The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 09/18/2025COLLIER COUNTY Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 September 18, 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. August 21, 2025 CCPC Meeting Minutes (2025-3483) 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report Page 1 of 1321 8. Consent Agenda 9. Advertised Public Hearing 9.A. ** This item has been continued from the July 17, 2025, CCPC Meeting ** PL20240011790 - Costco Wholesale (ASW) - Intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road - A resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a waiver from the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code for the development of a Costco Wholesale, with a resulting separation distance of 132 feet from the property line of the existing 7-Eleven. The subject property is located in the Commercial Tract of theIIHacienda Lakes MPUD at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±25.86 acres of the ±2,262-acre MPUD. [Coordinator: Laura Dejohn, Planner III] (2025-2227) 9.B. PL2025000180 - Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections-An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, As Amended - The Collier County Land Development Code, which Includes The Comprehensive Land Regulations For The Unincorporated Area Of Collier County, Florida, To Update Procedures and Requirements for Public Hearings For Land Use Petitions, By Providing For: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings Of Fact; Section Three, Adoption Of Amendments To The Land Development Code, More Specifically Amending The Following: Chapter One – General Provisions, Including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts And Uses, Including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Chapter Four – Site Design And Development Standards, Including Section 4.02.16 Design Standards For Development In The Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area, Section 4.05.02 Design Standards, Section 4.08.06 SSA Designation; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, Including Section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities, Section 5.04.08 Film Permit; Chapter Eight – Decision-Making And Administrative Bodies, Including Section 8.10.00 Hearing Examiner; Chapter Nine – Variations From Code Requirements, Including Section 9.02.06 Required Notices For Vested Rights Determination Process, Including Public Hearings, Section 9.03.02 Requirements For Continuation Of Nonconformities, Section 9.03.03 Types Of Nonconformities, Section 9.03.07 Nonconformities Created Or Increased By Public Acquisition, Section 9.04.06 Specific Requirements For Variance To The Coastal Setback Line; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, And Decision-Making Procedures, Including Section 10.02.03 Requirements For Site Development, Site Improvement Plans And Amendments Thereof, Section 10.02.04 Requirements For Subdivision Plats, Section 10.02.05 Construction, Approval, And Acceptance Of Required Improvements, Section 10.02.06 Requirements For Permits, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures, Section 10.02.15 Requirements For Mixed Use Projects Within The Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area, Section 10.03.06 Public Notice And Required Hearings For Land Use Petitions, Section 10.04.04 Applications Subject To Type III Review, And Section 10.08.00 Conditional Use Procedures; Section Four, Conflict And Severability; Section Five, Inclusion In The Collier County Land Development Code; And Section Six, Effective Date. (Coordinator: Richard Henderlong, Planner III) (2025-2442) 9.C. PL20240013324 - 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone- west side of Tamiami Trial North between 92nd Avenue North and 93rd Avenue North - The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number Page 2 of 1321 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 the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district to the Residential Multi-family-16 (RMF-16) zoning district to allow up to 16 multi-family dwelling units per acre for a total of 28 multi-family dwelling units. The 1.86± acre property is located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North between 92nd Avenue North and 93rd Avenue North, in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (2025-2761) 9.D. PL20230018397- 8928 Collier Boulevard PUDZ- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes 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 the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD to allow for the development of 92 multi-family dwelling units, subject to an affordable housing density bonus agreement to provide 30% of the units (28) for households earning 80% to 120% of the county’s Area Median Income (AMI). The subject PUD, consisting of 9.49± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1,300 feet north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (2025-2762) 9.E. PL20230013845 - Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict (GMPA) - approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by changing the land use designation of property from Urban Mixed Use, Residential Fringe Subdistrict to Urban Mixed Use, Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow for 92 multi-family residential dwelling units with affordable housing; directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 9.49± acres; [Coordinator: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner III, GMCDD Comprehensive Planning Division] (2025-2763) 9.F. PL20240013221 - Santa Barbara Landings RPUD (PUDA) - approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-53 the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development, as amended, by increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on part of the east side of Tract B, increase the height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B; and by providing an effective date. Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the Page 3 of 1321 intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74± acres out of 41.6± acres. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, Planner III] (2025-2779) 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Public Comments 13. Adjourn Page 4 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 5.A ID# 2025-3483 August 21, 2025 CCPC Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENTS: 1. 08-21-2025 CCPC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 1 of 33 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 21, 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: Chuck Schumacher, Acting Chairman Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Courtney DeSilva, County Attorney's Office Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I James Sabo, Principal Planner Page 6 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 2 of 33 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. Everybody want to take a seat. We'll get this -- we'll get this moving. All right. Welcome to the August 21st Planning Commission meeting. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Before we call roll, I wanted to welcome Ms. Courtney DeSilva for joining us today, and I look forward to working with you. MS. DeSILVA: I look forward to working with you-all. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Secretary Shea, call the roll, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner -- Chair Schmitt, not here, and I don't think he's going to be calling in, right, Chair? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Vice Chair Schumacher? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So we have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. No addenda to the agenda today. Next up is Planning Commission absences. We've got a number of petitions coming over the next four meetings. So starting with the next meeting, which would be the 5th of September. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Fourth. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Fourth of September, sorry. Any planned absences? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I will not be here on September 4th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. And then the next after that would be September 18th. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I will not be present on the 18th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And October 2nd? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: October 16th? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Too far. MR. BOSI: Chair, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just a reminder, we did schedule a September 24th nighttime hearing with the Planning Commission as well. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We did? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is that official now? I have it as a soft hold. MR. BOSI: It's official. I thought my LDC manager sent out an email confirming it to you guys -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. Page 7 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 3 of 33 MR. BOSI: -- but I will confirm that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Could have been. But okay. MR. BOSI: Yes, it is official. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's official. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That's 9/24. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That one I cannot make. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Five p.m. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. I can't make -- I can not make that one. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can't not. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So that means you will? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: A double negative. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That's a great way of saying you're going to be here. Perfect. Thank you. All right. And then October 16th, any planned absences for October 16th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. COMMISSIONER SHEA: October 2nd, too? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I had asked for October 2nd. I didn't hear anything. Anybody have anything for October 2nd? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No? Great. Well, it looks like we'll be able to get through all of the 70 petitions you've got coming in, Mike. MR. BOSI: There's a lot. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: There is a lot. Next up, approval of meeting minutes, July 17th. Everybody's had a chance to review those. If there is no edits required, I'll take a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motion. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: BCC recaps. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The August 12th, Board of County Commissioners, all the land-use items were continued to August 26th. I think it was because they had a virtual meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. No Chairman's report. That moves us into consent agenda. We don't have any consent agenda. And then the first one will be our first public hearing, PL20240010963, Davis Brookside MPUD on Davis. All those wishing to speak on the matter, including public comment, please stand and raise your hand 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? Page 8 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 4 of 33 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Very well. Thank you. I know. I'm going to disclosure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Chairman Schumacher, are there any disclosures for today? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah, that was going to be next. You guys are great. Thank you for helping me. Disclosures, starting with Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Sure. Reviewed the packet, visited the site, and met with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Got it. Mike? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and I had a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials, conversation with Rich -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Staff materials and conversations with Rich. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I had staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, and as well as a conversation with staff regarding the items. It's all yours, Mr. Yovanovich. Help yourself. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. I have several people here with me on our team. They will speak if you guys have questions. I'm a little under the weather, so my intention is to do a brief overview of the project, and then if you have questions, we'll be happy to answer those questions. I know you've all read the materials. With me today are Gavin Gillette and Daniel Zuvia, who are both with the developer. Mr. Mulhere and Ellen Summers are here from Bowman. They are a professional planners on this matter. Norm Trebilcock is our traffic consultant. Is Chris here? Where's Chris? I don't see our engineers, but they may be back there. Jeremy Sterk is our environmental consultant, and Mark McLean is the engineer for the -- I mean, the architect for the project. The location of the property is outlined in blue. It's on Davis Boulevard. I think that's the north side of Davis Boulevard. It's approximately 8.27 acres. And as you can see, it's the Brookside Marina site. It also has a pawn shop on it. Approximately half the property is the submerged water lands. The other half of the property is, obviously, upland property. Our request is to rezone the property to a PD. The PD will allow for the marina. It will also allow for up to 66 multifamily units. The Future Land Use Map designates the property -- most of the property as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The purpose of the redevelopment area is to encourage the redevelopment of the existing commercial that's on Davis Boulevard. You know, the Triangle project was the catalyst project, and the goal was to then have other properties along Davis Boulevard come in and redevelop to something other than what's there today, and that's exactly what we're doing is we're coming in there to redevelop this into a very nice multifamily project with a marina. The marina will be open. Right now there's -- it's leased to the boat club, Freedom Boat Club. And so there is the public portion of the marina, and then there's the -- there will be slips set aside for the residential units. So this is a mixture of uses, and that is important for purposes of how you calculate density. Page 9 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 5 of 33 What we are doing is this property was deemed consistent by policy when the Growth Management was adopted in 1989, and what that meant was in 1989 we went to this activity center designation which were the major intersections where the county wanted to see commercial -- mixed-use, residential, and commercial at those major intersections. So properties that didn't comply with that were either rezoned to residential or, if they were already improved, they were deemed consistent by policy. The Growth Management Plan included an incentive to have those commercial properties go to residential. So they allowed -- through a conversion at 16 units per acre. So you will see that that's what we're doing. We are converting the property from commercial to 16 units per acre under that provision of the Growth Management Plan. I know I was asked by at least one person why is there no affordable housing in this project. Because we're using a different portion of the Comprehensive Plan to convert from commercial to residential and mixed-use, which is also consistent with what the CRA wants to see happen is they want to see these mixed-use projects occur in this overlay. The property currently is zoned C-4. The water was recently rezoned to C-4 a couple years back. We are not using any of the water to calculate our density. Our density is all calculated from the uplands. And in fact, the little portions of the building that will allow for restrooms to serve the marina are excluded from our density calculation. So I mean, we've got this down to the precise square footage for purposes of calculating the density. Our -- the marina, as you may or may not be aware, came through a few years ago in 2023. At our neighborhood information meeting, there were comments about our proposed rezone, and I would say most of the comments were about the marina's not living up to its obligations under the rezone. There were concerns about that. I can assure you that with my client buying the property and investing in these 66 units, they will fully comply with the commitments that are -- that were made when the rezone occurred to C-4 for the marina. And all of those commitments have been carried forward to be included in our PUD. Our request, as I said, was to rezone the property from the current C-4 designations to a MPUD, which is a mixed-use PUD, 66 units, staying with 120 boat slips that were previously approved. And our density comes from the conversion, as I -- conversion factor or incentives as I mentioned in the Growth Management Plan. I'm going to have Ellen come up and briefly take you through the permitted uses in the site plan, show you some architectural renderings, and then we'll be available to answer any questions. If you have any questions of me, I'll take them. If not, I'll turn it over to Ellen, and we'll give you a general overview of the site. MS. SUMMERS: Hi. Good morning. For the record, my name is Ellen Summers. I'm a certified land-use planner and a planner with Bowman. So as Rich mentioned, we do have two tracts proposed within this Planned Unit Development. The first is Tract R. That is our residential tract. That is limited to 66 multifamily dwelling units, as well as those associated accessory uses that you would typical see with the multifamily development. Our Tract M, that's going to be our submerged lands, the marina area. That permits marina as well as those other related water uses and, again, that marina is not to exceed 120 wet slips. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Can I interrupt you for just one second, please? MS. SUMMERS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: How many slips are currently there? MS. SUMMERS: It's currently approved for 120. I believe there was a Site Development Plan for up to 112 boat slips. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. So possibly increased by eight? MS. SUMMERS: It is the same amount that's permitted by the existing ordinance. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: How many are physically there now, though? MS. SUMMERS: There will be physically 112. But with -- Page 10 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 6 of 33 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No, currently. Like, today, if we walk out there, how many are there? MS. SUMMERS: They're being installed currently to get to 112. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. All right. Thank you. MS. SUMMERS: Let's see. All right. And before you I have the master plan. And I apologize, this is probably a little difficult to see here. There's a lot of information to put on one sheet. We have the two tracts. Again, those submerged lands is Tract M. That's on the northern side of the property. To the south we have the Tract R, which is the residential tract where the residential multifamily building will be developed. On the eastern side of the property, you'll see that dark shaded area. We have some floating Tract M locations. And again, that's for the parking that's required for the marina. We will be meeting the code-required parking calculations within that grade, floating Tract M. And again, those areas were not included as part of our residential conversion for the density for the residential tract. We have proposed landscape buffers, which are consistent with the code today. It's a 10-foot landscape buffer along Davis Boulevard. We have a shared 10-foot landscape buffer on the eastern and western sides of the property, meaning we have a 5-foot Type A on our side, and the adjacent commercial will have an additional five feet. Up to the northwest there we do have a 10-foot Type A buffer, and that's because that portion of the property is adjacent to the City of Naples. I believe there's three or four existing driveway cutouts off of Davis Boulevard for this -- the multitude of commercial properties that are part of this site. We are proposing two access locations, and those locations will be determined at time of Site Development Plan. There's some coordination with FDOT required. The PUD includes development standards, and these development standards are modeled off the existing zoning. We are requesting a 60-foot zoned building height for a five-story structure over parking. Again, we have several development -- developer commitments within the PUD. Transportation, we are required to have a maximum total daily trip generation not to exceed 50 two-way p.m. peak hour net trips. And I do want to note that the existing zoning, the C-4 zoning district, the change to this residential use, marina use is a decrease in the trip count. So that is a 75-trip decrease from the existing zoning district. Within the marina, as Rich mentioned, we had been the -- there was an existing ordinance, 23-42, that converted the marina area from the RSF-4 zoning district to C-4 for that commercial marina use. There were several developer commitments that were included as part of that ordinance that we have carried over to our proposed ordinance today. And I'm happy to go into detail, but it is -- it is quite wordy. But again, these are the same commitments that were provided within the prior ordinance. We do have a couple of architectural renderings. I do want to make note that these are conceptual in nature. There are still some final designs that are going to be taking place. But from this perspective, this would be looking -- the center of those buildings would be looking southeast with Davis Boulevard -- I don't know if you can see my cursor here -- Davis Boulevard along this way. Again, just another perspective. This would be from the northeast looking toward the southwest, southwest being over in this general area. This will be looking south. This would be the front area off of Davis Boulevard looking to the northwest. Again, just some additional renderings of the proposed structure. We held our neighborhood information meeting in March. We had probably 10, maybe 15 members of the public in attendance and about seven members of the public on Zoom. We did have a lot of questions about the project, a lot of comments about how the marina's going to be operated, what that building height was going to look like, as well as, you know, the condominium Page 11 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 7 of 33 operations and the permitted uses with the PUD. We have received a recommendation from staff. And I also want to note that we did meet with the CRA Advisory Board back in April, and they also -- or it may have been early March or April, and we also received a recommendation of approval from them. With that, that concludes our presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Quick question. Could you explain to me the parking situation? There's a lot of discussion. I think that's an important item with the deviation that you proposed. MS. SUMMERS: So with the parking, we wanted to ensure that -- you know, there's 74 commercial marina wet slips, and so with those commercial uses, we have to provide required parking. So we have provided for 36 parking spaces -- I'm sorry -- 37 parking spaces for the commercial marina operations, and then that deviation that we have within the PUD, that relates to multifamily amenity centers. So within the Land Development Code we are required to provide parking per each individual multifamily unit, and typically for the amenity center you would have to provide additional parking. But this is a little bit of a unique site. This is not your typical apartment complex where you may have the clubhouse in the front of the, you know, 10-, 20-acre development and you have residents scattered throughout. Our amenity center will be incorporated into our principal structure, so it doesn't really make sense to provide that additional parking for the amenity center. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm assuming Freedom will continue to be the commercial side, or is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they're the current tenant under the lease. The lease at some point will expire, and we'll -- who knows? But right now they're the current tenant. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Rich, just out of curiosity, what were the concerns about, I guess, Freedom not upholding their commitments? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would say that it's clear that you're supposed to have one boat per dock. They don't always have one boat per dock. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was one of the primary comments -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- about not living up to that commitment. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Uh-huh. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you could see where -- Commissioner Sparrazza, you can see right here, those are the -- those are the docks that are under construction. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: The new docks? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. They're being built as we speak. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Seeing no other questions, Mr. Bosi, comment from staff? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. This has been reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan. They are taking advantage of the conversion to -- commercial to residential, 16 units per acre. We worked specifically with the team related to the parking spaces that are within the facility that are dedicated to the commercial use of the property. That wouldn't be excluded from that calculation. Sixty-six units is what we -- was the ultimate maximum density that's allowed with that conversion based upon the arrangement. We've reviewed it from a compatibility standpoint. One thing that I would let the Planning Commission know, the height that they're requesting is substantially lower than what the LDC Page 12 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 8 of 33 allows for. The LDC allows for a mixed-use project within the Bayshore MXD overlay to have 112 feet of height. So what they're asking -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which height is that? Zoned or actual? MR. BOSI: It's zoned. Zoned. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That much zoned height, okay. MR. BOSI: Zoned height. I mean, you have to remember this is a CRA, and we want to encourage -- and so the regulations -- the flexibility within the regulations and the enticements of the standards are there to try to promote capital infusion with into this area. I think one of the things that the applicant had hit upon was the mini-triangle being a catalyst project. And what you're seeing is that catalyst project is really starting to work. I think this Brookside Marina is an example of it. The Marriott hotel on the south side of U.S. 41 across from the mini-triangle as well. And there's some pre -- there's some future pre-application meetings that are also going to have some additional projects that are really in close proximity to the mini-triangle that is going to offer some more infusion of capital with into that Bayshore CRA. So that project -- the Bayshore Redevelopment Plan with this catalyst project -- it may have taken about two decades for it to really start to take hold, but it has been -- the market has responded to it, and it's going to continue to respond to it. We think this is a good project, fits within the context of what's allowed for from a zoning standpoint, from a height standpoint, and a density standpoint. Staff is recommending approval of both the -- of the proposed PUD. Any questions that you may have, staff would be happy to entertain. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Seeing no questions, let's move to public comment. Do we have any public comment? MR. SABO: Mr. Chair, we do. The first speaker is Rick Groveman. MR. GROVEMAN: Good morning. I'm Rick Groveman, President of the HOA, Brookside HOA. First and foremost, I'm excited about this project. It looks amazing. And what's there now is not being utilized, so we're excited about it, let me just say that. But we just have some concerns. And I want to go on the record about some of the -- when it was approved for C-4, there were some promises made. One boat, one slip, which completely was ignored by FBC. They had about 60 boats in 38 slips constantly every day. I live right across from it, so -- and I took picture and sent it to Sarina Francis, and so it's -- I really need that to be honored. It was a promise made, a promise not kept by FBC. So I just want to go on the record for that. I don't understand the parking at all. It sounded like there were going to be enough parking spots for half the amount of slips that Freedom was going to use. To me that doesn't sound like enough. I mean, the workers need spots. I'm not sure I understand -- it's still on this screen, but I'm on the other screen. Showing parking on Tract M, I don't understand how that even works. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to do it? MR. GROVEMAN: I see where it is, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to do it while he's there, or do you want me to just come up after he speaks? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I mean, you can do it while you're there, Rich, so we save us some time. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's up to him. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It's up to you, sir, if you allow Rich to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We are meeting the Land Development Code required parking for marina slips. So we are consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code. MR. GROVEMAN: That's cool, but what happens when, you know, the 39th person shows up or -- where do they park? MR. YOVANOVICH: They will not park there, because I -- well, I shouldn't say Page 13 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 9 of 33 "guarantee." But we have 66 condominium owners -- MR. GROVEMAN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that are going to be policing this far more -- or I shouldn't say more intently than you, but equally as intently as you to make sure that that marina is properly operating. So they'll be very nicely asked to go find parking somewhere else. MR. GROVEMAN: Yeah. Okay. As long as it's not on Brookside neighbors' lawns and stuff like that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. MR. GROVEMAN: I mean, that's my worry. Obviously, we have a parking lot. Oakes has a parking lot adjacent from that abandoned building. I want to go on the record that we want our grocery store back, however it happens. I know that's not a part of this one. So parking is a -- continues to be a concern of ours. One of the other promises made were Freedom was going to -- either Freedom or the owner was going to put two cameras in policing some of the activities of the crew -- Freedom Boat Club crew and the folks that rent. And so I did see those two cameras were installed. Obviously they're not there now, because everything's been eliminated. All of the docks -- the old docks are gone. Brand-new ones are going in. They look amazing. Thank you for that. But there was also a promise made that there would be 10 additional cameras available first-come first-serve basis. Nobody asked for them at the time, but I have to say that there was two incidences where pilings -- two pilings on two of my neighbors on Harbor got hit, but we did not have proof of who hit them, unfortunately. So it was at the cost of the neighbors to have to fix their own pilings. That being said, those two neighbors would like to have cameras. I don't know who to ask. John Giglio, I guess, has -- has he sold -- has it already sold? Because there's no -- I can't find it anywhere that he sold the property. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I don't believe it's sold yet, sir. MR. GROVEMAN: It has not. All right. So we'd like to know who we can contact to have the two cameras, at least two, so that they can be installed and we can, unfortunately, have to monitor our own docks in the event of another occurrence, and we'll have proof of who did it. That would be appreciated. A question is, will the ramps stay? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. GROVEMAN: You're going to take the ramp away? MR. GILLETTE: Correct. MR. GROVEMAN: So all of those boats, Freedom and the residentials, they have to use some other ramps somewhere else. The only concern we have is sometimes Freedom Boat Club would service the boats, clean the boats, using anti buildup chemicals. I'm sorry for -- I can't find the words right now. But they would do it while the boat is in the water, and that's illegal. You can't do that. So I was just wondering how they're going to get the boats out to be able to service them if you don't have the ramp there. Okay. There's a bunch of mango trees right across from us, that line. Again -- oh, let's back up again. All right. So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll help you. You've got to point here. If you go like that, it will -- MR. GROVEMAN: Oh, look at that. I can move this sucker? All right. So right up in here there's all beautiful mangroves. MS. GROVEMAN: Rick, you've got the wrong spot. It's going that way. You're right. Never mind. MR. GROVEMAN: Forty years. I mean, I'd marry her again. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're under oath. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah, you're under oath. Page 14 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 10 of 33 MR. GROVEMAN: Anyway -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You hear that, ma'am. He's on the record. You heard him, correct? You heard him. MR. GROVEMAN: I'm assuming they're going to stay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, the mangroves are indicated that they have to stay on Tract -- MR. GROVEMAN: Okay. And now that those docks -- right now they're all gone. They were all taken out. We notice that there's no seawall leading up to those mangroves and maybe behind them as well. Will there be one put in? I would imagine you're building all this. You would want something to keep the water from coming in on high tides and stuff like that. Just a suggestion. Or not. I don't know. And then my other question would be, I'm just curious when the FBC lease would be up and you'd have to make a decision on whether you guys take it over and turn it all into residential or not. That's my other question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. What was that one? MR. GROVEMAN: You mentioned for the time being 100 and -- or 73 slips, I think. Freedom Boat Club is definitely leasing them. And you said, you know, that lease will end. Do you know when? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Whatever it's -- it could go on for quite a while. I'm fairly certain once we complete construction, it becomes virtually impossible for us to add any new units to that building, so -- okay. So it's not going to -- we're not going to get rid of the tenant and then all of a sudden go taller. We can't. MR. GROVEMAN: Okay. And so last question. So where would FBC operate out of? Would it be anywhere they want to? Because they're going to come back, you know, before the 66 units go in. I mean, they're all gone now. All the boats are gone. I don't know where they went. But we're being -- we're hearing that they would stay in the basin, I guess, would be in this area here, and these would -- these slips would be for residents. Is that true, or don't you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: Gavin, is that true? Right now we're still working with Florida [sic] Boat Club on where their boats are going to be. To answer your question, they're not going to have an office on site. So there won't be -- we don't have office space allocated for them in the building currently. MR. GROVEMAN: Okay. And during construction of the 66 units, will they still be able to operate? It sounds like there wouldn't be any parking spots for them. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to coordinate all that. We'll have to coordinate it. MR. GROVEMAN: Okay. I think that's all I've got. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Rich, it sounds like Freedom Boat Club seems to be quite an issue, and it was an issue the first time we met about this, and it sounds like all of the -- I remember their testimony they gave on how their members have to go through a training and how they won't double stack slips, and they won't do this. And it seems like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I read the transcript. I know what they promised. I can only tell you that we don't own the property. When we do own the property, that will not be tolerated. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I don't think there's a way for us to intervene in that and double down and back you up and say -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we will be a -- we'll call Code Enforcement as well. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we'll be a far more aggressive landlord, I believe. MR. GROVEMAN: As long as we have a contact we can call. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll give you -- we'll give you -- and we typically do this. We will provide you the contact of the property manager so you can call. MR. GROVEMAN: I mean, there's three of us right here right now that live right across Page 15 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 11 of 33 from all of this. So while we're excited about it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I said that at the NIM, too. MR. GROVEMAN: These folks come back from Keewaydin -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I know. I know. I see them out there. I avoid them at all costs. MR. GROVEMAN: And they're very happy. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You can tell who they are. They've got the buoys on the side of the boat. They're going full speed through the no-wake zone. I know who they are. I see them all the time. MR. GROVEMAN: You live in my nightmare. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. MR. GROVEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any other public comment on this item? MR. SABO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The next speaker is Frank Englund. MR. ENGLUND: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. MR. ENGLUND: My name is -- excuse me. My name is Frank Englund. I live at 1940 Harbor Lane, and I've lived there since 1997. And we're directly across from the Freedom Boat Club, which used to be the Brookside Marina. And in '97, I installed new docks and a new hoist, and it was absolutely paradise living there. And when the Freedom Boat Club has moved in, my docks have been damaged. In order to replace what I have there, it's, like, a $70,000 bill. My docks -- my pilings have been broken in half by boaters. I don't sit on my dock 24/7 watching to see who's going to hit my dock. Freedom Boat Club has refused to take any responsibility whatsoever. My attorney has advised me that more than likely the Brunswick Corporation has instructed their people not to comment or reply or say a word about the damages to my dock, and my attorney says I have no rights under the law to defend myself because whoever hits this dock, unless they come and knock on my door and say, "Mr. Englund, I hit your dock," there's nothing I can do about it. So while my $70,000 dock is being destroyed, there's nothing to help me to pay for the damages. I've called the Collier County Sheriff's Department, and they come out, and they write a report, and they say, "We'll investigate." What it amounts to, it's a hit and run with no record of it. And so I want you to be aware, you've got 30-some parking spots, and you're putting in 70 boats. I come from Michigan. This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And what you're doing, Harbor Lane has 25 homes; probably half of us have a boat. So you're looking at 12 boats on Harbor Lane. Now you're going to flood this little area with 117, or whatever the number is, boats. Think about us homeowners. Our property is being destroyed, and we have no recourse whatsoever. