Loading...
CCPC Agenda 08/21/2025COLLIER COUNTY Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 August 21, 2025 9:00 AM Joseph Schmitt, Environmental - Chairman Chuck Schumacher - Vice-Chair Paul Shea, Environmental - Secretary Randy Sparrazza Charles (Chap) Colucci Michelle L. McLeod Mike Petscher Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes 5.A. July 17, 2025, CCPC Meeting Minutes (2025-2599) 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report Page 1 of 913 8. Consent Agenda 9. Advertised Public Hearing 9.A. PL20240010963 - Davis Brookside MPUD (PUDZ) - Davis Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a General Commercial (C-4) zoning district and General Commercial (C-4) zoning district within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay-Mixed Use District (GTZO-MXD) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district partially within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay-Mixed Use District (GTZO- MXD) for a project to be known as the Davis Brookside MPUD to allow 66 multifamily residential dwelling units and a 120-boat slip marina; and providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 23-42. The subject property is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard, approximately 2/10 of one mile east of Tamiami Trail East in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 8.27± acres, and providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, Planner III] (2025-2292) 9.B. PL20240010833 - Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Magnolia Pond Drive -The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 10-06, as amended, the Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development (PUD), to increase the number of dwelling units from 231 to 550 with an Affordable Housing Agreement, to increase the maximum building heights, to add deviations, and to revise the Master Plan; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located within the Collier Boulevard Interchange Innovation Zone, Zoning Overlay (CBIIZO), partially within Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones W-3 and W-4. The subject property, consisting of 47.05± acres, is located on the north side of Interstate I-75, ½ mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), and is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (2025-2478) 9.C. PL20240007340 - Paraiso Club Rezone (RZ) - Gulf Shore Drive - The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04- 41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate Zoning Atlas Map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential-Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) zoning district within the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) to a Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district within the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) zoning district for a project to be known as Paraiso Club. The subject 1.35± acre beachfront property is located along the Gulf of Mexico on the west side of Gulf Shore Drive, just south of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (Companion Item to PL20240009700, Paraiso Club - CU) (2025-2480) 9.D. PL20240009700 - Paraiso Club (CU) - Gulf Shore Drive - The petitioner requests that the Page 2 of 913 Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a Private Club within a Residential Tourist (RT) Zoning District within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) pursuant to Section 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject 1.35± acre beachfront property is located along the Gulf of Mexico on the west side of Gulf Shore Drive, just south of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (Companion Item to PL20240007340, Paraiso Club RZ) (2025-2481) 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Public Comments 13. Adjourn Page 3 of 913 8/21/2025 Item # 5.A ID# 2025-2599 July 17, 2025, CCPC Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENTS: 1. 07-17-2025 CCPC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 1 of 82 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida July 17, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Joe Schmitt, Chairman Chuck Schumacher, Vice Chairman (attending remotely) Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Charles "Chap" Colucci ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I James Sabo, Principal Planner Page 5 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 2 of 82 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, good morning. Welcome to today's Planning Commission, July 17th, 2025. I'd ask all to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask Commissioner Shea to please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll take time now -- Vice Chair Schumacher, Chuck, are you on the line? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, he is on the line. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Can we make a vote to accept him to participate remotely, given the unique circumstances; he had a business meeting which he could not make -- later this afternoon, but he'll be on most the meeting, so we can take a vote. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Passes unanimously. Welcome, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we hear him say that he's here? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're here. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci is absent with -- I think he has an excuse, right, approved absence, whatever that means. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart. (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not here. We have a quorum, sir, six of seven. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. And for the audience, to be aware, yes, the Vice Page 6 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 3 of 82 Chair can vote remotely but, however, if one of us leave and we go down under four present, it is no longer a quorum. But we do have a quorum, so we can proceed. Ray, are there any addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. The next meeting is on August 21st for my fellow commissioners. Are there any projected Planning Commission commissioners absent? I will not be here -- excuse me, sir. Thank you. I will not be here on the 21st. Are there any other projected absent -- commissioners absent? Chuck, will you be here on the 21st? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir, I will be there on the 21st. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, good. Thank you. Next is the approval of minutes; May 15th, 2025. Are there any comments or changes to the minutes of May 15th, 2025? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Seeing no comments, can I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Motion so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second, please. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposition. Passes, thank you. Chairman's report; I have nothing right now, but I will have something when we start the agenda. As far as BCC report, Ray -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- can you -- yeah, cover that, but I also want my fellow commissioners to understand what happened with NC Square so they're aware what took place. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. So June 24th, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Greenway Fritchey rezone. That was a vote 4-0. Then on July 8th, NC Square was heard, and Mike will give you the rundown of it. MR. BOSI: Good morning. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Yeah, on July 8th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the NC Squared [sic] petition. It was -- it was revised, went back to the original commitments, and the only modification was they adjusted the percentage of units that were dedicated to affordable housing and the income levels that were associated with the affordable housing. And with the 30 percent for affordable housing, 15 percent at 120 and 15 percent at 140, the Board of County Commissioners did approve that. We had coordination with the Chairman whether the Planning Commission needed to see it, but based upon the fact that it went back to its original approval and the issue was what was the policy decision related to the affordable housing, we decided we'd move forward without it having to go back to the Planning Commission. We coordinated with the Chair. He was in agreement. The Board of County Commissioners took action, and they approved it, like I said, at 120 and 140 with the affordable housing commitments. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. My only comment at that time was if the Board seemed Page 7 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 4 of 82 fit to revert it back to us, we would hear it again, but it was pretty much back to the original zoning with some modifications to the affordable, but -- so that was pretty benign. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it seems to have been fairly well accepted by the neighboring communities. MR. BOSI: It was. There was a tremendous amount of opposition from Valencia Lakes but they, at the hearing on the 8th, had -- they had said that they were in -- supportive of the proposed amendments. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Did they keep the daycare? MR. BOSI: No, the daycare was dropped. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Okay. Now we'll proceed to the advertised public hearings, and we have two items that are companion items, and I do note that they are separate in the fact that the criteria for approval is different. And I thought about this, Mike, and I think it's best we hear the entire petition, but we're going to have to vote separately because one is the waiver for the distance between gas station/service station, and the other are the PDI issues that we have to deal with. And I know the public, if they want to make a comment, can hear two different petitions and hear the same comments for each petition. We'll just hold off on voting for both. So as long as the petitioner is agreed to that, I think we can do that. So the two petitions we'll be hearing -- this is Costco Wholesale, intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock. That's PL20240011790, and the companion item, PL20240011559. And one is, again, with the separation of the service station, and the others have to do with the -- what is called a PDI, which is an insubstantial change. This is rather unusual because this petition was reverted to the Planning Commission. These are typical -- a PDI is -- and the service station, as the audience well knows, are typically heard by the Hearing Examiner, and the Board of County Commissioners asked that this item come to the Planning Commission. We as the Planning Commissioners as well, this is for the audience to understand, we're appointed by commissioners. So we do have the authority to bring an item back to our level rather than the Hearing Examiner, but in this case, the Board directed it. I want to note that PDIs are typically heard by the Hearing Examiner; however, due to the significance of the petition and the amount of public interest in the proposed project, the BCC directed that the waiver of -- and the request for variances be heard by Planning Commission, and in doing so, that we would conduct a thorough review, and understand that was the words they used. But the thorough review, we have to -- and we're in a box. We have to vote based on the criteria each of the applicant or each of the petitions involve. I want to note -- and that said, this is not a rezoning hearing. The property is already zoned. The parcel in the southeast section of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road is already zoned commercial and is part of the Hacienda Lakes PUD. Regardless, I anticipate we're going to hear from the public regarding their concerns with the impact of the proposed development, specifically the impact of traffic and the supporting traffic analysis, which I have to point out at this point, it is not part of our criteria review. But we will hear your concerns, we will record your concerns, and we will certainly forward any of your concerns to the Board of County Commissioners. But understand, again, traffic is not part of the criteria that we use to evaluate. That traffic and the traffic impacts are clearly part of the staff review process when they submit their -- what is called a Site Development Plan, and I'll have staff reiterate that when we get to some of those points. So prior to the hearing -- and this is unusual. I've asked staff -- prior to hearing from the petitioner, I've asked staff to give a brief overview of the history and purpose of an activity center. Page 8 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 5 of 82 This is an activity center. It's been an activity center since 1989. And I want the public -- the media, as well as my fellow commissioners -- because we have new commissioners up here who need to understand the confines of what we call the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Future Land Use Map. And the intent here is just to provide a basic overview and understanding of this intersection and the Activity Center No. 7. It is not in any way meant to serve to be an advocate for the proposal. That's not what we're doing. But I just want to lay the groundwork so folks understand what we're dealing with and what an activity center is. So, Mike, can I ask you to go through a brief overview so the public understands what this is and that it is not -- it is not a rezoning, per se. The property is already zoned, and it is specifically dealing with the waiver and then the insubstantial change request. Mike, thank you. MR. BOSI: Thank you, again. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As Chairman Schmitt had indicated, he's asked me to provide just a basic brief overview of what the activity center is within the Growth Management Plan, what it -- how it functions, what type of uses would be associated with it, the actions of how it aligns with the existing Hacienda Lakes PUD. And I know, because of the amount of folks that we have in the room, we're going to be -- it's going to be a full day, so I'll try to get through it as quick as possible but try to give the backdrop of why we're here and what's the strategy and the overall approach towards commercial and intensity related to activity centers. First of all, I just wanted to go through, as Joe mentioned, the Growth Management Plan is the highest regulatory document that the county has related to land-use regulations, and there's two provisions that implement that Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code and the Codes of Law and Ordinances. And each one of those two documents, the LDC and the Codes of Laws and Ordinances, have to be aligned in an agreement with the Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan is the long-range goal and vision for our community. The Land Development Code and the Codes of Laws and Ordinances are the roadmap for how you get there, and then we also have the administrative code that fills in the gaps towards how you fill out your applications, other specifics of the process for how you go through the public-hearing process. This is your Future Land Use Element of the GMP. The purpose is to control for the protection and management of natural resources for public facilities, coastal and rural development, as well as housing, community character, and design. Those are the large goals that are contained within our Growth Management Plan. And then you've got goals, objectives, and policies that implement that. The purpose of the Future Land Use Element is to decide -- is to guide the decision-making of Collier County on regulatory, financial, and programmatic matters pertaining to land use. Most directly, this element controls location, type, intensity, and timing of new and revised land use. So the GMP is the highest regulatory document that dictates how land use is arranged, how those relationships should be established, and how mobility and how -- is provided for within the county. As the Chair has mentioned, this intersection at Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard, since the adoption of our current Growth Management Plan 1986, 36 [sic] years, we have designated the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard as a mixed-use activity center. And then prior to 1989, the way that our commercial allocation was within the county is strip development along U.S. 41, strip development along Pine Ridge Road. Those type of arrangements provide for a tremendous amount of ingress/egress points on your transportation system, and it really slows down the flow of traffic. The thinking behind the activity center was to concentrate your activity centers, your intensity -- your most intense uses within your community at the intersection of two major collector arterial roads that can handle that type of intensity so we can get away from that strip development and have the concentration within our activity centers. That has been our strategy for 36 years Page 9 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 6 of 82 where the intensity within this community was going to be arranged for. Once again, within the Future Land Use Element it says, "Where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated for new commercial zoning." It avoids strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development. It's a focal point within the community. They're intended to be human scale, pedestrian oriented, and interconnected with abutting properties whether commercial or residential. From a land-use perspective, our mixed-use activity centers include the full arrangement of commercial uses; residential units at our maximum density of 25 units an acre; institutional uses, such as motel uses, hotel, at a maximum of 26 units per acre; community facilities; and other land uses generally allowed within the urban designation. In 2011, Hacienda Lakes was approved, and Hacienda Lakes fulfilled the vision of our Growth Management Plan. Hacienda Lakes, as you will notice, is 2,262 acres. About 20 percent [sic] is dedicated to residential land use; 38.8 percent [sic] is dedicated to residential/medical use. That's a mixed arrangement; 35 acres is dedicated to business park. Those are light industrial, qualified targeted industries, job-creation type activities; 34 acres is dedicated to commercial, the subject matter we're dealing with today. Forty-seven acres is attraction; that's your swamp buggy races. Preserve is the majority of the -- of the acreage; 1,544 acres are dedicated to preserve. So what you can -- what you'll notice, the density associated with Hacienda Lakes is a very low density. It's under one unit per acre, but also you've got your public facility dedication, you have a junior deputy segment as well, as well as the school. From the list of uses in the pods of uses that were approved, this truly was and is a mixed development. I've heard a number of folks say this is a residential development. It has a residential component, but this has five other designations that are nonresidential within it that occupy the land uses that were programmed and have been programmed since 2011, that -- the arrangement for how land uses were going to be arranged within Hacienda Lakes. As I said, it fulfilled the vision in the direction of the Growth Management Plan of where these type of intensity of uses should be located. The Chairman mentioned, there's two sets of evaluations. For the PDI application, it will be an evaluation based upon what is and what isn't a substantial change. This list, you have A through K that you will go through, and does it qualify for an insubstantial. That's just a list that would -- that's within there for does it qualify. And then the evaluation, the evaluation goes back to the original approval, the PUD findings and the rezoning findings, which were contained as an attachment within your -- within the PDI package of the original determination related to Hacienda Lakes. And then the second is the separation requirement, and that has four individual evaluation criteria that the Planning Commission is going to review it by. Whether the nature and the type of the boundary structure or feature line between the proposed establishment and existing gas station, we should say, is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facilities. These -- the structures that they talk about can be lakes, marshes, wetlands, designated preserves, canals, and this case, a four-lane arterial collector roadway. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is engaged in the servicing of automobiles during the regular business hours or if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the facility with fuel pumps sells food, gasolines, and other convenience items during the daytime, nighttime, and on a 24-hour basis. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway or in front of -- it fronts on or is accessed by a platted right-of-way. And No. 4, whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact upon adjacent land uses, especially residential uses. So those are the four criteria you'll evaluate the separation requirement. The PDI will be based upon the original findings of the Hacienda PUD and the rezoning findings. That's the overview. Page 10 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 7 of 82 I have for -- just the setting, but I wanted to provide for -- and just -- and the Chairman did mention it. Hacienda Lakes in their commercial designated area allows for SIC Code 5332, which is a department store, which is where -- Costco is qualified as a department store. It's an allowed use. What you're going to evaluate is within the separation requirements, are the four standards that are -- the four criteria for evaluation, are they satisfied? And then on the PDI, does it qualify as an insubstantial change? And staff's made the determination it does. And does it still maintain the consistency of the original rezone finding and the PUD findings. And with that, it concludes my opening remarks. Any questions you may have... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike, thank you. I felt that it was important just to set the stage. Again, not advocate for the proposal, but just so we can understand it all started from the same groundwork and the underpinnings of exactly what we're dealing with here, and that is an existing zoning. We're dealing with -- specifically dealing with requests for an insubstantial change, which I know the petitioner is going to expound upon that. For the ground rules, we hear from the petitioner, and we will then open it up for public comment. Typically, we allow five minutes per speaker. I do caution, though, that we need to know and understand -- if anybody's going to cede their time, if you've hired a consultant, we don't know. I don't know who you have here to speak, but if you're going to cede time, we need to know who registered, who ceded their time so that -- if you wanted somebody to speak longer than five minutes. I do caution as well in regards to repetitive comments. We're going to hear it. I know it's important. If somebody wants to come up and speak, I'm not going to deny that. You have every right to come up and speak in regards to this -- the petition, both requests, both the service station -- or the fuel pump, I'll call it, because it's really not a service station. It's just a fuel-dispensing center -- to come talk about that as well as the various aspects of the insubstantial change. So with that I turn it over to the petitioner. MR. WESTER: Thank you. My name is Brad Wester with Driver, McAfee, Hawthorn & Diebenow, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202, representing Costco and the landowner for these petitions. In the interest of the public here that need to speak, I'll also be timely. There is some redundancy at the beginning of my presentation just to kind of go over the activity center, the land use, and the zoning as well. The first request, as we've discussed already, it's an ASW. It's the application title known as a waiver for minimum separation distance of 500 feet between actual lot lines, and that's a significant element in this is the actual property lines, with a resulting separation distance currently of 132 feet between both property lines of the existing 7-Eleven and our request. The next request is our PDI that we also discussed. Insubstantial change to the Hacienda Lakes MPUD to add deviations for certain relief from certain standards such as architectural glazing, building facade massing, light fixture heights, loading spaces, landscape standards for interior vehicular use areas, and additional parking, signage, and to revise the mass transportation commitment. It's a 25.84-acre property. We know it's located southeast corner of Collier and Rattlesnake. It is in a mixed-use activity center, specifically Subdistrict No. 7. It is also zoned commercial as part of the commercial tract for the 2,200-acre Hacienda Lakes PUD. And then the Hacienda Lakes PUD is also approved, as noted, for 327,500 square feet of retail, 70,000 square feet of office, 140,000 square feet of business park, 135 hotel rooms, and 1,760 residential units, and that is combined both multi- and single-family. Here's a depiction of the site. Here is an aerial of the property. We can come back to it as needed. This is the distance from the current Costco facility that most are aware of. As the crow flies, roughly 23 minutes, 12.7 miles. And on -- the image on the right is actually showing the existing Costco facility. Page 11 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 8 of 82 Here is the property itself with some imagery noting the one, two, three, and four of the various corners. And then as the planning staff mentioned, the Comp Plan, which is the umbrella for Growth Management, the constitution for Growth Management in the county, and really throughout the state of Florida, is most discernible through the Future Land Use Map, right? It's a colored map that guides the growth for long-range planning. And as discussed previously, this is in a commercial district also known as the Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict No. 7. And here it is noted on the property a little bit closer at the intersection there. Programmed for a long time that way and predetermined. As such, to put it in context, here are all of the activity centers in Collier County. Highlighted by our proposal, which is part of that activity center -- mixed-use interchange activity center index map as part of the Comp Plan and the county's records. So you can see the preplanned approach for urban planning for all the mixed-use activity centers throughout the county. More specifically, and closer up, the actual mixed-use activity center at the intersection. So you can see the boundary as it's wrapped around our subject property. So you can see the 25-acre portion of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD. More specifically, as described previously -- and I'll go over it pretty quickly -- mixed-use activity center subdistrict locations based on intersections, major roads. Rattlesnake Hammock is Activity Center No. 7. We discussed that it is to really promote more than just strip development, and there's allowed mixtures of land uses as described by staff. This is a depiction of the actual Hacienda Lakes MPUD, and there is the boundary highlighted. Again, noting not only are we part of an activity center, we're a part of a commercial zoned district, but we're a part of the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Development. More importantly, here is the commercial subset of that same Hacienda Lakes MPUD. Noting the red highlighted here, the commercial tract within that Hacienda Lakes. These are a depiction pulled directly from the MPUD which describe several pages of the allowed uses on the property. Highlighted here -- I know we have a certain SIC code for department store, which really covers the overarching program that Costco utilizes, but auto home supply, automotive repair, parking, eating and drinking establishments, food stores, gasoline service stations, home furniture, miscellaneous retail, and then other commercial. So it's all-encompassing, and there are a lot of various uses that are permitted by right in that PUD. (Amy Lockhart is now present.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Brad? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I just take a moment. I want to make sure folks understand that Amy Taylor [sic] has joined us. She's our school board representative. And I failed to ask my colleagues, both -- we had to swear in. I went right by that, and also disclosures. I'm going to take the time to do that right now. Go ahead. MR. BOSI: And just -- Troy said the Zoom, they're hearing the audio. They're not seeing the video. There's a slight -- he's asking if we could have a two-minute break just to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. MILLER: Give me just a second here. Go on. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we can do the disclosures. Do we have any disclosures? Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I met -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Site visit. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I met with the applicant and his -- both Mr. Wester and his real estate director. I met with them personally. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and had a telephone conversation with Brad, with Mr. Wester. Page 12 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 9 of 82 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials -- staff materials, visited the site, and met with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And with that, while he's still doing that, we failed to take an oath. So I would ask both the audience and the petitioner as well, that anybody wishing to speak, that we be sworn in. Please stand to be sworn in, if I could ask the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers present in the room were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Wester, I failed to go through that. But go ahead. MR. BOSI: Did Mr. Schumacher want to provide disclosure? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Schumacher, provide disclosure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Conversation with Mike, staff materials, site visit, and I met with the applicant. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Good. Thank you. Troy, are we all set? MR. MILLER: I think so. I have to check something across the hall, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Should we hold off? MR. MILLER: Just give me two minutes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You called her Amy Taylor. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Amy Taylor. Amy Lockhart. What's the matter with me? MS. LOCKHART: I know. Well, you've known me a long time. I've been through different identities. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Different identity. All good. All right, we'll proceed. Thank you. Mr. Wester, it's all yours again. Sorry for the disruption. MR. WESTER: No problem. We'll be agile in our ways here. I know there's a lot of technology mediums in flow here. Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. Back on the PowerPoint presentation. This is staff controlling this. All right. I'll take it from here. I will continue forward with the review of what we talked about, activity centers, the list of all the activity centers, the Costco property within that same mixed-use activity center, the MPUD boundaries, the commercial tract within that MPUD boundary, and then the list of principal uses that are allowed on this property by right, currently listed as 90. And if you count any other commercial use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing, it's 90-plus. This is the list, Exhibit E, from the current MPUD that's adopted. There are currently 19 deviations that exist in that MPUD right now. The highlighted, No. 20 through 25, are the requests for the Costco facility. And it's not a request for the use. They request more on the form and the actual improvements on the property and the orientation. So it's not a use. So that just puts it into context. You have property in play here, and there -- at times there's a due process to ask and request for relief, if you can kind of justify that through the code, and we've got five here. So that just puts it into context of the -- continuing of the MPUD in Hacienda Lakes. This is the depiction here of the Costco wholesale facility in its environment. Really, it's an engineering plan overlay over the aerial in the real-world environment. And you can see the various improvements. Let's see if -- I'll use the mouse here. You can see the various improvements around there with the 7-Eleven more notably across. And the current criteria/metric for the review for an ASW is property line to property line. So you can see that there, the depiction Page 13 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 10 of 82 of 132 feet from the 7-Eleven. The gas facility is currently in this far western, far northwestern part of the overall site, and we'll be able to come back to that. This is a -- the PDI site plan. It is -- it has been under review for some time at the county, and it also marries up concurrent with our SDP review. As we noted, the traffic assessment is not part of the PDI request for the unsubstantial change nor the ASW, but it is part of the SDP, and this is the site engineering plan that is going with this PDI request, noting several variances and waivers asked for. The Costco gas facility and the existing 7-Eleven are separated by Rattlesnake Hammock right-of-way, a four-lane divided arterial, and that is in the code, an accepted manmade boundary reducing the impacts per the LDC. The Costco gas facility is member based. It's associated with the Costco wholesale store. The Costco gas facility is not the same as many other conventional service stations in the area, and it should be noted that the 7-Eleven operates on a 24/7 basis. The MPUD commercial parcels in the adjacent parcels are well planned to provide adequate separation and transition between various intensities and densities, including height. The planned Costco project is adequately separated from residential uses by buffers, easements, ponds, existing buildings, for example, the four-story medical building to our south, and the five-story Ekos Cadenza adult complex just to our east, and the FP&L power poles, power lines, and easement road all separate our unified development plan from the other uses nearby. The granting of the distance waiver will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses. The proposed Costco gas facility's located on a commercially -- on a commercial parcel in an activity center in the Hacienda Lakes PUD. Relief from the maximum height. This is the relief for Request No. 1 in the PDI specifically. So maximum light -- height -- pole height is 25 feet. We are asking for a height of 36.5 feet which actually reduces the number of poles on the property by 13. So instead of having a pole forest in the human scale environment, when you pull in the property, there would be 13 less poles that you have to stare at. Now, we will still have light screening and meet the photometric standards at the property edges. The property -- at the property edges and the curb, it is 0.0 on the photometric plan, even with 36-and-a-half-foot light poles. The relief from the additional requirement to obtain a variance and provide double the interior landscaping if the commercial project includes more than 120 of the required parking. The relief will not require a variance to allow the normal landscape requirements to apply to this commercial property. The justification in that is about 149 spaces are depicted as an overflow in the FP&L easement. And we can go back to the site plan if needed, but there is an FP&L easement that is basically property overflow for the parking. So we have -- 670 spaces are proposed outside the FP&L easement, and that's about 103 of the parking percentage ratio, not 120 percent. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Wester, just for our recorder -- MR. WESTER: Slow down? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, a little bit. Thank you. MR. WESTER: I'm being too timely. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, we -- MR. WESTER: I get it. I talked with her before. I will slow down. Relief from the minimum loading space required, the current requirement, I believe, is up to eight spaces, and Costco knows best on how many loading spaces they need for their facility, and so we've asked for a total of five. So we have four at the store itself and then one at the gas facility. Fourth is a deviation from the LDC for relief from the facade requirement of -- for 15 percent of glazing glass on primary facades for reduction of -- from the total of 45 percent of all facades to include now 12 percent glazing and 11 percent planted trellis. Page 14 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 11 of 82 So what does that mean in the real world? Well, the glazing standard is there to break up the mass of the building, right? It's to provide some visual relief and some context and some more visual interest, and we do that through an accepted methodology that's already been approved by the county architect as part of this application to provide a planted, structurally attached trellis feature along the building in lieu of certain glazing standards. So we still meet the spirit and intent of breaking up that massing of the building. The next one, again, is a relief from the required variations in building facades greater than 150 feet for a break in massing. For the variation on the massing, the structurally attached planted trellises also provide an elevation breakout for visual interest. So variations along the facade. They are also strategically placed to work with the project's program while contributing to the architectural aesthetics and meeting the spirit and intent of the requirement. So Items No. 4 and 5 kind of go together with the glazing and the requirement for the 150-foot length of the building facades. The sixth is a relief from the max signage square foot requirement in nonresidential districts for a total overage of 367 square feet over the maximum combined 750. This signage square foot increase is commensurate with the size of the building face for increased visibility for promotion, orientation, and way finding. Additionally, no other signage, including pole signs, ground signs and the like, projecting signs, or other are proposed on this site. Costco only puts signs on the building; that's it. And they're not interior -- interiorly illuminated. They have an exterior ambient lighting on the outside. And so no Costco sign on the east elevation. We've actually removed that, and that's the east elevation basically facing the mass of the residential community. And, finally, a request for the mass transit requirement. Currently CAT requires the first in the door, basically, at this facility to provide a CAT stop shelter, and we've asked that to be deferred to the retail outparcels on this same exact parcel. So most folks that visit a Costco facility don't arrive by bus. They arrive by POV or single occupancy vehicle. And so they arrive by that, do their shopping, and then leave, not necessarily by bus. So it's really putting a transit facility through the parking lot, and then a bus stop is really kind of inefficient more -- we asked for it to be deferred to the next step, which would be the next -- on Collier, there's an outparcel there on four acres that is actually part of this property but to be determined on what would go there. We've maxed it out with a yield for about 45,000 square feet potentially, but we've asked for that next iteration of those -- development of that outparcel to then be obligated by the developer to put that CAT facility in. This is a depiction of the gas separation, again, showing the criteria in the metric which is 132 feet property line to property line, okay. In reality, the canopy where you actually dispense the fuels at the 7-Eleven and the canopy where you dispense the fuels at the Costco is actually 400 feet away from each other. If you count where the gas tanks are installed underground, it's over 500 feet away from each other. So the metric is almost a hardship in itself because you're asking it to go from property line to property line as opposed to the actual use of that gas facility. That's the crux of this waiver. More importantly, we discussed in the code it specifically describes a manmade physical separation, which in this case is the four-lane divided infrastructure road of Rattlesnake Hammock. This is our parking demand metrics, and so what it shows is -- the blue is showing the parking in the main field of the Costco facility, and then the purple or the pink is the overflow, and that is the crux of the request for the 120 percent overage. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just to interrupt, the blue is the -- what is mandatory calculated requirement. MR. WESTER: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the purple or magenta is -- you're in excess? MR. WESTER: That's right. And so the blue is basically the 103 percent of the code. The metric is 120 percent. When Page 15 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 12 of 82 you go over 120 percent of that parking requirement, you have to provide double the landscape -- landscaping in the internal vehicular-use areas. So we've asked for a waiver from that internal vehicular-use area landscaping for our parking needs. This -- the elevation is -- this is the signage elevation, and it shows some of the trellis work there, but this is depicting the four different elevations, including the entry elevation. The entry elevation is actually facing to the northeast, if you will. So it's got its own signage. But we took the sign off of -- the Costco sign off of the east elevation. The only signage that exists on the east elevation is over the tire center, okay. And so that is the only one, and it's really more for way finding. This is a depiction of the current FP&L easement. It's over 150 feet wide. It separates us on the far eastern edge of the property. And deeper into this easement will be the overflow parking that will be obviously engineered as part of the surface parking lot. This is showing the five-story Cadenza, Ekos Cadenza multifamily, which is the -- most -- at this point the immediately abutting improvement between us and the neighboring residents. This is also showing that same Ekos Cadenza, again, showing the height and massing and the orientation of kind of concentric rings. When you talk about planning, intensity at the intersection goes from commercial, then to typically multifamily, then to single-family. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This is a view from what parking lot? MR. WESTER: This is a view from the hospital parking lot, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: From the hospital parking lot. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. And you can see here -- in the distance you can see the rooftops of some of the single-family homes in the neighborhood abutting the most recently built Ekos Cadenza, and this is the parking lot of the hospital itself separated by the pond. This is the four-story nursing facility. Again, the context of this is the Costco facility is no higher than 34 feet at its peak, and that's some of the parapets. These are four- and five-story buildings that are separate between us and the nearest residential -- single-family residential, I should say. Here are the different elevation perspectives, again, showing the signage. The first one to the top left is the main entry to Costco. So that's facing kind of essentially the northeast elevation. Then we've got the north elevation. I'd like you to note also the loading dock. The loading dock for the trucks that visit the site to reload the store are the furthest away from the residential right now, okay. They're on the far western side of the entire building. The south elevation shows the signage there. That is the corner that actually would face Collier and the hospital, if you will, and then the east elevation where we've taken off that Costco signage which faces, generally, the mass of the residential. And then here's a -- kind of a pulled-out perspective. I think we've all seen this before, but it shows the gas facility; all of the queuing lanes associated with the gas facility, which are independent from the main parking fields; the parking itself; the landscaping; the building itself; and then the perspective of the environment behind it. In summary and conclusion, the use is allowed by right in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the use of the predetermined/approved activity center at the Collier/Rattlesnake Hammock intersection node. The square footage and vehicle trips and acreage in the activity center are below the approved thresholds both in the Comprehensive Plan and the approved thresholds in the MPUD. The ASW and the PUD [sic] requests are insubstantial and minor and based on relief from certain Land Development Code MPUD provisions related to orientation, layout, and certain improvements. The requests are not about the use which is allowed by right. The Collier County staff report supports the requests and recommends approval. This Costco request -- the Costco requests are commensurate with the previously requested needs by others over the past years for 19 waivers and deviations cumulatively in the same Hacienda Lakes MPUD for certain improvements and flexibility for individuals parcels under development. Page 16 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 13 of 82 I thank you for your consideration of this approval, and I hand it back to you for questions and answers and the public. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have a questions before I turn it over to my colleagues. Can you go back to the picture -- the aerial that shows -- kind of the oblique view? Because what I want to clarify, if that even shows, the lights. I don't think you see the lights on there. And I didn't know if you had an example of the type of light fixture comparison to what -- MR. WESTER: It's an LED light fixture, and it will have certain screening to it. But the photometrics are that it will not have point source light bleed over into the adjacent properties, and we have a photometrics plan that is part of our SDP package for our site development plan review. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The light poles are on each of those islands? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. Prominently, most of the islands, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you for your presentation. Is it possible to briefly go over those six items for variance and compare the detail within that variance to what probably most of, if not all of us, are familiar with at the current Costco. For example, the light pole light. What is it at the current Costco? And then just kind of run down those other five. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. I will try my best. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Appreciate that. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. So per your request, I've got this aerial image up, and it shows the existing Costco facility and bounded by the property owned by Costco. You can see this site specifically is, as I'll call it, commingled with a lot of other big box users, right? The parking, the access, the building itself actually touches other uses on the property in that kind of -- we'll call it a strip center. And so based on its nature of that, for instance, the glazing standard, this has a different kind of glazing standard because you wouldn't be putting a signage or a glazing standard on a building that's attached to another in that strip center. We're asking for certain relief from that glazing standard for our property in the current request. So there are some vast differences with this. And it's really the trend over the last 25 or 30 years with Costco where they prefer to be in their own parcel, right, so they can control their future plan needs and not only meet their demand for their guests and patrons. But this site, I don't know if we have a height on the light pole heights in there. We think they're about the same. It's been a typical standard for a while. Now, you can imagine that Costco's quite old, 26 years old, plus or minus. LED didn't exist back then, right? So I believe they've been retrofitted with LED, so that is the new technology. But it still meets the photometric standards in play. This is in its own -- has its own kind of zoning relations in play with this strip center. And staff can go into that if needed. But the parking field here, it's a much smaller Costco. This is 140,000, plus or minus, and it has roughly 667 parking spaces. The new request is 162- to 165,000 square feet, right, and we have 800-plus parking spaces. So the growth in demand is also commensurate with the parking for -- or the queuing and stacking for the gas facility. This doesn't have as many gas pumps as the currently request. We've got -- currently slated for 24 fueling positions under the canopy. And so this is a little different. And then, of course, the stacking and queuing is commensurate with the growth of Costco over time as well. So some of the others are the overflow parking here. This one had 667 parking spaces. I don't know if that exceeded the 120 percent of that ratio for landscaping back then, which again, the requirement is if you trip 120 percent, you have to double your landscaping on the interior islands. Not the perimeter. We're not asking for a waiver for anything at the perimeter, but the landscape islands. So I don't know if that was in play here 26 years ago. But the building massing doesn't really apply to this, again, because it's attached to another Page 17 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 14 of 82 part of the strip center, if you will. So not only the parking, not only the site development, the orientation and the unified development plan is really commingled with a lot of other brick-and-mortar elements in this shopping center, which make it vastly different from the site that's under request now, and that's -- the current trend with Costco is to have your own, let's call it, 25 acres of property to be able to grow and have some breathing room on the property for your demand and your own needs, as opposed to be commingled with other access points and parking fields and shopping carts from other users like Best Buy and the like. Hopefully that answers your question in a general sense. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It does. It gives me a little bit of a comparison from a 26-year-old facility to a brand-new one, newer technology, newer request. So thank you. I appreciate it. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir, and it should be noted, too, that Costco knows how to -- we all know Costco's track record. It's a first-rate facility, very clean. They operate the grounds immaculately. And it's the same here. The orientation on our property, the requests are not about a use. It's about some of the improvements, some of the aesthetics as far as what we're supplementing for the planted trellises versus the glazing, but more important, the orientation. It should be noted that the gas facilities is far away as it could get from the residential, okay? And by putting it there, that's essentially why we're asking for a waiver from the 132 feet, but more importantly, as I showed, we're 400 feet from canopy to canopy, and if you count the actual fuel tanks, it's over 500 feet. That gets it close to more of a real-world metric for the actual use, and -- but Costco knows how to do this best. It's really an orientation thing on the request that we're asking for now. So we ask for your consideration on the approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you, Brad, for your presentation. And I'll want to hear from staff about this. But why is the 150-feet break being requested as a relief? I don't know if I should ask it now or wait till staff does its report, Chair? MR. BOSI: Can you -- I'm sorry. Can you -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's okay. I just wanted to understand why Deviation No. 5 is being requested. Why are they requesting the relief on the 150-feet break that's required? MR. WESTER: I'll answer it. So the building itself is longer than that, so inherently, we would have to provide some type of either break in the building itself architecturally, which doesn't fit the actual demised area of the building space and the needs for Costco. It really boils down to how do you build the Costco from inside out? All the warehouse builds from inside out for space planning, and then you come up with an envelope. That envelope determines how much face or facade you have on that building. And then we're over that 150-foot threshold. So we've got some variations in the building, and then the height and the massing, but more importantly, the code standard required us to have certain things. And what we're doing is adding Deviation No. 23 and Deviation No. 24 to provide that mitigated element through planted trellises instead of the glazing standard and the 150-foot standard by providing other architectural elements that may impede on the actual envelope of the building. So I hope that make sense. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So, yeah, the intent of the 150-foot break is so that you don't see this massive, long structure. MR. WESTER: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But you're saying that you're going to break it up with trellises. Do you have a photo of that? MR. WESTER: I sure do, yeah. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle, what happened probably -- and probably Ray is even aware of this. This was even before Mike's time. About, what, 25 years ago the first real big box Page 18 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 15 of 82 we dealt with in the county, and it was just a mass of a building. There was a pretty concerted effort to create architectural standards. We do not have an architectural review board. For the public's interest, we don't -- we do not have an architectural review committee. The city does; we do not. But we have very strict architectural standards that they are required to comply with, and that's part of the staff review. That's what he's asking for relief of, certain areas, and he'll show -- again, I know about this, but he'll show the trellises on here, that that is a physical feature to break up, visually, the mass of the building. MR. WESTER: That's correct. Brad Wester, Driver, McAfee. So you see this depiction here. These are the renderings, and these kind of marry up with the site plan and the elevations and everything, and this is what we've proposed for the county. You can see here the variations in massing both in not only in paint scheme, but the type of finishes, the type of elevation parapets, the variations on the roofline itself, but more importantly, the requirement was to do almost half the building in windows, fake windows, basically, right? So instead of doing that glazing standard, that's -- an architectural term for windows is glazing. So instead of that architectural glazing standard, we've asked -- and it's a mitigative element that the county architect has agreed to is these planted structural trellises. So they're attached to the building. They kind of break up when you look down the building and you look at it from the center mass. It actually breaks up that vista and provides some visual relief and interest, and that's really the overarching theme of why you'd want that 150 foot, and then the glazing standard is to provide some visual interest. And our building clearly does that. You see we've got windows on the very front. But windows around the sides are going to be supplemented with the planted trellises and the various elements that go with the different variations and the parapet heights and then the finishes and the paint scheme. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And some of those trellises are actually -- MR. WESTER: Wider than that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- so many feet off the building, correct? MR. WESTER: That's correct. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do you have a picture of that? I know there was some in the -- our packet. MR. WESTER: I'll point to it right here. You can see the trellises. Some pull out, and you can see the shadowing here. This is one that comes out -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. WESTER: -- more from the building. These are ones that are attached just to the building. And so what I meant was when you look straight down the building from the side flush with it, you'll be able to see that variation when you look down, and that's really important for this angle as well because we do have the visibility from Collier, right? You can see the corner of the building as it marries up with the hospital building, and then our property itself with the westmost facing elevation. So hopefully that answers your question. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, that does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Can you go back to the other deviation about the relief on landscaping. I'm really big on landscaping, especially parking lots. And why are you having to go over the parking requirement? MR. WESTER: Because -- so Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. The parking requirement is anytime you go over 120 percent of a maximum parking, right? So in our case, we have 819 total spaces; 670 are in the main parking field, and 149 in the Florida Power & Light easement area. Just counting the 670, that's only 103 percent over. So we're Page 19 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 16 of 82 technically under that 120 percent threshold, but because we're putting -- the only thing you can put in that FP&L easement is something horizontal. So it could only be parking, and that is our overflow parking. The typical Costco standard is to have roughly 850 parking spaces at a facility of this size. And so the 149 spaces are in that easement, so we're asking for justification and a waiver from the interior landscaping standard which required us to double the landscaping. And the important thing to note is doubling that landscaping then conflicts with the lights poles. So then you have extra trees and extra things growing up into the light poles in various areas. We're not asking for a waiver from the perimeter landscaping or the buffer requirements around the entire perimeter of the property. It's the main standard -- 100 percent landscaping standard that's in play here for the parking lot itself as opposed to doubling it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. WESTER: Hopefully that makes sense. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. And then can you go back to Slide 30. MR. WESTER: Yes. This is the view from the parking lot of the hospital. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then is anything going to go there? MR. WESTER: No. That is the hospital property. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. WESTER: So I will -- if you'll oblige, I will go back to the aerial to get you oriented with where that image was taken. Okay. So that image that you just referenced is taken right here on this -- in this parking lot. See where my mouse is? So this is the four-story building where the nursing college is. This is the parking lots associated with the hospital, basically the easternmost portion of the hospital. This is their stormwater pond, and that picture was taken right here. So you see some of the parking lot, you see the stormwater pond, and then you see the rooftops of the single-family housing right there. An actual better picture would probably be this. So my cursor is right where that picture was taken. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And why did you include that slide in your presentation? MR. WESTER: That's important to note because of the massing of the building. So the massing of our building is basically -- it's very important not only from an orientation and a circulation and a way-finding element that Costco knows how to do best, but it also is important from the massing. It's closest to the hospital, right? The hospital already has improvements; multistory, large campus. That is as close to that property edge on the south side that you can get to our building itself. Then more importantly, the loading docks are furthest west from any residential, okay, and the gas is as far west as you can get from the residential with the exception of the multifamily across Rattlesnake Hammock. But the importance of that is the massing theme with all of the buildings in relation to the PUD. The PUD and the activities are set up so your node of your intersection at Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier has generally the most intense commercial or commercial-intensity types of uses. Then from there -- and Planning staff can back me up -- it transitions from there. It goes typically to another type of density or intensity, which could be other business parks and typically multifamily, and you actually see that here. So if you make a ring around our property -- here's a ring that goes around our property; there's the multifamily, there's the Cadenza Ekos, it goes around. Then you make another ring from a planning theory. It goes to single-family and less intense and less dense uses. So I wanted to point that out that it was a massing thing on where the property is oriented from a way finding as well. So when patrons and guests enter the property, they know exactly where to park, where to enter the building. They're not driving around circulating without understanding exactly where to go. And then from an aerial standpoint, it really fits and furthers Page 20 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 17 of 82 the activity center use criteria and the PUD master development plan from a unified development standpoint on where we have the building and the parking located. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is that it? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is a question for Mike, but I don't know if it's in your presentation. I'd like to understand more of this 500 feet, why is it property line to property line? Why is -- why is it not gas tank to gas tank if it's a safety issue? It just seems like an arbitrary number if you just -- even if they move the gas facility on their layout, it won't change the code that they're trying to comply with. If it's in your presentation, I can wait, but I think we need to understand it better. MR. BOSI: And Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And I'll have to admit that the origins of the automobile service station waiver is rooted within the antiquated term of a service station, meaning at the time that this was -- this was adopted as a regulation, gas stations used to have service stations associated with them. For our younger folks, they probably don't understand what that means. It means they actually had repair at gas stations. Those are no longer how gas stations function nor operate. So the only thing -- what I could provide to you, the concern was gas stations have a high frequency of visitations, of trip -- trip attraction, I should say. And when they are located in close proximity, the intensity of that trip attraction can create issues within the right-of-way within the transportation system. And one of the things that they were really trying to make sure is if gas stations were going to be in close proximity together, it was going to create a -- it would provide for a condition that you would not have individual cars backing up into the right-of-way. Think of the '70 -- the late '70s energy issues where people had to wait long periods of time back into -- well, those were some of the things that influenced the decision for the separation requirements. A lot of the terms that you see within the criteria are a little bit antiquated in terms of how gas stations do work, but that is really the crux of it, to make sure that the traffic associated with these two gas stations were not going to create issues that were going to inhibit the movement of cars within the right-of-way, because that's what the intention of that right-of-way was for. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So traffic-based, not safety-based tank to tank or anything? MR. BOSI: It really is. It's about the traffic impact and how those arrangements for when you have gas stations in close proximity because of the intensities that are associated with gas stations. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that one of those LDC amendment meetings that we should have to talk about changing that? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It makes it harder for us to -- if we're outdated. MR. BOSI: And I -- the criteria though, the four criteria there are -- I mean, are pretty digestible and pretty understandable, but it really is to make sure that gas stations in close proximity are not going to create situations towards where they won't be able to handle the trips associated with this -- with the gas stations in proximity. Based upon the physical arrangement of the right-of-way; that's the criteria. What physical criteria did that -- these two gas stations or gas stations being proposed will have towards each other. And in this case, the applicant's burden is to show that the configuration does not create the situation that we're trying to avoid. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MR. WESTER: If I may, Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. I'll further that. In the code it specifically states, you know, a manmade kind of separation. In this case it's the four-lane divided Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which is the physical separation Page 21 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 18 of 82 of these two uses. But more importantly, outside of that are other metrics that really need to be considered are this is a member-based gas facility, and it's just gas. It's not a car wash. Unlike the -- unlike the current 7-Eleven, right, which operates 24 hours, we also have different operating hours standards, right? Our operating hours are very commensurate with the warehouse itself. They stay open an hour and a half after the warehouse for employees and guests to get out of the warehouse after it's closed and go fuel up and leave. And then, more importantly, the separation criteria here. Again, it's parcel to parcel. Could you take this gas facility and put it in its own parcel and play the game of moving it around somewhere else to get it 500 feet away, sure, but would that fit the orientation and the safety of the site that Costco knows best? No, it wouldn't. So these are metrics that we're asking for consideration, but more importantly, within the code, I believe we get that standard showing that there's a very physical separation on this case. And so we ask for your request [sic] for approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Sparrazza, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. A question back for Mike. Mike, this is not the first time an ASW has ever been requested, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. And in other -- in other applications, we've actually seen the same circumstances. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The -- I think it's a 7-Eleven on -- let me get this right -- Rattlesnake Hammock and 41 has about 180, might be 210 feet from parcel to parcel that goes across the street for the Wawa station that's further south on 41, but that also needed an ASW. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Even though it's further down. So these ASWs are not one in a million. They come up often, correct? MR. BOSI: And I will point out the existing 7-Eleven was granted an ASW from the RaceTrac. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: From the RaceTrac across the street, correct. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. I just wanted -- and I'm not siding with one side or the other, but as Paul had stated, maybe it's time that some antiquated specifications be reviewed and looked at, and this certainly looks like one that could be at least under consideration to be reviewed, and that's to also let the public know this isn't, "Oh, my gosh. He's asking for an ASW, and we've never granted it before." Very commonly are granted, correct? MR. BOSI: If they satisfy the -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: The requirements, right. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Hi. Yeah, just a couple questions. You cited a bunch of -- a bunch of complexes around, surrounding the area. What is the total height of the Costco? MR. WESTER: Thirty-four feet max. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Thirty-four feet. And your lights poles are 36 and a half feet, so they're much -- they're a little larger than your -- MR. WESTER: Slightly, yes. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: You're asking for 11 and a half feet increase on your existing. Now, are these more stout, more robust? Do you have any pictures of these light poles? My only concern is really the light pollution. I know it says it's less light pollution, but is it by 1 percent at the cost of these big, huge, robust light poles, or is it just a significant reduction? Because I don't have that report. Page 22 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 19 of 82 MR. WESTER: I understand. Yes. I don't have an exhibit that shows the light pole itself. I believe we did submit one to staff, but I don't have one in my presentation. Are they robust? Yes. Do they have a certain wind load standard? Absolutely. Is it a high-efficiency LED technology? Yes. Will they be screened from the point source from the adjacent uses nearby? Yes, 100 percent. And do they meet and exceed the code standard for the photometrics at the property edge? Yes. That is the standard. And so we've got a photometrics plan that's part of our SDP package right now, and it shows that definitively with science. But as far as light pollution, there's not much I can comment to you because the code really has a standard in there, and it says point source of the light element itself, light bleed into neighborhoods, and so the standard is really met through a photometrics plan itself. But more importantly, we reduce it by up to 13 poles throughout the property. So at the human scale, when you look at it from the plan view, just top down, it may not -- it may not look like it makes much of a difference. But from the human scale, when you drive onto the property, you'll have 13 less light poles out there, which is a really big deal. You'll have more landscaping to look at and less light poles. They'll be higher. But 11 -- 11 feet is relatively discernible [sic] from the human-scale environment when you pull onto the property considering it's 13 less light poles. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: My only concern is that you're asking for a deviation of less landscaping around these light poles, but these light poles are going to be much more thicker and robust to handle the additional 11 and a half feet. MR. WESTER: And there's a correction. We're not asking for less landscaping. We're not asking for a deviation from the code itself; meeting the under-120-percent standard in the parking area. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's what I thought, too. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah, it's -- MR. WESTER: So we're not -- we still meet the landscape code for all of the internal vehicular use areas, the parking islands and the like. We're just not doubling them because of the 120 percent standard. So we still have landscaping. As a matter of fact, the 36-foot poles will be in less conflict with the landscaping and vegetation and trees in the property. But more importantly, I wanted to point out we are 100 percent adhering to the landscaping code. We're just asking for a waiver to not provide double the amount of landscaping in only the landscape islands. Not the perimeter, not the buffers, not anywhere else. So that's a significant point to this. It's not one versus the other, a 36-foot light pole and then no landscaping. That's not the case at all. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner [sic] Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: How many employees do -- would this typical size Costco have? MR. WESTER: That is a great question, and I have the answer because I have my experts with me. So just to let you know, if I can't answer the question, I have my experts. I have my civil engineer and my traffic engineer. We've got two architects. We've got three Costco executives with me here as well. So if I don't have the answer, I can get it. And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but do we have that number? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Depending on time of year, anywhere from 250 to 350 employees. MR. WESTER: I will state that, 250 to 350 employees. MS. LOCKHART: Well, you've asked, and I think the county has agreed to the deviation of the bus stop, the CAT facility. I don't understand why. You could probably have less parking requirement. You would have 350 employees that would be able to -- a percentage of them would be able to take the bus to work. Also, you do have things like, I'm sure, in some Costcos, optical, pharmacy where there would be a quick stop that you wouldn't have to carry numbers of packages. Also, the outparcel may be retail, too. So I guess I'm just not understanding the justification of it being retail and not having a bus stop requirement for this -- for the first property Page 23 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 20 of 82 that gets developed. MR. BOSI: And let me address that. And this is an issue that staff was going to bring up. The bus stop request was not analyzed within the PDI request. I was just looking through the material that has been submitted to staff. We have never -- we haven't had the bus stop request presented to us within the PDI, so staff is not supporting that deviation. MS. LOCKHART: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. No other questions. And then we're going to proceed with public speakers. And I point out, just to note, we're going to take a break approximately at 10:30. So I think we'll -- we're going to do staff. Anything from staff? MR. BOSI: I'll put on the record -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead. MR. BOSI: For the ASW, staff has reviewed it against the criteria, and it is recommended -- a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners of approval. For the PDI, we have reviewed the request. The one request that we have not reviewed was the request for the bus stop to be deferred to a further use of the outparcel. So for that, we do not support that. The other PDI request staff is supporting. If there's any questions you have within our staff reports for either petition, I'm happy to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm confused, because I don't recall ever reading about the deviation for the bus stop, and I heard it during the presentation, so... MR. BOSI: Well, that -- staff was a little surprised, too, and was going to talk with the applicant, that we haven't had the opportunity even to review it. It may have come up during their SDP review, and it's something that they -- it's just we haven't had -- we haven't been presented with that opportunity to review it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is listed in the ordinance Attachment Page 2. MR. WESTER: And this is Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. We submitted all those requests at the beginning, very beginning, and we were asked to not put that as one of the waivers in the PDI but ask as a text change to the PUD to defer that bus stop to the next set of retail uses as opposed to the Costco use. So it would be deferred, owner's obligation, but for the outparcel development. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Then go back to your site overview, because I want to -- I did ask you this when we met. For my colleagues, clarify the outparcels. And right now, though you have not technically closed on the property, meaning you have an option to buy it, you've not closed, but those outparcels will be under the control of the Costco entity? MR. WESTER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And when those -- what you're stating is when those are developed, whatever they may be, drugstore whatever -- I don't know what's going to go in there. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That you're saying that you'll comply, then, with the bus stop requirement. MR. WESTER: Correct. Yeah, that's more in commensurate with the variation of retail uses that would be on outparcel development as opposed to one larger store like this with a gas facility and then having the bus route right through the parking lot and then a bus stop commensurate with that. So we're not saying it's not going to be done. We're just asking it be deferred. And we were told to put it in its own exhibit as part of the review as opposed to a waiver. So that's why you don't see it listed as one of the waivers. But we were asked at the beginning to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are you aware of any -- where the closest -- there's bus Page 24 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 21 of 82 services -- MR. WESTER: The hospital, yes, sir, to the south. The hospital has, I believe, a bus route [sic]. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There is a bus stop right at the hospital. MR. WESTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Now, the other question is the interconnect to the south connecting with the hospital, could you clarify that for the record? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. The Costco facility currently has three ingress/egress points. Two are on Rattlesnake Hammock, and one is through the hospital property on the loop road, and it will take the traffic that decides to utilize that loop road out to the intersection, the traffic light controlled intersection there at the hospital. And we have a signed agreement from the hospital itself for that type of easement across that property. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Mike, do you have anything else for staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing else from staff's perspective. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I'm going to -- I'm going to choose to take a break now before we start public comment, because then I would ask that the applicant be prepared for any rebuttal, and of course, we will ask questions. And for the public, certainly we're here to listen. At times we may stop your presentation and ask you a question as well but just for clarification. But I want to make sure our staff in the back, they're prepared. If there are any folks who have not signed up yet to be a speaker, please fill out a speaker slip, and if you're going to cede your time to another speaker or if you hired a consultant or have someone in a management team or your HOA, whomever you may have, that we know who you ceded the time to so I can keep track of the time so we can move this meeting fairly smoothly. So with that, any other questions from my colleagues up here? COMMISSIONER SHEA: How many speakers do we have signed up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many speakers do we have? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there's 21, approximately. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twenty-one speakers. And before we go, Chuck; do you have any comments or questions, Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir. I'm still here. I don't have any questions or comments. I'm good right now. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll save them towards the end. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Just interrupt when you have a question because I don't -- I don't have anything to light up to let me know if you have a question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I will do so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. So with that, we'll take a 15-minute break, and we'll resume. Go ahead, Mike, you want to -- you're good. Okay. We'll take a 15-minute break. Again, please, if you have any -- if you're going to speak, please fill out a questionnaire [sic]. Thank you -- or speaker slip. (A recess was had from 10:16 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. May I please ask everybody to take their seat. Before I open public comment -- because I know there's going to be a lot of questions about traffic, and just to clear the air, Jaime, could I ask if you could come up, introduce yourself, and explain when and how and at what stage the traffic analysis is completed. Thank you. MS. COOK: Good morning, Jaime Cook, for the record, director of Development Review at Growth Management/Community Development. So the petitions that you're hearing today are typically the first step in any application, similar to a rezoning petition or a Growth Management Plan amendment. If this -- if these Page 25 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 22 of 82 petitions were to be approved, the next step for the developer is a Site Development Plan. The Site Development Plan looks at basically how the entire site is laid out, everything from the building footprint to the stormwater design, transportation impacts, how the utilities are run, any environmental impacts, architecture, all of those sorts of things. The applicant has submitted the Site Development Plan, and it has gone through the first review. As part of that review, the -- they're required to submit a Transportation Impact Statement, or a TIS, which looks at the operational aspects of the site and the surrounding roadways. So it looks at the turning lane movements -- turning movements, whether turn lanes are required, stoplights are required, all of those sorts of operational considerations that go into the transportation review. In looking at the transportation reviewer's review for that first review, there are -- there were a significant number of comments, both design as far as turn lanes, widths, things like that, as well as the TIS. So there are still questions that staff is asking, and neither the TIS or the proposed improvements for the roadway system have been approved at this point. So it will still need to go through further review. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then the other question, standpoint of right now there are no plans for Rattlesnake to go further east, because that's preserve lands. It's protected lands in accordance with the county. MS. COOK: That is correct. So you can see this right here is the proposed Costco site. And I'm sorry for the people who live in Hacienda, I always get these backwards. Esplanade and Azure are here, and then the road ends about here where Azure's entrance is. And, Ms. Lockhart, your school site is about here. Past that is lands that have been put into conservation easements or are sending lands and cannot be developed. What Transportation's proposal is is there is a proposed road here, Benfield, that will extend north from here, but there will be nothing further east. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And with that, can I have the first public comment, please. MR. SABO: Yeah. Mr. Chair -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I would ask the public speakers, please stage yourself at each of the lecterns up here, or the podiums, so we can move along quickly. And there was one comment I wanted to make. I have been talking to one of the commissioners for this area, and there's been a lot of interest or expressed interest of having commissioners attend this meeting. Typically, we -- they do not attend this meeting. If they do, they may just come sit in the back and listen, but they typically do not come to the Planning Commission meeting. We are an advisory meeting. We are appointed by the commissioners, and we are advisors to help them move through the process as far as the decision process. But we are advisory only. We are not the approval process. And so typically, if a commissioner has a question, they will contact us as to what took place during the meeting, or we'll contact them. But they typically do not physically attend this meeting. But they certainly can, but typically they do not, because if they attend, it gets into a Sunshine issue with more than one commissioner attending the meeting and Sunshine Laws and Florida laws. But with that, first public speaker, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have several people that are ceding time to another speaker. So if you're ceding time, please stay here so we can confirm that you are here ceding time. The four people who have time ceded are Frank CiPolla, Milt Spokojny, Thomas Rath, and Herman Diebler. We're going to start with Frank CiPolla. And he was ceded time by Robert Kasler. Is Kasler here? Page 26 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 23 of 82 (Raises hand.) MR. KASLER: I'm here. MR. SABO: And then next speaker is Milt Spokojny. And he has 30 minutes, but I'll go through that when Mr. CiPolla's done. MR. CiPOLLA: Commissioners, good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are you looking at all 30 minutes? MR. CiPOLLA: No. I'm going to probably take about 10 minutes or so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's only got one ceded. MR. CiPOLLA: I only have one person. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: One ceded. All right. MR. CiPOLLA: Milt is going to take the rest. I'd like to use my time, please, to give you a 30,000-foot view of the concerns that the communities have. And by the way, it's Frank CiPolla, and I'm the spokesperson for the Costco core opposition group which represents residents in Azure as well as Hacienda Lakes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And are you a resident, or you were hired -- you were hired? MR. CiPOLLA: No, no. I'm a resident. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. CiPOLLA: I'm going to give the greatest hits. Again, indulge me. And then my colleague, Milt, is going to come up here, is going to drill down to what we believe is a flawed application. We've seen several things, and Milt will elaborate on that. First of all, let me say we are not anti-Costco, none of us is. We are not antigrowth. We are not antibusiness. We just believe that this particular site for the Costco is not the right site. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only Costco that is being proposed in the United States of America that is not only up against a residential community but next to a hospital, Physicians Regional. And when I say "next to a hospital," I don't mean down the street from a hospital. I mean right next door to the hospital, as you saw on that map. You did not want us to touch on the traffic. For many of the residents of our communities traffic is important, so again, indulge me if you may. First, from what we understand, the traffic study by Costco was done during the offseason when most of the residents are up north. And in addition to everything else, tourists are not in the area as well. So we're looking at -- and they say they have a formula, and more power to them. I don't think that formula, however, adequately takes into account the 2,700 new apartments and condominiums that are being constructed right next to the 7-Eleven, as well, a mile north, the Caymas and Seven Shores community where there will be additional hundreds of homes. I don't think there's a formula that takes that into account. Now, they can estimate. They can guesstimate, but I don't think there's a formula that takes that into account. Not to mention the elementary school and all the traffic that will be part of that. And we found out today as well that 250 employees will be there working. That's an additional number of cars. By Costco's own admission, 4,500 vehicles will be using this very busy corner every single day; 4,500 vehicles on that corner. This is already a busy corner. We've seen at least two deaths in the last month. We've seen accidents. And I've said this on television -- I'll say it again. And this is something you need to take in mind as we go forward -- if you approve this, this is only going to lead to more accidents, injury, and death. It's just a matter of time. Did an interview yesterday with one of the reporters here, at that corner, three young kids tooling around on bicycles, could you imagine the traffic tenfold when they're tooling around on bicycles? Traffic is the issue. We may not have the opportunity to speak about it at length, but traffic is certainly the issue. Costco has said that this monstrosity of a warehouse and the gas stations [sic] will require Page 27 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 24 of 82 round-the-clock deliveries. They've said that. Adding to the noise pollution. You've discussed briefly the light pollution. The lighting is actually going to be taller than the building. So we're looking, as communities, noise and light pollution 24 hours a day; trucks delivering at all hours of the day and night. To make matters worse, as you saw from the map there -- and they've just added an entrance around the hospital which apparently just happened in the last several days. We had no idea about that. But the major entrances and exits are going to be on Rattlesnake [sic] Road. That means -- and I want you to think about this for a moment -- 4,500 vehicles, theoretically, will be lining up in that turning lane to get on Rattlesnake, not off Collier like the 7-Eleven, which has the bridge, but Rattlesnake Hammock Road. There will be a new light there. We need to get out of our community quickly sometimes, and someone will touch on that when they get up and speak here. Let's discuss the gas pumps for a moment. The application -- and we just found out a moment ago -- calls for 24 gas pumps. Not more than a few months ago it was 15, then it became 17, and now it's 24 gas pumps. We don't know what the final number is going to be. And I don't think, with all due respect to my friends at Costco, they're being totally honest with us. As you know, there are already two major gas stations at that intersection. Costco claims that this club gas is a bit different; that there won't be as many cars getting gas. There's 24 pumps. I assume they think there will be a lot of cars getting gas. The request for that gas station is flawed in so many ways. And again, my colleague, Milt, who's also on the Costco core opposition group, is going to detail how that is flawed. Costco is a destination trip. If you're a club member, you're heading to Costco. It doesn't matter if it's a mile east, west, north, or south, you're going there to save a little money. We have identified just -- and we're not -- you know, we're not in the business of doing this, but we have identified at least three more suitable sites on the west, north, and south within a couple of miles, including 84 acres of land available at the corner of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard which is in a commercial area with sufficient roadway to accommodate everything instead of shoehorning this Costco into this residential area. I say again, this is the only Costco being proposed that we know of that is not only next to a hospital but next to a residential area. Please take that in mind. We are blessed in East Naples with a lot of open land. Corner of 41 and Collier Boulevard where they're building the new Home Depot, there's a Lowe's there. There's Walgreens. There's CVS. There's plenty of opportunity to put a Costco there away from a residential community, but Mr. Wester and his team insists -- insists on shoehorning it into that spot. Now, our friends at Costco, I think, deep down -- they're working for Costco, so they won't say this, but I think our friends at Costco know this is an idiotic location. They know it. And how do I know it? You say, Frank, how do you -- how do we know this? Because at the neighborhood information meeting earlier this year, 300 angry residents from communities surrounding this proposed site came to the meeting to express these and other concerns. And Mr. Wester, who was conducting the meeting, his only response to some of these very serious concerns we have was, "Well, the land is zoned commercial." You must have read about this. This was his answer. "Ah, sorry. The land is zoned commercial." That is not an answer. That is a dodge. That is a dodge to placate us and quiet us because he doesn't have an answer to that. You have the power to not recommend this to the county commissioners. Now, we would hope that you take all of our concerns -- I don't want to use all of my time because we have 21 people to speak. But I would hope that you would take all these concerns and more into consideration before you recommend this boondoggle. There are other spots with more land away from residential communities and not on a small Rattlesnake Road. So I would -- thank you for your time, and I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have a couple of questions. Let -- you state there are other Page 28 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 25 of 82 locations. We are not -- we are not in the business of -- MR. CiPOLLA: Understood. No, I understand. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- telling an applicant where they can and cannot go. MR. CiPOLLA: No, I understand it, Mr. Chairman. I -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just one question. If not Costco -- it's already zoned. You're asking us to deny something that we're not here to even consider or approve because it's already approved. If not Costco, some other major anchor store is going to go in there. It's not going to be a park. It's not going to be vacant land. It's zoned commercial. That's why I asked staff in the beginning to define the activity center and how our Future Land Use Map identified that site as where we wanted to concentrate -- we, being the county, wanted to concentrate growth and development. So I don't understand, when you say Costco, I mean, if not Costco -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Car dealer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- are you looking for a car dealership? Are you looking for a Best Buy? Are you looking for -- I'll throw other names out -- a Super Walmart? A Super Target? Something is going to go in there. MR. CiPOLLA: Let me respond. We're not antigrowth. We understand that Naples is growing. We understand that that's not going to be a park where -- with swings and benches. We understand that. We understand that. This is just the wrong frit, and I'll tell you why. You have the power to waive this ordinance that's on -- it's a state law that you cannot have a gas station within 500 feet of a property. It's 132 feet. Now, I know they're trying to make accommodations, but that's an ordinance. You've made accommodations before. We're asking you not to do this. In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, maybe we'd have something like Founders Square, which is at the corner of Immokalee and Collier, mixed use, residential with stores, things we can use, restaurants, maybe a Target anchor store, something that we can all use. This is a monstrosity of a building. It's just an eyesore, and it's just going to wreak havoc at that corner with traffic. They don't even have -- Mr. Chairman, they don't even have plans to put a bridge over that small canal to get onto this property. They're shoving all the traffic, most of it at least, into this exit and entrance along Rattlesnake Road. That is our only exit to get to Collier Boulevard. People work. There will be traffic in the morning. People go back at home in the evening. There will be traffic in the evening. We understand that something will go there. We just say this particular Costco and its design is not that something. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And your background is, to base that -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I will -- I will ask everyone to leave. You do not applaud. This is not a popularity contest. If you applaud, I'm going to ask you to leave. I'm going to ask the security to come up and remove you from the -- from the hearing. We're not here for a popularity contest. We're here to listen to your concerns. What was the question I asked as far as -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: His background. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, your background, because I want to -- you made a lot of opinions, so I want my colleagues to understand. Are you a professional engineer -- MR. CiPOLLA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- or are you a -- MR. CiPOLLA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- land planner of some sort? MR. CiPOLLA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just want to know and understand, because what you've stated is based on your opinion, not a professional background. MR. CiPOLLA: Well, you asked for -- you asked for testimony. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Page 29 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 26 of 82 MR. CiPOLLA: I made some statements here. I don't think they can refute them. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. CiPOLLA: Okay. I made some statements. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave that up to the petitioner if they want to refute anything that you stated. So thank you for your time. MR. CiPOLLA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Milt Spokojny, and if these folks can raise their hand; they ceded time. Jamie Pedraitor [sic]? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: One. George Weyant? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: All right. Robert Fitch? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: There we go. Richard Bikowski? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: Right there. And Rose Basir? Basin? (Raises hand.) MR. SABO: All right. 30 minutes for Milt. MR. SPOKOJNY: I don't think I'll be that long, with all due respect. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Good morning. MR. SPOKOJNY: My name's Milton Spokojny. By education, I'm an attorney. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SPOKOJNY: I'm licensed in the state of Michigan. I am not licensed in the state of Florida. I live in the state of Florida. My address is 8373 Promoso Court. That's in Hacienda Lakes Estates. I'm here representing myself as a homeowner in opposition to the construction of the Costco. My presentation is a bit technical in nature, so I'm going to be reading some of the ordinances, so bear with me. I want to make a point that Frank alluded to. You have the ability to deny this petition based on the fact of the impact on the residential area. The planners did not make any suggestion about that fourth criteria, the impact on the residential area. This has a tremendous impact on the residential area. It has 4,700 cars a day being funneled onto Rattlesnake Road as a result of this construction. And this is by their own traffic analysis. This is not my number. This is -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you to move your microphone up so that our recorder -- because she hears that through the record -- through her earpiece as well. Thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: Am I in the right place now? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. So 4,700 cars a day are going to be funneled through Rattlesnake Road in addition to the existing traffic. They're also asking to put a traffic signal on the second exit where the Ekos apartments are. We have to stop there. We are a cul-de-sac. We cannot get access any other way than other -- through Rattlesnake Road. So there's a tremendous traffic impact. You said you can't analyze the traffic situation; that's not within your purview. But I will present to you documentation to show, ancillarily, that traffic is a very important component to your decision-making based on the ordinances in place. The first thing I'm going to talk about is I have several threshold arguments that, if you Page 30 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 27 of 82 believe my presentation, you should deny the petition. The first argument is to show that Costco does not have a market study, does not have a market study. That must be part of their application process. And I will read you the ordinance. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let me stop you there. Application process for what we're dealing with, or an application process for zoning? MR. SPOKOJNY: For what you're dealing with. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we're dealing with a PDI. MR. SPOKOJNY: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Which is an insubstantial change. MR. SPOKOJNY: And 500-foot waiver. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Okay. I just want to clarify it because -- I know you're an attorney. I just want to clarify that if you're going to be trying to bring issues for us to consider, that it's based on what we're considering. So go ahead, thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: I'm not here acting as an attorney because I'm not licensed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. Well, I do respect your education, and I respect your background. MR. SPOKOJNY: I'm from the state of Michigan, so go blue. 5.05.05, facilities with fuel pumps, Section A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that facilities with fuel pumps do not adversely impact adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. The high levels of traffic, glare, intensity of the use associated with facilities with fuel pumps, particularly those open 24 hours, may be incompatible with surrounding uses, especially residential uses. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the health, safety, general welfare of the public, the following regulations shall apply to the location, layout, drainage operation, landscaping, parking, and permitted sales and service activities of facilities with fuel pumps. And Table 1 says, "Site design requirements. Separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps is 500 feet." Waiver of separation requirements: A, the BZA -- and by the BZA, the County Commission will be acting as the BZA when they ultimately hear this petition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. They act as the Board of Zoning Appeals, yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: Right. And the BZA, by resolution, can grant a waiver of part or all of the minimum separation requirements set forth if it is demonstrated by the applicant and determined by the BZA that the site proposed for development of a facility with fuel pumps is separated from another facility with fuel pumps by natural or manmade boundary structures or other features which offset or limit the necessity of such minimum distance requirement by the BZA. The BZA decisions to waive part or all of the distance requirements shall be based on the following factors. And I'm skipping over Factor 1, 2, 3. Factor 4 says, "Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses, especially residential uses." They have not -- they have totally ignored that requirement. Costco just glosses over that requirement and says it doesn't have an impact. Well, it does have an impact. The fact that you have to funnel 4,700 cars into Rattlesnake Road, the fact that you have to put a traffic light that impedes our access into our cul-de-sac subdivisions has a tremendous impact on the residential area. I defy anybody to rebut that proposition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave that up to the petitioner. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. Section B, the Administrative Code shall establish -- I'm sorry. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for a facility with fuel pumps waiver request. The request for a facility fuel pumps waiver shall be based on the submittal of the required application, a site plan, and a written market study analysis which justifies a need for the additional facility with fuel pumps in the desired location. This market study is not for Costco. This market study is for the general public and for everybody else to know why a gas station is needed at this location. Like Frank said, we're not Page 31 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 28 of 82 opposed to the Costco. It's the gas station that's an issue. Quite frankly, it's the gas station, not the Costco itself. Collier County Land Development Code Administrative Procedures Manual: Facilities with fuel pump waiver. Reference: LDC Section 5.05.05, public notice. Okay. This section establishes applicability. It establishes a process to waive part or all of the minimum separation requirements for facilities with fuel pumps from other facilities with fuel pumps. This process is also known as the automobile service station waiver. The application must include the following: Number 7, a written market study analysis which justifies a need for additional facility with fuel pumps in a desired location. Number 11, a -- pre-application meeting notes. They have not submitted those as well. So they are deficient in No. 7 and No. 11 based on the ordinance requirements. You can't make an informed decision on this matter without a market study. You just can't make an informed decision without that market study; therefore, without the market study, Costco's application is deficient and must be denied. As I indicated, they also must, pursuant to the ordinance, provide their pre-application meeting notes. This is my next threshold argument, substantial change versus insubstantial change. They've asked for insubstantial changes, okay, based on the five or six different items they talked about. LDC, that's the ordinance, Section 10.02.13 indicates changes and amendments. There are three types of changes to a PUD ordinance: Substantial, insubstantial, and minor. Substantial changes, any substantial changes to an approved PUD ordinance shall require the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and approval of the county Board of County Commissioners as a PUD amendment prior to implementation. Applicants shall be required to submit and process a new application complete with pertinent supporting data set forth in the Administrative Code for the purpose of this section. A substantial change shall be deemed to exist -- and I'm going to read you -- any one of these criteria requires a substantial change. B -- I'm skipping over some of these. I'm giving you the salient ones, in my opinion. A proposed increase in the total number of dwellings or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. E, a substantial increase in the impact of the development which may include, but not be limited to, increases in traffic, changes in traffic circulation or impacts on other public facilities. F, a change that will result in land-use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the trip generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Costco's traffic consultant used that manual as part of their process, so that's applicable as well. H, a change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use. I think if you look at those carefully, you will agree with me that their petition for an insubstantial change is deficient. They should have filed a petition for a substantial change based upon this ordinance. These are not my requirements. These are the county's requirements. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you a question there? MR. SPOKOJNY: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I clearly understand the code and the requirements. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And you're basically saying that this should be a substantial change and an amendment to the PUD, but there's no change in intensity. Intensity has to do with the amount of commercial that's authorized for the site. This is less than what is currently authorized for the site. So I don't understand your argument, because this is not a change in intensity. I guess your basis of your argument, then, is you think staff did not adequately review this and should have ruled it as requiring a PUD amendment because of the traffic analysis? Page 32 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 29 of 82 MR. SPOKOJNY: Yeah, because of the increase in traffic, because of the intensity. They failed to do that. I am not making these criteria up. It's under the ordinance requirements, and I only ask that they follow the ordinance. I don't think -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave that up to staff again and for the applicant to respond, because this was deemed an insubstantial change because the requests were deemed insubstantial. You're basically arguing that staff have overruled or said this is not an insubstantial change. It should have came in as a PUD -- MR. SPOKOJNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- or PUD amendment. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. That's my position. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. I'll ask for staff to respond. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. Because they didn't analyze the fact that -- about the relationship, the land use, that would be incompatible with the other adjacent land use. They haven't analyzed that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the entire Hacienda PUD already does that. MR. SPOKOJNY: Yeah, but it's part of this new application. It's part of the fact that they submitted a traffic analysis that says they're going to have 4,700 cars a day; that they're going to have a traffic signal on Rattlesnake Road that's going to impede our access to the community. I mean, these are all important factors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I understand they're important factors, but those factors have already been planned for in the activity center. But I -- again, I am here just to listen to your argument. I'm going to ask staff and the applicant to respond. And certainly, your points will be brought up to the BZA as well, from that standpoint on how they deal with this, whether they deem that it should have been a PUD amendment. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: You're welcome. Let me try to pick up where my mind left off. The fact that they have to put a traffic light in requires a variance. They don't meet the legal requirement. It has to be more -- their light is going to be about a thousand feet away from Collier; therefore, they're going to have to apply for a variance to put that traffic light in. I haven't seen anywhere in any of the documentation that they've applied for a variance to put in that traffic light. It should have been part of their insubstantial changes, I would imagine. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know of no requirement for a variance for a traffic light. They have to have a warrant. They have to get a warrant for a traffic light, and they have to justify it, but that's -- again, I'll ask staff to respond to that about the traffic light. MR. SPOKOJNY: Okay. I believe that their traffic flow has not been optimized. When you look at the entrance into the hospital itself, you're not coming in directly. You have to make a bunch of left turns and right turns. You can't go -- are you familiar with the hospital layout? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I am. MR. SPOKOJNY: There's two entrances. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: One is closer to the Costco facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SPOKOJNY: But they want you to come in from the facility with the traffic light, all the way in there, meander around the parking lot, make a left turn and make a right turn into Costco. You can't go onto Collier that way. You have to -- and coming out, they want you to make a left turn, go back the same way, and go out with the exit on to -- on to -- with the traffic light. It just is not a prime example of ideal traffic flow. They could have optimized this a lot better. They could have designed a bridge that control -- they control the abutting adjacent land uses, the ancillary land uses. They could build a bridge just like the 7-Eleven did across Collier, Page 33 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 30 of 82 but they failed to do so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm going to ask Mike Sawyer, the traffic review, at the conclusion because Collier County -- or Collier Boulevard is a controlled access road. It's a county road, but it's controlled for ingress/egress for the flow of traffic, and it's highly restricted as to where you can have right-in and right-off of Collier Boulevard. But, Mike, would you put a note on that and respond when I ask for responses, because that -- I've heard that -- you're the second one to mention that, but, in fact, it's not just I want to put a bridge there and an entrance. That's not our purview. That's the county, and that's the county rules, and that's the county requirements as far as Collier Boulevard. But go ahead. Thank you. MR. SPOKOJNY: Thank you. I have seen in the Planning Commission's [sic] recommendation to this body that they say that Rattlesnake is a four-lane access road, and therefore, it allows the 500-foot waiver. I have not seen any documentation to show that Rattlesnake, from a legal perspective, is a four-lane access road. As a matter of fact, I have documentation from a county representative that says the portion of Rattlesnake Road east of Collier has not been designated, period. There's future anticipation in 2030 that it will be designated as an arterial highway, but at this point it has not been designated. I want to read you this section of the ordinance, because I think their ordinance that allows the waiver of the 500 feet is so vague, is so ambiguous that you could grant a waiver for anything. It says -- and I'll read the whole thing, but then I'm going to emphasize a part. "Whether the nature and type of natural or manmade boundary, structure, or other feature lying between the proposed establishment of an existing facility with fuel pumps is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facility with fuel pump. Such boundary, structure, or any other feature may include but is not limited to lakes, marshes, nondevelopment wetlands, designated preserves area, canals, and a minimum of a four-lane arterial or collector right-of-way." When it says "not limited to," you can throw anything in there. It's a catch-all. The ordinance is meaningless. They're asking for a waiver of 132 feet. That's more [sic] than two-thirds of the requirement of the 500 feet. What is the purpose of that ordinance if you can willy-nilly grant a waiver about anything without determining the impact? That ordinance was put in for a reason, and they're just willy-nilly fabricating the intent of that ordinance. That ordinance is a meaningless ordinance. That concludes my presentation. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Thomas Rath. He was ceded time from Don Schwartz. Is Don Schwartz here? Is Don Schwartz here? (No response.) MR. SABO: All right. He gets five minutes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Stand by. Let me fix my clock here. Go ahead, sir. MR. RATH: Thomas Rath. I'm five years living in Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes. I know the Board of Commissioners will make a wise decision on this Costco proposal. I am going to make life a lot easier for you. A new precedent has been set. The Jacksonville, Florida, City Council, on May 27th, had enough foresight to deny the rezoning of a proposed Costco gas station because of, quote, "traffic connection and two nearby gas stations," exactly the same situation we are now in with the proposed Costco. Costco has said they will have 4,500 cars coming in, but they also have to leave on Rattlesnake Road, nine thousand cars coming and going from that parking lot. The new shopping strip center next to them has 2,000 -- will have new -- because it's new, it will be developed -- 2,000 cars coming and going. The new development right across the street, this huge development, all these condos, okay, they're going to have 5,000 cars. Sixteen thousand more cars in one day will be entering and exiting onto Rattlesnake Road. How can the Board allow that congestion in a residential committee -- community? Page 34 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 31 of 82 I kept it short, and I appreciate you listening to me. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Question in regards -- you just added the -- you said 16,000 based on the data that you've accumulated. MR. RATH: Yes. Coming in and out on Rattlesnake Road. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll ask -- again, that's a staff question whether it's 16,000. That's -- MR. RATH: Okay. Just alone -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. RATH: -- at the last meeting that Costco had with us, they said 4,500 cars coming in. Okay. They have to come out, too. That's 9,000 cars alone. The new development, okay, there's 2,500 units in that new development. That hasn't been built yet. That's coming. That's new. The strip center right next door, next to Costco, will have an exit on that going in and out of Rattlesnake Road. That is how I came up with 16,000 cars. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I would defer to the applicant and your traffic engineer to present competent substantial evidence to support your claim for what you believe are your traffic counts for that area, even though, again, traffic is not part of our criteria. And I would have to agree with what was presented already. It's a secondary piece of it for the approval of the -- of the separation, so I grant that. Thank you. MR. RATH: Okay. Now, just a second. I said there's a precedent. The Jacksonville, Florida, City Council denied their request, and that is the same -- exactly what we have here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. RATH: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Herman Diebler. He was ceded time from Leigh Breeden. Is Leigh Breeden here? MS. BREEDEN: Yes. MR. SABO: All right. Ten minutes for Mr. Diebler. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Diebler, you -- 10 minutes? MR. SABO: Ten minutes. MR. DIEBLER: Well, this has been very interesting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name, please. MR. DIEBLER: My name is Herman Diebler. I'm from the Hacienda Lakes development on Sevilla Court. As I say, this has been very interesting. I find myself now in a position where I feel like the fifth husband of a Hollywood icon, and my problem is how am I going to make my first night of intimacy interesting, but give me a -- give me a go at it. Sorry. Costco has earned my respect over the years for its products, for its corporate culture, and in particular, for its civic consciousness. I welcome the desire for Costco to expand in Collier County. What they've shown here has been quite remarkable, and I welcome it into our county. I've lived in Collier County now for going on 30 years. I've seen a lot. Over the years, I've respected the decisions made by Collier County council, and there have been quite a few I've experienced, although lately I have a little concern, particularly with this imminent, imminent approval for a big-box store in the middle of our community. Now, when I say big-box store, it's a store consisting of 170,000-square-foot warehouse, 45,000-square-foot outbuilding, 850-car parking lot, large gas station. We have three already. We only have one more corner left. What you're going to put there, I don't know, all of which is dependent upon one entrance and one exit onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Rattlesnake Hammock Road is not a major road, rather it's used by locals to get in and out of their communities. Now, let's understand collectively what we're all doing. Costco, you do not have to shoehorn all of what you want in the 25-acre site that you've chosen in the middle of a residential area. Granted, it is a -- zoned as commercial, but we will get to that. It will be the first violation of your civic consciousness that I admire. Page 35 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 32 of 82 I don't know of any other Costco that puts a facility in the middle of this kind of environment that we're choosing to put it in. Costco, you do not have to be close to the 3,000 dwellings that we have in immediate proximity. Your customers do not walk to the store. They must come by car in order to carry all their stuff home. Costco, with only one entrance and one exit into a minor road, you will have gridlock like you haven't seen in your parking lot, not to mention the gridlock that's going to result from this gas station, which is huge. And the fact that it's billed as being members only, I don't think -- I think everybody has a membership to Costco, and the gas is cheap, okay? Cheaper than anybody else. What do you -- where the hell -- where do you think people are going to go? Anyway, it's a footnote. Costco can solve all of these problems, and I hope they do, okay. I really hope they do. But they can be solved by a plot of land south of the -- on 41, south of Collier Boulevard. There's a lot of land down there appropriate for -- appropriate for ingress and egress. The -- the Santa Barbara was brought up. Santa Barbara and Davis is an absolutely perfect location for it. There's two major -- two major roads that can have access on either road, okay, unlike what we have now. We have only the ability to get in via Rattlesnake Hammock. There's been some discussion of the road that runs along Physicians Regional. Now, my input from the board of directors in Physicians Regional, they have completely shut that down. They will not allow that to happen, because Costco is trying to bring delivery trucks into that area, and they're not going to allow it. That's why they're not sitting here and complaining, because they've gotten the agreement that there will be no access to the parking lot from that -- from that location. So that would be appropriate. Both of these locations would be an environment which is totally consistent with what Costco has done before, and it's -- it's the logical thing to do, and we'd all be applauding it, even the people that live there. Collier County, do you realize -- now this has been beat up, but it's true. Collier County, do you realize the massive traffic congestion you will be causing on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road? Costco estimates 4,500 cars per day that will be going in and out, that will be going into their facility. We have approval to build 3,000 dwellings now, which is under construction, which will happen imminently, okay, that will access those same roads. Now, that's 7,000 -- that's 7,000 cars, 8,000 cars. Now, if you would consider they're going in and out like this gentleman suggested -- which is a good point. Sixteen thousand cars. Just with the cars that you have now it's prohibitive. It's tough where it is right now. Now, compound that. You have a hospital that needs rapid access in and out and people waiting on line in Collier in order to get into the Rattlesnake Hammock that is going to impede traffic like you wouldn't believe. However, look, Collier County, whoever convinced you that the traffic situation is not a problem, they will make a fortune selling ice cubes in Alaska. Let me put that aside. Collier County, this property was maybe zoned as commercial, but this is a big box, mammoth facility, and attracts a lot of people. Now, it's -- I've heard that it's considered -- Costco's considered a department store. Well, let me use an analogy. A piper cub is an airplane. A 787 is also an airplane, okay. This is a 787, not a piper cub. It shouldn't be considered a department store. This is a massive -- all these big-box stores are massive -- massive attractions. And for good reason, because they're great to have, but not in the middle of a residential -- not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And, you know, Costco knows that as well. And I'm really surprised we've gotten this far without them realizing and stepping back. But that's another story. Anyway, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Kenneth Buffum. We have about 12 speakers left. Page 36 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 33 of 82 MR. BUFFUM: Good morning. Kenneth Buffum. I live at Hacienda Lakes. I'm a year-round resident. I'm going to kind of touch on some of the things that people have already talked about. I'll be really quick. Costco, in its application, has used the term "member-only gas station." Well, it is a member-only gas station, but it is also three times the size of any normal gas station. They're going to queue up 70 cars in that gas station. That's also going to create traffic, just like everybody said, but it also makes it deficient on Item 4 of the application, that it will affect access to land use on the -- on everybody in that area. So they are deficient in their application based on Criteria No. 4, whether it affects the access to land use. That's all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. BUFFUM: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker, Lynn Bowman. If Lynn can stand at the left podium. David Stasiak at the right podium. MS. BOWMAN: Hi. My name is Lynn Bowman. I am a resident at Hacienda Lakes, and I am a Costco member, and so I have nothing against Costco. But this plot of land is not a good fit for a huge business with more gas pumps; in this case, 24. I'm not going to reiterate the number of traffic that's going to go in and out of this area; 4,500 from Costco, and then I figured another 3,000 from the apartments that are being built, and another 800 from Hacienda Lakes and Azure. And so if you figure it out, you're going to have about 10,000 people coming and going anywhere in that facility. I also want to tell you that there is a new Memory Care Center and assisted living that opened up on Rattlesnake that will definitely require emergency vehicles coming in and out. The fire department and the EMTs from East Naples use Rattlesnake as their main entrance and exit to go to fires or wherever they need to go. If a catastrophic event happens such as a fire like we had in back of our environmental area -- fire started. If we have a catastrophic event such as a fire or car accidents or gas leaks or a hurricane evacuation, with all of these residents and members of Costco, we are trapped, and we have really no other major road to go and exit the neighborhood. Rattlesnake is a dead-end. It is not a thoroughfare. It goes from Collier and it ends at Azure, at the entrance of Azure. So it is not a thoroughfare. It isn't anything like Collier and Davis and any of those. The increase in traffic in Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake is definitely going to cause more accidents and backups in traffic towards the hospital, which will make it very difficult for emergency vehicles to go. In the majority of cases, Costco has built in an area where they have two major exits. As in North Naples, they have Pine Ridge, and they also have Airport-Pulling. That is not the case here. They only have Rattlesnake, and that's it, and that's the only place that they're going to be able to go in and out because there is a hospital in the back that needs Collier for its emergency vehicles. The county is responsible for the safety of the public when making decisions. Collier County requires a 500-foot separation between gas stations primarily for public safety. Benzine and other harmful toxic emissions are released in the air and from underground storage tanks. Studies have shown the increased risk of cancer and other health issues. The reason for this 500-foot separation is to protect neighborhoods and create a buffer. If a 500-foot separation is required by Collier County to protect the public, it should not provide a waiver under any circumstances. If a business doesn't fit the footprint, it should be automatically rejected, and the business should be told to go elsewhere. And in this case, we have 24 more gas pumps, and that is a major issue. In conclusion, safety is my major concern, along with traffic and evacuation routes. I understand that Costco wants to serve Marco Island and East Naples, but there are more suitable areas to build where there are two or more major roads that customers can come in and out of. No Page 37 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 34 of 82 amount of traffic lights on Rattlesnake are going to make a big difference to this gridlock of traffic that it's going to cause. I'm not against the zoning of commercial building or building any other type of facility, but not with another gas station. But I do think that a huge station as Costco with more gas pumps and excessive traffic it brings along with it suitable for the propose -- isn't suitable for the proposed location of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake. I realize that gas is for members only, but as has been said -- but if you have ever been at any Costco location, there are lines of people waiting to get cheaper gas. You can bet that a Costco, if it's close to the people, they will buy a Costco membership for $35, and they will be at that gas station. So I would propose that with the excessive traffic and the evacuation routes, that the county will take this into consideration. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. BOWMAN: Thank you for my time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. STASIAK: Yes. My name is David Stasiak. I live at Hacienda Lakes and Esplanade at the dead-end of Rattlesnake and Hammock [sic]. Again, Lynn Bowman has issued and bulleted the -- some good explanations on why this should not be proposed, Costco in this location. My concern is that we are at a dead-end road. There is limited access. If there is a catastrophic event that would take place for a number of people to evacuate during a hurricane or whatever and if there is a traffic event, an accident, maybe someone -- a car flew into a gas pump either at Costco's gasoline pump station or 7-Eleven or whatever, if there is a car that would go into these pumps, it would explode, there would be a huge event, they would shut down that Rattlesnake and Collier intersection, so we would be trapped. The Azure community and the Esplanade community, the nursing home facility, whatever, would be trapped in that location. And the roads that are located around there, the Lord's Way, is not adequate for the volume of people that would need to be -- evacuate that area for whatever reason. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Left-side podium Paul Todorovich. Right-side podium, Bill Dunn, please. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is Paul here? (No response.) MR. SABO: Bill Dunn? Is the next speaker. Left-side podium, Elaine Rath. MS. RATH: I waive my -- I waive speaking. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You waive speaking? And your name, please, sir. MR. DUNN: Bill Dunn. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Bill Dunn. MR. DUNN: I'm a resident in Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes. I'm also a full-time resident and a retired Chicago police commander of 32 years that I was assigned to the district that includes the downtown Chicago business and shopping area as well as the entertainment area, and I supervised numerous major events with over a million people in attendance at each and every one of those and worked hand in hand with the department of the Chicago police -- or Chicago Department of Transportation in putting together traffic flow situations and safety issues concerned around traffic and busy thoroughfares. I'll try and keep this a little short because most of the other people have done a very nice job of giving all our information to you guys and our concerns. As far as the gas pump waiver is concerned, there's already a rule in place dealing with the 500-foot distance. That in itself should be enough to cancel this project. What is the reason you're willing to circumvent your own rules to accommodate Costco who knew they're in violation but selfishly went forward with no concern for your constituents? Page 38 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 35 of 82 The Costco rep spoke very eloquently and lengthy; however, he gave no valid reason as to why there should be a gas station there. None whatsoever. The only reason I can think of is greed. There's no other thing that they suggested would be a benefit to the community by having a gas station there. The 24-plus gas pumps that are going to go in place are going to have up to 70 cars idling in one location all at the same time. It's way too close to the street, way too close to the sidewalk. It's going to impact the sidewalk and bike lanes on the south side of Rattlesnake where it's going to be unusable for any walkers, bicyclists, elderly people, people using walkers and wheelchairs. It's a busy, busy street for all the local people there, and there's no way in hell they'd be able to get across all that traffic to get to and across Collier. Also, Costco says -- and I'll reiterate what a lot of other people said. They mentioned -- they hang their hat on it's a membership gas station. How many Costco members are in the Naples area? Thousands? Hundreds? Millions? I don't know. How many people with Costco memberships that come into Collier County in season who don't live here but will shop at Costco, how many of them have Costco memberships? So the fact that they're trying to compare Costco's gas station with other gas stations is laughable. It's not even close in comparison to the amount of vehicles that will be coming in and out of there on a daily basis. Just to touch a little bit, then, on the -- oh, a little bit on the traffic since I do have a lot of experience in traffic. And again, it's a lot of -- it's what people have said already. Forty-five -- Costco says 4,500-plus cars a day going in -- onto Rattlesnake. In addition to those cars, there's cars that are going to be -- from the 2,700 new apartment units that are going on. There's going to be vehicles from the 800 existing developments between Esplanade and Azure. There's always the seniors facility. There's also the other businesses and things that would come in in the future. There's commercial vehicles that access Rattlesnake on a constant basis making deliveries to the residences, construction people, things along that lines. The way it's designed right now off of Collier, you basically are going to have -- and again, I know it's traffic and you guys aren't too concerned about it, but if you have the gas pump -- if you have the gas tank there, it creates -- there is the creation of the traffic problem. Right now there are three -- possible three turning lanes off of Collier, two going southbound, one going northbound, which would be making right turns on red, going into two lanes that will go into one lane to turn into the facility right where the gas pumps are that will be backing up all the traffic just as they enter into the place. It's insane to think that that's going to be -- you're going to have people crossing over, basically, two lanes of traffic to cut in front of other cars to get in to get gas. It's just -- it's not doable. Physically not possible. Having another stoplight down the road is not going to cause anything. All that's going to do is cause a backup further on down the road. And when people are trying to make U-turns to go back on -- to go back west onto -- to get to Collier, it's just -- it's going to create another myriad of problems. So with that being said -- the only thing I'm asking is please don't allow that fuel pump waiver to be issued, because it serves no purpose. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DUNN: Thank you very much. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Janice Christopher. Left podium, please. Roy Martin at the right podium. Janice Christopher not here? MS. CHRISTOPHER: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh. MR. SABO: Oh, got it. Page 39 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 36 of 82 MS. CHRISTOPHER: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I am a neighbor and resident in the Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes. I also work as a Realtor. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name, please, for the record. MS. CHRISTOPHER: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name. MS. CHRISTOPHER: I'm sorry. Janice Christopher. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. CHRISTOPHER: I'm a Realtor. I work as an independent RN patient advocate, so I'm in and out of the community for many different things every day. Currently, with all the increased residences that we have there, you don't really see crazy traffic happening. The most crazy traffic we do see and experience is when they have the Swamp Buggy races. Then it gets really backed up, and it blocks our access so we can't even get across Rattlesnake to take care of it. I, myself, have called in and taken pictures and sent it down to the county, so they're well aware of that. So that's something that does need to be looked at, and that could possibly be a problem for us with Costco. However, I am totally in favor of the Costco being where it is. Over and over we hear about people talking about traffic flow, 4,500, and it will be more with other people, but it's not per minute. It's not per hour. It's throughout the whole day. So when you break it up, you're not seeing that much traffic as you're making it sound. The area is zoned commercial. Costco is a wonderful facility. They maintain their sites. They're always clean. They're always orderly. You don't hear of any kind of negative experiences taking place, or maybe they're not being reported, but you don't hear about them, and they're usually -- you have riffraff kind of people hanging around there. One of the speakers mentioned a possible gas event that could happen if a car ran into a gas pump. That could happen at any of the other gas stations, too, there or anywhere else in Naples. So that's just a day-to-day reality. Someone else mentioned about several lines backing up to receive gas. I've been at other gas stations throughout Naples when there are lines there because their price for fuel was a little bit lower than the surrounding station, and they typically move through. As I understand it from a previous meeting at Costco when they came into the neighborhood, they have a queue set up so that the cars will not be backed up and waiting onto Rattlesnake or Collier. They actually will be in this queue on the Costco grounds. So to me, that doesn't seem to really back up that area. And as a person who is a Costco member, it is a benefit for me to have gas there. Having 24 pumps, it makes it quick and easy for you to get in and out more quickly. If you go out to the airport, they have many more pumps than the Pine Ridge one does, and you don't wait long in line there. You might have two or three people ahead of you, and you're in and out very quickly, and it moves very smoothly. So many of the things that are being said, I think if we really stop and take a good look at them, we could see that they're not really rational things. They are concerns. And traffic definitely is something that needs to be considered and looked at carefully, but I see value in having the Costco there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. MARTIN: I'm up. My name is Roy Martin. I'm a year-round resident at Esplanade Hacienda Lakes. I'm going to take this down another path based on my experiences and my background. I took a look at this from another angle. What I did is I went to the Collier County website, and this is a blueprint map of the area. And it's very similar to the diagrams, the topographical maps you Page 40 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 37 of 82 had before. This is more zoomed in. And what we're looking here is -- I have it boxed in here. This is the land, the lot of land that we're talking about. And what you have here -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike will put that on the visualizer. He wants to use that -- he wanted to refer to it, so. MR. MARTIN: I see. I gotcha. Okay. Perfect. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're going to have to speak -- you're going to have to speak into the microphone. I don't even know if you got -- go ahead. There you go. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Are we good? Okay. You can see the lot of land here, and what you'll see here is that we have a red line going down there. That is the Henderson Creek Canal. And based on the -- you can see the diagram here where you have the scale on there, and it matches very closely to what I seen presented on the board over here. You're going to have a little bit south of about one million square feet of surface area that is going to be covered by the building, the parking lot, the egress and -- inlet and outlet roadways, et cetera, for this parcel of land. Now, I take -- off the very same website, I've zoomed out, and you can see here at the top that's the parcel of land we're talking about. If you go south down Collier, you have that Henderson Creek Canal, and then you have other property, residential properties that I've circled. Now, I want you to remember -- I'm pointing at these particular properties because you're going to see it again based on a study that was conducted in 2018. I'm referring to this particular study. I can email it to you or send it, whatever. Basically, there was something that was conducted by the -- I've got to look myself -- Southwest Florida Water Management District in 2018. I'm going to be referring to some of the data from their study. I've got to read my own notes, sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's all right. MR. MARTIN: Right. In this particular diagram, this is the area that I had circled before. What I've done is circled it again, and what it shows is this is the waterway, again, the Henderson Creek Canal, that dumps into the Henderson Belle Meade basin. And what they did is an impact of the land changes they had occurred. The buildings -- your Verona Walks, the Cypress, whatever the name of that community is, that's what is being covered here in this particular circle. And what they showed is because of the changes in topography, because of the building, you see an increase as you go south because the water flows south, and you're getting closer to sea level, all right. So you're losing elevation as you go south down Collier. And you see the increase in the potential flooding as we go south because of the -- because of the land -- use of land for residential. Again, this is the same study continuing. And in this particular area, what they're covering here is the impact of the seawater level and the impact it has on the water table. As the sea level has increased, the water table is closer to the surface. So the basin itself, when it gets hit with all this deluge of water during the rainstorm, it doesn't have the ability to absorb as much water. So more of it is going to remain on the surface. That increases the flooding potential, and that's what this study shows. Here again, same type of thing. It does not include any tidal effects or any storm surge effects. All it's showing is that the surface water is closer to the -- or the groundwater is closer to the surface, and what that means and the conclusions of that is that the canal itself is going to be operating at higher water levels than what it normally used to do, okay. And this is going back seven years ago to 2018. This is a diagram showing the different waterways, including the Henderson Creek. This is during Hurricane Ian, okay. And what that is showing is the effect on the water level in these canals and the waterways based on storm surge. And you can see here they actually lost data -- a period of data. You can see the curve going up, the slope of the curve going up, and then again Page 41 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 38 of 82 recovering. They lost data because of a power outage or some other kind of event. But you can see what -- all the other bodies of water that were affected by Ian as it was moving through Southwest Florida. You can see that in some cases it hit levels of as much as 12 feet of surge. Now, if you have even six feet of surge -- we only had -- Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier, you're at a 10-foot elevation. If you have six foot of surge, that means that water that is normally down here is now going to be -- now going to be able to flow downstream. And what happens is water pools. These communities are going to have increased flooding. Now, why am I bringing that up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir, I'm going to ask you to wrap it up. You're past five minutes. MR. MARTIN: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If you could wrap it up. MR. MARTIN: Yep. I'm wrapping it up right here. This is the same thing, the same area I showed before. You have about approximately -- just under one million square feet. With a rainfall of about half of an inch per minute -- or half an inch per hour, you're going to have to discharge better than 5,000 gallons of water per minute to keep from flooding this area. And these diagrams here, this blueprint does not show the existing property. It shows trees where there's now buildings and parking lot. The bottom line is we have a great potential of additional flooding because of the building, and they have not been able to keep up pace with even their own diagrams. That's Collier County. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Are you a registered engineer or an engineer? MR. MARTIN: I'm a chemical engineer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chemical engineer. MR. MARTIN: I have 40 years of experience in water treatment -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MARTIN: -- industrial water treatment, wastewater treatment, oil and gas recovery, hydraulic fraction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I just asked for the record, though -- MR. MARTIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- just because you presented information that could be challenged, and I just wanted to know your credentials. MR. MARTIN: I look forward to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You are aware, though -- and I'm going to ask the applicant to address -- again, because it was brought up by the public -- that they do have to submit what is called an ERP, environmental resource permit? MR. MARTIN: And that's fine. I understand the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the ERP goes to the South Florida Water Management District, and it has to clearly define how they're going to store water, retain water, and discharge water, and that will all be permitted through the South Florida Water Management District. This is not -- as far as I know, there's no jurisdictional wetlands on this property. So we're not talking about Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Army Corps of Engineers from a permit perspective or even endangered species. But we are talking about an ERP, and that has to go through their adequate design criteria because they cannot trespass water from their property onto someone else's property. They have to deal with that flow. And I'll ask the applicant to address that in a response. His engineer can address that -- MR. MARTIN: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- if it's a concern. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: All right. Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker, David Richardson, and Elain Rath has waived, correct? MS. RATH: Yes. Page 42 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 39 of 82 MR. SABO: We have two speakers on Zoom. MR. RICHARDSON: Good morning. My name is David Richardson. I'm a resident of Azure at Hacienda Lakes. I'm a former lawyer, never licensed in Florida, and I'm just speaking for myself. We've been told that Costco with gas facility is permitted as of right. With all due respect, I'm not sure that that's the case. If you look -- assuming the gas station waiver is granted, then this Costco facility becomes a facility with fuel pumps under the Land Development Code. I'll just read the definition at the risk of boring everybody. But a facility with fuel pumps is defined as any establishment that sells, distributes, or pumps fuels for motor vehicle whether or not such facility provides automotive repair services or includes a convenience store. So I'm not sure why that would not include the Costco store. In the staff report -- and with all due respect to the county staff, which I think does a great job -- it's described as the gas station will serve as an accessory to the commercial retail. The gas station is obviously not an accessory. There's definition of accessory uses in the zoning code, which don't include gas stations. And a gas station is a principal use in the commercial zoning district, so it can't be an accessory use. That's important, I think, because if you look at Section 5.05.05 of the Land Development Code, there are restrictions on what a, quote, "facility with fuel pumps" can do. Specifically in Subsection J, there are restrictions on what they can sell. And sales are limited to basically convenience-store items, the type that 7-Eleven sells. Obviously, Costco sells a lot more than 7-Eleven. So the way I read it, again, assuming the ASW is granted, they have to comply with 5.05.J [sic], which they are not in compliance with because they sell a lot more than convenience-store items. Similarly, in that 5.05.05 of the Land Development Code, there's a restriction on light poles to 20 maximum feet, not 25, as they describe in their waiver -- in their deviation request. So that's just to say I hope that everyone can look at that section of the Land Development Code, because I think it applies to Costco, and I think they need an additional variance for what they're planning on doing. With regard to the landscaping deviation the request for that, as a couple of commissioners pointed out, I think it's very important, the landscape code. A lot of us look at it as sort of technicalities. But again, if I can just read what the purpose of the landscape code is, and this is directly from 4.06.01 of the Land Development Code. Some of the purposes of it is reduce noise and glare, to improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and chemical pollution, and by reducing heat gauge. Their request to limit the amount of landscaping that's required goes to all of these purposes of the landscape code. And I haven't heard any good reason for their deviation request. Mr. Wester said that they have approximately 140 or 150, quote, "overflow parking spaces," but there's nothing in the Land Development Code about overflow parking. Parking is parking. It seems to be their reasoning for this request is that, "Hey, we're big, and we just don't want to put in landscaping," but they should be required to put in that additional landscaping because the parking lot is so big, in my opinion. In regards to the signage, again, it's a lot of technical requirements, but they're asking for basically a 40 percent increase in the amount of signage, and I think, again, the staff report sort of says that's sort of the national standard for Costco. I'm not sure why the county needs to comply with Costco standards as opposed to the opposite. I think they should be required to comply with the county standards when it comes to zoning and development. Just really quick, just to reiterate what one of the earlier speakers said regarding the proposed traffic light, that's actually across from Hammock Park apartments, so it's 1,000 feet, approximately, from Collier and Rattlesnake. The county access management policy has a Page 43 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 40 of 82 minimum requirement of a quarter mile between traffic signals, so that's 1,320 feet. And all that's described on Page 22 of their -- Costco's -- excuse me -- transportation study, and that describes why they need a variance for that. And then just really quickly, the former lawyer from Michigan said -- pointed out that they didn't submit a market study for their ASW request. That is a requirement of the Administrative Code, and because it wasn't included -- if it was submitted, it wasn't included in the agenda materials for today, the backup items. So if it wasn't ever submitted, then I think the request should be denied just based on that, because they haven't followed the rules. If it was submitted but wasn't included in the agenda, then I think the decision should be postponed until -- it should be provided to the public both so the commissioners can review it and that the public can comment on it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Hey, Chair? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Could I ask that -- could I ask that public speaker a question? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Come back up, please. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a commissioner on the phone who wants to ask a question. Go ahead, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you, Chair. Sir, thank you for your presentation. I actually enjoyed it; a lot of good data. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I just wanted to ask you a question. When you bought in Azure, did you buy, like, preconstruction? Did you go into a sales center? Did you do any site review prior to your purchase of it? MR. RICHARDSON: I went to the sales center. If you're asking whether I reviewed the Hacienda Lakes PUD, I can't say that I did. I was surprised that this commercial zoning is present. I thought if we could go back to 2011, maybe it would be either not zoned commercial or designed a lot smaller. But obviously, we can't go back -- can't go back to 2011, so... COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's what I'm trying to find from the consumer aspect is whether or not the developers, when they set this in place, of Hacienda Lakes with whatever sales center, whatever they did, if they had outlined what those uses would be prior to your purchase. Because I'm sure if you knew -- given your background and the data you gave us, if you had known that a store as big as Costco was going to go in there, would that have -- would that have changed your decision to purchase? MR. RICHARDSON: That's sort of a loaded question, but I think it probably would. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: And the sales center didn't mention anything, which I can't blame them. They're in the business of selling homes, so -- and it was my sort of duty as a former lawyer to look it up, which I didn't. I still love my home, and I don't want to leave, but to be -- to answer your question, I think it would have impacted my decision. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It would have? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Thank you again. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. SABO: The next speaker is on Zoom, Jacqueline Rizzo. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, please. MS. RIZZO: Yes. Good morning. I would like to withdraw my request to speak because the previous speakers have done a great job of conveying my opinions. Page 44 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 41 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, thank you. Next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker on Zoom is John Yazinski. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: John, can you take your phone off mute? MR. YAZINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, thank you. MR. YAZINSKI: Thank you. And thank you for the time. I'm a resident of the Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes, Promoso Court. And I appreciate Mr. Schumacher's question, because I also am a retired lawyer, and I was aware that there was a -- that I was buying into -- into a development that was part of a PUD. And the knowledge of what was going to be built was -- I had it, but I did not expect the intensity. So that caused me now to go back and look at all of the minutes of this board that considered the original proposals, the minutes from the adoption of the PUD master plan, Mr. Bauer's (phonetic) numerous presentations to this board to change what you had previously approved. And the representations about that commercial development were always consistent with a development like the 7-Eleven plaza, like the smaller commercial developments that contain some retail, some restaurants, some services. In 2021, when Mr. Bauer appeared in front of you asking that a portion of the land that he deeded to the hospital be included in this active area, he represented that he had sold the hospital subject to a covenant that the hospital could not build an offsite pharmacy because he envisioned the commercial use for this property to be kind of a Walgreens development. And I think if you go back to the origination of this PUD, no one would have ever considered a -- an intense development like a Costco as the commercial development for this spot. It's inconsistent with the PUD. And if you look at -- well, the purpose of the PUD, what has happened since the PUD was adopted? Developments in the public -- in the PUD should benefit and be consistent with the PUD. And I just respectfully suggest, if you go back, that this was never, ever the development that was contemplated that is actually going to occur. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the last two speakers on Zoom dropped off. That is -- no more public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, I appreciate all of the input, and I made several notes. The time is 11:56. We've been at this for an hour and a half. I've got -- certainly have to afford time to the applicant to refute or rebut or present competent substantial evidence in regards to some of this, because what I've heard for the last hour and a half is their argument is pretty much concentrated on the fact that "let's stop the gas station, and if they don't build the gas station, they're not going to put in a Costco." That's kind of where I believe this whole thing is focused. So the whole focus of the argument was "let's stop the gas station, let's deny the waiver, and then hopefully Costco will not build here." I can't say whether they will or not, and certainly there's other ways that they could put a gas station on that site. But I'm going to break for lunch. We'll take a 30-minute break. I apologize for those that are going to have to stay, but I'm sure we're going to have quite a lengthy discussion. But before the applicant actually responds, I've got a couple questions of staff, and I think my colleagues are as well, specifically with the access limitations, Mike Sawyer, that were brought up, and -- because -- and I want to talk about the stacking because the implied reasoning for us to deny the waiver was because of the perceived stacking, that will somehow go -- from the gas station will bleed all the way out into Rattlesnake and block traffic on Rattlesnake. That's what I heard. But we've got a couple of minutes. Mike, if you want to cover the access on Collier Boulevard, because we've heard two different speakers talk about, gee, let's just put a bridge over the canal. So with that, what's the -- can you comment on that? Thank you. Page 45 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 42 of 82 MR. SAWYER: Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. As far as another access point on 951, first off, the PUD would have to come in and make that request -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. SAWYER: -- because it's not shown on the master plan. We would evaluate it, just like we all do, you know, whatever comes in. At this point, staff would have to -- I don't see staff approving that. First off, it would be close enough to that intersection and the signal that we would not recommend, you know, approving that. Secondarily, and more importantly, the PUD itself already has more than adequate access to various roadways. And because of that, currently, I don't foresee a need to have another access between where the intersection is and where the existing intersection -- or the existing locations that the hospital have. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As far as the site plan, specifically focusing on the location of the service station or the gas station, staff is reviewing the site plan, and part of that -- and I guess Jaime as well, Jaime Cook, the evaluation is looking at the -- what is forecasted by the traffic analysis is the stacking, and is there, from the staff's perspective, at least initially as you're reviewing now -- and I'm going to ask the applicant's traffic engineer to discuss this, but are there perceived impact on Rattlesnake where somehow traffic is going to be backed up all the way onto Rattlesnake, blocking emergency vehicles, bicycles, or other -- what was stated on the record. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Just to be clear -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- just so that everybody understands, our office looks at zoning petitions as they come in. That's why we're here -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- providing testimony for you and trying to answer your questions. We do not review Site Development Plans. That's done through Development Services, and that's why Jaime and I are both here to try and answer, because right now we have two petitions that you are hearing today that are zoning related. What is being presented with the TIS is related to the SDP itself. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: So just to let you know, that's where we're at. MS. COOK: And again, Jaime Cook, for the record. So as far as your question, Commissioner, that is one of the things that staff has asked for is that stacking exhibit to be shown as part of the Site Development Plan. They cannot block traffic on Rattlesnake, Collier, or any other right-of-way whether it's for the Costco warehouse itself or the fuel facility. They have to retain their traffic within their site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. One question, and then I'm going to -- I'm going to declare we're going to take a lunch break, because I've got to give our staff recorder time to rest her fingers. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Jaime, this is, I think, a question for you. So what -- what was expected in this PUD? There was a comment that "something like this was not expected in this PUD." This is a commercially zoned parcel. What was expected? MS. COOK: I'm going to let Mike answer that, so -- but to preface what I'm sure he'll answer with is when the zoning was done, when the PUD was established, it was established for commercial with a set of uses that are allowed by our code with a maximum square footage. So I'll let Mike chime in on the specifics of that. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And like I said, it was approved in 2011. The commercial designation was approved for 327,500 square feet of commercial use. There are 89 different SIC codes within their use codes. Page 46 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 43 of 82 So it's a range of activities. A department store was one of those. So the intensity of the department store had to be contemplated by the Board of County Commissioners, by staff in the reports that were provided for in terms of what could go at the location. When you're at zoning you do -- you do not know, especially when you have a project that's going to be built out over a 10, 15-year period to even longer, that it -- the specificity, you don't know what the market's going to be demanded. What I can say is 327,000 square feet are allowed by that PUD of various commercial uses. A department store is one of those uses. So a -- whether it be a Costco, whether it be a Super Walmart or Super Target or such, that type of use was contemplated. Now, it wasn't specified. It wasn't -- I don't think it was specifically discussed, but within the traffic analysis, within the intensity that was approved, a department store could most certainly sit within that 327,000 square feet of commercial use that was allowed and approved by the PUD. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And refresh my memory, the square footage that Costco's asking for right now. MR. BOSI: I believe, like -- just under 169,000 square feet for Costco. So there would still be -- there's still left over -- there's still over 150,000 square feet of commercial that's still available. Now, there are only going to be four additional acres that are left over within that activity center, so you couldn't squeeze that in. It just is impossible. But the amount that they are requesting, it's 169,000. So that still leaves almost 150,000 square feet of commercial still available for that activity center. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So that comment that "this was not expected for this PUD" is not correct? MR. BOSI: I couldn't -- I wasn't a part of the zoning application and the zoning team that was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, but it was a use that's identified within the PUD. 327,000 square feet were allocated for the commercial area. It was a use that had to have been contemplated. It might not have been discussed, but it had to have been contemplated and the intensity associated with it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, we'll reconvene at 12:35. Take a 30-minute break for lunch. Thank you. (A recess was had from 12:04 p.m. to 12:35 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. A lot of the residents, if they're coming back, I'd like to give -- I'm going to go over just a few things. And I know, Mike, you're working on it, because we're asking -- I'm going to just go over a list of things that I'm going to ask either the applicant or staff to cover, and basically, the crux of the argument, as I stated prior to lunch, was that the focus has primarily been on the location of the gas station and the impact of the gas station. Can I ask those in the audience, if you have comments -- sir, if you have comments, please, you can go outside. I mean, we have -- we'll continue with the meeting. And, in essence, we had folks who stated, and I quoted, totally disagreed with the impact. This was a Development of Regional Impact. It's called a DRI. It was a PUD and a DRI. A DRI, many years ago, used to go to the regional zoning -- Regional Planning Council, RPC. And as stated, this was designed to be an intense use, DRI, PUD, and the intersection was designed to adequately -- or to meet the requirements, whether it's a Costco or Walmart or whatever. But that's basically -- folks said they disagree with the impact, but the impact was not specifically Costco, but it was clearly, I would say, understand it was -- it was implied but also understood very clearly that there was going to be a significant facility at that site. Not Costco, but I just bring that up. I wrote down -- and I'm going to ask the applicant to address the issue of stacking and the Page 47 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 44 of 82 gas station, because that will be an issue. And we've discussed at the break -- I know you're going to come in with a proposal. But anyways, we will deal with that as far as the impact to the gas station. Staff, could you comment -- there was a discussion the legal -- it wasn't -- basically, not -- one of the attorneys represented that this was a substantial change and should have gone through the PUD amendment process. Can you describe how you believe that this qualified as an insubstantial change and not a substantial -- a substantial change? MR. BOSI: And within the criteria for an insubstantial change, what is a substantial and insubstantial change, I think one of the reasons -- or the criteria they said that they thought failed was because of an increase within intensity. This is not an increase within intensity. I think I've described it a number of times. 327,000 square feet of commercial use has been allocated and approved for this PUD. This is only taking 169,000 square feet of that 327,000 square feet. It is not an increase in intensity. It is intensity that has been assigned to this PUD. They're asking for 169,000 square feet of that 327,000. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With the understanding that if they develop to the full approved intensity of commercial, that the traffic analysis would have supported that as well? MR. BOSI: The traffic analysis was based upon 327,000 square feet of commercial use when they were -- did the evaluation of the entire PUD. They also had to account for the business park. They also had to account for Swamp Buggy. They also had to account for the residential or the medical use/residential -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- as well as the residential component of it. All of those were part of the traffic analysis that was done. And concurrency management's not applied at rezoning. So in 2011, it wasn't a concurrency management review. It was a capacity review. What were the affected segments that this proposal and these trips were going -- were going to affect, and were there capacity within the segments that the trips associated with this proposed PUD was going to generate. And the conclusion was there was satisfaction from a capacity standpoint, but the application of concurrency doesn't get applied until you have a Site Development Plan such as what was submitted for this Costco. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that's when the traffic analysis was done -- MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and commensurate with the site plan. I would say just from the comments made, whether it's a substantial or insubstantial change, that may be a legal argument, and depending on where the BZA goes with this, if there's an appeal, that may be a basis for an appeal if someone wanted to argue that this was a substantial change, but right now staff has pretty much determined it's an insubstantial change. I have to support staff because I agree, understanding that this was anticipated to be in that location, and the changes are deemed to be insubstantial. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, may I make a few notes for the record? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Although this is being processed and reviewed as a PDI and insubstantial change, the procedure that it's going through is a PUDA, because they're coming to you for recommendation and then to the Board, and that was pursuant to Board direction at the meeting, that it go outside its normal route. Normally a PDI would end with you or end with the Hearing Examiner. I'd also like to note that as backup to the insubstantial change is the findings for the original PUD in 2011 and closed in -- it's in Exhibit G that contains the staff report. And the zoning staff did note that there were no changes with this petition to the original finding. So I just wanted to complete the record with those notes. Thank you. Page 48 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 45 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. As far as the traffic light, does staff -- or -- Mike, have we gone through any warrant for a traffic light, or is it just something that's desired that they may pursue later on? MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon. Mike Sawyer again, Transportation Planning. I'm not part of that review either; however, we do have people in our department that does. Currently that warrant study is still being reviewed. There has not been any determination yet. There's been no decision. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So -- but it is something that -- MR. SAWYER: It is in the system. We are looking at it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If it could be approved and get the proper warrants, they would like to proceed with a controlled access? MR. SAWYER: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only other argument that I heard kind of consistent in the themes, somehow the gas station was perceived to be the principal use, and the Costco was the auxiliary -- or like a 7-Eleven and the service -- you know, the sandwich shop that goes with the 7-Eleven. Clearly, the principal use here is the Costco building, and the gas station is an accessory to. Is that -- MR. BOSI: That is the way we view it in terms of from a square footage -- from a square-footage standpoint. Most certainly, the majority of the square footage and area dedicated to the site is dedicated to the goods and -- the goods within Costco and not associated with the service station. It is not a stand-alone gas station. It is a secondary use to the 169 -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Principal use of the -- MR. BOSI: Principal use. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: But because the automobile service station, facilities with fuel pump, requires separation between facilities that pump fuel, that's why the separation requirement is being required for the Costco development. It's one of those ones where we had to treat this as a stand-alone gas station, but the full aspect of 5.05.05, the facilities with fuel pump, does not apply because it is not an -- it is not a stand-alone gas station. It is a gas station that's associated with a membership department store. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I just wanted that for the record. With that, do my colleagues have any other questions? I'm going to turn it over to the petitioner for any rebuttal or any other proposals they want to make. Seeing none, Mr. Wester. MR. WESTER: Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. Okay. There's a lot to go through here. So, again, in the interest of time -- I do want to bring my traffic engineer up really quick and discuss some of the basics of the traffic. A lot has been discussed about the trips out on the roadways. And in the PUD, as I mentioned in my presentation, we are below the threshold for the amount of square footage, as Mr. Bosi just mentioned; we're below the acreage figures allowed in the activity center, okay, for our specific use and our parcel; and we're also below the trip thresholds. If we weren't any one of those, it would be either a substantial change, a major rezoning, or it just wouldn't be allowed. So we are under those major thresholds. And those are really benchmark criterias. And then specifically I'll cite to the PUD where it says total traffic -- or total project intensity. In no event shall the project exceed 3,328 p.m. peak-hour trips, okay. And we're under that. And I'd like for my traffic engineer -- just state your name and address for the record and your credentials, and then just recite some figures for us, please. Page 49 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 46 of 82 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Ronnie Cunningham with Kittelson & Associates, 225 East Robinson, Orlando, Florida. I'm a professional engineer and a road safety professional licensed in the state of Florida. I conducted the Traffic Impact Statement for this project as well as the signal warrant analysis and intersection control evaluation study. Both of those are currently under review with county traffic engineering. P.m. peak-hour-wise, the Costco is going to generate 512 p.m. peak-hour new trips. So the 3,000 -- what was the threshold, 3,000 -- MR. WESTER: Three thousand. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yeah. So we're at 512, well under the 3,300. MR. WESTER: Yeah, 3,328 p.m. peak-hour trips. And we've also got some additional data that we'd like to supply. But in talking with staff during the break, some of the public that came up and spoke talked about a market study. And early on during our application process, we submitted a lot of documentation. And some of that documentation was not only in map and graphic form, but it was also justification statements in responses to the code criteria which, in our eyes, was not only justification but really showed kind of the backbone of this analysis. And as Mr. Bosi just pointed out, this is a different approach from a normal automobile service station or a normal gas and seek [sic] store type of facility because it is member-based only, and it's attached to the Costco warehouse use. And so with that said -- and staff can describe a little bit more -- but we'd like to ask for a continuance on the -- specifically regarding the ASW decision, so then we can provide a more substantive market analysis related to the gas waiver. And I understand staff can describe -- I think it would be in September when this would be heard again at the next available Planning Commission meeting, specific to the ASW request. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So you're requesting a continuance of PL20240011790, which is the petition for the ASW waiver? MR. WESTER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I will open it up for Board discussion. Staff, do you have any comments before we open it up for Board discussion and recommendation or -- and we need to vote and state whether it will be at the September meeting. So any questions? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just a quick one, excuse me. If I may, what is your goal as far as your topic documents that you plan to bring to us that's different than what you presented today? MR. WESTER: There will be more of a Costco-specific market study in relation to the other facilities for Costco and gas showing more of a specific need for this type of location but more specifically tied to the distance waiver. I think it's important to note, if this facility was 500 feet away from the 7-Eleven lot line, we wouldn't be here discussing this today. We'd have a gas facility by right, and as long as you get your SDP and your permits, it's shovel ready, okay? We're asking for a waiver, and so those waivers were -- that waiver was justified through a number of means that I will stand behind, but staff did bring to my attention that they would prefer to have a true market assessment, true market study, and per the public that brought that up, we will oblige. And so that will back that up in September with a little bit more substantiation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I think it's prudent on your behalf, because otherwise, if it's challenged, somebody could claim that staff didn't comply with the rules. So it's -- MR. WESTER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So do I hear a motion to approve to -- go ahead. Oh, Michelle, go ahead. Sir, public -- public discussions are closed. Page 50 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 47 of 82 MR. CiPOLLA: It's not important. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know it's important to you, but the public discussions are closed. MR. SPOKOJNY: What I'm saying is you need to adjourn both because, otherwise, one is going to go to the County Commission without the other. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That will not happen, sir. That's not the intent. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: My question is, in that market study -- because my question was why 24 pumps. MR. WESTER: It's 24 -- yeah, it's 24 fueling positions, so it's 12 pumps. So one pump, and there's -- on either side is the actual fueling position. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Just maybe some justification as to how you came up with that. MR. WESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That would be good. MR. WESTER: Absolutely. We can -- and we'll provide that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: To piggyback on that, how many are at the North Naples. Just curious. MR. WESTER: Is it -- 16. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Sixteen. So you're looking for 50 percent increase? MR. WESTER: Sixteen fueling positions. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And this would be 24 fueling positions? MR. WESTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many are at the -- up in Fort Myers at the -- MR. WESTER: The new one in Estero? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, Estero. MR. WESTER: I did the rezoning on that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's bigger. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: At least. MR. WESTER: At least 24. It's got its own separate outparcel. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Separate outparcel. MR. WESTER: I did the rezoning on that one for -- that gas facility specifically related on its own outparcel, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Do I hear a motion or a second to continue? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motion to continue. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, are you on the line? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yep. Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposed. So it's continued. Staff? MR. BOSI: Just to note, we'll work with the applicant on the date, the 4th and the 21st. Page 51 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 48 of 82 We'll work with the applicant on that -- specifically the date, and just let the Planning Commission know that we will readvertise, on the Clerk's website, the notification of that meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the intent -- we're still going to hear the second petition, so we've not continued the second petition. But the intent -- staff will still bring both petitions to the Board at the same time. MR. BOSI: Staff will coordinate with the County Manager's Office, and I am sure that they want this as a companion item before the Board of County Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Companion item. MR. BOSI: -- and not two separate -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We're heard public speaking. Sir, the public discussion's closed. MR. CiPOLLA: I just have -- I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you, sir. You can talk to us after the meeting or during the break. MR. WESTER: And Brad Wester, Driver McAfee. So, yes, both of these -- the intention is to bring both of these back at the same time to the full County Commission, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So on this petition for the insubstantial change, do we want to review each one to make sure we -- staff -- as far as my commissioners on how they -- any questions specifically on each of the requests? The first one is the light -- the height of the light poles, LDC Section 4.02.08, for relief of the maximum light pole height of 25 feet. And, Brad, I understand you have a -- MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- you want to show us a detail. MR. WESTER: I have it up on the screen, Mike. Podium computer. Thank you, sir. Okay. So this is a depiction of, essentially, a spec sheet, right, an architectural plan of the actual light, LED light, 36 and a half feet tall. You see it's got a concrete base, about roughly a 2-foot concrete base, and from that concrete base, you know, the total there, including where it's at the ground at grade, is a height of 36 and a half feet. So that's a depiction of that. And then, Mike, I've got another one that I need to pull up here. And this is a depiction of it in the real-world scenario. So you can see the lights there. And I'll pull my cursor over it so you see that same light style, okay, the single head -- LED head, if you will. You see them around the property. And this one is -- this is the actual image, so this one is another good one because it shows that actual light pole in context to a very similar size Costco elevation. So you see in conjunction with the trees there, the 36 and a half foot light pole, it kind of goes away from, you know, the visual aspect compared to the 25-foot height. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. WESTER: More importantly, it would reduce it by up to 13 poles and meet the lighting standards. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next item is LDC Section 4.05.04.C, and that's relief from additional requirements to obtain a variance to provide double the interior landscaping if commercial projects include more than 120 percent of the required parking. Do we have any questions in regards to that variance? Go ahead, Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I understand that doubling the landscaping may be excessive, but would you be willing to, like, increase it at all to have some additional landscaping there, maybe beyond -- MR. WESTER: Yeah. We would proffer a self-enhanced landscaping. The issue is we have a very strict code that we're trying to adhere to with the landscape architect in the county to make sure some of the trees don't conflict with the lights. And then again, the lights in the actual vehicular circulation areas. And all that's, in some ways, tied to landscaping. So when you add an Page 52 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 49 of 82 overabundance amount, I think it's most important to provide it maybe in some of the perimeter buffers. So maybe offset the -- the landscaped islands are still going to have the code requirement as per the 100 percent parked property. It's the 120 percent rule that is in question here. And keep in mind we meet the code for the property in bulk. It's the FP&L easement that's got the -- we call it overflow parking, and that's really all that's going to go there. And in that FP&L parking is the reason why it trips that 120 percent threshold, which then puts the landscaping all back on the main property, because FP&L typically doesn't like to have a ton of landscaping that could grow high in their -- they have their specific standards in their overhead power line easement. But we can certainly enhance some areas. As a matter of fact, I was talking to a gentleman out there about working with Costco specifically on maybe some of the locations for some screenage and some buffering of that perimeter buffer for landscaping and the trees and vegetation types maybe where there's a vista to maybe the residential community in the rear. So we can self-proffer that. I just can't -- I don't know the amount right now, but I will pledge to -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I appreciate that thought. MR. WESTER: I'll pledge to add some more landscaping in certain areas we think they're probably the most valuable in terms of beyond the code requirement. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you so much. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. I just -- what's the percentage of parking? You're going more than 120 percent? MR. WESTER: It is, yeah. We have -- right now we have 103. We're 103 percent that's in the parking area itself, so we're technically more than 100 but less than 120, but then when you add the overflow, it's over 120. I'm not sure of the exact percentage. Do you know the exact percentage? I'm asking my staff right now. I know that we tripped 120 percent, and so -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I just feel that that code is there for a reason. I don't really see a reason why we need to just steer away from this variance or where we need to grant this variance. I understand the FP&L -- it is just the FPL road that is the question, but it is still considered overflow parking. I think that the landscaping provides noise buffers and drainage -- I think that there's benefits to this, and there's reasons why this code was put in effect, so I don't -- I just don't understand why we need to provide a variance just because. I didn't hear any reason other than, "We don't want to buy it." MR. WESTER: I understand. Yeah, Brad Wester. We're working with the landscape architect, Mark Templeton, right now, and he is -- and that's a parallel course with the SDP, right? So we're working with the site plan development approval process right now. And so we are in with landscape reviewers at the county reviewing all this, and so they understand that what we're asking for does not need to be provided into this because they -- this is part of the request for the landscaping variance, if you will, the waiver, because they've already approved the amount of landscaping going in the landscape islands so they don't conflict with the lights poles. You're going to have trees growing up under the lights, and then what that does is kind of disturb the photometric plan on its, you know, use into the parking areas and the travel areas of the parking lot. And so, you know, what we could do is enhance the perimeter buffer a little bit. But the landscape islands are really tight. What it does is it forces the landscape islands to double in size, like actual, like, horizontal width of the area, not just the amount of trees that are put in there. And so -- and then, ultimately, the parking does not work. The amount of spaces that are required for Costco does not work, and so that's one of the asks for the relief in this context; Page 53 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 50 of 82 whereas, it's been deemed insubstantial as well because we can provide that same code-required landscaping around the entire buffer and the code-required landscaping in the parking area and the parking field itself. We're not asking for a waiver for that. We're just asking for it not to be doubled. And it's not just double the amount of install and the type of species. It's literally the horizontal area of that space as well, which starts to pinch circulation areas and traffic and parking spaces. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So I think what's on the approval for here, if I'm not mistaken, is you're asking for a variance on it, and if we approve this, you could pretty much just go back to the normal -- whatever the 100 percent is or -- whatever the 100 percent is. You're not required to put any more than what was there to begin with. But now you're over the 120 percent threshold. If I approve it, then you just have to go back to the 100 percent and there's -- there's -- MR. WESTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: -- no -- like, would you -- can you do 50 percent more, not double? You're not giving -- we need some back and forth here. MR. WESTER: I understand. I understand. And some of the issues that lie in this is the ability to have the parking in that FP&L easement. And FP&L likes to have -- they can have horizontal improvements, but they like to have it free and clear so their trucks can get in there whenever it's needed to repair and maintain their lines -- their poles and their lines. And so adding additional amounts of landscaping in that area really is kind of a disservice to FP&L, albeit we still provide it in the perimeter buffer areas. So that's really the biggest element to this variance request or waiver request is the fact that those additional parking, the overflow parking, meets Costco's needs to have that count and then also meets FP&L needs to not load up their landscape -- I'm sorry -- their power line easement with trees and vegetation and landscaping. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, you're going to be restricted from growing -- MR. WESTER: We will. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- planting trees in the FP&L easement -- MR. WESTER: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- because they -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: And I would be completely okay with having nothing in the FPL easement, but to not -- to not satisfy anything in -- and to not give anything for the other 100 percent parking... MR. WESTER: So what we can do is I think we can probably add 25 percent more and find it a place to go into the perimeter buffer areas. There are a lot of areas between us and the hospital. That's right. As long as we can -- yes, so what we'll do is we'll add 25 percent more, and we'll do it in the buffers and not the landscape islands, per se, because it will conflict with the parking spaces and the lights, but we'll put it in the more meaningful places, maybe against the hospital property up in the -- on that edge, and some more other vistas. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would prefer it in the buffer, absolutely. MR. WESTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: And I would be okay with that. MR. WESTER: And we can do that. And so we'll do that, and we can amend the language with staff on that, yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just to clarify, I understood correctly, this waiver would have required you to make I'll call it the island, the end cap island, to physically be twice as large? MR. WESTER: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So that -- MR. WESTER: Because the reason why -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That cuts into the pathway of a car. MR. WESTER: That's correct, sir. That's correct. And the reason why is because you can Page 54 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 51 of 82 only put so much landscaping in one spot. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. MR. WESTER: It starts cannibalizing off itself from the root ball and the irrigation it needs and so forth. So what you do is you double that island size, and then you put that same amount of landscaping in there. So it's not so much a vertical impediment, but it spreads out through the parking lot to pinch circulation, traffic movement, way finding. And we felt it was better used in other places. And in this case, we'll add 25 percent -- not 100 percent more -- but 25 percent more in the buffer areas, not the parking islands, and that will work. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I think that's a good compromise. MR. WESTER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I recorded 25 percent increase in landscaping in the buffer area. MR. WESTER: Yeah, yeah, that's doable. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Four and five have to do with massing and glazing reliefs. Any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And six had to do with the maximum signage square footage. I've already talked to Brad. I see no need for the sign on the south side of the building. Everybody knows the color of a Costco, which is different than Home Depot which is different than Walmart. And we can go to the different colors, but Costco has a unique branding with striping. But I don't see any need for the sign on the wall facing south, so I would agree. I would propose no sign on the south wall or -- you already removed it from the east, so you basically have it on the north and the side facing, of course, Collier Boulevard. MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. And during the break, it was very timely, I talked to my team and the architects and the Costco executives, and we will also oblige with that to remove that sign on let's call it the hospital frontage, the hospital side, because we still have a Costco sign that -- it faces Collier in that corner of the building. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. WESTER: And that does the same purpose. And so we will pull that signage off, and then we'll remove the square footage difference. We were asking for 375 feet -- or 376 square feet over, so that will draw down from that, and we'll remove that signage. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you still have the distinctive stripe on the building. MR. WESTER: Oh, we do, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So that's -- MR. WESTER: Yeah. The architecturals stay the same, and the request will stay the same based on the four and five requests that we just made for the glazing and the architect -- trellises, the trellis work, the planted structural trellises that we're going to add to it to break up that visual massing, so yes, in addition to the signage coming off of that. And it's the south elevation, just to be clear on the record. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: In fact, you stated on the record it's only external lights, illumin -- MR. WESTER: That's correct. There's no -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There's no -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: -- no internal illumination. There's no LED lights and internal illumination in any signage. And so -- and just like our parking lot lights, a key differentiator between our facility, including the gas facility, is we're not 24/7. They go off at roughly 11 o'clock; is that right? Roughly 11 o'clock at night. So after the stores are closed, then only just security lighting around the building is on, including the gas station. Then they come back on in the morning before the sun comes up. And so that's a big differentiator, because then it goes completely dark in the Page 55 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 52 of 82 parking lots. The place is secure. And then the loading docks are still active at times when needed, but the truckers know how to get in there for the loading docks, again, and that's on the far opposite side from any residential. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just quick clarification, the east side of the building that has your auto entrance -- MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- is there a small Costco tire sign there? MR. WESTER: It just says "tire center," and it's for way finding so folks know exactly where to go for the tire center. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. WESTER: And it's, again -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And it's not very big? MR. WESTER: No, it's not big at all. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. MR. WESTER: That did also have to have -- it did have a Costco sign on there as well, and we pulled that off before this application was heard, but now we're asking for an amendment to that on the south elevation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only other one I missed was the number of loading docks. There was -- any questions on that? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: From 8 to 5? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: From 8 to 5. Makes sense to me. No issues. MR. WESTER: I think that's a great thing, right? This county requiring 8. We're asking for 5. And Costco knows how to do it best, so it's four at the actual warehouse and one at the gas facility for, you know, that tanker trucks to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So with that -- go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. Spoke with Mike Sawyer, and she spoke with -- he spoke with Trinity Scott, the head of Transportation, and we are not supporting the deferment of the bus -- of the CAT station. We think that being a 34-acre commercial -- or commercial node, 30-some acres going to Costco, the primary use of that node is going to be for Costco. So the primary traffic that you're going to see at this node is going to be for the Costco; therefore, it would justify at the time that Costco is developed that the gas -- or the bus stop be allocated. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Would that be on Collier Boulevard? MR. BOSI: No. It's as dictated by the Master Mobility Plan, which is a site along Rattlesnake Hammock. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is there bus service on Rattlesnake? MR. BOSI: There will be a bus stop that is -- that is currently required by the PUD to be located on Rattlesnake Hammock. CAT will have to modify their route to have a pull-off. It will be worked out during the SDP. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So the requirement still stands that there will be a CAT facility -- MR. BOSI: That's staff's -- that's staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and defined -- defined at -- during the SDP process. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Hey, Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Chuck, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: If I might just ask a question, Chair. Mike, when we put a bus stop on Rattlesnake, there's really not a turnaround on that road. So they would have to go down that -- to the cul-de-sac at the end and come around. Would we put other bus stops on that road -- because it's kind of long -- like in front of some of the other communities, or would it only be just right there in front of Costco? MR. BOSI: The current PUD references the location shown on the Master Mobility Plan. Page 56 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 53 of 82 The Master Mobility Plan shows that bus stop on Rattlesnake Hammock; that's what the current PUD commitment requires. There may some operational issues as we go through the Site Development Plan on those specifics that we may have to adjust accordingly. But I don't think that we have the flexibility based upon the current commitment to displace it to, say, Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So the bottom line is, at some point prior to final approval, a certificate of occupancy, we'll have to define the requirements through our alternative means of transportation through the bus services and CAT and whatever, where -- the best place to meet this requirement. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So we're not going to stipulate here, but it has to be coordinated with the staff. And it may be an operational thing. As Chuck just pointed out, it may not be conducive to put it on Rattlesnake because of an operational concern, but I'm going to leave that up to CAT to make the decision. MR. BOSI: And just to -- and I just wanted to -- staff is not supporting that. Obviously, you'll have your own recommendation related to that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So with that, I -- then, I have three stipulations if there's going to be a recommendation of approval. One is the 25 percent increase in the landscaping in the buffer, removal of the sign on the south side of the building, and coordination with CAT for -- to meet the requirement of some kind of a bus service or facilitate a bus service operation to service this site to meet the requirements of the PUD -- of the DRI and the PUD. MR. BOSI: And I appreciate that, because that gives the CAT system a little bit more flexibility in case they do have to make some tinkering to make it functionally operational. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. And I don't see -- I just can't see CAT wanting to pull into that parking lot for bus service. It just -- I don't think -- I think it would be really disruptive. So I'll leave it up to CAT. Let them decide. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Will CAT go after that problem or opportunity during the Site Development Plan? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They should. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I mean, that's the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They coordinate during the SDP process and where it's going to have -- because it's going to have to be defined on the Site Development Plan. MR. BOSI: And just to let the Planning Commission know, they've gotten through their first review, and that was one of the comments from Jaime's reviewer -- Ms. Cook's reviewers, that the CAT system -- or the CAT bus stop was required. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Brad, as far as of the entrance from the hospital, your statement to me when we met was the hospital fully supports and there's no opposition from the hospital operationally or otherwise. MR. WESTER: That's correct. Yep, that's correct. Brad Wester. The hospital's approved the easement form and its signatures with its lender consents under an escrow with the title company, and recordation of that pending of that easement, which gives a specified left-out and right-in only from that loop road at the hospital, then providing a traffic light option heading to the south. And so the hospital consents to it, and it's in the attorney's hands right now. The wet ink has been produced and signed. It's waiting for the title company to get it all wrapped up and recorded. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Do I hear recommendations? Anyone? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For the whole thing? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the whole thing, yeah. We're not doing each variance separately. I mean, it's all -- we've already stated the stipulations. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Three stipulations. I would like to move forward with a proposal to push forward -- I don't know the number. Page 57 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 54 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I'll give you the number here. It's a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: PL202 -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: PL -- I should just look at it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 200240011559. That's the Costco wholesale PDI request. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct -- request with the three stated stipulations that need to accompany this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor -- all in -- second here from Mike and Chuck. Okay. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed? Any opposition? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. It passes unanimously. For the public's concern, this matter will be brought to the Board. The petitioner's coming back with the -- to meet the requirements specifically, and what we'll address only at that meeting will be the market study. And the public, again, is certainly encouraged to come back if they want to discuss their concerns with that -- with the waiver, but with that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is just a hypothetical, and you may not want to answer it. But if we reject the ASW, will you go to another site, or will you just drop the gas? You don't have to answer if you don't want. I just saw your face, so... MR. WESTER: So this is a unified development plan, and it has always been that way. So the gas goes with the store. And we've heard a lot of speculation today about everybody playing real estate broker and real estate agent to find us other sites, but we're here to talk about this one, and it's site specific. That's my response. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, we're going to proceed to the next item, but to -- so, Mr. Yovanovich, I think you're next. We're going to take a five-minute break so you can get ready for your petition. Thank you very much. (A recess was had from 1:13 p.m. to 1:19 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. I know Mr. Yovanovich was anxiously waiting all morning. He certainly enjoyed his morning spending it with us. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just thankful you didn't call me up on Hacienda. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Next petition is PL20240010278, which is the Forest Glen of Naples PUD amendment. And with that, I would ask, do we have any disclosures? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich concerning this petition, and staff materials. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials and conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. Page 58 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 55 of 82 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Mike, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials; conversation with Mike Bosi; conversation with the petitioner's attorney, Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, visited the site, spoke with Rich Yovanovich, and met with staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Can I ask all members who wish to speak, please rise and be sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With that, Mr. Yovanovich, the floor is yours. MR. ARNOLD: Actually, Mr. Arnold will start. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates, here representing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We look very similar. MR. ARNOLD: -- the commercial tract, Forest Glen. Yes, my twin brother, Rich and I, are here. With us also is Jim Banks, our traffic -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, Mr. Banks, your other brother there. MR. ARNOLD: Triplets. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Norm Trebilcock's back there, too, so we can bring them all up. MR. ARNOLD: So we're here representing the commercial tract at Forest Glen, which some of you were probably on the Planning Commission a couple years ago when we came through and modified some of the uses of this tract to allow for the current flex office and warehouse uses that are approved today. One of the amendments we're proposing to you today is simply to allow one of those buildings to be utilized for pickleball services. So there's a few locations in the schedule of uses that need to be modified to show that standard industrial classification code manual change. There's also an amendment to the master plan. There was an old overall master plan that was recorded with the original that showed the access to Collier Boulevard. There was a subsequent amendment to this tract only, and it affected only this tract that was a PDI several years ago that showed the access directly to Beck Boulevard to our north. This is the current master that showed the connection only to Beck Boulevard. The proposed master plan, we changed the access to simply, instead of showing just the direct connection to Beck Boulevard, we're showing it with an alternative access also to the east to connect to potentially the frontage road that exists there. So that's one of the changes. You'll see the other highlighted change on this westernmost building which is where the indoor pickleball facility could be located. So nothing else in the development standards have changed. We've changed those two aspects of the master plan and the text to reflect the pickleball facility. I think, in a nutshell, that's it. We held our NIM. I know Mr. Craig is here representing the Forest Glen Property Owners Association. They don't agree with our access changes, but we think that it makes a lot of sense to have this as an alternative when we get to the site plan stage to potentially go to the east rather than a direct connection. So... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wayne, two questions I have. One is in regards to this -- and Rich asked -- I asked Rich when I talked to him on the phone, but this is separate from any operations at Forest Glen. This is a separate business. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. This is separately owned. It may be part of the master Page 59 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 56 of 82 association, but it's not functionally interconnected with anything else in Forest Glen. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And this is, what, a members kind of a facility? Small -- will there be kind of a -- oh, gosh, what am I thinking of? Like a little refreshment area in -- it's going to be a club environment. Pickleball and -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, pickleball group that they were talking to. You would have a small cafe that's associated with it, and it also has a shower room, et cetera. But otherwise, it's indoor courts, and we've specified indoor-only activities. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Indoor only. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The access point, your preference is to go to the east through the Forest Glen entrance point, which you'd have to get approval because that's their bridge, correct? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know who owns the bridge, honestly. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But it's in right-of-way of the South Florida Water Management District. So this is the location of the existing bridge that serves the maintenance facility for Forest Glen. It serves the fire station, and then, obviously, you could see where we could connect to it here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It also serves the fire station. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And is there -- had you done any due diligence with regards to legality of -- do they have legal access across there? Because my preference is you go through that entrance rather than build -- have another location, but I can't deny you your access to Beck Avenue. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're asking for today is the ability to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Either/or, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- work with the fire district and Forest Glen to do what the county would prefer -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is to use the already existing bridge. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the county staff's preference. Otherwise, we'll build what was previously approved, which would be another bridge over -- directly connecting to Beck, which will limit our access to a right-in, right-out access which will force U-turns at some point -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- onto Beck if we can't work something out to use the existing bridge. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The intersection improvements there, going on right now, the I-75 interchange, would that impede in any way your ability to have a direct access if that's the only way you can get in off of Beck? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We will get that direct access. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because the -- originally, this project was supposed to access Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: But with the changes that were made there, that forced the access onto Beck. And we'll get access on Beck. It will either be a right-in, right-out where it currently is, or we'll work something out to share the existing bridge which would then allow left turns to go back towards Collier Boulevard instead of going out and doing U-turns. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Question, I don't know, maybe for Mike or either of you two gentlemen. Will that current bridge support whatever the estimated traffic Page 60 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 57 of 82 number would come through and delivery trucks or anything else? Physically support and -- as far as size and traffic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It supports the fire engines. It's a fire station. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, that's right. There's a tanker truck. We know it's good. MR. ARNOLD: The bridge itself, yes. There's a current turn lane that services that. And we've looked at the geometry, and we can accommodate left movements as well as retain the left turns into Bush Boulevard, which is the access point directly to the east on Beck Boulevard. So functionally it can work, and, of course, the bridge structure is -- Mr. Schmitt mentioned that it's satisfying fire truck activity, so we're pretty confident that the box trucks and things that would service flex spaces and regular automobiles have no issues. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I didn't go out there. Is it -- basically, it looks like a land bridge with a culvert underneath? MR. ARNOLD: It is, yes. It's a culvert, yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody else? Mike. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I have a couple -- who built the bridge? Who owns the bridge? Who is it deeded to? Is there -- and say -- I think I know the answer to this, but is there an easement or a -- yeah, is there an easement between whoever owns this bridge and the fire district? MR. YOVANOVICH: What I've seen so far, which I will tell you may not be the complete set of documents, so I hesitate to tell you I know for certain. I know that the bridge was built by the original developer of Forest Glen. That I know. I know they have a license -- from what I've seen from the public records, they got a license from the South Florida Water Management District for that bridge. I know that the developer of Forest Glen then worked with the fire district to allow the fire district to use the bridge. I don't know -- I've heard both -- I've heard multiple things, and I'm just telling you this just gives us the opportunity to have further discussions with who may be the bridge owner, and we'll have to discuss this with Forest Glen to talk to them about the use of the bridge. So I don't -- that's a long-winded answer to "I don't know for sure exactly who owns this bridge," but the documents I've seen so far indicate that it was built by the original developer. The original developer probably assigned it to the master association. But I haven't seen any documentation yet. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So -- I'm sorry. I'm just -- so you're here today because, one, you want to add a pickleball facility and also, two, you're asking to use the bridge, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We're asking for the right -- the ability to -- right now if you go back to -- I'm sorry, went the wrong way. Whoops. That's the existing master plan, and that just shows a north/south connection directly to Beck. What we're asking for by making that modification is we either go north/south or we go to the east. And if we can work out the ability to use the bridge, I know the county would prefer we use the bridge, but they may not be the last person to say that we have the right to use the bridge. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. Yeah -- no. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. We're just trying to get the option. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll wait to hear what Forest Glen says and stuff, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other of the other commissioners have any questions? Mr. Schumacher, commissioner, do you have any concerns? Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir. No. I kind of vetted through them with Page 61 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 58 of 82 Rich. Yeah, I'm still here. You got me? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Let me turn to staff. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, I'm good. I don't have anything. MR. BOSI: As contained within the staff report, staff is recommending approval. We do recognize that it does have an unusual aspect that it -- the access to Beck Boulevard is still in question, but as the applicant says, this gives them the option to go to the existing bridge, or, if they have to build a new bridge, if they're denied access from their easement holder over there on the right. So either way, staff is supporting the petition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And in simple terms, it's just a matter of change of use -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- to a pickleball with an option of an entrance. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mike, you would have no problems or difficulties with two access points being, I don't know, 300 feet away, 400 feet? Well, 6-, 700 feet. MR. BOSI: Well, it's staff's preference that -- utilizing the existing egress/ingress to Beck Boulevard, but as the applicant has said, that might not be -- we might not be the last in line to make that decision. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. But there's no legal statute that says we can't have two access points a thousand -- under a thousand feet apart or something? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the other -- the other legal aspect is we have to provide them access. If we deny access, my understanding is the county has to buy the property. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's a state statute. You have to provide access. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So we have to allow them to do it? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's a parcel, and -- MS. LOCKHART: Landlocked. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah. It's landlocked. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it's basically landlocked. But they already have approval off of Beck Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Are there any public comments? MR. SABO: One public speaker, Tim Craig. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Craig. MR. CRAIG: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Were you here all morning listening to -- MR. CRAIG: Yeah. I did want to lighten things up a little bit and say I do not have an opinion on Costco, if that's all right. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Do you have a member card, though? MR. CRAIG: I won't disclose that; that might be a conflict of interest. No. So we're Forest Glen -- so I'm the general manager at Forest Glen, and we are in full support of what the developer is putting in there of the pickleball courts and the design and everything; however, we are not in favor of the frontage driveway use, because that is our driveway for our maintenance facility. Our maintenance facility is a very busy area with large trucks, deliveries. I'm getting 30 truckloads of sand this week that will be lined up out there. I don't know how that would work for the developer with people coming in and out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How does that impact the fire district, then? MR. CRAIG: Yeah. So we work really close with them over there. You can see -- I gave you some overheads. I think they're loaded up. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, it's a point of interest, Tim, but it really -- it isn't a matter of denial because they already have access off of Beck Boulevard. I mean, if they can work Page 62 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 59 of 82 that out, that's fine. But go ahead. MR. CRAIG: Okay. So I just have some highlighted notes here, if I could just go through that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. CRAIG: So we share the same driveway with the fire station out to Beck, as you can see on Page 2. Page 3 -- if you could just scroll through as I go here -- shows the approved plan, which you already have up there -- I'm sorry for repeating that -- to build their own bridge over the canal, when hopefully -- and hopefully at that point they could clean up maybe some of that frontage area along Beck, which is a whole 'nother subject. I've been working really close with Mr. LoCastro and staff actually trying to figure out who owns -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Who owns it. MR. CRAIG: -- who owns that whole area out there. And I've talked with -- I had a meeting with DOT in regards to, okay, you're moving along really nice on this flyover project, and I just want to make sure that you're going to landscape this and make this entryway into East Naples look presentable. And everyone's looking at each other going, "It's not in our budget. It's not in our budget." So that's a whole 'nother subject that I'm working with Commissioner LoCastro on, and staff, and I've met with him. So anyways, the original plan was to, obviously, go north/south and out for the developer, and that would align with the Tollgate Boulevard across the street, across Beck. So, you know, it just sort of feels like from a Forest Glen standpoint that anyone that wants to save a million, million and a half, $2 million on a bridge is probably a good idea on their side, but it's going to inconvenience and cause more issues for Forest Glen operations. So we would like for them not to use our driveway. And the reason I call it our driveway is because, actually, our mailbox for our Forest Glen maintenance facility management is out on Beck Boulevard. If that was a real road and a frontage road to be used for this many trips, you'd think it would have a name at this point, right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. CRAIG: So we share this driveway with the fire station. So Page 4 shows with pink arrows where they would connect, which you've already seen. And let's see here. If you go to -- if you see on Page 4 -- actually, you can see right there next to the -- in front of the fire house, that's two fire trucks out in front. That's where they train, and that's where they do maintenance, that's where they test their engines. So I don't know how you can have two-way traffic going east/west over a bridge and past a fire station there when the fire station uses it in this manner. So again, it's our driveway that we share with the fire station. It's a very dangerous, weird, 90-degree turn there in front of our maintenance facility. And yeah, the last thing is is we actually had a break-in at our golf maintenance facility this last winter. They stole -- the thief stole $25,000 worth of hand tools, weed eaters, Flymos, blowers. I don't want any more people driving by seeing what's going on. They're going to come across that bridge. They're going to drive right into our yard thinking we're the pickleball place, and we're going to have all this conflict with our heavy equipment for the golf course, dump trucks, all of our deliveries, our employees. And we're just going to have a big conflict there, and it's going to be more exposure. I don't need that with what's going on, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, it's -- quite frankly, it's an issue between you and developer of the site. They still have -- the option for us is they have the direct access north to Beck Boulevard. So we're not -- we're only voting that there is an option available, and if they can negotiate the option, it's acceptable in the zoning. But for now, it's -- all we're really dealing with is the use and the option that they can go that direction, so... COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can't make a recommendation -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: We can't make a recommendation. Page 63 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 60 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We can make a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that they have their own entrance and not use -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We can, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think we should. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know if -- I think we could -- I would prefer to leave that up to -- because it puts a -- it puts another condition on if they can reach an agreement. I don't know if -- it sounds like they never will. But if we say no, then they are forced to Beck Boulevard, and we're complicating traffic issues on Beck Boulevard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me give you a third option. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Before you speak, may I? Sir, you gave a good presentation, and I recognize your ideas, thoughts, concerns, okay. And I understand what the county would like, to have one access point that does allow you to turn left, head west on Beck, instead of forcing a right only and then U-turns and everything else. And just for fun, let's say that new bridge and everything they would need to do would be as you joked, one and a half million dollars. Well, if you could come up with a negotiation and the art of the deal, right, of let's say the petitioner says, you know what, we'll do 500- or 600- or $650,000 of improvements for all of us to allow us to use that bridge to make all of us happy. They'll take care of proper signage in front of your place. This is just hypothetical. Making sure that the fire department has a proper place to park their truck if they're doing service or maintenance. Just with everything that goes on in the world today, if two people are able -- or two groups are able to sit down and you talk intelligently, blue sky a bunch of ideas and say, how can we make this work for both, is there an opportunity for a discussion like that with all parties to take place? MR. CRAIG: My ears are always open. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But just a thought, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but what I'm also suggesting all this does is gives us an opportunity to talk. And if we can't get Tim comfortable that this all works, okay, we don't get Tim comfortable that it works. But what if I worked with the fire district and I build a different bridge? What if I build a bridge adjacent to his bridge or slightly to my west of that bridge and we work it out that way? And then I can my -- I still get my lefts out. He has what he wants, which is a direct bridge to his maintenance facility. That's a third option. So I don't want -- I don't want to give up the ability to talk to everybody about something that may work. It may not work to use his bridge. It may work that we build a different bridge, or we just built what we originally had. But as long as you're talking, there's an opportunity to solve a problem. But if you take -- you take the arrows off, there's no opportunity to talk. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No. I have full intention to vote for your ability to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just trying to respond to some of your colleagues. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- go with the original proposal to have your direct access. I just wondered if there was something else that together could be done, but I think enough said. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know -- and it may not work out. It may not work out, but it may work out. I mean, he brought up somebody making the landscaping look pretty. You know, maybe that's an opportunity. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I would prefer that we to leave it open. I mean, you do have the access. You can go north. If there's something that can be worked out to restrict the entry point off of Beck, that's preferable, but I'm not going to dictate -- I'm not -- I don't see any reason to dictate it. I leave it up to you to work it out with Forest Glen, or you just build your bridge. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 64 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 61 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, I don't -- Michelle, do you have a -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I was just going to throw out another option. Because when I drove through this area, I didn't even notice your workshop -- maintenance facility. There's so much trees there, foliage that I didn't even see it, that -- perhaps even a gate or increased landscaping to avoid it. But I think the only way you know that that's there is if you know that that's there. MR. CRAIG: And that's why I don't like people driving by it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: You can't see it. But it would -- in my mind it's kind of silly to add another bridge that's -- when you already have one that's -- it's just another -- another option to consider. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think there are a lot of options to discuss. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: In fairness to Tim, he's got to decide and his clients have got to decide whether they want to work with -- if we can get to where we get them comfortable. We're just asking for the ability to talk to them to try to get them comfortable and not have to come back and amend the PUD again. MR. CRAIG: If I may, why haven't we talked about this since the NIM presentation before I had to come waste a day here listening to Costco? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer. MR. CRAIG: That's sort of the -- the flavor of the water. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I'd rather not air dirty laundry in a public hearing. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, Chuck, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. And this does not require EAC approval. Do I hear a motion to approve the request as presented? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No like -- no opposition. It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. ***We're going to the next petition, which is Brightshore. That's PL20240007926, Brightshore Village SRA-A on the north side of Immokalee Road, northeast intersection of Immokalee Road and Red Hawk. So as they're setting up here, we'll take a 30-second pause. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For station identification. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For station identification. Okay. Rich, all yours. Have we got any disclosures? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. Page 65 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 62 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich about this in -- regarding this petition, and staff materials I reviewed. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Ditto. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, spoke with staff, spoke with Rich Yovanovich. I did not go out to the site. That's too far for the day. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials and a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, please rise to be sworn in. Any public speakers, please rise. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please rise. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to do a brief overview of what this petition is, and if you have specific questions about the master plan and all that, I have Chris Scott. Steve Sammons is here to talk about any landscaping questions you may have, and Norm Trebilcock is here to talk about any transportation-related concerns. But the staff materials are very detailed, and I did have the opportunity to talk to all of you, except for Mr. Shea, with regard to the requested petition. But this is the location of Brightshore Village. It's an already approved SRA. And we are making some relevant minor tweaks to the PUD related to -- mainly related to modifying the request because we're setting aside some right-of-way for Immokalee Road, and in doing that, we changed the size of the village to take that land out so we don't basically have to spend SRA or SSA credits to entitle lands we're giving to the county. So that's basically what those revisions are, and those revisions resulted in our expanding some lakes. We're going to continue to have a county park that we talked about; it's just going to be a little bit more narrow. So the public access doesn't change. We're going to modify the village center to provide for a transitional area where we can have the additional use of an RV park. And then we identified the county's parcel, and we added an access point here and -- Chris -- here, right? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we added two access points along Immokalee Road as part of this process. Staff's recommending approval of everything but a requested deviation to basically growing in the landscape buffer in that area of the project. This is really hard for a guy who can't do directions when it's oriented -- north is to the right, and so -- whatever direction that is, there's a buffer that we're required to do. Right now it would cost us roughly a quarter of a million dollars to install a temporary irrigation pipe to grow in some live oak trees that are basically 25 feet on center. Am I right? Thirty feet on center -- that we can grow in successfully by using water trucks. And I know there's this thought that, "Well, it's only $250,000 on this big, huge project. Just suck it up." Well, no. That's $250,000 that doesn't need to be spent to grow in these live oak trees. And we would rather not spend that money on growing in trees with a temporary irrigation -- irrigation line to do that. So that's where we disagree with staff. We think we could accomplish that -- we know we can accomplish the same healthy trees that are drought-tolerant trees, which Collier County wants you to do out in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use -- I'm sorry -- in the RLSA. So that's it. That's where we disagree with staff. Everything else staff agrees with our requested changes. And that's the crux of the issue. So I can do a much longer -- I can have everybody take you through all the details if you want, but that's where we are. That's the issue on this petition, and that's where we disagree with Page 66 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 63 of 82 staff. And we think it's unnecessary to spend a quarter of a million dollars for an irrigation main when we can accomplish the same growing through the use of water trucks. So that's where we're at. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Sparrazza, question? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mr. Yovanovich, is there a better or worse time throughout the year to try to accomplish what you're doing? MR. YOVANOVICH: We will plant these during the rainy season. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as -- if necessary, we will have water trucks supplement what God gives us to grow -- to grow the trees in. If you're worried about long-term maintenance, this project has a community development district already approved for it. So you have a local governing body that's going to make sure that what gets planted stays. We also have a period where staff has to confirm that everything is healthy and grown in. And if it's not, we replace them, and we go back to replacing any trees that have any issues with the grow-in process. We're going to plant them during rainy season. That takes six to eight months, is my understanding, for them to become stabilized, to use a layperson's term, and then they're good to go. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And then after that, let's -- hypothetically, you plant them in April. Come next January, when it is the dry season, is there irrigation proposed for that area? MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have -- no. That's the -- that's kind -- I'm trying not to use terminology that might come back and bite me. But that's an area, candidly, where it's to build these temporary irrigation mains. My understanding is there's a question about whether or not Collier County even has IQ water for us to use or would we have to use potable water? That's a question to -- why would we use potable water when we can use other means? But again, the condition -- or the deviation requires us to satisfy that they're in, they're healthy, and they're doing fine, and if there's a die-off sometime in the future, you have a community development district to fix the buffer if it -- if there's a death of any of the plants that didn't survive, but that's normal. You know, even with irrigation lines, some plants don't survive, and you replace them. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, can you tell me how your irrigation trucks or your water truck are -- are they going to go Red Hawk Lane, and if they go on Red Hawk Lane, do you have a right of access on Red Hawk? I'm just trying to figure out, you're telling me you've got irrigation trucks or water trucks, they've got to -- we're either going to put them in a barge and go down the lake or we're going to go down Red Hawk and -- whether we have clearance. Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: The irrigation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your name, please, for the record. MR. SCOTT: Oh, sorry. Chris Scott, principal planner with Peninsula Engineering. The water trucks would utilize the linear park itself to traverse up. The Red Hawk right-of-way, right now there's still questions as to the ownership of that. It was never accepted by the county. So the water trucks would utilize the linear park itself. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's wide enough? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I guess you could, but -- Okay. My only concern is if we go with that option -- and I'm going to leave it up to my colleagues to discuss. But if we go with that option, that -- I would need very definitive language. We already have it in the code, but the onus now is on staff because staff, Jamie, whether it's Engineering or Code Enforcement, somebody's going to have to go out there and verify this, or you're going to have to provide some kind of reports. Page 67 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 64 of 82 I prefer that you provide some kind of periodic report to show the growth during the dry season and not put the onus on staff, and that's going to be a cost to you, both in your landscaping crew or whomever, and -- because my preference is -- I read the report, and I brought this up when I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. It says "undue hardship," and I'm going, "an undue hardship is not money." I mean, that's -- yeah, it's your hardship and not mine. And, I mean, the hardship is alleviated by spending the money to do -- to put the water service in. So in lieu of that, other than Code Enforcement trying to go out and validate that I have a healthy buffer, what's your proposal? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. We've provided -- in the justification we have a full watering schedule for how we will water these plants or the schedule for the water trucks to go out to establish the viability. We're also committing to provide quarterly reports, and that would last for at least the first three years. I mean, we plan on being out there for the long term. Our company will be out there probably for the next five to eight years as this project is coming online and homes are starting to be sold. So we have a vested interest that this is a sufficient buffer, and we will provide those reports to the county. So we have inspectors -- our own internal inspectors are out there regularly and will provide quarterly reports to Collier County Development Review Services and their landscape reviewers to demonstrate that the live oaks that are planted along Red Oak -- or Red Hawk are getting established and are healthy and are not in needing of replacement. And obviously, if there are any that are failing, then we would replace those. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm also concerned about the -- any native grasses or whatever other type of landscaping you're going to put to supplement both the trees. But you're going to put other types of -- whether it's Bahiagrass or whatever you're going to put out there. I don't know. But I want to assure the viability of this especially during the growing season. After that you usually just depend on nature taking its course. MR. SCOTT: I do have Steve Sammons who's a landscape architect and much more fluent in the planting that we're doing. But I know we are committed entirely for Florida friendly planting. So once that -- those plantings are established, which typically are four to six months is my understanding, then they would remain viable just through the regular weather patterns here in Southwest Florida. But we would supplement, if there's any extended drought periods, with water trucks as needed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. Red Hawk is a dirt road that's maintained by the owners of the -- of the people on that road. If you're driving large water trucks down there, do you plan to also make improvements to the road? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were going to use -- I think what Chris said is we're going to use the linear park as our access. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not Red Hawk. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Is that going to be -- like, I know you're reducing the size of the park. Is there still going to be some sort of cart path or walking path around the entire facility -- or around the entire project, I guess I could say? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. There's an existing berm, so right at the edge of the Red Hawk, what is essentially an easement or a paper right-of-way. There's a berm. So as you get onto the Brightshore property and the linear park, there would be a drainage swale. So the first 25 feet is the buffer and drainage easement, then you have a 20-foot flat area that would include a multi-purpose pathway, and then you also have the lake maintenance easement. So that's an additional 20 feet on the east side of -- so in total you have about 65 feet. So flat area, slight slope as you get towards the lake to work with. And the landscaping is in the first 25 feet from the eastern boundary. Actually, I may have a -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So you're keeping the current ditch, I guess you could Page 68 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 65 of 82 say, that's already existing there, with buffer. And then inside of that you're making another right-of-way or easement? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. So this lower one is the -- I'm sorry. The lower section is the revised, so the right-of-way line is here. This is the existing swale along the edge of the roadway. That will be maintained. Drainage is collected in this channel, and then it slopes up, so you've got roughly 35 feet of flat area that is the buffer, the 20-foot-wide path -- free area that would include the 10-foot multipurpose trail, and then you get into the 20-foot lake maintenance easement before you hit the edge of water of the lake. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So no plans to improve Red Hawk? I know that was on the original -- original Brightshore. MR. SCOTT: There is a separate developer commitment. This application doesn't change that. The ownership is not -- we are committed to making improvements to a certain amount provided that the ownership interests work out to where we have the right to do that. Right now it does not appear we do. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Jaime, did you have a comment? MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, for the record. Commissioner, all I was going to address was your questions about enforcement. So if the -- if the idea for the report every three months is accepted, that would probably be similar to an SRA commitment or a PUD commitment that we have staff in Development Review that monitors all of those commitments. If they were to not turn in those reports, they would be referred to Code Enforcement for code action. Likewise, just -- even if we got beyond that point of three years when -- if any landscaping were to die or not survive or Development Review is out of there and the project has been turned over to the master association, if there's a code violation it would go through Code Enforcement action just like any other property would. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other comments, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, any comments? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I am concerned about that -- the Red Hawk and going through the park to get there. But, I mean, obviously, there seems to be some type of miscommunication on -- nobody knows who owns what property. And water trucks on Red Hawk wouldn't work. So if the park's the best option, that's the best option for establishing that outside buffer landscaping without having to spend the money to put irrigation there. That's really the only comment I had, Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I mean, I prefer they use their own land. If it's wide enough and you can either put, you know, skid steers or whatever or some kind of motorized vehicle that you would run up and down there where you would have a water tank and water, that you stay off of Red Hawk. You don't own Red Hawk or whatever -- you don't have any right to use it unless you negotiate with the neighboring property. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a lot of property owners out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle, did you have something? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I was just trying to -- trying to get clarification on Red Hawk. And maybe I missed this. So it is privately owned, Red Hawk? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yes. The county doesn't maintain it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Oh, okay. Okay. That was it. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Part of the surrounding neighborhood. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Because, yeah, there's a -- you can get on it from Immokalee. MR. YOVANOVICH: There are a lot of roads out east that are -- you physically can drive on them, but they're not owned by the county, and they're -- that's an issue throughout Golden Gate Estates and the eastern lands. Page 69 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 66 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Do we have any public speakers? MR. SABO: There are no public speakers registered. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll close the public hearing and open it up for comments, Commissioners. I mean, the choice here, basically, is -- from the standpoint is they want to remove the requirement to provide water service to service this area. That's where staff disapproved. I would recommend if we -- and I'll leave it up -- to hear what you have to say, but I want a clear stipulation -- we identify and put a stipulation into the language, quarterly reports or somewhere somehow -- but a requirement that growth reports are submitted in a timely manner either with photographs, you know, electronic report of some sort into Jaime Cook's organization, so that -- that we validate that the growth is growing in accordance what is required so that we have a healthy buffer within the two-year period. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Chair, we would, then, need -- and we'll just convert our deviation that was the justification for that. We'll convert that into an SRA commitment. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That should address your concerns. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How are they structured? When everything's developed, is there an HOA? Is it privately owned? MR. YOVANOVICH: Typically. There's two options, usually. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, the only reason I said that is this kind of obligation will go with whatever that -- if it's an HOA, will go with whatever you assign to them. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be probably a community development district. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A CDD. MR. YOVANOVICH: They already have a CDD, so they're going to have that obligation. They would have that obligation anyway. Either way -- at some point the developer is finished with the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The developer assumes the responsibility to maintain that buffer in accordance with standards. Our concern is that it -- that in the time period specified that it grows and it's not abandoned. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have every -- every interest in doing that because, candidly, that park is an amenity, so we want that park to look nice. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, even from a marketability standpoint, you'd -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If you're going to market homes there, you're going to want to put up -- have a pleasant-looking buffer, and I understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, staff? I think I've already asked you, but you guys -- I bypassed you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. You've already identified the one area we did not agree with was the linear park irrigation issue. That was the one area we did not agree. We'll let the Planning Commission know because there's no increase within an intensity or density associated with this, it did not require them to have to submit a fiscal analysis to show neutrality because the same conditions of intensity or density are existing. So that wasn't a component nor a requirement of this application. For all other aspects other than the one area we mentioned, or the Chair mentioned, we are in support of the application. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, open for a motion from my fellow commissioners. Anybody wish to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I guess I get leery. I kind of feel we should support staff, because if every time somebody comes in and disagrees with staff and we override them -- so I'm kind of torn as far as the water truck versus the irrigation system. Page 70 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 67 of 82 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But didn't staff agree to what we just came up with as a resolution? COMMISSIONER SHEA: What'd we come up with? MR. BOSI: We said if that's -- if that was the direction the Planning Commission wants to go, we would most certainly -- or would review the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: To meet the requirements -- MR. BOSI: Requirements for the reporting to that of the condition of the landscaping. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We would modify the SRA requirement with the stipulation of monitoring -- quarterly reports and monitoring over a two-year period the adequate -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Three. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Three-year period, thank you -- adequate growth of the buffer. And they would submit those reports so it's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Would you be okay with that, Mike? MR. BOSI: If that's -- if that's what the recommendation is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm asking you as a professional. You made a recommendation. MR. BOSI: I am not a landscape professional. I am a land-use professional. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Jaime. MR. BOSI: What I will say is, you know, their -- I understand it's in their best interest to maintain it. The one concern is, you know, the grass as well is part of the concern, to make sure, you know, through the drought periods it could be, you know, somewhat -- if they use, say, Bahiagrass, it does become a little bit sparse in drought conditions, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- before we finish, let me bring Steve up and tell you what's exactly going to be in the buffer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because -- so let's just do that, if that's okay. Steve. MR. SAMMONS: Good afternoon. Steven Sammons. I'm a landscape architect with Peninsula Engineering. When we brought up the possibility of using a water truck, which I would agree with, I chose the southern live oak as the buffer tree because it's extremely hearty, highly drought tolerant, and a Florida friendly native tree. Other types of plantings that we would put out there, we have to stabilize the soil, so some type of mulch, probably pine straw, another, you know, native type of mulch. And we would probably add, just to break it up some, some bunch grasses, a native cordgrass, for example, which takes hold very quickly with little to no supplemental water. And again, starting this in the rainy season so -- to help them establish. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there grass in that area besides -- MR. SAMMONS: No sod, no, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Pardon me? MR. SAMMONS: No sod, no. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Again, Jaime Cook, for the record. I was just going to say that when a request for a deviation comes in, we don't look at things like the cost to the applicant. That's not what we look at. We look at things like whether the site is constrained or it makes development impossible. However -- so as Mike said, however, if you choose to accept that as a commitment from the developer, staff will monitor that and move forward accordingly. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But we're also creating more work for staff and less work for them, correct? We're shifting more work to you to monitor it as opposed to an irrigation system. MS. COOK: They will have to do the monitoring and give me the report. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. Page 71 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 68 of 82 MS. COOK: And it's similar to any other commitment any other developer makes at time of zoning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They have to develop the reports, submit the report, and get staff approval. MR. YOVANOVICH: And part of the justification is the county's utilities system out there is basically in its infancy. So they don't -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: They don't -- if you had the normal county facilities in this location, the additional expense to put the irrigation in wouldn't exist. So it's not -- this is not your typical this is what it would normally by cost to meet the code. If it was the typical expense, you know, we wouldn't be standing here. And I disagree with the Chairman when he says, you know, cost is not a hardship. It is a hardship when you're incurring additional costs above what's typically anticipated as part of the Land Development Code. So that's the reason we're asking for it. There's an alternative for a deviation as long as there's another alternative that gets you to the same place. I don't think anybody's disputing that you can use water trucks to grow in what we're providing. And you just had the professional testimony from a landscape architect that says these plants are going to survive and thrive after we use the alternative watering that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Chair, if I may say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Knowing now what they're going to be planting, because before -- it just mentioned drought-tolerant plants, and sometimes those are not the most attractive kind of things and don't hold up well in droughts. But being that they're selecting items that will hold up and there's this condition to have them monitor it regularly, I am in favor of this, in allowing them to use the watering trucks. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Provided they meet the stipulation? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So is that a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the motion is subject to the -- what agreed to by the petitioner that he would modify the SRA with the stipulation of providing a quarterly report to monitor the growth of the required buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: For three years. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For three years. And we have a motion and second. Can I hear -- a motion -- or a -- all who approve, can we hear like sign? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All right. That's it. It passes unanimously. We'll take a 15-minute break. (A recess was had from 2:11 p.m. to 2:19 p.m.) COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Chair, you have a live mic. Page 72 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 69 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Just to assure that we're going to have a quorum -- because we have one member who is going to leave and another member has to recuse herself from the vote, so I'm going to move the car storage facility first so we can go through that just to make sure we can vote on that. I don't think the other one's going to be a problem, but I would ask the petitioner to indulge so that we can make sure we get this through, this car storage first. So with that, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the owner of the property who is bringing forward the petitions. And I'm going to try to do this in an abbreviated manner because I've talked to everybody on the Planning Commission, and I know, Ms. McLeod, do you need to say you were going to recuse yourself on the record, or do I need to -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I think I have to -- Heidi, I have to explain why I'm recusing myself, correct, or I'm just recusing? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sorry, just briefly. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. I work for -- I work for a developer who is building a similar project on Airport Road. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And then, for the record, this is PL20240001079, the GMPA premier village -- or Premier Vehicle Storage commercial subdistrict. It's a subdistrict request. So, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Before you start, though, I have to go through disclosures. Amy. MS. LOCKHART: Text -- staff materials only. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about this. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and staff materials. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials, and I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, and I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All wishing to speak in this matter, please rise to be sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And with that, I turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich. You can start by saying -- where I interrupted you when you said you spoke to everyone. So go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. For the record, Rich Yovanovich again. I'm going to do a brief overview of what we're requesting. And I have Margaret Emblidge, who's our land planner here; Jim Carr, civil engineer; and I have Norm Trebilcock here to answer any question regarding the respective expertise. The request to amend the Growth Management Plan to establish a subdistrict on a 3.7-acre parcel of property and to rezone the property to PUD for, basically, car condos that could be owned, or they can be leased. It's -- the property is right here on your visualizer. It's along Santa Barbara. That's Polly Avenue, and that's Everett Street. This is a project that was developed under the infill provisions in your Growth Management Plan that would allow up to seven units per acre. This is a project that's an affordable housing project. If we were to use either of those two provisions in your Growth Management Plan, we could -- we can do seven units an acre or up to 16 units per acre. There are other projects in the area. Some of you were around when we did the Sandy Lane project for GL Homes and the ShadowWood project that's also, I believe, a GL Homes project. So it's an area that people are finding, and I know that the neighborhood -- I did both of Page 73 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 70 of 82 those projects, and I know the neighborhood was concerned about traffic throughout the neighborhood for both of those projects. And traffic was a concern when we had our neighborhood information meeting, and so was privacy for the people who lived right here (indicating) adjacent to our property. In response to those comments, we made changes to the architecture, the orientation of the buildings, and landscape buffers. So we increased and enhanced the landscape buffers along Santa Barbara, along Everett, along Polly, and along our eastern boundary to address the concerns, and we also committed that there could be no windows on the buildings that were facing east. There was concerns about privacy. Because these will be allowed to have mezzanines within them, and they wanted to make sure we didn't have any windows so when people were on the mezzanine, they could look out. So we have a prohibition in the PUD to address those concerns. We would be allowed a total of 60,000 square feet. I think that equates to 41 -- am I right? -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- 41 units on this parcel of property. It has a trip cap, I believe, of nine p.m. peak trips. So it's a very low traffic generator. I know I had many conversations with Mr. Bosi about this project, and his two concerns that -- and he'll correct me if I'm wrong -- is the first concern is, you know, you have an activity center basically a mile and a half to the north. Why don't you just put it there? Well, I could tell you that that is probably not the place you want to have another storage facility because you already have storage facilities both on the northwest and the northeast quadrants of that activity center. And I could tell you, based upon the asking price of the commercial portion of that project, nobody can afford to build any type of storage facility, let alone just 41 car condos on that parcel. So I don't think that there's the reality that there will be another self-storage facility on that activity center portion of the property. And I've already had some conversations -- and Margaret and I are working on a potential amendment to that PUD that will clearly take self-storage off the table. So that site is really not available for self-storage. So that was one of Mr. Bosi's concerns that we talked about is there -- is there already availability in that area. And then another concern he had was, "Well, Rich, if you do this as commercial, now you can trigger the Live Local Act" and, you know, that's 25 units an acre. And I believe, because the way the Live Local Act is written, we could put a provision in our PUD that prohibits our -- and the subdistrict that says, "You can't use this commercial approval as a springboard to Live Local." And I think that that would be enforceable because PUDs basically are contracts between the government and the property owner. And I'm pretty sure if I were to try to do something as foolish as use that as a basis, the neighbors would sue, the county would sue, and I'm pretty sure it would be very difficult for me to convince a judge to allow my client to build something that they agreed they would never build and say, "You can't hold me accountable for a condition I put in a PUD." I just don't think that could ever happen. So I think we can address Mr. Bosi's legitimate concern by putting a condition in the PUD and in the subdistrict that it can't be used as a basis to develop this under the Live Local Act, because the last thing you want us to do is -- well, anyway. I think when we had our concerns -- or comments from the neighbors, they wanted to make sure we wouldn't put an intensive use on that property, which I think seven units per acre or 16 units per acre the neighbors would consider to be an intensive use, and both of those are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So we are hopefully addressing the neighbors' concerns with our proposed project. I just wanted to point out that it is not atypical for car condos, which are very different than the self-storage buildings that are being built that are usually three or four stories tall. They're very different from those. And here's an exhibit that shows you so far there are eight car condos Page 74 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 71 of 82 approved in Collier County, and the one that has the circle on it, which is Car Condo No. 5, that's the only one that is actually in an activity center. All of the others are basically in the regular urban area near residential. They're low traffic generators. They're -- in our particular case -- I'm going to go quickly to the architecture, assuming I don't break the system. Keep going. That's just the architecture. It doesn't show the landscaping that will be around it. But these are -- these are -- these are not flat roofs. These are very residential-looking buildings, and with the buffers. You see we have enhanced buffers around all four sides of this project. Basically, in three to five years, when -- we're enhancing the plantings -- the original planting, but when they grow in, you're basically not even going to see -- you know, you're not going to see anything, or you'll see the tops of the roofs when we get done with this. We have -- staff had a couple comments that said, "If you approve this, Commissioners, we would want these following stipulations." We've looked at those, and we can generally agree with all the stipulations that the staff had, but we wanted to make a slight modification. I think when staff said they didn't want buildings visible from a road, I think they meant the doors fronting the roads. So what we've said is we can't have -- we can only have doors parallel to Santa Barbara and Polly, but we could have doors -- and I'll show you why. We can have some doors fronting Everett, but that's where we have the wider buffer with our preserve. And the way the site plan lays out -- or the master plan lays out, I'm sorry. I'm sorry it's taking so long to flip -- you can see how the buildings are laid out where you have -- these are parallel to Santa Barbara. Nothing -- nothing faces Polly at all. And Everett is where we would be requesting to have four doors, essentially. This is the area that has our preserve, and that's approximately 90 foot in width. So you see the preserve. So all we're asking for in that language is that we be allowed to have four doors fronting Everett, but that's where we have our -- we have an enhanced buffer, and we have our preserve. And then they asked for -- as far as no buildings longer than 100 feet, we're good on every building except that one, and that one's 131 feet. We've asked for that one building to be 135 feet. All the other buildings we can agree will be less than 100 feet in width, and that's just the one area -- because of the way the preserve and the stormwater management lays out, that's the only building that would exceed 100 feet in length. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, can you go back to the other drawing? MR. YOVANOVICH: That one? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You said the doors would be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Parallel. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- parallel. But the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean perpendicular. I meant to say perpendicular. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They're actually perpendicular. MR. YOVANOVICH: I meant to say perpendicular. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The garage is parallel, but the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the doors perpendicular. MR. YOVANOVICH: Perpendicular. Thank you for the correction. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It meets the requirement. MR. YOVANOVICH: I struggled with geometry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, geometry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Directions and geometry were two of my weakest -- if geometry would have gone six more weeks, I might still be in high school. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Good thing for GPS for you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Sometimes that doesn't help. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the garages on the second row do actually face -- Page 75 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 72 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I talked to Mr. Bosi about that. The concern really wasn't those, because these are actually -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: They're blocked, right. It was really the buildings closest to the streets that I think -- and he can talk for himself. But I think I'm accurately reflecting the conversations he had about what did they mean by visible. I think he meant fronting. Perpendicular was okay because of our enhanced buffers. But it wasn't the second row that was the issue. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can you go to your stipulation again? Because the other -- I was just looking. The -- but these are not meant to be occupied to live -- lived in. That prohibition is still in, like all the other ones that we've -- MR. YOVANOVICH: For those of you who were around for the Lutgert approval that created the conflict for Ms. McLeod, we took the same language as to what can be in there. No overnights. You could store cars. You could store your RV. You can store your boat. You can store your wine. Things like -- it's the typical nice garage just like all the others. And as you all know, the market for these is -- there's a lot of demand. And the prices and the rents for these is not insignificant. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the -- as is others, we limited if there's any minor maintenance done -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything's indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the hours. Everything's indoors. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nothing outdoors. Everything's indoors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then to include any storage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything is indoors -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Everything is indoors. MR. YOVANOVICH: So these are -- so we took the language for No. 3, that's the language that's in the PUD, and that's what was approved in other recent car condos, and we modified -- we thought No. 2 didn't really apply anymore based upon the modifications we made to No. 1. And then we're fine with the "no buildings can exceed 100 feet" except for the one I showed you. And we're fine with the conceptual architectural renderings becoming exhibits to the PUD. And I think we probably -- could probably put the conceptual site plan also in there. So obviously, it's conceptual with some modifications, but we'll put all those as exhibits. So hopefully that addresses all the concerns that were raised. And that's, in a nutshell, what we're requesting, and we hope you'll recommend approval of both the subdistrict as well as the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And if this didn't go in -- now, you said you would put into the subdistrict a prohibition for -- to prevent any type of Live Local. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It could be challenged, but we'll put it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, but the only person who could challenge it would be me, and -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I really think it would be really difficult for me to convince a judge to ignore what I promised I would do. I could be wrong, but it's, you know... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your Honor, I really didn't mean what I said. MR. YOVANOVICH: I said it but my fingers were crossed, you know... COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does Michelle think about that -- Heidi. What does Heidi think about that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What's that? Page 76 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 73 of 82 COMMISSIONER SHEA: About the legality of putting that comment, that -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For Live Local? COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that says Live Local won't be applied for that commercial? Will that override any state regulations? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Probably not, but you could put a restriction that it won't be used for residential uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to do whatever -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would have to be a recorded restriction. We did that for one off of Randall Boulevard that indicated that there wouldn't be any residential use as a restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County. Now, I think that's, like, the best thing you can do. Whether or not we'd be overrided in the future, I can't say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only way this would become even a thought for Live Local is if the developer abandoned it and said, "You know, I'm not going to do it" and walks away, and then now it's a commercial subdistrict. But it's not going to become Live Local if there was -- if there's cars on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: If we wanted to do affordable housing on this site, we would be doing affordable housing on this site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'd do affordable housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be so much simpler for me to come in and ask for 16 units per acre than go through this masquerade of somehow trying to become a Live Local project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I know I've talked to you about it, but I would have to -- I received nothing from anybody on Polly Avenue, and they've been vocal in the past. And I mean, this is far less obtrusive than if it was a 16-units-an-acre type of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Just so -- you know, you could do 22 residences if I wanted to just use the infill provisions of seven units per acre, or I could do 59 units if I wanted to do affordable housing. So I think this is -- there's no question -- and I think staff -- if you read both staff reports, they said the project's compatible. It fits in the neighborhood. It really was just a concern about could it go in the activity center to the north. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My only concern is -- and I chatted with you about it -- is here's a subdistrict right in the middle of what is essentially a residential area. But it's -- what it could be would be, I think, a little bit more obtrusive than this would -- this is a pretty benign impact from the standpoint of the people who live in that area. So I don't know. I didn't receive any objections. But before we -- any other commissioners have any questions? I have to see if -- are there any public speakers? MR. SABO: We have one registered public speaker, Linda Flores. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Ms. Flores. MS. FLORES: Good afternoon. My name is Linda Flores. I'm a resident on Polly Avenue. When there was a NIM meeting, I did not own the property. I had just moved in, so I didn't have an opportunity to address any of the concerns with any of the residents in the area. So I do not have any fancy overheads, so it's just my personal comments on this. So looking at what you're asking to do, it's to create a whole 'nother subdistrict, correct, for that property? I live two parcels east of where the ingress and egress is going to be on Polly Avenue. So to me, that is a concern because the preserve is being maintained on the south side of the property on Everett, correct? So all the trees -- and most will be removed except for whatever landscaping is going to be for the project. I'm sorry. I should be addressing you, not the attorney. So I -- you just said, you know, is it a conflict with the residents or the local folks? And for me, yes, it is. I bought the property with a wonderful agricultural zoning which was great because some wildlife and birds and all the things that -- even the call of a rooster who lives next Page 77 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 74 of 82 door, but that's part of farm life, right? So because of -- that is why we bought the property and thought we lived in an area where it would be maintained mostly as acreage. Of course, we know the growth. It's inevitable. We've got the Marlowe. You've got Valencia Sky. You've got the new Santa Barbara place. It's inevitable to have that. However, does this project really fit, as you just mentioned, on that corner? Is that really the right place to have a car storage facility? And some concerns I have about if it does get done is there going to be allowed, which many other of these projects are, where there are events in those areas, where there's outside music and other things that go on, fundraisers? I attended one once, but it was also in a commercial area off of Davis, which there were no surrounding residences, so it didn't really affect them as much. So those are the things I'm concerned about. I'm also concerned about the sewer and water. How is that going to be maintained? Is that going to be hooked up directly? Is that going to force those of us who are on well to go ahead and start now to have to hook up to sewer even though we chose to move to an area where we do have well? That's the other one of my concerns. And also, is it a possibility to move the ingress/egress to Santa Barbara? Why does it have to be on Polly? Sunset Road was never built, I believe, to accommodate what's being built around that right now. What's -- Valencia Sky is a thousand doors, I think. I think that's how many there are. So it's a very big project, as long as Marlowe, as well -- who's only a 35 percent capacity once all those cars are in there that also creates -- and people come down Sunset, come down Polly, and because there's no left access, you have to go out. Everything's a U-turn to get south on -- to get towards Rattlesnake. So there is -- even though -- no, there's not going to be as much traffic as if we did have a multifamily situation. There are a lot more cars in or out. But, you know, some days someone would want to take their very expensive Maserati and run down that dead-end block, and they're a little loud. And who knows what time of day that would be. So those are the concerns, personally, I have. Some of the other folks in the area left earlier and did not stay till this late hour to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you do understand that the subject site could be developed into a high-density apartment complex? MS. FLORES: I do. I do know that. And I understand this may be a less obtrusive project than those would be. But I just wanted to address the concerns about the in and out. Is that something that can be discussed, or is that the only option that would be on Polly? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would have to turn to staff. But the preference is it come off of Polly because, again, it's a six-lane highway, I think, on that -- in that area. MR. YOVANOVICH: Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Santa Barbara. MS. FLORES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it would be -- it's a controlled access, and -- meaning they try and restrict entrances and exits onto -- onto Santa Barbara. MS. FLORES: It's already a busy road. They're all busy roads. It's just happening everywhere. So the setbacks are 25 feet; is that correct? Only 10 actually where the egress is. Is that -- is that correct? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I turn to the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking -- MS. FLORES: The setbacks on east, west, north, and south of the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, when you look at the master plan -- if you'll get me the exact setbacks, please. But when you look at -- I'm going to -- I'm flipping -- can I -- MS. FLORES: I think it's 25 feet; that's what this is. Page 78 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 75 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I know. I wanted -- I had -- I pulled this exhibit up hoping it would address some of your comments, but... MS. FLORES: Okay, sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's the setback? The building setback is 25 feet. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm going to ask him to address your concerns. MS. FLORES: I just -- one other concern. I want to know what the overall height is going to be, and if there's facade windows and what lighting is there going to be; lighting, whether it be on the building or there's going to be poles, or what does that look like? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The lighting is prohibited under code from spilling off the site. So the lighting is going to be the lighting we need to meet your minimum code requirements, but we're -- we have to shield it so we cannot spill off site. She's correct, the setbacks are 25 feet along the perimeters, but the reality is, both on the east and the south sides, they're going to be further back than 25 feet because that's where we have water management and preserve areas. Sorry. I'm a little whateverred in my -- But -- and then -- so that's the answer to your question. That's where we have our enhanced buffers, enhanced landscaping. It's the -- in those particular cases, it's the back of the building so you're not going to see any of the doors or any of the access to any of these buildings along Polly where you live. With regard to the access, there's already a turn lane leading to Polly. So there must have been some forethought that the parcels along Santa Barbara were going to have a little bit more of an intensive use. If you look at the Onyx project, that's used the infill provisions. That's five and a half units per acre. And then if you go to -- and that has access off of Atkins in that case, and then when you go to the Marlowe, which is this project right here that's on both sides of the road, it also has no direct access to Santa Barbara. So all of the projects are accessing off of the side roads, and they're functioning -- they're functioning fine. And I -- and I guarantee you that the nine p.m. peak-hour trips for this project is far less traffic than would be generated by any of the residential alternatives. And those residential alternatives would also have access off Polly and would not have direct access off of Santa Barbara. MS. FLORES: And so just to confirm that the overall height of the highest building at the peak is what? MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-five feet, right? It's 35 feet. MS. FLORES: Thirty-five. It's not going to 39? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 35, which I believe is consistent with the neighborhoods. Yeah, yeah. Sorry I'm froggy. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other public speakers? MR. SABO: No other public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Close the public hearing. Open for discussion. Well, staff first. Thank you. I didn't ask staff before the public hearing, but staff. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, again, Planning and Zoning -- Mike Bosi, again. As discussed with -- or amongst the conversation, staff has a recommendation of denial. The concerns were, as the applicant stated, about the opportunity at Taramondo [sic] being an opportunity within a mile and a quarter as well as the concern for this being now eligible for Live Local. Those were the two concerns. As you saw within the staff report for the PUD, we did recognize the compatibility nature that the low intensity of this use is something that we could support, and we -- we anticipated that there may be a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission, so we did have some Page 79 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 76 of 82 additional restrictions that we were suggesting, that if you felt this was appropriate to support the GMP, the PUD should have the conditions. And the modifications that the applicant proposed, I think staff is comfortable with those modifications. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. As proposed? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any comments? Questions? MR. YOVANOVICH: I misspoke. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: The zoned height, tippy top of the roof is 35 feet. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thirty -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-five feet. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: But the actual height, because of the way they measure actual height, it's 39 feet. So when she asked me, "Not 39?" I misspoke. It is still 39 feet to the tippy top peak roof as they measure actual height. But as you measure zoned height, it's 35 feet. It is very confusing the way the county does the measurement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know zoned height is from the BFE -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- base flood elevation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We have the two petitions, and the other companion, which I failed to identify, PL20240001081, which is the PUDZ. So the first is the Small-Scale Comp Plan amendment and the accompanying PUD. Any comments? Concerns? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we going to add what Heidi suggested is that in the PUD, that we record a deed restriction to the benefit of the county that prohibits residential use on the property? I just want to make sure before you take a vote on any of this, that -- we're willing to do it. I just want to make sure it doesn't get lost in the motion because that was another assurance that we couldn't use Live Local; that we would put both -- we would say in the subdistrict we can't use it as Live Local, and in the PUD we would have the additional commitment that we would record a deed restriction. And I'll work with Heidi in the interim, since she's already done one somewhere else. I just want to make sure that makes it into the motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the other question I have, then, is water/sewer. This will be on county water/sewer. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the other one I wanted to answer. Water/sewer is off Santa Barbara, so she does not have to worry about -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: She would not be forced -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- tapping into water and sewer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you will be on water/sewer. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be on water -- central water and sewer, and we're get that from Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So technically no impact on well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, it has absolutely no impact on her. But she was concerned about that. I wanted to make sure I didn't forget to address that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Open for discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No discussion, do I hear any -- a motion? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll second. Page 80 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 77 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I hear a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: With the condition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With the -- subject to the conditions as stated. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, as long as the conditions are in there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's interesting these projects, though. I -- and I didn't bring it up during the hearing, but I'll talk about it now. I mean, during season, most of these high-end cars are sitting over on Gulf Shore Drive at their -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Third home. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- their real homes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, as you know, with the rush of hurricanes we've had -- and I didn't want to get into that -- I would have -- is it's difficult to get insurance on the vehicle if you're living west of U.S. 41 unless your garage is at the minimum flood, and that's -- that's not the real world. So that's why there's a nice market for this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***All right. We have one last item. And this is PL20240003946, 3001 Bailey Avenue -- Lane. It's a rezoning. It's a lot split, basically, to -- a single-family to an RSF-3. And with that, I'm going to step out a minute and go to the restroom, so -- I'll hear from in there. MR. BUTLER: For the record, am I getting sworn in first of all? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Anybody wishing to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Disclosures. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, visited the site, met with staff. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Of course you did. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. MR. BUTLER: My name is Gary Butler with Butler Engineering. I'm representing Bailey Lane Estates, LLC. It's a small two-and-a-half-acre piece. It's located on Bailey Lane. Bailey Lane located in between -- the whole neighborhood -- not just us, but the whole Bailey Lane neighborhood, it's a dead-end street in between Hawksridge and Poinciana Village. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you speak into your mic, please. MR. BUTLER: Oh, I'm sorry. So it's a really old road. It's just been developed over the years, basically. I think it might have been a haul for the golf course to the west. Page 81 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 78 of 82 But this is one of the remaining two-and-a-half-acre tracts that was originally zoned Estates. It's currently zoned Estates. The parcel that surrounds it, Mandalay Place, is seven and a half acres and, basically, it was the other three quarters of these two Estates lots. I did the zoning and I did the engineering, full disclosure, on Bailey Lane Estates -- I mean, on Mandalay Place. In fact, I tried to talk the guy in this parcel into letting me rezone it even if he wasn't going to sell it to my client because then it would be rezoned and he wouldn't have to do anything. And he refused. But now it's back, and my client is going to build three houses. You could get 12 units per acre on it -- 12 units total on it at five units per acre, the base density. But my client only wants to build three houses, so they're going to be 110-foot-wide lots all fronting on Bailey Lane. What you could do right now with Estates is you could have a house and a guesthouse, and you could have chickens. I mean, there's a whole bunch of reasons why it shouldn't be in Estates anymore if it's in a neighborhood. My client will not be able to build guesthouses and, obviously, he won't be able to have chickens. It's a relatively simple project. We're trying to do it as a minor plat. I think we're on the right course with that one. We've talked to the neighbors to the immediate east that back up to this project, and they asked for a bigger buffer, so we agreed to do a 15-foot Type B buffer, which normally it has to be a 10-foot, Type A. I have a picture of the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And for the record, while you're doing that, I have -- my disclosures was staff material only. So I just had to put that on the record. MR. BUTLER: Okay. I just rolled this over, and it seems to have -- (Commissioner Petscher left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the record, you're departing. Mike is departing. Chairman [sic] Petscher is departing, and so we're back -- we still have a quorum of four and one commissioner still on the phone who can ask questions but -- can vote, but in order to have a quorum, we still have four here. So you can proceed. MR. BUTLER: I understand. That's really all I had unless you have any questions. The client -- the guy building the house is the developer. His name is -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. My only comment -- my only comment -- and I made a comment to the staff. You agreed to put a buffer in, which is great, but you're buffering residential against residential. MR. BUTLER: There's still a buffer requirement typically when you have that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. There is a typical requirement, but you're doing -- I would technically say what you've agreed to is -- MR. BUTLER: Over and above. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- over and above, so... MR. BUTLER: And they're RSF-5. We're RSF-3, but we're only really building a little more than one unit per acre. Other questions? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With that, any public speakers? MR. BUTLER: They were a neighborhood meeting. They were several, but they didn't come to this. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff? MR. SABO: No public -- there are no public speakers. MR. BOSI: Staff is recommending approval as indicated by the -- they're leaving a lot of density on the table. The RSF-3, the three lots out of the 2.56-acre, we think it's compatible. With the enhancements to the landscape buffer, it's even more compatible. There's no -- there's no reservations about supporting this from staff's perspective. Page 82 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 79 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Help me understand. But this -- because it's an Estate, you could not have done a lot split. Because you can do a lot split up to three lots. MR. BUTLER: It was previously split. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it was previously split. MR. BUTLER: North and south. And once you do that, you have to plat to get two lots. So you don't get to get three lots, typically. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BUTLER: You can do three lots as a minor plat, but you still have to plat it. You can't just do a simple lot split. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. Okay. MR. BUTLER: All right. It's a unique neighborhood, I will say that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll just make a comment that it looks very fitting for that neighborhood, and it looks like a great project. So I'm in support. MR. BUTLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So close the public hearing. Any comments from fellow commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Seeing none -- Chuck, any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Except for a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Motion to approve from Commissioner Schumacher. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. BUTLER: Thank, guys. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sorry we kept you here all day. MR. BUTLER: No problem at all. You should keep the smallest projects till the end, because if you had Costco at the end, you'd have a lot of angry people. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We were going to propose that the Costco go on your site, but -- MR. BUTLER: My blood pressure went up watching them. Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Any -- let's see. I just want to make sure we covered everything. Any old business? MR. BOSI: None from staff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And regarding the continuance, we will be able to fit it in September. MR. BOSI: Yes. And I've already -- the first meeting in September, I believe, is September 4th. That meeting -- that meeting we have to end at 3 o'clock. So it won't be the -- it won't be the 4th we're putting it on. It will be the 18th that we're going to put this on. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, you are? MR. BOSI: Yeah. I mean, the Board of County Commissioners has this room reserved at 5:05 for their budget hearings on the 4th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: How many -- I don't think it will be that long. I mean, we've Page 83 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 80 of 82 heard most everything on -- MR. BOSI: There are already four items on the 4th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. BOSI: That's why I let you know that it's going to be on the 18th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Four items already. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Who can be here on the 18th? Because I can't. I'm in Jersey. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm here on the 18th. What do we look like on the 18th? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I am -- go ahead, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm sorry. I'll be there on the 18th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are you talking about the 17th? No, you're talking about August. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 18th, September. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I will be Zooming in. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. As long as we have members to vote. You're not going to be here, and we don't know about Mike. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll be on the 4th and 18th here. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. Chuck, do you plan to be in person? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah, I'll be in person. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, that gives you four. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What items do we have on the 4th, then? I looked at Ray's report. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And which one is the night meeting? Don't we have a night meeting? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's being -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's been rescheduled. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's being rescheduled because the room is -- they're under -- they're under going to -- they're going to undergo, I think, AV improvements in this room. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: That's for -- tentatively scheduled for the 24th of September. It's a Wednesday at 5:05 p.m., five zero five. Correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: (Indicating thumbs up.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What day is that? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: 24th, Wednesday, the 24th. At 17:05. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's probably the one that I can't -- MR. BELLOWS: Those are for the LDC requirements, and then it's -- they require a night meeting. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Do you have to have, like, a supermajority or anything like that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I didn't -- I don't have that on my calendar. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I thought we didn't have a date. MR. BELLOWS: That's not quasi-judicial. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It didn't work. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the Land Development Codes? Well, it's just a majority of vote for the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's tentative. It's only a soft hold for the 24th. Uh-oh. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So just while they're conferring over there, on the 22nd, we have -- we have four items: Everglades Equipment Group, Radio Road Commercial Infill, the Retreat PUD, Horse Rails Village. Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which month are you on? Page 84 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 81 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm on the wrong one. I was reading the wrong one. Those are the HEX. August 21st, Magnolia PUD, Davis, Brookside MPUD, and Parosia Club, Parasio Club? Whatever that is. Two different -- so that's it on the -- on the -- that's August 21st, and then we would meet again on the -- I don't have anything. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: September 4th. MR. BOSI: September 4th there's Horse Trail SRA, there's LDC amendment, Radio Road GMP amendment, and PUD -- also a PUD amendment for the Retreat. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I see it, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there's no 5 p.m. We canceled that. We're only meeting at 9. MR. BOSI: There's no 5 p.m. meeting on the 4th of September. An email was sent out from Angela Galliano of our office, zoning office, to see if the Board was available for a night meeting on September 24th. We've gotten a quorum confirmation on that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Again, I have no problem if we wanted to hear that on the 4th, but if you want to wait -- if the petitioner has agreed. MR. BOSI: If the petitioner gives us the information, we could get this -- get the staff report together, we'll go on the 4th if it does -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't think the public's going to -- they may come back in again and raise all the same issues, but we've heard it. The only issue here is the market study. MR. BOSI: Market study. So based upon the timing of the submittal of their market study, when this gets in, if we can -- if we have enough time to get the staff report in, the package together for the Planning Commission, we will schedule it on the 4th. If not, it will be to the 18th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because my -- the whole issue is, I mean, we -- talking to the commissioners -- one commissioner in particular, we were looking at October for this to go to the Board of County Commissioners, correct, the Costco? MR. BOSI: We were looking at October as a possible date. Even if the 18th, the October can still be the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it could still be -- MR. BOSI: October, it still could be satisfied. It won't kick us out from being able to get it to the second meeting, because the second meeting in October, I believe, for the Board of County Commissioners is the 28th of October. Yes, 28th of October. So that still -- we're still 40-some days away, so that's plenty of time for us to get that item to the second meeting in October and still make the commissioners’ expectations. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is there any requirement for a reposting or advertising or signage modification -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- for the marketing study? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. BOSI: We'll readvertise that. It's much easier now that we do it on the Clerk's website -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- is where we -- and it's so much easier. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Good for you. MR. BOSI: It's less costly to the applicant. It's only $50 compared to $1,000. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So let me just make sure I got it right here. On the 24th of September, we're going to have the 5 p.m. meeting? MR. BOSI: That's what -- we sent out an email, and we've identified a quorum, and we've got a night meeting for that, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Page 85 of 913 July 17, 2025 Page 82 of 82 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I somehow missed that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Me, too. Well, no. I answered the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I answered it, but I didn't know we got affirmation that it was -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We just got it. I think he just gave it to us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, okay. MR. BOSI: I don't think we sent out the email -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, we just got it, then. MR. BOSI: Let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't get -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No meeting on August 7th. MR. BOSI: August 7th, this is -- that's the last week that this room will be being tested about the technology improvements that are being upgraded. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And with no taxes on overtime now, so I won't get hit for overtime pay? MR. BOSI: You will not be -- you will not be assessed overtime pay upon your lucrative salaries as a planning commissioner. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. And that concludes today's meeting. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION __________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ___________ or as corrected ___________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 86 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 1 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2025 SUBJECT: PL20240010963 PUDZ- REZONE, DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owners: 1933 Davis, LLC Naples Marina Holdings, LLC 976 Tivoli Dr. 801 E. Venice Ave Naples, FL 34104 Venice, FL 34285 Contract Purchaser: Project Brookside JVDevCo, LP 194 Mahogany Court Naples, FL 34108 Agents: Robert Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Ellen Summers, AICP Coleman, Yovanovich & Bowman Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from a General Commercial (C-4) zoning district and General Commercial (C-4) zoning district within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay-Mixed Use District (GTZO-MXD) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district partially within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay-Mixed Use District (GTZO-MXD) for a project to be known as the Davis Brookside MPUD to allow 66 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 120-boat slip marina; and providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 2023-42. Naples Marina Holdings, Inc. owns five parcels, and 1933 Davis, LLC owns the sixth parcel. Page 87 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 2 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard, approximately 2/10th of one mile east of Tamiami Trail East in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 8.27± acres, Collier County, Florida (see location map below). PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is 8.27± acres and located on the north side of Davis Boulevard, approximately 575 feet east of the intersection of Davis Blvd. and Tamiami Trail E., and is comprised of six parcels. The Property includes approximately 4.04± acres of submerged land, and the remaining 4.23± acres are upland. The entirety of the Property is currently zoned C-4, with the upland portions of the Property located within the Gateway Triangle – Mixed Use District Zoning Overlay (GTZO-MXD). The Property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Page 88 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 3 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 Redevelopment Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of Collier County. The purpose and intent of the C-4 district is to provide the opportunity for the most diverse types of commercial activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions, at a larger scale than the C-1 through C-3 districts. As such, all the uses permitted in the C-1 through C-3 districts are also permitted in the C-4 district. Outside storage of merchandise and equipment is prohibited, except to the extent that it is associated with commercial activity conducted on-site, such as, but not limited to, automobile sales, marine vessels, and the renting and leasing of equipment. Activity centers are suitable locations for the uses permitted by the C-4 district because most activity centers are located at the intersection of arterial roads. Therefore, the uses in the C-4 district can be mostly sustained by the transportation network of major roads. The uplands portion of the PUD encompasses the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTZO-MXD). The purpose and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use developments and higher density residential uses. Developments will reflect traditional neighborhood design building patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi-story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper-level office and residential. Included in this District is the "mini triangle" formed by US 41 on the South, Davis Boulevard on the North, and Commercial Drive on the East, which is intended to serve as an entry statement for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA and a gateway to the City of Naples. To accommodate the proposed multi-family residential and marina, a rezoning is requested from C-4/GTZO-MXD to the Davis Brookside Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district. The MPUD is proposed to permit multi-family dwellings and limited commercial uses to a marina, water transportation of passengers, water transportation services, and amusement and recreation services as listed in Exhibit A of the Draft Ordinance attached to this staff report (Attachment A). For the proposed residential, the maximum zoned building height is 60 feet (consistent with the C-4/GTZO-MXD zoning district) with a proposed maximum actual height of 86 feet. For the proposed marina and water related uses, the maximum zoned building height is 56 feet (consistent with the C-4/GTZO-MXD zoning district) with a proposed maximum actual height of 86 feet. The submerged lands portion of the Property includes an existing marina with an existing approval of 120 boat slips (memorialized via Ordinance No. 2023-42), and the upland portion of the Property is currently developed with a mix of retail, commercial, and pawn shops, as well as a parking lot for the marina. There are three existing accesses from Davis Boulevard to the upland parcels of the Property, providing a single access to the pawn shop and shared access from Davis Boulevard to the marina, marina parking, and the remaining retail commercial area. The proposed PUD Master Plan depicts the development area for Tract M (Marina) at 4.17 acres and Tract R (Residential) at 4.10 acres to be developed for 66 multi-family (16 DU/AC on Tract R) and a maximum 120-boat marina. There are two proposed entrances into the Davis Brookside MPUD, with a potential future connection on the west side of the PUD near Davis Blvd. The proposed PUD Master Plan also shows a 10’ Type D landscape buffer at the southern boundary of the PUD fronting Davis Blvd, a 5’ Type A landscape buffer and a 10’ Type A landscape buffer at the western boundary, and a 5’ Type A landscape buffer on the eastern boundary. Page 89 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 4 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 1.To allow recreation facilities parking requirements to be zero (0) when structurally part of the principal multi-family structure. 2.To allow roofed and enclosed balconies to encroach a maximum of 5 feet beyond the bulkhead line in the location identified within Exhibit C of the MPUD and as depicted on Exhibit C-2 of the MPUD – Building Height Exhibit. 3.To allow principal structures to have a 20-foot setback from the boundary of the on-site preserve. Petitioners proposed Master Concept Plan (Exhibit A of the Draft Ordinance attached to this staff report) Three deviations are proposed: Page 90 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 5 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding the boundaries of Davis Brookside MPUD. The subject site zoned C-4/GTZO-MXD District, is developed with six parcels. It features an existing marina in the submerged lands and an existing mix of retail, commercial, pawn shop, and a parking lot in the uplands portion of the property. North: Developed with single family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Single Family (RSF-4) district South: Davis Boulevard (six lane arterial), then developed with multi-family dwellings and commercial uses, with a current zoning designation of Mini-Triangle MPUD (91.8 DU/AC), which is approved for multi-family residential, commercial, and office uses East: Brookside Drive (local road) developed with single family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Single Family (RSF-4) district West: Developed commercial within the City of Naples, with a current zoning designation of Highway Commercial (HC) District, then to the south is developed commercial within Collier County jurisdiction with a current zoning designation of General Commercial (C-4) district. Source: Aerial Photo (Bowman) Page 91 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 6 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located along the north side of Davis Boulevard, which, according to the Future Land Use Map, is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District as well as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Overlay District. Furthermore, this property was identified as improved property through the implementation of the Zoning Reevaluation in the early 90s, Ordinance No. 1990- 23, deeming the property “consistent by policy 5.11”. According to the Future Land Use Plan, the Urban designated areas are intended to accommodate most of the population growth, and new intensive land uses are to be located within them. Furthermore, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property or joint ventures between property owners while providing interconnections between property and neighborhoods. Properties that have been deemed consistent by policy were developed and therefore determined to be improved properties before the aforementioned zoning reevaluation from 1990 was adopted. The applicant has cited the allowance for increased density on this project to 16 units per acre by identifying the conversion of commercial density bonus for properties deemed consistent by policy. This density bonus states that if a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent by Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 1990-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for everyone (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. This is being achieved by re-designating 4.1 acres of the existing commercial zoning to a residential designation to allow the proposed 66-unit development. Staff agree that the provision of the conversion of a commercial bonus is applicable and is supported by the Future Land Use Plan. This rezone also includes the allowance for a 120-slip marina. This property has been the site of a marina since the 60s and was officially approved via rezone from a residential designation to commercial, via Ordinance No. 2023-42, to allow the reinstallation of wet slips in the western basin of the submerged lands after their removal due to hurricane damage. Within Urban designated areas, water-dependent and water-related land uses are permitted and encouraged within the coastal region of this District, making the addition of marina use consistent with the FLUE. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD rezone for 66 multi-family dwelling units, and a maximum 120-boat marina has been deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Comprehensive Planning staff conclude that the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as the proposed uses are considered complementary and compatible with surrounding development, Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s January 23, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Page 92 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 7 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a.For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b.For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c.For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff findings: According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) provided with this petition, the proposed Davis Brookside MPUD will generate +/- 50 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Davis Boulevard. This represents a reduction of +/- (80) fewer PM peak hour trips compared to the currently approved PUD. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2024 Level of Service (LOS) 2024 Remaining Capacity Davis Boulevard/12.0 US-41 to Airport Road 2,700/EB 36/EB C 1,075 1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is January 23, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Page 93 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 8 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff have found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 0.05 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.01 acres (25%) of native vegetation is required to be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff are required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or to amend PUDs shall be in the form of a PUD Master Plan of development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board, which in turn uses the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” In addition, staff offer the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed the petition to address ecological concerns. The property has been developed and consists of existing commercial uses; only a small area of mangroves exists on-site (0.05 acres). The required preserve is 0.01 acres (25% of 0.05 acres). The Master Concept Plan provides for 0.04 existing mangroves to remain in place. No listed animal or plant species were observed on the property. The property contains thirty-nine (39) existing dock slips; the applicant proposes to construct an additional seventy-three (73) multi- slip docking facility. The property is located adjacent to a man-made basin, which connects to Rock Creek. In accordance with LDC section 5.05.02, all proposed multi-slip docking facilities with ten or more slips are required to be reviewed for consistency with the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP). The MPP was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 1995. The MPP has been established to protect manatees by limiting slip counts in sensitive marine habitats and improving manatee awareness. The subject property has obtained a Collier County MPP determination, which resulted in a preferred ranking dated November 2, 2018 (PL20180002738). A Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan will be required at the SDP/PPL review in accordance with LDC 5.05.02.B. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Page 94 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 9 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 Utility Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available. Developer commitments are listed in “EXHIBIT F” of the MPUD document under the “UTILITIES” section. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utilities Department furnished a letter of water service availability on September 3, 2024. Landscape Review: The buffers labeled on the PUD Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. Stormwater Review: The proposed PUD request is not anticipated to create a stormwater management problem for the area. The site is currently covered by an FDEP permit (173190- 009-EI). A modification to this Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required prior to any proposed change in land use or development. That process will ensure consistency with all applicable state standards for stormwater systems. In addition, site development approval (SDP) will be required from Collier County to ensure that local development standards are maintained and that the proposed stormwater system design is consistent with relevant LDC and County Ordinances for water quality and water quantity during both the interim construction phase and final implementation. Stormwater staff have reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommend approval of this project. Bayshore Gateway Triangle (CRA): The subject property is located within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA. As such, the CRA serves as the primary vehicle for community and professional input on petitions. The agent presented the project at the March 6, 2025, CRA Meeting, and the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board passed a motion supporting the PUDZ request. (See Attachment B – Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Minutes) Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff have evaluated the proposed uses related to intensity and compatibility. Also, we reviewed the proposed development standards for the project. The land use pattern in the local area contains a mix of residential and commercial uses. The site is situated along a six-lane arterial roadway, and the current zoning of the property is C-4/GTZO-MXD zoning district that allows commercial uses delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions. The western side of the PUD is developed commercially within the City of Naples, and to the south of this property is developed commercially within Collier County jurisdiction. Development to the south is with multi-family dwellings and commercial uses. Developed to the north and east is with single family residential According to the Future Land Use Map, the subject property is located within the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district, as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay district. Furthermore, this property was identified as being developed and zoned for commercial prior to the adoption of the Future Land Use Plan, making it “consistent by policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23). The subject property consists of 8.27± acres, of which approximately 4.23± acres is uplands, and the rest is submerged lands, which cannot be included in the density calculation as it is Page 95 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 10 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 tidally affected. The applicant has proposed a redevelopment of the property to include 66 residential units and a maximum of 120 boat slips, of which a majority are reserved for marina use. This proposed density increase is being applied for in conjunction with the conversion of commercial density bonus which states that if a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent by Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re- evaluation Program then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. Comprehensive Planning staff agree that this provision of the density rating system is applicable to the property and will allow this rezone to move forward without the requirement of a GMPA. The uplands portion of the PUD encompasses the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay Mixed-Use Subdistrict (GTZO- MXD). The purpose and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use developments and higher density residential uses. Development will reflect traditional neighborhood design patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi-story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper-level office and residential. As such, the Davis Brookside MPUD is proposed to permit a maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat marina, consistent C-4/GTZO-MXD subdistrict allowances. Surrounding land use patterns consist of single family, multi-family, marina, and commercial uses. There are three existing accesses from Davis Boulevard to the upland parcels of the Property, providing single access to the pawn shop and shared access from Davis Boulevard to the marina, marina parking, and the remaining retail commercial area. The site is currently serviced by the City of Naples - Public Works and has provided a letter of availability for potable water service, dated September 3, 2024, see Attachment C. Proposed development standards are outlined in Exhibit B, List of Development Standards, in the draft ordinance attached to this staff report (Attachment A). The proposed development standards are generally consistent with C-4/GTZO-MXD District dimensional standards of the LDC Section 4.02.01, as summarized in the table on the next page: Page 96 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 11 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 Development Standards for Principal Uses RSF-4 Residential Single-Family District C-4 General Commercial Zoning District GTZO- MXD Mini- Triangle MPUD Proposed Davis Brookside MPUD Min. Lot Area 7,500 s.f. 10,000 s.f. n/a 20,000 s.f. n/a Min. Lot Width 75 feet corner 70 feet interior 100 feet Mixed-Use - 100 feet 100 feet n/a Max. Building Height 35 feet (zoned) 75 feet (zoned) Mixed-Use – 56 feet 160 feet (zoned) 162.8 feet (actual) Tract R: 60 feet (zoned) 86 feet (actual) Tract M: 56 feet (zoned) 86 feet (actual) Min. Front Yard 25 feet 50% of the building height, but not less than 25 feet. Structures 50 feet or more in height = 25 feet plus one additional foot of setback for each foot of building height over 50 feet Mixed Use - 6.5 feet Adjacent to a public street –20 feet All other perimeter yards – 5 feet South Property line (Davis Boulevard): Tract R and M – 6.5 feet Min. Side Yard 7.5 feet 10 feet of waterfront Commercial: 50% of the building height, but not less than 15 feet Residential: 25 feet Mixed-Use – 10 feet Adjacent to a public street –20 feet All other perimeter yards – 5 feet East and West Property Line: Tract R and M - 10 feet and 0 feet for marina Min. Rear Yard 25 feet Commercial: 50% of the building height, but not less than 15 feet Residential: 25 feet Mixed Use – 5 and feet Waterfront – 25 feet Adjacent to a public street –20 feet All other perimeter yards – 5 feet North Property Line and Waterfront: Tract R and M - 20 feet and 0 feet for marina Page 97 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 12 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: 1.The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Zoning Division staff has reviewed the proposed MPUD and finds suitability of the area for the 8.27± acre project to permit a maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat marina. According to the Future Land Use Map, the subject property is located within the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district, as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay district. Furthermore, this property was identified as being developed and zoned for commercial prior to the adoption of the Future Land Use Plan, making it “consistent by policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23). The subject property consists of 8.27± acres, of which approximately 4.23± acres is upland, and the rest is submerged lands, which cannot be included in the density calculation as it is tidally affected. The applicant has proposed a redevelopment of the property to include 66 residential units and a maximum of 120 boat slips, of which a majority are reserved for marina use. This proposed density increase is being applied for in conjunction with the conversion of commercial density bonus which states that if a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent by Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. Comprehensive planning staff agrees that this provision of the density rating system is applicable to the property and will allow this rezone to move forward without the requirement of a GMPA. The uplands portion of the PUD encompasses the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay Mixed-Use Subdistrict (GTZO- MXD). The purpose and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use developments and higher density residential uses. Developments will reflect traditional neighborhood design patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi-story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper-level office and residential. As such, the Davis Brookside MPUD is proposed to permit a maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat marina, consistent C-4/GTZO-MXD subdistrict allowances. The site is comprised of six parcels. Three of these parcels front Davis Boulevard, a six- way arterial road. The development pattern in the surrounding area is characterized by multi residential development to the south (Mini-Triangle PUD, also known as Aura and Ascent at Metropolitan Naples) and single family residential to the north and east. To the west are commercial lands within the City of Naples and Collier County jurisdictions. Two entrances are proposed into the PUD, and another potential future connection is proposed that will connect to the properties to the west. The site will Page 98 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 13 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 conform with the requirement to designate 30% of the site open space, surround the property to the north and west, and the buffering will meet or exceed LDC requirements. Prior to development, the stormwater management details will be evaluated both by the State (Environmental Resource Permit by the FDEP) and Collier County (Site Development Permit - SDP). Wastewater mains are available along the north side of Davis Boulevard. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utilities Department furnished a letter of water service availability on September 3rd, 2024. 2.Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which the County Attorney’s Office reviewed, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3.Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report. 4.The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers. 5.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. For Mixed-Use PUDs, 30% of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space according to LDC 4.07.02.G.2. The PUD Master Plan indicates compliance with this standard, with 30% to be provided as open space. Page 99 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 14 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 6.The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Wastewater mains are available along the north side of Davis Boulevard. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utility Department furnished a letter of water service availability on September 3, 2024. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impact will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property is proposed to permit a maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat marina. The subject site would likely not be able to expand north as that property is developed with single family residential. The properties to the south and east are developed with multifamily and single family residential, respectively. The property to the west is developed with commercial. Wastewater mains are available along the north side of Davis Boulevard. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utility Department furnished a letter of water service availability on September 3, 2024. 8.Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Three deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to MPUD. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: Page 100 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 15 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 1.Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) as outlined on page 6 of this staff report. 2.The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern of the surrounding area is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. According to the Future Land Use Map, the subject property is located within the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district, as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay district. Furthermore, this property was identified as being developed and zoned for commercial prior to the adoption of the Future Land Use Plan, making it “Consistent by Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23). The subject property consists of 8.27± acres of which approximately 4.23± acres are uplands, and the rest is submerged lands, which cannot be included in the density calculation as it is tidally affected. The applicant has proposed a redevelopment of the property to include 66 residential units and a maximum of 120 boat slips, of which a majority are reserved for marina use. This proposed density increase is being applied for in conjunction with the conversion of commercial density bonus which states that if a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent by Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. Comprehensive planning staff agrees that this provision of the density rating system is applicable to the property and will allow this rezone to move forward without the requirement of a GMPA. The uplands portion of the PUD encompasses the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay Mixed-Use Subdistrict (GTZO- MXD). The purpose and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use developments and higher density residential uses. Developments will reflect traditional neighborhood design patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi-story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper-level office and residential. As such, the Davis Brookside MPUD is proposed to permit a maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat marina, consistent with C-4/GTZO-MXD subdistrict allowances. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Should the rezoning to MPUD be approved, it would not create an isolated MPUD district, as to the south is the Mini Triangle MPUD (91.8 DU/AC) that is approved for multi-family residential, commercial, and office uses. The Mini Triangle MPUD and the proposed Davis Brookside MPUD are within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay Page 101 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 16 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 Mixed-Use Subdistrict (GTZO-MXD). The purpose and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use developments and higher density residential uses. Development will reflect traditional neighborhood design patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi-story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper-level office and residential. As such, the proposed PUD uses are consistent with the existing subdistrict allowances and further effectuate the intent of the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay district. 4.Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The MPUD boundary follows the boundaries of the existing parcels. 5.Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezone is not specifically necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The petitioner is seeking to construct 66 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 120-boat slip marina through a mixed-use planned unit development which is not permitted in the C-4 district. In order to increase the intensity on the property, adding multi-family residential and requesting deviations, a PUD rezoning is needed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a rezoning to MPUD. 6.Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The site will conform with the requirement to provide 30% of the site as open space. It’s important to note that in 2023, the Brookside Marina Rezone petition (PL20190001540) was approved on September 26, 2023, via Ordinance 2023-42. The conditions of approval from Ordinance 2023-42 were requested by the property owner with assistance and oversight from neighboring property owners located to the north and were approved via Ordinance 2023-42. These conditions of approval were carried over and incorporated into the Davis Brookside MPUD as developer commitments. 7.Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Page 102 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 17 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 8.Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD request is not anticipated to create a stormwater management problem for the area. An FDEP permit currently covers the site. A modification to this Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required prior to any proposed change in land use or development. That process will ensure consistency with all applicable state standards for stormwater systems. In addition, site development (SDP) approval will be required from Collier County, to ensure that local development standards are maintained and that proposed stormwater system is designed consistent with relevant LDC and County Ordinances for water quality and water quantity, during both the interim construction phase and final implementation. 9.Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this MPUD will reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. Development of the site will need to meet the site design standards as set forth in the LDC. 10.Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors, including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since market forces drive value determination. 11.Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The approval of the MPUD rezone request is not likely to deter development activity of the surrounding properties. 12.Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner, as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat marina are consistent with the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay district. Furthermore, this property was identified as being developed and zoned for commercial prior to the adoption of the Future Land Use Plan, making it “Consistent by Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance 90-23). The proposed uses are consistent with the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district, which constitutes a public policy statement supporting the development parameters being found to be appropriate, and the zoning action would subsequently be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further Page 103 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 18 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13.Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with the existing C-4 district zoning to develop commercial uses and the marina; however, the proposed marina and the multi- family residential mixed-use project cannot be achieved without this PUD rezoning action. 14.Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The subject site is in the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay District Commercial Mixed-Use, which is intended to provide for pedestrian-scaled, higher density residential and mixed- use development, employment and recreational opportunities, cultural and civic activities, and public places to serve residents of, and visitors to, the Bayshore Area. The proposed PUD uses are consistent with the existing subdistrict allowances and further effectuate the intent of the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district, as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay. Moreover, the abutting properties to the north and east are developed with single family residential and zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) district. It’s important to note that in 2023, the Brookside Marina Rezone petition (PL20190001540) was approved on September 26, 2023, via Ordinance 2023-42. The conditions of approval from Ordinance 2023-42 were requested by the property owner with assistance and oversight from neighboring property owners located to the north and were approved via Ordinance 2023-42. These conditions of approval were carried over and incorporated into the Davis Brookside MPUD as developer commitments. The petition proposes a 10’ Type D landscape buffer at the southern boundary of the PUD fronting Davis Boulevard, a 5’ Type A landscape buffer and a 10’ Type A landscape buffer at the western boundary, and a 5’ Type A landscape buffer on the eastern boundary. Compliance with the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use district, as well as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay, and implementation of enhanced development standards and commitments contribute to keeping in scale with the needs of the community. 15.Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed based on the location and proposed use of the subject site, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. Page 104 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 19 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 16.The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The site is already developed. The re-development will be evaluated relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17.The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that are responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff have concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. 