mattson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means that many residents will be two people living in one unit. Each will have to have a car. And Mattson also will have 2- and 3- bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? Mattson does not address this issue. Finally (although I could continue), Vanderbilt Road is already a very busy road, even in the off season. I am aware of the traffic studies that purport to show the effect of the proposed development, but do not believe they take into account the added traffic that also is expected from an additional already approved development -- Ascend Naples -- which will be located about a mile east of VWHOA on Vanderbilt, across from the entrance to Island Walk Homeowners Association. Ascend Naples plans to include 208 resident rental units, also with a percentage set aside for affordable housing. Each one of these two proposed developments will unacceptably increase traffic on Vanderbilt. But both projects in combination will far exceed any degree of acceptability. Importantly, Bermuda Apartments already offers rentals right across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the proposed Mattson project. Do we really need to add 150 more when the effect on the rest of the area will be increased congestion and safety hazards? Residents, such as my wife and I, purchased in this area of North Naples twelve years ago precisely because it consists primarily of single-family home communities, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then existing zoning standards. Mattson and Ascend will continue to thwart the expectations of existing homeowners that have been created by existing zoning. We do not need more traffic congestion, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negatively affected by 150 new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 3 Respectfully, Raymond O’Riorden 3114 Andorra Court Naples, Florida 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Carol Fine <cfinehmb1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 11:13 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan.kowal@colliertcountyfl.gov; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Mattson on Vanderbilt ("Mattson") 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. Honorable Commissioners... My husband Sam and I have owned here in Village Walk of Naples since 2001 and have been permanent homeowners and registered voters since 2016. Village Walk is a stone's throw from the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt ("Mattson") located on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. Sam and I respectfully write to oppose Mattson's request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations to the current plan, including reduction of open space requirement from 60% to 40%, reduction of parking space requirements for multi-family dwellings, and reduction of tree preservation from 2 trees to 1.8. In short, Mattson's request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect Village Walk residents and others in the surrounding area. As a voter who will be negatively affected by this project, we are asking that you reject this request to approve the proposed Ordinance. Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their district, we are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer whose interests should not infringe upon the interests of the neighboring communities on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Thank you, Carol Fine and Samuel Fine 4106 Los Altos Court Naples, Florida 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Eileen Mauskapf <low444@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 11:57 AM To:Chris.hall@colliercounty.gov; burt.sanders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercounty.gov; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Please Listen to your constituents, reject Mattson’s request 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 reject Mattsons request! As two of many voters who will be negatively affected by 150 new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners SHOULD represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not be more important than the interest of us, all of Village Walk, and other nearby residents, including two Senior Living complexes. It is already extremely difficult to get to appointments in the morning due to the awful congestion on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We have a traffic light, but sometimes even with that light you can’t even get out because of the backed up traffic in the morning. And coming home in the late afternoon is a nightmare! Accidents waiting to happen. We can’t even safely turn into Publix anymore due to the heavy traffic. The line of cars in the afternoon that backs up onto Livingston trying to turn onto Vanderbilt is dangerous even with the added turning lane. Thank you for listening. PLEASE reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respectfully, John and Eileen Mauskapf 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Joseph D'Amato <damatojoseph1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 12:43 PM To:Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel; Chris Hall Subject:Mattson on Vanderbilt Request to Amend Ordinance 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. January 22, 2024 To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: My wife and I have lived in Naples for many years. We are registered voters and are full time residents of Village Walk of Naples, which is across from the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt (“Mattson”), located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. We are opposed to Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This project, as planned, will negatively affect Village Walk residents and others in the surrounding area. The increase in traffic generated by this planned housing development will further congest Vanderbilt Beach Road and create a safety hazard. The project as proposed is just too large for this location. We are asking that you reject Mattson's request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners should be representing the interests of voters in their districts. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us and other nearby residents. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Please reject Mattson’s 2 request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respectfully, Joseph and Karen D'Amato Village Walk of Naples 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Nancy Mooney <ms.nmooney@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 12:54 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:OPPOSE Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD proposed development: Please Vote NO 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. Monday, January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov RE: OPPOSE Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD Dear Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal, Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD on Vanderbilt Beach Road, near my single family home in VillageWalk of Naples. I respectfully ask all Commissioners to vote NO on the Mattson’s Developer’s proposed changes to zoning and the growth management plan. As a Naples resident for over 30 years, I drive by this proposed development often multiple times a day, I would be negatively impacted by this proposed Mattson development, along with all nearby residents who drive on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Mattson’s proposed high-density development is way too close to the major intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Roads, which is currently often gridlocked traffic year-round. In addition, I believe the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is outdated, and unrealistic because the TIS doesn’t include the many recently approved PUDS/developments (all with increased density) along the length of Vanderbilt Beach Road, including the many approved PUDS/developments along the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. As a Collier resident and voter who will be negatively affected by 150 new residential rental units at the proposed Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its developer’s proposed Ordinance. All of the Collier County Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of this developer, who doesn't vote here and whose interests shouldn't usurp the interest of us, all of the VillageWalk homeowners, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please VOTE NO and reject Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD's proposed zoning changes and proposed changes to our Collier County Growth Management Plan. Thank you. 2 Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Mooney 5976 Via Bella Ct. Naples, FL 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Joseph Sciortino <jdsciorti@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 12:54 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.com; rick.castro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill McDaniel Cc:Joseph Sciortino- Contact Info Subject:Object To Mattson on Vanderbilt Project Attachments:Diane Green.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. Attached you will find a letter from our previous President, Diane Green, at Village Walk of Naples regarding the attached project. Instead of rewriting another letter I want to inform you that my wife and I are in complete agreement with Diane's justification for not approving the subject Project. Thank you for your consideration. Joseph and Denise Sciortino 3809 Huelva Ct Naples FL 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Alex K <kissen_a@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 1:59 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Opposition to Mattson’s request Attachments:To The Honorable District Representative (01.22.24).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. To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov We (our family) respectfully write to oppose Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. Mattson’s request drastically increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area. Our family has property in Naples in Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor from 2012. We have lived here permanently for 5 years. Over this period of, the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road has changed drastically for the worse. Formerly a quiet road, it has become like an industrial road or Manhattan type street. Decreasing the open space requirement really transform this area to the Brooklyn, NY type living area. Affordable rentals are offered only for the first “generation” of renting people. If they vacate the property for some reason, the units are of open rental market. Renters usually do not stay long. Our infrastructure, such as schools, police, EMS should be impacted drastically, as we mentioned in our previous letter. Also stores, restaurants will, all infrastructure will be negatively impacted. As a voters who will be negatively affected by new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, we are asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please, represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Please reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2 Respectfully, Kisenishsky family: Olga, Alexander, Elizabeth. 3231 Benicia Ct., Naples, Fl 34109 Phone 239-451-4641 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Shirley Nicholas <chablis4932@aol.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 2:01 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Proposed development of "Mattson" on Vanderbilt Beach Rd between Livingston & interstate"75" 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 the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal, Rick Locastro & Bill McDaniel: We, Louis & Shirley Nicholas residents of Village Walk since October 1998, are very concerned with the proposed development of "Mattson" in our area. As it stands now, getting out & into our development is very problematic, especially certain times of the day. Fortunately we have a traffic light which helps somewhat but at times even with the light, there is no room to enter the intersection because of the long lines standing. We concur with everything that is in the email sent to you by Diane Green-Kelly our former President of the Village Walk HOA. Please do not add more traffic to this area by authorizing this project. Sincerely, Louis & Shirley Nicholas 4932 San Pablo Ct Naples, Fl. 34109-3385 239-598-4905 <chablis4932@aol.com> 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Shelly Baum <shellybaum2002@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 2:56 PM To:Maria Baum; Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Cc:Shelly Baum Subject:Please represent our interests above those of the developer 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. Sheldon and Maria Baum 3350 Cerrito Ct Naples, FL 34109 January 22, 2024 Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov, burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov, Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov, rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov, Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov To the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: We have owned in Naples for twenty eight years, are registered voters