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: There were 10 cameras that were made available at that point in time when we did this back in '24. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Twenty-three. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: '23. Was there no way to get ahold of one of those cameras that was offered or -- MR. ENGLUND: I wasn't interested at first, but now that my dock is being destroyed, yeah, I would love to have a camera. But realistically, what good is a camera to me? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, it would show you Freedom Boat Club hitting your dock if that's the one who's doing it. MR. ENGLUND: There's a hundred and some boats going by my dock. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It's still their responsibility. MR. ENGLUND: This video camera would be running 24/7, and the video camera's not Page 16 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 12 of 33 going to show the actual damage being done to my dock unless it's right there. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Understood. MR. ENGLUND: There's nowhere for me to put a camera that's going to film it. We were in the house one day. I was out in the yard. My wife was doing dishes, and she sees a boat leave the Freedom Boat Club, and the lady is -- older couple. The lady's messing with whatever where she's sitting. The husband gets up and walks to the back of the boat, and the boat comes flying right into my pilings, "Kaboom." And I go down there to the dock to see what the damage was, and the boat's long gone. He's going around the bend already. Nobody comes and knocks on the door and says, "Mr. England, I hit your dock," but the damage is being done. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Commissioner McLeod. Sorry, you had your timer on there. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I had a question on fuel. Is there a fueling station here for all of these boats? Where do you guys get your gas -- MR. ENGLUND: We -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- or your fuel? MR. ENGLUND: We live right there. I -- this is gone now because they removed the boats, but there would be a gas truck come in with 5,000 gallons of gas, or whatever, several times a week and put it into a temporary gas container that they would gas the boats with. Totally 100 percent illegal. And then they would bring in charter captains with their big boats, and they would pull up to the seawall at the Freedom Boat Club, and they would fill their big gas tanks on these three-engine boats from the truck that's just delivered gas to the Freedom Boat Club. So it's like a movable, portable gas station. One hundred percent illegal. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: This is a question for Rich. Just, like -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I just want to see if we can finish up. Anybody have questions for Mr. Englund? Commissioner Colucci, did you have a question for Mr. Englund? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. Actually, probably a combination of them. Mr. Englund and Rich, I need some understanding of this Freedom Boat Club. My understanding is the Freedom Boat Club operates a marina under a lease. From who? Who leased them that property or that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you all done with Mr. Englund? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. MR. ENGLUND: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mr. Englund. MR. YOVANOVICH: The current property owner -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- has a lease with Freedom Boat Club. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We, when we close on the property, will then take subject to that lease. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: You inherit that lease? MR. YOVANOVICH: We inherit the lease. And we will enforce the terms of the lease. I don't -- I can't tell you what's going on right now with the current landowner. I can only tell you what my client intends to do when they buy the property. You've seen the architectural renderings. This is going to be -- these are going to be very, very nice units, very expensive units. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I don't have any issue whatsoever with the residential part Page 17 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 13 of 33 of this. MR. YOVANOVICH: The lease will be enforced. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I mean, I'm fairly satisfied. If you-all are going to enforce the terms of the lease, which sounds to me hasn't been done, then I don't have any problem with this. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think, if I were a neighbor, I'd really want this sale to go through. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: You'd really want what? MR. YOVANOVICH: The sale to go through. I really would want the sale to go through and have our units built. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Rich, just as an idea for good neighbor to good neighbor, certainly not asking the possible new owner to incur any more expense but maybe a helpful education, maybe a little out of their line of work, but on security systems, because very economically -- and I know a tiny bit about it -- the homeowners can get a decent security system, one or two cameras, on their external area if it's right on the dock or in the area or mounted to a tree or something that can go to a hard drive system that will always be recording. Should there be a hiccup or a question on what has taken place, they can look at it. Those systems are not very expensive. I'm not asking or even suggesting that your client purchases them for those folks, but just some education. Like I say, it's out of your client's bailiwick. But there are things that can be done fairly inexpensively to help ensure there are no more problems, or should there be a problem, you know who has caused it. Just an idea. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Understood. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any other questions? Any other public comment? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no more registered speakers. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I know there was kind of a pending question from Commissioner McLeod regarding fueling. Currently, there's no fueling on that site. If there is fueling on site in the future, we'll obviously comply with the county's regulations regarding providing fueling. But right now we don't have -- we don't have plans to fuel on site. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And if you did provide fuel, would that be open to the public, like, for the neighbors? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we probably will consider that, but I think we probably -- it might be better just to limit it those who are actually using the marina. I don't think we want to become a commercial fueling operation. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we want to encourage boats to be coming to our marina to get fuel. We'd rather they go to the other public fueling stations. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I was just thinking of, like, a win-win, but I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. Understood. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Having no other public comment, no other questions for the petitioner, I'll close it and open it up to the Board comment. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'd like to propose that -- I've got to get these numbers right. Somebody give me the number. I'd like to make a proposal that PL20240010963 move ahead and be approved by the CCPC. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. Page 18 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 14 of 33 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. It passes unanimously. ***Next item, PL20240010833, Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development. Starting out with any -- let's start off with our ex parte disclosures, starting with Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Reviewed the materials and visited the site and spoke with Yovanovich about this. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials and spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials, spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Staff materials, spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, conversation with Rich Yovanovich, and conversations with staff. Okay. The floor is yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want to swear in? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Swear in. Anybody who want to -- please rise to be sworn in for all those that are going to speak on this item, including any public speakers, please. 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 SCHUMACHER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record -- sorry -- Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant and property owner. With me today are Lisa Lefkow and Michael Solorzano from Habitat; Thompson Thrift is Jake Flagg and Mason Wiltermood (phonetic). Jeremy Sterk is our environmental consultant. Peninsula Engineering, we have Dan Waters is our engineer, and Chris Scott is our planner; and Mr. Trebilcock is our traffic consultant. Like the last petition, I'll do a brief overview, and then Mr. Scott will take you briefly through the master plan, and we'll answer any questions you may have. This is the current property. It's approximately 47 acres. As you can see, over here is Collier Boulevard, and our access is on Magnolia Pond Drive. We have a high school and an elementary school near us. And our proposal is to amend the existing PUD and increase the current density from 231 units to 550 units. This is, I think, the third project I've worked on that involves Habitat and a private for-sale -- I mean, for-rent multifamily apartment developer. Essentially, what's happening is Habitat will develop this parcel of property here. They will construct all the affordable housing at the 80 percent and below. Thirty percent of the units will be at or below 80 percent of the median income. It will be for-sale product. And the remainder of the units will be a market-rate apartment complex developed by Thompson Thrift, who's already developing in this area. I think this is the very end of their existing -- existing apartment complex that we got approved probably more years ago than I remember. But they're already developing in that area with high-quality market-rate apartments. We are basically using the density bonus provisions of the Land Development Code to get our increased density through the existing affordable housing matrix. The property is currently -- as I said, is already zoned -- it's already zoned a PD, and it's already in your urban area, and it's also within a residential infill which allows it an extra -- it's an activity center infill, which also allows a bonus of three units per acre. So that's how we're getting to our total number of units is it's using the traditional Page 19 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 15 of 33 affordable housing density bonus program. No Comp Plan amendment associated with this particular project. As I mentioned, we're increasing the density from the existing density to the 550. That's the math on how we get there. And 165 units will be for-sale affordable housing. This has proven to be a good formula for the bringing of actual owner-occupied affordable housing to Collier County at the lower income levels that are difficult for a for-profit builder to meet. So this is -- this is becoming a good way to move forward with bringing affordable housing to Collier County. I'm going to turn it over to Chris to take you quickly through the revisions in the master plan, and then we'll open it up to any questions you may have regarding the project. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. For the record, Chris Scott, planning manager with Peninsula Engineering. This is the revised master concept plan that is being proposed as part of this PUD amendment for Magnolia Pond. As Rich mentioned, there are two residential tracts. The property's currently bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive. That roadway's actually an existing easement through this property owned by the school district. Immediately to the east, Magnolia Pond is a public roadway, but where it hits this property it is an easement to -- cross-access easement with the school district. So the northern residential tract, which is identified as Tract R1 on the master concept plan, will be for the affordable housing units. Those will be for-sale units, owner occupied. Immediately to the south -- and the driveways will line up -- would be the market-rate apartments. The preserve is all located on the south side of Magnolia Pond and wraps around the apartment complex. We do have a stormwater pond on the north side of Tract R1 to provide additional separation to the single-family residences on the north side of Golden Gate Canal. And the units are compatible and consistent with everything that's around it. This gives a -- the picture here gives a better view of everything with the conceptual plans. Those are still being worked out, and final engineering and may change, but the location of the preserves and stormwater general locations are consistent. We do have some new deviations being proposed. Currently the LDC requires when you have affordable housing, that those units be intermixed throughout the development. Given the nature of these -- and we've had similar deviations on other projects where we have two separate developers, we need a deviation to do that. So, again, the north side will be the owner-occupied Habitat product, and on the south side would be the market-rate. We also have a deviation to not provide sidewalk along the entire frontage on the south side of Magnolia Pond Drive adjacent to the preserve. In lieu of constructing that sidewalk, we are committing to make the connection to the existing sidewalk on the south side of Magnolia Pond to the east, this area. This area right here, there's a drainage easement, and you can see the pictures on the right. The sidewalk stopped. It did not contact to the subject property. So we'll be making that connection, improving the safety along the road. Right now there's no barrier there. It's a dangerous situation if a car were to go over that embankment. So in lieu of providing the sidewalk on the west end of the property, we will construct it to the east, and we'll provide crosswalks to facilitate the movement, especially for the school kids that are going to either elementary school or the high school. Final deviation, similar to what you heard at the last petition that was just before you, these -- the market-rate apartments are going to be larger. Facilities and all of the amenities, with the exception of a couple pickleball courts, are going to be internal to the building and the courtyards. This is going to be limited to the residents, so it's not going to be a stand-alone recreation facility that someone would drive to. So someone parked at their unit could walk internal from Page 20 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 16 of 33 the -- within the building to the recreation facilities. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: If I could just ask a question there, because typically it's not what you see in an apartment community where people -- people drive to their fitness center. What about the people that have a guest come in to work out with them in their fitness center or they have a guest come over there that wants to hang out at their pool with them, and there's no parking spaces at the actual facility. Where are they supposed to park? Somewhere else in -- MR. SCOTT: We will have the required parking for the residents and the visitor spaces as required by code. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: But nothing at the actual rec center itself, per se? MR. SCOTT: And again, there is not a separate rec center. It would be located within the building. We do have dedicated parking -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: On the sides. MR. SCOTT: -- up front. So there will be gates at either end, and we'll have additional -- some of the visitor parking and people that are coming to the leasing office would be there. Most of the recreation facilities are going to be in this main courtyard on the north side, and the fitness center is within that building as well. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Would your leasing office also be within that building as well, or your administrative? MR. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. MR. SCOTT: That equates to approximately, based off preliminary estimates -- and again, buildings are still being finalized -- potentially up to 30 spaces reduction. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci, you had a question, sir? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah, why have you elected not to put in the sidewalks? MR. SCOTT: We are putting in sidewalks. I mean, there will be -- there's a large sidewalk on the north side that is wider than what code requires. It's an 8-foot sidewalk. We are putting in a 6-foot -- we'll be connecting to the existing sidewalk on the south side. It will go here with a marked crosswalk to the north side. But if you -- let me back up real fast. Immediately to the west of this property, there's only a stormwater pond on the side, so -- and there is no continuation of a sidewalk on the south side, and it's unlikely that it would ever be constructed. That's the school property. So they do have an existing sidewalk on the north side of Magnolia Pond; we will connect to that to allow for the pedestrian movement to the schools. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCOTT: So the proposed rezoning is consistent with the LDC requirements and the Growth Management Plan. The land uses that are being proposed are consistent and compatible with the surrounding community. As Rich noted, we are within an activity center residential density band to allow -- and the affordable housing density bonus is -- so the density we are requesting is consistent with that and the affordable housing density bonus. Staff has reviewed and recommends that the Planning Commission forward this with a recommendation for approval. And with that, I will close and open up for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. Chris, thank you so much for your presentation. Back to the recreational facilities, are you going to have, like, a social room or -- where people can have gatherings? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So I, too, have concerns with the parking. When you have a social area, you need loading and unloading areas for, like, caterers or decorators. And can we accommodate that? MR. YOVANOVICH: In answer to the question you asked me last night, there are Page 21 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 17 of 33 approximately 19 spaces between the gates. So we believe that's going to be ample parking for people to come, load and unload, to use the social facilities, as well as prospective tenants. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the current site plan. So we've taken into consideration the need to allow for people to do the activities you are anticipating. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. That sounds great. And then just to confirm, so the Habitat portion will have its own recreational facilities, and you will have -- and the market-rated ones there have their own? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. They're both going to be permitted separately, so there will be separate Site Development Plans. This deviation for the parking for recreation would only apply to the apartments on the south where the recreation facilities are part of that principal structure. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Uh-huh. Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. My concern was also the parking. There's -- I mean, you're taking away every available parking spot for, like, a vendor or, like, what if someone is coming to fix the -- fix something in the fitness center or the clubhouse or the swimming pool? There's just zero available parking. That's my only concern with this project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think what gets a little confusing is all of that factored into the parking required for the units. They do a separate parking calculation just for the amenity. We're not asking to reduce any of the required parking spaces associated with the units, which includes -- repair people and things like that are all factored into it. There's really not repair workers factored into the parking associated with the amenity. The reality is we're going to have -- we're not -- we're not going to give away all 30 of those spaces. We're going to have some of those 30 above and beyond the requirements for the individual units. We can fit more than that on the site, but the way to get there is to ask for the deviation from just the amenity itself. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mrs. Lockhart, I had a question for you. This is sandwiched in between two schools. Is there any concern? MS. LOCKHART: No. And I agree with how -- the sidewalk issue, too, because it's -- it will be a safer situation for them to be all moved across the street, one single point, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So I agree, and the bus stop is actually on the north side of that at the corner of 951 and Magnolia. Public comment. Do we have any public comment? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there's one public speaker, Garrett FX Beyrent. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, sir. MR. BEYRENT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: State your name again for the record, please. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett FX Beyrent. I'm the original developer of Magnolia Pond. Magnolia Pond was placed in a very extensive trust many, many years ago. And as a result, there were many, many violations of the trust. Apparently, it's a big thing in the world right now is you can't trust your trustees. It's -- this is a great example right here. In this case I had to -- I had to re-file this lawsuit against my own trust again, because too many of my trustees were dying is actually what happened. And for some reason -- and I really don't know why -- they would just tell me stuff that I didn't have any idea what was going on in my own trust. And what you're seeing there, the two documents -- the first is required that I notify you that property is still in litigation. And actually, what bothered me more than anything is that all the plans I saw, which were very limited, none of these plans addressed specifically the gopher tortoises, which are now older than us, and they're still having babies at 96. Page 22 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 18 of 33 And then I discovered, too, that the first gopher tortoise that was sold for $40 was a Florida tortoise. And at this point in time, I can only say that -- because I only have five minutes. If you look at the paperwork there, you'll see that this trust -- you've got to be very careful with trusts. You cannot have other people that are not related to you, or some of them that are, enter into controls of your trust. And this is a perfect example; this is a piece of property -- I owned 83 percent of this property. My ex-wife and her new husband walks in with a -- the balance, which is only 18 percent or whatever, and decides to control what I'm doing with my property. And 20 years ago, Toll Brothers offered me $20 million for the property, 20 years ago. They refused to allow me to sell the property. They said, "We don't need to sell it right now. We've got property everywhere, and we want to keep everything and" -- I guess, until they die. And unfortunately, my brother-in-law died about -- this past year. He was the president of our company. And when he died, my other brother-in-law told me stuff I didn't really have any idea what was going on with my own trust. So I can only say that I'm advising you that this property is still in litigation. It's very complicated trust litigation. It's going to get even more complicated because I gave you a piece of paper -- which Donald Trump is going to declare paperwork illegal apparently, and that's basically -- have I used up my five minutes? I hope not. But the pictures I was very disturbed about was that when I originally did my PUD and did the environmental review, I found 44 gopher tortoise preserves on the property. And the County came and said, "Yeah, we've got another side of the property, too." And the areas that are allocated for the environmental protection were always inadequate based on -- especially when you triple the density of it. I mean, it was dense enough as I normally developed cheap condos in East Naples is what I've been famous for for over 50 years. I can only tell you that we need to preserve areas for gopher tortoises because they don't like fences. They go under them, they go around them, and they don't want to just stay where you want to keep them. And for that, I'll just say thank you very much for your time. Got any questions, ask Mike Bosi; he has all the answers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Rich, is this true that this property there's some type of a legal process going on? I'll leave it at that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- I don't know the answer, and it's irrelevant to what's in front of you. You're here to decide whether or not this is an appropriate zoning action to take. If there's litigation, we'll deal with the litigation. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I did have one question on the Habitat portion, Rich, and you and I touched on this on the phone. They're all going to be three-bedrooms, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, the Habitat, yeah, three- and four-. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Three- and four-? MR. YOVANOVICH: When you said "Habitat," I was on gopher tortoises, I'm sorry. I said, "Uh-oh, uh-oh, phone a friend." CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Three- and four-? MR. YOVANOVICH: Three- and four-, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Having -- no other public speakers? No? MR. SABO: No further public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Close the public comment. Board discussion? Any discussion? I'll take a motion to approve or deny. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We'll also need to include in the motion a recommendation of Page 23 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 19 of 33 approval for the affordable housing agreement that's attached as well, please. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So I need a motion for approval of -- I'm sorry, Mike. Staff report. I know we had talked about it. I read it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to ask you to ask Mike, because Mike's recommending approval. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I know. MR. BOSI: As so eloquently put by Mr. Yovanovich, staff is recommending approval. I will say that this is a project we are excited about and excited about it in relationship to the proximity to the schools. I think the affordable housing opportunities and the multifamily opportunities, location of this in terms of attracting some school-aged families is a great marriage, so to speak, and staff is supporting it. It's been reviewed against the GMP, and for consistency, we think it's compatible with the surrounding areas. So staff is recommending approval on this petition. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I think the affordable housing aspect is definitely needed. Mike and I talked about this yesterday where there was a question if it's -- if affordable housing is still a need, and I told him that, "Well, yeah." Since all I do is hang around with teachers, since my wife is one, I had one of her friends -- one of the other teachers just moved from Fort Myers to Bonita because it got a little cheaper in Bonita, but still can't afford Naples. So it's definitely still -- it's still a definite need, so... Having said that, we're going to need a motion to approve PL20240010833, including the affordable housing aspect. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So moved. I mean, so motioned. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Second, please. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. Last one is -- MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. I'm sorry. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. ***I was negligent on the Brookside Marina. There was also a requirement for EAC to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on that project. You just acted as the Planning Commission. But it does -- it does require an EAC action or recommendation to the BCC related to the setback from the preserve. That's why the EAC recommendation is needed. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. Well, I would make a motion as the EAC to approve as presented to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: Heidi, do they need to reopen the hearing, do that, or can they -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. Let's go ahead and reopen the hearing, and then -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Reopen PL20240010963, Davis Boulevard MPUD/PUDZ, and make a motion as the EAC to approve as presented, for the setbacks, to the County Commissioners. Could I have a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. Page 24 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 20 of 33 COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Close that one for a second time. I'd ask my court reporter -- we've got one item left, which could be quick. You good? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. ***Next item, PL20240007340, Paraiso Club Rezone RZ for Gulf Shore Drive. All those wishing to speak on the matter please stand and get sworn in, including public speakers. 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 SCHUMACHER: Disclosures, starting with Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Reviewed materials, visited the site, I spoke with Rich Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials, and I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Visited the site, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, conversation with staff as well as Mr. Yovanovich. Go ahead, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Still good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. I've been practicing how to say the name, and I'm still not going to get it right. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I can't get it right either. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm not going to. I think it's Paraiso -- I think I'm close -- Club, LLC, is the applicant and contract purchaser for the property. Mr. Mulhere will be doing the presentation of the site. Ellen Summers did all the hard work so Bob and I could present for you today. Our architect is here. Our landscape architect is here. Jim Banks is -- Jim Banks is our traffic consultant, and Tim Hall is our environmental consultant. The property -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me, Rich and Planning Commission members. I didn't hear that we're hearing the rezoning and conditional use jointly. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are. We are. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's okay with you. I'm presenting -- we're going to present them together. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I just didn't hear it said, so I may have missed it and just wanted to make it clear for the record. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You're correct. I apologize. That would be PL20240009700. That is the conditional use that will be heard alongside the item we're on now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Heidi. The property is along Vanderbilt Beach Road -- I mean Vanderbilt Beach. It's 1.5 acres in Page 25 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 21 of 33 size. Both lots are currently zoned RSF-3. And you can see the property on the visualizer just north of LaPlaya, which is right here. The request is to -- I'll go through the Future Land Use Map. We are in the urban residential subdistrict which allows for what we're requesting, which is to rezone the property from RSF-3 to RT, which is residential tourist, with very limited or only one use allowed in the RT zoning district that we're requesting, which is the right to come and ask for a conditional use for a private beach club. So we're essentially extending the boundary of what's the RT zoning district, which ends right here, to include those two parcels. And we're here also to ask for the conditional use for the private beach club on the property. My client has spent a lot of time talking to the neighbors, getting input from the neighbors in the actual design of the site, and we'll show you some architectural renderings and through the master plan how we've worked to preserve view corridors that wouldn't exist if these homes were -- if two homes were built on these parcels. The homes are very large, and they're basically setback to setback on these parcels, and what we're proposing actually creates better view corridors for the community. As I said, these are the two -- two requests that we're asking for as our project moves forward. Bob's going to take you through in a little bit of detail the master plan and some of the conditions associated with the request. I wanted to point out that this is unique -- and I know you've all read the materials, but basically, the members of this club will not be permitted to drive to the club. They'll either have to walk to the club, or they'll have to take a shuttle to the club. So that's why you see such a low trip cap on this project, because people will be shuttled to and from or walking to us from the local area. There will be some handicapped parking on site, obviously, to accommodate that. But generally, everybody who's coming here, other than deliveries, will be coming by a shuttle. So we've taken great care in making sure we find a way to get people off the public beach, which is -- everybody agrees is very crowded, and moving them to another location on the beach that can accommodate those individuals and not have them drive individual vehicles to this private beach club. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Shea, Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What you were previously talking about how you get to the club, is the membership restricted to people that can only walk to the club? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. There's -- there are discussions with various communities that their people that are coming to and from the beach that would like to buy memberships, and there will be a shuttle that will go to their community, pick them up, bring them to the beach club, and then bring them back. There are other beach clubs in the area. You may hear from one of the members of one of those beach clubs. If you're familiar with The Floridian Club, which is slightly north of where we are, they have some of -- I forget how many towers are in that community, but not all of the towers are members of The Floridian Club. They come and go by shuttle. So we'll do the similar concept in these communities. We'll have shuttles that will bring people to the club and then take them back instead of them driving, parking in the parking garage, and using -- now, will we -- hopefully we'll have some local residents and local condominium unit owners who will also want to join the club, and they'll walk or ride their bicycle. So that's why, Mr. Shea, you see such a low trip cap in our project. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if somebody wants to join that isn't in a shuttle-serviced area or walkable area -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They probably won't join because -- or they're going to have to find Page 26 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 22 of 33 a way to get to the shuttle. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- okay? We'll have to figure that out. I'll turn it over to Bob. And with that... MR. MULHERE: Hi. For the record, Bob Mulhere, a certified planner. What you have before you on the visualizer is the master plan. I'll point out that there is a -- you know, an existing somewhat-damaged-from-storms beach dune located right there. I want to point out the -- we have it on the slide that will show the actual setback, so I won't spend a lot of time on those right now. But you can see that this building has been designed with substantial setbacks both to the north and the south. There is also a beach access -- a pedestrian beach access that is split half on this property and half on the northern property, which is developed with a single-family home. I think that is all I need to talk about on this slide. And I'm going to go to the next slide here. This is a graphic that shows the beach dune location, and these are all different plant types, which probably you and I don't have any idea what those numbers mean, but over here are some examples of the plants that will be replanted to restore the dune. Pat Trefz is our landscape architect. He's an excellent landscape architect, and we're glad to have him on our team. And he is here if we have any specific questions. So these are our architectural renderings. That is looking at this building from Gulf Shore. It's a front view. It looks like a large single-family home, and it was designed specifically with that in mind. And again, these are gulf-front lots. So if they're going to be developed with a single-family home, they have generally been developed from setback to setback, which is seven and a half feet in RSF-3. Another perspective right there, and a perspective looking from the gulf back towards the rear of the structure. Another one from the rear of the structure. There's a little aerial perspective there. And this is an aerial of both lots. Obviously, there's a structure on one that will come down, and these would be the lots that are redeveloped right here where Bayview comes down. So these building height -- this is a building height exhibit, and I really think what's most important here is the -- this shows also the setbacks. The required setback in the conditional use is 21 feet, but we have a larger setback than that. In this case it's about 23 feet. Of course, we're still in design, so that could change a little bit, but -- and over here we have actually a 29-foot setback except for a little portion in the back that is elevated here, which is at 21 feet. The building height as we -- is 55 feet, six inches to the top of the roof. That's a sloped roof -- excuse me, to the midpoint of the roof, and then the -- we have a zoned building height of 38 feet now. In the RSF-3, typically a zoned building height would be 35 feet. So we're very close to that. This is another exhibit that would -- that has the single-family homes shown on there and would show the actual setbacks that the single-family homes that are outlined in red there would be. So you would have basically 15 feet between single-family homes if they build lot line to lot line as opposed to the larger setbacks that we're providing. There are some conditions of approval on the rezone. As Rich indicated, we are requesting the conditional use for the beach club as the only use that we would have on the property in the RT district. And you can see there the final bullet says, "No building or structure shall exceed a zoned building height of 38 feet and actual building height of 57 feet." Then we have hours of operation, 8 a.m. And the facility shall be open only between the hours of 8 a.m. and remain open till 11 p.m. except that the use of the pools and access to the beach will cease one hour after sunset. So the outdoor activities that would generate noise will cease much earlier. All users must depart the facility within 30 minutes after the allotted closing time, and the owner will be responsible for enforcing those hours. The facility will have on-site management Page 27 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 23 of 33 during all hours that it is open, and such management will remain on site after closing to ensure that those actions that need to be taken on the end of each -- at the end of each operating day are in conformance with these stipulations. Trash and garbage receptacles will be enclosed and removed from the beach-site facilities at the closing of each operating day. Let's see. And there's some -- some architectural standards, lighting, you know, because we have to adhere to turtle lighting matters. Parking areas will only be utilized by authorized users of the facility. It's primarily going to be perhaps for handicap parking or for deliveries or for some of staff. So we will actually, as Rich indicated, prohibit members from driving, as part of the membership agreement, to the beach club in their individual vehicles. They'll get there by, you know, walking, biking, or by the shuttle. The owner will attempt to arrange for food and other vendor deliveries to be scheduled during times when traffic volume is at its lowest. Typically that would be early in the morning anyway. 