18.Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking three deviations from the requirements of the LDC. These deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Proposed Deviation #1: (Multi-Family Dwellings – Parking Space Requirements) “Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 G. Table 17 – Parking Space Requirements, specifically for multi-family dwellings, which allows small-scale recreation facilities that are accessory to a multi-family project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities to instead allow recreation facilities parking requirements to be zero (0) when structurally part of the principal multi-family structure.” Petitioner’s Justification: The small-scale recreation facilities that will serve as accessory uses to the multi-family project are exclusive to the residents and will be structurally connected to the principal multi-family structure. As the small-scale recreation facilities are structurally connected to the principal multi-family dwelling structure and will be located within 200 feet of Page 105 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 20 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 the majority of the dwelling units, additional parking for residents to commute to the recreation area are not warranted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff see no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” The petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. Proposed Deviation #2: (Waterfront Lots – Design Standards) “Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.02.05.B.1. – Specific Design Standards for Waterfront Lots, which states “waterfront lands along which a bulkhead line has been established, buildings may be erected out to, but not beyond, the bulkhead line.” Instead, to allow roofed and enclosed balconies to encroach a maximum of 5 feet beyond the bulkhead line in the location identified within Exhibit C of the MPUD and as depicted on Exhibit C-2 of the MPUD – Building Height Exhibit.” Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation is requested to allow for a desirable amenity (i.e. large waterfront balconies) for the multi-family units that pose no impact to the surrounding area. The waterfront area is an existing marina basin that is a man-made drainage area. Submerged lands are fully deeded to and commonly owned by the upland entity and does not constitute a submerged land lease. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff see no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #3: (Preserve Setbacks) “Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC section 3.05.07.H.3.a. – Required Setbacks to Preserves, which states “All principal structures shall have a minimum 25-foot setback from the boundary of any preserve.” to instead allow principal structures to have a 20-foot setback from the boundary of the on-site preserve.” Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation is requested to allow the principal structure to encroach by 5 feet into the required preserve setback. The existing native vegetation on the site is comprised of 0.05 acres of mangroves, of which 25%, or 0.01 acres, is required to be designated as preserve. The site has been impacted for decades by development that consists of Page 106 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 21 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 an existing commercial marina, retail commercial uses in the upland area, and an existing gravel parking lot that abuts the mangroves with no buffer. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff recommends the APPROVAL of the deviation request (LDC 3.05.07.H.3.a). The existence of a parking lot has impacted the area adjacent to the proposed preserve. A reduction of five feet will allow for flexibility of design since the area has already been impacted. Environmental Services staff support the deviation request to allow the setback to be reduced from twenty-five feet (25’) to twenty feet (20’). As such, Environmental and Zoning Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on March 24, 2025, at New Hope Ministries – Room 209, located at 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:31 p.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m. There were 10 members of the public in attendance in person and 7 members of the public in attendance via Zoom. Ellen Summers, the agent, conducted the meeting, introducing the consultant team and staff, and gave a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation consisted of an overview of the proposed MPUD rezoning application. Following the agent’s presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The concerns discussed were parking, multifamily unit type, building heights, murals, airport noise, property ownership, variances, water retention, boat ramps, existing buildings to be demolished, unit prices, camera installations, AirBNB's, fueling pumps, development timelines, curb cuts/median cuts to Davis Boulevard, and residential building configurations. No commitments were made. A copy of the NIM Summary, sign-in sheet, NIM advertisements, and NIM presentation are included in Attachment D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project does require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is requesting a deviation to allow the preservation setback to be reduced from twenty-five feet (25’) to twenty feet (20’) as required by LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3.a. Environmental Services staff recommend approval of the proposed petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on July 18, 2025. Page 107 of 913 PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD Page 22 of 22 Revised: August 5, 2025 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) accept staff’s findings and forward Petition PUDZ-PL20240010963 Davis Brookside MPUD to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A.Proposed Ordinance B.Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA meeting minutes C.City of Naples – Letter of Availability Water Only D.Application/Backup Materials E.Hearing Advertising Sign Page 108 of 913 [24-CPS-02572/1955195/1]98 Brookside / PUDZ-PL20240010963 6/30/25 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4) ZONING DISTRICT AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE ZONING OVERLAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT (GTZO-MXD) TO THE MIXED USE PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT PARTIALLY WITHIN THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE ZONING OVERLAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT (GTZO-MXD) FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD TO ALLOW 66 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND A 120- BOAT SLIP MARINA; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 23-42. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 2/10 OF ONE MILE EAST OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 8.27± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20240010963] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP and Ellen Summers, AICP of Bowman Consulting, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Project Brookside JV DevCo, LP petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District and General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District within the Page 109 of 913 [24-CPS-02572/1955195/1]98 Brookside / PUDZ-PL20240010963 6/30/25 2 of 2 Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay-Mixed Use District (GTZO-MXD) to the Mixed Use Planning Unit Development (MPUD) partially within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay- Mixed Use District (GTZO-MXD) for a 8.27+/- acre project to be known as the Davis Brookside MPUD, to allow 66 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 120-boat slip marina, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 23-42, the Brookside Marina rezone is hereby repealed as to the property described in this Ordinance. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ______________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _____________________________ By: _______________________________ , Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - List of Development Standards Exhibit C1 - Master Plan Exhibit C2 - Building Height Exhibit Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Deviations Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments Page 110 of 913 Page 1 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx EXHIBIT A DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for the development of the MPUD shall be in accordance with the content of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. TRACT R (RESIDENTIAL) A. Principal Use: 1. Multi-family dwelling units, not to exceed 66 total dwelling units (16 dwelling units per gross acre of Tract R). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures permitted by right in this MPUD. 2. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents of Tract R only, such as swimming pools, fitness centers, dining facilities (which may include the sale of food and alcoholic beverages), sports courts, and clubhouse/recreation buildings. 3. Customary accessory uses and structures to residential units, including parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, signage, entry gates and gatehouses, administrative offices, and similar structures. 4. Stormwater management treatment, conveyance facilities, and structures, such as berms, swales, and outfall structures. 5. A maximum of 5 guest suites, as defined in LDC Section 1.08.02, for use of owner’s guests only. The guest suites shall not be rented or utilized by the general public and are excluded from the maximum dwelling unit count. 6. Restrooms or office space, not to exceed 260 square feet, to serve the Residential Tract and the Marina Tract of the MPUD. The 260 square feet associated with the restrooms or office space have been excluded from the residential density calculation for purposes of the commercial conversion bonus density in the Growth Management Plan. Page 111 of 913 Page 2 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx TRACT M (MARINA) The entirety of Tract M shall not exceed 120 wet slips. A. Principal Uses: 1. Marina (4493 and 4499 – except canal operation, cargo salvaging, ship dismantling, lighterage, marine salvaging, marine wrecking and steamship leasing), not to exceed 120 wet slips. Of the permitted 120 wet slips, up to 74 may be dedicated as commercial wet slips, and additional commercial wet slips may be dedicated should sufficient off-site parking be approved, at time of SDP as determined by the County Manager or designee. The remaining wet slips may be designated accessory wet slips for the residential units of Tract R. 2. Water Transportation of Passengers (4489 – except airboats/swamp buggy rides). 3. Water Transportation Services (4499), limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure), boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats. 4. Amusement and Recreation Services (7999), limited to recreational/pleasure boat rentals, operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals (except not for liveaboard purposes within the MPUD), and tourist guides. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses, including, but not limited to, boat slips (wet), piers, walkways, davits, boat lifts, boat lift canopies, and boat ramps. No boats shall be permitted to be docked to any marina structure, except to the dedicated 120 wet slips. Page 112 of 913 Page 3 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx EXHIBIT B DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Residential and Marina Development Standards The table below sets forth the development standards for the uses within the Davis Brookside MPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC, including LDC Section 4.02.16 – Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area, in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Tract R Tract M PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MIN. LOT AREA N/A N/A N/A N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH N/A N/A N/A N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 700 S.F. N/A N/A N/A MINIMUM YARD (EXTERNAL – MEASURED FROM THE PUD BOUNDARY) WATERFRONT1 20’ / 0’ 10’ 20’ / 0’ for Marina 10’ / 0’ for Marina NORTH PROPERTY LINE 20’ / 0’ for Marina SPS 20’ / 0’ for Marina SPS SOUTH PROPERTY LINE (DAVIS BLVD.)2 6.5’ SPS 6.5’ SPS EAST PROPERTY LINE 10’/ 0’ for Marina SPS 10’/ 0’ for Marina SPS WEST PROPERTY LINE 10’/ 0’ for Marina SPS 10’/ 0’ for Marina SPS PRESERVE SETBACKS3 20’ 10’ 20’ 10’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ SPS 10’ SPS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT4 Zoned 60’ SPS 56’ SPS Actual 86’ SPS 86’ SPS N/A - not applicable; SPS - same as principal structures; S.F - square feet. Notes: 1. Pursuant to LDC section 4.02.05, waterfront lands along which a bulkhead line has been established, buildings may be erected out to, but not beyond the bulkhead line, except as provided within Exhibit E – MPUD Deviations. 2. In no case shall the required minimum yard permit the encroachment of a structure within a utility easement unless a letter of no objection or utility deviation is provided by the easement holder at time of SDP. 3. Setbacks from Preserves shall be set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07 H.3., except as otherwise provided within Exhibit E- MPUD Deviations, and balconies may encroach into the required preserve setback, up to the preserve boundary, where the vertical clearance of the native vegetation below is maintained. 4. Pursuant to LDC Section 4.02.01 D.2, and as depicted on sheet 4 of Exhibit C – MPUD Master Plan, the zoned building height shall be measured from the first finished floor to allow on-street parking within the principal structure. Page 113 of 913 Page 4 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx EXHIBIT C DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD MASTER PLAN Page 114 of 913 Page 5 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx Page 115 of 913 Page 6 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx Page 116 of 913 Page 7 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx EXHIBIT D DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL I: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, EASTERLY 862.10 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2, NORTHERLY 41.51 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-858) AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 11. PAGE 59, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. THENCE CONTINUING PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2, NORTHERLY 200.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHERLY DEFLECTING 0°39'20" TO THE RIGHT, 270.05 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WI TH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID DAVIS BOULEVARD, EASTERLY, DEFLECTING 88°52'30" TO THE RIGHT, 195.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, DEFLECTING 90°17'30" TO THE RIGHT, 470.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID DAVIS BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WESTERLY 200.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL II: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, EASTERLY 862.10 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SAID SECTION 2, NORTHERLY 41.51 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-858) AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED IN DEED BOOK II. PAGE 59, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, EASTERLY 200.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. THENCE NORTHERLY DEFLECTING 89°42'30" TO THE LEFT 470.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY DEFLECTING 89°42'30" TO THE RIGHT, 70.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTHERLY DEFLECTING 90°17'30" TO THE RIGHT, 470.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID DAVIS BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WESTERLY 70.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Page 117 of 913 Page 8 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx PARCEL III: ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, NORTH 89°38'05" EAST 662.10 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, NORTH 00°17'20" WEST 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. 2, PAGE 454, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, NORTH 00°17'20" WEST FOR 202.40 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS AS DESCRIBED IN SAID O.R. 2, PAGE 454 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED: THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, NORTH 00°17'20" WEST 267.60 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R.118, PAGE 361, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. 236, PAGE 681, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, NORTH 00°17'20" WEST 160.26 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 3, PLAT NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 99, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION NORTH 89°37'20" EAST 100.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN SAID O.R. BOOK 236, PAGE 681; THENCE SOUTH 00°17'20" EAST AND PARALLEL WITH WEST SAID LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, A DISTANCE OF 159.53 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN SAID O.R. 118, PAGE 361; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN SAID O.R. 118, PAGE 361, NORTH 89°12'16" EAST 103.10 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN SAID O.R. 118, PAGE 361; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00°22'00" WEST 267.97 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN SAID O.R. BOOK 2, PAGE 454; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89°18'29" WEST 200.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; Page 118 of 913 Page 9 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx PARCEL IV: THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; BOTH LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING PARCELS OF LAND: 1. LANDS DESCRIBED IN OR BOOK 2, PAGE 454, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; 2. LANDS DESCRIBED IN OR BOOK 118, PAGE 361, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; 3. LANDS DESCRIBED IN OR BOOK 236, PAGE 681, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; 4. ANY PORTION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE FOREGOING LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 233, PAGE 228, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 5. DAVIS BOULEVARD DESCRIBED IN RIGHT OF WAY DEED RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 11, PAGE 59, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL V: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89°38'10" EAST DISTANCE 662.10 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE NORTH 0°16'20" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 242.25 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 89°16'10" EAST 200 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 0°16'20" EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, 243.53 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 89°38'10" WEST, ALONG SAID SECTION LINE, 200 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THEREFROM A STRIP OF LAND DEEDED BY NAPLES LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO THE COUNTY OF COLLIER FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES AS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 11, PAGE 59, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Page 119 of 913 Page 10 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx EXHIBIT E DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04 G. Table 17 – Parking Space Requirements, specifically for multi-family dwellings, which allows small-scale recreation facilities that are accessory to a multi-family project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities to instead allow recreation facilities parking requirements to be zero (0) when structurally part of the principal multi- family structure. 2. Deviation from LDC section 4.02.05 B.1. – Specific Design Standards for Waterfront Lots, which states “waterfront lands along which a bulkhead line has been established, buildings may be erected out to, but not beyond, the bulkhead line.” to instead allow roofed and enclosed balconies to encroach a maximum of 5 feet beyond the bulkhead line in the location identified within Exhibit C of the MPUD and as depicted on Exhibit C-2 of the MPUD – Building Height Exhibit. 3. Deviation from LDC section 3.05.07 H.3.a. – Required Setbacks to Preserves, which states “All principal structures shall have a minimum 25-foot setback from the boundary of any preserve.” to instead allow principal structures to have 20-foot setback from the boundary of the on-site preserve. Page 120 of 913 Page 11 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx EXHIBIT F DAVIS BROOKSIDE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS The purpose of this section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. A. GENERAL 1. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for MPUD monitoring until close-out of the MPUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all MPUD commitments until close-out of the MPUD. At the time of this MPUD approval, the Managing Entity is Project Brookside Developments LP. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released from its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes an acknowledgment of the commitment required by the MPUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the MPUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of MPUD commitments. 2. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligation imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. (Section 125.022, FS) 3. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. B. TRANSPORTATION 1. The maximum total daily trip generation for the MPUD shall not exceed 50 two- way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 2. At time of Plat or SDP, the owner of Tract R will convey an access easement to the owner of Tract M so that it is not landlocked. Page 121 of 913 Page 12 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx C. UTILITIES 1. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by the County Manager or Designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 2. The Davis Brookside MPUD is located within the City of Naples potable water services area. The City of Naples Utilities Department has verified that there is adequate potable water capacity to serve this project. Prior to approval of a subdivision plat or SDP, the Developer shall provide written documentation that the development plans for the plat or SDP, as the case may be, have been reviewed and approved by the City of Naples Utility Department with respect to the provision of potable water service to the project. D. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Native vegetation preservation will be located on-site, as depicted on the Master Plan. E. MARINA (TRACT M) 1. The Owner, its successors or assigns, will ensure that access to/from Brookside residents’ dock is not impeded and that the dock/pier structures associated with the 39 existing wet slips along the southern shoreline of the subject property will not be extended any further north into the marina basin. 2. The Owner, its successors or assigns, will ensure that Freedom Boat Club installs two cameras to monitor the marina basin no later than the date of completed of the installation of the 73 additional wet slips in the western basin, at no cost to the County or the Brookside residents. 3. The Owner, its successors or assigns, will offer to install a third camera on the property at 1736 Harbor Lane (to monitor vessel activity entering and exiting Rock Creek), subject to the property owner’s consent and at no cost to the County or Brookside residents. If the owner of 1736 Harbor Lane accepts the offer and consents, the camera will be installed no later than the date of completion of the installation of the 73 additional wet slips in the western basin. Page 122 of 913 Page 13 of 13 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y925N6VT\Davis Brookside MPUD (PL-20240010963)(6-27-2025)_.docx 4. The Owner, its successors or assigns, will ensure that Freedom Boat Club sends a manned vessel to the entrance of Rock Creek to monitor activity at anticipated high use times, such as holiday weekends or during water events such as the “Great Dock Canoe Races”. 5. The Owner will offer 10 additional cameras for donation to waterfront property owners along Harbor Lane, on a first come/first serve basis, at no cost to the County or the Brookside residents, no later than the date of completion of the installation of the 73 additional wet slips in the western basin. 6. The Owner will designate and reserve one wet slip to a marine law enforcement vessel. 7. Liveaboards are prohibited from mooring at wet slips or anchoring in the canal or marina basin. 8. Personal watercraft (e.g., Jet Skis, Sea-Doos, WaveRunners, etc.) are prohibited from mooring at wet slips or anchoring in the canal or marina basin. 9. The maximum number of boat wet slips shall not exceed 120. 10. Each wet slip is limited to one boat. Page 123 of 913 Bayshore CRA Office: 3335 Tamiami Trail E, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-252-8844 Online: www.bayshorecra.com March 06, 2025, Meeting Minutes BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE March 06, 2025, MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman, Maurice Guiterrez, at 6:01 p.m. I. Meeting Called to Order: Meeting called to order by Maurice Guiterrez @ 6:01pm. II. Roll Call: Advisory Board Members Present: Steve Rigsbee, Maurice Gutierrez, Al Schantzen, James Talano, Kristin Hood, Mike Sherman and Sam Saad Jr., Ron Fowle, Jr. Excused Absence, Bonnie Hawley Staff present in Person: John Dunnuck, CRA Director Shirley Garcia, CRA/MSTU Manager Tami Scott, CRA/MSTU Project Manager Kizzie Fowler, Intern III. Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance Maurice Guiterrez led the Pledge of Allegiance IV. Adoption of Agenda: Motion made by Al Schantzen to accept the agenda; second by James Talano; approved unanimously. 7-0 V. Public to be Heard (Non-Agenda Items) a. Branimir Brankov resident of Danford St. requested that staff add as a discussion item on April 1, CRA public meeting a review and discussion about the Clerk’s March Newsletter regarding Bayview Park because he read the article as being completely different from the discussion with the City of Naples and the CRA Board and since staff did not have an opportunity to read the newsletter with its content regarding Bayview Park we asked for a consensus to add as an agenda item. The Advisory Board agreed to add it but requested the article ahead of time. VI. Approval of Consent Agenda: CRA Action: Motion made by Al Schantzen to accept the agenda; second by James Talano; approved unanimously 7-0 VII. County Agencies and Presentations: Page 124 of 913 Bayshore CRA Office: 3335 Tamiami Trail E, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-252-8844 Online: www.bayshorecra.com a. Public Safety Report by Corporal Spartz: Corporal Spartz provided updates on tracking speeders in the community. Corporal Spartz stated that there is a heavy presence of law enforcement in the community to help combat speeders. Corporal Spartz noted the presence of law enforcement is helping to decrease number of speeders and accidents throughout the county. Corporal Spartz asked if there were any question, he would gladly answer them. b. Collier County Wastewater Matt Collins: Matt Collins did not have any updates at the time; however, he asked if there are any questions he will answer. c. Collier County Code Enforcement, Adam Collier E. Naples Supervisor Adam Collier noted that code enforcement has been getting a high volume of calls for numerous issues throughout the county. Adam Collier noted that code enforcement has issued a notice of violation to Rebecca’s for having valet on a privately owned vacant lot next to her business, which is a violation for both the property and business owner. d. Brookside Marina MPUD Ellen Summers, Bowman Consulting Ellen Summers provided information on the Brookside Marina project and was asking for support from the CRA board for this project. Ms. Summers noted the construction for this project will be located on the northside of Davis Blvd. and the development will be an urban residence with mix use. Ms. Summers noted the rezoning for the development was approved in 2023, as a mix use property. Ms. Summers referenced the enhanced landscaping. Kristin Hood asked if restaurants will be open to the public? Mrs. Summers replied, no, only for the residence. Mrs. Summers also noted that there will be designated parking spaces for the residences. Mrs. Summers noted the project will not have any connection to wastewater, and there will be no stores or offices on the property. Kristin Hood had concerns about the traffic as there are already five projects in progress near Brookside Marina project. John Dunnuck noted the Brookside Marina has low density and is a great project for the community. CRA Action: Motion made by Maurice Guiterrez to support project and requested they address any community concerns; second by Sam Saad; Al Schantzen thinks it’s best to wait until after the development meet with the community for a schedule neighborhood informational meeting on March 24, 2025, before voting. Passed 6-1 Page 125 of 913 Bayshore CRA Office: 3335 Tamiami Trail E, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-252-8844 Online: www.bayshorecra.com e. Development Report by Laura DeJohn, Johnson Engineering Laura DeJohn noted that there was an administrative request for a variance for a fence placed on Kirktwood Ave. Ms. DeJohn noted that there will be a new car sales business on 2281 Lindwood Ave. and to expect variance to go higher that has already been approved. VIII. Old Business: a. 17 Acre Boardwalk Update Tami Scott discussed the 17-acre boardwalk has been in progress for five weeks. Ms. Scott noted that exotics has been removed and four acres has been completed. Mrs. Scott noted the construction has moved to the Northern portion of the project. Mrs. Scott noted that that big wood chips has been left on site. Mrs. Scott noted that 4 acres found of concrete construction debris. Mrs. Scott noted the CRA has received first payment of $60,000. Mrs. Scott noted that she had a great meeting with Naples Botanical Garden regarding getting the mulch that was left on site. Mrs. Scott noted that there is a 12-month project in progress in which she will start having bi-weekly meeting with contractors. IX. New Business a. FY25/26 Goals and Priorities Worksheet Shirley Garcia provided project information on the worksheet with updated costs and expenditures to date. Will provide updates as needed. X. Financials- Project Update a. Mr. Dunnuck noted that the financials are in line with the projects, and he will provide a road map for more projects coming online. XI. Advisory and Communication a. Public Comments None. b. Correspondence 1. Cleanup- Great American Cleanup- March 22, 2025 & April 8, 2025 2. St. Matthews Justin Village Article 3. South Bayshore Dr. Neighborhood Clean-Up April 7, 2025-10am-2pm Page 126 of 913 Bayshore CRA Office: 3335 Tamiami Trail E, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-252-8844 Online: www.bayshorecra.com XII. Next Meeting: April 1, 2025 @ 6pm. Tuesday BCC Boardroom XIII. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. _______________________________________ Chairman, Maurice Gutierrez Page 127 of 913 City of Naples PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES TELEPHONE (239) 213-4745 ● FACSIMILE (239) 213-4799 380 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE ● NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 September 3, 2024 Jeffrey Anez-Zubieta, E.I. J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9961 Interstate Commerce Drive, Suite 230 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone: (239) 405-9148 Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for Proposed 67-Unit Multi-Family Residential Project Site Addresses: 1933 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 - Folio #: 00386320006 1949 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 - Folio #: 00386160004 2015 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 - Folio #: 00386280007 (sent via email: janez@jreeng.com) Dear Mr. Anez-Zubieta: We are in receipt of your request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic, fire, and/or irrigation use) for a proposed 67-unit multi-family residential project, received via email on August 15, 2024. This office has reviewed the subject site addresses for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject properties are located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. 4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project’s engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer’s responsibility to design, permit and construct. Page 128 of 913 Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do. Page 2 of 2 Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at (239) 213-4713 or e-mail mbaines@naplesgov.com. Sincerely, Michelle Baines, P.E Public Works Deputy Director – Utilities Cc: Bob Middleton, Public Works Director Annette Keeney, Utilities Permit Coordinator Page 129 of 913 Page 130 of 913 Page 131 of 913 Page 132 of 913 Page 133 of 913 Page 134 of 913 Page 135 of 913 Page 136 of 913 Page 137 of 913 Page 138 of 913 Page 139 of 913 Page 140 of 913 Page 141 of 913 Page 142 of 913 Page 143 of 913 Page 144 of 913 Page 145 of 913 Page 146 of 913 Page 147 of 913 Page 148 of 913 Page 149 of 913 Page 150 of 913 Page 151 of 913 Page 152 of 913 Page 153 of 913 Page 154 of 913 Page 155 of 913 Page 156 of 913 Page 157 of 913 Page 158 of 913 Page 159 of 913 Page 160 of 913 Page 161 of 913 Page 162 of 913 Page 163 of 913 Page 164 of 913 Page 165 of 913 Page 166 of 913 Page 167 of 913 Page 168 of 913 Page 169 of 913 Page 170 of 913 Page 171 of 913 Page 172 of 913 Page 173 of 913 Page 174 of 913 Page 175 of 913 Page 176 of 913 Page 177 of 913 Page 178 of 913 Page 179 of 913 Page 180 of 913 Page 181 of 913 Page 182 of 913 Page 183 of 913 Page 184 of 913 Page 185 of 913 Page 186 of 913 Page 187 of 913 Page 188 of 913 Page 189 of 913 Page 190 of 913 Page 191 of 913 Page 192 of 913 Page 193 of 913 Page 194 of 913 Page 195 of 913 Page 196 of 913 Page 197 of 913 Page 198 of 913 Page 199 of 913 Page 200 of 913 Page 201 of 913 Page 202 of 913 Page 203 of 913 Page 204 of 913 Page 205 of 913 Page 206 of 913 Page 207 of 913 Page 208 of 913 Page 209 of 913 Page 210 of 913 Page 211 of 913 Page 212 of 913 Page 213 of 913 Page 214 of 913 Page 215 of 913 Page 216 of 913 Page 217 of 913 Page 218 of 913 Page 219 of 913 Page 220 of 913 Page 221 of 913 Page 222 of 913 Page 223 of 913 Page 224 of 913 Page 225 of 913 Page 226 of 913 Page 227 of 913 Page 228 of 913 Page 229 of 913 Page 230 of 913 Page 231 of 913 Page 232 of 913 Page 233 of 913 Page 234 of 913 Page 235 of 913 Page 236 of 913 Page 237 of 913 Page 238 of 913 Page 239 of 913 Page 240 of 913 Page 241 of 913 Page 242 of 913 Page 243 of 913 Page 244 of 913 Page 245 of 913 Page 246 of 913 Page 247 of 913 Page 248 of 913 Page 249 of 913 Page 250 of 913 Page 251 of 913 Page 252 of 913 Page 253 of 913 Page 254 of 913 Page 255 of 913 Page 256 of 913 Page 257 of 913 Page 258 of 913 Page 259 of 913 Page 260 of 913 Page 261 of 913 Page 262 of 913 Page 263 of 913 Page 264 of 913 Page 265 of 913 Page 266 of 913 Page 267 of 913 Page 268 of 913 Page 269 of 913 Page 270 of 913 Page 271 of 913 Page 272 of 913 Page 273 of 913 Page 274 of 913 Page 275 of 913 Page 276 of 913 Page 277 of 913 Page 278 of 913 Page 279 of 913 Page 280 of 913 Page 281 of 913 Page 282 of 913 Page 283 of 913 Page 284 of 913 Page 285 of 913 Page 286 of 913 Page 287 of 913 Page 288 of 913 Page 289 of 913 Page 290 of 913 Page 291 of 913 Page 292 of 913 Page 293 of 913 Page 294 of 913 Page 295 of 913 Page 296 of 913 Page 297 of 913 Page 298 of 913 Page 299 of 913 Page 300 of 913 Page 301 of 913 Page 302 of 913 Page 303 of 913 Page 304 of 913 Page 305 of 913 Page 306 of 913 Page 307 of 913 Page 308 of 913 Page 309 of 913 Page 310 of 913 Page 311 of 913 Page 312 of 913 Page 313 of 913 Page 314 of 913 Page 315 of 913 Page 316 of 913 Page 317 of 913 Davis Brookside MPUD Rezone Neighborhood Information Meeting Monday, March 24, 2025 PL20240010963 Page 318 of 913 Project Team •Applicant – Project Brookside Developments, LP •Gavin Gillette, Manager, Gillette Development •Daniel Zuvia, Senior Development Manager, Gillette Development •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester (CYK) •Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Senior Vice President, Bowman •Ellen Summers, AICP, Lead Planner, Bowman •Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. •Chris Mitchell, PE, J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. •Alvaro Yusty, PE, J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. •Jeremy Sterk, Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 2 Page 319 of 913 General Information •Required Neighborhood Information Meeting (must be held after 1 st round of staff review & prior to Planning Commission public hearing). •Public hearings (CCPC & BCC) have not been scheduled. •We offer Zoom participation as a courtesy. On occasion there have been issues associated with this technology. We have worked hard to avoid such issues, arriving hours before this meeting to be sure everything is functioning properly. •We are also recording this meeting (both audio and video). After the team presentation, we will open the meeting for comments and questions. You must use the microphone, identify yourself, and indicate where you live. •No comments or questions will be recognized if not made on the microphone. •We will be happy to make this recording available to anyone. You can email us at NIM- SWFL@bowman.com to request a link or to ask any additional questions you may have. 3 Page 320 of 913 Location 4 Page 321 of 913 Future Land Use 5 Page 322 of 913 Zoning 6 Page 323 of 913 Existing Zoning •C-4 Zoning: intended to provide the opportunity for the most diverse types of commercial activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions, at a larger scale than the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts. •C-4 uses may include (to name a few): Automotive services; Automotive vehicle and equipment dealers; Carwashes; Drycleaning plants; Eating and drinking establishments; Equipment rental and leasing; Gasoline Fueling Stations; Etc. •Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay intends to “…encourage revitalization of the Gateway Triangle area, promote traditional urban design…provide appropriate landscaping and buffering…” 7 Page 324 of 913 History of Property •Several of the subject property parcels have been utilized as a marina, that included both wet- and dry-boat slips, for decades. •Many of the existing commercial structures have been in existence for decades. •The submerged lands portion of the site was rezoned in 2023 from RSF-4 to the C-4 Zoning District, by way of Ordinance 2023- 42. •Ordinance 2023-42 included a list of conditions that have been carried over to the proposed MPUD. 8 Page 325 of 913 Request •Rezone the property from the C-4 / C-4-GTZO-MXD zoning district to the Davis Brookside Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, remaining within the GTZO-MXD. •MPUD will permit a maximum of 66 multi-family dwelling units and a maximum 120-boat slip marina. •The proposed density is permitted based on the conversion of commercial density bonus that allows for up to 16 dwelling units per acre for every one acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning 9 Page 326 of 913 Permitted Uses •Tract R: •Multi-family dwelling units, not to exceed 66 units •Associated accessory uses: recreational uses and facilities, dining facilities, swimming pools, fitness centers, and clubhouse/recreation buildings •Tract M (consistent with Ord. 23-42): •Marina, not to exceed 120 wet slips •Water Transportation of Passengers (except airboats/swamp buggy rides). •Water Transportation Services, limited to boat cleaning, boat hiring (except pleasure), boat livery (except pleasure), commercial boat rental, and chartering of commercial boats. •Amusement and Recreation Services, limited to recreational/pleasure boat rentals, operation of charter or party fishing boats, canoe/kayak/rowboat rentals, houseboat rentals (except not for liveaboard purposes within the MPUD), and tourist guides. 10 Page 327 of 913 Page 328 of 913 Development Standards 12 Page 329 of 913 Developer Commitments •Transportation: •A maximum total daily trip generation for the MPUD shall not exceed 50 two-way PM Peak Hour Net Trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval •Marina (Tract M): consistent with existing zoning ordinance (Ord.23-42) •The Owner, its successors or assigns, will ensure that access to/from Brookside residents’ dock is not impeded and that the dock/pier structures associated with the 39 existing wet slips along the southern shoreline of the subject property will not be extended any further north into the marina basin. •The Owner, its successors or assigns, will ensure that Freedom Boat Club installs two cameras to monitor the marina basin no later than the date of completed of the installation of the 73 additional wet slips in the western basin, at no cost to the County or the Brookside residents. 13 Page 330 of 913 Developer Commitments (Tract M continued) •The Owner, its successors or assigns, will offer to install a third camera on the property at 1736 Harbor Lane (to monitor vessel activity entering and exiting Rock Creek), subject to the property owner’s consent and at no cost to the County or Brookside residents. If the owner of 1736 Harbor Lane accepts the offer and consents, the camera will be installed no later than the date of completion of the installation of the 73 additional wet slips in the western basin. •The Owner, its successors or assigns, will ensure that Freedom Boat Club sends a manned vessel to the entrance of Rock Creek to monitor activity at anticipated high use times, such as holiday weekends or during water events such as the “Great Dock Canoe Races”. •The Owner will offer 10 additional cameras for donation to waterfront property owners along Harbor Lane, on a first come/first serve basis, at no cost to the County or the Brookside residents, no later than the date of completion of the installation of the 73 additional wet slips in the western basin. •The Owner will designate and reserve one wet slip to a marine law enforcement vessel. •Liveaboards are prohibited from mooring at wet slips or anchoring in the canal or marina basin. •Personal watercraft (e.g., Jet Skis, Sea-Doos, WaveRunners, etc.) are prohibited from mooring at wet slips or anchoring in the canal or marina basin. •Each wet slip is limited to one boat. 14 Page 331 of 913 Architectural Renderings 15 Architectural renderings are conceptual in nature. Page 332 of 913 Architectural Renderings 16 Architectural renderings are conceptual in nature. Page 333 of 913 Architectural Renderings 17 Architectural renderings are conceptual in nature. Page 334 of 913 Architectural Renderings 18 Architectural renderings are conceptual in nature. Page 335 of 913 Process to Amend the GMP and Rezone to PUD •Receive staff comments and respond to staff comments. •Hold a Neighborhood Meeting – this meeting. •Receive a “finding of sufficiency” from staff. •Hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission – the planning commission makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. •Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. The board decides to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. Page 336 of 913 Questions? 20 Page 337 of 913 Page 338 of 913 Page 339 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 1 of 18 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2025 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Owners/Applicant: Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 1145 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34113 Agents: Christoper O. Scott, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Peninsula Engineering Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (BCC), amending Ordinance Number 10-06, as amended, the Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development (PUD), to increase the number of dwelling units from 231 to 550 with an Affordable Housing Agreement, to increase the maximum building heights, to add deviations, and to revise the Master Plan; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located within the Collier Boulevard Interchange Innovation Zone Zoning Overlay (CBIIZO), partially within Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones W-3 and W-4. Page 340 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 2 of 18 Page 341 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 3 of 18 MASTER PLANPage 342 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 4 of 18 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 47.05± acres, is located on the north side of Interstate I-75, ½ mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), and is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Magnolia Pond PUD currently allows for 231 residential dwelling units (4.9 dwelling units per acre (4.9 DUAs) and Assisted Living Facilities (ALF). (See Attachment B-Ordinance 10-06.) The petitioner proposes 550 dwelling units (11.7 DUAs) by utilizing the Growth Management Plan’s Density Rating System, including the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The PUD’s affordable housing component will allow 30% of the 550 residential dwelling units, or 165 units, to be reserved for individuals earning at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The affordable housing units will be located on the 19.6-acre property on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive. Market Rate units will be located on the remaining 27.5 acres of property located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive. The PUD will continue to allow for an ALF. The Development Standards Table I Exhibit B has been modified to increase the multi-family building height from 38 feet zoned height and 45 feet actual height to 57 feet zoned height and 65 feet actual height. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of the proposed residential tracts, lake tracts, and preserve area. The petitioner has provided the required minimum of 60% open space. A 9.64± acre portion of the open space will be designated preserve. For further information, see Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: A 165-foot-wide canal, then single-family residences with a zoning designation of Residential Single-Family 3 (RSF-3) East: A Public Elementary School and approximately 400 to 750-foot-wide preserves, and then multi-family residential units with zoning designations of Golden Gate Commerce Park MPUD (7 DUAs) and Collier Boulevard Mixed-Use Commercial Center MPUD (16 DUAs) South: I-75, a 6-lane divided 330-foot-wide Interstate roadway West: A Public High School, and then a water management pond with a zoning designation of Agriculture (A) Page 343 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 5 of 18 Aerial Photo GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. For further information, please see Attachment C-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s March 14, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted SUBJECT PROPERTY Page 344 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 6 of 18 Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impact if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b.For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c.For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff Findings: According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) provided with this petition, the proposed Magnolia Pond PUDA development will generate a projected total of +/- 246 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Collier Boulevard/SR-951, which represents an additional +/-115 PM peak hour trips, beyond the currently approved +/-131 PM peak hour trips for this PUD. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2024 Level of Service (LOS) 2024 Remaining Capacity Collier Boulevard SR- 951/32.1 Green Blvd to Golden Gate Pkwy. 2,300/NB 7/NB C 689 Collier Boulevard SR- 951/32.2 Golden Gate Pkwy. to Golden Gate Canal 2,300/NB 13/NB D 322 Collier Boulevard SR- 951/ 32.3 Golden Gate Canal to I-75 3,600/NB 50/NB C 1,470 Collier Boulevard SR- 951/33.0 I-75 to Davis Blvd 3,600/NB 36/NB E(2) 159 Collier Boulevard SR- 951/34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,000/NB 14/NB F(3) (249) Davis Boulevard/16.2 Collier Blvd to Radio Rd 3,300/W/B 13/WB B 1,845 1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is March 14, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2.Road link is FDOT jurisdiction. Expected deficiency in 2027 is by Trip Bank not caused by this development. The current I-75 interchange improvements are anticipated to address the LOS. 3.Existing deficiency is by Trip Bank not caused by this development. The current I-75 interchange improvements are anticipated to address the LOS. Page 345 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 7 of 18 Based on the TIS provided by the applicant and the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of 38.54± acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 9.64± acres (25%) preserve is required; and shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who, in turn, use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below under the heading “Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The PUD preserve requirement is 9.64 acres (25% of 38.54 acres), which meets the minimum 25 percent native preservation requirement in accordance with LDC 3.05.07. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the preservation requirements of the PUD document, Ordinance 2010-06. The only change is the reconfiguration of the preservation location. The preserve will wrap around the perimeter of the east, south, and west boundaries of the proposed development to accommodate a stormwater pond and residential structures located in the southern tract of the development. The native vegetation will be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. The environmental data indicates the proposed project is in an area that has the potential to contain a variety of protected animal species. The listed species survey revealed that two gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows were observed onsite. The burrows are in the central portion of the subject property (Page 26 of 67 of the Environmental Data). A gopher tortoise relocation permit will need to be obtained from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) prior to approval of the first SDP and/or PPL. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates the presence of Black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan must be included at PPL or SDP review. The proposed project is located within the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). The property contains 13 observed cavity trees (Page 26 of 67 of the Environmental Data). A Bonneted Bat visual survey was conducted on the subject property; however, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized for nesting. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommend approval of the proposed petition. Page 346 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 8 of 18 Transportation Review: The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utility Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the Golden Gate wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Developer commitments are listed in “Exhibit F” of the PUD document under the “Engineering” section. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. Affordable Housing Review: Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff have provided the following comments: The Magnolia Pond PUD is proposed to be developed as a residential community to include up to 550 units on +/-47.05 acres. The development proposes to include 30% of the residential units (165 units) as For-Sale affordable housing restricted to households below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Per LDC Section 2.06.00, the inclusion of 30% affordable housing at 80% of median income allows the development to qualify for an affordable housing density bonus of an additional seven units per acre above base density, bringing the total density to 11.7 units per acre. LDC 2.06.03 AHDB Rating System: For reference, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income is: Page 347 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 9 of 18 A Restrictive Covenant will be recorded on the affordable for-sale units requiring them to be initially and subsequently sold to qualifying households for a period of 30 years from the Certificate of Occupancy of each unit. The need for affordable housing units is great in Collier County, as the University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing reports that there are currently 54,275 cost-burdened households in Collier County, with 26,756 of those spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing expenses. Source: University of Florida Shimberg Center of Housing Studies, June 2025 (uses 2023 data). The current median home sales price in Collier County is $585,000 (Single Family Homes- $745,000, Condos- $490,000). Prices in Naples have increased by 76% from pre-COVID prices. 77% of sales are cash deals. Source: NABOR Market Report, May 2025. The Shimberg Center also reports that the average observed rent for apartments in Collier County has risen sharply, doubling over the past ten years to $3,258. Source: University of Florida Shimberg Center of Housing Studies, June 2025 (uses 2024 data). Approval of this development will assist Collier County in addressing the continued need for housing that is affordable. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff recommend approval of the Magnolia Pond PUDA and its accompanying Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. See Attachment D: Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Zoning and Land Development Review: The subject property is currently undeveloped and is located partially within Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones W-3 and W-4. It is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive. It is surrounded by a public high school to the west and a public elementary school to the east. To the north is a canal, and then single-family homes in Golden Gate City; to the south is I-75. Beyond the immediate property boundaries of the Magnolia Pond PUD, and to the east along Magnolia Pond Drive, the neighborhood is developed with multi-family residences. As previously stated, the PUD will be amended to increase the number of residential dwelling units from 231 units to 550 units by utilizing the Growth Management Plan’s Density Rating System, including the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The PUD’s affordable housing component will allow 30% of the 550 residential dwelling units, or 165 units, to be reserved for individuals earning at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The affordable housing units will be located on the 19.6-acre property on the north side of Magnolia Pond Page 348 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 10 of 18 Drive. Market Rate units will be located on the remaining 27.5 acres of property located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive. The PUD will continue to allow for an ALF. The building height has increased from 38 feet zoned height and 45 feet actual height to 57 feet zoned height and 65 feet actual height. The proposed building height is similar to the building heights in the PUDs to the west, which are 50-foot zoned height in the Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD and 55- foot zoned height and 65-foot actual height in the Collier Boulevard Mixed-use Commerce Center PUD. The proposed building setbacks are the same as previously approved. The minimum setback of 300 feet from the Golden Gate Canal has been maintained. The minimum landscape code buffering standards have been met. Staff finds the proposed changes compatible with the neighborhood. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who, in turn, use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below under the heading “Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: 1.Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map, and the GMP elements. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2.The existing land use pattern. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this staff report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential and institutional. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD Amendment is a continuation of the residential development to the east and along the north and south sides of Magnolia Pond Drive. 4.Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed PUD boundary is logically drawn, following property boundaries. Page 349 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 11 of 18 5.Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to increase the residential dwelling units from 231 (4.9 DUAs) to up to 550 (11.7 DUAs). Furthermore, the proposed PUD Amendment will provide affordable housing opportunities. 6.Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed change will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD is compatible with adjacent land uses. 7.Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion, or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8.Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The request is not anticipated to create a drainage problem; stormwater management requirements are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or PPL. 9.Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed PUD amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas inside or outside the PUD. 10.Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect the property values, and the proposed increase in residential dwelling units would represent a substantial investment in the property. 11.Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The surrounding properties are mostly developed or are currently under construction. The subject rezoning request to increase the residential dwelling units from 231 residential dwelling units (4.9 Page 350 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 12 of 18 DUAs) to up to 550 residential dwelling units (11.7 DUAs) is not likely to deter development activity or improvement of surrounding properties. 12.Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13.Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the current zoning. However, the applicant proposes to provide 30% affordable housing (165 residential units), which will contribute towards satisfying an affordable housing deficiency in Collier County. 14.Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed change is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the County. The proposed change will address an affordable housing need of the county. 15.Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16.The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17.The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services is consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff have concluded that Page 351 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 13 of 18 the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in protecting public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria.” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The area continues to be suitable for residential development. The site has access to Magnolia Pond Drive. Water and wastewater mains are available along Magnolia Pond Drive. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff found this petition consistent with the GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with the adjacent uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Page 352 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 14 of 18 The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. To accommodate this project, the area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including readily available County water and wastewater mains. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking three additional deviations (Deviations #3, 4, and 5) related to the location of affordable housing, required sidewalks, and required parking. Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Deviation #3 Deviation #3 requests relief from LDC Section 2.06.04 A.14. and A.16., Affordable Housing Conditions, which require affordable housing units be the same square footage, construction, and design as the market rate dwelling units in the development and that the affordable housing units be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development to instead allow for an affordable housing product to be permitted and constructed separately from the market rate apartment buildings. The affordable housing units will be owner-occupied and located on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R1). All of the Market Rate dwelling units will be rental apartments located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Magnolia Pond MPUD consists of separate development tracts that Magnolia Pond Drive separates. These development tracts, identified as R1 and R2 on the Master Concept Page 353 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 15 of 18 Plan, are controlled by separate developers and will be permitted as separate Site Development Plan (SDP) applications. The MPUD will consist of owner-occupied multifamily affordable housing dwelling units located on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R1) and market-rate renter-occupied apartment buildings located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). Due to the eventual difference in property ownership and occupancy type (i.e., market-rate rental versus owner-occupied affordable units) and the fact that Magnolia Pond Drive acts as a natural barrier between the two product types, it is not practical to integrate the units into a common plan or to provide identical unit types. The LDC provision requiring affordable housing units to have the same square footage, construction, and design as the market rate dwelling is not practical in larger developments with multiple developers and product types. It should also be noted that recent amendments to the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) provisions of the Collier County GMP create situations where affordable housing will not be integrated into the larger development. FLUE Policy 4.7.5 requires new Villages and Towns to set aside 3% of the SRA Acreage for affordable housing. This area is to be shown on the SRA Master Plan and is not required to be distributed throughout the entire SRA development. A similar deviation was approved for the Tree Farm MPUD (Ord. 2023-34). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #4 Deviation #4 requests relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1., Sidewalk Requirements, which requires 5’ sidewalks on both sides of local streets or internal accessways which are adjacent to the development to instead allow an alternative sidewalk plan as shown in Exhibit 1 in lieu of providing sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive along the development’s entire frontage. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The PUD is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive. Magnolia Pond Drive is a public right-of- way from Collier Boulevard to the subject property, and then is an access easement owned by the Collier County School District. The LDC requires a 5’ sidewalk on both sides of this roadway. Currently, the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive has an 8’ wide pathway that extends from Collier Boulevard to Golden Gate High School. There is no sidewalk along the majority of the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive. A 6-foot sidewalk was constructed by the adjacent Magnolia Pond Apartments (CDPAR13914/PL20210000922) located immediately east of the PUD; however, the sidewalk stops at the existing drainage easement, approximately 50’ east of the Magnolia Pond PUD boundary. Similarly, there is no existing sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive to connect to the west of the subject property. Property to the west includes a stormwater pond developed as part of the High School and is unlikely to provide a sidewalk connection in the future. The LDC requirement to provide sidewalks along the Magnolia Pond PUD road frontages would not require or provide a connection to the existing sidewalk east of the development. Page 354 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 16 of 18 As shown in Exhibit 1, the development proposes to construct the public sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive from the western access point to the existing sidewalk located east of the off-site drainage easement. A pedestrian crossing to the existing 8-foot pathway on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive will be provided at the western terminus of the proposed sidewalk. The proposed deviation improves the existing pedestrian system by connecting to the existing sidewalk on the east side of the drainage easement. Additionally, the improvements will improve safety for vehicular traffic by grading the unrecoverable slope along the property’s frontage and the DE. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #5 Deviation #5 requests relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G., Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, which requires additional parking for small-scale recreation facilities that are accessory to single- family or multifamily projects to instead require no additional parking for small-scale recreation facilities that are accessory to the market rate rental apartment units located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and identified as R2 on the Master Concept Plan. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The parking requirement for multifamily dwellings is one parking space per dwelling unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 spaces per efficiency unit, 0.75 spaces per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 space per 2-bedroom or larger unit. The parking provision further requires that office and/or administrative buildings be parked at 50% of normal requirements (50% of 1 space per 300 sf), and accessory recreation facilities be parked at 25% of the normal requirement when the majority of the dwelling units are located within 300 feet of the facilities. View looking west. Sidewalk ends at DE prior to Magnolia Pond PUD property line. Source: Google Earth; Imagery Date:8 /2024 View looking east. Existing sidewalk located on the east Page 355 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 17 of 18 Tract R2 is intended to be developed as a single Site Development Plan (SDP) consisting of market-rate rental apartments. The conceptual design identifies a gated development consisting of 301 apartments. The development includes small-scale accessory recreation facilities intended solely for the use of the residents. The recreation facilities are located within the multifamily buildings or their internal courtyards, where the majority of units would be within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. The estimated number of Code- required parking is identified below: USE UNIT LDC PARKING RATIO REQUIRED PARKING Multifamily Residential: 1-Bedroom 118 du 1 per du plus 0.75 visitor 207 spaces 2-Bedroom or Larger 183 du 1 per du plus 1.00 visitor 366 spaces Residential Sub-Total 573 spaces Accessory Office/Administrative: Office/Administrative 4,100 sf 1 per 300 sf x 50% 7 spaces Office/Administration Sub-Total 7 spaces Accessory Recreation: Fitness 5,700 sf 1 per 100 sf x 25% 14 spaces Clubhouse 4,900 sf 1 per 200 sf x 25% 6 spaces Swimming Pool 3,500 sf 1 per 75 sf for first 1,000 sf plus 1 per additional 125 sf x 25% 8 spaces Pickleball Courts 2 courts 3 per court x 25% 2 spaces Recreation Sub-Total 30 spaces TOTAL LDC REQUIRED PARKING 610 spaces The accessory recreation parking provision is largely intended for recreation facilities that are part of a separate amenity’s tract or area with dedicated parking areas. Because the recreation facilities proposed as part of this development are integrated internal to the residential buildings and are limited to the residents of the apartment complex, they do not require users to drive and park at a separate location. The development will provide parking as required by LDC Section 4.05.04.G., Table 17, for the multifamily residential units and any accessory office and administrative floor area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” found in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on March 12, 2025, at the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. There were three residents in attendance at the meeting. There is no opposition to the proposed PUD. For further information, please see Attachment E- NIM Documents. Page 356 of 913 PUDA-PL20240010833, MAGNOLIA POND PUD August 1, 2025 Page 18 of 18 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on June 26, 2025. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond PUD, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval of the affordable housing density bonus per LDC Section 2.06.01. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance 10-06 Attachment C: GMP Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment D: Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement Attachment E: NIM Documents Attachment F: Application Page 357 of 913 [25-CPS-02589/1950045/1]97 1 of 2 Magnolia Pond - PUDA-PL20240010833 6/4/25 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 10-06, THE MAGNOLIA POND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO INCREASE THE DWELLING UNITS FROM 231 TO 550 WITH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT, TO INCREASE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS, ADD DEVIATIONS, AND REVISE THE MASTER PLAN; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE INNOVATION ZONE ZONING OVERLAY (CBIIZO), PARTIALLY WITHIN WELLFIELD RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONES W-3 AND W-4 AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 75, ½ MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 47.05± ACRES. (PL20240010833) WHEREAS, on February 23, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 10-06, which established the Magnolia Pond Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (the ”Magnolia Pond MPUD”); and WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County represented by Christopher Scott, AICP, of Peninsula Engineering and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koestner, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Magnolia Pond MPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. Exhibits A through F attached to Ordinance No. 10-06, as amended, are hereby amended and replaced with the Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Page 358 of 913 [25-CPS-02589/1950045/1]97 2 of 2 Magnolia Pond - PUDA-PL20240010833 6/4/25 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ____________________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _______________________ By: _____________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ______________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - List of Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Deviations Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments Exhibit 1 - Proposed Sidewalk Improvements-Deviation 4 Page 359 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 1 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES The Magnolia Pond PUD is +47.05 acres in size and has a maximum number of 231 550 dwelling units permitted with a density of 4.9 11.7 dwelling units per acre. PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single- family dwellings (includes zero-lot line), limited to a maximum of 125 units. 2. Two-family dwellings and duplexes. 3. Multf-family dwellings (includes buildings containing more than 2 units that are physically connected). 4. Assisted living facilitfes at a F.A.R. of .60 (for each four ALF units developed, one residentfal dwelling unit shall be subtracted from the maximum of 231 permitted dwelling units). 5. Any other permitted use deemed compatfble by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utflity buildings. 2. Recreatfonal uses and facilitfes including clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, children's playground areas, tot lots, boat docks, walking paths, horse trails and barns, kayak and canoe launches and storage, picnic areas, recreatfon buildings, verandahs, and basketball/shuftfe board courts for residents and their guests. 3. Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. 4. Gatehouse. 5. Essentfal services, including interim and permanent utflity and maintenance facilitfes. 6. Any other accessory use deemed compatfble by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. Page 360 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 2 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT B TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVLEOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY TWO-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY CLUBHOUSE Min. Lot Area (per unit/use) 7,500 sq. fl. 5,000 sq. fl. 4,000 sq. fl. 10,000 sq. fl. 7,500 sq. fl. Min. Lot Width 50 feet interior (1) 60 feet corner 90 feet interior (1) (45 feet)(2) 110 feet corner lots (55 feet)(2) NA 75 feet 50 feet interior (1) 60 feet corner Front Yard Setback 15 feet (5) 15 feet (5) 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Side Yard Setback 0 feet & 10 feet or both 5 feet 0 feet & 10 feet or both 5 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Rear Yard Setback Principal: Accessory: 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet MPUD Boundary Setback: Principal Accessory 20 feet (3) 10 feet 20 feet (3) 10 feet 20 feet (3) 10 feet 20 feet (3) 10 feet 20 feet (3) 10 feet Page 361 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 3 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY TWO-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY CLUBHOUSE Setback from I- 75 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet Garage Setback (4) 23 feet 23 feet 23 feet 23 feet 23 feet Preserve Area Setback Principal: Accessory: 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet Distance Between Principal Structures NA NA One-half the sum of the building heights. One-half the sum of the building heights. One-half the sum of the building heights. Distance between Accessory Structures: 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Zoned Height Principal: Accessory: 35 feet and 2 stories 20 feet 35 feet and 2 stories 20 feet 38 feet and 3 stories 20 feet 38 feet and 3 stories 20 feet 35 feet and 2 stories 20 feet Maximum Actual Height Principal: Accessory: 42 feet and 2 stories 27 feet 42 feet and 2 stories 27 feet 45 feet and 3 stories 27 feet 45 feet and 3 stories 27 feet 42 feet and 2 stories 20 feet Minimum Floor Area 1200 sq. fl. 1100 sq. fl. 1 bdr. 650 sq. fl. 2 bdr. – 900 sq. fl. 3 bdr – 1050 sq. fl. (6) 1200 sq. fl. Minimum carport or garage per unit 2 car garage 1 car garage 1 carport space or 1 car garage (7) NA (1) May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots. (2) Minimum lot frontage in parentheses applies only in cases where a dwelling unit in a 2-family structure is on an individually platted lot. (3) Three-story buildings shall be set back a minimum of three hundred feet from the Golden Gate Canal right- of-way and one hundred feet from Interstate 75 right-of-way. Page 362 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 4 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 (4) A minimum of 23 feet shall be provided from the back of sidewalk/curb to the face of garage. (5) 15 foot setback shall apply to side-entry garages. Front entry garages must maintain a minimum of 23 feet. (6) Maximum floor area for ALF shall be calculated per the permitted F.A.R. of .60. (7) Not applicable for assisted living facility buildings. Independent living units that are part of an ALF shall mirror the multf-family parking requirements. (8) The buffer along Magnolia Pond Drive shall be a Type D buffer of either 10 feet in width with a 6 foot privacy wall or 15 feet in width if only vegetatfon is installed. Page 363 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 5 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE- FAMILY TWO-FAMILY/ DUPLEX MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY CLUBHOUSE1 MIN. LOT AREA 7,500 S.F. 3,000 S.F. / UNIT 10,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. 7,500 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 50’ 45’ 100’ 75’ 50’ MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,200 SF 1,100 S.F./ UNIT 650 S.F./UNIT N/A N/A FLOOR AREA RATIO N/A N/A N/A 0.60 N/A MIN. I-75 SETBACK2 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ MIN. GOLDEN GATE CANAL SETBACK 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD 15’ 15’ 25’ 25’ 25’ MIN. SIDE YARD 5’ 0 OR 5’3 15’ 15’ 15’ MIN. REAR YARD 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES N/A 0 OR 10’ 30’ 20’ 20’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 35’ 35’ 57’ 50’ 35’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 42’ 42’ 65’ 62’ 42’ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ MAX. BUILDNG HEIGHT - ACTUAL 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ SPS = Same as Principal Structure Footnotes: 1. Clubhouses that are located within a multffamily residentfal building are subject to development standards for multffamily dwellings. 2. Buildings that are three-stories or taller must be setback a minimum of 100’ from I-75. 3. Side setback may be 0’ or 5’ provided 10’ separatfon between adjacent principal structures is maintained if not structurally attached. NOTE: Setbacks that conflict with utflity standards for the required separatfon between utflity infrastructure and buildings or structures do not constftute an approved deviatfon Page 364 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 6 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT C MPUD MASTER PLAN Page 365 of 913 RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONING: A LAND USE: SCHOOL GOLDEN GATE CANAL INTERSTATE - 75 (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) MAGNOLIA POND DR ZONING: GOLDEN GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD LAND USE: VACANT PRESERVE MAGNOLIA POND DR (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) ZONING: COLLIER BLVD MIXED USE COMM CNTR MPUD LAND USE: VACANT PRESERVE ZONING: GOLDEN GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD LAND USE: SCHOOL POTENTIAL FUTURE RIGHT OUT ONLY 4 5 50' MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 1040 PAGE 1333) 50' MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 430 PAGE 516) 50' MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 351 PAGE 171) 30' DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 4575 PAGE 3010) 30' DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 4575 PAGE 3006) 25' MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 1040 PAGE 1333) ZONING: RSF-3 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 321 15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE "A" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 20' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 321 ZONING: PUD AND A LAND USE: VACANT MINIMUM 6' LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATION (SEE NOTE #2) MINIMUM 6' LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATION (SEE NOTE #2) 20' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONING: A LAND USE: STORM WATER POND MINIMUM 6' LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATION (SEE NOTE #2) 15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESIDENTIAL (R2) 50' MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 359 PAGE 609 & O.R. BOOK 426 PAGE 121) • CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING AND ZONING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PENINSULA Sheet Number: File Name: Project Number: Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn by: Designed by: SEC:RGE:TWP:CLIENT:TITLE:PROJECT:[Save Date: 4/25/2025 4:21:41 PM] [By: AAvila] [Plot Date: 4/25/2025 4:22:32 PM] [By: Alejandro Avila] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-THTH-001\001-PUD\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X02-Master_Plan\Sheet_Files\P-THTH-001-001-C00-X02-1.dwg]Sheet ID: of Florida Engineering C.A #28275 Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "C" HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 34 49S 26E NATHAN MULLINS NATHAN MULLINS NOVEMBER 2024 1" = 300' P-THTH-001-001-C00 P-THTH-001-001-C00-X02-1.dwg C-X02-1 01 02 239.403.6700 Pen-Eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34105 SCALE:1" = 300'LEGEND DEVIATION RESIDENTIAL # R# PRESERVE PUD INGRESS / EGRESS WATER MANAGEMENT 00 75'150'300'600'900' Bar Scale: 1" = 300' Page 366 of 913 • CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING AND ZONING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PENINSULA Sheet Number: File Name: Project Number: Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn by: Designed by: SEC:RGE:TWP:CLIENT:TITLE:PROJECT:[Save Date: 12/5/2024 11:21:00 AM] [By: NMullins] [Plot Date: 3/31/2025 3:15:09 PM] [By: Joshua Mueller] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-THTH-001\001-PUD\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X02-Master_Plan\Sheet_Files\P-THTH-001-001-C00-X02-2.dwg]Sheet ID: of Florida Engineering C.A #28275 Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT NOTES HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 34 49S 26E NATHAN MULLINS NATHAN MULLINS NOVEMBER 2024 N.T.S. P-THTH-001-001-C00 P-THTH-001-001-C00-X02-2.dwg C-X02-2 02 02 239.403.6700 Pen-Eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34105 LAND USE SUMMARY USE ACRES % OF SITE LAKES 6.78± AC 14% EASEMENTS 1.79± AC 4% PRESERVE 9.64± AC 20% LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 1.27± AC 3% MAGNOLIA POND ROAD EASEMENT 1.73± AC 4% DEVELOPABLE AREA 25.84± AC 55% TOTAL SITE AREA 47.05± AC 100% PRESERVE CALCULATION PRESERVE REQUIRED: 25% OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION 38.54 - ACRES OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION ON-SITE X 0.25 = 9.64 ACRES PRESERVE PROVIDED 9.64 ACRES OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 60% PROVIDED 60% DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT "C"). DEVIATION 1: RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02(C)2, BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. DEVIATION 2: RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01(O), MINIMUM RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS. DEVIATION 3: RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 2.06.04 A.14. AND A.16. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONDITIONS. DEVIATION 4: RELIEF FROM LDC SECTIONS 6.06.02.A.1. SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS. DEVIATION 5: DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04.G., TABLE 17, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS. NOTES. 1.THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. AREAS PROVIDED IN THE LAND USE SUMMARY ABOVE ARE ESTIMATED AN THE FINAL LAND USE CONFIGURATION WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING. 2.PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. IN ORDER TO MEET THE LDC BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, A 6 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE MASTER PLAN. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESERVE DOES NOT MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER REMOVAL OF EXOTICS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING WITHIN THE PRESERVE, PLANTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE 6' WIDE RESERVATION TO MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE TYPE, SIZE, AND NUMBER OF SUCH PLANTINGS, IF NECESSARY, WILL BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF INITIAL SDP OR PLAT AND INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE SDP OR PLAT. Page 367 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 9 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR MAGNOLIA POND MPUD OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3749, PAGES 0161-0165 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 8: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00296760002 AND PARCEL 20: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00297240000 AND PARCEL 21: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNT TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. LESS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; RUN THENCE, SOUTH 00°20'07" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,324.86 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 74°09'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.86 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE, NORTH 73°00'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 364.