and are full time residents of VWHOA. VWHOA is a stone’s throw from the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt (“Mattson”), located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. We respectfully write to oppose Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. A hearing on Mattson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23 rd at 9 a.m. In short, Mattson’s request unacceptably increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its justifications for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. Residents, such as I, purchased in this area of North Naples in 1996, precisely because it consists primarily of single- family home communities, primarily housing owners (not primarily renters) in reliance on then existing zoning standards. Mattson and Ascend will continue to thwart the expectations of existing homeowners that have been created by existing zoning. We do not need more traffic congestion, and we do not need more rentals in the immediate vicinity. As a voter who will be negatively affected by 150 new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, I am asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Thank you for listening. Please reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respectfully, Sheldon J. Baum 3350 Cerrito Ct Naples, FL 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:John Wayne Falbey <falbey@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 3:55 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Hearing to Amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan 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 the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: My wife, Phyllis, and I have owned our home in Village Walk of Naples (VW) since June 1995. Village Walk consists of 850 residences. We are registered and active voters and full time residents of VW. VW is a Dan Marino TD pass from the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt (“Mattson”), located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. A hearing on Mattson’s request is scheduled for tomorrow, January 23rd, at 9 a.m. We respectfully write to oppose Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. These deviations will: unacceptably increase the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect Village Walk residents and others in the surrounding area, and, as discussed below, its justifications for approval are inadequate and unpersuasive. We respectfully ask you to deny Mattson’s request on the following grounds: First, approval will increase traffic on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Roa d, even in off season, but particularly when winter residents return. Mattson justifies its petition by comparing it to the two very different adjacent developments, Bradford Square, an age restricted senior housing project, and Sandalwood Village, an age restricted independent living facility. In short, those two projects house retired residents who do not commute and do not add to road congestion. In contrast, Mattson intends to rent to people who work and commute, adding to road congestion. Second, Mattson proposes to reduce the open space requirement of 60% to 40% to accomplish its objectives. It argues that “due to the size of the infill parcel, meeting the 60% usable open space standard would render the site unusable for building s at the proposed 4-story height.” Instead of permitting the further violation of the County’s well-constructed Growth Management Plan, the solution is to reduce the height of the project, not to deviate from a reasonable standard and create safety hazards and traffic congestion for the thousands of residents in the nearby vicinity, including VW. Conformity to the existing GMP meets Collier County’s expensive and well thought-out plans for the safe and comfortable accommodation of future growth. Third, Mattson’s justification for increasing the density relies on its illusory promise to devote 30% of units to income restricted affordable housing. Mattson admits that only the first renters who occupy the affordable housing set-aside units must qualify as a first responder, teacher, etc. Once those renters move on, Mattson will be free to rent at market rates to whomever they please without restriction. They promise to advertise to the target audience, but they do not promise to rent to such people, which defeats their justification. Thus, this so-called income restricted affordable housing will have a very short life in practice. Fourth, Mattson justifies it’s request for a significant reduction in available parking on site because the “developer has extensive experience in creating successful multi-family dwelling units throughout the United States.” How does that have anything of relevance in Collier County and the impact reduced parking will have on the people renting those projects and on surrounding residents. Certainly, if the target market is a working person/people, then each resident will own a car, and many units will be rented by people with more than one car. Mattson says that 40% of units are 1-bedroom, which means 2 that many such units will be occupied by two people. As workers, each of those residents likely will have an automobile. Mattson also will have 2- and 3- bedroom units. How many drivers will live in those units? Will young workers have roommates to reduce the cost of living? Mattson does not address this issue. As voters who will be negatively affected by 150 new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, we ask that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance and its unnecessary violation of the goals of the existing Coll ier County Growth Management Plan. Please represent our interests as longtime residents of Collier County above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not take precedence over the interests, safety, and concerns of longtime residents. Please reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing on the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Thank you. John Wayne Falbey and Phyllis Falbey 1 Cristina Tiberia From:aberson@comcast.net Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 11:54 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Opposition to Mattson's request 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 the Honorable Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: Via Email: Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov We (our family) respectfully write to oppose Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi- family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. Mattson’s request drastically increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect VWHOA residents and others in the surrounding area. Our family has