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 the beach area between the north and south property lines of the club and extended to the edge of the water. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Mulhere, is there a possibility of a setback on that property from the high water line? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Is there a way to, like, contain those chairs and those amenities for the club, too, within that setback? What I don't want to see is -- MR. MULHERE: To the mean high water mark. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I don't want to see beach chairs all the way up to the mean high water during high tide and nobody can get by because -- MR. MULHERE: No, I think that's fine, yeah. And I think that's the intent of that condition, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Let's see. Where were we here? So the trip cap is extremely low, 19 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. And, I mean, I think that's good for this type of use that we have found a way to keep that trip cap low so we're not bringing a ton of traffic to the neighborhood. And I mentioned the dune restoration plan. We have had several letters of support submitted to us which we forwarded to the county. I don't know if you've seen those. There are some people here to speak to those issues. And I'll just briefly say that we did have a neighborhood information meeting. There were three members of the public there and five members on Zoom. We did not have any questions or comments raised by the members of the public, and we concluded the presentation. So there really were no issues. Staff is recommending approval. We'll go right to Q & A or public speakers, whatever your preference is. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Amenities within the club, do we have a food service, bar service, or is this all going to be bring your own? MR. MULHERE: No. There will be food service and bar service inside. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Food service and bar service inside on site, okay. MR. MULHERE: It will be catered. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And catering, okay. Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. Either of you. How many memberships will be allowed here? The Floridian Club, I understood, had a limited amount, and when they reach that limit or amount they can't accept any more membership. Page 28 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 24 of 33 MR. YOVANOVICH: So I don't believe they had a cap on membership. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So it's unlimited? MR. YOVANOVICH: And, you know, we're going to be governed by how many chairs on the beach and how much room we have in the facility for how many people can be there at any one time. But I don't know of any clubs that have caps on membership, the number of members. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So the reason why this -- I brought this -- or it was brought to my attention is because the folks at The Dunes, I understood, could have been members at the Floridian, but there was limited membership, and they -- MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding was there was a limited number of people that could be on site at any time. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not aware -- and, you know, I don't know every zoning approval out there, but I'm not aware of a cap on the number of members. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So anybody at The Dunes can be a member of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding is that at The Dunes -- this is -- but I'm repeating hearsay -- is that not every one of the buildings in The Dunes has the ability to have a membership at The Floridian Club. So there are some buildings at The Dunes that are not allowed to be members, but that's their own internal -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- setup. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: This is different? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. It's a gorgeous project. I love the renderings. It's going to be nice. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we've been trying to get people to the beach here forever and, you know, this is another opportunity to get people to the beach without overburdening the roads, without overburdening the County's parking facility that already exists. I think it's going to be spectacular. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Bosi, staff report. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As indicated by the applicant, both the conditional use and the rezone has been reviewed by staff, by Comp Planning staff, from all the disciplines, and a recommendation of approval specifically based upon the low traffic generation in terms of the relationship to the amount of activity that we know happens within this -- within the general area. We have -- like I said, we're recommending approval for both of the petitions. And any questions that you guys may have? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Secretary Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Quick question, Mike. Could you explain the elevation requirements that are now in place for the structure versus some of the surrounding structures, the current codes, how far above the center line of the road, what's going to be on the lower -- what can be on the lower levels and the upper levels? MR. BOSI: That's an area that's outside of my expertise, not as -- not being a qualified engineer or water management professional. But I could make a rough estimate in terms of what we're going to require. The base flood elevation within this area is going to have to elevate these structures up a considerable amount. I couldn't tell you the exact amount. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, why I ask, it looks like it's about 17 or 18 feet above the center line of the road, and I think down the road when we did One Naples, it was 21 or 22 feet. So I'm just trying to -- I know these are new -- I guess they're FEMA requirements. MR. BOSI: Yes, they are FEMA requirements. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And it's more of an education. I realize you're -- the right people are looking through that. Page 29 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 25 of 33 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I think I know who would know. Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Are you looking for NAVD for the property owner? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Acceleration? MR. MULHERE: Thirteen-six is the first finished floor elevation; 13 feet six inches. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And what does that comply -- what governed that? MR. MULHERE: That's by DEP or FEMA. COMMISSIONER SHEA: FEMA? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's two agencies that are involved in regulating this. I think it's DEP -- it's one -- it's either DEP or FEMA that tells us where we have to start. I don't know right off the top, but that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the lower level of this is what, just storage space? MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically. Storage space, maybe some cabanas, things that, you know, are allowed. You cannot have living space below FEMA. That's the general rule. MR. MULHERE: And, I'm sorry. In this case, and as I thought was the case, because of proximity to the beach, it's actually DEP that is the -- that governs the minimum required first finished floor elevation. The way the code reads, it's whichever agency requires the greatest elevation, that's what you have to comply with. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Okay. Public speakers? MR. SABO: Mr. Chair, there are five in-person public speakers and eight on Zoom. The first one is Sally Hughes. MS. HUGHES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, Mrs. -- state your name, again, for the record, please. MS. HUGHES: Sally Hughes. And we reside at 271 South Bay Drive, which is in Vanderbilt Beach. And this is just a personal letter in support of Paraiso Beach Club. So I just want to begin by letting you know that my family's love affair with Naples began in 1972 when my dad, convinced that he had found paradise, brought us to Naples for the first time. I'm the middle of five kids. And I remember those early days very vividly with light traffic, just a handful of restaurants like Witch's Brew, Pippin's, Kelly's Fish House, Pewter Mug, and the charm of a quiet, untouched coastal town. Our first home was at Palm River Estates where LaPlaya Beach Club now -- or LaPlaya Gulf Club now stands. My dad, who battled polio, always said that being in Naples made him feel better than anywhere else. The warm air, the gentle ocean breeze, and the laid-back lifestyle gave him a sense of peace and well-being that was truly special. Vanderbilt Beach quickly became my favorite place, a reflection of Old Florida at its finest. When my parents moved to the Vineyards, our connection to the area only deepened. My oldest sister bought a condominium at Vanderbilt Beach in 1995, and my husband and I followed suit in 1998. So for 25-plus years, we've cherished everything about this incredible place; the beauty, community, and the sense of belonging. However, as Naples has grown so, too, has Vanderbilt Beach. The increased development, the parking structures, and influx of visitors have brought more energy but also more congestion. While I understand and appreciate progress, it's been bittersweet to see the tranquil charm of Old Florida slowly fade. The situation will get much worse once the Ritz-Carlton Residences are completed. And as a result, we had planned on selling our condo in Vanderbilt Beach area and leaving to a different part of Naples. But that's why I was so excited to hear about Paraiso Beach Club and learning Page 30 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 26 of 33 about the vision, the membership structure, and the thoughtful and ongoing planning behind it. We're now wholeheartedly committed to joining. Speaking to Mike and Dave only reinforced our beliefs that this is an opportunity to restore the serenity that we've always cherished. Knowing that we'll have a place where we can gather with family and friends, enjoy the natural beauty, and embrace the Naples lifestyle in a more intimate setting fills me with renewed joy. We realize it will take time, but because of this exciting future, we'll hold onto our condo and look forward to the day when we can, once again, walk along the quieter shores and enjoy an exceptional beachside experience. We appreciate the dedication and effort that this takes and will continue to take to make this vision a reality. Thank you very much for your hard work and commitment to preserving what makes Naples so special. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mrs. Hughes. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, next speaker, Melissa Martin. MS. MARTIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. MS. MARTIN: Hi. My name is Melissa Martin. I was born and raised here in Naples, Florida, and consider myself a true Neapolitan. Is there a way I can get on this screen? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one do you want? MS. MARTIN: The aerial view. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. MS. MARTIN: Right, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you want to point, you just hit the screen. MS. MARTIN: All right. Thank you. I'm a horrible speaker, so... I grew up on Bayview Avenue directly across the street from where Paraiso -- it's pronounced Paraiso, which means paradise in Spanish -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MS. MARTIN: -- where Paraiso Beach Club is proposed, and I've remained close to this community ever since. My husband and I are very close family friends of the Cerkleski family, and I'm here today to read a letter on their behalf because of an unfortunate diagnosis in the family. So the Cerkleskis currently live here, and they're building their new home here. As someone who has lived in Vanderbilt for many years and still lives near by, I also want to share my personal support for Paraiso Beach Club. I believe this project is needed and will be a meaningful and job-creating asset to the Vanderbilt Beach community. This is what the Cerkleski family would like me to read to you. Hi. My name is Jim Cerkleski, and I'm currently building a home at 10030 Gulf Shore Drive directly across the street from the proposed site of the Paraiso Beach Club. While my new home is under construction, I reside at 103 Bayview Avenue. Both properties are within 200 feet of the club. I have been in direct communication with the Paraiso leadership team for more than 18 months, and I greatly appreciate the respectful and collaborative way they have approached this project. They have kept me informed and have taken the time to share detailed club designs and landscape plans. They also intend to have their landscape architect work directly with the closest neighbors to create a design that best suits our properties. One of the more meaningful aspects for me, personally, is their decision to intentionally create viewing corridors that preserve our line of sight to the gulf. If two large residential homes were built on that property instead, that view would be obstructed and lost. Their design is not only smaller in footprint but also more considerate of surrounding neighbors, which speaks volumes about the vision and values behind this project. I fully support the Paraiso Beach Club and believe it will be a tasteful, well-designed, and Page 31 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 27 of 33 great addition to our community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Ms. Martin. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, next speaker, Dionne Fleming. MS. FLEMING: Hello. My name's Dionne Fleming, and I'm here today to read two letters from two individuals who cannot be here to read for themselves. The first is from Leslie Garlock. She's both an owner and has run a real estate office in Vanderbilt. Her new offices will be in the Ritz Residences building when completed. So this is from Leslie. As both a resident of the Regatta and the owner of a real estate office here in Vanderbilt Beach, I see daily just how much the value of a private beach club can bring to both a community and its property market. The success of Pelican Bay is a prime example. Despite requiring residents to drive, park, and take a tram to reach their private beach and restaurant, demand remains incredibly high. The market data is clear, properties with access to a private beach club sell faster and at higher prices. At The Dunes, for example, units tied to the Floridian beach club consistently command a significant premium, yet that club is available only to a select group of units. Meanwhile, highly sought-after clubs like the Ritz and Barefoot Beach remain inaccessible to most due to long waitlists. The need far exceeds the supply, and Paraiso Beach Club is a smart community-oriented way to help meet that demand. Repurposing the two lots next to LaPlaya into a thoughtfully designed club would not only enhance the Vanderbilt Beach experience but also ease the pressure on other public beaches. From both a resident and professional standpoint I fully support the approval of this project. Again, this letter is from Leslie Garlock, who is both an owner and has run a real estate office in Vanderbilt Beach. The second letter is from Shawn Moccia from Gulf Shore Drive, so a neighbor. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong support for the Paraiso Beach Club proposal. The current beach situation in Vanderbilt Beach makes clear why this project is not only desirable but necessary. During peak season, the public beaches are completely overwhelmed. Crowds spill over into areas in front of condominiums where they're not legally permitted, yet at the very same time, if you walk along the beach in front of private single-family homes or many condominium properties, those stretches are often empty, even on the busiest days of the year. In fact, some condominiums are actively reclaiming their beachfront by roping off the areas and posting them as private, which further limits access for the community. I do not want this to be a missed opportunity for our county and the community. By converting the two lots next to LaPlaya from residential to a private beach club, Collier County has a chance to make better use of our beaches. Instead of just serving two homeowners who might rarely use the beach, these parcels could serve hundreds of residents and guests in a way that relieves pressure on our overcrowded public beaches. It's discouraging to see people packed shoulder to shoulder on the public stretches while so much beachfront near by sits virtually unused. With Paraiso, we can create a better balance, giving the community more access, helping alleviate crowding, and ensuring that our beaches are enjoyed in a way that reflects the needs of our growing community. To be clear, I do not in any way have any ill feelings whatsoever toward the current beachfront property owners. They purchased their home with the rights to the beach, and that should be respected. At the same time, the opportunity with these two lots offers a fair and thoughtful way to improve the situation for the broader Vanderbilt Beach community. This project is a rare opportunity to do something meaningful for the people of Vanderbilt Beach community. I hope that you are able to act in the best interest of our residents and approve this proposal. We may not have many more opportunities like this. Sincerely Shawn Moccia. Page 32 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 28 of 33 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fleming. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, next speaker, Dan Dvorznak. MR. DVORZNAK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Dvorznak, and I'm a condo owner in The Dunes community near Vanderbilt Beach. I'm present today to express my support for the proposed beach club. My wife, Kelly, and I are full-time owners at The Dunes in Naples. We're a beach-loving family, and we're just a short walk from Wiggins Pass, yet lately we've found ourselves getting in a car and driving all the way up towards Bonita Beach just to find a stretch of sand that's not overcrowded, and frankly, it's disappointing especially since we live literally two blocks from the gulf. When we go to Vanderbilt Beach, we have to publicly park our car near the Ritz Carlton, and I would say literally 10 times last season, we got back in our car and just drove home and didn't go to the beach because we couldn't find a spot. That said, there's only a small percentage of homeowners in The Dunes that have access to the beach club we've discussed before called the Floridian beach club, and unfortunately, my building and the unit that I'm in is not one of them. I would willingly pay for The Floridian Club, but I'm not able to do so because of the building that I reside in. That exclusion has been a real big impact, and it's unfortunate. Not only does it limit our access to the beach, but it lowers the value of our condo, especially since many of the other buildings do belong to The Floridian Club. And, again, mine does not. I also happen to be a licensed Realtor in the state of Florida, and I've heard directly from potential buyers they would only consider a specific Dunes property that comes with a beach club. In today's market, that kind of amenity in my opinion is very, very important. The proposed beach club would be a game changer for us. We'd finally be able to walk to a private beach without having to drive or leave our neighborhood. Even better, the ability to attach our membership to our property would increase its value and its marketability, something that not only benefits our family but The Dunes community as well. The leadership team at the beach club has been open and very thoughtful in their approach. I appreciate their willingness to create something that meets a real need in this Southwest Florida area. I hope the County will support this project. It will bring a tremendous value to local residents, especially those who have been underserved when it comes to the beach access. The fact that there will be little to no impact on traffic is very important to me and my family. I live here partially for the nostalgia that Naples provides, and I'm told the shuttle service will provide a way for us to be transported to and from the beach, or we could walk. Thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings and thoughts, and I really hope that you approve the club to be built in the next couple years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Could I just ask you a question, sir? MR. DVORZNAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Because you live in The Dunes. MR. DVORZNAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: What's the thought process behind only certain buildings can join the Floridian whereas you as a unit owner in X building can't join? MR. DVORZNAK: Sure. So I'll be clear. There's seven buildings and 40 coach homes in The Dunes community. Building 1, 2 and 3 is not able to purchase a beach membership to the Floridian. Building 4 through 7 is allowed to do so. I don't make rules; I follow them. I did call probably four or five times, and I'm not kidding when I say that. I happen to be a very aggressive person when it comes to something that I want. And in every occasion, when I requested to pay for a beach club, they frankly chuckled at me and said, you know, "Thanks, but you can't because you're in Building 3." Again, Building 1, 2, 3 is not allowed. Building 4 through 7 has the privilege, fortunately for them. Page 33 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 29 of 33 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Wow. It's two different classes of people there. That's kind of interesting to see. Wow. All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have a question for Dan. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead. I'm sorry. Commissioner McLeod's got a question for you. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Dan, who is providing the shuttle service? Would it be The Dunes providing it to the club or the club is coming to pick up -- MR. DVORZNAK: No. I'm told that it's -- the new beach club is going to be providing the shuttle service. But frankly, it's very close for me. I'd gladly walk there. It's probably three-quarters of a mile, roughly. I literally have to go over the bridge and hang a left, and I'm right there. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So, no, no. I'll have a question for Rich, then, about who's providing the shuttle services. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. DVORZNAK: Thank you. MR. SABO: Next speaker, Tim McMillin. MR. McMILLIN: I'm checking my watch. It's still morning. So good morning. I'm Tim McMillin. My wife and I are 25-year-plus residents of Naples. We live in Kalea Bay, and I can answer a couple of the questions. Kalea Bay has been developed by Soave Development Company, which also did part of the developments for The Dunes. The Floridian Club is owned by Suave. So those buildings -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That explains it. MR. McMILLIN: -- that Tony was involved with have the memberships. Kalea Bay, where I live, have access to that beach club offseason. So we have a lot of experience with shuttle systems, which is what The Floridian uses currently. Very low density. Those shuttles, which I believe Paraiso is going to use as well, are 15-person vans/shuttle bus that run on the hour. So we're not talking about a large amount of traffic. Speaking of traffic, I look at Vanderbilt Beach like a barbell. On one end, to the south, you have the public beach which has a parking garage, which has been mentioned before, but also will in the future have 128 residences closely associated with it due to the Naples One project. Tremendous amount of density there with people not moving very far north from that access point. To the north, on the other end, you've got the state park which has the same situation. There's also a small beach club at Moraya Bay, which is directly to the south of the state park which has a very small membership, which is made up of Kalea Bay residents as well as the Moraya Bay folks. But there, too, once you pass to the south of there, you have a lot of beach that is really underutilized. And in support of Paraiso, we firmly believe that the access to these locations is going to be very beneficial, not just for the members but for guests that will be associated with the members and for the neighborhood. We'll be spreading out the density, we believe, on the beach. So the combination of having a reduced amount of traffic in the neighborhood and the access that the club is going to afford I think is going to be a tremendous value, and we strongly support it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have only Zoom speakers left. There are four. James Banks is the first. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's my traffic guy. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He's your traffic guy. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's our traffic guy. Page 34 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 30 of 33 MR. SABO: So are we skipping Mr. Banks? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are. MR. SABO: James Cleveland. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I'm sorry? MR. SABO: James Cleveland. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Cleveland. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Cleveland, we can't hear you, sir. So if you could unmute yourself. MR. SABO: We're working on it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think he's one of our speakers. MR. SABO: He's unmuted. All right. Let's go to Julie Casper. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Ms. Casper? MR. CLEVELAND: I think I'm unmuted now. MR. SABO: All right. Now we're back to James Cleveland. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Cleveland, go ahead, sir. MR. CLEVELAND: Yeah, sorry. A little technical issue there. I apologize. Yeah. My name is James Cleveland. I'm a resident at the Regatta and have been a resident there since its inception 22 plus years ago. And we -- one of our, you know, reasons for the location was access to the beach, which is a block and a half at best off the beach. And under today's conditions of the beach, that's not -- it wasn't as it used to be due to the, you know, crowd and access to space. And as was mentioned in a previous presentation, a lot of the other condominium buildings have roped off their areas. So the breadth from north/south is not available to us at a later time, especially during the weekends. We, as many others, get a lot of friends and visitors from the north during season. And at any given time, we alone probably take four or five guests, six maybe, and try to get onto the beach, and it's tough. It really is, and it's unfortunate. And I think that, you know, it was also mentioned other beach clubs. The Ritz, as Ms. Garlock said, is, like, a five-year waitlist to get a membership there. I was on that waitlist for quite some time and did not have access to the Ritz. Also, we see some of our neighbors moving to, you know, other areas, either to Estero or to Bonita where access to the beach is more enjoyable and more likely, and it's kind of discerning [sic], and actually it's happened quite a bit at our property and at the Regatta. So we believe that -- you know, there's the two residences, there's an empty lot, and then there's the empty homesite there. And we just don't believe that that would be, you know, good use of the beach from north to south to have one or two residences with access versus the opportunity for 600-plus people to enjoy the new beach club and -- for their enjoyment. So it's -- we would love to see it go through. We're all taxpayers here and paying for, you know, replenishment of the beach, and that runs clear across Vanderbilt Beach. And its unfortunate we don't have the access that I think is needed for all of us. So we would appreciate your passage of the beach club. I don't even try to pronounce it, so... So thank you very much for your time, and I hope you can support it. It's going to be beautiful. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mr. Cleveland. MR. SABO: We're down to one Zoom speaker. Julie Casper is the last speaker. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Ms. Casper. MS. CASPER: Hi. Can you hear me? Page 35 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 31 of 33 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes. MS. CASPER: Hi. My name is Julie Casper. My husband, Craig and I, bought preconstruction in the Regatta over 27 years ago. I've been coming to the Vanderbilt Beach area since mid, late '70s, as my parents were residents at Conners in North Naples. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you ask her to speak up? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Ms. Casper, could you -- Ms. Casper, could you speak up? We can't quite hear you, Ms. Casper. MS. CASPER: Yes. Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Is that better? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shrugs shoulders.) MS. CASPER: In recent years since the public parking garage was built, the public beach access area has become so crowded that we seriously considered relocating to Pelican Bay primarily for the access to the private beach and the restaurants and amenities. And that decision was a difficult one, as we've called Regatta home for so long, since it was constructed, and we've been very active in the community at Regatta, especially through COVID and many hurricanes. And we have a pretty tight-knit community. The Paraiso Beach Club proposal became a real game changer for us. If approved, Paraiso would give us the kind of beach access and thoughtful amenities we've been missing, and we'd be able to stay right here where we are. The Paraiso management team is part of the community, and they generally listened to neighborhood feedback. And I'm pleased to see that some of the suggestions I made were incorporated into the design. So I fully support the project. I'm hopeful the County will agree that it will bring value to the area, not just to new members, but to long-time residents like us who want to stay connected to the community we've loved for decades. I'm planning to -- I have wonderful support for the project and look forward to a positive outcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Ms. Casper. MR. SABO: No further speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Does anyone else want to be heard who did not sign to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, great. Rich -- I'll just ask you a question, Mr. Yovanovich. These memberships are going to be tied to deeds, or can the members sell their memberships to somebody else when they leave? Because people keep saying, "This membership is going to increase my home value." So I'm just trying to understand how that works. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm being told is if you buy a membership, you can sell it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. So you can sell your own membership? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that right? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I need you to come up to the podium if you're going to speak, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer's yes, you can sell it. We don't have to get into the specifics, but yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, just to get an understanding of this membership, so membership will be limited based on capacity? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no. I think -- let's -- first of all, so we're not beating up on The Floridian Club, it's only 2,900 square feet. So it's very small, and, you know, you don't want to have -- you want to make sure people who are members can actually get to it. But we're going to sell -- we're going to sell memberships to -- we don't know the number, Page 36 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 32 of 33 but at the end of the day, it's all going to be limited to people who can either be inside or outside on the beach. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Exactly. And then anyone can be a member. So it's kind of like first come, first serve. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, anybody who can afford the membership fee. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Well -- yeah, right. I couldn't be a member, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what the fee even is. But I'm saying people -- you know, we're not going to discriminate against people who -- I don't know if we're giving preferences or not. I don't know that we've figured that out yet. You know, I think economies of scale kind of makes some sense is if X community says, "We want to do this and it makes sense," then -- because, you know, we're not going to go pick up people at individual homes, you know. So it's going to -- we're going to have to figure that out how to do all that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So you're addressing the shuttle system? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're doing shuttles. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So -- and then -- yeah, which -- which communities are you going to be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't know. We're going to -- we're going to have to figure all that out -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to where it makes sense. Because we have, obviously, limited ourselves because we're requiring shuttles. So we have to figure out how to make sure the shuttles are properly utilized to serve the members. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. We'll close the public comment, and let's open it up to staff report. Did you already go over that yet? COMMISSIONER SHEA: He did. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He did. All right. Staff went. So Board comment. So if there's no other comment, I'll take a motion to -- oh, I've got the number. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: You read the number. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Motion to approve -- I should ask Ms. Martin to come up and pronounce it -- Paraiso Club, PL20240007340, and its companion conditional use of PL2024009700, motion to approve or deny? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Next item is old business. Do you have old business? New business? Anybody have any new business? (No response.) Page 37 of 1321 August 21, 2025 Page 33 of 33 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. Is there any public comment, anybody that would like to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: There are no other public speakers? MR. SABO: No further public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That being said, I'd adjourn at 10:59 -- or 11 a.m., sorry. We'll see you on the 4th. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ JOSEPH 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 38 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 9.A ID# 2025-2227 ** This item has been continued from the July 17, 2025, CCPC Meeting ** PL20240011790 - Costco Wholesale (ASW) - Intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road - A resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a waiver from the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code for the development of a Costco Wholesale, with a resulting separation distance of 132 feet from the property line of the existing 7-Eleven. The subject property is located in the Commercial Tract of theIIHacienda Lakes MPUD at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±25.86 acres of the ±2,262-acre MPUD. [Coordinator: Laura Dejohn, Planner III] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Supplemental Staff Report - ASW-PL20240011790 Costco 2. PL20240011790 - Costco Wholesale (ASW) - Staff Report 3. Attachment A - Backup Package 4. Attachment B - Separation Distance Exhibit 5. Attachment C - Draft Resolution ASW 6-12-25 6. Attachment D - Legal Ad and Sign Posting 7. Attachment E - 7-10-25- from MSpokojny - Costco traffic document for CCPC July 2025 8. Attachment F- Market Study 25080101 - Costco Wholesale - 8392 Collier Boulevard 9. ASW-PL20240011790 Sign Posting for 9-18 CCPCrfs Page 39 of 1321 ASW-PL20240011790 - 1 - September 2, 2025 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: ASW – PL20240011790, COSTCO WHOLESALE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Applicant and Agent: Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Brad C. Wester 7742 Alico Road Costco Wholesale c/o Driver, McAfee, Hawthorne, Fort Myers, FL 33912 & Diebenow, PLLC 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 Jacksonville, FL REQUESTED ACTION: A resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a waiver from the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code, for development of a Costco Wholesale, with a resulting separation distance of 132 feet from the property line of the existing 7-Eleven. PROJECT STATUS: This Automobile Service Station Waiver (ASW) was continued at the request of the petitioner during the July 17, 2025 CCPC meeting. The petitioner requested additional time for submittal of a written Market Study Analysis. The petitioner submitted the Market Study, provided attached as Attachment F. The study concludes that the new automobile service station will not oversaturate the market or negatively impact surrounding businesses. The Planning & Zoning Division Staff recommendation remains the same as noted in the previous staff report for the July 17, 2025 CCPC hearing. Analysis indicates that this waiver from the 500-foot separation requirement between facilities with fuel pumps is consistent with the criteria of LDC Section 5.05.05.B.2.a.i – iv, notably the proposed supply of fuel aligns with projected demands for the defined market area, and the proposed location of the pumps will be close to the commercial uses to the north and as close as possible to the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard, so that the fuel pumps are as far away as possible from nearby residences. Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition ASW-PL20240011790, Costco Wholesale, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of APPROVAL. Page 40 of 1321 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 17, 2025 SUBJECT: ASW – PL20240011790, COSTCO WHOLESALE APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner: Applicant and Agent: Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Brad C. Wester 7742 Alico Road Costco Wholesale c/o Driver, McAfee, Ft. Myers, FL 33912 Hawthorne & Diebenow, PLLC 1 Independent Drive, Ste 1200 Jacksonville, FL REQUESTED ACTION: A resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a waiver from the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code, for development of a Costco Wholesale, with a resulting separation distance of 132 feet from the property line of the existing 7-Eleven. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The approximately 25.86± acres subject parcel is in the Commercial Tract of the 2,262± acre Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on page 2). ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 1 of 7 Page 41 of 1321 Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL20240011559 11 'f j PU PUD cm MPUD Im ...o COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ss LN KEOGE ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 2 of 7 Page 42 of 1321 ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 3 of 7 PROPERTY SUBJECT PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The governing document for the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), Ordinance 22-18, approved the subject property as the Commercial Tract in the MPUD, approximately ±25.86 acres. The subject property is identified by the Collier County Parcel ID Number 48586002021 in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD. The MPUD was most recently amended in 2022 by way of Ordinance 22-18. The applicant is requesting to situate an automobile service station as an accessory use for the proposed Costco Wholesale on the subject property. The applicant seeks relief from the LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 for a relief from the minimum 500-foot separation between facilities with fuel pumps to allow a maximum 132-foot separation between the Costco Wholesale property and the adjacent 7-Eleven property to the north. The gas facilities are separated by the Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) right-of-way, a 4-lane divided collector. This Automobile Service Station Waiver (ASW) request is a companion petition to Costco Wholesale PDI-PL20240011559. There is only one other Costco Wholesale store with a members-only gas station located in Collier County, and it is approximately 12.7 miles, or an approximate 23-minute drive, away from the proposed Costco Wholesale on the subject property. The next closest Costco Wholesale store with a members-only gas station outside of Collier County is located in Fort Myers, in Lee County, to the north, and is approximately 31.5 miles, or a 31-minute drive, away from the subject property. This ASW is required to include a member-based Costco Wholesale gas facility accessory for the proposed primary Costco Wholesale use. The 7-Eleven, located 132 feet to the north, across a 4-lane divided arterial, is a conventional gas station/convenience store, as opposed to the Costco Wholesale member-based store and gas station. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties near the portion of the PUD affected by the request. North: Rattlesnake Hammock Road R.O.W. and developed mixed-use commercial and residential, zoned Hammock Park Commerce Center Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) East: Vacant, zoned “Residential/Medical Use” tract in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD South: Developed commercial, zoned Collier Regional Medical Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) West: Collier Boulevard R.O.W. and developed commercial, zoned Sierra Meadows PUD Subject Property Zoning Map; Source: Collier County GIS, ESRI Page 43 of 1321 ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 4 of 7 Base Zoning Map; Source: Collier County GIS, ESRI STAFF ANALYSIS: In summary, the waiver request is from the adjacent property to the north, located at 8004 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, folio number 00416720107, which currently houses an existing 7-Eleven gas station. That gas station has an existing zoning exception of an ASW, HEX No. 21-13, which approved their separation from the existing RaceTrac gas station to the west. Costco only needs a waiver from the gas station to the north, since the separation from property lines is within 500 feet, as shown below. Distance separation exhibit for proposed Costco from existing 7-Eleven; Source: Colliers Engineering & Design SUBJECT PROPERTY Page 44 of 1321 ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 5 of 7 The subject property is zoned as a Commercial Tract within the existing Hacienda Lakes MPUD. This is also located within Activity Center 7, at the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Element. Accordingly, “The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant…”. The proposed gas station is an accessory use to the proposed commercial retail use, which is permitted by right on the subject property. The Costco gas station is a members-only gas station, meaning that only Costco members can purchase fuel, whereas RaceTrac and 7-Eleven can be used by the public. Consequently, since it’s a members-only club, Costco’s gas station may not generate as much traffic, as it will be the second Costco with a gas station in the county. In comparison to other public gas stations, the queue of traffic at Costco will remain internal to the subject property. The proposed Costco Wholesale and gas facility is adjacent to an outparcel to the west that may be developed for more future commercial activity. Since its members only, the Costco gas facility will only generate the traffic of Costco members, either coming to and from the proposed Costco Wholesale or other Costco members in general. No other public may use the Costco gas facility. Attachment B is the Separation Distance Exhibit included with the ASW Petition. Therefore, Zoning Staff recommends APPROVAL. STAFF ANALYSIS OF WAIVER FROM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS (ASW) CRITERIA The decision to grant the ASW is based on criteria in LDC Section 5.05.05.B.2.a.i - iv, in bold font below. Staff have analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: i. Whether the nature and type of natural or man-made boundary, structure, or other feature lying between the proposed establishment and an existing facility with fuel pumps is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facility with fuel pumps. Such boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not limited to, lakes, marshes, nondevelopable wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a 4-lane arterial or collector right-of-way. Applicant’s Response: The proposed establishment and the existing Automobile Service Station to the north are separated by Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) right-of-way, a minimum 4-lane collector. A feature significant to this separation request that should be considered is that the proposed establishment is a Costco Wholesale member-based gas facility associated with the Costco Wholesale store. Furthermore, unlike the existing Automobile Service Station to the north, the proposed establishment is not a conventional automobile service station with gas, a car wash, or a convenience store. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The boundary to the north of the subject property is a man- made boundary that is a minimum 4-lane collector right-of-way known as Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. This will lessen any impact the proposed gas service at Costco will have, coupled with the fact that it is a members-only gas station. Therefore, the Zoning Staff approves this criterion. ii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles during regular, daytime business hours, or, if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the facility with fuel pumps sells food, gasoline, and other convenience items during daytime, nighttime, or on a 24-hour basis. Applicants’ Response: The proposed Automobile Service Station will be engaged in providing fuel for vehicles for members of Costco Wholesale, commensurate with the wholesale store’s hours of operation. The fuel facility will not include a convenience store or car wash. Page 45 of 1321 ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 6 of 7 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: At the Neighborhood Information Meeting, the applicant stated that the hours of the gas station will coincide with the store hours. The gas station will not be a 24-hour operation. The gas service is only available to Costco members. Therefore, the Zoning Staff approves this criterion. iii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway, or if it fronts on and is accessed directly from a platted road right-of-way. Applicant’s Response: The proposed Automobile Service Station is located within a commercially designated parcel in a commercial area in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, which will be primarily be accessed directly from two ingress/egress driveway locations on Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR- 864) and one ingress/egress driveway connection to the south to a shared circulation road with Physicians Regional Medical Center that provides several access connections to Collier Boulevard (CR- 951). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Costco's access is primarily serviced from Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864), a county right-of-way classified as a collector road. Therefore, the Zoning Staff approves this criterion. iv. Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. Applicant’s Response: Granting a distance waiver will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses. The proposed Automobile Service Station is located within a commercially designated parcel in a developing commercial node in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, a mixed-use PUD. The commercial parcels and the adjacent medical parcels are well planned to provide adequate separation and transition between various intensities and densities of uses. The vertical improvements, such as the Costco Wholesale building and gas canopy, will be located on the western portion of the parcel to be further separated from adjacent residential uses and the existing FPL powerline easement along the eastern edge of the parcel, which provides more separation and transition. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The applicant is seeking a distance waiver for the development of a Costco gas station, which would serve as an accessory use for the Costco Wholesale store on site. The gas station is a members-only one that will serve the customers either coming to or leaving from the Costco store, or any other Costco member in transit. The subject property is zoned as a Commercial Tract within the existing Hacienda Lakes MPUD, which is located within Activity Center 7, Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and Collier Boulevard, in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. Accordingly, “The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant,”. The proposed development is permitted to be developed by right on the subject property since it is a commercial retail use. The gas station will serve as an accessory to the commercial retail. According to the distance separation exhibit on page 5 of the Staff Analysis section, the proposed location of the pumps on site will be in the northwest corner of the subject parcel. This location is closer to the adjacent commercial uses to the north and as close as possible to the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard. For the development of the site, it is preferable to locate the gas service station as far away as possible from nearby residences. The queueing of automobiles will be internal to the Costco site and won’t be a nuisance to adjacent properties or nearby residences. The subject property will include a parking lot that exceeds the minimum code requirements and will also comply with the landscape and buffering requirements outlined in the code. If granted, the auto-service station waiver, along with the requested deviations in the companion PDI application, PL20240011559, won’t cause any adverse impacts to adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. Therefore, the Zoning Staff approves this criterion. Page 46 of 1321 ASW-PL20240011790-Costco Wholesale Page 7 of 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition ASW- PL20240011790, Costco Wholesale, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of APPROVAL, subject to include the following attachments: Attachments: Attachment A – Backup Package Attachment B – Separation Distance Exhibit Attachment C – Draft Resolution ASW 6-12-15 Attachment D – Legal Ad and Sign Posting Attachment E - 7-10-25- from MSpokojny - Costco traffic document for CCPC July 2025 Page 47 of 1321 Revised 5/18/2018 Provide to Agents G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information\Job Aides or Help Guides HEARING PACKAGE CHECKLIST Return this form with printed materials A. Backup provided by the County Planner The Planner is responsible for all required data included in the printed packets of information for the Hearing Examiner (Hex) or the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). DO NOT ACCEPT DUPLICATES OF ANY DOCUMENTS. MAKE SURE ONLY THE LATEST, ACCEPTED/APPROVED COPY OF THE BELOW DOCUMENTATION. PLEASE CONFIRM THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ORDER DESCRIBED IN “BACKUP PROVIDED BY APPLICANT.” Planner responsible for providing the County Attorney-drafted Ordinance for PUDs and placing in backup materials. AGENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE PUD DOCUMENT – STAFF PROVIDES THIS TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED FOR A PUD. THE FINAL PUD ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION IS THE FIRST ITEM AFTER THE STAFF REPORT. [FOR HEX, THE REQUESTED LANGUAGE/ PROPOSED PLAN IS THE FIRST ITEM AFTER THE STAFF REPORT] B. Backup provided by Applicant: PLEASE PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS IN THE ORDER DESCRIBED BELOW. DO NOT PROVIDE DUPLICATES OF ANY DOCUMENTS. PROVIDE ONLY THE LATEST, ACCEPTED/APPROVED COPY OF THE BELOW DOCUMENTATION. IF THE BACKUP PROVIDED BY APPLICANT IS IN DISARRAY-MEANING IT IS NOT IN THE PROPER ORDER AND/OR THE APPLICANT PROVIDES MULTIPLE DUPLICATES-THE APPLICANT COULD LOSE ITS HEARING DATE. ____ Application, to include but not limited to the following: ____ Narrative of request ____ Property Information ____ Property Ownership Disclosure Form ____ Any other documents required by the specific petition type; such as a variance, a boat dock extension; PUD amendment, rezone request, etc. ____ Disclosure of Property Ownership Interest (if there is additional documentation aside from disclosure form) ____ Affidavit of Unified Control ____ Affidavit of Representation ____ Drawings (may include Cross-Section (for BDEs generally), proposed Boat Dock(s) with Water depth, location maps etc.) ____ NIM Information (Sign in sheet, notes, minutes and transcript/or summary) ✓ Include 3 thumbnail drives of video and/or audio ____ Traffic Impact Study (TIS) ____ Environmental Data ____ Historical/Archeological Survey or Waiver ____ Utility Letter ____ Deviation Justifications X X X X N/A X N/A X X X N/A N/A N/A X N/A PL20240011790 (ASW Application) Page 48 of 1321 Revised 5/18/2018 Provide to Agents G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information\Job Aides or Help Guides ____ Boundary Survey ____ Other documents, as needed, on a case-by-case basis such as relevant prior Ordinances, Conditional Uses, historical documents, any “private or legal” agreements affecting the PUD etc. ___ Submerged Resource Surveys may be included here if required. ____ CD with only one pdf file for all documents in the same order as the packets are put together. They must be in the same order. I understand that by submitting the above materials, it is the agent ’s/applicant’s responsibility to ensure all materials are in the same order for all copies of backup materials to provide to the Hex/CCPC and the CD must contain the documents in one pdf file (not multiple files) in the same order as the printed materials. It is the agent’s responsibility to ensure no documentation is left out. ________________________________________ ____________________ Signature of Agent Representative Date ________________________________________ Printed Name of Signing Agent Representative N/A X N/A N/A JUNE 17, 2025 BRAD WESTER (Electronic PDF file provided in lieu of CD). Page 49 of 1321 State: Name of Property Owner;sͿ: Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: Telephone: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: Telephone: E-Mail Address: City:City: State:State: ZIP:ZIP: Cell:Cell: City:City: ZIP:ZIP: Cell:Cell: Automobile Service Station Petition for Waiver from Separation Application ;ASWͿ APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION ͬ ͬ Subdivision: Property I.D. Number: Addressͬ General Location of Subũect Property: SectionͬTownshipͬRange: Lot: BlocŬ: Metes & Bounds Description: Page #: WƌŽǀŝĚĞ Ă ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ ůĞŐĂů ĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ĐŽǀĞƌĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ;/Ĩ ƐƉĂĐĞ ŝƐ ŝŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ͕ ĂƚƚĂĐŚ ŽŶ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ƉĂŐĞͿ LDC subsection ϱ.0ϱ.0ϱ B.2 & Code of Laws section 2-83 – 2-90 Admintrative Code Chapter 6.G Page 50 of 1321 tZ d,d K>>/Z KhEdz ,^ >Kz/^d Z'h>d/KE^͘ 'h/ zKhZ^>& KZ/E'>z E E^hZ d,d zKh Z /E KDW>/E t/d, d,^ Z'h>d/KE^͘ ZONING INFORMATION Current Zoning of subject property: Adjacent property information: WAIVER REQUEST DETAIL Zoning Land Use N S E W Please address the following waiver request details on an attached separate sheet: ϭ͘What is the extent of the waiver being requested (in linear feet) from the required 500 foot separation?(NOTE: This measurement is the shortest distance between the nearest points of any two lots occupied by an Automobile Service Station, or for which a building permit has been issued.) Ϯ͘The Office of the Hearing Examiner may grant a waiver for part or all of the minimum separation requirements set forth in LDC subsection 5.05.05 B, if it is demonstrated by the applicant and determined by the Office of the Hearing Examiner that the site proposed for development of an Automobile Service Station is separated from another Automobile Service Station by natural or man-made boundaries, structures or other features which offset oƌ limit the necessity for such minimum distance requirements. Staff’s analysis and subsequent recommendation, and the Office of the Hearing Examiner’s determination, are based on the following criteria as provided by LDC section 5.05.05 B. Please provide a narrative, on a separate sheet attached to this application, describing how the waiver complies with the criteria listed below to the extent you wish as it pertains to the proposed use. Ă͘Describe the nature and type of natural or man-made boundary, structure, or other feature lying between the proposed establishment and an existing Automobile Service Station which may, as determined by the reviewing body, lessen the impact of the proposed service station. Such boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not limited to, lakes, marshes, nondevelopable wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a four-lane arterial or collector right-of-way. ď͘Whether or not the Automobile Service Station is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles during regular, daytime business hours, or if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the station sells food, gasoline and other convenience items during daytime, nighttime, or on a 24-hour basis. Đ͘Whether the Automobile Service Station is located within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway or if it fronts on and is accessed directly from a platted road right-of-way. Ě͘Whether or not the granting of the distance wavier will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses especially residential land uses. * ROW then Hammock Park Commerce Center MPUD; **ROW then Sierra Meadows PUD Page 51 of 1321 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application Completed Addressing Checklist Pre-Application meeting notes Conceptual Site Plan 24 in. x 36 in., along with one reduced copy 8 ½ in. x 11in. Warranty Deed Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized Environmental Data Requirements, if required Aerial photographs Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. Letter of no objection from the United States Postal Service. Contact Robert M. Skebe at (239) 435-2122. Written Market Study Analysis ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: •Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. •Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. W>EEZ^ ʹ /E/d /& d, Wd/d/KE E^ dK ZKhd dK d, &K>>Kt/E' Zs/tZ^͗ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director͗ Environmental Review: See Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet͗ Addressing:Graphics: City of Naples Planning Dir͗͘Historical Review͗ Comprehensive Planning: See Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet͗ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Conservancy of SWFL: Parks and Recreation: County Attorney’s Office: Transportation Pathways: Emergency Management: School District (Residential Components): Engineering: Transportation Planning: Other: Utilities Engineering: Page 52 of 1321 Pre-Application fee ΨϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Automobile Service Station Separation ReƋuirement Waiver: Ψϭ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Estimated Legal Advertising Fee: Ψϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϬϬ If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing Examiner hearing date. (Variable) FEE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATIONS ŽŵƉůĞƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ Ăůů ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ ,ŽŵĞ KǁŶĞƌ ͬ ŝǀŝĐ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚŝƐ ƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ĨĞĞƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďũĞĐƚ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƐŚĞĞƚƐ ŝĨ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͘ /ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĨŽƵŶĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ Civic Associations and Communities page ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ŽĂƌĚ ŽĨ ŽƵŶƚǇ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ͛Ɛ ǁĞďƐŝƚĞ͘ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ŝƐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ĂŶĚ ƐŚĂůů ĐŽŶĨŝƌŵ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŵĂŝůŝŶŐ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐ ĨŽƌ ĞĂĐŚ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ ĂƐ ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚĞ &ůŽƌŝĚĂ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ^ƚĂƚĞ͕ ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City:State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner ͬ Civic Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner ͬ Civic Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner ͬ Civic Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner ͬ Civic Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner ͬ Civic Association: Mailing Address: City:State: ZIP: Page 53 of 1321 ĂƚĞ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ WƌŝŶƚĞĚ EĂŵĞ All fees are ĐŽlleĐƚeĚ aƚ ƚŚe ƚiŵe ŽĨ aƉƉliĐaƚiŽŶ. Property Notification Letters, if required by dŚe >aŶĚ eǀelŽƉŵeŶƚ ŽĚe, will be invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners͘ Ɛ ƚŚĞ ĂƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĞĚ ĂŐĞŶƚͬĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚŝƐ ƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ / ĂƚƚĞƐƚ ƚŚĂƚ Ăůů ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚ ŝƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂů ƉĂĐŬĂŐĞ͘ / ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ ĨĂŝůƵƌĞ ƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ Ăůů ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂů ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŵĂǇ ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĚĞůĂǇ ŽĨ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ ƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ͘ ΎĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĨĞĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ϱƚŚ ĂŶĚ ƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚ ƌĞͲƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂů ǁŝůů ďĞ ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ Ăƚ ϮϬй ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů ĨĞĞ͘ ΎThe completed application, all reƋuired submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: 'ƌŽǁƚŚ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ͮ 'D WŽƌƚĂů͗ https:ͬͬcvportal.colliercountyfl.govͬcityviewweb Questions͍ Email: 'DĐůŝĞŶƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀ Revised Dec. 13, 2024 Page 54 of 1321 1 of 3 Monday, October 14, 2024 at 15:53:56 Eastern Daylight TimeMonday, October 14, 2024 at 15:53:56 Eastern Daylight Time Subject:Subject:RE: Pre-Application Meeting PL20240011559 Costco Wholesale (SDP) Date:Date:Friday, October 11, 2024 at 4:51:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time From:From:Ray Bellows To:To:Brad Wester, Sean Sammon CC:CC:Maria Martinez, Lisa Blacklidge, Christine Willoughby Attachments:Attachments:image001.png, image002.png, image003.png, image004.png, image005.png, image006.png, CountyLogo-FullColor_948165c4-9665-41b4- 9162-fbb16abW557.png, Facebook_0522f546-5e75-4698-95f9-f15590a3defe.png, Instagram_a8da4774-4b5b-4ad1-8d23- 20e69b3b605d.png, X-Twitter_8d678efc-bd14-44ce-97cf-7fbab1003b00.png, Youtube_0078f7f1-7789-4afd-a015-50689fe1f99b.png, 311IconforSignature_87c558eb-83f5-449b-87c1-3cc5ac8b0859.png Good afternoon, Please be advised that the requested waiver from holding a preapplication meeting has been approved. Respectfully, Ray Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Telephone: 239.252.2463 Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From:From: Brad Wester <BWester@drivermcafee.com> Sent:Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 11:28 AM To:To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Sean Sammon <Sean.Sammon@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc:Cc: Maria MarLnez <Maria.MarLnez@colliercountyfl.gov>; Lisa Blacklidge <Lisa.Blacklidge@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrisLne Willoughby <ChrisLne.Willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:Subject: FW: Pre-ApplicaLon MeeLng PL20240011559 Costco Wholesale (SDP) EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Conﬁrm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Ray, Good morning and hope all is well after the storm. Per below, I am seeking a waiver for our PDI pre-application review for the Costco Wholesale project. As you know we’ve had an oWicial pre-app in Jan and then another meeting with you and Sean late August on these matters related to the PDI and the ASW. There was some initial confusion on how to upload these into the portal. We’d like to commence with the oWicial submittals for review to start the process. Please let me know if we are authorized to proceed without a pre-app submittal. I’ve copied Maria on this per our original email this morning. Thanks. Brad Page 55 of 1321 2 of 3 From: From: Maria Martinez <Maria.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> Date: Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 at 11:21 AM To: To: Brad Wester <BWester@drivermcafee.com> Subject: Subject: RE: Pre-Application Meeting PL20240011559 Costco Wholesale (SDP) Hello Brad, I’m sorry for the confusion; the waiver request will be for the new SDP Pre-Application PL20240011559 (since the one you initially had was for the SDP as well ) and for the PDI. The original SDP Pre-Application was changed to ASW. ! Let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Maria Martinez Program Coordinator Operations & Regulatory Management Office:239-252-2906 Maria.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov From:From: Brad Wester <BWester@drivermcafee.com> Sent:Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 11:16 AM To:To: Lisa Blacklidge <Lisa.Blacklidge@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc:Cc: Sean Sammon <Sean.Sammon@colliercountyfl.gov>; Maria MarLnez <Maria.MarLnez@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrisLne Willoughby <ChrisLne.Willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:Subject: Re: Pre-ApplicaLon MeeLng PL20240011559 Costco Wholesale (SDP) EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Conﬁrm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Lisa and Ray, Good morning. Per the email below from Maria and my recent portal upload, I would like to request a waiver for the ASW pre-app review of this ASW for Costco Wholesale gas distance matter. We originally met in January to discuss the full scope of the project and required approval processes, which included a PDI and ASW. My team also met with Ray and Sean in late August to discuss further. Since then, my team has prepared each app, the PDI and ASW, and uploaded for review. Please let me know. Thank you. Brad From: From: Maria Martinez <Maria.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> Date: Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 at 10:34 AM To: To: Brad Wester <BWester@drivermcafee.com> Subject: Subject: Pre-Application Meeting PL20240011559 Costco Wholesale (SDP) Good morning, I am reviewing your request for a Pre-ApplicaLon meeLng for Costco Wholesale (SDP). We have noLced that a previous Pre-ApplicaLon meeLng was held for the same project type under PL20240000445, but the applicaLon type selected was Auto Service StaLon Waiver. Would you like to request a waiver from the Planning Manager for the meeLng, or do you want to proceed with the Pre-ApplicaLon meeLng for the SDP? Respec_ully, Page 56 of 1321 3 of 3 Maria Martinez Program Coordinator Operations & Regulatory Management Office:239-252-2906 Maria.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 57 of 1321 Costco Wholesale ASW Summary December 2024 ASW REQUEST DETAILS 1. What is the extent of the waiver being requested (in linear feet) from the required 500-foot separation? (NOTE: This measurement is the shortest distance between the nearest points of any two lots occupied by an Automobile Service Station, or for which a building permit has been issued.) Response: The nearest Automobile Service Station to the subject property is located to the north at 8570 Collier Boulevard (CR-951), separated by Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR- 864) approximately 132’ from the nearest points of each property line. 2. The Office of the Hearing Examiner may grant a waiver for part or all of the minimum separation requirements set forth in LDC subsection 5.05.05 B, if it is demonstrated by the applicant and determined by the Office of the Hearing Examiner that the site proposed for development of an Automobile Service Station is separated from another Automobile Service Station by natural or man-made boundaries, structures or other features which offset or limit the necessity for such minimum distance requirements. Staff’s analysis and subsequent recommendation, and the Office of the Hearing Examiner’s determination, are based on the following criteria as provided by LDC section 5.05.05 B. Please provide a narrative, on a separate sheet attached to this application, describing how the waiver complies with the criteria listed below to the extent you wish as it pertains to the proposed use. a. Describe the nature and type of natural or man-made boundary, structure, or other feature lying between the proposed establishment and an existing Automobile Service Station which may, as determined by the reviewing body, lessen the impact of the proposed service station. Such boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not limited to, lakes, marshes, nondevelopable wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a four-lane arterial or collector right-of-way. Response: The proposed establishment and the existing Automobile Service Station to the north are separated by Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) right-of-way, a minimum 4-lane arterial. A feature significant to this separation request that should be considered is the proposed establishment is a Costco Wholesale member-based gas facility associated with the Costco Wholesale store. Furthermore, unlike the existing Automobile Service Station to the north, the proposed establishment is not a conventional automobile service station with gas, car wash and convenience store. b. Whether or not the Automobile Service Station is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles during regular, daytime business hours, or if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the station sells food, gasoline and other convenience items during daytime, nighttime, or on a 24-hour basis. Response: The proposed Automobile Service Station will be engaged in providing fuel for vehicles for members of Costco Wholesale commensurate with the wholesale store’s hours of operations. The fuel facility will not include a convenience store or car wash. c. Whether the Automobile Service Station is located within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway or if it fronts on and is accessed directly from a platted road right-of-way. Response: The proposed Automobile Service Station is located within a commercially designated parcel in a commercial area in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, Page 58 of 1321 Costco Wholesale ASW Summary December 2024 which will be primarily accessed directly from two ingress/egress driveway locations on Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) and one ingress/egress driveway connection to the south to a shared circulation road with Physicians Regional Medical Center that provides several access connections to Collier Boulevard (CR- 951). d. Whether or not the granting of the distance wavier will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses especially residential land uses. Response: Granting a distance waiver will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses. The proposed Automobile Service Station is located within a commercially designated parcel in a developing commercial node in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, a mixed-use PUD. The commercial parcels and the adjacent medical parcels are well planned to provide adequate separation and transition between various intensities and densities of uses. The vertical improvements, such as the Costco Wholesale building and gas canopy, will be located on the western portion of the parcel to be further separated from adjacent residential uses and the existing FPL powerline easement along the eastern edge of the parcel, which provides more separation and transition. Page 59 of 1321 PL20240011790Page 60 of 1321 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 61 of 1321 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 62 of 1321 V VVVV V V V V V V V CARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCOLLIER BOULEVARDRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD581' FROMRACETRAC132' FROM 7/11OUTPARCEL±4.1 ACRESPROPERTY GAS EXHIBIT1 REV DATE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTIONSHEET NUMBER:SCALE:PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:DATE:DRAWING NAME:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:PROTECT YOURSELFCopyright © 2024. Colliers Engineering & Design All Rights Reserved. This drawingand all the information contained herein is authorized for use only by the party forwhom the services were contracted or to whom it is certified. This drawing may notbe copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or relied upon for any other purposewithout the express written consent of Colliers Engineering & Design.ALL STATES REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OFEXCAVATORS, DESIGNERS, OR ANY PERSONPREPARING TO DISTURB THE EARTH'SSURFACE ANYWHERE IN ANY STATEFOR STATE SPECIFIC DIRECT PHONE NUMBERSVISIT: WWW.CALL811.COMC-EXBT-PROP-EASE2024\24000317A\Engineering\Exhibits\C-EXBT-PROP-EASE.dwg\C-01-PROP GAS EXBT By: TATE.MILLER Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRREVIEWED B Y :NOTE: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION.CITY OF PITTSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF CITY P L A N N I N G APPROVED: __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CITY PLANNI N G C O M M I S S I ON ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SECRETARYPhone:Engineering& Designwww.colliersengineering.comC O N S U L T I N GEngineering& DesignREV DATE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY EASEMENTEXHIBITCITY OF NAPLESCOLLIER COUNTYFLORIDAAS SHOWN09/06/24TCMRTM24000317A1.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....___________________________ofFORPTH EXTON410 Eagleview Boulevard,Suite 104Exton, PA 19341610.254.9140COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC.DOING BUSINESS AS MASER CONSULTINGDoing Business asNSEWNORTH08080160SCALE : 1" = 80'IMAGE SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO 2019Page 63 of 1321 Page 64 of 1321 Page 65 of 1321 Page 66 of 1321 Page 67 of 1321 Page 68 of 1321 Page 69 of 1321 Page 70 of 1321 Page 71 of 1321 Page 72 of 1321 OR 4870 PG 267 Page 73 of 1321 AERIAL MAP & PICTURES MAY 2024 | CW20-0503 | STONE MTN, GASEPTEMBER 2024 | CW23-0757 | COLLIER COUNTY FL (SOUTH NAPLES) 4 1 1 2 3 4 32 RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD COLLIER BVLDPage 74 of 1321 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FIELD BOOK:PAGE: 01 XXXX UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO A SURVEY OR ENGINEERING MAP BEARING A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209, SUB-DIVISION 2, OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW.ONLY MAPS WITH THE LAND SURVEYOR OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER'S SEAL ARE GENUINE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF THE LAND SURVEYOR OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER’S ORIGINAL WORK AND OPINION.REVDATEDRAWN BYDESCRIPTIONSHEET NUMBER: SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY:DATE: DRAWING NAME: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE: PROTECT YOURSELF Copyright © 2024. Colliers Engineering & Design All Rights Reserved. This drawing and all the information contained herein is authorized for use only by the party for whom the services were contracted or to whom it is certified. This drawing may not be copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or relied upon for any other purpose without the express written consent of Colliers Engineering & Design. ALL STATES REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OF EXCAVATORS, DESIGNERS, OR ANY PERSON PREPARING TO DISTURB THE EARTH'S SURFACE ANYWHERE IN ANY STATE FOR STATE SPECIFIC DIRECT PHONE NUMBERS VISIT: WWW.CALL811.COM V-SURV 2021\21007015A\Survey\Plans\V-SURV.dwg\SURVEY NOTES PG 1 By: DFERRAROR REVIEWED BY: NOTE: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CITY OF PITTSBURGHDEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNINGAPPROVED: _______________________ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _______________________ CHAIRMANATTEST: _______________________ _______________________SECRETARY Phone: Engineering & Design www.colliersengineering.com C O N S U L T I N G Engineering & Design ENGINEERS + SURVEYING ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TRACT G PLAT BOOK 55, PAGES 10 THROUGH 21 SEC. 23, TWS 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST CITY OF NAPLES COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA AS SHOWN 01/03/2024 KE 21007015A 02........................................