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°19'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 355.71 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE, FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 76°01'14" EAST, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,297.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 03°00'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 593.78 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE, SOUTH 73°00'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 92.07 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00°20'07" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 346.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5.231 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LANDS INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. LESS AND EXCEPT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIT-CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2323, PAGE 508, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 AND Page 368 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 10 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 PARCELS 33 & 38: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR, AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LANDS INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297720009 AND PARCEL 39: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/ 4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%, LESS AND EXCEPT THE PARCEL SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RECORDED IN O. R. BOOK 994, PAGES 1760-1763, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF- WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LANDS INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, PROPERTY LD. #00297880004 AND PARCEL 41: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1048, PAGES 521-523, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00298000003 AND PARCEL 114: THAT PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERL Y ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 01°13'41", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N 88°28' 35" E A DISTANCE OF 336.37 FEET; THENCE S 00°19'13" E A DISTANCE OF 109.09 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND UTILITIES REMAINING IN PLACE AND IN USE IF ANY. THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. Page 369 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 11 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHT, AIR, AND VIEW BETWEEN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ROAD NAMED AS FOLLOWS: STATE ROAD 93 (I-75); ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E A DISTANCE OF 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 73°00'33" E A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE; THENCE N 73°00' 33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE 01°13'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 AND THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2904, PAGES 0876 THROUGH 0879 INCLUSIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 LYING IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3002, PAGE 2740 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SAME BEING FIVE ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OF 25 FEET ON, OVER AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. SUBJECT PARCEL CONTAINS 2,049,396.00 SQ. FEET, OR 47.05+ ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL 8: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00296760002 PARCEL 20: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00297240000 PARCEL 21: Page 370 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 12 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNT TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. LESS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; RUN THENCE SOUTH 0°20'07" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,324.86 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 74°09'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 73°00'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 364.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°19'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 355.71 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 76°01'14" EAST, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,297.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 3°00'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 593.78 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 73°00'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 92.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°20'07" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 346.19 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. LESS AND EXCEPT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIT- CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2323, PAGE 508, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 PARCELS 33 & 38: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR, AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297720009 PARCEL 39: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNTING TO NO LESS THAN 25%, LESS AND EXCEPT THE PARCEL SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 994, PAGES 1760-1763, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297880004 PARCEL 41: Page 371 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 13 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1048, PAGE 521-523, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00298000003 PARCEL 114: THAT PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°13'41", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N 88°28'35" E, A DISTANCE OF 336.37 FEET; THENCE S 01°19'13" E, A DISTANCE OF 109.09 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND UTILITY REMAINING IN PLACE AND IN USE, IF ANY, THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHT, AIR, AND VIEW BETWEEN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ROAD NAMED AS FOLLOWS: STATE ROAD 93 (I-75); ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E A DISTANCE OF 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 73°00'33" E A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37' 19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 01°13'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE. PROPERTY I.D. #00296721009 PARCEL 9: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2904, PAGES 0876 THROUGH 0879 INCLUSIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY ID #00296800001 PARCEL 30: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3002, PAGE 2704 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Page 372 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 14 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SAME BEING FIVE ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OF 25 FEET ON, OVER AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY. PROPERTY ID #00297600006 SUBJECT TO EASEMENT, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. SUBJECT PARCEL CONTAINS 2,049,396.00 SQ, FEET, OR 47.05+/- ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. Page 373 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 15 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT E DEVIATIONS LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS: A1. Deviatfon #1 seeks relief from LDC Sectfon 4.06.02(C)2, Buffer Yard Requirements, which requires an Alternatfve B (15 foot wide) Landscape Buffer, to allow for a reductfon in width to 10 feet when the common property line between single or two family units and multf-family units are internal to the project and employ a similar architectural theme. The plantfng materials shall be the same as the Type ‘B’ buffer. B2. Deviatfon #2 seeks relief from LDC Sectfon 6.06.01(O), Minimum Right-of-Way Widths, which requires a minimum of a 60 foot width, to permit within the proposed MPUD internal roadway right-of-ways of 50 feet in width. 3. Deviatfon #3 seeks relief from LDC Sectfon 2.06.04 A.14. and A.16, Affordable Housing Conditfons, which require that affordable housing units be the same square footage, constructfon and design as the market rate dwelling units in the development and that the affordable housing units be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development to instead allow for an affordable housing product to be permitted and constructed separately from the market rate apartment buildings. The affordable housing units will be owner occupied and located on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R1) and all of the market rate dwelling units will be rental apartments located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). 4. Deviatfon #4 seeks relief from LDC Sectfons 6.06.02.A.1, Sidewalk Requirements, which requires 5’ sidewalks on both sides of local streets or internal accessways which are adjacent to the development to instead allow an alternatfve sidewalk plan as shown in Exhibit 1 in lieu of providing sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive along the development’s entfre frontage. The alternatfve sidewalk plan has an existfng 8’ sidewalk on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive and a 6’ sidewalk from the project entrance to the east along the PUD frontage. 5. Deviatfon #5 seeks relief from LDC Sectfon 4.05.04.G., Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, which requires parking for small-scale recreatfon facilitfes that are accessory to single-family or multffamily projects and intended only for the residents to instead require no parking for small-scale recreatfon facilitfes that are accessory to the market rate rental apartment units located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and identffied as R2 on the Master Concept Plan. Page 374 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 16 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. GENERAL A. The property owner, his or her assigns and or subsequent homeowners associatfons will be responsible for the maintenance of common areas and infrastructure associated with future development. B. One entfty (hereinafler the Managing Entfty) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring untfl close- out of the PUD, and this entfty shall also be responsible for satfsfying all PUD commitments untfl close-out of the PUD. At the tfme of this PUD approval, the Managing Entfty is Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. Should the Managing Entfty desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entfty, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. Afler such approval, the Managing Entfty will be released of its obligatfons upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entfty shall become the Managing Entfty. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entfty shall provide written notfce to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entfty, but the Managing Entfty shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Sectfon. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entfty is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. C. Issuance of a development permit by the county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state of federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligatfons imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actfons that result in a violatfon of state or federal law. (Sectfon 125.022, FS). D. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. ENGINEERING A. Prior to SDP approval a FDOT “Notfce of Intent to Issue” Right of Way permit shall be submitted for work within the S.R. 951 right of way. B. The project shall utflize internal loop roads whenever feasible and shall eliminate dead-end roads where practfcal. B. At the tfme of applicatfon for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collectfon/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estfmated peak Page 375 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 17 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certfficate of occupancy for any portfon or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. C. At the tfme of applicatfon for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the water distributfon/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estfmated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certfficate of occupancy for any portfon or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 3. WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the approval of the SFWMD Right of Way and Discharge Permit for outiall into Golden Gate Canal shall be submitted prior to Final Plat and/or SDP approval the commencement of constructfon. B. A 30’ wide drainage, maintenance and access easement will be donated at no cost to the County along the entfre length of the eastern property line. Said easement will be provided at the tfme the applicant receives an approved SOP or within 120 days of receiving a written request for the drainage easement from Collier County. Completed. C. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the MPUD to edge of water may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantfal barrier is erected. 4. TRAFFIC A. This project may not receive Development Order approval untfl fair share contributfon towards planned intersectfon improvements at the Magnolia Pond and CR-951 intersectfon as identffied by County project SAP #60092 extending from Davis Blvd. northward to the Golden Gate canal have been approved and accepted by Collier County. B. A minimum throat length of 100 feet shall be maintained at any gated entrance. CB. The maximum total daily trip generatfon for the PUD shall not exceed 246 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generatfon rates in effect at the tfme of applicatfon for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.number of trips generated by any proposed development shall be based on the 125 single-family units (LUC 210) defined in the TIS that generate 131 pm peak hour trips. Any mixed residentfal development proposed shall not exceed those 131 pm peak hour trips. Page 376 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 18 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 DC. The donatfon of the 30' drainage, maintenance and access easement along the eastern property line represents the project's full fair share portfon of the one-tfme maintenance/ clean out costs of the MGG-15 drainage swale. Completed. ED. The property owner shall within 30 days of the adoptfon of this PUD convey at no cost to the County a 20' easement along the southern side of the Golden Gate Canal for use as a pedestrian and bicycle access purposes. The easement will not be used by vehicles beyond those necessary to maintain the improvements constructed within the easement. Completed. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The minimum natfve preservatfon requirement shall be 10.28 9.64-acres (41.10 38.54-acres existfng indigenous vegetatfon x 25% = 10.28 9.64-acres to be preserved). B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures in the Preserve (for as long as the minimum required preserve acreage is retained): i) Passive recreatfonal areas including recreatfonal shelters. ii) Biking, hiking, and nature and horse trails, and boardwalks. iii) Natfve preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. iv) Any other use deemed consistent with the LDC for permitted uses in preserves or deemed compatfble by the BZA at tfme of Development Order approval. C. Florida Black Bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be submitted as part of the next Development Order. D. A Gopher Tortoise relocatfon management plan shall be submitted as part of the next Development Order. E. A report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the relocatfon of gopher tortoises shall be provided within thirty days of relocatfon. The report must contain the following informatfon: • the number of burrows excavated, • the number of tortoises relocated, and • the final relocatfon site. F. Preserves may be used to satfsfy the landscape buffer requirements afler exotfc vegetatfon removal in accordance with LDC sectfons 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantfngs with natfve plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC sectfon 3.05.07. In order to meet the LDC buffer requirements afler removal of exotfcs and supplemental plantfng within the preserve, plantfngs will be provided in the 6’ wide reservatfon to meet the buffer requirements. The type, size, and number of such plantfngs, if necessary, will be determined at tfme of initfal SDP or PPL and included on the landscape plans for the SDP or PPL. Page 377 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUDA, PL20240010833 Page 19 of 19 Revised: 5/14/2025 6. ARCHITECTURAL A. All buildings, lightfng, signage, and landscaping within the individual development tracts located on the north and south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and identffied as R1 and R2 on the Master Concept Plan shall each be architecturally and aesthetfcally unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of thebuildings, signs, and fences/walls to be erected on all each of the subject parcels. Landscaping space and streetscape materials along Magnolia Pond Drive frontages shall also be similar in design for all development tracts throughout the subject site. Within any multf- family project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in tfle or metal. Within any single-family or two-family project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in tfle, metal, or architecturally-designed shingles (such as Timberline). 7. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALF UNITS A. Care units may be composed of one or more types of care/housing facilitfes. These care/housing types include, but are not limited to independent living, assisted living, and nursing homes, each of which can have varying operatfonal characteristfcs. The following characteristfcs of care units distfnguish them from residentfal land uses, and all of the characteristfcs must be provided for and maintained to be considered a care unit: (i) There shall be on- site dining facilitfes for the residents with food service being on- site or catered. (ii) Group transportatfon services shall be provided for the residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportatfon services shall be coordinated for the residents needs, including but not limited to medical office visits, (iii) There shall be an on-site manager/actfvitfes coordinator to assist residents, and shall be responsible for planning and coordinatfng stfmulatfng actfvitfes for the residents. (iv) A wellness facility shall be provided on- site to provide for exercise and general fitness opportunitfes for the residents. (v) Each unit shall be equipped with a device to notffy emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency. (vi) For independent living units, each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age in place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars. 8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the Developer has agreed to construct 165 affordable units for households whose initfal certffied incomes are in or below the low- and very-low category (below 80 percent of the Area Median Income) for Collier County. Page 378 of 913 A A A OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E HH TEX. 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EX. 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN COUNTY R.O.W.PRIVATE A.E. PROPOSED 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK EX. 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK4 4 GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL MAGNOLIA POND DR RELOCATED 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK I-75 DEVELOPER TO MODIFY EXISTING DRAINAGE AS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPOSED CROSSWALK WEST OF MAGNOLIA POND PUD ENTRANCES • CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING AND ZONING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PENINSULA CLIENT:TITLE:PROJECT: Sheet Number:of File Name: Project Number: Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn by: Designed by: SEC:RGE:TWP:[Save Date: 4/4/2025 2:34:36 PM] [By: AAvila] [Plot Date: 4/4/2025 2:35:29 PM] [By: Alejandro Avila] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-THTH-001\002-Apartments_SDP\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X05_Sidewalk_Exhibit\Sheet_Files\P-THTH-001-002-C00-X05.dwg]Sheet ID:Florida Engineering C.A #28275 Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA PL202400010833 EXHIBIT 1: PROPOSED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. ALEJANDRO AVILA ALEJANDRO AVILA APRIL 2025 1" = 200' P-THTH-001-002 P-THTH-001-002-C00-X05.dwg C-X05 01 01 34 49 26REVISIONS: No:Revision:Date: 239.403.6700 Pen-Eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34105 SCALE:1" = 200'LEGEND #DEVIATION DEVIATIONS LOCATIONS AREA WITH NO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS4 Page 379 of 913 O'\'\12731<;f q, q, 7.$';.: 0 ..,~~ "~";'.... :c4) ~~'J ".,. ...!o jlJ\...'"ri.\ ,,,,,<. III N '''-(l\l)''11\ Z q" ~~6> .11: C"L~9ZSt.'II"': ORDINANCE NO, 10 - Of; c:;...AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNT~ COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,';. AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, ::r;-, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, \:hi WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ';;-- REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF :11' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE ig~;: '~APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY Gi~,-' CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE :po HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AGRICULTURAL (A) TO MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MAGNOLIA POND MPUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 75, Y2 MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD CR 951), IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 47,05clc ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 98-49. THE FORMER MAGNOLIA POND PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, g 0" 0 1~i r;::J 0 WHEREAS, Timothy Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc, and Patrick White, Esquire of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, representing Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC, Pawel and Teryl Brzeski and Teryl II. Brzeski, Trustee of The Land Trust #I-B dated September II, 2001, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SECTION ONE: COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: I I The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Agricultural (A) to a Mixed Use Planned\Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Magnolia Pond MPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through 1', attached PUDZ.A-2006-AR-l 0318 Rev. 01/13/1 0 Page I of2 Page 380 of 913 hereto and incorporated by reference herein, The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly, SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 98-49, known as the Magnolia Pond PUD, adopted on June 9, 1998, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is hereby repealed in its entirety, SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State, PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this <<2.3 day of jet l'\J~ ,2010. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA J_, ly Clerk 1 BY: '1uJ- Lv, C~ FRED W, COYLE, Chm . an 7.LJ'Q~ Steven T Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Permitted Uses Exhibit "B" - Development Standards and Tables Exhibit "C" -- Master Plan Exhibit "D" -- Legal Description Exhibit "E" - Deviations Exhibit ''F'' - Developer Commitments This ordinance filed with the c~ry of .s~s Office}h. 1lay off I L/Q[ ~ 0 and oclcnowledgem ~f!f that flli is day of By 09.CPS.00936/31 PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10318 Rev, 011\3110 Page 2 of2 Page 381 of 913 EXHIBIT A The Magnolia Pond PUD is clc 47.05 acres in size and has a maximum number of231 dwelling units permitted with a density of 4,9 units per acre. PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single-fmnily dwellings (includes zero-lot line), limited to a maximum of 125 units. 2. Two-family dwellings and duplexes. 3. Multi-family dwellings (includes buildings containing more than 2 units that are physically connected). 4, Assisted living facilities at a F .A.R. of .60 (for each four ALl' units developed, one residential dwelling unit shall be subtracted from the maximum of231 permitted dwelling units). 5. Any other permitted use deemed compatible by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including but not limited to: I. Customary accessory uses and struetures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball eourts, children's' playground areas, tot lots, boat docks, walking paths, horse trails and barns, kayak and canoe launches and storage, picnic areas, recreation buildings, verandahs, and basketball/shuffle board courts, 3. Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. 4. Gatehouse. Revised 1-12-10 Page I of 15 Page 382 of 913 Page 383 of 913 Page 384 of 913 STANDARDS SINGLE- TWO- MULTI - ASSISTED CLUBHOUSELIVING I' AMIL Y F AMIL Y F AMIL Y FACILITY Setback from 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 1-75 Garage 23 feet 23 feet 23 feet 23 feet NA Setback (4) Preserve Area Setback Principal: 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 Feet Accessorv: 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 Feet Distance One-half the One-half the One-half the Between NA NA sum of the sum of the sum of the Principal building building building Structures heights. heights. heights. Distance Between 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Accessory Struetures: Maximum Zoned Height Principal: 35 feet and 2 35 feet and 2 38 feet and 3 38 feet and 3 35 feet and 2 stories stories stories stories stories Accessory: 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Maximum Actual Height Principal: 42 feet and 2 42 feet and 2 45 feet and 3 45 feet and 3 42 feet and 2 stories stories stories stories stories Accessorv: 27 feet 27 feet 27 feet 27 feet 27 feet Minimum I bdr. 650 sq. Floor Area ]200 sq. ft. [100 sq. ft. ft. (6) 1200 sq. ft. 2 bdr. - 900 sq. ft. 3 bdr. - 1050 sa. ft, Minimum 1 carport carport or 2 car garage I car garage space or 1 ear (7) NA garage oer unit garage 1) May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots. 2) Minimum lot frontage in parcntheses applies only in cases where a dwelling unit in a 2-family structure is on an individually platted lot. 3) Three-story buildings shall be set back a minimum of three hundred feet from the Golden Gate Canal right-of-way and one hundred feet from Interstate 75 right-of-way, Revised 1-12-10 Page 4 of 15 Page 385 of 913 4) A minimum of 23 feet shall be provided from the back of sidewalk/curb to the face of garage. 5) 15 foot setback shall apply to side-entry garages. Front entry garages must maintain a minimum of 23 feet. 6) Maximum floor area for ALl' shall be calculated per the permitted F.A.R. of .60. 7) Not applicable for assisted living facility buildings. Independent living units that are part of an ALl' shall mirror the multi-family parking requirements, 8) The buffer along Magnolia Pond Drive shall be a Type D buffer of either 10 feet in width with a 6 foot privacy wall or 15 feet in width if only vegetation is installed. Revised 1-12-10 Page 5 of 15 Page 386 of 913 Page 387 of 913 EXIDBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR MAGNOLIA POND MPUD OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3749, PAGES 0161-0165 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING fN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 8: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY J.D, #00296760002 AND PARCEL 20: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY J.D. #00297240000 AND PARCEL 21: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNT TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. LESS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTlCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; RUN THENCE, SOUTH 00020'07" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,324.86 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 74009'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.86 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE, NORTH 73000'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 364.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00019'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 355.71 FEET TO A POfNT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE, FROM A TANGENT BEARfNG OF SOUTH 76001 '14" EAST, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,297.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 03000'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 593.78 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE, SOUTH 73000'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 92.07 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00020'07" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 346.19 FEET TO THE POfNT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINfNG 5,231 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Revised 1-12-10 Page 7 of 15 Page 388 of 913 SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LANDS INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. LESS AND EXCEPT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIT-CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2323, PAGE 508, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY LD. #00297280002 AND PARCELS 33 & 38: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR, AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LANDS INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY J.D. #00297720009 AND PARCEL 39: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%, LESS AND EXCEPT THE PARCEL SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 994, PAGES 1760-1763, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LANDS INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, PROPERTY LD. #00297880004 AND PARCEL 41: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1048, PAGES 521-523, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00298000003 AND Revised 1-12-10 Page 8 of 15 Page 389 of 913 PARCEL 114: THAT PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE RUN N 16059'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73000'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16059'27" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73037'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERL Y ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 01013'41 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N 88028'35" E A DISTANCE OF 336.37 FEET; THENCE S 00019'13" E A DISTANCE OF 109.09 FEET; THENCE N 73000'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND UTILITIES REMAINING IN PLACE AND IN USE, IF ANY. THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHT, AIR, AND VIEW BETWEEN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ROAD NAMED AS FOLLOWS: STATE ROAD 93 (1-75); ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCE A T THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN N 16059'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73000'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16059'27" E A DISTANCE OF 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 73000'33" E A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE; THENCE N 73000'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCA VE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73037'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERL Y ALONG SAID CURVE HA VING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE 01'01013'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE. PROPERTY \.D. #00297280002 AND THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2904, PAGES 0876 THROUGH 0879 INCLUSIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Revised 1-12-10 Page 9 of 15 Page 390 of 913 Page 391 of 913 Page 392 of 913 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS I. GENERAL The property owner, his or her assigns and or subsequent homeowners associations will be responsible for the maintenance of common areas and infrastructure associated with future development. 2. ENGINEERING A. Prior to SOP approval a FDOT "Notice of Intent to Issue" Right of Way permit shall be submitted for work within the S.R. 951 right of way. B. The project shall utilize internal loop roads whenever feasible and shall eliminate dead-end roads where practical. 3. WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the approval of the SFWMD Right of Way and Discharge Permit for outfall into the Golden Gate Canal shall be submitted prior to Final Plat and/or SOP approval. B. A 30' wide drainage, maintenance and access easement will be donated at no cost to the County along the entire length of the eastern property line. Said easement will be provided at the time the applieant receives an approved SOP or within 120 days of receiving a written request for the drainage easement from Collier County. C. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the MPUD may be reduced to twenty- five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantial barrier is ereeted. Revised 1-12-10 Page 12 of 15 Page 393 of 913 4. TRAFFIC A. This projeet may not reeeive Development Order approval until fair share contribution towards planned intersection improvements at the Magnolia Pond and CR-951 intersection as identified by County projeet SAP 60092 extending from Davis Blvd. northward to the Golden Gate canal have been approved and accepted by Collier County. B. A minimum throat length of 100 feet shall be maintained at any gated entrance. C. The maximum number of trips generated by any proposed development shall be based on the 125 single-fmnily units (LUC 210) defined in the TIS that generate 131 pm peak hour trips. Any mixed residential development proposed shall not exceed those 131 pm peak hour trips. D. The donation of the 30' drainage, maintenance and access easement along the eastern property line represents the project's full fair share portion of the one-time maintenance/clean out costs of the MGG-15 drainage swale. E. The property owner shall within 30 days of the adoption of this PUD convey at no eost to the County a 20' easement along the southern side of the Golden Gate Canal for use as a pedestrian and bicycle aceess purposes. The easement will not be used by vehicles beyond those necessary to maintain the improvements constructed within the easement. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The minimum native preservation requirement shall be 10.28 acres (41.1 0 acres existing indigenous vegetation x 25% = 10.28 acres to be preserved). B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures in the Preserve (for as long as the minimum required preserve acreage is retained): i) Passive recreational areas including recreational shelters. ii) Biking, hiking, and nature and horse trails, and boardwalks. iii) Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. iv) Any other use deemed consistent with the LDC for permitted uses in preserves or deemed compatible by the BZA at time of Development Order approval. C. Florida Black Bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be submitted as part of the next Development Order. D. A Gopher Tortoise relocation management plan shall be submitted as part of the next Development Order. Revised 1-12-10 Page 13 orIS Page 394 of 913 E. A report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the relocation of gopher tortoises shall be provided within thirty days of relocation. The report must contain the following information: the number of burrows excavated, the number of tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site. 6. ARCHITECTURAL A. All buildings, lighting, signage, and landscaping shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject site. Within any multi-family project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in tile or metal. Within any single-family or two-family project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in tile, metal, or architecturally- designed shingles (such as Timberline). 7. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR AU UNITS A. Care units may be composed of one or more types of eare/housing facilities. These eare/housing types include, but are not limited to independent living, assisted living, and nursing homes, each of whieh can have varying operational characteristics. The following characteristics of care units distinguish them from residential land uses, and all of the characteristics must be provided for and maintained to be considered a care unit: i) There shall be on-site dining facilities for the residents with food service being on-site or catered ii) Group transportation services shall be provided for the residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents needs, including but not limited to medical office visits, iii) There shall be an on-site managerlactivities coordinator to assist residents, and shall be responsible for planning and coordinating stimulating activities for the residents, iv) A wcllness facility shall be provided on-site to provide for exercise and general fitness opportunities for the residents. Revised 1-12-10 Page 140fl5 Page 395 of 913 Page 396 of 913 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2010-06 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 23rd day of February, 2010, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 2010. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and c~~r~ Ex-officio to Board ~f County Commissioners oy,. Q,c~:. By: Ann Jennejohn,'- N') Deputy Clerk Page 397 of 913 Growth Management Community Development Department Zoning Division C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: Nancy Gundlach, PLA, AICP, CSM, Planner III, Zoning Services Section From: Austin Grubb, Planner III, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 2, 2025 Subject: Growth Management Plan Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20240010833 PETITION NAME: Magnolia Pond Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) REQUEST: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider Amending Ordinance Number 2010-06, the Magnolia Pond Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 231 dwelling units to 550 dwelling units, subject to an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. LOCATION: The subject site is ± 47.05 acres located at 3115 Magnolia Pond Drive, Naples and in the NW ¼ of S34, T49 R26 Collier County, Florida. The site is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the North Collier Boulevard/I 75 Innovation Zone Overlay. The site is located just outside and adjacent to the boundary of Activity Center 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: North Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay. The Magnolia Pond MPUD was approved in 2010 and included 231 dwelling units of varying types. The North Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay was adopted in 2018. Th e original proposal for 231 dwelling units of varying types is technically inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Ov erlay. However, Ordinance 2010-06 approving the 231 units precedes the creation of the Overlay and therefore is not subject to the list of desired non-residential land uses for the Overlay District. Page 398 of 913 Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Consistency Review Memo 5-2-2025 2 North Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay Map Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 requires that all applications must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policies 5.5 and 5.7 discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl by utilizing urban areas for development before redesignating new property for urban intensity. The proposed development is an infill project and has infrastructure available at the site and does not represent urban sprawl. Policy 5.6 requires that new projects will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The proposed MUPUD has a conceptual PUD master plan that identifies the location of the proposed building(s) parking areas, buffer, and site access. The PUD document contains development standards which establish building setbacks appropriate for the type of uses proposed. The project will be complementary to the surrounding area and adjacent land uses that include Residential on the north and the east; a Public School to the west, and I-75 on the south. Objective 7, and implementing Policies 7.1-7.7, promote smart growth policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adhere to the development character of the County. As an infill development, it will minimize the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Page 399 of 913 Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Consistency Review Memo 5-2-2025 3 Density: c. Affordable Housing Bonus: To encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to twelve (12) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended), and if the affordable housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for Collier County. The base density is 4 DU’s per acre. The existing PUD allows 231 units on ±47.05 acres for a density of 5 units per acre. The County Commissioners may grant up to 12 units per acre (or less) additional density for affordable housing as stated in FLUE policy B.2.c above. The applicant is requesting an overall density of approximately 12 DU’s per acre (550 units/47.05 acres =11.7 DU’s per acre). This request is under the maximum of 16 DU’s/acre; however, the proposed density of 12 DU’s per acre is not an entitlement. CONCLUSION: Based upon staff’s analysis, the proposed land uses, density and the proposed development master plan is consistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, due to compliance with Policies 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7, 5.6, 7.1-7.7 and the Density Rating System Section B.2.c. PETITION ON CITYVIEW Page 400 of 913 Page 401 of 913 Page 402 of 913 Page 403 of 913 Page 404 of 913 Page 405 of 913 Page 406 of 913 Page 407 of 913 Page 408 of 913 Page 409 of 913 Page 410 of 913 Page 411 of 913 Page 412 of 913 Page 413 of 913 Page 414 of 913 Page 415 of 913 Page 416 of 913 Page 417 of 913 Page 418 of 913 Page 419 of 913 Page 420 of 913 Page 421 of 913 PL20240010833 Magnolia Pond PUDA NIM Summary Page 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Memorandum Date: May 18, 2025 To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM From: Christopher Scott, AICP RE: Magnolia Pond PUDA (PL20240010833) A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was conducted for the above referenced project on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 5:34 pm at the Golden Gate Community Center, located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. Three individuals from the public attended the meeting (see attached sign-in sheet). Ray Bellows was in attendance for County staff. The meeting was simultaneously conducted through Zoom and had no online participants. Individuals associated with the project team that were in attendance included the following: Christopher Scott Lisa Lefkow Jake Flagg Richard Yovanovich Michael Solorzano Mason Wiltermood Norman Trebilcock Mara Foley Dan Waters Chris Scott opened the meeting at 5:34 pm and provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the details of the proposed PUD Amendment. Following the presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees for comments and questions. The public had no comments and the meeting adjourned at 5:43 pm. Page 422 of 913 Page 423 of 913 *LocaliQ Florida GANNETT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PO Box 631244 Cincinnati, OH 45263-1244 Audrey Hancock Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate PKWY Naples FL 34105-3227 STATE OF WISCONSIN, COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, who on oath says that he or she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Naples Daily News, a newspaper published in Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Ad in the matter of Main Legal CLEGL, was published on the publicly accessible website of Collier and Lee Counties, Florida, or in a newspaper by print in the issues of, on: 02/25/2025 Affiant further says that the website or newspaper complies with all legal requirements for publication in chapter 50, Florida Statutes. Subscribed and sworn to before me, by the legal clerk, who is personally known to me, on 02/25/2025 ~ My commission expires Publication Cost: Tax Amount: Payment Cost: Order No: Customer No: PO#: THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE! $505.10 $0.00 $505.10 11052980 1126100 # of Copies: 1 Please do not use this form for payment remittance. NANCY HEYRMAN Notary Public State of Wisconsin Page 1 of 2 Page 424 of 913 NEIGH BO RHO O D IN FORM ATIO N M EET ING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Chris Scott of Peninsula Engineering on March 12th at 5:30 pm at the Golden Gate Recreation Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34116. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting isto provide the public with notice of the impending zoning applications and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct them selves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. The Applicant, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, has subm itted a Planned Unit Development Amendment (SRAA ) application for the Magnolia Pond PUD. The am endment proposes to utilize the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) to increase the permitted number of dwelling units fro m 231 to 550 dwelling units, revise the development standards for multifamily dwellings, including incre asing the permitted zoned and aQctual heights, add new deviations related to AHDB units and sidewalks, and update the Master Concept Plan and Developer Commitm ents [PL20240010833]. Business and pro perty owners, residents and visitors are welcom e to attend the presentation and discuss the project. If you are unable to attend this meeting but have questions or com ments or would like to register to participate in the meeting rem otely, please contact Chris Scott, Planning Manager, Peninsula Engineering, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 3410 5 cscott@pen-enq.com (239) 403-672 7. Page 425 of 913 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 February 23, 2025 Dear Property Owner: The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting to discuss a proposed amendment to the Brightshore Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA): Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 5:30 pm Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of the impending zoning applications and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. The Applicant, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, has submitted a Planned Unit Development Amendment (SRAA) application for the Magnolia Pond PUD. The amendment proposes to utilize the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) to increase the permitted number of dwelling units from 231 to 550 dwelling units, revise the development standards for multifamily dwellings, including increasing the permitted zoned and actual heights, add new deviations related to AHDB units and sidewalks, and update the Master Concept Plan and Developer Commitments [PL20240010833]. Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project. If you are unable to attend this meeting but have questions or comments or would like to register to participate in the meeting remotely, please the individual listed below. Christopher Scott, AICP Peninsula Engineering Phone: 239.403.6727 Email: cscott@pen-eng.com Page 426 of 913 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 427 of 913 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE ALKATOTAL LIMITED PRTNRSHP 576 RIDGE DR NAPLES, FL 34108---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 24 36009040006 U ALKATOTAL LIMITED PRTNRSHP 576 RIDGE DR NAPLES, FL 34108---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 8 36008400003 U BEYRENT, MAXIMILIAN 506 GORDONIA RD NAPLES, FL 34108---0 34 49 26 COMM W1/4 CNR SEC 34, E1977.70FT TO POB,CONT E659.23FT, N73 DEG W92.07 FT,NWLY ALG ARC CURVE CONCAVE SW 00297320001 U CERTO, BRIAN 4548 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 18 36011120008 U CICIONI REAL ESTATE TRUST 100 VINE ST RINGTOWN, PA 17967---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 26 OR 1315 PG 2121 36011440005 U CODY REVOCABLE TRUST 4536 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8232 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 19 36011160000 U COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 PALM SPGS EST UNIT 1 TRACT A OR 420 PG 601 65670040008 U COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---4961 34 49 26 I-75 ROW & ACCESS ROAD NO. 2, 72.72 AC MORE OR LESS 00298080007 U COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---4961 34 49 26 N 165 OF THE FOLL:E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW 1/4, W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4,W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 00298120802 U COMBS, WILLIAM J & KATHY L 4560 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8232 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 17 OR 1325 PG 1201 36011080009 U CUEVAS JR, JUAN L 4500 31ST PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 5 36008280003 U DEL PRADO-GARCIA, FRANCISCO J MERCEDES REGUERA-CABRERA 4523 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8231 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 26 36009120007 U DOMINGUEZ, MARIA D GABRIELA GIOVANNA BENITEZ MARIETH A BENITEZ DOMINGUEZ 4547 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 28 36009200008 U ENGELHART, ADAM N & ELISA 4450 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 27 36011480007 U FERREYRA, NOELIA S 4524 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8232 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 20 36011200009 U FLORES, ANALEIDY HERNANDEZ 4471 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---5616 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 21 OR 1138 PG 296 36008920004 U GEORGE, IRIS TODD 4483 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8274 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 22 OR 1395 PG 1307 36008960006 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS S 30FT 00297840002 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 COMM NW CNR SEC 34,S 1957.57FT, E 1641.06FT TO THE POB, SELY ALG THE ARC OF A CUR CON TO THE SW 249.10FT,00296721009 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS N 30FT 00296760002 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS NLY 22 +-FT DESC IN OR 3550 PG 2809 00296800001 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 E1/2 OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS S 30FT 00297240000 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 COMM W1/4 CNR SEC E2636.93FT, N346.19FT TO POB,CONT N989.32FT,W 329.52FT,S665.85FT, W 329.57FT,00297280002 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 E1/2 OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 5 AC OR 601 PG 500 00297600006 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 00297720009 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 COMM NW CNR SEC 34,S1957.57FT,E988.72FT,N181.41FT TO POB, SELY ALG ARC OF CRV CONC TO SW 00297880004 U HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 34113---0 34 49 26 COM NW CNR, S 1957.57FT, E1318.29FT,N94.8FT TO POB, SELY ALG ARC OF CRV CNCV TO SW 334.47FT,00298000003 U HANKS, HAROLD BEMBURY GLENDA DENISE HANKS 4470 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 25 OR 1147 PG 126 36011400003 U HURTADO, ABISAY DIAZ YANIN VALLADARES REGO 4500 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 22 36011280003 U I-75 PRESERVE LLC 8441 COOPER CREEK BLVD UNIVERSITY PARK, FL 34201---2006 34 49 26 COM AT NE CNR SEC 34,S87DEG W 100.04FT, S 1275.33FT , S87DEG W 874.65FT AND POB,ALG ARC OF CURVE 40.05FT, N 00298120501 U KRUEGER, SCOTT D 4410 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8273 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOTS 30,31 36011640009 U LEHOUX, ENRIQUE & REGINA MARCELLE LEHOUX 4411 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---5650 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 16 36008720000 U LOPEZ, ADOLFO CORNELIO JESSICA D PIMENTEL IZAGUIRRE 4459 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34113---3411 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 20 OR 1836 PG 1011 36008880005 U LOPEZ, GARDENIA 4480 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 24 36011360004 U MERCADO, RAUL & LOURDES Y 4436 31ST PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8259 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 11 OR 1801 PG 1651 36008520006 U NUNEZ, MAGDIEL 2224 45TH TERRACE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 29 36011560008 U PATINO REVOCABLE TRUST 14717 BEAUFORT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 23 36009000004 U PEREYRA, ROSELIN SHERLEY ANA TORRES AGOSTO 4448 31ST PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 10 36008480007 U PULIDO, GABRIEL CASTILLO YVONNE CASTILLO 4423 32ND AVE NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 17 36008760002 U RAGINS, DARIUS 4496 31ST PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 6 36008320002 U RANDOLPH JR, WILLIAM E MARY E RANDOLPH TAMMY D RANDOLPH 4440 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8273 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 28 36011520006 U REVELO, JOSE & MARGARITA 4512 31ST PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8261 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 4 36008240001 U RICHMAN NAPLES DEV PTNR LLC 777 W PUTNAM AVE GREENWICH, CT 06830---0 34 49 26 COMM AT SE CNR OF NE 1/4 SEC 34, W 100.01FT,NLY 1353.72FT, S87DEG W 947.68FT TO POB, S87DEG W 831.60FT,00296520006 U RICHMAN NAPLES DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS II LLC 777 W PUTNAM AVE GREENWICH, CT 06830---0 34 49 26 COMM AT SE COR OF NE 1/4 SEC 34, W 100.01FT, NLY 1353.72FT, S87DEG W 1779.28FT TO POB, S 1DEG E 45.50FT, N89 00296580004 U RIVERA CASTELLANO, DIGNORA 4572 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 16 36011040007 U ROBERTS, JOSEPH A & REBECCA J 4435 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8274 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 18 OR 993 PG 542 36008800001 U SANDOVAL, J ANTONIO 4401 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---9413 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 15 36008680001 U SANTIAGO, BARTOLA 4447 SW 32ND AVE NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 19 36008840003 U SCHOOL DISTRICT-GGH GOLDEN GATE HIGH % SUPERINTENDENT 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES, FL 34109---919 34 49 26 NW1/4 OF NW1/4, W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4, W1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF I-75 RW, W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF 00296480007 U SCHOOL DISTRICT-MDE MIKE DAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3215 MAGNOLIA POND DR NAPLES, FL 34116---8300 34 49 26 A 17.58 AC PARCEL IN THE NE1/4 FURTHER DESCRIBED IN OR 3186 PG 2789 00298120909 U SHERWOOD PARK MASTER ASSN INC % ANCHOR ASSOCIATES INC 2340 STANFORD CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SHERWOOD PARK TRACT G (PRESERVE)73520001451 U SREIT TUSCAN ISLE LLC C/O RYAN LLC 400 GALLERIA PARKWAY STE 1450 ATLANTA, GA 30339---0 34 49 26 COMM AT SW CNR OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 34, N 50FT AND POB,N00DEG E 2574.54FT TO NW CNR OF SE CNR, S72DEG E 506.83FT,00296840003 U SULLIVAN, RAYMOND M NICHOLE SIGMAN-SULLIVAN 4400 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8273 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 32 36011680001 U SUNSHINE ENTRPRS OF SW FL INC 618 LAMBTON LN NAPLES, FL 34104---8303 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 23 36011320002 U TRANCHANT, WADNER 4511 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8231 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 25 36009080008 U TRIMINO, EVELYN 4512 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 112 LOT 21 36011240001 U VALUS EST, INIVE GEORGES 4535 32ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8231 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 27 36009160009 U VARGAS, JOSE V VAZQUEZ 4484 31ST PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 7 36008360004 U VASQUEZ, EMILIANA L 4007 20TH PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---6285 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3 BLK 110 LOT 9 36008440005 U Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20240010833 - Magnolia Pond (PUDA) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 2/11/2025 | Site Location: 296721009, 296760002, 296800001, 297240000, 297280002, 297600006, 297840002, 297880004, 298000003, 297720009 Copy of POList_500 Page 428 of 913 Magnolia Pond PUD PUD Amendment PL20240010833 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING MARCH 12, 2025 Page 429 of 913 ZOOM TUTORIAL •Please keep your speaker on MUTE during the presentation •Following the presentation, we will open the meeting for Q&A •Please type in questions using the “Chat” Tool. Submitted questions will be read aloud prior to response Page 430 of 913 PROJECT TEAM Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. •Rev. Lisa Lefkow, CEO •Michael Solorzano, Director of Land Development Thompson Thrift •Jake Flagg •Mason Wiltermood Earth Tech Environmental, LLC •Jeremy Sterk, CEP Coleman Yovanovich Koester •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Peninsula Engineering, Inc. •Christopher Scott, AICP •Dan Waters, PE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA •Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE Page 431 of 913 LOCATION MAP Page 432 of 913 PROJECT BACKGROUND Magnolia Pond PUD originally approved in 1998 and amended in 2010. •47.05-acres, bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive •Allows for a maximum of 231 dwelling units (4.9 du/ac) •Single-Family •Two-Family •Multifamily •Assisted Living Facilities (4 ALF units per du) Page 433 of 913 PROPOSED AMENDMENT •Increase permitted number of dwelling units from 231 to 550 •Affordable Housing Density Bonus •Update Exhibit B, Development Standards •Revise Exhibit C, Master Concept Plan (MCP) •Proposed Deviations: •Affordable Housing Design Standards (LDC 2.06.05.A.14 and 2.06.05.A.16) •Sidewalks (LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1) •Parking (LDC 4.05.04.G, Table 17) •Update Exhibit F, Developer Commitments Page 434 of 913 EXISTING ZONING/FUTURE LAND USE Page 435 of 913 INCREASED DENSITY •Proposed Density: 550 Dwelling Units (11.69 du/ac) is consistent with the GMP •Maximum Eligible Density per GMP is 16 du/ac •Residential Density Band +3 du/ac •Affordable Housing Density Bonus +7 du/ac (Max. allowed is +12 du/ac) •165 affordable units; 30% of the total 550 units Page 436 of 913 REVISED MASTER CONCEPT PLAN •Development Tracts Bisected by Magnolia Pond Dr. •Northern (R1) Residential Tract •+/- 350 feet from Northern PUD Boundary/Canal •Southern (R2) Residential Tract •9.64-acres of Preserve Page 437 of 913 NEW DEVIATIONS 3. LDC Section 2.06.04.A.14 and 16, Affordable Housing Conditions, to allow Affordable Housing product to be permitted and constructed separately from market rate product. The affordable housing units will be owner-occupied and located north of Magnolia Pond Drive (R1) and the market rate units will be rental apartments located south of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). Page 438 of 913 NEW DEVIATIONS 4. LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1., Sidewalk Requirements, to not require a 5’ sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive adjacent to the preserve. Page 439 of 913 NEW DEVIATIONS 5. LDC Section 4.05.04.G., Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, to not require additional parking for on-site recreation facilities associated with the market rate rental apartments located south of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). Page 440 of 913 QUESTIONS Page 441 of 913 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 December 19, 2024 Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Magnolia Pond PUD PUD Amendment – PL20240010833 1st Review To Whom It May Concern, The below have been included for your review and approval. Please note that this application has been approved for Affordable Housing Expedited Review: 1. Cover Letter 2. Certificate of Affordable Housing Expedited Review 3. PUDA Application 4. Pre-Application Meeting Notes 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Property Ownership Disclosure Forms 7. Covenant of Unified Control 8. Recorded Warranty Deed 9. Boundary Survey 10. Completed Addressing Checklist 11. Current Aerial/Location Map 12. Statement of Utility Provisions 13. Traffic Impact Statement 14. Environmental Data/Listed Species Survey 15. School Impact Analysis 16. Narrative and Evaluation Criteria 17. Completed Exhibits A-F (Revised PUD Document) 18. Revised MCP 19. List of Deviations & Justifications 20. Current PUD (Ord 2010-06) 21. DRAFT Affordable Housing Agreement Please feel free to contact me at (239) 403-6727 or by email at cscott@pen-eng.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Christopher O. Scott, AICP Planning Manager Page 442 of 913 Page 443 of 913 Page 1 of 11 Planning and Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsections 10.02.13 E; and 10.03.06.B; and Ch. 3 G.2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. File a separate application for an insubstantial or minor change to a PUD. Name of Property Owner(s): Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: If Property is under contract to be sold: Name of Property Buyer(s): Name of Applicant if different than buyer: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 444 of 913 PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 2 of 11 This application is requesting a rezone from:_______________________________________Zoning district(s) to the _______________________________________________Zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property:__________________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No: _____________________________________________________________________________ On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: •If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; •If required to do so at the pre-application meeting, the applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six (6) months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), and •The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Size of Property: ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: Address/General Location of Subject Property: PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Mixed Use Industrial Community Facilities Research and Technology Park Airport Operations Other: ________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION REZONE REQUEST Page 445 of 913 Page 3 of 11 Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________________ Complete the following for all registered Home Owner / Civic Association(s) that could be affected by this petition and located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Civic Associations and Communities page on the Board of County Commissioner’s website. Applicant is responsible for and shall confirm the current mailing addresses for each association as registered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE ASSOCIATIONS PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 446 of 913 Page 4 of 11 Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy, or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy, or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions EVALUATION CRITERIA PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 447 of 913 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No If yes, please provide copies. This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.05. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment, or change, for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing, and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees, and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 448 of 913 Page 9 of 11 The following submittal requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please upload the submittal items with cover sheets attached to each section via the GMCD Portal. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted, or processed. View sample PUD document. REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with narrative statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed application with required attachments (download latest version) Pre-application meeting notes Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized Property Ownership Disclosure Form Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control Completed Addressing Checklist (no older than 6 months) Warranty Deed(s) Signed and sealed Boundary Survey (no older than 6 months) Architectural rendering of proposed structures Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. Statement of utility provisions Statement of compliance with Growth Management Plan Environmental data requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. See Chapter 7 A. of the Administrative Code Listed or protected species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Historical and Archaeological Survey or Waiver School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable with residential uses Location of existing public facilities that will serve the PUD Electronic copy of all required documents Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and one (1) 8 ½” x 11” copy *Checklist continues on next page Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G.2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 449 of 913 PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 10 of 11 Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined Development Commitments (infrastructure and related matters) Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: •Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses •Exhibit B: Development Standards Table for each type of land use •Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code •Exhibit D: Legal Description •Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each •Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas, pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08 A.2.a.(2)(b)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nicole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Anthony Stolts Parks and Recreation Director: Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Stormwater Management: Fire: City of Naples Planning Director: Erica Martin Other: City of Naples Utilities: Other: Fire Pre-Application Meeting: $150.00 (Applied as credit towards fire review fee upon submittal of application if within 9 months of the pre-app meeting date) Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: •Methodology Review: $500.00 (Methodology by Email to Staff) *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting •Minor Study Review: $750.00 •Major Study Review $1,500.00 FEE REQUIREMENTS Page 450 of 913 Page 11 of 11 Fire Planning Review Fee: ($300 PUDZ, PUDR) ($150 PUDA) Estimated Legal Advertising fee: •CCPC: $1,125.00 •BCC: $500.00 If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing Examiner hearing date. (Variable) School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: •Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, if required by The Land Development Code, will be invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date Printed Named of Signing Party *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMCD Public Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 451 of 913 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA (PL20240010833) LIST AND MAP OF PROPERTY OWNERS MAP REFERENCE PARCEL ID OWNER NAME 1 00297720009 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 2 00297600006 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 3 00297840002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 4 00297240000 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 5 00297880004 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 6 00298000003 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 7 00296800001 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 8 00296760002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 9 00297280002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 10 00296721009 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 11 00296480007 Collier County School District – GGH (Magnolia Pond Rd Easement) Page 452 of 913 Page 453 of 913 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b.If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership c.If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Page 454 of 913 d.If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership e.If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f.If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g.Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Page 455 of 913 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMD Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov Page 456 of 913 Page 457 of 913 Page 458 of 913 Page 459 of 913 Page 460 of 913 EXHIBIT A TO COVENANT OF CONTROL LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR MAGNOLIA POND MPUD THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00297240000 PARCEL 21: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNT TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. LESS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; RUN THENCE SOUTH 0°20'07" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,324.86 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 74°09'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 73°00'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 364.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°19'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 355.71 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 76°01'14" EAST, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,297.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 3°00'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 593.78 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 73°00'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 92.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°20'07" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 346.19 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. LESS AND EXCEPT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIT-CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2323, PAGE 508, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 PARCELS 33 & 38: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR, AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297720009 Page 461 of 913 PARCEL 39: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNTING TO NO LESS THAN 25%, LESS AND EXCEPT THE PARCEL SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 994, PAGES 1760-1763, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297880004 PARCEL 41: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1048, PAGE 521-523, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00298000003 PARCEL 114: THAT PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°13'41", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N 88°28'35" E, A DISTANCE OF 336.37 FEET; THENCE S 01°19'13" E, A DISTANCE OF 109.09 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND UTILITY REMAINING IN PLACE AND IN USE, IF ANY, THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHT, AIR, AND VIEW BETWEEN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ROAD NAMED AS FOLLOWS: STATE ROAD 93 (I-75); ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E A DISTANCE OF 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 73°00'33" E A DISTANCE OF Page 462 of 913 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37' 19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 01°13'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE. PROPERTY I.D. #00296721009 PARCEL 9: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2904, PAGES 0876 THROUGH 0879 INCLUSIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY ID #00296800001 PARCEL 30: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3002, PAGE 2704 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SAME BEING FIVE ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OF 25 FEET ON, OVER AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY. PROPERTY ID #00297600006 SUBJECT TO EASEMENT, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. SUBJECT PARCEL CONTAINS 2,049,396.00 SQ, FEET, OR 47.05+/- ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. Page 463 of 913 Page 464 of 913 Page 465 of 913 Page 466 of 913 Page 467 of 913 Page 468 of 913 Page 469 of 913 Page 470 of 913 Page 471 of 913 Page 472 of 913 Page 473 of 913 SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 2 PARCEL 33 & 38 PARCEL 30 PARCEL 20 PARCEL 21 PARCEL 8 PARCEL 9 PARCEL 41 PARCEL 39 INTERSTATE 75 (STATE ROAD #93) GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOLIO # 00296480007 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOLIO # 00298120909 RALPH ABERCIA FOLIO # 00298120501 RALPH ABERCIA FOLIO # 00296520006 GOLDEN GATE CANAL (160' WIDE) CURVE TABLE CURVE # C1 LENGTH 922.34 RADIUS 11621.16 DELTA 4°32'51" CHORD BEARING S75°16'57"E CHORD LENGTH 922.10 MAGNOLIA POND DR. S87°57'45"W 658.28 S0°21'49"E 1282.55L3 L4 S0°19'16"E 443.11C1 S72° 5 9 ' 5 3 " E 4 6 6 . 7 7 S74°0 7 ' 3 4 " E 3 2 4 . 0 9 E. LINE S.E. 1/4,N.W. 1/4 SEC. 34N0°23'37"W 959.28BASIS OF BEARINGL1 L2N0°26'08"W 621.84N0°19'19"W 662.42LINE TABLE LINE # L1 L2 L3 L4 LENGTH 19.48 40.61 37.51 30.00 BEARING N0°31'32"W N0°34'55"W S0°25'06"E S0°16'55"E PARCEL DESCRIBED CONTAINS: 47.05 ACRES MORE OR LESSS88°23'46"W 987.88 PARCEL 114 25' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.1040, PG.1333 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.351, PG.171 O.R.359, PG. 609 O.R.426, PG.121 30' DRAINAGE ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE ESMT. O.R.4574, PG.3010 30' DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE ESMT. O.R.4575, PG.3006 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.430, PG.516 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT O.R.1040, PG.1333 NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 75 PER ROAD MAP 3, PAGES 6-14 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.994, PG./1760 O.R.1048, PG.521 AH 11. 5 AH 11.0AH 10.5X XX X X500 X500 X500X X500 X500 AE X X500 X X X500 X500 X500 X500 X500X500 X500X500 X500 X500 X500 ZONE 11.5 ZON E 11.5 X ZONE 11 X500 AE AH ZONE 11 OFLANCE T MILLER, P.S.M. #LS 5627REV.REVISIONTITLE:PROJECT NO.SHEET #:DRAWING NO.:CLIENT:Vertical Scale:Horizontal Scale:Date:Drawn by:Fieldwork by:Fieldbook/Page:[Save Date: 3/24/2025 9:47:34 AM] [Saved By: twehrle] [Plot Date: 3/24/2025 9:52:37 AM] [Plotted By: Tim Wehrle] [Original Size: 24x36] [Drawing Path: S:\Magnolia_Pond-Habitat-MPH\BOUNDARY-ALL\S-MPH-ALL-002-SU-01.dwg]NOVEMBER 20241" = 200'N.T.S.P-041/52SDTFWS-MPHS-TT-ALTAS-MPH-ALL-002-SU-01.dwg1THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT, INC.3MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEYOF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.SCALE:1" = 200'0 SCALE IN FEET 400200 GENERAL NOTES: ·BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEING NORTH 0°23'37" WEST. ·ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM, 1988, (N.A.V.D.) ·LINES SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED ARE FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY AND WERE NOT SURVEYED. ·PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONES: AH10.5, AH11.0, AH11.5, X500, & X PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL #120067 0412J DATED FEBRUARY 8TH, 2024. ·NORTH PARCELS CONTAIN: 19.382 ACRES MORE OR LESS ·SOUTH PARCELS CONTAIN: 26.144 ACRES MORE OR LESS. ·NET ACREAGE: 45.526 ACRES MORE OR LESS LEGEND: A.E. = ACCESS EASEMENT BM = BENCHMARK C/L = CENTERLINE C.U.E. = COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT D.E. = DRAINAGE EASEMENT EL. & ELEV. = ELEVATION ESMT. = EASEMENT F.P.L. = FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT O.R. = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK P.B. = PLAT BOOK PG. = PAGE P.U.E. = PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R.B. = ROAD BOOK R.O.W. = RIGHT-OF-WAY P = PLAT, M = MEASURED, C = CALCULATED, F = FIELD N = NORTH, S = SOUTH, E = EAST, W = WEST (S.I.P.)SET 5/8" IRON PIN & CAP STAMPED LB-8479 (F.I.P.) FOUND IRON PIN & CAP STAMPED AS SHOWN (F.C.M.) FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT (F.N.D.) FOUND PK NAIL & DISK STAMPED SPOIL PILE MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY OF PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (SEE FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION BELOW) PREPARED FOR:THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT, INC. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC. PENINSULA ENGINEERING 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 PHONE: 239.403.6700 FAX: 239.261.1797 EMAIL: INFO@PEN-ENG.COM WEBSITE: WWW.PEN-ENG.COM _____________________________________________ LANCE T MILLER PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER, #LS5627 OCTOBER 7TH, 2024 DATE ·CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #LB- 8479 ·NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OR DIGITAL SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ·NO OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY MAY RELY UPON THIS EXHIBIT. ·THIS EXHIBIT IS ONLY FOR THE LANDS AS DESCRIBED. IT IS NOT A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. SYMBOL LEGEND: = CLEANOUT = GRATE INLET = MITERED END = STORM MANHOLE = YARD DRAIN = GUY ANCHOR = WOOD POWER POLE = CONCRETE POWER POLE = ELECTRIC PANEL = HANDHOLE = LIGHT POLE = ELECTRIC MANHOLE = ELECTRIC METER POLE = ELECTRIC RISER = TRANSFORMER PAD = GAS VALVE = CABLE RISER = GAS RISER = TELEPHONE RISER = TELEPHONE MANHOLE = IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX = SPRINKLER HEAD = WATER BLOW-OFF = FIRE HYDRANT = GATE VALVE = WELL = MONITORING WELL = WATER METER = WATER RISER = MAILBOX = PILING = SIGN D Y HH L E E F GV C G T T IC BO W W MB P MW FEMA ZONE DETAIL PARCEL 8: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00296760002 PARCEL 20: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00297240000 PARCEL 21: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNT TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. LESS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; RUN THENCE SOUTH 0°20'07" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,324.86 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 74°09'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 73°00'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 364.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°19'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 355.71 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 76°01'14" EAST, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,297.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 3°00'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 593.78 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 73°00'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 92.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°20'07" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 346.19 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. LESS AND EXCEPT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIT-CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2323, PAGE 508, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 PARCELS 33 & 38: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR, AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297720009 PARCEL 39: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNTING TO NO LESS THAN 25%, LESS AND EXCEPT THE PARCEL SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 994, PAGES 1760-1763, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297880004 PARCEL 41: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1048, PAGE 521-523, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00298000003 PARCEL 114: THAT PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°13'41", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N 88°28'35" E, A DISTANCE OF 336.37 FEET; THENCE S 01°19'13" E, A DISTANCE OF 109.09 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND UTILITY REMAINING IN PLACE AND IN USE, IF ANY, THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHT, AIR, AND VIEW BETWEEN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ROAD NAMED AS FOLLOWS: STATE ROAD 93 (I-75); ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E A DISTANCE OF 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 73°00'33" E A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37' 19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 01°13'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE. PROPERTY I.D. #00296721009 PARCEL 9: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2904, PAGES 0876 THROUGH 0879 INCLUSIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY ID #00296800001 PARCEL 30: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3002, PAGE 2704 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SAME BEING FIVE ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OF 25 FEET ON, OVER AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY. PROPERTY ID #00297600006 SUBJECT TO EASEMENT, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. SUBJECT PARCEL CONTAINS 2,049,396.00 SQ, FEET, OR 47.05+/- ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.1.) REVISED BNDY FIGURE AND LEGALS, TFW, 12/03/24HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC. &2.) ADDED ADDITIONAL EASEMENT LABELS, TFW, 03/24/25Page 474 of 913 PARCEL: 8W 1/2, NE 1/4, SE 1/4,NW 1/4PARCEL: 21E 1/2, NE 1/4, SE1/4, NW 1/4ALONG WITH SE1/4, SE 1/4, NW 1/4GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (PARCEL ID: 00296480007) I-75 PRESERVE LLC (PARCEL ID: 00298120501)MAGNOLIA POND DR.PARCEL 33 & 38 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IF CC INC (PARCEL ID: 00297840002) PARCEL 30 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IF CC INC (PARCEL ID: 00297240000) ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC BOHH STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PARCEL DESCRIBED CONTAINS: 47.05 ACRES MORE OR LESS GOLDEN GATE CANAL(160' WIDE)PARCEL 20 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IF CC INC (PARCEL ID: 00297240000) 60' 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.1040, PG.1333 50' MUTUAL R.O.W.ESMT.O.R.351, PG.171O.R.359, PG.6096,O.R.426, PG.12125' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.1040, PG.1333 LINE TABLE LINE # L1 L2 L3 LENGTH 19.48 40.61 37.51 BEARING N0°31'32"W N0°34'55"W S0°25'06"ECON. S/WASPHALT ROADWAYN 1/2 NW 1/4 SEC. 34S 1/2 NW 1/4 SEC. 34TOP OFBANKL.B.2464 IRON PINCON. CURBIRON PINL.B. 2464 L.B. 6753 L.B. 3241 BROKEN MONUMENT L.B. 3241 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE 1.3' +/- W. OF P/L 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE 1.3' +/- W. OF P/L RIP RAP RIP RAP VAULT N. LINE OF THE E. 1/2, OF THE N.E. 1/4, OF THE N.W. 1/4, SEC. 34S87°57'45"W 658.28L3 L1 L2 E. LINE OF S.E. 1/4, OF THE N.E. 1/4,OF THE N.W. 1/4, SEC. 34 N0°26'08"W 621.84 S0°21'49"E 1282.55 W. LINE OF THE E. 1/2, OF THE N.E. 1/4, OF THE N.W. 1/4, SEC. 34 STRM E. LINE OF N.E. 1/4, OF THE N.E. 1/4,OF THE N.W. 1/4, SEC. 34 N0°19'19"W 662.4230' DRAINAGE,ACCESS ANDMAINTENANCE ESMT.O.R.4575, PG.3010OFLANCE T MILLER, P.S.M. #LS 5627REV.REVISIONTITLE:PROJECT NO.SHEET #:DRAWING NO.:CLIENT:Vertical Scale:Horizontal Scale:Date:Drawn by:Fieldwork by:Fieldbook/Page:[Save Date: 3/24/2025 9:47:34 AM] [Saved By: twehrle] [Plot Date: 3/24/2025 9:52:52 AM] [Plotted By: Tim Wehrle] [Original Size: 24x36] [Drawing Path: S:\Magnolia_Pond-Habitat-MPH\BOUNDARY-ALL\S-MPH-ALL-002-SU-01.dwg]NOVEMBER 20241" = 50'N.T.S.P-041/52SDTFWS-MPHS-TT-ALTAS-MPH-ALL-002-SU-01.dwg2THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT, INC.3MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEYOF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.SYMBOL LEGEND: = CLEANOUT = GRATE INLET = MITERED END = STORM MANHOLE = YARD DRAIN = GUY ANCHOR = WOOD POWER POLE = CONCRETE POWER POLE = ELECTRIC PANEL = HANDHOLE = LIGHT POLE = ELECTRIC MANHOLE = ELECTRIC METER POLE = ELECTRIC RISER = TRANSFORMER PAD = GAS VALVE = CABLE RISER = GAS RISER = TELEPHONE RISER = TELEPHONE MANHOLE = IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX = SPRINKLER HEAD = WATER BLOW-OFF = FIRE HYDRANT = GATE VALVE = WELL = MONITORING WELL = WATER METER = WATER RISER = MAILBOX = PILING = SIGN D Y HH L E E F GV C G T T IC BO W W MB P MW SCALE:1" = 50' 0 SCALE IN FEET 10050 1.) REVISED BNDY FIGURE AND LEGALS, TFW, 12/03/242.) ADDED ADDITIONAL EASEMENT LABELS, TFW, 03/24/25Page 475 of 913 PARCEL: 8 W 1/2, NE 1/4, SE 1/4, NW 1/4 PARCEL: 9 E 1/2, NW 1/4, SE 1/4, NW 1/4PARCEL: 41 W 1/2, NW 1/4, SE 1/4, NW 1/4 PARCEL: 39 E 1/2, NE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4 PARCEL: 21 E 1/2, NE 1/4, SE 1/4, NW 1/4 ALONG WITH SE 1/4, SE 1/4, NW 1/4 PARCEL: 114 PART OF THE S 1/2, NW 1/4 RICHMAN NAPLES DEV PTNR LLC (PARCEL ID: 00296520006) MAGNOLIA POND DR. I-75 (S.R.93) (R.B. 3, PG. 14) (WIDTH VARIES) NOR T H E R L Y R . O . W . I - 7 5 PARCEL 33 & 38 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IF CC INC (PARCEL ID: 00297840002) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC BO HH 8.3D N 1/2 NW 1/4 SEC. 34 S 1/2 NW 1/4 SEC. 34 STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM CON. WALK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PARCEL 20 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IF CC INC (PARCEL ID: 00297240000) 25' 50' 25' 25' A.E. & D.E. O.R.229, PG.165 25'60'50' MUTUALR.O.W. ESMT.O.R.1040,PG.133350' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.351, PG.171 O.R.359, PG.6096, O.R.426, PG.121 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.430, PG.516 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.1040, PG.1333 50' MUTUAL R.O.W. ESMT. O.R.994, PG./1760 O.R.1048, PG.521 25'25'CURVE TABLE CURVE # C1 C2 LENGTH 922.34 249.10 RADIUS 11621.16 11621.16 DELTA 4°32'51" 1°13'41" CHORD BEARING S75°16'57"E N73°37'19"W CHORD LENGTH 922.10 249.10 LINE TABLE LINE # L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 LENGTH 19.48 40.61 37.51 30.00 336.37 109.09 102.33 BEARING N0°31'32"W N0°34'55"W S0°25'06"E S0°16'55"E N88°28'35"E S1°19'13"E N73°00'33"W PARCEL DESCRIBED CONTAINS: 47.05 ACRES MORE OR LESS ASPHALT ROADWAY (D) N 7 3 ° 0 0 ' 3 3 " W 8 9 3 . 