property in Naples in Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor from 2012. We have lived here permanently for over 10 years. Over this period, the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road has changed drastically for the worse. Formerly a quiet road, it has become like an industrial road or Manhattan type street. Decreasing the open space requirement really transform this area to the Brooklyn, NY type living area. Affordable rentals are offered only for the first “generation” of renting people. If they vacate the property for some reason, the units are of open rental market. Renters usually do not stay long. Our infrastructure, such as schools, police, EMS should be impacted drastically, as we mentioned in our previous letter. Also stores, restaurants will, all infrastructure will be negatively impacted. As a voters who will be negatively affected by new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, we are asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please, represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of VWHOA, and other nearby residents. Please reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respectfully, Alex & Irina Berson, 2 4265 Montalvo Ct, Naples, Fl 34109 Phone 239-449-9237 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Ken marks <markske1212@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 10:50 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Reject the Mattson amendment Attachments:To the Commissioners on Mattson from Nora.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. Dear Commissioners, Please see the attached letter explaining our concerns about the Mattson on Vanderbilt amendment approval. Thank you for your consideration. Nora and Ken Marks 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Chris/Ricki Soule <soule45@msn.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2024 10:57 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Opposition to Mattson's Request for Ordinance Amendment Attachments:Mattson Proposed Project.doc 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 see attached memo. Respectfully, Chris and Ricki Soule Chris/Ricki Soule 3202 Benicia Ct Naples, FL 34109 PH: 239-449-9140 Ricki Cell: 708-204-9299 Chris Cell: 239-777-8662 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Kevin Michaelan <knmichaelan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:05 AM To:Bill McDaniel; Chris Hall; Dan Kowal; Burt Saunders; Rick LoCastro Subject:Reject Mattson Request For Zoning Variances 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 Council, My name is Kevin Michaelan and I have lived at 3241 Benicia Ct in Village Walk with my wife and two young children for almost 2 years. For the same well-reasoned points made by Village Walk’s former president and current board member and longtime resident, I strongly object to the variance requests and as our elected officials I expect that you will reject these requests. I look forward to voicing my objection today and to observing your rejection. Respectfully, Kevin 1 Cristina Tiberia From:David Johnston <djohnston@johnrwood.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 9:06 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Please reject Mattson’s request tomorrow at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 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. Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: My wife and I have owned in Naples for more than 14 years, are registered voters and are full time residents of Village Walk. We are asking (begging) you to reject the proposed development known as Mattson on Vanderbilt, located on the South side of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Livingston Road and Interstate 75. I moved to Naples from Atlanta where a commute to down town from any area outside of Highway 285 which circles midtown and downtown, can be 1 hour to 1.5 hours. It was the inconvenience we dealt with to live outside Atlanta where the homes were “affordable”. We never questioned the idea that the city should build affordable homes so that we could move closer to town. We made the commute and were incentivized to work and eventually live closer to town ourselves. And now we are living the dream in Naples. A dream that is becoming increasingly a nightmare as traffic increases on Vanderbilt Road. This Mattson project will be a nightmare for the people living there. No easy way to enter or exit from Vanderbilt Beach Road. Doing so will require U-turns and inevitable accidents. Someone may die.. Unfortunately one of the home owners (Gregory Chumley) in Village Walk did lose his life in 2020 by crossing over the Vanderbilt Beach Road at that same location. Naples was not meant to be affordable. It was not meant to be affordable to live 3 or 4 miles to the beach. The only individuals to profit from this project are the Mattson developers. They will profit and then leave those of us who live on Vanderbilt Beach Road to deal with the problem. Please please do not turn our beautiful Naples into Fort Lauderdale. Reject this project. David A Johnston 4341 Montalvo Court Village Walk, Naples 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Perry Behrens <pbehrens@arbortracenaples.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:35 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Mattson on Vanderbilt project Attachments:To the Commissioners Jan Letter.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. Commissioners, I agree with the positions stated in the attached letter. Thanks for your service in Collier County, Perry Behrens 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Ellen Smith <elwsmith68@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:47 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Building on Vanderbilt 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. We oppose the Mattson plan to build another community on Vanderbilt, causing more traffic and congestion in an already heavily built area. There will be more noise and traffic accidents. Traffic is already backed up heading west on Vanderbilt in the early morning hours. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen and Phillip Smith Village Walk owners 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Suzanne <suzandmini@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:53 AM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Please deny Matsons request Attachments:To the Commissioners Jan Letter.docx EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cauƟon when opening aƩachments or clicking links. Chris.hall@colliercountyfl.gov. burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov. Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov. rick.locastro@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov We agree with the leƩer aƩached wriƩen by our former Village Walk Board President. We have lived in Village Walk for 13 years. Please do not approve the Matson request. Sincerely, Suzanne Larson-Tamburo Andy Tamburo 3639 El Segundo Ct. 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Katalin Griffith <katalingriffith@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 12:32 PM To:Rick LoCastro; Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Bill McDaniel Cc:Diane Green-kelly Subject:Mattson 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. To Collier County Commissioners: As a ten year resident of Village Walk of Naples and a thirty year resident of the area, I would like to encourage you to stop the current plans for the so-called Mattson Development, to be located off Vanderbilt Beach Rd. just east of Livingston. This proposed development is in the immediate vicinity of Village Walk, and I pass by it daily. As you are well aware, the congestion on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. has increased incredibly in the past few years. There was none when I moved here. Now the road is packed both during the morning rush and the evening commute. When I left the community this morning at 8:30, it took me fifteen minutes to go from our gate to the light at Livingston, which should take two minutes normally. I sat through at least three changes in the light. Adding this community to the mix according to the proposed parameters would be catastrophic. First, the number of units, due to it being four stories, is too many. At least reduce it to three, which would also fit in better with the rental buildings across from it on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Secondly, this number of residents leaving or entering the community, so close to the light, would make for a huge back-up on the road, and there will be no left turn out of it. This would likely cause a lot of u-turns and, therefore, accidents.. Thirdly, there is not a long enough exit road in the the development itself., so there is sure to be a back-up within the community itself, blocking the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach. Fourth, the community itself will be very congested with virtually no vegetation, which will contrast with other nearby communities and basically be ugly. Fifth, the promise of rental units a the lower level of cost for certain groups (such as public servants) is sorely needed but is just a ruse on the part of the developers. They have said that such cost- reduced units would only be available to the first renters and rents would go up on those units as soon as the initial renters leave. Rentals at a lower cost need to be guaranteed in perpetuity, otherwise it is a meaningless gesture. I also refer you to the letter submitted by Diane Green-Kelly, VW's former excellent board president., who has expressed the concerns more succinctly. Please make sure you consider these and other issues and force the developers to make the required changes before approving anything. We, the residents of Collier County, have no other friend (recourse) than our commissioners to make sure our voices are heard. Also, please consider your reputation. As you must be aware, a lot of residents of the county believe that you DO NOT have the interests of the residents at heart but rather your own interests. (Read that as you like, but that's how people feel.) We are all aware that Collier County will grow, and grow quickly, and that those of us who are already here would prefer it did not. Obviously, that is impossible, but let's at least make the growth as painless as possible for all - not just current residents but those who will want a little slice of this lovely area in the future. Respectfully, Katalin Griffith -- Katalin (Kati) Griffith 3396 Cerrito Ct. Naples, FL 34109 2 239-289-6465 katalingriffith@gmail.com 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Christopher Walters <c_walters760@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:12 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Cc:Christopher Walters; Milenes Walters Subject:Opposition to Mattson project - please see attached letter Attachments:Walters Ltr to Collier Co Commissioners 23Jan2023.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. Please see the attached letter from my wife and I opposing the proposed Mattson project on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Chris Walters, Esq. LtCol USMC (Ret.) 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Karin Watson <karinewatson@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:32 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Mattson Project on Vanderbilt Attachments:To the Commissioners Jan Letter.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. Gentlemen, we are totally agreeing with the statements in the letter of our former president of Village Walk, Dia ne Green-Kelly. Enclosed is a copy of that letter. Please take all her great points in consideration. Thanks you, Joseph and Karin Watson 3473 Donoso Court - Village Walk Naples, FL 34109 1 Cristina Tiberia From:JOAN DICKENS <naples2000@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 4:11 PM To:Chris Hall; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal Subject:Fwd: Mattson on Vanderbilt Attachments:To the Commissioners Jan Letter.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. > > > Honorable commissioners > I oppose the Mattson on Vanderbilt > Ordinance for the reason stated in The letter from Diane Green Kelly attached here. > Joan Dickens > 4661 Rio poco ct > Naples, Fl 34109 > > Sent from my iPhone 1 Cristina Tiberia From:allakaufman@yahoo.com Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:22 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Subject:Opposition to Mattson's request 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 the Commissioners Chris Hall, Burt Saunders, Dan Kowal; Rick Locastro, and Bill McDaniel: We (our family) respectfully writes to oppose Mattson’s request that the Commissioners approve an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow deviations, including: (1) to reduce the open space requirement to 40% from the required 60%; (2) to reduce the parking space requirements for multi-family dwellings; and (3) to reduce the tree preservation to 1.8 trees from 2 trees. Mattson’s request drastically increases the density of the project in a way that will negatively affect Island Walk residents and others in the surrounding area. Our family has property in Naples on Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor from 2021. We have lived here permanently for 2.5 years. Over this period of time the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road