__________________________ of FOR PTH TAMPA 7284 West Palmetto Park Rd Suite 201-S Boca Raton, FL 33433 561.717.6496 COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS MASER CONSULTING Doing Business as I N F O R M A T I O N O F F A C T 1.THIS SURVEY AND PLAN IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING DATA AND/OR EXCEPTIONS: CERTIFIED TO : COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. 2.AREAS: TRACT G = 1,125,715.44 SQ. FT.± / 25.84 ACRES±. 3.THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THIS MAP OR PLAN IS THE RESULT OF A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED ON 12/19/23, BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE "FLORIDA BOARD OF SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS." THE INFORMATION DEPICTED HEREON, CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE CONDITIONS FOUND AT, AND AS OF THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY, EXCEPT SUCH IMPROVEMENTS OR EASEMENTS, IF ANY BELOW THE SURFACE AND NOT VISIBLE. ACCORDINGLY THE UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, IF SAME ARE NOT VISIBLE OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSED BY ANY AFOREMENTIONED DATA LISTED ABOVE. 4.THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2016 MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, OF TABLE A THEREOF, THE FIELDWORK WAS COMPLETED ON DECEMBER 19, 2023. 5.THE USE OF THE WORD "CERTIFY" OR "CERTIFICATION" CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINION REGARDING THOSE FACTS OR FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL'S KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND BELIEF, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED PROCEDURE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. 6.THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON VISIBLE ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES. NO EXCAVATIONS WERE MADE DURING THE PROGRESS OF THIS SURVEY TO LOCATE BURIED UTILITIES/STRUCTURES, ADDITIONAL BURIED UTILITIES/STRUCTURES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES FIELD VERIFIED BY THE PROPER UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 7.HORIZONTAL DATUM = FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (FL S.P.C.S.) NAD 1983 EAST(2011 ADJUSTMENT) WAS ESTABLISHED AT THE PROJECT SITE BASED ON REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) GPS OBSERVATIONS. 8.VERTICAL DATUM = NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88) WAS ESTABLISHED AT THE PROJECT SITE BASED ON A NGS BENCHMARK STAMP Y 526 WITH AN ELEVATION OF 11.42' (NAVD88). 9.THE UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL IS NOT QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF WETLANDS AND/OR TOXIC WASTES. THEREFORE IT SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED OR CONSTRUED THAT ANY STATEMENT IS BEING MADE BY THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE OF WETLANDS OR TOXIC WASTES IS PORTRAYED HEREON. IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLIENT TO PURSUE THESE MATTERS AS SEPARATE CONCERNS APART FROM THIS SURVEY. 10.THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THE SURVEYOR. ALL INFORMATION REGARDING RECORD EASEMENTS, ADJOINERS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF TITLE TO TRACT SHOWN HEREON WAS GAINED FROM A TITLE REPORT LISTED IN NOTE 1E ABOVE. 11.THE PARCEL SHOWN HEREON LIES IN FLOOD ZONE "A, AE & X" PER THE FLOOD RATE MAP FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MAP NUMBER 12021C0606J, WITH A REVISION DATE OF FEBRUARY 8, 2024 AS ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA). ALL FLOOD ZONE LINES SHOWN HEREON WERE DIGITIZED FROM FLOOD ZONE MAP. COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN MAKES NO GUARANTIES OR WARRANTIES ON LOCATION ACCURACY. 12.THIS PLAN IS MADE FOR AND CERTIFIED TO THE PARTIES NAMED HEREON FOR THE PURPOSE(S) STATED. NO OTHER PURPOSE IS INTENDED NOR IMPLIED. THE UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL IS NEITHER RESPONSIBLE NOR LIABLE FOR THE USE OF THIS PLAN BEYOND ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. 14.BASIS OF BEARING: THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD. ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT G HAVING A BEARING OF : N00°51'39" E (RTK) 15.WETLAND LINE SHOWN HEREON WERE PREPARED BY COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN ON DECEMBER 8, 2023. WETLAND LINE ARE PRELIMINARY AND WAITING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 16.SUBJECT PROPERTY ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY: "RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD/CR 864" 17.THE PROPERTY HEREON DESCRIBED IS THE SAME AS THE PERTINENT PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY'S, COMMITMENT NO. NCS-119939-ATL, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 6, 2023. C.) FIELD SURVEY B.) DEED OF RECORD E.) TITLE REPORT D.) PLAT F.) OTHER (SEE REFERENCES) A.) OWNER YES NO FIELD LOCATED ON 12/19/2023 ITEM X PLAT BOOK 55, PAGES 10 THROUGH 21, "HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES" FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENTS NUMBER: NCS-1199393-ATL EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 20, 2024 AT 7:30 AM X X X X X MAP OF SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ATION THEREOF TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, SUBJECT TO NOTES STATUES, AND THAT THE SKETCH HEREON IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRESENT- 5J-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS CHAPTER THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE SURVEY REPRESENTED HEREON WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER FIELD SURVEY: 02/14/2024 DATE OF AND NOTATIONS SHOWN HEREON. S U R V E Y O R ' S C E R T I F I C A T E NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL CHARLES D. FERRARO - REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR FLORIDA CERTIFICATION NO. 4768 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC. FO CABX FL HY DN S EW NORTHDETAIL 18" REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP - INDICATES REBAR W/ CAP FOUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED - INDICATES CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND L E G E N D - INDICATES REBAR W/ CAP OR MAG NAIL SET, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED LOCATION MAP (NOT TO SCALE) - INDICATES MAG NAIL & DISK FOUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION COMMITMENT PREPARED BY "FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY", UNDER COMMITMENT NUMBER NCS-1199393-ATL, WITH A COMMITMENT DATE OF MAY 20, 2024 AT 07:30 AM. THE BELOW REFERENCED ITEMS ARE NUMBERED AS THEY APPEAR IN SCHEDULE B SECTION II OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE B-II EXCEPTIONS: 10.Matters shown on the Plat of Hacienda Lakes of Naples, recorded in Plat Book 55, Page 10; as affected by Scrivener's Affidavit recorded in Book 5154, Page 316 of Official Records; as affected by Scrivener's Affidavit recorded in Book 5154, Page 318 of Official Records; as affected by Clerks Reference Sheet recorded in Book 5024, Page 2448 of Official Records.(DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 11.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Ordinance 75-20, by the board of County commissioners of Collier county, Florida, recorded in Book 619, Page 1177 of Official Records; as affected by Ordinance 75-21, by the board of County commissioners of Collier county, Florida recorded in Book 619, Page 1182 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 12.Easement granted to Florida Power & Light Company by instrument recorded in Book 692, Page 774 of Official Records; as affected by Memorandum of Right-of-Way Consent Agreement recorded in Book 3857, Page 1047 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 13.Easement granted to Florida Power & Light Company by instrument recorded in Book 870, Page 343 of Official Records; as affected by Memorandum of Right-of-Way Consent Agreement recorded in Book 3857, Page 1047 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 14.Easement, granted from William Henry Martin and Inez L. Martin, his wife to Peter P. Hawryluk and Ann M. Hawryluk, recorded in Book 882, Page 1867 of Official Records. (DOES NOT AFFECT) 15.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as set forth in Warranty Deed recorded on September 10, 1999 as Book 2590, Page 2071, of Official Records, but deleting any covenant, condition or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions violate 42 USC 3604(c). (DOES NOT AFFECT) 16.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as set forth in Warranty Deed recorded on March 18, 2003 as Book 3241, Page 3460, of Official Records, but deleting any covenant, condition or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions violate 42 USC 3604(c). (DOES NOT AFFECT) 17.Terms and conditions of the Joint Access Easement Agreement between Vision & Faith, Inc., a Florida corporation and Collier HMA, Inc., a Florida corporation recorded in Book 3241, Page 3464 of Official Records; as affected by Amendment to Joint Access Easement Agreement recorded in Book 4045, Page 2151 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 18.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Environmental Resource Permit Notice by South Florida Water Management District, recorded in Book 3845, Page 2681 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 19.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Order of Taking, recorded in Book 3910, Page 3745 of Official Records; as affected by Stipulated Final Judgment recorded in Book 4631, Page 1163 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 20.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Notice of Environmental Resource or Surface Water Management Permit by the South Florida Water Management District, recorded in Book 4765, Page 504 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 21.Terms and conditions of the Assignment of Residential Development Rights between Swamp Buggy, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation and Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company recorded in Book 4845, Page 1286 of Official Records. (DOES NOT AFFECT) 22.Terms and conditions of the Assignment of Residential Development Rights between Collier County Junior Deputies League, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation and Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company recorded in Book 4845, Page 1290 of Official Records. (DOES NOT AFFECT) 23.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Notice of Department of the Army Permit, recorded in Book 4845, Page 2209 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 24.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Notice of Establishment of Hacienda Lakes Community Development District, recorded in Book 4852, Page 1137 of Official Records; as affected by Amended and Restated Notice of Establishment of the Hacienda Lakes Community Development District recorded in Book 5500, Page 3229 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 25.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Declaration of Consent to Jurisdiction of Hacienda Lakes Community Development District and to Imposition of Special Assessments, recorded in Book 4928, Page 3894 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 26.Temporary easement granted to Taylor Morrison of Florida Inc., a Florida corporation, according to instrument recorded in Book 4938 page 2470 of Official Records. (DOES NOT AFFECT, PLOTTED) 27.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Notice of Adoption of a Development Order, recorded in Book 4968, Page 860 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 28.Easement, granted from Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC to Embarq Florida, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, recorded in Book 5009, Page 1293 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 29.Easement granted to Florida Power & Light Company by instrument recorded in Book 5010, Page 833 of Official Records. (DOES NOT AFFECT, PLOTTED) 30.Easement granted to Florida Power Corporation by instrument recorded in Book 5103, Page 569 of Official Records. (DOES NOT AFFECT) 31.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Vacation of Dedicated Easement, recorded in Book 5154, Page 313 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 32.Easement, granted from Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company to Hacienda Lakes Community Development District, a Community Development district formed and existing pursuant to chapter 190, Florida Statues, its successors and assigns, recorded in Book 5154, Page 320 of Official Records; as affected by Amendment to Sign Easement recorded in Book 5363, Page 382 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, PLOTTED) 33.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Notice of Hurricane Vulnerability Zone, recorded in Book 5451, Page 531 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 34.The terms, provisions, and conditions contained in that certain Recorded Notice of Environmental Resource Permit, recorded in Book 5942, Page 2406 of Official Records. (DOES AFFECT, BLANKET IN NATURE) 35.Easement, granted from Dr. Charles V. Gnau and Elizabeth K. Gnau, et. ux. to Collier County, Florida, Recorded in 981,Ppage 296. (Does not affect) 36. Matters shown on the Plat of Cadenza at Hacienda Lakes of Naples, recorded in Plat Book 74, Page 16. (Does not affect) 37. Easement, granted from Collier HMA Inc. to Collier County, Florida, recorded in Book 3958, Page 2205 of Official Records. (Does not affect) 38. Easement, granted from Sembler Family Partnership #42, ltd. to Collier HMA Inc., recorded in Book 4045, Page 2113 of Official Records. (Did affect at one time, however, expired November 30, 2006) 39. Riparian rights are not guaranteed or insured. Title to no portion of the herein described land lying below ordinary high water mark is hereby insured. 40. Riparian and/or littoral rights are not insured. 41. ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey prepared by Colliers Engineering & Design under certification and seal of Charles D. Ferraro, Florida Registered Land Surveyor No. 4768, dated February 14, 2024, last revised _______, 2024, designated as Project Jo. 21007015A, discloses the following matters: none NOTE: ALL OF THE RECORDING INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN REFERS TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. ANY REFERENCE HEREIN TO A BOOK AND PAGE IS A REFERENCE TO THE OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK OF SAID COUNTY, UNLESS INDICATED TO THE CONTRARY. PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(C)(ii) OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS (EFFECTIVE DATE 2021) COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN HAS PLOTTED ANY RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS AND SERVITUDE'S BURDENING THE SURVEYED PROPERTY AS IDENTIFIED IN THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT OR OBTAINED BY THE SURVEYOR AND STATED IF EACH IS “SHOWN” OR “NOT SHOWN” ON THE SURVEY. THIS CLIENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE SURVEYOR STATE IF, AS AN OPINION, THE RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS AND SERVITUDE “AFFECT” OR “DO NOT AFFECT” THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THESE OPINIONS ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE MADE WITH ANY LEGAL EXPRISE AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY CLIENT'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO VERIFY VALIDITY PRIOR TO RELYING ON THOSE STATEMENTS. TRACT G, HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 55, PAGES 10 THROUGH 21, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF, CONVEYED TO MHP FL VII, LLLP, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY VIRTUE OF THAT CERTAIN SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, RECORDED IN BOOK 6170, PAGE 301 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2: EASEMENTS AND OTHER INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY AS SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN VISION & FAITH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND COLLIER HMA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION RECORDED IN BOOK 3241, PAGE 3464 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; AS AFFECTED BY AMENDMENT TO JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 4045, PAGE 2151 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. DEED BOOK 6170, PAGE 301 PRELIMI N A R Y Page 75 of 1321 RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD/CR 864 FO TEPED TEPED E FO E E COLLIER BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 951)HY DG TEPED G G G HY D HY DHY D TEPED FO WHYDTEPED TEPED TEPED TEPED E TEPED G HY DTEPEDTEPED CURVE DATA 60 60 120 SCALE : 1" = 60' 0 Linear unit of measure: US Survey Foot (1 ft = 1200/3937 m) ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY FIELD BOOK:PAGE: 02 XXXX N S EW NORTHUNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO A SURVEY OR ENGINEERING MAP BEARING A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209, SUB-DIVISION 2, OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW.ONLY MAPS WITH THE LAND SURVEYOR OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER'S SEAL ARE GENUINE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF THE LAND SURVEYOR OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER’S ORIGINAL WORK AND OPINION.REVDATEDRAWN BYDESCRIPTIONSHEET NUMBER: SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY:DATE: DRAWING NAME: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE: PROTECT YOURSELF Copyright © 2024. Colliers Engineering & Design All Rights Reserved. This drawing and all the information contained herein is authorized for use only by the party for whom the services were contracted or to whom it is certified. This drawing may not be copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or relied upon for any other purpose without the express written consent of Colliers Engineering & Design. ALL STATES REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OF EXCAVATORS, DESIGNERS, OR ANY PERSON PREPARING TO DISTURB THE EARTH'S SURFACE ANYWHERE IN ANY STATE FOR STATE SPECIFIC DIRECT PHONE NUMBERS VISIT: WWW.CALL811.COM V-SURV 2021\21007015A\Survey\Plans\V-SURV.dwg\V-02-SURVEY By: DFERRAROR REVIEWED BY: NOTE: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CITY OF PITTSBURGHDEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNINGAPPROVED: _______________________ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _______________________ CHAIRMANATTEST: _______________________ _______________________SECRETARY Phone: Engineering & Design www.colliersengineering.com C O N S U L T I N G Engineering & Design ENGINEERS + SURVEYING ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PORTION TRACT G PLAT BOOK 55, PAGEs 10 THROUGH 21 SEC. 23, TWS 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST CITY OF NAPLES COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA AS SHOWN 01/03/2024 KE XXX 21007015A 02........................................__________________________ of FOR PTH HOLMDEL (Headquarters) 101 Crawfords Corner Road, Suite 3400 Holmdel, NJ 07733 732.383.1950 COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS MASER CONSULTING Doing Business as FO CABX FL HY D PRELIMI N A R Y Page 76 of 1321 APRIL 2024 | CW23-0567 | ALLEN, TEXAS PG 1 of 11 JULY 2024 | CW23-0757 | SOUTH NAPLES, FL PROXIMITY MAP PROPOSED NAPLES COSTCO EXISTING NAPLES COSTCO 12.7 MI. / 23 MIN FROM PROPOSED EXISTING FORT MYERS COSTCO 31.5 MI. FROM PROPOSED EXISTING MIAMI COSTCO 96.9 MI. FROM PROPOSED EXISTING SARASTOA COSTCO 108 MI. FROM PROPOSED EXISTING PALM BEACH COSTCO 149 MI. FROM PROPOSED COSTCO WAREHOUSES IN NAPLES FLORIDA COSTCO WAREHOUSES IN SOUTH FLORIDA12.7 M I . / 23 M IN Page 77 of 1321 1 IN ATTENDANCE • John Alvarado & Jim Ostrowski- Costco Wholesale representatives • Brad Wester – Driver McAfee Hawthorne & Diebenow (Agent) • David Torres – Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC (subject property owner) • Chris Riggle, PE - Colliers Engineering & Design (Civil Engineering) • Ryan Cunningham, PE – Kittleson & Associates (Traffic Engineering) • Juan Zapata – Ware Malcomb (Architectural) • Collier County planning department staff members • Laura Layden (attended virtually on the Microsoft ‘Teams’ video/audio link) • General public, news media, local residents & other community participants • Security personnel and owners of the Swamp Buggy Race/Rec Park facility MEETING MINUTES* Introduction by Brad Wester setting the tone as a recorded public meeting workshop (not a public hearing, but a Neighborhood Information Meeting) as part of the requirement to the group in attendance. Explanation of format of the meeting and timeframe. Identify the six graphic display boards showing project maps and details in the room. Frank Cipolla, the local opposition organizer spoke and thanked the crowd for the turnout and generally echoed what Brad said. Explanation that the facility is for a new Costco Wholesale store with gas on a site that is already commercially zoned for the use. The reason for NIM meeting is explain and present: 1. slight waivers/modifications to PUD Hacienda Lakes Development 2. gas facility within 500 feet of another gas facility (7-eleven) – requires waiver and public notice. This one is a member-only gas facility for Costco, unlike the 7-eleven. COSTCO WHOLESALE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Date: February 18th, 2025 Time: 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM Meeting called to order by: Brad Wester, DMH&D Page 78 of 1321 2 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Community member question (Q)– if you do not get the variance for gas use, will it kill the project? Team Answer (A) – right now it’s early in the process, going though comments Q – 135/140 feet from 7-eleven how will you get that waiver granted? A – Local law requires a 500ft separation, but the process allows the application/request to the county to review of all elements for a waiver. The difference is that this is a member-based service. Q - # of people/patrons getting fuel? Staffing A – that has been programmed into the design for maximum efficiency regarding cars using the facility – traffic and civil engineer in attendance to answer if needed. Q – how many lanes will it be? A – 12 fuel pumps double sided, to avoid line issues and maximize flow of vehicles. Q – where will queuing cars go? A – designed to hold 70 vehicles on site in the queuing lanes. Q – concern RE environmental impact of fueling/ gas facility, doesn’t matter how many cars there are. A – we are adhering to all the federal and local requirements. Q – concern of single entrance and exit and concerns of accidents A – there will be multiple access points to the main roadways. Q – seems like too much in one place A – it’s a commercially zoned site for this type of use already, inherently it comes with need for multiple access points, currently we have 3 – pointed to on physical maps. Q – elementary school nearby? A – cannot comment because not family with the specifics of the school– but it is a factor to the accepted traffic methodology current in review by the county. Q – why Costco has to go here? Is your reward predicted on Costco building in the Hacienda development? It seems ludicrous to take a facility like that with a service station and large building into this small property with 3,000 apartments being built with larger homes, there is larger property on Rt 41 South on way to Goodland where there is public complex. Recommended 2nd site on Collier Blvd as perfect place. Your 3rd entrance has been denied so there are only 2, the hospital should be against this for emergency vehicle access. A - this site is already commercially zoned, that’s one factor, Costco puts a lot of resources into research of the best locations for growth to provide best services and access to members. This is an ideal location for Costco Q – gas facility in proximity to another gas facility Page 79 of 1321 3 A – this gas facility comes with the Costco store, its not abutting the other gas facility, its across the street and it is member based and not public open. Q – when was the last traffic impact study done regarding this and will there be another study be done? How will you address the amount of traffic that is coming? A – last traffic study was submitted in January. is currently in review and going back and forth with county comments. This site is already zoned commercial, its already programmed for a retail store like this. Q – how many people go through Costco in a day? A – traffic wise we anticipate 4500. Q – if you don’t get the waiver? A – its too early to say regarding the waiver, it still has to go through the full process Q – have you taken into account that there are 2 story apartments, nursing homes, etc. in the driving study? A – yes Q – Will there be another community meeting related to the waiver? A – going through the waiver process now, comments and responses, requesting this use specifically, there will be public hearings and there will be more information and detail on landscape, traffic, lighting, etc presented as part of the application details and hearing stage. Q – is there a way to get the gas station without the waiver? A – only if over 500 ft away per code. Q – is there a way to get that distance? A – may be a way to flip the plans, orientation and wayfinding is key to the site for Costco for the consumer, they’re going through the best plan possible now with the current orientation. Q – 500ft regulation is that for a safety concern? A – don’t have an answer but will find out Q – if you can get a waiver on safety. A – safety is # 1 for Costco too. Q – amount of traffic and trips on roadway A – traffic study is in the county’s hands and is public record, going back and forth on comments and responses Q – who do we go to for due process to provide their comments? A – staff, local elected officials and boards. Q – traffic concern, is a county comment – events in area create traffic that blocks the residents, and the road needs to be widened with a light there, she doesn’t have a problem with Costco but big concern for traffic Page 80 of 1321 4 A – going through the process now with county staff for facility Q – traffic – how come study is at specific seasonal time? A – we have a methodology for studies, they followed that process. Q – traffic study – a lot of the new growth was not built yet A – factors of traffic study account for all uses, which started last May (2024) and submitted in Jan (2025). Q – traffic – appreciate studies done but don’t believe it to be accurate since the growth A – traffic methodology is agreed upon from the state level, not by us and going through comments and responses Q – about square footage A – it’s already approved in the PUD, as well as the access points, we are not increasing what is already allowed as square footage, or the use, its already defined as a specific commercial activity center, turn lanes and deceleration lanes are also included Q – 1 – are you looking for any other locations in SE Naples? Q – wouldn’t it be better south of that on E 41? Q – 2 – never seen stand alone Costco, usually in midst of other residential community like this. A – this is the site we are here to talk about tonight Q – why does Costco want to build there? A – Costco has a lot of resources in selecting a site, density, permissibility, and many other factors, this was an optimal site based on emerging growth and existing Costco in the area. They assess many factors. The biggest element is that it is already zoned for commercial use activity. Q – what is the effect of Costco for property values? A – don’t have an answer to property valuation that based on commercial use going into commercial property Q – about the study of environmental aspects, has Costco studied that? A – yes not only in the beginning, but Costco is always in compliance with all regulations federal, and state, unlike other facilities – its tied to operation of store so gas facility closes when the store closes. Q – gas facility on map A – infrastructure looks bigger but its built on whats there. Idk what hes saying less pumps for gas, not typical gas station, latest technology Q – construction vehicles entering and exiting site? A – dedicated loading facility and loading vehicles with products at night not during operating hours, they have it down to a science, its not in street, showed on map, regarding construction. Q – descriptions on delivery times? Page 81 of 1321 5 A – only at night, during closed hours, not operating hours, you won’t see it from residential areas. Regarding construction – there is an element to the construction plan for maintenance of MOT – maintenance of traffic. I don’t have an answer of where it is but there is a specific plan. Q – children, grandchildren – how would you like 4500 cars daily – did you study the height of the traffic and emissions? A – study of cars emissions are not part of the study, different regulations for Naples than California. ANNOUNCEMENT TO WRAP UP MEETING DUE TO TIME EXPIRATION IN RESERVED ROOM *Meeting minutes are generalized and paraphrased. An audio recording of this meeting is also provided. Page 82 of 1321 Page 83 of 1321 Page | 1 The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting to discuss the proposed Costco Wholesale store and gas facility on: February 18, 2025, beginning at 6:00pm, at The Florida Sports Park Reception Hall, located at 8520 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34114, (the location of the World Famous Swamp Buggy Races). Formal applications have been submitted to Collier County seeking approval for the following: Insubstantial Change to Planned Unit Development (PDI- PL#20240011559) and Auto Service Station Waiver (ASW- PL#20240011790). The request is for a PDI (PL#20240011559) for relief from certain standards and an ASW (PL#20240011790) for a gas distance separation waiver for the development of a new Costco Wholesale store and gas facility located generally at the southeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Drive and Collier Boulevard on approximately 25-acres (County Parcel ID# 48586002021) in the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Project Location Map On-line participation in the meeting will be made available by request. If you have questions related to the project or would like to participate virtually, please contact the agent for the Costco Wholesale matters listed below. Bradley C. Wester Driver McAfee Hawthorne & Diebenow, PLLC. One Independent Drive, Suite 1200 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 904-301-1269 bcw@drivermcafee.com Page 84 of 1321 Page 85 of 1321 Page 86 of 1321 Page 87 of 1321 Page 88 of 1321 Page 89 of 1321 Page 90 of 1321 Page 91 of 1321 Page 92 of 1321 Page 93 of 1321 Page 94 of 1321 Page 95 of 1321 Page 96 of 1321 Page 97 of 1321 Page 98 of 1321 GIS PROCESSING REQUEST (Property Notification Address Listing) Lists do not include Civic or Homeowner Associations. Submit completed form to DL-GMDNorthGIS@colliercountyfl.gov Please allow 3-5 business days for your request to be completed. NOTE: Incomplete or altered forms will not be accepted. Request Date: NIM Date (if scheduled): Name of Agent/Applicant: Business: Telephone #: E-Mail: PL Number (required): Folio Number(s) of Property: and/or PUD Name (required) Buffer Distance Around Site Location (select one): [ ] 150 ft [ ] 500 ft [ ] 1,000 ft [ ] 1 Mile Properties Included (select all applicable): [ ] Internal [ ] External [ ] Names, Addresses, and Property Descriptions Results: [ ] Names and Addresses Only Product(s) and Processing Fees [ ] Spreadsheet (MS Excel, Electronic) [ ] Mailing Labels (Printed) [ ] Spreadsheet and Mailing Labels $70.00 $80.00 + $0.06 for every record over 1,500 $85.00 + $0.11 for every record over 1,500 Disclaimer: The data used in this request 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. As such, Collier County and its employees make no guarantees, implied or otherwise as to the accuracy or completeness. Collier County therefore do not accept any responsibilities as to its use. AGENT/APPLICANT INFORMATION SITE LOCATION INFORMATION REQUESTED PRODUCTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 99 of 1321 8360 SIERRA MEADOWS MOB LLC 841 PRUDENTIAL DR #200 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207---0 CCMR RESPONSIVE LLC RLC RESPONSIVE LLC RLC RESPONSIVE PARTNERS LLC ATTN: BARRY J HASKELL 9777 VITRAIL LN DELRAY BEACH, FL 33446---0 COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 COLLIER HMA INC % ALTUS GROUP PO BOX 92129 SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092---0 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HAMMOCK PARK DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HAMMOCK PARK RESIDENTIAL LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HAMMOCK WOODS LLC 12580 UNIVERSITY DR STE 102 FORT MYERS, FL 33907---5686 HAMMOCK WOODS LLC 42 BARKLEY CIR STE 3 FORT MYERS, FL 33907---4543 MHP FL VII LLLP 601 BRICKELL KEY DR # 700 MIAMI, FL 33131---0 MHP FL VII LLLP 601 BRICKELL KEY DR #700 MIAMI, FL 3313---0 PX REALTY LLC 5355 TOWN CENTER RD #430 BOCA RATON, FL 33486---0 RACETRAC INC ATTN PROPERTY TAX DEPT 200 GALLERIA PARKWAY SE STE 900 ATLANTA, GA 30339---0 RACETRAC INC ATTN PROPERTY TAX DEPT 200 GALLERIA PARKWAY SE STE 900 ATLANTA, GA 30339---0 S-H NAPLES DEVELOPMENT PROPCO LLC % DISCOVERY MANAGEMENT GROUP 27599 RIVERVIEW CENTER BLVD STE 201 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC 24600 S TAMIAMI TRL # 212 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY INC 12580 UNIVERSITY DR STE 102 FORT MYERS, FL 33907---5686 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY INC 12580 UNIVERSITY DR STE 102 FORT MYERS, FL 33907---5686 TCW 2082 LLC 2082 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FL 34109---0 TRACT L DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 Page 100 of 1321 LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX ATTEST___________________________CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TWP 50S RNG 26E SEC(S) 23 NO 1/2 MAP NUMBER: BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 23 EASEMENTJOHN'S ROAD TTRVC 1 23 170' F.P.& L.PUD 3 COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER SV 4 MPUD HACIENDA LAKES 5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13 COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)CANAL19 18 17 1615141312 10 11 PALACIO TERRACE NORTH 63 86 85 84 95949392 60 61 62 36373839 VIALE CIRCLE VIA L E W A Y 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 10610510410310210110099989796 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 29 303132333435 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 137PALACIO TERRACE WEST9190898887 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 404142 130131132133134135136VIALE CIRCLELUCELLO TERRACE NORTH 138139140141142143144152TRACT 151150149147146145148TRACT O1TRACT "L4" TRACT L5 TRACT O2 TRACT O3129128127126125124123122121120119118117 116115114113112110109108107111VIALE WAYTRACT AMAGGIORE COURTPALACIO TERRACE SOUTH L1 TRACTL2 TRACTL3 MPUD HACIENDA LAKES 5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13 1 1 1 1 11 TRACT G TRACT R1 1 14 14 2 2 2 2 2 DRI DRI 3 3 3 3 PDI 9 TRACT R TRACTFD-1TRACT L-1 2 4 4 4 44 2 RAT TL ES NA KE H AM M O CK RO A D 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 TRACT L6 TRACT O5SEVILLA COURT5 5 5 5 431432433434435436437438 439 440 441 442 443 422 423 424 425 426427428429430 Tra ct O 4 Tract L7VOLAROWAY 6 6 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 103 102 101 100 83 82 81 TRACT L23 TRACT OS1T R A C T O S 3 TRACT OS 2 TRACT L2 3A TRACT A TRACT L24A TRACT C1 TRACT L22 T R A C T O S3 TRACT L24 7 7 7 12 7 RATTLESNAK E H A M M OCKROADAZURE WAY SAIN T LUC IA D RIVE SAINTLUCIADRIVE REDONDA DRIVE297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 88 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 1 11 88 8 8 10 10 1010 1 11 11 1 11 12 12 7 712 7 12 13 13 13 13 2 2 14 14 14 114 227 225 217 224 216 223 215 222 214 221 213 220 219 226 218 212 243326 327 323 324 325 309310311312314209201193208200192207199206198205197204196211203195210202194321 322 320 319 318 317 306 296 313232241242245244247246238236237240239229231234233235228230315316308307TRACT O5TRACT O8 TRACT O9 TRACT L19 LUCELLO TERRACE SOUTHLUCELLO TERRACE WESTVIALE CIRCLE VIALE CIRCLETRACT O7TRACT O7TRACT O6375374373380372379371378370377369376368381382383 384 385 387 386 3903 8 9 3 8 8 3923913983973963953943933673573653583663593523603533613543623553633563643453443513 5 0 3 4 9 3 4 8 3 4 7346343341 342 3363 3 7 3 3 8 3 3 9 3 4 0 334335328329330331332333412 411 413 414 4174 1 6 415 421420419418410 4 0 5 4 0 6 4 0 7 408 409 403404402399400401TRACT L21A TRACT O14 TRACT AP TRACT O15 TRACT O15TRACT O16TRACT O17TRACT O18 PROMOSO COURT PROMOSO COURT R O S A C O U R TTRACT L21 104105106107108109110111 112113 114 115 1 1 6 1301311321331341351361371381391401411421431441451461471 1 7 1241251 1 8 126119127120128121129122123TRACT L1TRACT A TRACT B TRACT C TRACT E TRACT D ALLEGRO WAYCADENZA ROADTRACT OS1$NO. NAME P.B Pg. 1 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE ONE 55 1-92 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES 55 10-213 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES AMENITY CENTER 58 14 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES - PHASE II 61 16-175 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 2A 61 96-976 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 2B 61 39-407 AZURE AT HACIENDA LAKES 62 13-218 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 1A 62 989 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 3 64 20-2310 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 1B 64 49 NO. NAME P.B. Pg. 11 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 4 64 81-8612 AZURE AT HACIENDA LAKES - PHASE 1 REPLAT 65 52-5613 ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 4 66 27-27- LOTS 343-34714 CADENZA AT HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES 74 16-201516171819 0623N 0623S0622N0614S ZONING NOTES1 7-27-82 R-82-9C 82-632 DELETED3 5-11-04 PUDZ-03-AR-4674 04-284 9-12-06 SV-06-AR-9662 06-2295 10-25-11 PUDZ-06-AR-10146 11-416 10-25-11 DRI-06-AR-10147 11-2017 7-10-14 PDI-PL-14-973 HEX-14-188 2-26-15 PDI-PL-14-2801 HEX-15-069 5-31-16 PDI-PL-15-2870 HEX-16-2010 8-20-21 PDI-PL-20-1294 HEX 21-3311 5-24-22 PUDA-PL-21-1791 22-1812 5-24-22 DOA-PL-21-2454 22-09113 7-12-24 PDI-PL-23-16103 HEX 24-34The Historic/Archaeological Probability Maps are the officialCounty source designating historic or archaeologic resources.THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004, AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISION INDEX REFERENCED HEREON. 0 400 SCALE 0624N7/23/2024Page 101 of 1321 V VVVV V V V V V V V CARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCOLLIER BOULEVARDRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD581' FROMRACETRAC132' FROM 7/11OUTPARCEL±4.1 ACRESPROPERTY GAS EXHIBIT1 REV DATE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTIONSHEET NUMBER:SCALE:PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:DATE:DRAWING NAME:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:PROTECT YOURSELFCopyright © 2024. Colliers Engineering & Design All Rights Reserved. This drawingand all the information contained herein is authorized for use only by the party forwhom the services were contracted or to whom it is certified. This drawing may notbe copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or relied upon for any other purposewithout the express written consent of Colliers Engineering & Design.ALL STATES REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OFEXCAVATORS, DESIGNERS, OR ANY PERSONPREPARING TO DISTURB THE EARTH'SSURFACE ANYWHERE IN ANY STATEFOR STATE SPECIFIC DIRECT PHONE NUMBERSVISIT: WWW.CALL811.COMC-EXBT-PROP-EASE2024\24000317A\Engineering\Exhibits\C-EXBT-PROP-EASE.dwg\C-01-PROP GAS EXBT By: TATE.MILLER Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRREVIEWED B Y :NOTE: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION.CITY OF PITTSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF CITY P L A N N I N G APPROVED: __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CITY PLANNI N G C O M M I S S I ON ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SECRETARYPhone:Engineering& Designwww.colliersengineering.comC O N S U L T I N GEngineering& DesignREV DATE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY EASEMENTEXHIBITCITY OF NAPLESCOLLIER COUNTYFLORIDAAS SHOWN09/06/24TCMRTM24000317A1.