7 5 (TIE L I N E T O PAR C E L 1 1 4 )(D) N16°59'27"E 162.00(D) C 2 (D) L5 (D) L6(D) L 7 L.B.2464 L.B.2464 L.B.2464IRON PINL.B.3661 IRON PIN ILLEGIBLE ILLEGIBLE 4' POST AND WIRE FENCE RUNS ALONG PROPERTY LINE 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE 0.8' WEST OF PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF WATER AT TIME OF SURVEY (10/05/2024) TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 75 PER ROAD MAP 3, PAGES 6-14 CON. WALK CON. CURB CON. CURB CON. CURB CON. CURB IRON PINL.B. 2464L.B. 67536' CHAIN LINKFENCE 1.3' +/-W. OF P/LHEADWALL AND BOX CULVERTRIP RAPVAULT TOP OF BANK L3S88°23'46"W 987.88 N. LINE OF THE S. 1/2, OF THE N.W. 1/4, SEC. 34 L4S0°19'16"E 443.11W. LINE OF E. 1/2,N.E. 1/4, S.E. 1/4, N.W. 1/4,C1 S72° 5 9 ' 5 3 " E 4 6 6 . 7 7 S74°0 7 ' 3 4 " E 3 2 4 . 0 9 E. LINE S.E. 1/4, N.W. 1/4, SEC. 34N0°23'37"W 959.28(BASIS OF BEARING)L1 L230' DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE ESMT. O.R.4575, PG.3010 OFLANCE T MILLER, P.S.M. #LS 5627REV.REVISIONTITLE:PROJECT NO.SHEET #:DRAWING NO.:CLIENT:Vertical Scale:Horizontal Scale:Date:Drawn by:Fieldwork by:Fieldbook/Page:[Save Date: 3/24/2025 9:47:34 AM] [Saved By: twehrle] [Plot Date: 3/24/2025 9:53:08 AM] [Plotted By: Tim Wehrle] [Original Size: 24x36] [Drawing Path: S:\Magnolia_Pond-Habitat-MPH\BOUNDARY-ALL\S-MPH-ALL-002-SU-01.dwg]NOVEMBER 20241" = 60'N.T.S.P-041/52SDTFWS-MPHS-TT-ALTAS-MPH-ALL-002-SU-01.dwg3THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT, INC.3MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEYOF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.SYMBOL LEGEND: = CLEANOUT = GRATE INLET = MITERED END = STORM MANHOLE = YARD DRAIN = GUY ANCHOR = WOOD POWER POLE = CONCRETE POWER POLE = ELECTRIC PANEL = HANDHOLE = LIGHT POLE = ELECTRIC MANHOLE = ELECTRIC METER POLE = ELECTRIC RISER = TRANSFORMER PAD = GAS VALVE = CABLE RISER = GAS RISER = TELEPHONE RISER = TELEPHONE MANHOLE = IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX = SPRINKLER HEAD = WATER BLOW-OFF = FIRE HYDRANT = GATE VALVE = WELL = MONITORING WELL = WATER METER = WATER RISER = MAILBOX = PILING = SIGN = SPOIL PILE D Y HH L E E F GV C G T T IC BO W W MB P MW SCALE:1" = 60'0 SCALE IN FEET 12060 1.) REVISED BNDY FIGURE AND LEGALS, TFW, 12/03/242.) ADDED ADDITIONAL EASEMENT LABELS, TFW, 03/24/25Page 476 of 913 Addressing Checklist 6/14/2024 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Addressing Checklist GMCD Public Portal Land Development Code Administrative Code Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with a * are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. *Name of Owner/Agent: Firm [if agent]: *Address:*City:*State:*ZIP: *Telephone:Cell:Fax: *E-Mail Address: *Folio (Property ID) Number(s) of the subject property or properties [Attach list if necessary]: *Legal Description of subject property or properties [Attach list if necessary]: Street Address(es) where applicable, if already assigned: Applicant Contact Information Location Information Page 477 of 913 Collier County Addressing Checklist 6/14/2024 Page 2 of 2 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre-approval of project name and/or street name may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. Current Project Name: Proposed Project Name: Proposed Street Name: Latest Approved Project Number [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include. Checkmark the items included with this application: Requirements for Review: Required: LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. ☒ List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. ☐ E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre-approved project and/or street names.☐ Project Information Submittal Requirement Checklist The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMCD Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: Front.Desk@colliercountyfl.gov Page 478 of 913 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA (PL20240010833) LIST AND MAP OF PROPERTY OWNERS MAP REFERENCE PARCEL ID OWNER NAME 1 00297720009 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 2 00297600006 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 3 00297840002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 4 00297240000 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 5 00297880004 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 6 00298000003 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 7 00296800001 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 8 00296760002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 9 00297280002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 10 00296721009 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 11 00296480007 Collier County School District – GGH (Magnolia Pond Rd Easement) Page 479 of 913 PARCEL 8: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00296760002 PARCEL 20: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I.D. #00297240000 PARCEL 21: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOOR AMOUNT TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. LESS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; RUN THENCE SOUTH 0°20'07" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,324.86 FEET FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 74°09'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 323.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 73°00'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 364.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°19'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 355.71 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 76°01'14" EAST, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,297.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 3°00'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 593.78 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 73°00'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 92.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°20'07" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 346.19 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. LESS AND EXCEPT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIT-CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2323, PAGE 508, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 Page 480 of 913 PARCELS 33 & 38: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR, AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN 25%. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297720009 PARCEL 39: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OIL, GAS AND MINERAL RIGHTS NOW OWNED BY THE GRANTOR AMOUNTING TO NO LESS THAN 25%, LESS AND EXCEPT THE PARCEL SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 994, PAGES 1760-1763, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO: A 50 FOOT MUTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT EXTENDING 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ALL SECTION LINES INCLUDING QUARTER AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION LINES, WHICH EASEMENT IS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. PROPERTY I.D. #00297880004 PARCEL 41: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1048, PAGE 521-523, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D. #00298000003 PARCEL 114: THAT PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Page 481 of 913 COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37'19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°13'41", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N 88°28'35" E, A DISTANCE OF 336.37 FEET; THENCE S 01°19'13" E, A DISTANCE OF 109.09 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND UTILITY REMAINING IN PLACE AND IN USE, IF ANY, THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHT, AIR, AND VIEW BETWEEN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ROAD NAMED AS FOLLOWS: STATE ROAD 93 (I-75); ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN N 16°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 893.75 FEET; THENCE N 16°59'27" E A DISTANCE OF 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 73°00'33" E A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE; THENCE N 73°00'33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 73°37' 19" W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,621.16 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 01°13'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 249.10 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE END OF SAID DESCRIBED LIMITED ACCESS LINE. PROPERTY I.D. #00297280002 PARCEL 9: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2904, PAGES 0876 THROUGH 0879 INCLUSIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Page 482 of 913 PARCEL 30: THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3002, PAGE 2704 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SAME BEING FIVE ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OF 25 FEET ON, OVER AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY. SUBJECT TO EASEMENT, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. SUBJECT PARCEL CONTAINS 2,049,396.00 SQ, FEET, OR 47.05+/- ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. Page 483 of 913 ¯ P:\Active_Projects\P-HHCC-0 02\001-Magno lia_Pond\Plann in g\GIS\2024 -11-11-Aeria l_Loca tion_Map.mxdDate Sa ved: 11/12/2024 PROJECT: NOTES: EXHIBIT DESC: 2600 Gold en Gate ParkwayNaples, FL 34105 CLIENT: LOCATION:SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2024) AERIA L LO CATION MA PMAGNOLIA POND PUDA MAGNO LIA POND DRIVE Magnolia Pond DR Collier BLVDCity Gate BLVD N City Gate DR Legend Magnolia Pond PUD Collier BLVDPage 484 of 913 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST Name of Applicant(s): Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Address of Subject Property (If available): City: State: Zip: Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System d.Package Treatment Plant e.Septic System Provide Name: (GPD Capacity): Type: Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: Peak and Average Daily Demands: A.Water-Peak: B.Sewer-Peak: Provide Name: Average Daily Demands: Average Daily Demands: TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 485 of 913 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Attach additional pages if necessary. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 486 of 913 Project:Magnolia Pond PUDPIN:P-THTH-001 Task/Subtask:PUDA - Rev01Calculated By:JSMDate:3/19/2025Checked By:DWDate:3/19/2025Task:Determine estimated wastewater flows generated for the project to be included in the PUDA Statement of Utility Provisions.Assumptions and Design Notes:1) All residential wastewater consumptive rates are per CC Design Criteria, Section 3.0. Calculations:Original Magnolia Pond MPUD Ord. No. 10-06 Wastewater Flow CalculationsPer the maximum residential dwelling units permitted:A = (NOTE 3) B C D = (A x C) E = (NOTE 1) F = (D x E) G = (F / 1440) H = (NOTE 2) I = (G x H)Use No. of Units Unit Population Per Unit Total PopulationPer Capita Flow(GPD)Total Average Daily Flow (GPD)Total Average Hourly Flow (GPM)Peak Hour FactorPeak Hour Flow (GPM)Residential 231 DU 2.5 578 100 57,750 40.1 3.9 158.1TOTAL- - - - -57,750- -158.118 + (P)1/2578Persons (F/E) = Average Daily Flow / 100 GPD4 + (P)1/20.58Per the maximum Assisted Living Facilities permitted:A = (NOTE 3) B C D = (A x C) E = (NOTE 1) F = (D x E) G = (F / 1440) H = (NOTE 2) I = (G x H)Use No. of Units Unit Population Per Unit Total PopulationPer Capita Flow(GPD)Total Average Daily Flow (GPD)Total Average Hourly Flow (GPM)Peak Hour FactorPeak Hour Flow (GPM)ALF 924 Per Bed 1 924 100 92,400 64.2 3.8 242.7ALF 2,772 Meals Per Day 1 2,772 5 13,860 9.6 3.8 36.4TOTAL- - - - -106,260- -279.118 + (P)1/21063Persons (F/E) = Average Daily Flow / 100 GPD4 + (P)1/21.06Proposed Magnolia Pond PUDA (This Application) Wastewater Flow CalculationsPer the maximum residential dwelling units proposed:A B C D = (A x C) E = (NOTE 1) F = (D x E) G = (F / 1440)H = (NOTE 2) I = (G x H)Use No. of Units Unit Population Per Unit Total PopulationPer Capita Flow(GPD)Total Average Daily Flow (GPD)Total Average Hourly Flow (GPM)Peak Hour FactorPeak Hour Flow (GPM)Residential 550 DU 2.5 1,375 100 137,500 95.5 3.7 353.9TOTAL- - - - -137,500- -353.918 + (P)1/21375Persons (F/E) = Average Daily Flow / 100 GPD4 + (P)1/21.384) Maximum Allowable Assisted Living Facilities based on the trip cap of 246 2-way, PM peak hour trips; equivalent to 1,025 ALF beds. In addition, conservatively assumes 3 regularly prepared meals per day per bed. EP / 1,000 = 3) Per the Original MPUD Ord. No. 10-06; Maximum number of 231 dwelling units permitted / Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) "for each four ALF units developed, one residential dwelling unit shall be subtracted from the maximum of 231 permitted dwelling units" assumed entirely as ALF with 3 regularly prepared meals per day per bed. Peak Hourly Factor == 3.8Equivalent Population (EP) = where P =2) Peak Factor based on population served; (18+ (Population/1000)^.5)/(4+(Population/1000)^.5) where P is the population in thousands.= 3.7Equivalent Population (EP) = where P =EP / 1,000 = where P =Equivalent Population (EP) = =EP / 1,000 = 3.9Peak Hourly Factor =Peak Hourly Factor =P:\Active_Projects\P-HHCC-002\001-Magnolia_Pond\Design\PotableWater\P-HHCC-002_Utility Calcs_Rev011 of 4Page 487 of 913 Per the maximum ALF allowed based on project's trip cap:A = (NOTE 4) B C D = (A x C) E = (NOTE 1) F = (D x E) G = (F / 1440) H = (NOTE 2) I = (G x H)Use No. of Units Unit Population Per Unit Total PopulationPer Capita Flow(GPD)Total Average Daily Flow (GPD)Total Average Hourly Flow (GPM)Peak Hour FactorPeak Hour Flow (GPM)ALF 1,025 Per Bed 1 1,025 100 102,500 71.2 3.8 267.1ALF 3,075 Meals Per Day 1 3,075 5 15,375 10.7 3.8 40.1TOTAL- - - - -117,875- -307.218 + (P)1/21178.75Persons (F/E) = Average Daily Flow / 100 GPD4 + (P)1/21.18Conclusion:Per the maximum residential dwelling units permitted:Per the maximum Assisted Living Facilities permitted:Peak Hour Flow (GPM) = 158.1Peak Hour Flow (GPM) = 279.1Average Daily Flow (GPD) = 57,750Average Daily Flow (GPD) = 106,260Per the maximum residential dwelling units proposed:Per the maximum ALF allowed based on project's trip cap:Peak Hour Flow (GPM) = 353.9Peak Hour Flow (GPM) = 307.2Average Daily Flow (GPD) = 137,500Average Daily Flow (GPD) = 117,875The worst case scenario wastewater flows for the proposed PUDA is per the maximum residential dwelling units proposed as shown above. Total Wastewater Flows per the original MPUD Ord. No. 10-06:3.8Equivalent Population (EP) = where P =EP / 1,000 = Total Wastewater Flows per the proposed PUDA (This Application):Peak Hourly Factor ==P:\Active_Projects\P-HHCC-002\001-Magnolia_Pond\Design\PotableWater\P-HHCC-002_Utility Calcs_Rev012 of 4Page 488 of 913 Project:Magnolia Pond PUDPIN:P-THTH-001Task/Subtask:PUDA - Rev01Calculated By:JSMDate:3/19/2025Checked By:DWDate:3/19/2025Task:Determine potable water demands generated for the project to be included in the PUDA Statement of Utility Provisions.Assumptions and Design Notes:1) Potable Demand Factor per CC Design Criteria, Section 2.2.1.C.2) Peaking Factor per CC 2022 Annual Update & Inventory Report / Capitol Improvement Element (2022 AUIR/CIE).Calculations:Original Magnolia Pond MPUD Ord. No. 10-06 Water Demand CalculationsPer the maximum residential dwelling units permitted:A = (NOTE 1) B = (NOTE 1) C = (A x B) D = (NOTE 2) E = (C x D) F = (E / 1440)UseWastewater Average Daily Flow (GPD)Potable Demand FactorAverage Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Day FactorMaximum Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Hour Demand (GPM)Residential 57,750 1.4 80,850 1.3 105,105 73.0TOTAL- -80,850-105,105 73.0Per the maximum Assisted Living Facilities permitted:A = (NOTE 1) B = (NOTE 1) C = (A x B) D = (NOTE 2) E = (C x D) F = (E / 1440)UseWastewater Average Daily Flow (GPD)Potable Demand FactorAverage Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Day FactorMaximum Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Hour Demand (GPM)ALF 92,400 1.4 129,360 1.3 168,168 116.8ALF 13,860 1.4 19,404 1.3 25,225 17.5TOTAL- -148,764-193,393 134.3Proposed Magnolia Pond PUDA (This Application) Water Demand CalculationsPer the maximum residential dwelling units proposed:A = (NOTE 1) B = (NOTE 1) C = (A x B) D = (NOTE 2) E = (C x D) F = (E / 1440)UseWastewater Average Daily Flow (GPD)Potable Demand FactorAverage Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Day FactorMaximum Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Hour Demand (GPM)Residential 137,500 1.4 192,500 1.3 250,250 173.8TOTAL- -192,500-250,250 173.8Per the maximum ALF allowed based on project's trip cap:A = (NOTE 1) B = (NOTE 1) C = (A x B) D = (NOTE 2) E = (C x D) F = (E / 1440)UseWastewater Average Daily Flow (GPD)Potable Demand FactorAverage Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Day FactorMaximum Daily Water Demand (GPD)Peak Hour Demand (GPM)ALF 102,500 1.4 143,500 1.3 186,550 129.5ALF 15,375 1.4 21,525 1.3 27,983 19.4TOTAL- -165,025-214,533 149.0P:\Active_Projects\P-HHCC-002\001-Magnolia_Pond\Design\PotableWater\P-HHCC-002_Utility Calcs_Rev013 of 4Page 489 of 913 Conclusion:Per the maximum residential dwelling units permitted:Per the maximum Assisted Living Facilities permitted:Peak Hour Demand (GPM) = 73.0Peak Hour Demand (GPM) = 134.3Maximum Daily Demand (GPD) = 105,105Maximum Daily Demand (GPD) = 193,393Average Daily Demand (GPD) = 80,850Average Daily Demand (GPD) = 148,764Per the maximum residential dwelling units proposed:Per the maximum ALF allowed based on project's trip cap:Peak Hour Demand (GPM) = 173.8Peak Hour Demand (GPM) = 149.0Maximum Daily Demand (GPD) = 250,250Maximum Daily Demand (GPD) = 214,533Average Daily Demand (GPD) = 192,500Average Daily Demand (GPD) = 165,025The worst case scenario water demands for the proposed PUDA is per the maximum residential dwelling units proposed as shown above. Total Water Demand per the original MPUD Ord. No. 10-06:Total Water Demand per the proposed PUDA (This Application):P:\Active_Projects\P-HHCC-002\001-Magnolia_Pond\Design\PotableWater\P-HHCC-002_Utility Calcs_Rev014 of 4Page 490 of 913 Traffic Impact Statement Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) PL20240010833 Collier County, Florida 03/14/2025 Prepared for: Prepared by: Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239.403.6700 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.566.9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00* Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Major Study – $1,500.00* Note – *to be collected at time of first submittal Page 491 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Page 492 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ............................................................................................................ 4 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment ...................................................................................... 7 Background Traffic ........................................................................................................... 10 Existing and Future Roadway Network ............................................................................ 11 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis ................................................ 12 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis......................................................................................... 14 Improvement Analysis ..................................................................................................... 15 Mitigation of Impact ........................................................................................................ 15 Appendices Appendix A: PUD Master Plan ........................................................................................ 16 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ...................................... 18 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations ................................................................ 25 Appendix D: Transportation Element Map TR-6 ............................................................. 36 Appendix E: 2024 AUIR TCMA Report – East Central TCMA ........................................... 38 Appendix F: Project Turning Movement Exhibits ............................................................ 40 Page 493 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 4 Project Description Magnolia Pond is a proposed residential development located north and south of Magnolia Pond Drive, approximately ½ mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Collier County, Florida. The Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) project is located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated in Figure 1. The proposed master site plan is illustrated in Appendix A: PUD Master Plan. Figure 1 – Project Location Map The subject property is currently vacant land. The Magnolia Pond PUD is approved for up to 231 residential dwelling units (du) with a maximum of 125 single-family du allowed. The approved zoning states the maximum number of PM peak hour trips of any mixed residential development proposed shall not exceed 131 PM peak hour trips (refer to Collier County Ordinance 2010-06). The Magnolia Pond PUDA project proposes to change the approved development density to 550 dwelling units consisting of a 301 du multifamily (mid-rise) residential development on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and a 249 du multifamily (low-rise) residential development on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive. Any associated swimming pool or recreational facilities are considered incidental to the residential uses for traffic analysis purposes. Page 494 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 5 In conformance with the transportation pre-app notes, this traffic analysis will establish a trip limit/cap Developer Commitment for this PUDA based on the findings in this report. Consistent with the recommendations illustrated in Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. In agreement with the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions, the ITE land use designations are illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Magnolia Pond PUDA – Development Program Development Land Use/SIC Use Code ITE Land Use Code Size Approved PUD (1) Single-Family Residential Single-Family Detached Housing/Not Applicable LUC 210 125 dwelling units Multifamily Residential Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)/Not Applicable LUC 220 106 dwelling units Proposed PUDA Multifamily Residential Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)/Not Applicable LUC 220 249 dwelling units Multifamily Residential Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)/Not Applicable LUC 221 301 dwelling units Notes: 1) Subject to trip cap limitations per approved Ord. #2010-06. For the purposes of this analysis, the traffic planning horizon year is assumed to be 2030. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on November 13, 2024, via email. For details refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). The analysis included in this report is generally consistent with the November 2024 methodology meeting. The project proposes one full movement access onto Magnolia Pond Drive from the north parcel, one full movement access and one right-out only access onto Magnolia Pond Drive from the south parcel. Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version) is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations. Based on ITE recommendations and Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, no reductions for internal capture or pass-by trips have been taken into consideration. Page 495 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 6 The trip generation associated with the proposed PUDA future build-out conditions is summarized in Table 2A. Table 2A Magnolia Pond PUDA – Proposed Trip Generation – Average Weekday Development Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size/Location Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Multifamily Residential (Low-Rise) 249 dwelling units/North Parcel 1,671 24 76 100 81 47 128 Multifamily Residential (Mid-Rise) 301 dwelling units/South Parcel 1,389 28 93 121 72 46 118 Total External 3,060 52 169 221 153 93 246 The operational site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the proposed PUDA land use total external traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour as shown in Table 2A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 246 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, as illustrated in Table 2A. The trip generation based on the approved zoning conditions and consistent with Ordinance 2010-06 is illustrated in Table 2B. For this analysis, the maximum number of single-family dwelling units allowed was conservatively used for the trip generation calculations. The balance of trips required to equal the existing approved trip-cap was calculated using the ITE land use Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise). For the purposes of this analysis, average trip generation rates for Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) were applied, as the y-intercept value of the linear regression equation yielded unrealistic large values when applied to smaller independent variables. Utilizing average rates ensures a reasonable and consistent estimation of trip generation in compliance with the trip cap (refer to Table 2B and Appendix C:). Table 2B Magnolia Pond PUD – Approved Zoning Trip Generation – Average Weekday Development Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single-Family Residential 125 dwelling units 1,239 23 68 91 77 46 123 Multifamily Residential 16 dwelling units 108 1 5 6 5 3 8 Total External 1,347 24 73 97 82 49 131 The project estimated net new traffic volume shown in Table 2C reflects the PM peak hour traffic difference between the proposed PUDA buildout conditions and the approved zoning conditions and will be used for the concurrency analysis in this report. Page 496 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 7 Table 2C Magnolia Pond PUDA – Net New Trip Generation – Average Weekday Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Proposed Zoning Total External Traffic 52 169 221 153 93 246 Existing Zoning Total External Traffic 24 73 97 82 49 131 Total Net New Traffic 28 96 124 71 44 115 In agreement with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new total) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the Magnolia Pond PUD development is assigned to the adjacent roadway segments in general conformance with the Magnolia Pond PUDA Traffic Impact Statement dated December 15, 2008 and consistent with the transportation methodology (Appendix B). The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Magnolia Pond PUDA – Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour and is graphically depicted in Figure 2 – Magnolia Pond PUDA – Distribution by Percentage. Page 497 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 8 Table 3 Magnolia Pond PUDA – Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volume Enter Exit Collier Blvd 32.1 Green Blvd to Golden Gate Parkway 15% SB – 11 NB – 7 Collier Blvd 32.2 Golden Gate Pkwy to Golden Gate Main Canal 30% SB – 21 NB – 13 Collier Blvd 32.3 Golden Gate Main Canal to Magnolia Pond Dr 30% SB – 21 NB – 13 Magnolia Pond Dr (1) N/A Project to Collier Blvd 100% WB – 71 EB – 44 Collier Blvd 32.3 Magnolia Pond Dr to I-75 70% NB – 50 SB – 31 Collier Blvd 33.0 I-75 to Davis Boulevard 50% NB – 36 SB – 22 Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 20% NB – 14 SB – 9 Davis Blvd 16.2 West of Collier Boulevard 30% EB – 21 WB – 13 Golden Gate Pkwy 22.0 West of Collier Boulevard 15% EB – 11 WB – 7 Notes: 1) Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Page 498 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 9 Figure 2 – Magnolia Pond PUDA – Trip Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour Page 499 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 10 Background Traffic The existing traffic conditions are extracted from the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures recommendation of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate evaluated based on the annual peak hour, peak direction traffic volume (estimated from 2008 through 2024 as illustrated in AUIR), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2024 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project, illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the future horizon year 2030. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2024 - 2030) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2024 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr) (1) Growth Factor 2030 Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor (2) Trip Bank 2030 Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank (3) Collier Blvd 32.1 Green Blvd to Golden Gate Parkway 1,570 2.00% 1.1262 1,768 41 1,611 Collier Blvd 32.2 Golden Gate Pkwy to Golden Gate Main Canal 1,920 2.07% 1.1308 2,171 58 1,978 Collier Blvd 32.3 Golden Gate Main Canal to I-75 1,920 2.07% 1.1308 2,171 210 2,130 Collier Blvd 33.0 I-75 to Davis Boulevard 3,260 2.00% 1.1262 3,671 181 3,441 Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 2,500 2.00% 1.1262 2,816 749 3,249 Davis Blvd 16.2 West of Collier Boulevard 1,240 2.00% 1.1262 1,396 215 1,455 Golden Gate Pkwy 22.0 West of Collier Boulevard 1,650 2.00% 1.1262 1,858 6 1,656 Note(s): 1) Annual Growth Rate – estimated for 2008-2024 peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes, or 2% minimum. 2) Growth Factor = (1 + Annual Growth Rate)6. 2030 Projected Volume = 2024 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. 3) 2030 Projected Volume = 2024 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2030 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Page 500 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 11 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2024 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. Collier Boulevard, from the Golden Gate Canal to Green Boulevard, has a committed improvement as shown in the Collier County 5-year Work Program for widening to a six-lane, divided roadway. For this analysis, the roadway improvements are considered complete and the roadway LOS characteristics for the improved segment are consistent with AUIR link #31.2, Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2024 Roadway Conditions 2024 Standard LOS 2024 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume 2030 Roadway Conditions 2030 Standard LOS 2030 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Collier Blvd (1) 32.1 Green Blvd to Golden Gate Parkway 4D D 2,300 6D E 3,000 Collier Blvd (1) 32.2 Golden Gate Pkwy to Golden Gate Main Canal 4D D 2,300 6D E 3,000 Collier Blvd 32.3 Golden Gate Main Canal to I-75 8D E 3,600 8D E 3,600 Collier Blvd 33.0 I-75 to Davis Boulevard 8D E 3,600 8D E 3,600 Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 6D E 3,000 6D E 3,000 Davis Blvd 16.2 West of Collier Boulevard 6D E 3,300 6D E 3,300 Golden Gate Pkwy 22.0 West of Collier Boulevard 4D D 1,980 4D D 1,980 Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. 1) Future 2030 roadway characteristics are based on the completion of the proposed committed improvements to Collier Boulevard and are consistent with AUIR link #31.2, Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road. Page 501 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 12 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2030. In agreement with Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements (LDC Section 6.02.02), a development is considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. The project’s impacts were not significant on any of the analyzed roadway segments. Based on the data contained within the 2024 AUIR, the Collier Boulevard link from I-75 to Davis Boulevard (AUIR Link ID #33.0) and the Collier Boulevard link from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road (AUIR Link ID #34.0) are shown to operate with a LOS deficiency in 2030, under background conditions. None of the other analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at year 2030 future conditions. Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2030 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2030 Peak Hr, Peak Dir Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Hr, Peak Dir (Project Vol Added) (1) 2030 Peak Hr, Peak Dir Volume w/Project (2) % Volume Capacity Impact by Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Collier Blvd 32.1 Green Blvd to Golden Gate Parkway 3,000 NB – 7 1,775 0.2% No No Collier Blvd 32.2 Golden Gate Pkwy to Golden Gate Main Canal 3,000 NB – 13 2,184 0.4% No No Collier Blvd 32.3 Golden Gate Main Canal to Magnolia Pond Dr 3,600 NB – 13 2,184 0.4% No No Collier Blvd 32.3 Magnolia Pond Dr to I-75 3,600 NB – 50 2,221 1.4% No No Collier Blvd 33.0 I-75 to Davis Boulevard 3,600 NB – 36 3,707 1.0% Yes Yes Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,000 NB – 14 3,263 0.5% Yes Yes Davis Blvd 16.2 West of Collier Boulevard 3,300 WB – 13 1,468 0.4% No No Golden Gate Pkwy 22.0 West of Collier Boulevard 1,980 EB – 11 1,869 0.6% No No Note(s): 1) Refer to Table 3 from this report. 2) 2030 Projected Volume = 2030 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Page 502 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 13 As illustrated in Collier County LDC Chapter 6.02.02 – M. 2, once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS significance criterion, the development’s impacts are not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan – Transportation Element – Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. As illustrated in Table 6, the projected traffic impact is de minimis for all analyzed segments except the Collier Boulevard segment from Magnolia Pond Drive to I-75. The analyzed roadway segments are not located within the Collier County’s Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). However, the proposed development is situated within the County’s designated East Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCEA’s and TCMA’s designations are provided in Policy 5.4 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element – Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The East Central TCMA is illustrated in the latest adopted Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) Transportation Element Map TR-6 as depicted in Appendix D: Transportation Element Map TR-6. As illustrated in the Policy 5.8, transportation congestion mitigation may be required when the proposed development will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA as determined in the most current AUIR, by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet continue to maintain the established percentage of lane miles indicated in Policy 5.7 of the GMP Transportation Element. In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system-wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in the County’s 2024 AUIR, the East Central TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 86.3%. Refer to Appendix E: 2024 AUIR TCMA Report – East Central TCMA. Policy 5.1 of the Collier County Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) states that the County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. In agreement with Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element, development located in a TCMA may be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using procedures established in Policy 5.5. In summary, our findings are as follows: The Collier Boulevard links from I-75 to Rattlesnake Hammock Road are deficient roadway links; and that the East Central TCMA contains sufficient capacity so that the minimum 85% capacity threshold is maintained. The project’s impact on the deficient roadway links is de minimis. Page 503 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 14 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis The project proposes one full movement access onto Magnolia Pond Drive from the north parcel, one full movement access and one right-out only access onto Magnolia Pond Drive from the south parcel. The project full movement driveways are proposed to be directly opposite of each other. For more details refer to Appendix A: PUD Master Plan. The project access is evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook: (a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided roadways – right-turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. The assignment of the project turning movement percentage and AM and PM peak hour trips anticipated at the subject driveways is depicted in Appendix F: Project Turning Movement Exhibits. Magnolia Pond Drive is a 2-lane undivided local roadway under Collier County jurisdiction and has a posted legal speed of 30 mph and an assumed design speed of 35 mph in the vicinity of the project. The roadway is a curb and gutter design at this location. Based on 2024 FDOT Design Manual (FDM) Exhibit 212-1, for a design speed of 35 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 145 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. This roadway has an Access Management Classification of 7, which is considered for a local roadway. A review of Collier County Access Management minimum standards on a Class 7 roadway specifies a minimum connection spacing of 125 feet. The proposed driveways are approximately 530 feet from a school recreational field driveway directly west of the project. Additionally, the proposed driveway is approximately 960 feet from a residential driveway directly east of the project. As such, the project’s driveways are in general conformance with applicable Collier County corner clearance criteria. Magnolia Pond Drive – North Parcel Project Access The proposed project is expected to accommodate 24 vph and 81 vph westbound right-turning movements during AM and PM peak hour, respectively. As such, the project warrants a dedicated right- turn lane based on the County volume criteria. Magnolia Pond Drive – South Parcel Project Access The proposed project is expected to accommodate 28 vph and 72 vph westbound left-turning movements during AM and PM peak hour, respectively. As such, the project warrants a dedicated left-turn lane based on the County volume criteria. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points – turn lane requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. Page 504 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 15 Improvement Analysis The concurrency analysis determined that the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. None of the analyzed links directly accessed or adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2030 future buildout conditions. The Collier Boulevard segments from I-75 to Rattlesnake Hammock Road exceed the adopted level of service under future background traffic conditions. These segments are located within the established East Central TCMA which contains sufficient capacity so that the minimum 85% capacity threshold is maintained. The project impact on the deficient roadway links is de minimis. The project proposes two full movement connections onto Magnolia Pond Drive. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUDA project shall not exceed 246 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Page 505 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 16 Appendix A: PUD Master Plan Page 506 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 17 Page 507 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 18 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Page 508 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 19 Page 509 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 20 Page 510 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 21 Page 511 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 22 Page 512 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 23 Page 513 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 24 Page 514 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 25 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations Page 515 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 26 Page 516 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 27 Page 517 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 28 Page 518 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 29 Page 519 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 30 Page 520 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 31 Page 521 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 32 Page 522 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 33 Page 523 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 34 Page 524 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 35 Page 525 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 36 Appendix D: Transportation Element Map TR-6 Page 526 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 37 Page 527 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 38 Appendix E: 2024 AUIR TCMA Report – East Central TCMA Page 528 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 39 Page 529 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 40 Appendix F: Project Turning Movement Exhibits Page 530 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 41 Page 531 of 913 Magnolia Pond – PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 42 Page 532 of 913 MAGNOLIA POND Environmental Data for PUDA SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: December 2024 Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 533 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to satisfy the Environmental Data requirements (LDC Section 3.08.00) for a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) for the parcel referred to as Magnolia Pond (Subject Property). This information is in response to the items in the PUDA Pre-Application Notes provided by Collier County. PROPERTY LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of four (4) adjoining parcels (Folio # 00297720009, 00297600006, 00297840002, 00297240000) north of Magnolia Pond Drive and six (6) adjoining parcels (Folio # 00297880004, 00298000003, 00296800001, 00296721009, 00296760002, 00297280002) south of Magnolia Pond Drive. The Subject Property is located immediately east of Golden Gate High School; just north of I-75 and approximately 0.50 miles west of Collier Boulevard, in Collier County, Florida (see Figures 1 & 2). According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the combined Subject Property totals approximately 47.05 acres. See Appendix A for full size exhibits. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST See page 3.A.1. of Collier County Pre-App Notes 1. Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide a FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property, please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLUCFS are being considered Native Vegetation. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location, and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. Please provide wetland functionality scores WRAP or UMAM if they have been created and or reviewed by the DEP of SFWMD. See Appendix A for FLUCCS Map. 2. Please provide a current Listed Species Survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panth zones etc.) be sure to include Black Bear and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagles and for listed species know to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendation of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Gopher tortoise have been observed onsite please address with the environmental data submittal. See Appendix B for Protected Species Survey, Appendix C for Florida Bonneted Bay Tree Cavity Survey, and Appendix D for Gopher Tortoise Survey Results. No listed species and/or signs of listed species were observed on the Subject Property with the exception of potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows (see Appendix D). Prior to any earth work activities an FWC relocation permit will be obtained, and any captured gopher tortoises will be relocated to an FWC approved offsite recipient site. Page 534 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 3. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LCD 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). (25% of native vegetation is required for preservation.). Based on FLUCCS Map in Appendix A: Total acres = 47.05 acres Existing Native Vegetation Present (based on FLUCCS) = 38.54 acres Preserve Required = 38.54 acres x 25% = 9.64 acres Proposed Preserve Provided = 9.64 acres The proposed preserve is 9.64 acres, which reaches the required amount based on the criteria pursuant to 3.05.07. 4. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. Not applicable. 5. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCME. (The preservation Requirement is 25% of native vegetation). The proposed preserve is 9.64 acres, which reaches the reaches the required amount based on the criteria pursuant to 3.05.07. 6. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. (If found onsite). No listed species and/or signs of listed species were observed on the Subject Property with the exception of potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows (see Appendix D). Prior to any earth work activities an FWC relocation permit will be obtained, and any captured gopher tortoises will be relocated to an FWC approved offsite recipient site. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST- PUDZ-PUDA (NON-RFMU) See page 3.A.3-3.A.4 of Collier County Pre-App Notes 1. Is the project in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library Yes. 2. Submit a current aerial photograph and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay – P627 See Appendix A for Aerial Map and FLUCCS Map. Page 535 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.H.1). Preserve Label- P546 See Master Plan. 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation – P547 Based on FLUCCS Map in Appendix A: Total acres = 47.05 acres Existing Native Vegetation Present (based on FLUCCS) = 38.54 acres Preserve Required = 38.54 acres x 25% = 9.64 acres Proposed Preserve Provided = 9.64 acres The proposed preserve is 9.64 acres, which reaches the required amount based on the criteria pursuant to 3.05.07. 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. Preserve Width – P603 See Master Plan. The proposed preserve is a minimum of 20’ wide as required by the LDC. 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4). Preserve Selection – P550 The Subject Property is bordered by roads/canals and development on all sides. The proposed preserve area will provide connectivity to the adjoining preserve to the east of the Subject Property. 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25’ from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10’ of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross - sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25’. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback - New Appropriate buffers have been acknowledged. See Master Plan. 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species – P522 See Appendix B, C, and D for Wildlife Surveys. Page 536 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site preserves, seasonal and historic high-water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required – P522 Earth Tech Environmental Staff Qualifications can be found in Appendix E. 10. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Master Plan Contents-P626 See Master Plan. 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC - see 1-3 below as typical uses listed by agents) (ensure the text states "subject to LDC section related to Allowable uses within County required preserves" Acknowledged. 12. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628 Example: A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not limited to Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. The Subject Property is largely isolated and surrounded by development, minimizing the chances of utilization by listed species. No listed species and/or signs of listed species were observed on the Subject Property with the exception of potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows (see Appendix D). Prior to any earth work activities an FWC relocation permit will be obtained, and any captured gopher tortoises will be relocated to an FWC approved offsite recipient site. 13. Review cross-sections if provided; they are not required with the PUD. However, sometimes they are provided. Is there any fill proposed in the preserve? Cross sections will be provided in future applications as part of engineering submittals. Page 537 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A Full Size Exhibits Page 538 of 913 Page 539 of 913 Page 540 of 913 Page 541 of 913 Page 542 of 913 Page 543 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B Protected Species Survey Page 544 of 913 Magnolia Pond Protected Species Survey NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 26 Prepared For: Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail E Naples, FL 34112 Prepared By: Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com October 2024 Page 545 of 913 Protected Species Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................................... 3 SPECIES SURVEY METHODS & MATERIALS ............................................................................................ 3 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDICIES Appendix A Full Sized Exhibits Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 546 of 913 Protected Species Survey 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a search for listed species on the property referred to as Magnolia Pond (Subject Property) prior to development. The field assessment occurred on October 17, 2024, to evaluate the Subject Property for the potential presence of listed species of concern based on the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) and existing site conditions. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of four (4) adjoining parcels (Folio # 00297720009, 00297600006, 00297840002, 00297240000) north of Magnolia Pond Drive and six (6) adjoining parcels (Folio # 00297880004, 00298000003, 00296800001, 00296721009, 00296760002, 00297280002) south of Magnolia Pond Drive. The Subject Property is located immediately east of Golden Gate High School; just north of I-75 and approximately 0.50 miles west of Collier Boulevard, in Collier County, Florida (see Figures 1 & 2). According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the combined Subject Property totals approximately 47.05 acres. See Appendix A for a location map. 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY METHODS & MATERIALS The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida.” Existing vegetation communities or land-uses on the Subject Property are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2024) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). FLUCCS mapping for this property is detailed below in Figures 3 & 4. The resulting FLUCCS codes were cross-referenced with a list of protected plant and animal species. The lists were obtained from two agency publications:  “Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern-Official Lists,” December 2022.  “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants,” Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2010. In the field, each FLUCCS community is searched for listed species or signs of listed species. This is accomplished using a series of meandering pedestrian transects spaced approximately 25-feet apart to achieve approximately 80% overall coverage, throughout each vegetation community (see Figure 5). If necessary, transect integrity is maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. Signs or sightings of all species are recorded, and any associated burrows, dens, or cavities are flagged in the field and marked by GPS using a Trimble 7X unit. Based on the habitat types found on the Subject Property, particular attention was paid to the presence or absence of listed species such as Big Cypress fox squirrel, gopher tortoise, and Florida bonneted bat (cavities). Approximately four (22) man-hours were logged on the Subject Property during this species survey (see Table 1). Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 1. FIELD TIME SPENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATE START END NO. MAN TASK TIME TIME ECOLOGISTS HOURS October 17, 2024 8:30 am 3:00 pm 4 22 Species Survey Fieldwork Page 547 of 913 Protected Species Survey 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Subject Property is vacant and vegetated. The majority of the interior consists of pine uplands with palmetto prairies scattered throughout. Exotic vegetation coverage varies from low to high. The eastern boundary of the southern parcel has been disturbed, consisting of a spoil berm. A drainage canal easement runs along the eastern boundary of both the north and south parcels. Magnolia Pond Drive runs east-west through the northern and southern portions of the Subject Property. See Appendix A for a site vicinity map. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: Table 2 lists the FLUCCS communities located on the Subject Property. The community descriptions correspond to the FLUCCS map attached in Appendix A. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. The Florida Invasive Species Council’s (FISC) list of invasive species contains Category I and Category II species that may be found on the Subject Property. Category I species are invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. Category II species are invasive exotics that are increasing in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities. A significant factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion of these species such as melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and caesarweed Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation as shown in Figure 3. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub- canopy. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com North: Golden Gate High School/Canal/Residential East: FPL Easement/Vacant/Residential South: I-75/Residential West: Golden Gate High School/Residential Page 548 of 913 Protected Species Survey E1 = Exotics <25% of total cover E2 = Exotics 26-50% of total cover E3 = Exotics 51-75% of total cover E4 = Exotics >75% of total cover FLUCCS DESCRIPTIONS * = exotic species FLUCCS 321-E1, Palmetto Prairie (<25% Exotics) This community is found as isolated “islands” scattered throughout both the north and south parcels. Canopy and mid-story are virtually absent. Groundcover is dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) with lesser amounts of Gallberry (Ilex coriacea), Myrsine (Myrsine cubana), rusty lyonia (Lyonia ferruginea), brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), *Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), and grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia). FLUCCS 411-E2, Pine Flatwoods (26-50% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the northern parcel. Canopy and mid-story consist of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and a moderate amount of *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) recruitment with lesser amounts of myrsine (Myrsine cubana), *Brazilian pepper, and *West Indian elm (Guazuma ulmifolia). Groundcover consists of saw palmetto, winged sumac and grapevine. FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the eastern half of the southern parcel and a small strip in the northern parcel. Canopy consists of slash pine, *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and minimal cabbage palm. Mid-story consists of *earleaf acacia and sparse *West Indian elm and *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover is somewhat sparse consisting of a moderate amount of *earleaf acacia recruitment, beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), saw palmetto, brackenfern, *air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), and grapevine. FLUCCS 411-E4, Pine Flatwoods (>75% Exotics) This community is found along the eastern and southern boundaries of the northern parcel. It contains similar species to the 411-E2 community listed above, though with far more exotic vegetation, primarily *earleaf acacia and *Brazilian pepper. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 321-E1 Palmetto Prairie (<25% Exotics) 4.09 411-E2 Pine Flatwoods (26-50% Exotics) 10.04 411-E3 Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) 15.34 411-E4 Pine Flatwoods (>75% Exotics) 1.45 422-E4 Brazilian Pepper (>75% Exotics) 4.24 425-E3 Temperate Hardwoods (51-75% Exotics) 1.18 624D-E2 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm (Drained) (26-50% Exotics) 7.89 740 Disturbed Land 0.23 743 Spoil Area (Berm) 0.66 814 Roadways 1.93 Site Total: 47.05 Page 549 of 913 Protected Species Survey FLUCCS 422-E4, Brazilian Pepper (>75% Exotics) This community is found in the northern portion of the north parcel. It consists almost entirely of dense *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 425-E3, Temperate Hardwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found near the northwestern corner of the northern parcel. Canopy consists primarily of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and slash pine with lesser amounts of *earleaf acacia, *brazillian pepper, *Java plum (Syzygium cumini) and cabbage palm. Mid-story contains sparse cabbage palm and *carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides). Groundcover consists of brackenfern, beautyberry, sparse saw palmetto, and abundant vines including grapevine, *air potato and greenbrier. FLUCCS 624D-E3, Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm (Drained) (51-75% Exotics) This community is found in the western portion of the southern parcel. Canopy consists of slash pine, *earleaf acacia, scattered cabbage palm, and sparse, scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Mid- story is sparse and consists primarily of *earleaf acacia. Groundcover is also sparse and consists of *earleaf acacia recruitment, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, beautyberry, brackenfern, and grapevine, with heavy *earleaf acacia duff throughout. This community has transitioned from a wetland to an upland and the cypress trees in this area are small and appear to be degrading in health as the area no longer provides the correct hydrology for them to thrive. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land This area is found in the northeast portion of the south parcel. It contains visible rock/fill material with sparse groundcover vegetation including broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), fingergrass (Eustachys petraea), primrosewillow (Ludwigia spp.), *shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), and turkey tangle fogfruit (Phyla nodiflora). FLUCCS 743, Spoil Area (Berm) This area is found along the eastern boundary of the southern parcel. It consists of a linear berm composed of large rock/fill material. FLUCCS 814, Roadways This area is found along the southern boundary of the northern parcel and the norther boundary of the southern parcel. It consists of Magnolia Pond Road and associated right-of-way. 5.0 RESULTS All relevant species observed on the Subject Property are detailed in Table 3 and any protected species observed are specifically noted. See Appendix A below for a transect & Results map. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 550 of 913 - Protected Species Survey Abbreviations Observations: C = Cavity DB = Day Bed DV = Direct Visual HV = Heard Vocalization(s) MT = Marked Tree Observations: N = Nest OH = Observed Hole/Burrow OT = Observed Tracks R = Remains S = Scat Status: CE = Commercially Exploited FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern ST = State Threatened MBTA = Protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Subject Property does have community types in which additional protected species could be utilized for foraging purposes. During permitting, the following protected species concerns may be raised by the agencies: Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) The Subject Property falls within the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) known range of Big Cypress fox squirrel, and also contains suitable foraging/nesting habitat. During the species survey and various other fieldwork activities, no fox squirrels or potential nests were observed. A pre- clearing survey will be required prior to construction; should any nests be observed and fall within the impact area (including a 575-foot protection buffer), an FWC permit will be required before the nest tree may be impacted Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridana) The Subject Property falls within the United States Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area (see Appendix A). Habitat on the Subject Property is not ideal for bonneted bat roosting due to the dense understory that mostly consists of exotic species. During the Protected Species Survey fieldwork, multiple cavities were identified on pine tree snags. No signs of Florida Bonneted Bat utilization were observed on the Subject Property. A specific purpose cavity survey is scheduled to be conducted. Wood Stork (Mycteria amaericana) The Subject Property falls inside the core foraging area (estimated at 18.6 miles) of one (1) known wood stork colony in Collier County (see Appendix A). Due to the lack of suitable nesting trees on the property, wood stork nesting is unlikely. Additionally, the Subject Property consists of uplands, which has dense foliage in both the canopy and midstory which would not constitute as suitable habitat for wood stork foraging. There are no functioning wetlands on the Subject Property for the wood storks to utilize. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 3. SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LISTED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVATIONS SPECIES? STATUS BIRDS Black Vulture Coragyps atratus DV N MBTA Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata DV N MBTA Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis DV N MBTA Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos DV N MBTA Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus DV N MBTA REPTILES Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus DV / OH Y ST Brown Anole Anolis sagrei DV N = listed species Page 551 of 913 Protected Species Survey Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) No Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-documented bald eagle nests have been documented within 660-feet (USFWS Protection Zone) of the Subject Property and no nests were observed on the Subject Property (see Appendix A above). Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) The Subject Property falls outside the USFWS Primary Panther Habitat Zones. Seven (7) panther telemetry points were located within a two-mile radius of the Subject Property between the years 2022 through 2024. All telemetry points within the two-mile radius of the Subject Property were from a single panther and occurred between 2/2/23 – 1/8/24 (see Appendix A). Panther use of the subject property is unlikely due to surrounding development and traffic on I-75. Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) The Subject Property falls within abundant black bear habitat (FWC). Twenty two (22) black bear-related calls have been documented within a one-mile radius of the Subject Property (see Appendix A). FWC stopped radio-tracking black bears in 2018. Black bear use of the subject property is unlikely due to development FWC Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required to be followed for Florida black bear. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 552 of 913 Protected Species Survey 6.0 REFERENCES Ashton, Ray E. and Patricia S. “The Natural History and Management for the Gopher Tortoise.” Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. 2008. Cox, James; Inkley, Douglas; and Kautz, Randy. “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-Scale Development in Florida.” Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 4. December 1987. http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/062015-JFWM-055/suppl_file/062015-jfwm- 055.s2.pdf?code=ufws-site Atlas of Florida Plants. Institute for Systematic Botany. Accessed: February 22, 2024. https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/ Collier County Property Appraiser. https://www.collierappraiser.com Accessed: February 22, 2024. “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species”- Official List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Updated December 2022. http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/ https://myfwc.com/media/1945/threatened-endangered-species.pdf Florida Invasive Species Council. “2019 FISC List of Invasive Plant Species.” http://www.floridainvasivespecies.org/plantlist.cfm Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/doc_pubs.shtm Weaver, Richard E. and Anderson, Patti J. “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants.” Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology – Botany Section. Contribution No. 38, 5th Edition. 2010. http://freshfromflorida.s3.amazonaws.com/fl-endangered-plants.pdf http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-Services/Bureau-of- Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-Endangered-Plants Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 553 of 913 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC Protected Species Survey APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS www.eteflorida.com Page 554 of 913 Page 555 of 913 Page 556 of 913 Page 557 of 913 Page 558 of 913 Page 559 of 913 Page 560 of 913 Page 561 of 913 Page 562 of 913 Page 563 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX C Bonneted Bat Cavity Survey Page 564 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels FLORIDA BONNETED BAT TREE CAVITY SURVEY COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: October 2024 Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail E Naples, FL 34112 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 565 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus) ...................................................................................... 6 5.0 SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS .......................................................................................................... 6 6.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 6 7.0 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 7 8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A Full Sized Exhibits Appendix B Tree Cavity Photographs Page 566 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a cavity survey on October 21, 2024 for Florida bonneted bat (FBB) (Eumops floridanus) on the property referred to as Magnolia Pond Parcels (Subject Property) prior to development. Tree cavities/potential roost sites were originally identified by ETE during a Protected Species Survey performed earlier the same month. 2.0 LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of four (4) adjoining parcels (Folio # 00297720009, 00297600006, 00297840002, 00297240000) north of Magnolia Pond Drive and six (6) adjoining parcels (Folio # 00297880004, 00298000003, 00296800001 , 00296721009, 00296760002, 00297280002) south of Magnolia Pond Drive. The Subject Property is located immediately east of Golden Gate High School; just north of I-75 and approximately 0.50 miles west of Collier Boulevard, in Collier County, Florida (see Figures 1 & 2). According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the combined Subject Property totals approximately 47.05 acres. See Appendix A for a location map. 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Temperatures during the fieldwork for this survey were in the low 90’s with partly cloudy skies. The Subject Property is vacant and forested. The majority of the interior consists of pine uplands with palmetto prairies scattered throughout. Exotic vegetation coverage varies from low to high. The eastern boundary of the southern parcel has been disturbed, consisting of a spoil berm. An FPL easement runs along the eastern boundary of both the north and south parcels. Magnolia Pond Drive runs east-west through the two parcels. There is no specific access point to either parcel. See Appendix A above for an aerial map. The locations of the listed FLUCCS communities can be seen in Appendix A. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: North Golden Gate High School/Canal/Residential East FPL Easement/Vacant/Residential South I-75/Residential West Golden Gate High School/Residential The Florida Invasive Species Council’s (FISC) list of invasive species contains Category I and Category II species that may be found on the Subject Property. Category I species are invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives (FISC). Category II species are invasive exotics that are increasing in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities (FISC). A significant factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion of these species such as melaleuca Earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Caesarweed. Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation as shown in Appendix. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub-canopy. Page 567 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 321-E1 Palmetto Prairie (<25% Exotics) 4.09 411-E2 Pine Flatwoods (26-50% Exotics) 10.04 411-E3 Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) 15.34 411-E4 Pine Flatwoods (>75% Exotics) 1.45 422-E4 Brazilian Pepper (>75% Exotics) 4.24 425-E3 Temperate Hardwoods (51-75% Exotics) 1.18 624D-E2 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm (Drained) (26-50% Exotics) 7.89 740 Disturbed Land 0.23 743 Spoil Area (Berm) 0.66 814 Roadways 1.93 Site Total: 47.05 FLUCCS DESCRIPTIONS * = exotic species FLUCCS 321-E1, Palmetto Prairie (<25% Exotics) This community is found as isolated “islands” scattered throughout both the north and south parcels. Canopy and mid-story are virtually absent. Groundcover is dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) with lesser amounts of Gallberry (Ilex coriacea), Myrsine (Myrsine cubana), rusty lyonia (Lyonia ferruginea), brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), *Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), and grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia). FLUCCS 411-E2, Pine Flatwoods (26-50% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the northern parcel. Canopy and mid-story consist of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and a moderate amount of *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) recruitment with lesser amounts of myrsine (Myrsine cubana), *Brazilian pepper, and *West Indian elm (Guazuma ulmifolia). Groundcover consists of saw palmetto, winged sumac and grapevine. FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the southern parcel. Canopy consists of slash pine, *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and minimal cabbage palm. Mid-story consists of *earleaf acacia and sparse *West Indian elm and *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover is somewhat sparse consisting of a moderate amount of *earleaf acacia recruitment, beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), saw palmetto, brackenfern, *air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), and grapevine. E1 = <25% Total Exotic Coverage E2 = 26-50% Total Exotic Coverage E3 = 51-75% Total Exotic Coverage E4 = >75% Total Exotic Coverage Page 568 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found in the northern portion of the north parcel. Canopy consists of *earleaf acacia, *brazillian pepperand sparse slash pine. Mid-story consists of *West Indian elm, winged sumac, *Brazilian pepper, and *earleaf acacia. Groundcover consists of a substantial amount of siam weed (Chromolaena odorata), *Caesarweed, brackenfern, saw palmetto, *air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.). As well as *brazillian pepper and *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 411-E4, Pine Flatwoods (>75% Exotics) This community is found along the eastern and southern boundaries of the northern parcel. It contains similar species to the 411-E2 community listed above, though with far more exotic vegetation, primarily *earleaf acacia and *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 422-E4, Brazilian Pepper (>75% Exotics) This community is found in the northern portion of the north parcel. It consists almost entirely of dense *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 425-E3, Temperate Hardwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found near the northwestern corner of the northern parcel. Canopy consists primarily of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and slash pine with lesser amounts of *earleaf acacia, *brazillian pepper, *Java plum (Syzygium cumini) and cabbage palm. Mid-story contains sparse cabbage palm and *carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides). Groundcover consists of brackenfern, beautyberry, sparse saw palmetto, and abundant vines including grapevine, *air potato and greenbrier. FLUCCS 624D-E3, Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm (Drained) (51-75% Exotics) This community is found in the western portion of the southern parcel. Canopy consists of slash pine, *earleaf acacia, scattered cabbage palm, and sparse, scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Mid- story is sparse and consists primarily of *earleaf acacia. Groundcover is also sparse and consists of *earleaf acacia recruitment, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, beautyberry, brackenfern, and grapevine, with heavy *earleaf acacia duff throughout. This community has transitioned from a wetland to an upland and the cypress trees in this area are small and appear to be degrading in health as the area no longer provides the correct hydrology for them to thrive. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land This area is found in the northeast portion of the south parcel. It contains visible rock/fill material with sparse groundcover vegetation including broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), fingergrass (Eustachys petraea), primrosewillow (Ludwigia spp.), *shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), and turkey tangle fogfruit (Phyla nodiflora). FLUCCS 743, Spoil Area (Berm) This area is found along the eastern boundary of the southern parcel. It consists of a linear berm composed of large rock/fill material. FLUCCS 814, Roadways This area is found along the southern boundary of the northern parcel and the northern boundary of the southern parcel. It consists of Magnolia Pond Road and associated right-of-way. Page 569 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 4.0 FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus) The Florida bonneted bat was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 1, 2013. The project area falls within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Florida bonneted bat Consultation Area (See Appendix A). According to the USFWS Florida Bonneted Bat Guidelines (June 2024), the following cavity characteristics are used to identify potential cavity trees: • Slash pine, longleaf pine, royal palm, cypress (typically in snags, but can be in live trees). • Rounded cavities made by woodpeckers. • Trees >34 feet in height, snags 28ft or taller, >7.4-inch diameter at breast height (DBH), with cavity elevation >16 feet. • Cavity opening ≥1 inch. 5.0 SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS During the October 2024 Protected Species Survey, each habitat community was searched for potential cavities. This was accomplished using a series of transects throughout each vegetation community. If necessary, transect integrity was maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. If any suspected roost sites/cavities were identified, they were initially evaluated for activity by looking for the presence of guano and noise associated with roost chatter. Each suspected roost location or cavity was flagged, numbered, and recorded utilizing a Trimble GPS for identification. During the cavity peeping activities conducted on October 21, 2024 each flagged tree cavity was inspected using a pole-mounted cavity inspection camera and the contents of each cavity were documented. Photographic documentation can be found in Appendix A. If the size of the cavity opening and interior of the cavity permitted, the cavity was inspected first with the camera pointing down and then with the camera pointing up. The cavity inspection camera measures approximately 1’’ x 1.25.’’ Cavities that were smaller than the inspection camera were not inspected. The telescoping inspection pole extends to approximately 40 feet; any cavities higher than 40 feet were not inspected. 6.0 RESULTS The following section describes the results of the cavity survey within the project area. The cavity survey was conducted on October 17, 2024, and the cavity peeping activities occurred on October 21, 2024. Table 2 describes the results of the cavity inspection. No visual/audible indications (presence of guano, noise/chatter, etc.) were observed at the cavity trees. A photo log of the cavities is attached in Appendix A. Thirteen (13) snag trees with a total of sixteen (16) cavities were initially identified/flagged (see Appendix A below). Page 570 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 2. TREE CAVITY INFORMATION Tree Cavity Number Condition and Species of Tree Height of Cavity (Ft) Inspection Status 1 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 40ft Cavity B: 39ft Cavity C: 35ft Cavity D: 33ft Cavity A: Vacant Cavity B: Vacant Cavity C: Vacant Cavity D: Vacant 2 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 42ft Cavity A: Too high to peep. 3 Dead Slash Pine No cavities big enough Too narrow to peep. 4 Dead Slash Pine No cavities big enough Too narrow to peep. 5 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 35ft Cavity B: 30ft Cavity A: Vacant Cavity B: Vacant 6 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 24ft Cavity B: 22ft Cavity C: 19ft Grey squirrel present on tree 7 Dead Slash Pine No cavities big enough Too narrow to peep. 8 Dead Slash Pine No cavities big enough Too narrow to peep. 9 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 27ft Cavity A: Vacant 10 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 32ft Cavity A: Vacant 11 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 36ft Cavity A: Vacant 12 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 40ft+ Cavity B: 40ft+ Cavity A: Too high to peep. Cavity B: Too high to peep. 13 Dead Slash Pine Cavity A: 33ft Cavity A: Vacant 7.0 SUMMARY ETE conducted a search for potential Florida bonneted bat cavities/potential roost sites on the Subject Property on October 21, 2024. Thirteen (13) snag trees with a total of sixteen (16) cavities were initially identified during a Protected Species Survey that was conducted on October 17, 2024. The cavities were inspected in which no apparent signs of Florida bonneted bats or roosting were observed during the cavity survey. The Subject Property has a dense canopy and midstory with high levels of exotic vegetation. Considering low-quality roosting habitat, and that the Subject Property is bordered by development and roadways, consultation with USFWS will likely not be required for Florida bonneted bat. Page 571 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 8.0 REFERENCES Collier County Property Appraiser. http://www.collierappraiser.com Florida’s Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Florida Ecological Services Office. June 2024. “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species”- Official List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Updated December 2022. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened-endangered-species.pdf http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/ Florida Invasive Species Council. “2019 FISC List of Invasive Plant Species.” http://floridainvasivespecies.org/plantlist.cfm Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011a. Florida bonneted bat biological status review report. March 31, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/doc_pubs.shtm Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2012. FNAI - element tracking summary. Tallahassee, Florida. June 20, 2012. http://www.fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm [Accessed: July 10, 2012]. Page 572 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS Page 573 of 913 Page 574 of 913 Page 575 of 913 Page 576 of 913 Page 577 of 913 Page 578 of 913 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B TREE CAVITY PHOTOGRAPHS Page 579 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 1 Page 580 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 1 (A) 40ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Tree Cavity 1 (B) 39ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Tree Cavity 1 (C) 35ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 581 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 1 (D) 33ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 582 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 2 Tree cavity too high to peep (40+ ft) Page 583 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 5 Page 584 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 5 (A) 35ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Tree Cavity 5 (B) 30ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 585 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 6 Page 586 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 6 (A) 24ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Tree Cavity 6 (B) 22ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Tree Cavity 6 (C) 19ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 587 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 9 Tree Cavity 9 (A) 27ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 588 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 10 Tree Cavity 10 (A) 32ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 589 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 11 Tree Cavity 11 (A) 36ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 590 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 12 Cavities too high to peep (40+ ft) Page 591 of 913 Magnolia Pond Parcels: Tree Cavity Photographs Tree Cavity 13 Tree Cavity 13 (A) 33ft Internal view facing up Internal view facing Down Page 592 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX D Gopher Tortoise Survey Results Page 593 of 913 Page 594 of 913 Page 595 of 913 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX E Earth Tech Environmental Staff Qualifications Page 596 of 913 239.304.0030 |www.eteflorida.com Mr. Sterk has been an environmental consultant in Southwest Florida since 1994 and has worked on projects throughout the State of Florida. His varied experience spans marine, upland, and estuarine habitats and includes extensive work with a wide variety of listed species. Relevant Experience In addition to authoring dozens of habitat and species management plans, in 2007, Jeremy co-authored the first habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the nation to address incidental take issues for both red cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) and Florida panther on the same property. In 1998, he wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Early in his career, Jeremy was the principal investigator of a field research project in the Bahamas that utilized telemetry tracking to study the swimming speed of sub-adult lemon sharks. Jeremy’s work experience includes: FWC Approved Shorebird Monitor Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) USFWS Bald Eagle Monitor Turbidity Monitoring Vegetation & Habitat Mapping Wetland & Water Level Monitoring USFWS Section 7 & Section 10 Permitting Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Water Use Monitoring & Compliance Project Management Preserve Management Plans GIS / GPS Mapping & Exhibits RCW Surveys & Habitat Evaluations Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Land Use Planning Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Native Vegetation Restoration Plans Lake Management Plans Site and Aerial Photography Due Diligence Reports Scrub Jay Surveys Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations Mangrove Assessments & Restorations Bonneted Bat Surveys Hard Bottom & Soft Bottom Benthic Surveys Seagrass Surveys Artificial Reef Deployments Manatee Observer Certifications/Credentials Certified Environmental Professional #1692037, Academy of Board-Certified Environmental Professionals Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent (Permit No. GTA-09-00192) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Burrowing Owl Registered Agent (No. RAG-18-00080) PADI Research Diver Certified SSI Nitrox Diver Certified Florida Association of Environmental Professionals – member since January 1995; served on the Board of Directors for the Southwest Florida Chapter from (2008 – 2012). Past Secretary, Vice President, & President. State of Florida Real Estate License (2003 to Present) Appointed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to: Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, Chairman of the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee. (2009 to 2014). Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) (2015 to Present). FWC Local Rule Review Committee (Manatee Protection Speed Zones) (2016). Publications Sundström, L.F., J. Sterk, & S.H. Gruber. 1998. Effects of a speed-sensing transmitter on the swimming speed of lemon sharks. Bahamas J. Sci. 6 (1): 12-22. JEREMY STERK, CEP Partner \ Principal Environmental Consultant e: jeremys@eteflorida.com t: 239.304.0030 m: 239.595.4929 Years’ Experience 30 years Education/Training B.S. Aquatic Biology St. Cloud State University (1994) Professional Affiliations Academy of Board-Certified Environmental Professionals #16992037 Florida Association of Environmental Professionals (FAEP) Page 597 of 913 239.304.0030 | www.eteflorida.com Mr. McAuley joined Earth Tech Environmental, LLC (ETE) in 2017 and brings with him 8 years of experience working as a Hydrogeologist II and Environmental Consultant in New York State prior to moving to Florida. Andrew graduated from Hofstra University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Geology. Since joining ETE he has been able to apply his past experience from New York on a variety of projects as well as become extensively familiar with Ecological based assessments and agency regulations. Relevant Experience Andrew’s extensive background includes Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), Phase II ESAs, Phase III remedial oversight, AST/UST removal, Soil/Groundwater/Indoor Air Quality sampling reporting, Mold/Lead/Asbestos sampling and remedial protocol reporting. In New York Andrew has overseen various projects including Brownfields sites, Landfill Gas Extraction System installation, Monitoring Well/Remediation System Installation/Maintenance, and multiple Chemical/Petroleum/Bio-Hazard Waste Cleanup projects. Since joining ETE Andrew has expanded his experience into Ecological Assessments such as Protected Species Surveys, Wetland Determinations, Vegetation/Hydrology Monitoring, Submerged Resource Surveys, and Environmental Resource Permitting. Andrew’s work experience includes: Phase I ESAs Project Management/Coordination Phase II ESA Sampling/Reporting Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations Phase III Remedial Oversight/Reporting Wetland Mapping/Flagging Chemical/Petroleum/Bio-Hazard Cleanup Vegetation Monitoring Monitoring Well Installation/Maintenance Protected Species Surveys Air-Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction Systems Bonneted Bat Surveys Groundwater Assessments Gopher Tortoise Surveys Indoor Air Quality Assessments GIS Mapping Contaminated Soil Assessments Bald Eagle Monitoring Waste Classification Management Ecological Assessments Turbidity Monitoring Environmental Resource Permitting Mold/Lead/Asbestos Assessments Exotic Plant Treatment/Removal AST/UST Removal Submerged Resource Surveys Mangrove Monitoring Seagrass Surveys Relevant Certifications/Credentials SDI Open Water SCUBA Diver, SCUBAdventures, 2018 Nitrox Certified Diver, SCUBAdventures, 2018 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent (Permit No: GTA-19-00093) ANDREW MCAULEY Senior Environmental Consultant e: andrewm@eteflorida.com t: 239.304.0030 m: 516.647.9699 Years’ Experience 16 years Education/Training B.S. Geology Hofstra University (2006) Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Intern Columbia University (2004) Professional Affiliations Florida Association of Environmental Professionals (FAEP) Page 598 of 913 239.304.0030 | www.eteflorida.com Mrs. Miller joined Earth Tech Environmental LLC (ETE) in May 2024 and holds the position of Environmental Consultant. She graduated from Florida Gulf Coast University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Science with a Minor in Geology. Relevant Experience Jessica is familiar with southwest Florida ecosystems including both terrestrial and marine environments. Before ETE, Jessica has done work throughout southwest Florida. She worked with Florida Fish and Wildlife performing marine research including fisheries surveys, sawfish research, offshore benthic monitoring, and water quality sampling. She has also worked with the City of Cape Coral as an Environmental Scientist collecting water quality samples, Blue green algae identification, oyster recruitment research in the Caloosahatchee River, gopher tortoise and burrowing owl surveys, exotic species removal, and was a member of the SCUBA Dive team that installed submerged bubble curtains and other underwater maintenance. She also worked at Johnson Engineering where she managed water use permits and performed water quality analysis. Jessica was hired at ETE as an Environmental Consultant, where she has gained valuable experience in a multitude of fields in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, which includes protected species surveys, ecological assessments, wetland determinations and delineations, vegetation monitoring, environmental resource permitting, submerged resource surveys, and turbidity monitoring. Jessica’s work experience includes: Protected Species Surveys Shorebird Monitoring Artificial Reef Fish Monitoring Submerged Resource Surveys Seagrass Surveys Wetland Determinations Mangrove Monitoring Native Tree Surveys / Inventories Seagrass Monitoring Exotic Species removal / euthanasia Preserve Monitoring Turbidity Monitoring Gopher Tortoise Surveys GIS / GPS Mapping and Exhibits Vegetation & Habitat Monitoring Relevant Certifications/Credentials SSI Open Water Diver, 2018 Boat U.S. Foundation’s Online Boating Safety Course, 2020 ArcGIS Pro, 40 Hour Coastal mapping course, USF, 2022 JESSICA MILLER Environmental Consultant e: jessicam@eteflorida.com t: 239.304.0030 m: 239.272.6113 Years’ Experience 2 years Education/Training B.S. Marine Science Minor in Geology Florida Gulf Coast University (2019) Software Experience ArcGIS Pro Proficient in Excel Adobe Lightroom Adobe Photoshop Adobe InDesign Page 599 of 913 Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact inform ation is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Em ail_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III. Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Page 600 of 913 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA (PL20240010833) LIST AND MAP OF PROPERTY OWNERS MAP REFERENCE PARCEL ID OWNER NAME 1 00297720009 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 2 00297600006 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 3 00297840002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 4 00297240000 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 5 00297880004 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 6 00298000003 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 7 00296800001 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 8 00296760002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 9 00297280002 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 10 00296721009 Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 11 00296480007 Collier County School District – GGH (Magnolia Pond Rd Easement) Page 601 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 MAGNOLIA POND MPUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PROJECT NARRATIVE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA PROJECT OVERVIEW: The application proposes to amend the Magnolia Pond MPUD to increase the permitted number of dwelling units from 231 to 550 dwelling units. The additional units are achieved utilizing the existing density bonuses established by the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Density Rating System, including the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The PUDA revises the Development Standards Table in Exhibit B, including increasing the permitted zoned and actual heights for multifamily dwellings, proposes three new deviations in Exhibit E, and updates the developer commitments in Exhibit F of the PUD. The PUDA also updates Exhibit C, the MPUD Master Concept Plan to revise the location and layout of the preserve and development area and reflect the increased density and proposed deviations. BACKGROUND: The Magnolia Pond MPUD, originally approved by Ordinance 1998-49, and replaced by Ordinance 2010-06, is located approximately one-half mile west of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), City Gate Drive and Magnolia Pond Drive. The 47.05-acre MPUD is currently vacant land that is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive resulting in approximately 19.6-acres north of the roadway and 27.5-acres on the south side. Magnolia Pond Drive is a public roadway east of the PUD; the segment of Magnolia Pond Drive along the PUD frontage is an existing access easement owned by Collier County School District. The property is immediately north of I-75 and south of the Golden Gate Canal. Golden Gate High School is located to the west of the PUD and the eastern boundary includes preservation land and Mike Davis Elementary School. Existing multifamily developments are located between the subject property and Collier Blvd. The existing MPUD allows for single-family, two-family and multifamily residential, as well as assisted living facilities (ALF). It is currently approved for a maximum of 231 dwelling units which equates to 4.9 dwelling units per acre. Single-family dwellings are limited to 125 units. ALF is subject to a Floor Area Ration of 0.60 and for every four (4) ALF units developed, one residential dwelling unit shall be subtracted from the maximum 231 units. Page 602 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 2 DETAILS OF REQUEST: This amendment seeks to increase the permitted number of residential units from 231 dwelling units to 550 dwelling units through the use of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB). The proposed density of the PUD increases from 4.9 du/ac to 11.7 du/ac. Development within the PUD is anticipated to include a market- rate rental apartment development on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and an owner-occupied affordable housing multifamily development on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive. The proposed density is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The 47.05-acres Magnolia Pond MPUD is designated as Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the entire property is located within the Residential Density Band associated with the Collier Boulevard Interstate 75 Activity Center #9. Per the Future Land Use Element, the maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre. The maximum allowable base density in the Urban Residential subdistrict is 4 du/ac with a density bonus of 3 du/ac for being within the Density Band. Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Habitat) proposes to provide 165 owner-occupied dwelling units for Low Income households, those earning up to 80 percent of the Collier County annual median income. The 165 units equates to 30% of the 550 total dwelling units proposed in the PUD. Per the current AHDB provisions of LDC Section 2.06.03, this allows for bonus density of +7 du/ac (a County-initiated amendment proposes to increase this bonus to +9 du/ac). The total eligible density and total eligible dwelling units for the PUD are outlined in the table below: FLUE Designation Acres +/- Eligible Units/Acre Eligible Total DUs Urban Residential Subdistrict 47.05 4 188.2 DENSITY BONUSES Residential Density Band 47.05 +3 141.2 Affordable Housing Density Bonus 47.05 +71 329.4 Total 14 6592 1 Based on 30% of total dwelling units designated for Low Income Households, LDC 2.06.03.A., Table A. 2 Total dwelling units rounded to nearest whole number The proposed increase in residential density to 550 dwelling units (11.7 du/ac) is consistent with the eligible density permitted by the GMP and Density Rating System. In support of the anticipated development, this PUDA application also includes the following amendments: Updates to Exhibit B, Development Standards: The Amendment replaces the existing Development Standards with a new reformatted table. The maximum allowed zoned height for multifamily dwellings is increased to 57’ and the maximum allowed actual height is increased to 65’. A footnote has been included to specify that clubhouse development standards do not apply to any clubhouse that is located within a multifamily residential building. The updated table maintains the minimum 75’ setback from I-75 and includes a footnote that this setback is increased to 100’ for buildings 3- stories or taller. The existing 300’ setback from the Golden Gate Canal is not specified in the updated Development Standards Table; however, the Master Concept Plan (Exhibit C) shows that the Residential Page 603 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 3 development area is separated from Golden Gate Canal by buffers and stormwater management lake and any residential structures will maintain the minimum 300’ setback from the Golden Gate Canal. Revised Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan: The Master Plan has been updated to reflect the anticipated development. The development areas and the preserve located between Magnolia Pond Drive and I-75 have been reconfigured. The preserve acreage has been updated based on current Environmental Data which identifies the site with 38.54-acres of existing native vegetation. The new preserve layout wraps the development area south of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2), which has been shifted to the east side of the site. The preserve maintains a minimum average width of 50’, with no area of the preserve narrower than 30’ in width per LDC requirements. The changes in Land Use areas are shown in the table below: LAND USE ORD 2010-06 MCP PROPOSED MCP CHANGE Lakes 5.57 6.78 +1.21 Easements 1.69 1.79 +0.10 Preserve 10.28 9.64 -0.64 Landscape Buffers 1.37 1.27 -0.10 Right-of-Way 3.20 1.73 -1.47 Development Area 24.94 25.84 +0.90 TOTAL 47.05 47.05 0.00 New Deviations, Exhibit E, Deviations: The amendment proposes three new deviations: • LDC 2.06.04.A.14 and A.16: Deviation from AHDB requirement that affordable housing units be same as market rate units; • LDC 6.06.02.A.1: Deviation requiring sidewalks on both sides of local streets or internal accessways; • LDC 4.05.04.G., Table 17: Deviation from parking requirements for small-scale recreation facilities that are accessory to residential projects. See Deviations and Justifications for additional information. Update Exhibit F, Developer Commitments: The List of Developer Commitments has been updated to include standard PUD commitment language as it relates to PUD monitoring, state and federal permitting, maximum trip generation, and preserves satisfying buffer requirements; to identify existing commitments that have already been completed; to update the existing architectural commitment to not require that development on north and south sides of Magnolia Pond to be architecturally unified; and to add an affordable housing commitment. Page 604 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 4 EVALUATION CRITERIA: The PUDA meets the rezoning and PUD criteria established in the LDC and is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Growth Management Plan. LDC and GMP references are provided below with responses in bold italics. LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.: a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The MPUD is located approximately one-half mile west of the intersection of Collier Boulevard, Magnolia Pond Drive and West Gate Drive. The property is located within the residential density band of Collier Boulevard Interstate 75 Activity Center #9. The property is immediately adjacent to a high school to the west and an elementary school and existing multifamily projects to the east. Being adjacent to an Activity Center and public schools make the site ideal for higher density residential uses. The site is separated from lower density uses to the north by the Golden Gate Canal and planned stormwater improvements and to the south by I-75 and planned indigenous preserve. Utilities are readily available to the site. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. The property that is subject to this PUDA is owned by Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. The existing Magnolia Pond Drive access easement is within the PUD Boundaries but is owned by the Collier County School District. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Magnolia Pond MPUD has previously been found to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. The proposed amendment to increase the residential units is consistent with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element as outlined in the Details of Request. The property is eligible for up to 659 dwelling units (14 du/ac); the PUDA proposes to increase the total number of residential dwelling units to 550 (11.7 du/ac). See also Consistency with GMP Section. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The MPUD allows for a mix of residential and assisted living facility uses that are compatible internally and with external uses. The project is located within an Activity Center Density Band and is adjacent to a high school, an elementary school, other multifamily developments and existing Page 605 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 5 preserves. The proposed development areas will be separated from lower intensity uses to the north by the Golden Gate Canal and increased open space. Development on the south side of Magnolia Pond is separated from adjacent uses and properties by planned and existing preservation areas, open space and lakes and I-75. The development will provide landscape buffers as required by the LDC. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUD will meet the 60% open space requirement. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. There is adequate infrastructure to support the proposed development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The MPUD is of sufficient size to accommodate the additional density proposed by this amendment. There is no request, or ability, to expand the boundaries of the MPUD. Adjacent properties to the east and west are currently developed, and the Golden Gate Canal and I-75 provide natural barriers to expansion the north and south, respectively. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The Magnolia Pond MPUD is currently approved with two deviations. This Amendment proposes three additional deviations related to affordable housing requirements, sidewalks and parking requirements for multifamily residential uses. The deviations are justified as meeting a public purpose. Please see Deviations and Justifications. LDC Section 10.02.08 F.: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment to increase the residential units is consistent with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element as outlined in the Details of Request. The property is eligible for up to 659 dwelling units (14 du/ac); the PUDA proposes to increase the total number of residential dwelling units to 550 (11.7 du/ac). See also Consistency with GMP Section below. 2. The existing land use pattern. The Magnolia Pond MPUD is consistent with the land use patterns of the area. The property is adjacent to Activity Center #9 and is a suitable location for higher density residential uses. The property is also adjacent to public schools making it an ideal location for residential uses. Page 606 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 6 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The amendment does not include changes to the MPUD boundary, and therefore does not create an isolated district that is unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing MPUD boundaries were established in 2010 by Ordinance 2010-06 and are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions. The amendment does not propose changes to the MPUD boundary. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The additional density requested by this PUDA is consistent with the GMP and will allow the development to provide a variety of housing, including an affordable housing project, to meet the needs of Collier County residents. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not negatively influence living conditions in the area. Landscape buffers established in accordance with the LDC, proposed preserve areas and existing natural features including the Golden Gate Canal and I-75 provide appropriate screening between adjacent uses. The PUD contains development standards that are appropriate and are compatible with surrounding uses. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The existing road network and proposed FDOT improvements to the Collier Boulevard interchange with I-75 provide sufficient capacity for the increased density proposed by this PUD Amendment. The proposed increase in density does not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create traffic that is incompatible with surrounding land uses. See attached Traffic Impact Statement. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment will not create a drainage problem. The development is designed to meet stormwater requirements of Collier County and South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The development of the Magnolia Pond MPUD will not reduce light and air to adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Page 607 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 7 The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on property values in the adjacent areas. Development within the MPUD includes appropriate development standards and buffers to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The surrounding properties are developed. The proposed amendment will not create a deterrent to the improvement or redevelopment of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The PUDA is consistent with the requirements of the LDC and the GMP and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The property is currently zoned as a mixed use PUD. The request to increase the density is consistent with the GMP and does not change the zoning of the property, which will remain Magnolia Pond MPUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed amendment will not result in a development that is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and county. The property is adjacent to an Activity Center, which is intended for residential uses at higher densities and intensities. The immediate area is comprised of a high school, an elementary school and other multifamily developments. The development is consistent and compatible with adjacent developments. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The property is already zoned to allow for multifamily residential uses. The increase in density proposed by this amendment is consistent with the Activity Center Density Band requirements, the affordable housing density bonus program and the GMP. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The property is currently vacant with the exception of existing drainage easements along the northern and eastern boundaries. The property will be cleared to accommodate the proposed Page 608 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 8 development and necessary infrastructure while providing the required native preservation and open space. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. Public facilities are available to meet the requirements of the development. All levels of service will be maintained. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP. The project is located adjacent to an Interchange Activity Center and within the Residential Density Band and is a suitable location for higher densities. The site has been designed to meet the requirements of the LDC and will not negatively impact surrounding land uses. Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Growth Management Plan: FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The Magnolia Pond MPUD is compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding land uses. The proposed development includes multifamily residential projects on the north and south side of Magnolia Pond Drive with suitable setbacks and development standards to ensure compatibility with adjacent developments. The development areas on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive are separated from adjacent land uses by preserved indiginuous areas. The northern development area will be separated from lower intensity uses to the north by the Golden Gate Canal and stormwater pond site. The proposed density is consistent with the GMP and adjacent multifamily projects. FLUE Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. The Magnolia Pond MPUD is in the Urban Area and is immediately adjacent to an Interchange Activity Center. Pubic facilities and services are readily available to serve anticipated development on the site. The MPUD has been found consistent with the GMP since its initial approval in 1998. FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection Page 609 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 9 can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The Magnolia Pond MPUD has direct access to Collier Boulevard via Magnolia Pond Drive. FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The residential portions of the development within the Magnolia Pond MPUD have direct connections to Magnolia Pond Drive. Both the northern and southern residential development tracts, designated as R1 and R2 on the Master Concept Plan, respectively, will have a full movement access along Magnolia Pond Drive. The southern tract (R2) also includes the potential for a separate right- out only. Each of these development tracts will utilize internal looping roads and/or drive aisles and eliminate dead end roads where practical consistent with PUD Developer Commitment 2.A. FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. The residential portions of the development within the Magnolia Pond MPUD have direct connections to Magnolia Pond Drive. The PUD cannot provide interconnections to adjacent properties as it is immediately adjacent to I-75 to the south, the Golden Gate Canal to the north and the properties to the east and west are already developed FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. The Magnolia Pond MPUD proposes separate residential developments on the north and south sides of Magnolia Pond Drive, identified as R1 and R2 on the MCP. The developments include market rate rental apartments on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and owner-occupied affordable housing development on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive. The development projects include internal sidewalks that will connect to the public sidewalk in Magnolia Pond Drive. FLUE Policy 7.5: The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan. Magnolia Pond MPUD is a mixed use planned development that is primarily intended for multifamily residential uses with the allowance of Assisted Living Facilities. The densities and uses proposed are consistent with the GMP and are appropriate for areas adjacent to the Interchange Activity Center. Page 610 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised: March 18, 2025 Page 10 Housing Objective 1: Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce incomes, including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County. The amendment proposes to provide a variety additional housing to meet the needs of Collier County residents of different economic backgrounds. The PUDA proposes 165 units to be reserved for Low Income residents. CCME Objective 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. The property is located within the County’s Urban Designated Area, outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. Per Policy 6.1.1 and LDC Section 3.05.07, the property is required to preserve 25% of the existing native vegetation. The Environmental Data included as part of this submittal identifies the property contains 38.54-acres of existing native vegetation, which results in a minimum preserve requirement of 9.64-acres. This requirement is shown on Exhibit C, Magnolia Pond Master Plan, identifies 9.64 acres of preserve and is noted in Developer Commitment 5.A. The preserve area wraps around the development areas on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive connecting to adjacent preserve area to the east and the existing stormwater lake to the west. The preserve me ets the minimum average width of 50’ but not less than 20’ as required by LDC Section 3.05.07.H.b. CCME Objective 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. The MCP proposes Residential development areas on the north and south side of Magnolia Pond Drive. Development is appropriately located and will maintain minimum preserve setbacks. Per the submitted Environmental Data, the subject property includes community types that may have protected species, including potential gopher tortoise and bonneted bat habitat. One gopher tortoise was observed during the preliminary assessment. The PUD includes existing Developer Commitments to provide management plans for Florida Black Bear and Big Cypress Fox Squirrels prior to SDP or PPL (5.C), and Gopher Tortoise relocation management plan (5.D and 5.E). Page 611 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised April 30, 2025 Page 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 MAGNOLIA POND MPUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT DEVIATIONS & JUSTIFICATION Deviation #3 Relief from LDC Section 2.06.04 A.14. and A.16., Affordable Housing Conditions, which require affordable housing units be the same square footage, construction and design as the market rate dwelling units in the development and that the affordable housing units be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development to instead allow for an affordable housing product to be permitted and constructed separately from the market rate apartment buildings. The affordable housing units will be owner occupied and located on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R1) and all of the market rate dwelling units will be rental apartments located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). Justification: The Magnolia Pond MPUD consists of separate development tracts that are separated by Magnolia Pond Drive. These development tracts, identified as R1 and R2 on the Master Concept Plan, are controlled by separate developers and will be permitted as separate Site Development Plan (SDP) applications. The MPUD will consist of owner-occupied multifamily affordable housing dwelling units located on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R1) and market rate renter-occupied apartment buildings located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive (R2). Due to the eventual difference in property ownership and occupancy type (i.e., market rate rental versus owner occupied affordable units), and the fact that Magnolia Pond Drive acts as a natural barrier between the two product types, it is not practical to integrate the units into a common plan or to provide identical unit types. The LDC provision requiring affordable housing units to be the same square footage, construction and design as the market rate dwelling is not practical in larger developments with multiple developers and product types. It should also be noted that recent amendments to the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) provisions of the Collier County GMP create situations where affordable housing will not be integrated into the larger development. FLUE Policy 4.7.5 requires new Villages and Towns to set aside 3% of the SRA Acreage for affordable housing. This area is to be shown on the SRA Master Plan and is not required to be distributed throughout the entire SRA development. A similar deviation was approved for the Tree Farm MPUD (Ord. 2023-34). Page 612 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised April 30, 2025 Page 2 Deviation #4 Deviation from LDC Sections 6.06.02.A.1., Sidewalk Requirements, which requires 5’ sidewalks on both sides of local streets or internal accessways which are adjacent to the development to instead allow an alternative sidewalk plan as shown in Exhibit 1 in lieu of providing sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive along the development’s entire frontage. Justification: The PUD is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive. Magnolia Pond Drive is a public right-of-way from Collier Boulevard to the subject property and then is an access easement owned by the Collier County School District. The LDC requires a 5’ sidewalk on both sides of this roadway. Currently, the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive has an 8’ wide pathway that extends from Collier Boulevard to Golden Gate High School. There is no sidewalk along the majority of south side of Magnolia Pond Drive. A 6’ sidewalk was constructed by the adjacent Magnolia Pond Apartment s (CDPAR13914/PL20210000922) located immediately east of the PUD; however, the sidewalk stops at the existing drainage easement, approximately 50’ east of the Magnolia Pond PUD boundary. Similarly, there is no existing sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive to connect to west of the subject property. Property to the west includes stormwater pond developed as part of the High School and is unlikely to provide a sidewalk connectio n in the future. The LDC requirement to provide sidewalk along the Magnolia Pond PUD road frontages would not require or provide a connection to the existing sidewalk east of the development. As shown on Exhibit 1, the development proposes to construct the public sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive from the western access point to the existing sidewalk located east of the off-site drainage easement. A pedestrian crossing to the existing 8’ pathway on the north side of Magnolia Pond Drive will be provided at the western terminus of the proposed sidewalk. The proposed deviation improves the existing pedestrian system by connecting to the existing sidewalk on the east side of the drainage easement. Additionally, the improvements will improve safety for vehicular traffic by grading the unrecoverable slope along the property’s frontage and the DE. View looking west. Sidewalk ends at DE prior to Magnolia Pond PUD property line. Source: Google Earth; Imagery Date:8 /2024 View looking east. Existing sidewalk located on east side of DE. Page 613 of 913 PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond MPUDA Revised April 30, 2025 Page 3 Deviation #5 Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G., Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, which requires parking for small- scale recreation facilities that are accessory to single-family or multifamily projects to instead require no parking for small-scale recreation facilities that are accessory to the market rate rental apartment units located on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive and identified as R2 on the Master Concept Plan. Justification: The parking requirement for multifamily dwellings is 1 parking space per dwelling unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 spaces per efficiency unit, 0.75 spaces per 1 -bedroom unit, and 1 space per 2-bedroom or larger unit. The parking provision further requires that office and/or administrative buildings be parked at 50% of normal requirements (50% of 1 space per 300 sf), and accessory recreation facilities be parked at 25% of the normal requirement when the majority of the dwelling units are located within 300 feet of the facilities. Tract R2 is intended to be developed as a single Site Development Plan (SDP) consisting of market rate rental apartments. The conceptual design identifies a gated development consisting of 301 apartments. The development includes small scale accessory recreation facilities intended solely for the use of the residents. The recreation facilities are located within the multifamily buildings or their internal courtyards, where the majority of units would be within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. The accessory recreation parking provision is largely intended for recreation facilities that are part of a separate amenity’s tract or area with dedicated parking areas. Because the recreation facilities proposed as part of this development are internally integrated as part of the residential buildings and are limited to the residents of the apartment complex, they do not require users to drive and park at a separate location. The development will provide parking as required by LDC Section 4.05.04.G., Table 17, for the multifamily residential units and any accessory office and administrative floor area. The table below identifies the number of parking spaces required by the LDC and the proposed parking subject to the deviation request: USE UNIT LDC PARKING RATIO REQUIRED PARKING PROPOSED PARKING Multifamily Residential: 1-Bedroom 118 du 1 per du plus 0.75 visitor 207 spaces 207 spaces 2-Bedroom or Larger 183 du 1 per du plus 1.00 visitor 366 spaces 366 spaces Residential Sub-Total 573 spaces 573 spaces Accessory Office/Administrative: Office/Administrative 4,100 sf 1 per 300 sf x 50% 7 spaces 7 spaces Office/Administration Sub-Total 7 spaces 7 spaces Accessory Recreation: Fitness 5,700 sf 1 per 100 sf x 25% 14 spaces 0 spaces Clubhouse 4,900 sf 1 per 200 sf x 25% 6 spaces 0 spaces Swimming Pool 3,500 sf 1 per 75 sf for first 1,000 sf plus 1 per additional 125 sf x 25% 8 spaces 0 spaces Pickleball Courts 2 courts 3 per court x 25% 2 spaces 0 spaces Recreation Sub-Total 30 spaces 0 spaces REQUIRED PARKING 610 spaces 580 spaces Page 614 of 913 A A A OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E HH TEX. 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EX. 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN COUNTY R.O.W.PRIVATE A.E. PROPOSED 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK EX. 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK4 4 GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL MAGNOLIA POND DR RELOCATED 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK I-75 DEVELOPER TO MODIFY EXISTING DRAINAGE AS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPOSED CROSSWALK WEST OF MAGNOLIA POND PUD ENTRANCES • CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING AND ZONING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PENINSULA CLIENT:TITLE:PROJECT: Sheet Number:of File Name: Project Number: Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn by: Designed by: SEC:RGE:TWP:[Save Date: 4/4/2025 2:34:36 PM] [By: AAvila] [Plot Date: 4/4/2025 2:35:29 PM] [By: Alejandro Avila] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-THTH-001\002-Apartments_SDP\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X05_Sidewalk_Exhibit\Sheet_Files\P-THTH-001-002-C00-X05.dwg]Sheet ID:Florida Engineering C.A #28275 Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 MAGNOLIA POND PUDA PL202400010833 EXHIBIT 1: PROPOSED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. ALEJANDRO AVILA ALEJANDRO AVILA APRIL 2025 1" = 200' P-THTH-001-002 P-THTH-001-002-C00-X05.dwg C-X05 01 01 34 49 26REVISIONS: No:Revision:Date: 239.403.6700 Pen-Eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34105 SCALE:1" = 200'LEGEND #DEVIATION DEVIATIONS LOCATIONS AREA WITH NO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS4 Page 615 of 913 Page 616 of 913 Page 617 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 1 of 11 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2025 SUBJECT: PL20240007340, PARAISO CLUB REZONE, (COMPANION ITEM TO PL20240009700, PARAISO CLUB CONDITIONAL USE) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Property Owner: Applicant: Lloyd Bowein and Majorie E. Monaghan Trust David Tingley, MGR 10021 Gulf Shore Drive Paraiso Club, LLC Naples, FL 34108 2039 Prince Drive Naples, FL 34110 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Ellen Summers, AICP Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester Bowman 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34103 Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate Zoning Atlas Map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential-Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) zoning district to a Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district within the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) zoning district for a project to be known as Paraiso Club. Page 618 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 2 of 11 Page 619 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 3 of 11 MASTER PLAN Page 620 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 4 of 11 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 1.35± acre beachfront property is located along the Gulf of Mexico on the west side of Gulf Shore Drive, just south of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to rezone the subject 1.35± acre beachfront property from the Residential- Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) zoning district to a Residential Tourist-Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (RT-VBRTO) zoning district to allow a private club. (Please see Attachment A- Proposed Rezone Ordinance.) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Developed single-family residence with a zoning designation of Residential- Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) East: Gulf Shore Drive, a 2-lane local road, and then single-family residences with a zoning designation of Residential-Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) South: Resort Hotel with a zoning designation of Residential Tourist–Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (RT-VBRTO) West: Gulf of Mexico Subject Site AERIAL Page 621 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 5 of 11 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed Rezone and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. For further information, see Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s April 24, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a.For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b.For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c.For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff findings: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Paraiso Club development will generate a projected total of +/- 19 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Gulfshore Drive. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Page 622 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 6 of 11 Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2024 Level of Service (LOS) 2024 Remaining Capacity Gulfshore Drive/29.0 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to 111th Ave. 900/NB 5/NB B 580 111th Avenue North/39.0 Gulfshore Dr. to Vanderbilt Dr. 700/EB 4/EB B 390 111th Avenue North/40.0 Vanderbilt Dr. to US-41 900/EB 3/EB C 270 Vanderbilt Beach Road/109.0 Gulfshore Drive to US- 41 1,540/EB 3/EB C 430 1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is April 24, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. The applicant proposes the following Traffic Management Strategies: •No On-site Parking for Members. •Member Shuttle Service. •Staff Transportation Service. •Limited Vendor Site Visits. •Promote Bicycling and Walking to the Facility. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff evaluated the petition. The subject 1.35± acre property has been found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.08. F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establishes the legal bases to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC (Board of Collier County Page 623 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Commissioners), who, in turn, use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Rezone Findings.” In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and is recommending approval. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed this petition. The property has historically been a single-family home and impacted by hurricane events; therefore, the Master Plan does not show a preserve since no minimum preservation is required. A beach dune restoration plan will need to be provided at SDP review. No listed animal species were observed on the property. Environmental staff recommend APPROVAL of the proposed project. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Utility Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the North Collier wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. Planning & Zoning Review: As previously stated, the petitioner proposes to rezone the subject 1.35± acre beachfront property from the Residential-Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) zoning district to a Residential Tourist-Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (RT-VBRTO) zoning district to allow a private club. The proposed beach club will extend the abutting Residential Tourist-Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay to the south into the subject property. The proposed beach club is located next to and to the north of the LaPlaya Beach and Golf Resort. The beach club will be a members-only club. It will provide an additional opportunity for beach access. The Land Development Code (LDC) requires a 30-foot front yard, 17.5-foot side yard, and 30-foot rear yard RT-VBRTO building setbacks for the proposed beach club. These are greater than or similar to the current LDC required RSF-3 building setbacks. The petitioner is exceeding the side yard setback by providing a minimum 21-foot setback. The petitioner has provided a Condition of Approval to limit the height of the proposed beach club to a 38-foot zoned height, which is similar to the 35-foot zoned RSF-3 zoned height. The petitioner is also providing all of the minimum code required landscape buffers. A 15-foot- wide Type B Landscape Buffer (trees at 25 feet on center and a 6-foot-high hedge or wall) will separate the beach club from the residential development to the north. Page 624 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 8 of 11 The attached Exhibit A-Conditions of Approval also limits the land use to a private club and prohibits land uses such as hotels, churches, marinas, family care facilities, and other similar uses. Staff finds the proposed private beach club compatible with the adjacent community. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08. F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings when applicable” (The criteria are italicized, Staff’s responses to these criteria are provided in regular font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies, and the future land use map, and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject site is currently zoned RSF-3 with a proposed zoning designation of RT-VBRTO. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern is characterized by single-family to the north and east, resort hotel to the south, and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. The private beach club use proposed in this petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject site is not an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map on page two of this staff report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. This rezone request is not necessarily the result of changing conditions, but it provides for an additional use that is compatible with the existing development pattern. Page 625 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 9 of 11 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change from RSF-3 zoning designation to RT-VBRTO zoning designation to allow a private beach club will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. As previously stated, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed private beach club should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed rezone to RT-VBRTO is an expansion of the zoning designation to the south. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that this rezone will not adversely impact property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties to the south and north of this property are already developed, and properties to the east are under construction or redeveloping. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed rezone should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the GMP, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. Page 626 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 10 of 11 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property could be developed under the existing zoning. However, according to the petitioner, a rezone is sought to provide a private beach club. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed development complies with the GMP requirements for the uses proposed. The GMP is a policy statement that has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout Collier County. Staff believes that the zoning district will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The development anticipated by the proposed zoning district would require some site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. Page 627 of 913 PARAISO CLUB REZONE, PL20240007340 July 23, 2025 Page 11 of 11 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant held the required meeting on April 7, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Library, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida. Eight people, along with the applicant and County Staff, attended the meeting. The neighbors were receptive to the proposed private club. To date, no letters of objection or support have been received. For further information, please see Attachment C: NIM Documents. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report for content and legal sufficiency on July 21, 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommend that the CCPC forward Petition RZ- PL20240007340, Paraiso Club Rezone, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed Rezone Ordinance Attachment B: GMP Consistency Review Attachment C: NIM Documents Attachment D: Application Page 628 of 913 [25-CPS-02601/1957544/1]58 Paraiso Club / RZ-PL20240007340 7/23/25 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2025 -_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 3 (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL TOURIST (RT) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TOURIST OVERLAY (VBRTO) FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS PARAISO CLUB, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GULF SHORE DRIVE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BAYVIEW AVENUE IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 1.35+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20240007340] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP and Ellen Summers, AICP, of Bowman and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Paraiso Club, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Single Family 3 (RSF3) Zoning District to a Residential Tourist (RT) Zoning District within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) for a 1.3+/- acre project known as Paraiso Club, subject to the Page 629 of 913 [25-CPS-02601/1957544/1]58 Paraiso Club / RZ-PL20240007340 7/23/25 2 of 2 Conceptual Site Plan as shown in Exhibit B and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C. Exhibits A, B and C are attached hereto and incorporated herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ___________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ , Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – Legal Description Exhibit B – Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval Exhibit D – Location Map Page 630 of 913 Exhibit A Page 631 of 913 BAYVIEW AVENUEPROPERTYBOUNDARYGULF OF MEXICOZONING: RSF-3USE: RESIDENTIAL10' PUBLICWALKWAYEASEMENTZONING: RTUSE: HOTEL15' TYPE"B" BUFFERPROPOSEDTRASHENCLOSURESCALE:1" = 60'UP977UPUP21' MIN.SIDE YARDSETBACK21' MIN.SIDE YARDSETBACKZONING: RSF-3USE: RESIDENTIALGULFSHOREDRIVEPROPOSEDLOADINGZONE10' TYPE"D" BUFFER30' FRONTYARDSETBACKEXISTING 6'CONCRETESIDEWALKCOASTAL CONSTRUCTIONCONTROL LINEAPPROVED FEBRUARY, 1989LOCATION PER GIS DATAPROVIDED BY FLORIDADEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONCOASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINEAPPROVED SEPTEMBER 18, 1974LOCATION PER GIS DATA PROVIDED BY FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONMEAN HIGH WATERLOT #31LOT #32EXISTING70' ROWPOOLBEACH DUNEEXISTINGPOOL TO BEREMOVED15' TYPE"B" BUFFERPROPOSEDBUILDINGANDUNDERBUILDINGPARKINGSITE INFORMATION NOTES:TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.35 ACRESMAXIMUM ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT: 38 FEETNO PRESERVE REQUIRED30' MIN. REARYARD SETBACKBIKEPARKINGBowman Consulting Group, Ltd. www.bowmanconsulting.com © Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Phone (239) 254-2000C-01CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 30462 PARAISO CLUB REZONE PL20240007340 Exhibit BPage 632 of 913 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\00 BOWMAN PROJECTS\340815-01-001 PARAISO CLUB REZONE & CONDITIONAL USE\Rezone\2nd Submittal\Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (rev 5-2-2025) Rezone.docx Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval Paraiso Club Rezone PL-20240007340 1.The following use is hereby permitted as a conditional use, subject to the standards and procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00. a.Private clubs. 2.The following uses are prohibited: a.Hotels and motels. b.Multi-family dwellings. c.Family care facilities. d.Timeshare facilities. e.Townhouses. f.Wireless communications facilities. g.Churches. h.Marinas. i.Noncommercial boat launch facilities. j.Group care facilities (category I and II); care units, nursing homes; assisted living facilities; and continuing care retirement communities. k.Yacht clubs. l.Model homes and model sales centers. m.Ancillary plants. 3.No building or structure shall exceed a zoned building height of thirty-eight (38) feet, and an actual height of fifty-seven (57) feet. 4.A beach dune vegetation restoration plan for the subject site shall be provided at time of SDP or subdivision plat. 5.The maximum total daily trip generation for the Rezone shall not exceed 19 two-way PM peak hour net rips based on the use codes in the ITE manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. Page 633 of 913 Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. www.bowmanconsulting.com © Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 6200 Whiskey Creek Drive Fort Myers, FL 33919 Phone (239) 985-1200C-01CONCEPT PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 30462 PARAISO REZONE AERIAL LOCATION 10021 &10047 GULF SHORE DR. COLLIERPage 634 of 913 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ CONSISTENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Gundlach, Planner III, Zoning Services FROM: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Growth Management Community Development Department DATE: July 16, 2025 SUBJECT: Paraiso Club (RZ-PL20240007340 & CU-PL20240009700) _________________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST: To change the zoning district of a property from Residential Single Family (RSF-3) to Residential Tourist (RT) for a private beach club known as Paraiso Beach Club. LOCATION: The subject site is comprised of +/-1.35 acres and is located on the west side of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Urban Mixed-Use District allows water- dependent and water-related land uses within the coastal region, and states: “Mixed-use sites of water-dependent and water-related parks, marinas (public or private), yacht clubs, and related accessory and recreational uses such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants. Any development that includes a water-dependent and/or water-related land use shall be encouraged to use the Planned Unit Development technique and other innovative approaches so as to conserve environmentally sensitive areas and to assure compatibility with surrounding land uses.” The subject property does not meet the minimum lot area required of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In order to achieve compatibility with the surrounding areas under the Residential Tourist district, the petition includes Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A to limit the zoned building height of the structure and restrict the remaining permitted and conditional uses as allowed by the RT district. The uses listed as prohibited in the Conditions of Approval may otherwise be considered incompatible and would entitle the property to uses and densities deemed inconsistent with the FLUE. As the FLUE allows water-dependent and water-related uses in the Urban-Mixed Use District, the innovative methods used to attain compatibility of the Paraiso Beach Club may be found to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Page 635 of 913 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Certain applicable Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policies are shown as follows in italics, followed by staff analysis in bracketed bold text. FLUE Policy 5.6 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The property does not front a collector nor arterial road.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The site does not contain any new roads or internal accesses. Vehicular congestion is alleviated by limiting allowance for on-site parking and requiring members to use alternative modes of transportation, such as shuttles and bicycles, to access the property.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments, regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The surrounding development of the site is fully improved. The development is not of a feasible scale to incorporate local streets and interconnection points with its adjacent developments.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. [As the site is not of a residential nature, analysis of this policy will be limited as applicable. The Paraiso Beach Club encourages walkability of the area by restricting use of parking and encouraging resident members to access the site by walking or biking.] CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Page 636 of 913 Page 637 of 913 Page 638 of 913 Page 639 of 913 Page 640 of 913 Page 641 of 913 Page 642 of 913 Page 643 of 913 Page 644 of 913 Page 645 of 913 Page 646 of 913 Page 647 of 913 Page 648 of 913 Page 649 of 913 Page 650 of 913 Page 651 of 913 Page 652 of 913 Page 653 of 913 Page 654 of 913 Page 655 of 913 Page 656 of 913 Page 657 of 913 Page 658 of 913 Page 659 of 913 Page 660 of 913 Page 661 of 913 Page 662 of 913 Page 663 of 913 Page 664 of 913 Page 665 of 913 Page 666 of 913 Page 667 of 913 Page 668 of 913 Page 669 of 913 Page 670 of 913 Page 671 of 913 Page 672 of 913 Page 673 of 913 Page 674 of 913 Page 675 of 913 Page 676 of 913 Page 677 of 913 Page 678 of 913 Page 679 of 913 Page 680 of 913 Page 681 of 913 Page 682 of 913 Page 683 of 913 Page 684 of 913 Page 685 of 913 Page 686 of 913 Page 687 of 913 Page 688 of 913 Page 689 of 913 Page 690 of 913 Page 691 of 913 Page 692 of 913 Page 693 of 913 Page 694 of 913 Page 695 of 913 Page 696 of 913 Page 697 of 913 Page 698 of 913 Page 699 of 913 Page 700 of 913 Page 701 of 913 Page 702 of 913 Page 703 of 913 Page 704 of 913 Page 705 of 913 Page 706 of 913 Page 707 of 913 Page 708 of 913 Page 709 of 913 Page 710 of 913 Page 711 of 913 Page 712 of 913 Page 713 of 913 Page 714 of 913 Page 715 of 913 Page 716 of 913 Page 717 of 913 Page 718 of 913 Page 719 of 913 Page 720 of 913 Page 721 of 913 Page 722 of 913 Page 723 of 913 Page 724 of 913 Page 725 of 913 Page 726 of 913 Page 727 of 913 Page 728 of 913 Page 729 of 913 Page 730 of 913 Page 731 of 913 Page 732 of 913 Page 733 of 913 Page 734 of 913 Page 735 of 913 Page 736 of 913 Page 737 of 913 Page 738 of 913 Page 739 of 913 Page 740 of 913 Page 741 of 913 Page 742 of 913 Page 743 of 913 Page 744 of 913 Page 745 of 913 Page 746 of 913 Page 747 of 913 Page 748 of 913 Page 749 of 913 Page 750 of 913 Page 751 of 913 Page 752 of 913 Page 753 of 913 Page 754 of 913 Page 755 of 913 Page 756 of 913 Page 757 of 913 Page 758 of 913 Page 759 of 913 Page 760 of 913 Page 761 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 1 of 9 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2025 SUBJECT: CU-PL20240009700, PARAISO CLUB CONDITIONAL USE (COMPANION ITEM TO PL20240007340, PARAISO CLUB REZONE) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Property Owner: Applicant: Lloyd Bowein and Majorie E. Monaghan Trust David Tingley, MGR 10021 Gulf Shore Drive Paraiso Club, LLC Naples, FL 34108 2039 Prince Drive Naples, FL 34110 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Ellen Summers, AICP Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester Bowman 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34103 Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a Private Club within a Residential Tourist- Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (RT-VBRTO) zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 762 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 2 of 9 Page 763 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 3 of 9 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Page 764 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 4 of 9 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 1.35± acre beachfront property is located along the Gulf of Mexico on the west side of Gulf Shore Drive, just south of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner requests a Conditional Use approval to allow for a Private Club in the Residential Tourist (RT) Zoning District. There is also a companion rezone from the Residential-Single- Family-3 (RSF-3) zoning district to a Residential Tourist-Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (RT-VBRTO) zoning district. The subject site is composed of two lots. One of the lots is developed with a single-family dwelling. The other lot is vacant. The proposed private beach club will be a zoned height of 38 feet and an actual height of 57 feet. It is surrounded to the south by neighboring building heights of 4 to 14 stories. To the north of the subject site, the buildings are a zoned height of 35 feet. The proposed beach club will be membership only. The proposed Conditions of Approval provide compatibility with the surrounding area. The Conditions include established hours of operation, building height, lighting requirements, and operational requirements. For further information, see Attachment C-Conditions of Approval. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Developed single-family residence with a zoning designation of Residential- Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) East: Gulf Shore Drive, a 2-lane local road, and then single-family residences with a zoning designation of Residential-Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) South: Hotel with a zoning designation of Residential Tourist–Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (RT-VBRTO) West: Gulf of Mexico Page 765 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 5 of 9 AERIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed Rezone and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. For further information, see Attachment C-GMP Consistency Review. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s April 24, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment Subject Site Page 766 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 6 of 9 that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a.For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b.For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c.For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff findings: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Paraiso Club development will generate a projected total of +/- 19 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Gulfshore Drive. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2024 Level of Service (LOS) 2024 Remaining Capacity Gulfshore Drive/29.0 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to 111th Ave. 900/NB 5/NB B 580 111th Avenue North/39.0 Gulfshore Dr. to Vanderbilt Dr. 700/EB 4/EB B 390 111th Avenue North/40.0 Vanderbilt Dr. to US-41 900/EB 3/EB C 270 Vanderbilt Beach Road/109.0 Gulfshore Drive to US- 41 1,540/EB 3/EB C 430 1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is April 24, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. Page 767 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 7 of 9 The applicant proposes the following Traffic Management Strategies: • No On-site Parking for Members. • Member Shuttle Service. • Staff Transportation Service. • Limited Vendor Site Visits. • Promote Bicycling and Walking to the Facility. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff evaluated the petition. The subject 1.35± acre property has been found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Section 2.03.01.E.1.c.5., of the LDC permits conditional uses in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district. The requested use for a private beach Club is permitted as a conditional use in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district, subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, Conditional Use Procedures, of the LDC. 2. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This request is consistent with the GMP, and this project will comply with the applicable provisions of the LDC. 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan on page three, the vehicular ingress will be located on the north side of the site and egress on the south from Gulf Shore Drive. There will also be a separate driveway for the loading area located to the south of the egress driveway. Page 768 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 8 of 9 There will be no on-site parking for the club members and staff, except for handicapped parking. Shuttle service will be provided instead. A Condition of Approval has been made to implement this. (See Attachment C-Conditions of Approval.) The Fire Code official’s office has no objection to the ingress/egress and will review the Site Development Plan (SDP) upon its submission to ensure compliance with applicable fire codes. 4. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. The proposed private beach club will have minimal impact on the neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. The Conditions of Approval ensure that the proposed private beach club will be compatible with the neighboring properties. The Conditions limit the hours of operation, lighting, building height, and outline operational requirements. (See Attachment C-Conditions of Approval.) 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. The proposed private beach club is compatible with the adjacent properties in the district. To the south of the proposed beach club is a 4-story resort hotel. To the north and east of the proposed private beach club are large homes that are similar in height to the proposed beach club. The Conditions of Approval minimize impacts on the surrounding neighbors and ensure compatibility with the surrounding properties. Based on the above findings, this conditional use is recommended for approval. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant held the required meeting on April 7, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Library, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida. Eight people, along with the applicant and County Staff, attended the meeting. The neighbors were receptive to the proposed private club. To date, no letters of objection or support have been received. For further information, please see Attachment D: NIM Documents. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use on July 23, 2025. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU- PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), with a Page 769 of 913 CU-PL20240009700, Paraiso Club Conditional Use August 4, 2025 Page 9 of 9 recommendation of approval, subject to the approval of the companion PL20240007340, Paraiso Club Rezone. Attachment A: Proposed CU Resolution Attachment B: GMP Consistency Review Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: NIM Documents Attachment E: Application Page 770 of 913 [25-CPS-02602/1949710/1]34 Paraiso Club / CU-PL20240009700 6/3/25 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A PRIVATE CLUB IN A RESIDENTIAL TOURIST (RT) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TOURIST OVERLAY (VBRTO) PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GULF SHORE DRIVE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BAYVIEW AVENUE IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 1.35± ACRES. [PL20240009700] WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67–1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use of a private club in a Residential Tourist (RT) Zoning District within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Page 771 of 913 [25-CPS-02602/1949710/1]34 Paraiso Club / CU-PL20240009700 6/3/25 2 Petition Number PL20240009700 filed by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP and Ellen Summers, AICP, of Bowman and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Paraiso Club, LLC, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use for a private club in a Residential Tourist (RT) Zoning District within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "B" and subject to the conditions found in Exhibit “C”. Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The effective date of the Resolution will be the effective date of Ordinance No. ______ for the companion rezone PL20240007340. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this ____ day of ______________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: __________________________ By: __________________________ , Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: _________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval Page 772 of 913 Exhibit A Page 773 of 913 BAYVIEW AVENUEPROPERTYBOUNDARYGULF OF MEXICOZONING: RSF-3USE: RESIDENTIAL10' PUBLICWALKWAYEASEMENT15' TYPE"B" BUFFERPROPOSEDBUILDINGANDUNDERBUILDINGPARKINGSCALE:1" = 60'UP977UPUPZONING: RSF-3USE: RESIDENTIALEXISTING70' ROWGULFSHOREDRIVE10' TYPE"D" BUFFER30' FRONTYARDSETBACKEXISTING 6'CONCRETESIDEWALKCOASTAL CONSTRUCTIONCONTROL LINEAPPROVED FEBRUARY, 1989LOCATION PER GIS DATAPROVIDED BY FLORIDADEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONMEAN HIGH WATERLOT #31LOT #32POOLBEACH DUNEZONING: RTUSE: HOTELPROPOSEDTRASHENCLOSUREPROPOSEDLOADINGZONECOASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINEAPPROVED SEPTEMBER 18, 1974LOCATION PER GIS DATA PROVIDED BY FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION15' TYPE"B" BUFFEREXISTINGPOOL TO BEREMOVEDSITE INFORMATION NOTES:TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.35 ACRESMAXIMUM ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT: 38 FEETNO PRESERVE REQUIRED30' MIN. REARYARD SETBACK21' MIN.SIDE YARDSETBACK21' MIN.SIDE YARDSETBACKBIKEPARKINGBowman Consulting Group, Ltd. www.bowmanconsulting.com © Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Phone (239) 254-2000C-01CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 30462 PARAISO CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PL20240007340 Exhibit BPage 774 of 913 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\00 BOWMAN PROJECTS\340815-01-001 PARAISO CLUB REZONE & CONDITIONAL USE\Conditional Use\2nd Submittal\Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (5-2-2025) .docx Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval Paraiso Club Conditional Use PL20240009700 1.No building or structure shall exceed a zoned building height of thirty-eight (38) feet, and an actual height of fifty-seven (57) feet 2.The facility shall be open only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and remain open until 11:00 p.m, except that the use of pools and access to the beach will cease one hour after sunset. All users must depart the facility within 30 minutes after the allotted closing time. The Owner shall be responsible for strictly enforcing the hours. 3.The facility will have on-site management during all hours that it is open and such management will also remain on site after closing to ensure that those actions that need to be taken at the end of each operating day to be in conformance with these stipulations are, in fact, done. 4.Trash and garbage receptables will be enclosed and will be removed from the beach -side facilities at the close of each operating day. 5.The roof of any buildings on the site, and the pool deck, will be of a non-glare material in a muted color. 6.Lighting shall be designed so as to eliminate spill over on to adjacent properties. Light poles shall be no more than 15 feet in height and shall be of a material and color compatible with the design of the facility. 7.Lighting, windows, and doors shall comply with LDC Section 3.04.02 B. regarding sea turtle protection, specifically visible light and window transmittance values of 45% or less. 8.Parking areas will be utilized only by authorized users of the facility and will have means to prevent ingress and egress to the parking area during non-operating hours. 9.Members shall be prohibited from driving to and from the beach club, except those with disabilities or special needs. The Owner shall require all members to adhere to this restriction as part of their membership agreement. 10.Members shall be transported to the club via Paraiso’s luxury shuttles. 11.The Owner will attempt to arrange for food and other vendor deliveries to be scheduled during times when traffic volume is at its lowest, such as in the early morning. 12.The Owner shall promote bicycling and walking to the club for members and staff by providing bicycle racks within the building footprint and pedestrian connectivity to the existing sidewalk along Gulf Shore Drive. 13.Beach chairs, umbrellas, cabanas, and similar devices supplied by the club shall only be used on the beach in front of the club, defined as beach area enclosed by the north and south property lines of the club, extended to the edge of the water. 14.The maximum total daily trip generation for the Conditional Use shall not exceed 19 two- way PM peak hour net rips based on the use codes in the ITE manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 15.A beach dune vegetation restoration plan for the subject site shall be provided at time of SDP or subdivision plat. 1 of 2 Page 775 of 913 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\00 BOWMAN PROJECTS\340815-01-001 PARAISO CLUB REZONE & CONDITIONAL USE\Conditional Use\2nd Submittal\Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (5-2-2025) .docx 16.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 17.Pursuant to Section 125 022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 2 of 2 Page 776 of 913 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ CONSISTENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Gundlach, Planner III, Zoning Services FROM: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Growth Management Community Development Department DATE: July 16, 2025 SUBJECT: Paraiso Club (RZ-PL20240007340 & CU-PL20240009700) _________________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST: To change the zoning district of a property from Residential Single Family (RSF-3) to Residential Tourist (RT) for a private beach club known as Paraiso Beach Club. LOCATION: The subject site is comprised of +/-1.35 acres and is located on the west side of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Urban Mixed-Use District allows water- dependent and water-related land uses within the coastal region, and states: “Mixed-use sites of water-dependent and water-related parks, marinas (public or private), yacht clubs, and related accessory and recreational uses such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants. Any development that includes a water-dependent and/or water-related land use shall be encouraged to use the Planned Unit Development technique and other innovative approaches so as to conserve environmentally sensitive areas and to assure compatibility with surrounding land uses.” The subject property does not meet the minimum lot area required of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In order to achieve compatibility with the surrounding areas under the Residential Tourist district, the petition includes Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A to limit the zoned building height of the structure and restrict the remaining permitted and conditional uses as allowed by the RT district. The uses listed as prohibited in the Conditions of Approval may otherwise be considered incompatible and would entitle the property to uses and densities deemed inconsistent with the FLUE. As the FLUE allows water-dependent and water-related uses in the Urban-Mixed Use District, the innovative methods used to attain compatibility of the Paraiso Beach Club may be found to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Page 777 of 913 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Certain applicable Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policies are shown as follows in italics, followed by staff analysis in bracketed bold text. FLUE Policy 5.6 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The property does not front a collector nor arterial road.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The site does not contain any new roads or internal accesses. Vehicular congestion is alleviated by limiting allowance for on-site parking and requiring members to use alternative modes of transportation, such as shuttles and bicycles, to access the property.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments, regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The surrounding development of the site is fully improved. The development is not of a feasible scale to incorporate local streets and interconnection points with its adjacent developments.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. [As the site is not of a residential nature, analysis of this policy will be limited as applicable. The Paraiso Beach Club encourages walkability of the area by restricting use of parking and encouraging resident members to access the site by walking or biking.] CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Page 778 of 913 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\00 BOWMAN PROJECTS\340815-01-001 PARAISO CLUB REZONE & CONDITIONAL USE\Conditional Use\2nd Submittal\Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (5-2-2025) .docx Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Paraiso Club Conditional Use PL20240009700 1. No building or structure shall exceed a zoned building height of thirty-eight (38) feet, and an actual height of fifty-seven (57) feet 2. The facility shall be open only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and remain open until 11:00 p.m, except that the use of pools and access to the beach will cease one hour after sunset. All users must depart the facility within 30 minutes after the allotted closing time. The Owner shall be responsible for strictly enforcing the hours. 3. The facility will have on-site management during all hours that it is open and such management will also remain on site after closing to ensure that those actions that need to be taken at the end of each operating day to be in conformance with these stipulations are, in fact, done. 4. Trash and garbage receptables will be enclosed and will be removed from the beach -side facilities at the close of each operating day. 5. The roof of any buildings on the site, and the pool deck, will be of a non-glare material in a muted color. 6. Lighting shall be designed so as to eliminate spill over on to adjacent properties. Light poles shall be no more than 15 feet in height and shall be of a material and color compatible with the design of the facility. 7. Lighting, windows, and doors shall comply with LDC Section 3.04.02 B. regarding sea turtle protection, specifically visible light and window transmittance values of 45% or less. 8. Parking areas will be utilized only by authorized users of the facility and will have means to prevent ingress and egress to the parking area during non-operating hours. 9. Members shall be prohibited from driving to and from the beach club, except those with disabilities or special needs. The Owner shall require all members to adhere to this restriction as part of their membership agreement. 10. Members shall be transported to the club via Paraiso’s luxury shuttles. 11. The Owner will attempt to arrange for food and other vendor deliveries to be scheduled during times when traffic volume is at its lowest, such as in the early morning. 12. The Owner shall promote bicycling and walking to the club for members and staff by providing bicycle racks within the building footprint and pedestrian connectivity to the existing sidewalk along Gulf Shore Drive. 13. Beach chairs, umbrellas, cabanas, and similar devices supplied by the club shall only be used on the beach in front of the club, defined as beach area enclosed by the north and south property lines of the club, extended to the edge of the water. 14. The maximum total daily trip generation for the Conditional Use shall not exceed 19 two- way PM peak hour net rips based on the use codes in the ITE manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 15. A beach dune vegetation restoration plan for the subject site shall be provided at time of SDP or subdivision plat. Page 779 of 913 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\00 BOWMAN PROJECTS\340815-01-001 PARAISO CLUB REZONE & CONDITIONAL USE\Conditional Use\2nd Submittal\Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (5-2-2025) .docx 16. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 17. Pursuant to Section 125 022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Page 780 of 913 Page 781 of 913 Page 782 of 913 Page 783 of 913 Page 784 of 913 Page 785 of 913 Page 786 of 913 Page 787 of 913 Page 788 of 913 Page 789 of 913 Page 790 of 913 Page 791 of 913 Page 792 of 913 Page 793 of 913 Page 794 of 913 Page 795 of 913 Page 796 of 913 Page 797 of 913 Page 798 of 913 Page 799 of 913 Page 800 of 913 Page 801 of 913 Page 802 of 913 Page 803 of 913 Page 804 of 913 Page 805 of 913 Page 806 of 913 Page 807 of 913 Page 808 of 913 Page 809 of 913 Page 810 of 913 Page 811 of 913 Page 812 of 913 Page 813 of 913 Page 814 of 913 Page 815 of 913 Page 816 of 913 Page 817 of 913 Page 818 of 913 Page 819 of 913 Page 820 of 913 Page 821 of 913 Page 822 of 913 Page 823 of 913 Page 824 of 913 Page 825 of 913 Page 826 of 913 Page 827 of 913 Page 828 of 913 Page 829 of 913 Page 830 of 913 Page 831 of 913 Page 832 of 913 Page 833 of 913 Page 834 of 913 Page 835 of 913 Page 836 of 913 Page 837 of 913 Page 838 of 913 Page 839 of 913 Page 840 of 913 Page 841 of 913 Page 842 of 913 Page 843 of 913 Page 844 of 913 Page 845 of 913 Page 846 of 913 Page 847 of 913 Page 848 of 913 Page 849 of 913 Page 850 of 913 Page 851 of 913 Page 852 of 913 Page 853 of 913 Page 854 of 913 Page 855 of 913 Page 856 of 913 Page 857 of 913 Page 858 of 913 Page 859 of 913 Page 860 of 913 Page 861 of 913 Page 862 of 913 Page 863 of 913 Page 864 of 913 Page 865 of 913 Page 866 of 913 Page 867 of 913 Page 868 of 913 Page 869 of 913 Page 870 of 913 Page 871 of 913 Page 872 of 913 Page 873 of 913 Page 874 of 913 Page 875 of 913 Page 876 of 913 Page 877 of 913 Page 878 of 913 Page 879 of 913 Page 880 of 913 Page 881 of 913 Page 882 of 913 Page 883 of 913 Page 884 of 913 Page 885 of 913 Page 886 of 913 Page 887 of 913 Page 888 of 913 Page 889 of 913 Page 890 of 913 Page 891 of 913 Page 892 of 913 Page 893 of 913 Page 894 of 913 Page 895 of 913 Page 896 of 913 Page 897 of 913 Page 898 of 913 Page 899 of 913 Page 900 of 913 Page 901 of 913 Page 902 of 913 Page 903 of 913 Page 904 of 913 Page 905 of 913 Page 906 of 913 Page 907 of 913 Page 908 of 913 Page 909 of 913 Page 910 of 913 Page 911 of 913 Page 912 of 913 Page 913 of 913