has changed drastically for the worse. Formerly a quiet road, it has become like an industrial road or Manhattan type street. Approval will increase traffic even further on an already congested Vanderbilt Beach Road, even in off season, but particularly when snowbirds return. Decreasing the open space requirement really will transform this area to the NY type living area. Affordable rentals are offered only for the first “generation” of renting people. If they vacate the property for some reason , the units are of open rental market. Renters usually do not stay long. Our infrastructure, such as schools, police, EMS should be impacted drastically. Also stores, restaurants will, all infrastructure will be negatively impacted. As a voters who will be negatively affected by new residential rental units at the Mattson at Vanderbilt RPUD, we are asking that you reject its request to approve the proposed Ordinance. The Commissioners represent the interests of voters in their districts. We are those voters. Please, represent our interests above those of the developer, who does not vote here and whose interests should not usurp the interest of us, all of Island Walk, and other nearby residents. Please reject Mattson’s request at the hearing to amend the Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Respectfully, Igor and Alla Kaufman 4373 Queen Elizabeth Way Naples, FL 34119 Phone 908-759-0172 1 Cristina Tiberia From:Patrick Cody <pjcody@codybraun.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 7:59 PM To:Chris Hall; Burt Saunders; Dan Kowal; Rick LoCastro; Bill McDaniel Cc:Diane Kelly Subject:Proposed Mattson 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. Commissioners: I'm a resident of Village Walk, a residential community located on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, directly across the street from subject project. It's my understanding that the developer of the Mattson project is requesting that the Commissioners approve an amendment allowing certain deviations to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (CCGMP), including, reductions to open space requirements, parking space requirements, and tree preservation requirements and an unreasonable increase to the allowable density, i.e. number of dwelling units per acre. In my opinion, the requested deviations are driven solely by anticipated profit to the developer (i.e. the greater the density the greater the profit) and not by the greater good of Collier County. If the developer can't make the Mattson project work financially by conforming to the CCGMP as written, maybe he should consider another project, on another piece of property, possibly in another county! As you know, the Collier County Planning Commission has an in-house staff of urban planners that has reviewed the proposed Mattson project in great detail. I'm quite confident that the County thoroughly vetted each member of the staff and hired only well educated, competent people, that are tasked with giving each of you impartial, professional advice. So, respectfully, please review the following "Staff Recommendations" on Page 12 of their report pursuant to the Hearing Date of December 7, 2023: "Staff recommends denial of the petition as submitted. Staff cannot support the requested density at this location; staff does not support including the usable open space standard in the GMP Subdistrict language; and staff does not support the proposed reduction of usable open space from 60% to 40% in a dense urban rental apartment community." Bottom line, please follow the advice of your professional staff, enforce the CCGMP as written, and reject the petition submitted by the developer. Regards, Patrick Cody From:JOHN SIELLER To:Burt Saunders Subject:The Mattson at Vanderbilt development Date:Sunday, January 21, 2024 1:21:23 PM 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 Commissioner Saunders - The proposed Mattson at Vanderbilt development planned for the 5.8 acres across from Village Walk has been approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. The development will fill the space previously filled by the Naples Animal Hospital. I believe the plan needs to be modified due the following aspects of the development - Lack of open space: “Packing in” 150 apartments on 5.88 acres does not fit spatially or visually with any of the surrounding developments. The closest three surrounding developments - Sandalwood Village, Bradford Square and TGM Bermuda Island Apartments - have much greater setbacks from Vanderbilt Beach Road, and also have much more open space around their buildings. Height of the building: The building will be up to 60 feet tall in an area zoned for 50’ high buildings, and due to the minimal setbacks to the parking lots and main entrance they will appear even taller from the road than the neighboring developments. Lack of screening/vegetation from the road: There will be only a 15’ planting area separating the parking lot spaces from Vanderbilt Beach Road, and only 10’ deep planting beds from the side properties. The vegetation will need to be relatively small and offer very limited visual blockage of the parking lots - which surround the entire proposed building. This will be a lot of blacktop with little space for grass or greenery. Lack of open space for residents: The only outdoor common recreation space will be a pool in the center courtyard. The building and surrounding parking areas take up the majority of the 5.8 acres. More traffic congestion: The number of cars coming out of 150 working family apartments will be significant - the commuter traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road which already backs up for hundreds of yards at each traffic light. The cars pulling out and switching into multiple lanes of high speed traffic are going to be extremely unsafe during commuter hours. This will also create many more U-turns at the Livingston Road intersection by the residents needing to travel East. In summary, this development appears to be trying to “pack in” as many (150) apartments on 5.88 acres, and it does not fit in either spatially or visually with any of the quality surrounding developments. In light of this I’m asking the Board of Commissioners to direct the Planning Commission to reduce the number of apartments, height of the building, and the size of the parking area to better fit in with the surrounding developments. Sincerely, John Sieller 3236 Benicia Ct Naples 1 Jennifer Hansen Subject:Meeting w/Commissioner Saunders re: Mattson @ Vanderbilt Location:3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #303 Start:Mon 1/22/2024 2:00 PM End:Mon 1/22/2024 2:30 PM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Richard Yovanovich 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.