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....___________________________ofFORPTH EXTON410 Eagleview Boulevard,Suite 104Exton, PA 19341610.254.9140COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC.DOING BUSINESS AS MASER CONSULTINGDoing Business asNSEWNORTH08080160SCALE : 1" = 80'IMAGE SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO 2019Page 102 of 1321 [24-CPS-02558/1951766/1]14 ASW-PL20240011790/Costco 6-12-2025 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING A WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.05.05.B OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COSTCO WHOLESALE, WITH A RESULTING SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 132 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE EXISTING 7-ELEVEN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL TRACT OF THE HACIENDA LAKES MIXED- USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±25.86 ACRES OF THE ± 2,262 ACRE MPUD (PL20240011790) WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida 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 (LDC) (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of waivers pursuant to Land Development Code section 5.05.05.B; and WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale Corporation desires to establish an automobile service station on the property described herein that would be located within 500 feet of an existing automobile service station; and WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale Corporation seeks a waiver to allow a separation distance of 132 feet between two facilities with fuel pumps; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing with due notice made, and all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land Development Code, and the Board having considered the advisability of granting the instant waiver and all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition PL20240011790, filed by Brad C. Wester, of Driver McAfee Hawthorne & Diebenow, PLLC on behalf of the Petitioner, Costco Wholesale Corporation, with respect to the subject property located on the southeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Page 103 of 1321 [24-CPS-02558/1951766/1]14 ASW-PL20240011790/Costco 6-12-2025 Page 2 of 2 Road side and further described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved for a waiver from the 500 foot minimum separation requirement between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to LDC Section 5.05.05.B.2., with a resulting minimum separation distance of 132 feet from the nearest automobile service station, as depicted in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition PL20240011790 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and 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 F. Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney EXHIBIT A – Legal Description EXHIBIT B – Separation Exhibit Page 104 of 1321 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 105 of 1321 V VVVV V V V V V V V CARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCARTCOLLIER BOULEVARDRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD581' FROMRACETRAC132' FROM 7/11OUTPARCEL±4.1 ACRESPROPERTY GAS EXHIBIT1 REV DATE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTIONSHEET NUMBER:SCALE:PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:DATE:DRAWING NAME:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:PROTECT YOURSELFCopyright © 2024. Colliers Engineering & Design All Rights Reserved. This drawingand all the information contained herein is authorized for use only by the party forwhom the services were contracted or to whom it is certified. This drawing may notbe copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or relied upon for any other purposewithout the express written consent of Colliers Engineering & Design.ALL STATES REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OFEXCAVATORS, DESIGNERS, OR ANY PERSONPREPARING TO DISTURB THE EARTH'SSURFACE ANYWHERE IN ANY STATEFOR STATE SPECIFIC DIRECT PHONE NUMBERSVISIT: WWW.CALL811.COMC-EXBT-PROP-EASE2024\24000317A\Engineering\Exhibits\C-EXBT-PROP-EASE.dwg\C-01-PROP GAS EXBT By: TATE.MILLER Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRREVIEWED B Y :NOTE: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION.CITY OF PITTSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF CITY P L A N N I N G APPROVED: __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CITY PLANNI N G C O M M I S S I ON ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SECRETARYPhone:Engineering& Designwww.colliersengineering.comC O N S U L T I N GEngineering& DesignREV DATE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY EASEMENTEXHIBITCITY OF NAPLESCOLLIER COUNTYFLORIDAAS SHOWN09/06/24TCMRTM24000317A1.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....___________________________ofFORPTH EXTON410 Eagleview Boulevard,Suite 104Exton, PA 19341610.254.9140COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC.DOING BUSINESS AS MASER CONSULTINGDoing Business asNSEWNORTH08080160SCALE : 1" = 80'IMAGE SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO 2019Page 106 of 1321 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M. on July 17, 2025, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11-41, AS AMENDED, THE HACIENDA LAKES MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PUD, TO ADD DEVIATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING STANDARDS, BUILDING FAÇADE MASSING, LIGHT FIXTURE HEIGHTS, LOADING SPACES, LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR INTERIOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS, AND SIGNAGE, TO REVISE A TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS IN THE COMMERCIAL TRACT OF THE MPUD AND IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±25.86 ACRES OF THE ± 2,262 ACRE MPUD. [PL20240011559] AND A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING A WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.05.05.B OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COSTCO WHOLESALE, WITH A RESULTING SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 132 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE EXISTING 7-ELEVEN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL TRACT OF THE HACIENDA LAKES MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±25.86 ACRES OF THE ± 2,262 ACRE MPUD. [PL20240011790] Page 107 of 1321 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinance will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112, one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, prior to July 17, 2025. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar- of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done i n advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Bellows at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Page 108 of 1321 Collier County Planning Commission Joseph K. Schmitt, Chairman Page 109 of 1321 SOUTH FRONTAGE Page 110 of 1321 NORTH FRONTAGE Page 111 of 1321 WEST FRONTAGE Page 112 of 1321 1 LauraDeJohnVEN From:LauraDeJohnVEN Sent:Thursday, July 10, 2025 1:31 PM To:'mspokojny@aol.com' Cc:Ailyn Padron; Ray Bellows; Michael Sawyer; Michael Bosi Subject:RE: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 Milt, Thank you for providing input for the 7/17 CCPC meeting. I will include your email and attachment in the backup documentation for the meeting. Please be aware that the Traffic Study referenced in your correspondence (the applicant’s January 2025 Traffic Study) is associated with the pending Site Development Plan application (County application # PL20240000445). The Planning Commission and Board do not consider or review Site Development Plan petitions. Site Development Plans do not go to public hearing. The Planning Commission and Board will be considering these two items:  Auto Service Station Waiver of Distance (for facility with fuel pumps) - (ASW-PL20240011790)  Insubstantial Change to the PUD (PDI-PL20240011559) These two items considered by the Planning Commission and Board relate to the distance of the proposed fuel pumps from existing fuel pumps at 7-Eleven, and the deviations from design standards that are being sought related to: architectural glazing, building façade massing, light fixture heights, loading spaces, landscape standards, signage, and timing of a future transit stop/shelter at time of future development of the commercial outparcel at the SE corner of Collier Blvd/Rattlesnake Hammock. During the public hearing process, the Planning Commission and Board will be deliberating these items only. They will not be evaluating the Traffic Study that is associated with the Site Development Plan in their decision making. If you have questions on this, feel free to contact me or Ray. Thanks, Laura From: mspokojny@aol.com <mspokojny@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 10:50 AM To: LauraDeJohnVEN <Laura.DeJohn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Sean Sammon <Sean.Sammon@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov>; MILTON SPOKOJNY <mspokojny@aol.com> Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Ray Bellows Attached please find a cover and traffic analysis that I request that you include for in your packet the CCPC to review regarding the July 17, 2025 meeting before the CCPC. Thanks, Milt Spokojny Page 113 of 1321 2 On Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 09:29:43 AM EDT, Ray Bellows <ray.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote: Hi Laura, Please provide Milt Spokojny with the applicable information requested below. Thank you for your assistance. Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Office:239-252-2463 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: mspokojny@aol.com <mspokojny@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:25 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Sean Sammon <Sean.Sammon@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov>; MILTON SPOKOJNY <mspokojny@aol.com> Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Ailyn Padron suggested that I reach out to you in order to receive the following information: The Collier County Planning Department's written recommendations on Costco's request for incidental changes and the their request for a 500 foot waiver in order to construct a gas station. These are the recommendations that would be sent to the CCPC for their July 17th meeting on Costco's proposals. As always, thanks for your assistance. Page 114 of 1321 3 Milt Spokojny Sent from AOL on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "mspokojny@aol.com" <mspokojny@aol.com> To: "Ailyn Padron" <ailyn.padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: "Ray Bellows" <ray.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>, "Sean Sammon" <sean.sammon@colliercountyfl.gov>, "MILTON SPOKOJNY" <mspokojny@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 12:02 AM Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 Good morning Ailyn, I was just wondering if the agenda for the CCPC meeting on July 17th has been prepared yet. Also, has the Planning Department made their written recommendations yet on Costco's request for incidental changes and the the 500 foot waiver request to construct a gas station. Please send me these documents at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Milt Spokojny Sent from AOL on Android On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote: You’re very welcome,, Milt. Have a great day! Page 115 of 1321 4 Ailyn Padron Management Analyst I Zoning Office:239-252-5187 2800 Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov From: mspokojny@aol.com <mspokojny@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 9:38 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Sean Sammon <Sean.Sammon@colliercountyfl.gov>; MILTON SPOKOJNY <mspokojny@aol.com> Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Thank you Ailyn Sent from AOL on Android On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 9:26 AM, Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote: Good morning, Milt, Thank you for your email. Please see my responses in blue. Thank you. Page 116 of 1321 5 Ailyn Padron Management Analyst I Zoning Office:239-252-5187 2800 Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov From: mspokojny@aol.com <mspokojny@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 11:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Sean Sammon <Sean.Sammon@colliercountyfl.gov>; MILTON SPOKOJNY <mspokojny@aol.com> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Ailyn Padron Hi Ailyn, Sean Sammon suggested that I contact you regarding the upcoming Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 17th, 2025 regarding Costco's proposal to construct a Costco facility on the corner of Collier and Rattlesnake Roads. In this regard, I am a homeowner at Hacienda Lakes and have several questions. 1. When will homeowners receive official notification of the Planning Commission meeting that is scheduled for July 17, 2025.  The property owner letters were mailed out on 6/27/25 and the advertisement was published on the Clerk’s website on 6/27/25. Also, the signs have been posted on the property. Please use the link below: Search Results: – Collier Legal Notices 2. What is the mechanism for a person to speak at the Planning Commission meeting? Is there a sign in sheet and how long can a speaker speak?  The public may participate in person or virtually at the Planning Commissioner’s hearing. If the public chooses to speak in person, a speaker form will need to be filled out. The speaker forms along with the agenda will be provided at the hearing. The agenda is published a week prior to the hearing; it will include the registration link. Page 117 of 1321 6 3. What is the Zoom link for property owners to sign into to watch the meeting?; Can a homeowner address the Planning Commission via the Zoom link and what is the mechanism for doing this?  The public may watch the hearing on Collier TV. Please see below. Homepage - Collier Television  The public may participate and/ or observe through Zoom. The registration link will be included in the agenda, which is published a week prior to the hearing. If you prefer, I can add you as an attendee, however, you will still need to register virtually. Please be advised that the county is not responsible for any technical difficulties that may arise with virtual participation. 4. If a homeowner wants to send a written document to the Planning Commission for their review prior to the meeting, what is the mechanism for doing this?  I will defer this question to Ray. Respectfully submitted, Milt Spokojny 248-821-7184 Sent from AOL on Android Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 118 of 1321 July 10, 2025 Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Government Center 3303 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112-4961 Subject: Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed Costco at SR-951 and SR-863 Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for Costco by Kittelson and Associates in support of constructing a Costco warehouse at the southeast corner of Collier Blvd (SR- 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (SR-864). We understand that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and associated departments have been in the process of reviewing the study. In support of this effort, residents of Hacienda Lakes are hereby providing additional input to the review process for your consideration. In light of the large volume of new residential and commercial construction underway in the immediate area, a number of concerns have been raised by residents of Hacienda Lakes communities regarding traffic and related safety impacts that a large volume commercial enterprise (such as Costco) may create if the traffic design and controls are not optimized. We believe the CCTDR will conduct a thorough analysis, and in support of this effort we have reviewed the TIS from our own, non-professional perspective. To this end, attached is a brief review of the January 2025 Traffic Impact Study for your consideration. We hope this is constructive and helpful as you work through analysis and important decisions. A few brief observations: The TIS seems to be limited in scope with respect to areas of analysis that are of interest to the CCPC and Collier County Transportation Operations Development Review Department (CCTDR), especially Safety, Access Management and Neighborhood Impacts. For example, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and historical accidents at the intersection were not considered. Also, most of the residents in Hacienda Lakes are constricted to ingress/egress via Rattlesnake Hammock without alternative means of access to the nearest artery. Secondly, Capacity analysis appears to be somewhat fiawed in that it utilizes baseline data not refiective of true peak traffic and does not consider the rapid rate of construction in the immediate area. Also, many new communities in the area were not included in the analysis, especially those without direct access to Rattlesnake Hammock, but that do have convenient indirect access and will add to the traffic. Finally, the overall traffic fiow design is not well justifled in the TIS. The locations of access points, ineffectiveness of the access to the hospital road, number of Page 119 of 1321 entrances on Rattlesnake Hammock, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and access to Publix (requiring delays for pedestrians) should also be considered in a thoughtful design. We encourage the CCPC to request a more comprehensive traffic fiow design from Costco (or any large-scale retail or commercial enterprise considering this location), or possibly even contracting an independent professional traffic consultant to address some of these concerns. Our goal is simply to support the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the CCTDR so that the end result is not simply a code-compliant construction project, but an integrated design that attempts to optimize access, traffic fiow, safety and quality of life for residents and visitors to the Hacienda Lakes area, as well as users of these key roads. Thank you for your consideration and please let us know if further clariflcation is needed. We appreciate your willingness to listen. Sincerely, Submitted on Behalf of Residents of Esplanade and Azure at Hacienda Lakes Page 120 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 1 Overview This document summarizes observations regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis commissioned by Costco in support of potentially locating a new warehouse facility on the southeast corner of CR-951 (Collier Blvd) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Collier County. The Analysis was prepared by Kittelson and Associates (Orlando FL office) and issued in January 2025. The purpose of this summary is to provide constructive input to the Collier County Planning Commission as they consider traffic and safety concerns of the proposed project on the surrounding businesses and residents of the area, and particularly those that are not fully addressed in the Analysis. This is not an exhaustive review but hopefully it serves to highlight speciflc areas where further analysis should be considered. This summary was not prepared by professional engineers, but by residents of adjacent communities, and therefore may include inaccurate assumptions or naïve questions, so we ask the CCPC for their understanding as they consider these inputs. The Analysis appears to be thorough in its methodology, but it should be noted that: 1) There are important safety and traffic concerns that may have been outside the scope of the Analysis which should be considered, 2) It may be advisable to reflne several underlying assumptions 3) There may be changes or additions to the overall design that the CCPC could consider to result in improved safety and convenience for residents and visitors of the area. These topics are briefiy described below and speciflc cross-references to the Analysis are shown in the attached table. Traffic and Safety Concerns Outside the Scope of the Analysis • Pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Many already use the existing bike lanes and walking paths in the area and this traffic will only continue to grow with new residential construction underway. Of special concern are: crossing Collier to/from new residential buildings to/from Publix and added delays to car traffic fiow at all controlled intersections. This was not considered in the Analysis. • Impact of residential and commercial construction currently underway that is not directly on Rattlesnake Hammock. There will be signiflcant additional traffic related to developments not directly on Rattlesnake Hammock (e.g. Seven Shores, Sapphire Page 121 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 2 Cove, proposed school), a number of large residential buildings north of 7/11, Florida Sports Park, all of which will produce some traffic on Rattlesnake Hammock and to/from Costco. Also, there is a new road under construction from Rattlesnake Hammock to Seven Shores near the entrance to Azure. This was not considered in the Analysis. • Emergency access to/from Physicians Regional and the CC EMS Station. The concern is that emergency vehicle movement could be impeded by additional traffic and controlled intersections. Also, the Costco proposal includes an entrance on a hospital emergency room access road that directs exiting traffic onto the hospital property, rather than towards Collier Blvd. There would be no direct access for flre equipment to the proposed fueling area or other structures in the Costco area. This was not considered in the Analysis. • Recent accidents and fatalities at the intersection of Collier and Rattlesnake Hammock. There have been at least two fatalities in recent years at this intersection. Design and/or improvements should consider reducing such incidents. This was not considered in the Analysis. • Proximity of Costco fueling location to other adjacent fueling locations vs. County Policy. A waiver is under consideration; however, the existing policy was created out of interest in safety. Strong justiflcation should be required and made public. There are already two gasoline stations at the intersection and Costco’s additional fueling station would beneflt less than one third of the area residents (membership required). Some Assumptions and Baseline Data May Be Inaccurate • Assumed traffic growth rate of 5%/year is not based on construction plans in the whole area or real estate data. See comments below regarding pages 80-81 of the Analysis. • Baseline roadway Level of Service (LOS) does not include peak months of February and March. • Baseline traffic data was collected in May 2024 (used to deflne seasonable adjustment); actual peak season analysis not shown. Why not use actual data instead of a formula for adjustment? • Costco trip data and fueling queueing is based on national averages. North Naples store may be a better comparison due to seasonality. Additional Thoughts for Improvement • There is no rationale for the decision to install a second traffic light on Rattlesnake Hammock. The Analysis claims that other options (like a traffic circle) were analyzed, but such analysis is not provided. Perhaps there is a more effective design. Page 122 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 3 • In general, traffic fiow in the area was not optimized, only analysis of proposed changes (e.g. adding turn lanes and lights) to keep traffic within Level of Service parameters was considered. Two examples of possible improvement: a) Costco customers making U-turns on Rattlesnake Hammock or in the Hospital parking lot to get back to Collier does not make sense for good fiow. One solution would be to make the Hospital entrance road into the main Costco entrance. This could work if the Hospital would agree to share the access. b) The northbound right turn lane on Collier is often blocked today by northbound traffic at the light; this will only become worse unless the turn lane is extended or the Costco entrance on the Hospital road is changed. • The Analysis does not address Collier County Access Management Policy clause 5.02.9 or 5.02.10. A number of communities (e.g. Azure and Esplanade) rely on Rattlesnake Hammock as the only access to a main artery; residents are otherwise captive in a cul- de-sac situation. The proposed additional traffic lights and traffic on Rattlesnake Hammock signiflcantly impedes access for residents, which is important for a number of reasons. Perhaps the Hospital Road could be converted to a main entrance to Costco. This would facilitate fiow for Costco customers and may be acceptable for the Hospital since they have another existing main entrance. Page 123 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 4 Notes on Specific Pages of the Document Page Content Comment 9 The Study is based on 2023 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory (AUIR). This does NOT include data on Rattlesnake Hammock (RSH) east of Collier. This determines existing baseline assumptions regarding traffic capacity and usage at the intersection. Later in the study they simply assumed that 4% of the trips entering the intersection come from RSH east of Collier. 9 Baseline data was acquired on May 22, 2024. This obviously avoids peak season which is shown to be Week 3 – Week 15 (page 53). Therefore baseline data is not representative of peak requirements and uses a questionable seasonable adjustment factor (SF) of 1.04. Clariflcation from Collier County would be helpful as to how this factor is to be applied and to which roads (e.g. feeders vs arteries). 15 Project will generate an estimated 7,319 new net daily trips through the intersection. At the public meeting Costco told the residents it would be 4500. 18 Background traffic was assumed to grow at 4.59% per year. This is a general average, not based on speciflc analysis of known growth in the area which is not changing linearly over many years but with a number of steps up as new residence facilities open in the next 1-2 years. 20 Planned development analysis only considers projects on RSH. Analysis does not consider traffic generated by new developments with access to RSH (e.g. Seven Shores with new access road being built, properties north of 7/11, Sapphire Cove, potential school). 22 The plan proposes a right in / left out access on the hospital “driveway”. It is currently an Emergency Entrance road to the hospital emergency room. The proposal only allows traffic to enter Costco from the hospital property (westbound) and only allows traffic to exit eastbound onto the hospital property. There is not direct access to Collier Blvd. for regular traffic or flre equipment access to Costco fueling area. This right in / left out design is not practical except for construction traffic or ambulance trips to Costco. Page 124 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 5 Page Content Comment 26, 131 Turn lanes are to be constructed to the County standard which is based on speed limit. The north bound ramp from Collier to RSH is currently too short due to long wait lines at the light. This will only become worse unless the access ramp is lengthened. 28 Fueling area capacity is calculated based on national averages for Costco stores. Perhaps an analysis of the existing North Naples store at peak season would give a more accurate capacity analysis. 32 “The proposed full access driveway is projected to have inadequate capacity as a stop-controlled intersection. A traffic signal and a roundabout were evaluated as potential intersection control alternatives in an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) and Signal Warrant Analysis report under a separate cover. A traffic signal is the recommended traffic control alternative at the full access intersection.” This second traffic light and the anticipated u- turning customers from Costo will add signiflcant delays on westbound RSH. There is no analysis of this delay or associated safety considerations. The “separate cover” analysis of traffic circle vs. traffic light should be provided to local residents. 36 Planned build out year is 2026. Just an item to note. 42 “Data contained within the 2023 AUIR will be used to analyze the proposed study roadway segments.” This should be updated with 2024 or even 2025 data. This is the baseline data set used to model all assumptions. It should be as current as possible before approval. The County could require a rerun of the data tables with most recent data available (including the segment of RSH east of Collier). Page 125 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 6 Page Content Comment 47 “Level of service calculations for road facilities means calculations for peak hour traffic on a roadway segment for maximum service volumes at the adopted LOS. Peak hour is calculated as the 100th highest hour based on a 10 month period (omitting February and March), which is generally equivalent to the 250th highest hour for a twelve (12) month period. For design of roadway capacity projects, the 30th highest hour for a 12-month period at LOS "D" will be utilized.” Their method of determining traffic Level of Service (LOS) omits data from February and March. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that traffic will be actually worse than the analysis during those months. 53 Seasonable adjustment factor for May (1.04) was applied for the analysis. This avoids peak season which is shown to be Week 3 – Week 15. Therefore baseline data is not representative of peak requirements and uses a seasonable adjustment factor (SF) of 1.04 instead of 0.88 (end of Feb or early March). Why not use actual data from peak season? 67- 69 Trip generation for Supermarket exceeds assumed additional allowed traffic for out parcels. Appears to preclude a supermarket in the out parcel area. Current Publix cannot handle the anticipated volume of new residents in the immediate area. This is an unaddressed need. 70- 72 Trip generation for a Drive-in Bank is within assumed additional allowed traffic for out parcels. Nore: a bank could go in the out parcel area. 73- 75 Trip generation for a small General Office Building is within assumed additional allowed traffic for out parcels. Allows only a very small office building in the out parcel area Page 126 of 1321 Costco South Naples January 2025 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 6/24/2025 7 Page Content Comment 80- 81 Traffic growth trend analysis starts in 2018 and assumes linear growth of about 5%. Trend assumptions may not be accurate. The following are not considered in the model: Growth was typical in 2018-2019. Heavily impacted by Covid in 2020-2021. Prices and construction in South Naples peak 2022-2023. Residence inventory in South Naples continues to grow very quickly 2024-2026. Traffic load probably follows the number of residents. 84- 108 Traffic impact of new developments that are included in the analysis. Includes: Cadenza, Allegro, 7/11 & shops, Hammock Park, Watercrest (assisted living facility). Analysis does not consider traffic due to properties that are not directly on east RSH but with access roads to RSH: Sapphire Cove, Seven Shores (new road under construction), large complexes directly north of 7/11. 128 Collier County Access Management Policy Collier County will determine if clause 5.02.9 is being followed. Residents of Azure and Esplanade do not have a reasonable alternative route to a main artery except through Costo traffic and control lights. 128 Collier County Access Management Policy Collier County will determine if clause 5.02.10 is being followed. Residents of Azure and Esplanade could take the position that emergency services from Collier EMS Station at Hacienda Lakes Parkway and Caimen Dr or Physicians Regional Hospital are hampered in their access to the communities. Page 127 of 1321 Needs Analysis Proposed Automobile Service Station Costco Wholesale SE Corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road Naples, Collier County, Florida 34113 Date of Report: 14 August 2025 File Name: 25080101 – Costco Wholesale – 8392 Collier Boulevard Prepared For Costco Wholesale 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 150 Sterling, Virginia 20166 Page 128 of 1321 Page 129 of 1321 14 August 2025 Costco Wholesale c/o Mr. John Alvarado 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 150 Sterling, Virginia 20166 Attention: Mr. John Alvarado Re: Needs Analysis for the property located at 8392 Costco Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34114 (automobile service station component only) Dear Mr. Alvarado: As you requested, please find the results of our Needs Analysis for the proposed Costco Wholesale automobile service station to be located at the southeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Naples, Florida. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the local market area can support the addition of a new automobile service station without oversaturating the market and negatively impacting surrounding businesses. Based on our analysis, it is my professional opinion that the proposed project is appropriate for the market area based on the projected needs of the market over the next five years because of household growth. The projected growth in demand for gasoline within the market area of 29.09% over the next several years is greater than the 25.95% increase in supply (projected sales) that the project will introduce, resulting in a demand surplus of 3.15%. Therefore, the project is considered feasible based on the growing needs of the market area, and the project is not expected to negatively impact the market area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, Matthew S. Simmons State-Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser RD5762 State-Licensed Real Estate Broker, BK3214690 Page 130 of 1321 Page 131 of 1321 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 1 DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 PROCESS OF NEEDS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 4 MARKET AREA SELECTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 6 MARKET SUPPLY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 10 SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 AERIAL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 SITE CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 QUALIFICATIONS: MATTHEW S. SIMMONS ............................................................................................................ 21 Page 132 of 1321 Page 133 of 1321 1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT Full details about the property, site characteristics, and the proposed project can be found in the Site Characteristics section of this report and in the consultant’s workfile. The following is a summary of the proposed project: • The proposed project site consists of 1,126,462 square feet/25.86 acres of land area. • The lot is heavily wooded and appears to have a generally level topography. • The subject of the analysis consists of the Automobile Service Station portion of the development of a 162,671 square foot Costco Wholesale building. • The project also includes ±4.1 Acres designated to Future Outparcels to the west of the proposed Automobile Service Station, along Collier Boulevard. • The project is bordered by Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the north, Collier Boulevard to west, the Physicians Regional Hospital – Collier Boulevard to the south, and additional buffered tracts of developed and undeveloped land within the Hacienda Lakes CDD to the east. • The project falls within the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development, which was created in 2011 and permitted to include 1,760 homes, 327,000 square feet of retail space, 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office space, 135 hotel rooms, 140,000 gross square feet of business park or educational facility, and a school. Page 134 of 1321 2 DEMOGRAPHICS Page 135 of 1321 3 Page 136 of 1321 4 PROCESS OF NEEDS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to determine the existing and future needs of the market area and the impact of the project on the market area, we measured the projected growth in demand for gasoline and compared it to the increase of supply brought about by the proposed project development. Market Demand Analysis The market area was defined as all automobile service stations within a 10-minute drive time from the project. The analysis used demographic data for the market area, including existing and projected population and household numbers for 2025 and 2030. The current and projected household spending for gasoline within the market area was used as the measure of demand. The projected gasoline demand increase (in dollars), from 2025 to 2030, was projected to be $19,072,788, a 29.09% increase over those five years. Market Supply Analysis The average automobile service station in the market area sells approximately 4,000 gallons of gasoline per day, which translates to 28,000 gallons per week. The market area, which has 21 identified competitive automobile service stations, sells an estimated 588,000 gallons per week based on average sales per station. The proposed automobile service station is projected by Costco Wholesale to sell 9,900,000 gallons over the course of one year, which equates to 190,385 gallons per week. By adding the supply from new project's volume of projected gallons sold, the total market area supply will increase to 778,385 gallons per week (measured in sales). The supply increase from the new project is calculated to be 25.95%. Page 137 of 1321 5 MARKET AREA SELECTION The market area of the project was selected to be all automobile service stations within a 10-minute drive time from the site of the proposed project. These boundaries were deemed appropriate as they encompass service stations that may be reasonably expected to serve the same customers. It should be noted that many proposed commercial projects have primary and secondary market areas (the areas from which they draw customers) that extend beyond the criteria used within this analysis. The subject project, Costco Wholesale, is a use that falls into this category. However, expected gasoline sales, within this analysis, does not account for the additional demand that Costco will create as a result of consumers drawn to their warehouse. This geographic segmentation is also used as the area where existing and projected households are most applicable for the demand analysis. Using this criteria, 21 existing automobile service stations were selected as competitive stations for use in the supply analysis. The image below depicts the area applicable to this criteria. Page 138 of 1321 6 MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS The first step of the analysis is to determine population and number of households in the market area both in the current year and as projected in 2030 (Page 8). This is done to determine the growth of the market area and expected growth in gasoline sales based on household spending behavior. 2025 2030 Population 39,641 44,523 Households 19,908 23,016 Table 1.1 Next, we take the average amount spent annually on gasoline per household (Appendix B) and multiply by the number of households to calculate the projected dollars spent on gasoline within the market area. 2025 2030 Avg Amount Spent on Gasoline per Household $3,293 $3,677 Total Spent in Market Area $65,557,044 $84,629,832 Table 1.2 The final step is to measure the growth in dollars spent on gasoline over the 5-year period by taking the difference of 2030’s dollars spent on gasoline in the market and subtracting it from 2025’s dollars spent. This increase of $19,072,788 is equivalent to a 29.09% increase from 2025 to 2030. Total Dollars Percentage Demand Increase from 2025 to 2030 $19,072,788 29.09% Table 1.3 Page 139 of 1321 7 MARKET SUPPLY ANALYSIS The first step to analyze the increase in supply that this project would bring to the market area is to find the number of automobile service stations within the market area and calculate how many gallons of gasoline they sell. Per Station Market Area (21 Stations) Gallons Sold Per Day 4,000 84,000 Gallons Sold Per Week 28,000 588,000 Gallons Sold Per Month 120,000 2,520,000 Table 2.1: (Appendix D) Next, we calculate the amount of gallons sold in the market area with and without the project. Costco provided projected sales for the project (Appendix E) and estimate 190,385 gallons to be sold in the first year. Gallons Sold per Week Market Area 588,000 Project 190,385 Market Area with Project 778,385 Table 2.2 The next step is to calculate the consumption of the average car per week in order to back out the amount of cars stopping for gas in the area per week. First, we take the Average Annual Fuel Cost Per Car (Appendix B) of $3,293 and divide it by the Average Car Per Household statistic of 1.64 (Appendix A) to get the Average Annual Fuel Cost Per Car of $2,007.93. Then we can divide that by the Average Price Per Gallon of $3.13 (Appendix C) to get Annual Gallons consumed per Car of 642.47 or 12.36 per week. Averaged Statistics Cars Per Household 1.64 Spent on Gas Per Household $3,293 Annual Fuel Cost Per Car $2,007.93 Price Per Gallon $3.13 Annual Gallons Consumed Per Car 642.47 Gallons Consumed Per Car Per Week 12.36 Table 2.3 Page 140 of 1321 8 Next, we take the gallons sold in the market area including the new project (Table 2.2) and divide it by the gallons consumed per car per week (Table 2.3) to calculate the number of cars stopping in our market area. Supply of Market Area ( Number of Cars) Gallons Sold in Market Area with Project 778,385 Avg Gallons Consumed Per Car Per Week 12.36 Transactions (Cars) per Week 63,001 Table 2.4 Next, we take the projected cars to visit the project from Appendix E Cars per Week at Project Transaction (Cars) per Year 850,000 Transaction (Cars) per Week 16,346 Table 2.6 Finally, we can calculate the supply increase brought about by the new project by taking the Supply of the Project (Table 2.6) and dividing it by the Supply of the Market Area with the Project (Table 2.4) Project Share of Supply Market Area with Project Supply 63,001 Project Supply 16,346 Project Share of Supply 25.95% Table 2.7 Page 141 of 1321 9 CONCLUSION Based on the Needs Analysis and the provided data, the proposed Costco Wholesale automobile service station is positioned to be a significant benefit to the local market by directly addressing the rising demand for gasoline. The comprehensive analysis confirms a robust and growing need within the market area, which is defined as a 10-minute drive-time from the project site. The demand for gasoline is projected to increase by a substantial 29.09% over the next five years. This growth is a direct result of the demographic trends in the area, including a projected increase in population from 39,641 to 44,523 and households from 19,908 to 23,016 between 2025 and 2030. The average household's spending on gasoline is also expected to rise, from $3,293 to $3,677, further highlighting the increasing market need. The project will introduce a much-needed increase in supply to meet this growing demand. With a projected first-year sales volume of 9,900,000 gallons, the project will add approximately 190,385 gallons per week to the market's total supply. When considering the new project, the total weekly supply in the market will increase to 778,385 gallons, resulting in a 25.95% supply increase. The key finding is that the projected demand increase of 29.09% is greater than the project's 25.95% share of projected supply. This leaves a 3.14% demand surplus, which demonstrates a clear and justifiable need for the project. The new automobile service station will not oversaturate the market or negatively impact surrounding businesses; instead, it will play a crucial role in satisfying the growing fuel requirements of a thriving and expanding community. Page 142 of 1321 10 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SITE PLAN Page 143 of 1321 11 AERIAL Page 144 of 1321 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ADDRESS: 8392 Collier Boulevard TAX ID: 48586002021 LOCATION/ACCESS/ EXPOSURE: The subject property is located in unincorporated Collier County, 4 miles south of the I75 and Collier Blvd intersection. The property is located on the southeast corner of the Collier Blvd and Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. Vehicular access will primarily be from the two primary entrances on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Overall, access to the subject property as well as exposure is considered to be good. SIZE (SITE AREA)/SHAPE: Site Area (sq. ft.) 1,126,462± Site Area (acres) 25.86± Shape Rectangular PHYSICAL FEATURES (TOPOGRAPHY, ELEVATION, ETC.): The subject property is a wooded, undeveloped lot with a relatively flat topography. It is bordered by Physicians Regional Hospital to the South, Ekos Cadenza (Apartment Complex) to the East and Roads to the North and West. UTILITIES: The property is serviced with full utilities, including electricity provided by Florida Power and Light, telephone service by Century Link, and central water/sewer from Collier County Public Utilities. Police and fire protection are provided by Collier County services. The capacity of these services appears to be adequate for the proposed development. FLOOD ZONE: The subject property is located within Flood Zone AH primarily with patches of X zoning on the westerly parts of the parcel as found on Flood Map Panel ID #12021C0606J, dated 2 August 2024. EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, ETC.: There are no known adverse easements, encroachments, restrictions, encumbrances, leases, reservations, covenants, contracts, declarations, special assessments, ordinances or other items of a similar nature. Page 145 of 1321 13 ZONING: The subject property is zoned Mixed Planned Use Development District (MPUD) as per Collier County Land Development Code: Mixed use planned unit development district (MPUD). This district is intended to accommodate a planned unit development with more than one type of PUD district. The PUD document shall define the mixture of PUD districts as set forth in this section. FUTURE LAND USE: The subject property is designated Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) according to Collier County’s Comprehensive Plan. ASSESSED VALUE, TAXES, AND ASSESSMENTS: Tax Year Market Assessed Value Taxable Value Taxes & Assess. 2024 $4,191,345 $4,191,345 $42,206.85 Taxing Authority Millage Rate General Fund 3.0107 Unincorp. Gen - MSTD 0.6844 Conservation Collier 0.2096 C.C. Water Pollution Ctrl PGM 0.0246 School Board - Local Board 2.2312 School Board - State Law 2.0820 Greater Naples Fire Rescue Dis 1.5000 Collier Mosquito Control 0.1349 Big Cypress Basin 0.0978 Water Management Fund-South Fl 0.0948 TOTAL AD VALOREM 10.0700 Page 146 of 1321 14 APPENDIX APPENDIX A The US Census Bureau tracks the percentage of households with 0, 1, 2, and 3 or more cars within the US. Using their data we can find the average car per household in Collier County. https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/vehicles Number of Cars Percentage Average Car Per Household 0 4.5% 0 1 41.40% .414 2 40.10% .802 3+ 14.0% .042 1.64 Page 147 of 1321 15 APPENDIX B In order to find the Average Amount Spent on Gasoline per Household we used Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc’s (ESRI) estimation for 2025 and 2030. As seen in the excerpt below, ESRI uses United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Reports to build out these estimates. Page 148 of 1321 16 Page 149 of 1321 17 APPENDIX C Stations within 10-minute drive-time market area. Map ID Facility Name Site Address Gas Price 1 RaceTrac 8483 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34113 $3.07 2 Marathon 8901 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 $3.30 3 Chevron 8900 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 $3.20 4 Shell 3825 Tollgate Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 $3.40 5 RaceTrac 8485 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 N/A 6 Circle K 8600 Radio Ln, Naples, FL 34104 $3.17 7 Wawa 12456 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34113 $3.05 8 BP 11339 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34113 $3.20 9 Wawa 4939 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34113 $3.06 10 Murphy USA 6630 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 $3.04 11 RaceTrac 6170 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 $3.06 12 Circle K 6100 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 $3.05 13 Shell 12800 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34114 $3.02 14 7-Eleven 12750 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34113 N/A 15 7-Eleven 8570 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 $3.04 16 Shell 8101 Sorrento Ln, Naples, FL 34114 $3.11 17 Pump & Munch 9995 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34113 N/A 18 Shell 4716 Tamiami Trl E, Naples, FL 34112 $3.00 19 Mobil 6300 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 3.16 20 Shell 3835 White Lake Blvd, Naples, FL $3.16 21 Mobil 11655 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34116 $3.06 Average $3.13 Page 150 of 1321 18 Page 151 of 1321 19 APPENDIX D The National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) that “The average fueling location sells about 4,000 gallons of gas per day, while hypermarkets/big-box stores with larger forecourts often sell five times more. This leads us to build Table 2.1, where we calculate the Market Area to sell 448,000 gallons a week (16 convenience store stations x 28,000 gallons sold in a week). Page 152 of 1321 20 APPENDIX E We were provided projected sales for the new project by Costco representatives. They project 9,900,000 gallons of gas to be sold in the first year of operations. Using this data we can determine: 9,900,000 gallons in Year 825,000 gallons per Month 190,384.62 gallons per week 27,123.29 gallons per day And 850,000 Transactions in Year 70,833 Transactions in Month 16,346 Transactions in Week 2,335 Transactions a Day Page 153 of 1321 21 QUALIFICATIONS: MATTHEW S. SIMMONS Educational Background and Training Bachelor of Science in Business Management (2008) Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida. Appraisal Board Course I - ABI, Steve Williamson’s Real Estate Education Specialists (2003) Orlando, Florida. Real Estate Transactions, Florida Gulf Coast University (2003) Fort Myers, Florida. Various Appraisal Institute Courses Appraisal Board Course II - ABII, Academy of Real Estate (2005) Fort Myers, Florida. 63 - hour Sales Associate Pre-License Course, Career Web School (2008) Experience Gulf Coast Appraisal and Consulting Services, Inc., Cape Coral, Florida – Associate (2003) Gulf Coast Appraisal and Associates, Inc., Cape Coral, Florida - Associate (2003-2005) Maxwell & Hendry Valuation Services, Inc., Fort Myers, Florida - Residential Division Manager (2005-2013) Maxwell, Hendry & Simmons, LLC, Fort Myers, Florida - Partner (2013-Present) Professional Affiliations State-Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser, RD5762 State-Licensed Real Estate Broker, BK3214690 Qualified as an expert witness in the Florida District Court: 7th Judicial Circuit, 20th Judicial Circuit Qualified as an expert witness in U.S. District Court: Middle District of Florida Qualified as an expert witness in St. Croix County, Wisconsin Realtor Association of Greater Fort Myers and the Beach, Inc. – Member (2009–Present) National Association of Realtors - Member (2009–Present) Real Estate Investment Society REIS - President (2015) Sanibel-Captiva Chamber of Commerce - Member (2006–Present) Southwest Florida Museum of History Foundation - Board Member (2014–2016) HUD FHA Approved Appraiser Associate Member of the Appraisal Institute (2011–Present) Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board - FREAB - Gubernatorial Appointed Board Member (2012–2016) Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board - FREAB - Chairman (2014) IMAG History & Science Center – Board of Directors (2016–Present) L.E.A.D. Foundation of SWFL - President (2017–Present) Re-certification As of the date of this report, I, Matthew S. Simmons, have completed the requirements under the continuing education program for the State of Florida. Page 154 of 1321 Page 155 of 1321 Page 156 of 1321 Page 157 of 1321 Page 158 of 1321 Page 159 of 1321 Page 160 of 1321 Page 161 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 9.B ID# 2025-2442 PL2025000180 - Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections-An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, As Amended - The Collier County Land Development Code, which Includes The Comprehensive Land Regulations For The Unincorporated Area Of Collier County, Florida, To Update Procedures and Requirements for Public Hearings For Land Use Petitions, By Providing For: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings Of Fact; Section Three, Adoption Of Amendments To The Land Development Code, More Specifically Amending The Following: Chapter One – General Provisions, Including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts And Uses, Including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Chapter Four – Site Design And Development Standards, Including Section 4.02.16 Design Standards For Development In The Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area, Section 4.05.02 Design Standards, Section 4.08.06 SSA Designation; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, Including Section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities, Section 5.04.08 Film Permit; Chapter Eight – Decision-Making And Administrative Bodies, Including Section 8.10.00 Hearing Examiner; Chapter Nine – Variations From Code Requirements, Including Section 9.02.06 Required Notices For Vested Rights Determination Process, Including Public Hearings, Section 9.03.02 Requirements For Continuation Of Nonconformities, Section 9.03.03 Types Of Nonconformities, Section 9.03.07 Nonconformities Created Or Increased By Public Acquisition, Section 9.04.06 Specific Requirements For Variance To The Coastal Setback Line; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, And Decision-Making Procedures, Including Section 10.02.03 Requirements For Site Development, Site Improvement Plans And Amendments Thereof, Section 10.02.04 Requirements For Subdivision Plats, Section 10.02.05 Construction, Approval, And Acceptance Of Required Improvements, Section 10.02.06 Requirements For Permits, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures, Section 10.02.15 Requirements For Mixed Use Projects Within The Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area, Section 10.03.06 Public Notice And Required Hearings For Land Use Petitions, Section 10.04.04 Applications Subject To Type III Review, And Section 10.08.00 Conditional Use Procedures; Section Four, Conflict And Severability; Section Five, Inclusion In The Collier County Land Development Code; And Section Six, Effective Date. (Coordinator: Richard Henderlong, Planner III) ATTACHMENTS: 1. PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025) Page 162 of 1321 1 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20250000180 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT In multiple LDC sections, this amendment shall rectify and clarify legal advertisements, contradictory statements and inconsistencies with respective advisory board or agency’s public hearing reviews for land use petitions held by the Environmental Advisory Council, Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners or Board of Zoning Appeals. Procedural changes to the Administrative Code are a part of this amendment. ORIGIN Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED BCC TBD 1.08.02 2.03.07 4.02.16 4.05.02 4.08.06 5.03.06 5.04.08 8.10.00 9.02.06 9.03.02 9.03.03 9.03.07 9.04.06 10.02.03 10.02.04 10.02.05 10.02.06 10.02.13 10.02.15 10.03.06 10.04.04 10.08.00 Definitions Overlay Zoning Districts Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area. Design Standards SSA Designation Dock Facilities Film Permit Hearing Examiner Required Notices for Vested Rights Determination Process, Including Public Hearings Requirements for Continuation of Nonconformities Types of Nonconformities Nonconformities Created or Increased by Public Acquisition Specific Requirements for Variance to the Coastal Setback Line Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats Construction, Approval, and Acceptance of Required Improvements Requirements for Permits Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions Applications Subject to Type III Review Conditional Use Procedures CCPC 09/18/2025 DSAC 04/02/2025 DSAC-LDR 03/18/2025 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval with recommendations DSAC Approval with recommendations CCPC TBD BACKGROUND During the 2023 Comprehensive Administrative Code for Land Development (ACLD) update review by the Page 163 of 1321 2 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), staff received comments and suggestions from members of the commission on “insubstantial and substantial” changes that could correct inconsistencies and ambiguity between the Land Development Code (LDC) and administrative code procedures. The assignment of land use petitions as stated in the power and duties of the Hearing Examiner and Planning Commissioners were reviewed and where conflicts with assignments occurred among the Code of Ordinances and Laws, LDC and Administrative Code, staff incorporated the Planning Commission’s insubstantial amendment changes as a first group of changes to the administrative code that were adopted by the Board on December 12, 2023. At the same time, the CCPC had reviewed the insubstantial changes, the CCPC requested staff to bring forward to the Board’s attention the following recommendations: • Provide “a built-in layer of review” by the CCPC before an administrative code amendment goes to the Board. • Correct inconsistencies or ambiguity between the LDC and administrative procedures as to who has what role. • The staff person, facilitator, shall emphasize neutrality and enforce the LDC or see to it that the LDC and the Administrative Code for Land Development are being followed by the applicant at a NIM. • Decide which matters come to the CCPC and those matters to the Hearing Examiner (HEX). • Add a definition for “Comparable Use Determination.” • Delete outdated text related to the HEX’s role as a member of the planning commission. • Add a provision to allow the Board to remand any advertised public hearing, involving a development order, to the Hearing Examiner for the purpose of opining on a legal or technical land use issue during the hearing. • For SDP, SIP, PPLs, and acceptance of required subdivision improvements, construction plans, and amendments thereof, replace the requirement to submit 1 disk (CDROM) with “an acceptable electronic” master plan file. • Clarify a Comparable Use Determination shall only apply to a site specific property that is seeking a comparable use determination. • In LDC section 10.02.13, establish that a petition for a new PUD document which repeals the previously approved PUD document is deemed to be a substantial change. • Include procedures for a petition to rezone from a PUD to PUD district. • For a variance request from the Coastal Construction Setback Line, specify either the Hearing Examiner or Board may consider the variance pursuant to public notice and hearing requirements. • Require the posting of a sign prior to an advertised hearing for Site Plans with Deviations for Redevelopment, Deviations in the GGPOD, LDBPA, and DRIs applications. • Clarify the required notice procedures for the establishment, amendment to, or the abandonment of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). • For consistency with these substantial application changes, update and revise the Type III review applications graphic in Appendix B. • When minor conditional uses or amendments are determined to be a matter of great public interest or concern and do not require an EAC review, a hearing by the HEX shall be required. At the discretion of the HEX the matter, may be directed to be heard by the Planning Commission in an advisory capacity and then by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or by the Commissioner of the District in which the matter is located. This second group of amendments are ratifying changes to application review requirements and land use petitions. They represent staff’s recommendations from prior meetings held on or after March 02, 2023, with the Planning Page 164 of 1321 3 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Commission and the HEX. Additionally, corrections are included to update textual and submittal requirements. The proposed LDC amendments achieve the following: For each respective advisory board or reviewing agency, the procedural review changes are summarized as follows: Board of County Commissioners • BCC by majority vote may remand any advertised public hearing involving a development order to the Hearing Examiner for a non-binding recommendation on a legal or technical land use issue. • MUPs that do not meet the threshold for administrative approval require a public hearing review and approval by the BCC. • For a rezoning, rezoning from PUD to PUD, PUD amendment, or conditional use land use petition, clarify one CCPC and one BCC hearing are required. • Allow a Board District Commissioner to direct a minor conditional use change or amendment to be heard by the CCPC and then by the BZA. Board of Zoning Appeals • For a Comparable Use Determination, clarify a BZA hearing for the approval is required if the HEX has a conflict. • Pursuant to ordinance 2024-11, the Board repealed LDC section 9.04.05 which deleted Flood Variances as an application subject to Type III Review. Collier County Planning Commission • For a Nonconforming Use Change (NUC), Nonconforming Structure, or Nonconforming Use Alteration (NUA) petition, clarify the CCPC’s and HEX’s procedural review and recommendations prior to the BZA hearing. In the event the HEX has a conflict, the CCPC hearing would occur. • For a Comparable Use Determination (CUD) at a site-specific location, require CCPC’s recommendation to the BZA, if the HEX has a conflict. • Clarify for Mixed Use Projects (MUPs), within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, which do not meet the thresholds for administrative approval be reviewed by the CCPC, in an advertised public hearing, and then by the BCC. • For Parking Exemption (PE) petitions, clarify a HEX advertised public hearing is required and if the HEX has a conflict, a recommendation by the CCPC and one BZA hearing. • The following petition types will be heard by the CCPC, if the HEX has a conflict: Alcohol Beverage Distance Waiver, Boathouse Establishment, Boat Dock Facility Extension including Boat Lift Canopy Deviation, Comparable Use Determination, Facility with Fuel Pumps Waiver, Minor PUD change to remove affordable housing when written objection is received, and PUD Insubstantial Changes including Minor Text Changes. Hearing Examiner • Establish that the HEX shall review, approve, approve with conditions, or deny a petition request for PUD Insubstantial Changes (PDI), boat dock extensions and boathouse establishments (BD) and boat lift canopy deviations (BLCD). • On a petition for Parking Exemptions (PE) to locational requirements, clarify that the HEX shall make a decision and if not heard by the HEX, then by the BZA. Page 165 of 1321 4 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx • Require Post Take Plans(PTSP) petition to be heard by the HEX and if HEX decision is appealed, heard by the BZA. • For Variances to the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSV) petitions establish the HEX shall review and approve the request. If the HEX’s decision is appealed or has a conflict then the BCC shall hold an advertised public hearing. • For an Appeal of Official Interpretation (AOI) require the HEX’s decision or if directed by the Board then a BZA hearing. • For a Minor Change to a PUD to remove affordable housing contributions and a written objection has been received, clarify the hearing shall be held by the HEX. If the HEX has a conflict, then the CCPC shall conduct the advertised public hearing. • Reaffirm Facilities with Fuel Pump (FFPW) and Alcohol Beverage Distance Waivers (ABDW) petitions are heard by the HEX and if the HEX has a conflict, then by the BZA. • When petitions for Minor Conditional Use changes or amendments are a matter of concern or great public interest, they shall be heard by the HEX, unless a Board District’s Commissioner directs the change or amendment to be heard by the CCPC and then by the BZA. The amendment further updates the LDC notice procedures and legal advertisements to conform with Ordinance 2023-37, “Legal Advertisements and Public Notices”, for publishing legal advertisements and notices on the County’s official website that is accessible by the Internet . Unless otherwise requested by a petitioner, all legal advertisements with be published on the County’s publicly accessible website in accordance with F.S. 50.011. (Exhibit B) Once the County uses the publicly accessible website to publish legal required advertisements and public notices, it shall provide at least once per year in a newspaper of general circulation (Naples Daily News) or another publication that is mailed or delivered to all residents and property owners throughout the county’s jurisdiction, indicating that property owners and residents may receive legally required advertisements and public notices from the County by first-class mail or e-mail upon registering their name and address or e-mail address with the County (Reference F.S. 50.0311 (6)). Exhibit C lists the public hearing requirements by petition type as heard by the Board, BZA, CCPC and HEX. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendations: On March 18, 2025, the subcommittee recommended approval with the following changes and considerations: 1) Clarify if a PUD minor text change is heard by HEX or approved by staff. 2) Modify the comparable use definition to state it is “A process, in accordance with LDC section 10.03.06, to determine whether a use not specifically identified within a conventional zoning district, overlay or PUD ordinance is comparable, compatible, and consistent with the list of uses…” 3) In LDC section 10.02.13 E.1, check if it is necessary to state a new PUD is a substantial change and repeals an older PUD. 4) After reviewing DSAC discussion of Insubstatial Construction Plan (ICP) submittals, in Chapter 5.E.2 of the administrative code consider adding a Landscape Architect as a licensed professional to sign ICPs when related to landscaping and irrigation under the Application Content subjection of the code. 5) Add back the word “raised” on line 48 of the Remand of Development Order to read “… or technical land use issue raised during the hearing.” 6) Throughout LDC section 10.03.06 Public Notice procedures, check the applicable citation of F.S. 50.0311 versus 50.011. 7) Correct the misspelling of the word “Variances” in the Type III chart of LDC section 10.04.04. Page 166 of 1321 5 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx The aforementioned items 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 have been addressed within the revised draft. Staff agrees that Item 3 be deleted for the reason the County Attorney’s Office can obligate when an older PUD ordinance should become a new PUD ordinance. Lastly, item 4 must be voted upon by DSAC before staff can proceed to amend Chapter 5.E.2 of the Administrative Code. DSAC Recommendations: On April 02, 2025, DSAC recommended, by unanimous approval, staff’s changes and to add in the Administrative Code, relative to Submittal Credentials for an Insubstantial Change to Construction Plans (ICPs) and minor Site Development Plan change (SDPI), that submittals “… be prepared by a licensed professional in the State of Florida qualified to design the proposed change and willing to take on the liability.” This change would occur, under the Application Contents subsection to Chapter 4.I.5 and Chapter 5.E.2 of the Administrative Code as follows: “For streetlighting design changes, the submittal shall be prepared by a license professional in the State of Florida qualified to take on the liability for the proposed design change.” After DSAC’s meeting, staff reviewed the Florida State Regulation of Professions and Occupations, Chapter 481.303 F. S., Part II for Landscape Architecture and found it does not specially authorize streetlighting plans or photometrics as a professional service for Landscape Architecture. However, the Board of Professional Engineers, by F.A.C. 61G15-33.004: Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers Concerning the Design of Electrical Systems, does address the Design of Lighting Systems and more specifically “F.A.C. 61G15-33.010 Certification of Electrical Systems of Public Interest”. The Certification of Electrical System requires the following; “(1) The Engineer of Record shall when required by applicable codes or ordinances, demonstrate verification of compliance; (2) The verification of compliance must include the following information, if applicable to the particular project: (a) energy efficiency, conservation tabulations, statements or calculations, (b) Lighting performance criteria included in the design that show illuminated levels, intrusion, trespass, dark sky, safety or that show/preserve natural habitat tendencies, (c) Lighting, sound pressure, or other product or installation specifications that indicate conformance with community, county, or state standards, codes or ordinances, and (3) Any such verification shall constitute an Engineering Certification as that term is defined in 61G15-18.011(4), F.A.C., and must comply with all Responsibility Rules, including Rule 61G15-29.001, F.A.C.” Staff prefers to amend all related LDC and Administrative Code sections by adding the term “professional engineer” to an existing Electrical Engineer certification requirement. Pursuant to 61G15-33.002. F.A.C:” An Engineer of Record for the Electrical System is a Florida Professional Engineer who develops the electrical system design criteria or performs the analysis and is responsible for the preparation of the Electrical Documents for the project.” If the Planning Commission approves staff’s or DSAC’s recommendation, it will entail various LDC sections to be amended as follows (see text in blue italics): • LDC section 6.06.03 D.1. “Where streetlights are to be installed on private streets, the developer, through a professional or electrical engineer registered in the State of Florida…;” • LDC section 10.02.04 B 2.e. iv. Improvements for Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plats (PPLs), “Street lighting. Plans for streetlights…shall be designed by the applicant’s a professional engineer.”; and • LDC section 10.02.11 A. Streetlights. “All street lighting plans shall be prepared by an professional or electrical engineer.”. The Administrative Code would accordingly be amended: • Chapter 5 E.1. In this subsection, Requirements for Construction Plans, the change to the 3rd sentence would be: “The streetlight plans shall be signed and sealed by an irrigation designer or landscape architect a professional or electrical engineer registered in the State of Florida.”. • Chapter 5 E.2. In this subsection, Insubstantial Change to Construction Plans (ICP), the text would remain the same as follows: “Submittal Credentials: Construction plans for all of the improvements Page 167 of 1321 6 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx required shall be signed and sealed by the applicant’s professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Florida.”. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the County, except for the cost of advertising an ordinance amending the LDC, which is estimated $50.00. Funds are available within the Unincorporated Area General Fund (1011) and Zoning & Land Development Cost Center (138319). GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Administrative Code Changes B) 2024 F.S.Chapter 50-Legal and Offical Advertisements C) Public Hearing Requirements by Petition Type Page 168 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 7 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 1.08.02 – Definitions 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Comparable Use Determination: - A process, in accordance with LDC section 10.03.06 K, to 6 determine whether a use for a site specific location that is not expressly listed within a 7 conventional zoning district, overlay, or PUD ordinance is comparable in nature and consistent 8 with the list of identified permitted uses in a conventional zoning district, overlay, or PUD 9 ordinance. 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 13 14 4.02.16 – Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community 15 Redevelopment Area 16 17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 19 C. Additional Standards for Specific Uses. Certain uses may be established, constructed, 20 continued, and/or expanded provided they meet certain mitigating standards specific to 21 their design and/or operation. These conditions ensure compatibility between land uses 22 and building types and minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 26 13. Limited Density Bonus Pool Allocation (LDBPA) for multi-family or mixed use 27 developments on two contiguous acres or less. 28 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 30 31 c. Public notice. Public notice, notice to property owners, and an advertised 32 public hearing, is required and shall be provided in accordance with the 33 applicable provisions of LDC section 10.03.06 R. and Chapter 6 of the 34 Administrative Code. 35 36 d. Evaluation criteria. The application shall be reviewed by the Hearing 37 Examiner, or CCPC, if the Hearing Examiner has a conflict, then by the 38 Planning Commission for compliance with the following standards of 39 approval: 40 41 i. The proposed development is consistent with the GMP. 42 43 ii. The development shall have a beneficial effect upon the 44 neighborhood and advance a Goal, Objective, or Strategy of the 45 adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment 46 Plan. 47 48 Page 169 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 8 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx iii. Internal driveways, utilities, drainage facilities, recreation areas, 1 building heights, yards, architectural features, vehicular parking, 2 loading facilities, sight distances, landscaping and buffers shall be 3 adequate for the particular use involved. 4 5 iv. Vehicular access to the project shall not be gated. 6 7 v. The petition has provided compatibility enhancements by 8 exceeding minimum buffer requirements or incorporating 9 streetscape enhancements. 10 11 vi. Compliance with the public realm improvement requirements in 12 LDC section 4.02.16 C.15. 13 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 16 17 2.03.07 - Overlay Zoning Districts 18 19 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20 21 E. Historical and Archaeological Sites (H). It is the intent of these regulations to recognize 22 the importance and significance of the County's historical and archaeological heritage. To 23 that end, it is the county's intent to protect, preserve, and perpetuate the County's historic 24 and archaeological sites, districts, structures, buildings, and properties. Further, the BCC, 25 finds that these regulations are necessary to protect the public interest, to halt illicit digging 26 or excavation activities which could result in the destruction of prehistoric and historic 27 archaeological sites, and to regulate the use of land in a manner which affords the 28 maximum protection to historical and archaeological sites, districts, structures, buildings, 29 and properties consistent with individual property rights. It is not the intent of this LDC to 30 deny anyone the use of his property, but rather to regulate the use of such property in a 31 manner which will ensure, to the greatest degree possible, that historic and archaeological 32 sites, districts, structures, buildings, and properties are protected from damage, 33 destruction, relocations, or exportations. 34 35 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 36 37 2. Applicability during development review process; county projects; agriculture; 38 waiver request. 39 40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 42 q. The designation of specific sites, structures, buildings, districts, and 43 properties may be initiated by the preservation board or by the property 44 owner. Upon consideration of the preservation board's report, findings, and 45 recommendations and upon consideration of the criteria and guidelines set 46 forth in section 203.07 E, the Board of County Commissioners shall 47 approve, by resolution, or deny a petition for historic designation. The 48 application shall be in a form provided by the County Manager or designee. 49 Property owners of record whose land is under consideration for 50 Page 170 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 9 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx designation initiated by the preservation board shall be provided two 1 notices by certified mail return receipt requested, at least 30 days but no 2 more than 45 days prior to any hearing regarding the historic designation 3 by the preservation board or the board of county commissioners. The first 4 notice shall provide all pertinent information regarding the designation and 5 the preservation board's scheduled meeting date to consider the site. The 6 second notice shall indicate when the board of county commissioners will 7 consider official designation of the site. Notice of public hearing shall be 8 legally advertised in a newspaper of general circulation 15 days prior to the 9 public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners. Each designated 10 site, district, structure, property or building shall have a data file maintained 11 by the preservation board. The file shall contain at a minimum: site location; 12 the historical, cultural, or archaeological significance of the site; and the 13 specific criteria from this section qualifying the site. An official listing of all 14 sites and properties throughout Collier County that reflect the prehistoric 15 occupation and historical development of Collier County and its 16 communities, including information, maps, documents and photographic 17 evidence collected to evaluate or substantiate the designation of a 18 particular site, structure, building, property or district shall be maintained at 19 the Collier County Museum. The Collier County Museum shall coordinate 20 preservation and or restoration efforts for any historical/archaeological 21 designated building, structure, site, property, or district that is donated to or 22 acquired by Collier County for public use. 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 26 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 27 28 4.05.02 – Design Standards 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 K. Exemptions to locational requirements. 33 34 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 35 36 3. Parking exemption. 37 38 a. The Hearing Examiner, or BZA, after review and recommendation by the 39 pPlanning cCommission, may approve a parking exemption under the 40 following circumstances: 41 42 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 43 44 b. The Hearing Examiner, or pPlanning cCommission and the BZA shall 45 consider the following criteria for the approval of a parking exemption: 46 47 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 48 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 49 50 Page 171 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 10 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 4.08.06 - SSA Designation 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 E. SSA Application Approval Process. 5 6 1. Public Hearing. The BCC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed 7 resolution approving an SSA Application and SSA Credit Agreement. Notice of the 8 Board's intention to consider the Application and proposed SSA Credit Agreement 9 shall be given at least fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing by legal advertisement 10 publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County. A copy of such 11 notice shall be kept available for public inspection during regular business hours 12 of the Office of Clerk to the BCC. The notice of proposed hearing shall state the 13 date, time and place of the meeting, the title of the proposed resolution, and the 14 place or places within the County where the proposed resolution and agreement 15 may be inspected by the public. The notice shall provide a general description and 16 a map or sketch of the affected land and shall advise that interested parties may 17 appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed resolution. The 18 BCC shall review the staff report and recommendations and, if it finds that all 19 requirements for designation have been met, shall, by resolution, approve the 20 application. If it finds that one or more of the requirements for designation have not 21 been met, it shall either deny the application or approve it with conditions 22 mandating compliance with all unmet requirements. Approval of such resolution 23 shall require a majority vote by the BCC. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 27 28 5.03.06 – Dock Facilities 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 F. Standards for boathouses. Boathouses, including any roofed structure built on a dock, 33 shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission Hearing Examiner, or if Hearing Examiner 34 has a conflict, then by the Planning Commission according to the following criteria, all of 35 which must be met in order for the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission to approve 36 the request: 37 38 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 39 40 G. Standards for boat lift canopies. 41 42 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 43 44 3. If an applicant wishes to construct a boat lift canopy that does not meet the 45 standards of subsection 5.03.06 G. above, then a petition for a boat lift canopy 46 deviation may be made to the Hearing Examiner, or if the Hearing Examiner has 47 a conflict, then by the Planning Commission which shall review a sufficient 48 petition application and either approve or deny the request. 49 50 Page 172 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 11 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx H. Dock facility extension. Additional protrusion of a dock facility into any waterway beyond 1 the limits established in LDC subsection 5.03.06 E. may be considered appropriate under 2 certain circumstances. In order for the Hearing Examiner, or if the Hearing Examiner has 3 a conflict, then by the Planning Commission to approve the boat dock extension request, 4 it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 5 secondary criteria, have been met. These criteria are as follows: 6 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 2. Secondary criteria: 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 13 g. If deemed necessary based upon review of the above criteria, the Hearing 14 Examiner or Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the 15 approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish 16 the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the 17 public. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, greater side 18 setback(s), and provision of light(s), additional reflectors, or reflectors 19 larger than four (4) inches. 20 21 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 23 24 5.04.08 Film Permit 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 28 F. Issuance of Permit. Upon presentation of the completed application, proof of insurance, 29 payment of permit fee, surety bond or cash payment in lieu of the bond and review by the 30 County Manager or designee, the permit may be issued. If the County Manager or 31 designee determines that the use of public or private property could affect the public's use 32 of the property, or have potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties, then the 33 County Manager or designee may require that the permit application be scheduled for a 34 public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. The special circumstances 35 could include, but are not limited to, closure of a public street or accessway; use of special 36 effects, including incendiary or explosive devices; a large production crew or crowd 37 control; and increased liability insurance required. The notice for the public hearing shall 38 be legally advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 1 one 39 time 15 days prior to the hearing. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 43 44 8.10.00 – HEARING EXAMINER 45 46 A. Establishment and Powers. The Board of County Commissioners established the office of 47 the Hearing Examiner by County Ord. No. 2013-25, as it may be amended from time to 48 time, with the powers and duties set forth therein. 49 50 Page 173 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 12 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx B. Role on Planning Commission. The Hearing Examiner may sit as a member of the Collier 1 County Planning Commission as long as the Planning Commission serves solely in an 2 advisory body capacity to the Board of County Commissioners. While a Hearing 3 Examiner is employed by the County, a All powers and duties expressly granted to the 4 Hearing Examiner, either through the Collier County Hearing Examiner Ordinance (No. 5 2013-25, as may be amended) or through future resolutions, preempt the Collier County 6 Planning Commission, or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as the case may be, with respect 7 to the established procedures set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code. 8 9 Remand of Development Order. The Board of County Commissioners, by majority vote 10 may remand any advertised public hearing involving a development order to the Hearing 11 Examiner for the sole purpose of opining on a legal or technical land use issue raised 12 during the hearing. The Hearing Examiner will issue a non-binding recommendation to the 13 Board with respect to the issue remanded, which recommendation shall become part of 14 the record when the matter is again heard by the Board. 15 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 18 19 9.02.06 – Required Notices for Vested Rights Determination Process, Including Public 20 Hearings 21 22 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23 B. Public notice for vested rights determination hearings held pursuant to section 9.02.04. or 24 section 9.02.08. must be provided by legal advertisement publication at least one time in 25 a newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days in advance of any public 26 hearing stating the time, place, purpose of such hearing, including a brief statement of the 27 nature of the claim. 28 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 30 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 31 32 9.03.02 – Requirements for Continuation of Nonconformities 33 34 Where, at the effective date of adoption or relevant amendment of the LDC, lawful use of lands 35 or waters exists which would not be permitted under the LDC, the use may be continued, so long 36 as it remains otherwise lawful, provided: 37 38 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 39 40 D. Change in use. If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming use of a 41 structure, or of a structure and premises in combination may be changed to another 42 nonconforming use of the same character, or to a more restricted nonconforming use, 43 provided the Hearing Examiner, or bBoard of zZoning aAppeals after CCPC 44 recommendation, upon application to the County Manager or designee, shall find after 45 public notice and hearing that the proposed use is equally or more appropriate to the 46 district than the existing nonconforming use and that the relation of the structure to 47 surrounding properties is such that adverse effect on occupants and neighboring 48 properties will not be greater than if the existing nonconforming use is continued. In 49 permitting such change, the Hearing Examiner, or bBoard of zZoning aAppeals after 50 Page 174 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 13 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx CCPC recommendation, may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in 1 accordance with the intent and purpose of the LDC. 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 6 9.03.03 – Types of Nonconformities 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 B. Nonconforming structures. Where a structure lawfully exists at the effective date of the 11 adoption of this ordinance or relevant amendment that could not be built under the LDC 12 by reason of restrictions on lot area, lot coverage, height, yards, location on the lot, or 13 requirements other than use concerning the structure, such structure may be continued 14 so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: 15 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 18 4. Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose of this section shall 19 mean detached single-family dwellings, duplexes or mobile homes in existence 20 at the effective date of this zoning Code or its relevant amendment and in 21 continuous residential use thereafter, may be altered, expanded, or replaced 22 upon recommendation of the Hearing Examiner or Collier County Planning 23 Commission and approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals after CCPC 24 recommendation, by resolution. 25 26 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions as to reconstruction, any residential 27 structure or structures in any residential zone district may be rebuilt after 28 destruction to the prior extent, height and density of units per acre regardless of 29 the percentage of destruction, subject to compliance with the applicable building 30 code requirements in effect at the time of redevelopment. In the event of such 31 rebuilding, all setbacks and other applicable district requirements shall be met 32 unless a variance therefore is obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. For the 33 purpose of this section, a hotel, motel, or boatel shall be considered to be a 34 residential structure. Since the size and nature of the alteration, expansion or 35 replacement of such nonconforming structures may vary widely, a site plan, and if 36 applicable, preliminary building plans indicating the proposed alteration, expansion 37 or replacement shall be presented with each petition. Prior to granting such 38 alteration, expansion or replacement of a nonconforming single-family dwelling, 39 duplex or mobile home, the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission and the 40 BCC Board of Zoning Appeals after CCPC recommendation shall consider and 41 base its approval on the following standards and criteria: 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 45 46 9.03.07 – Nonconformities Created or Increased by Public Acquisition 47 48 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 49 50 Page 175 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 14 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx D. Post Take Plan. This section addresses the development, review and approval of post-1 take cure plans for remainder properties to mitigate and/or eliminate the negative and 2 potentially costly impacts resulting from the taking of a property for public purposes. In 3 such cases, it may be determined to be in the public interest to allow some deviations from 4 applicable LDC or PUD provisions, or Conditional Use requirements, in order to 5 accommodate site modifications and/or enhancements, designed to cure, remedy, 6 mitigate, minimize or resolve otherwise negative site impacts resultant from public 7 acquisition. 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 4. Approval Criteria and Process. 12 13 a. If no written objection is received within 30 days of the date of mailing of 14 the notice, the Post Take Plan is deemed approved. 15 16 b. If an abutting property owner who receives a notice submits a written 17 objection to Collier County within 30 days of the date of mailing of notice, 18 the matter shall be scheduled for public hearing before the Collier County 19 Planning Commission (CCPC) Hearing Examiner (HEX), or if the Hearing 20 Examiner has a conflict, then by the Planning Commission. In such cases, 21 the Board of County Commissioners delegates the authority to review 22 the Post Take Plan to the CCPC HEX and includes this review as part of 23 the CCPC HEX powers and duties under the Collier County Code of Laws 24 and Ordinances section 2-1156 - 2-1164 Chapter 2, Article III, Division 3, 25 Section 2-87. Public notice for the hearing shall comply with LDC section 26 10.03.05 C, as may be applicable, and shall specifically note the location 27 of the property and the requested deviations. The HEX or CCPC, in 28 considering whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the 29 proposed Post Take Plan, shall consider the following: 30 31 i. Whether the deviation is the minimum amount necessary to 32 mitigate for the impacts of the acquisition, while still protecting the 33 public health, safety, and welfare; and 34 35 ii. Whether the County or property owner has or will mitigate for 36 impacts from the requested deviation(s) on neighboring properties 37 by maintaining or enhancing compatibility through various 38 measures, including but not limited to the installation of additional 39 landscape plantings or the installation of fences or walls; and 40 41 iii. Whether the requested deviations are consistent with and further 42 applicable policies of the GMP and the requirements of the LDC, 43 PUD, or Conditional Use, as may be applicable . 44 45 5. Within 30 days of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a Post Take Plan 46 by the HEX or CCPC, the applicant, affected property owner, or abutting property 47 owner may appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. For the purposes 48 of this section, an aggrieved or adversely affected party is defined as any person 49 or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to any interest protected or 50 Page 176 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 15 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Land Development 1 Code, or building code(s). If an appeal is filed by an abutting property owner, and 2 said appeal is successful, Collier County shall reimburse said appellant for the 3 appeal application fee and any associated advertising costs. 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 7 8 9.04.06 – Specific Requirements for Variance to the Coastal Construction Setback Line 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 B. Setback lines established under this LDC shall be reviewed upon petition of affected 13 riparian upland owners. The Hearing Examiner or BZA BCC of Collier County shall 14 decide, after due public notice and hearing, whether a change in the setback line is 15 justified, and shall notify the petitioner in writing. The present setback lines are 16 presumed to be correct, and no change in setback lines are presumed to be correct, and 17 no change in setback lines shall be made except upon an affirmative showing by 18 petitioner that any construction line established hereunder is a minimum of 150 feet 19 landward of the mean high-water line or seventy-five (75) feet landward of the vegetation 20 line whichever is greater; and that considering ground elevations in relation to historical 21 storm and hurricane tides, predicted maximum wave uprush, beach and offshore ground 22 contours, the vegetation line, erosion trends, the dune or bluff line, if any exist, and 23 existing upland development, that the general public health and welfare are preserved, 24 upland properties protected, and beach and sand dune erosion controlled. 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 28 G. Procedures for obtaining variance. 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 2. Notice and public hearing for coastal construction setback line variances. An 33 application for coastal construction setback line (CCSL) variance shall be 34 considered by the Hearing Examiner or BZA BCC pursuant to the following public 35 notice and hearing requirements. 36 37 a. The applicant shall post a sign at least 45 days prior to the date of the public 38 hearing by the Hearing Examiner or BZA BCC. The sign shall contain 39 substantially the following language and the sign copy shall utilize the total 40 area of the sign: 41 42 PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTING 43 CCSL VARIANCE APPROVAL (both to contain the following information:) 44 TO PERMIT: (Sufficiently clear to describe the type of variance requested). 45 46 DATE: _______ 47 48 TIME: _______ 49 50 Page 177 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 16 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx TO BE HELD IN HEARING EXAMINER or BOARD OF COUNTY 1 COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, COLLIER COUNTY 2 GOVERNMENT CENTER. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 d. In the case of sign(s) located on a property one acre or more in size, the 7 applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). The sign(s) 8 shall be erected in full view of the public on each street upon which the 9 subject property has frontage and on the side of the property visible from 10 the beach. Where the subject property is landlocked, or for some other 11 reason the sign(s) cannot be posted directly on the property, then the 12 sign(s) shall be erected along the nearest street right-of-way, with an 13 attached notation indicating generally the distance and direction to the 14 subject property. There shall be at least one sign on each external 15 boundary which fronts upon a street, however, in the case of external 16 boundaries along a street with greater frontages than 1,320 linear feet, 17 signs shall be placed equidistant from one another with a maximum 18 spacing of 1,000 linear feet, except that in no case shall the number of 19 signs along an exterior boundary fronting on a street exceed four signs. 20 The applicant shall provide evidence to the County Manager or designee 21 that the sign(s) were erected by furnishing photographs of the sign(s) 22 showing the date of their erection at least ten days prior to the scheduled 23 public hearing by the BCC. The sign(s) shall remain in place until the date 24 of either of the following occurrences: 25 26 1. Final action is taken by the Hearing Examiner or BZA BCC; or 27 28 2. The receipt of a written request by the County Manager or designee 29 from the applicant to either withdraw or continue the petition 30 indefinitely. 31 32 e. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing by the BCC Hearing 33 Examiner or BZA shall be legally advertised in a newspaper of general 34 circulation in the county at least one time and at least 15 days prior to the 35 public hearing. Where applicable, the notice shall clearly describe the 36 proposed variance. The advertisement shall also include a location map 37 that identifies the approximate geographic location of the subject property. 38 39 f. The BCC Hearing Examiner or BZA shall hold one advertised public 40 hearing on the proposed variance and may, upon the conclusion of the 41 hearing, immediately adopt the resolution approving the variance. 42 43 3. The BCC Hearing Examiner or BZA shall notify petitioner in writing of its decision 44 within 15 days of the public hearing. 45 46 4. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the BCC Hearing Examiner or BZA granting 47 or denying a variance may apply to the circuit court of the circuit in which the 48 property is located for judicial relief within 30 days after rendition of the decision by 49 Page 178 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 17 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx the BCC Hearing Examiner or BZA. Review in the circuit court shall be by petition 1 for a writ of certiorari and shall be governed by the Florida Appellate Rules. 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 6 10.02.03 – Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments 7 thereof 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 I. Electronic data requirements for site development plans, site improvement plans, and 12 amendments thereof. After the final site plan has been approved by the County Manager 13 or designee During the review process for compliance with the LDC, as provided in this 14 section, the applicant's professional engineer shall also submit digitally created 15 construction/site plan documents, in an electronic format acceptable to the County 16 Manager or designee. 1 disk (CDROM) of the master plan file, including, where 17 applicable, easements, water/wastewater facilities, and stormwater drainage system. The 18 digital data to be submitted shall follow these formatting guidelines: All data shall be 19 delivered in the state plane coordinate system, with a Florida East Projection, and a North 20 American Datum 1983/1990 (NAD83/90 datum), with United States Survey Feet 21 (USFEET) units; as established by a Florida registered professional surveyor and mapper. 22 All information shall have a maximum dimensional error of +0.5 feet. Files shall be in an 23 AutoCAD (DWG) or Digital Exchange File (DXF) format; information layers shall have 24 common naming conventions (i.e. right-of-way—ROW, centerlines—CL, edge-of-25 pavement—EOP, etc.). For a plan to be deemed complete, the layering scheme must be 26 readily understood by county staff. All property information (parcels, lots, and requisite 27 annotation) shall be drawn on a unique information layer, with all linework pertaining to 28 the property feature located on that layer. Example: parcels—All lines that form 29 the parcel boundary will be located on 1 parcel layer. Annotations pertaining to property 30 information shall be on a unique layer. Example: Lot dimensions—Lottxt layer 31 32 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 33 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 34 35 10.02.04 – Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats 36 37 This section shall be read in conjunction with subdivision design standards, in particular, LDC 38 Chapters 3, 4, and 6. 39 40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 42 B. Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plats (PPLs). Construction plans and final 43 subdivision plats are commonly referred to as "plans and plat." 44 45 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 46 47 3. County Manager review of construction plans and final subdivision plats. 48 49 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 Page 179 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 18 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 d. Digital submission. After the final subdivision plat has been approved by 2 the County Manager or designee for During the review process for 3 compliance with the LDC, as provided in this section, the applicant shall 4 resubmit 5 certified sets of the approved construction plans along with 5 approved copies of all required county permits. The applicant's 6 professional engineer shall also submit a set of digitally created 7 construction/site plan documents in a format acceptable to the County 8 Manager or designee, 1 disk (CDROM) of the in an acceptable electronic 9 format. master plan file, including, where applicable, easements, 10 water/wastewater facilities, and stormwater drainage system. The digital 11 data to be submitted shall follow these formatting guidelines: All data shall 12 be delivered in the state plane coordinate system, with a Florida East 13 Projection, and a North American Datum 1983/1990 (NAD83/90 datum), 14 with United States Survey Feet (USFEET) units; as established by a Florida 15 registered professional surveyor and mapper. All information shall have a 16 maximum dimensional error of +0.5 feet. Files shall be in an AutoCAD 17 (DWG) or Digital Exchange File (DXF) format; information layers shall have 18 common naming conventions (i.e. right-of-way—ROW, centerlines—CL, 19 edge-of-pavement—EOP, etc.). For a plan to be deemed complete, the 20 layering scheme must be readily understood by county staff. All property 21 information (parcels, lots, and requisite annotation) shall be drawn on a 22 unique information layer, with all linework pertaining to the property feature 23 located on that layer. Example: parcels—All lines that form the parcel 24 boundary will be located on 1 parcel layer. Annotations pertaining to 25 property information shall be on a unique layer. Example: lot dimensions—26 Lottxt layer. 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 30 31 10.02.05 – Construction, Approval, and Acceptance of Required Improvements 32 33 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 34 35 B. Preliminary Acceptance of Required Subdivision Improvements by the County Engineer 36 or designee. Preliminary acceptance by the County Engineer or designee shall identify 37 that the subdivision or development is substantially safe for public occupancy. 38 39 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 40 41 2. Submittal requirements. Upon completion of all required improvements contained 42 in the approved construction plans, the applicant's professional engineer of record 43 shall provide the following materials for the review by the County Engineer or 44 designee: 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 f. Digital submission. The applicant's professional engineer shall also submit 49 digitally created construction/site plan documents, including 1 disk 50 Page 180 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 19 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx (CDROM) of in an electronic format acceptable to the County Manager or 1 designee, the master plan file, including, where applicable, easements, 2 water/wastewater facilities, and stormwater drainage system. The digital 3 data to be submitted shall follow these formatting guidelines: All data shall 4 be delivered in the state plane coordinate system, with a Florida East 5 Projection, and a North American Datum 1983/1990 (NAD83/90 datum), 6 with United States Survey Feet (USFEET) units; as established by a Florida 7 registered professional surveyor and mapper. All information shall have a 8 maximum dimensional error of +0.5 feet. Files shall be in an AutoCAD 9 (DWG) or Digital Exchange File (DXF) format; information layers shall have 10 common naming conventions (i.e. right-of-way—ROW, centerlines—CL, 11 edge-of-pavement—EOP, etc.). For a plan to be deemed complete, the 12 layering scheme must be readily understood by county staff. All property 13 information (parcels, lots, and requisite annotation) shall be drawn on a 14 unique information layer, with all linework pertaining to the property feature 15 located on that layer. Example: parcels—All lines that form the parcel 16 boundary will be located on 1 parcel layer. Annotations pertaining to 17 property information shall be on a unique layer. Example: lot dimensions—18 Lottxt layer. In addition, a copy of applicable measurements, tests and 19 reports made on the work and material during the progress of construction 20 must be furnished. The record construction data shall be certified by the 21 applicant's professional engineer and professional surveyor and mapper 22 and shall include but not be limited to the following items which have been 23 obtained through surveys performed on the completed required 24 improvements: 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 28 29 10.02.06 – Requirements for Permits 30 31 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32 33 K. Comparable Use Determination. 34 35 1. The following Comparable Use Determination (CUD) shall be used to determine 36 whether a use at a site-specific location is comparable in nature and consistent 37 with the list of permitted uses, and the purpose and intent statement of the zoning 38 district, overlay, or PUD. Approval of a CUD made at one location shall not be 39 construed to mean the use is entitled in a different location. 40 41 2. To be effective, the Comparable Use Determination shall be approved by the 42 Hearing Examiner by decision, or Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution after 43 CCPC recommendation to the BZA, at an advertised public hearing based on the 44 following standards, as applicable: 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 d. The proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the other 49 permitted uses in the zoning district, overlay, or PUD. 50 Page 181 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 20 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 e. The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding 2 neighborhood. 3 4 f. Any additional relevant information as may be required by County 5 Manager or Designee. 6 7 3. The Administrative Code shall establish the process and application submittal 8 requirements to obtain a Comparable Use Determination. 9 10 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 11 12 10.02.13 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures 13 14 A. Generally. Applications for amendments to, or rezoning to, PUD shall be in the form of a 15 PUD master plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a 16 development standards table. The PUD application shall also include a list of developer 17 commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. The PUD master plan shall 18 have been designed by an urban planner who possesses the education and experience 19 to qualify for full membership in the American Institute of Certified Planners; and/or a 20 landscape architect who possesses the education and experience to qualify for full 21 membership in the American Society of Landscape Architects, together with either a 22 practicing civil engineer licensed by the State of Florida, or a practicing architect licensed 23 by the State of Florida. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 2. PUD application. The applicant shall submit data supporting and describing the 28 petition for rezoning to PUD that includes a development standards table, 29 developer commitments and a list of deviations from the LDC. Dimensional 30 standards shall be based upon an established zoning district that most closely 31 resembles the development strategy, particularly the type, density and intensity, of 32 each proposed land use. The PUD application shall include the information 33 identified in the Administrative Code unless determined by the Planning and 34 Zoning Director County Manager or designee to be unnecessary to describe 35 the development strategy. 36 37 3. Deviations from master plan elements. The Zoning and Land Development Review 38 Department Director County Manager or designee may exempt a petition from 39 certain required elements for the PUD master plan identified in the Administrative 40 Code when the petition contains conditions which demonstrate the element may 41 be waived and will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare 42 of the community. All exemptions shall be noted within the PUD submittal and 43 provided to the Board of County Commissioners. 44 45 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 46 47 B. Procedures for planned unit development zoning. Petitions for rezoning to PUD in 48 accordance with LDC section 10.02.08, shall be submitted and processed as for a 49 Page 182 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 21 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx rezoning amendment generally pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08 and in accordance with 1 the following special procedures: 2 3 1. Pre-application meeting. Prior to the submission of a formal application for 4 rezoning to PUD, the applicant shall confer with the Planning and Zoning 5 Department Director County Manager’s designee and other County staff, 6 agencies, and officials involved in the review and processing of such applications 7 and related materials. The applicant is further encouraged to submit a tentative 8 land use sketch plan for review at the pre-application meeting, and to obtain 9 information on any projected plans or programs relative to possible applicable 10 Federal or State requirements or other matters that may affect the proposed PUD. 11 The pre-application meeting should address, but is not limited to, the following: 12 13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 15 E. Changes and amendments. There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: 16 Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. 17 18 1. Substantial changes. Any substantial change(s) to an approved PUD Ordinance 19 shall require the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 20 approval by the Board of County Commissioners as a PUD amendment prior to 21 implementation. Applicants shall be required to submit and process a new 22 application complete with pertinent supporting data, as set forth in the 23 Administrative Code. For the purpose of this section, a substantial change shall be 24 deemed to exist where: 25 26 a. A proposed change in the boundary of the PUD; 27 28 b. A proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of 29 land use or height of buildings within the development; 30 31 c. A proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation or open 32 space areas within the development not to exceed 5 percent of the total 33 acreage previously designated as such, or 5 acres in area; 34 35 d. A proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses, to 36 include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding 37 preservation, conservation or open spaces), or a proposed relocation of 38 nonresidential land uses; 39 40 e. A substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may 41 include, but are not limited to, increases in traffic generation; changes in 42 traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities; 43 44 f. A change that will result in land use activities that generate a higher level 45 of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by 46 the Institute of Transportation Engineers; 47 48 g. A change that will result in a requirement for increased stormwater 49 retention, or will otherwise increase stormwater discharges; 50 Page 183 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 22 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 h. A change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that 2 would be incompatible with an adjacent land use; 3 4 i. Any modification to the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment 5 to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element 6 or other element of the Growth Management Plan or which modification 7 would increase the density or intensity of the permitted land uses; 8 9 j. The proposed change is to a PUD district designated as a development of 10 regional impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to F.S. § 380.06, where such 11 change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County 12 pursuant to F.S. § 380.06(19). Any change that meets the criterion of F.S. 13 § 380.06(19)(e)2, and any changes to a DRI/PUD master plan that clearly 14 do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by 15 Collier County under this LDC section 10.02.13; or 16 17 k. Any modification in the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment 18 to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a 19 substantial modification as described under this LDC section 10.02.13. 20 21 2. Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change includes any change 22 that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to 23 an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 24 10.02.13 E.1 and shall require the review and approval of the Planning 25 Commission Hearing Examiner, or if the Hearing Examiner has a conflict, then by 26 the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approval Hearing 27 Examiner’s decision shall be based on the findings and criteria used for the original 28 application and be an action taken at a regularly scheduled meeting. 29 30 a. The applicant shall provide the Planning and Zoning Department Director 31 County Manager or designee documentation which adequately describes 32 the proposed changes as described in the Administrative Code. 33 34 3. Minor changes. The following are considered minor changes, and may be 35 approved by the County Manager or designee under the procedures established 36 in the Administrative Code. 37 38 a. Educational and ancillary plants exception. When a PUD is amended for 39 the sole purpose of adding an Educational and/or ancillary plant, that PUD 40 will not be subject to the review process outlined in LDC 41 section 10.02.13 E.1. The review conducted will be limited to the impacts 42 that the Educational or ancillary plant will have on the surrounding uses. 43 44 b. The County Manager or designee shall also be authorized to allow minor 45 changes to the PUD master plan during its subdivision improvements plan 46 or site development plan process to accommodate topography, vegetation 47 and other site conditions not identified or accounted for during its original 48 submittal and review and when said changes have been determined to be 49 compatible with adjacent land uses, have no impacts external to the site, 50 Page 184 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 23 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx existing or proposed, and is otherwise consistent with the provisions of this 1 code and the growth management plan. Such changes shall include: 2 3 i. Internal realignment of rights-of-way, including a relocation 4 of access points to the PUD itself, where no water management 5 facility, conservation/preservation areas, or 6 required easements are affected or otherwise provided for. 7 8 ii. Relocation of building envelopes when there is no encroachment 9 upon required conservation or preservation areas. 10 11 iii. Relocation of swimming pools, clubhouses, or other recreation 12 facilities when such relocation will not affect adjacent properties or 13 land uses. 14 15 iv. Relocation or reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, or other water 16 facilities subject to the submittal of revised water management 17 plans, or approval of the EAC where applicable. 18 19 Minor changes of the type described above, including minor text changes, 20 shall nevertheless be reviewed by appropriate staff to ensure that said 21 changes are otherwise in compliance with all county ordinances and 22 regulations prior to the Planning and Zoning Department Director's County 23 Manager or designee’s consideration for approval. 24 25 c. Affordable housing commitments. Beginning October 3, 2012 the County 26 Manager or designee shall be authorized to make minor text changes to 27 remove affordable housing commitments to pay an affordable housing 28 contribution in PUDs, Development Agreements, and Settlement 29 Agreements if the following conditions are met: 30 31 i. The applicant notices property owners in writing in accordance with 32 LDC section 10.03.06 T. 33 34 ii. If no written objection is received, the request to remove 35 commitments is deemed approved. 36 37 iii. If a property owner who receives notice submits a written objection 38 within 30 days of mailing of the notice, the matter shall be scheduled 39 for public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners 40 Hearing Examiner. Public notice shall comply with LDC 41 sections 10.03.05 and 10.03.06 T. 42 43 F. PUD Monitoring Report requirements. In order to ensure and verify that approved project 44 densities or intensities of land use will not be exceeded and 45 that development commitments will be fulfilled and are consistent with 46 the development's approved transportation impact study, annual monitoring reports must 47 be submitted by the owner(s) of a PUD to the County Manager or designee. 48 49 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 Page 185 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 24 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 4. County will be given at least 6 month's prior written notice to a change in 2 ownership, to a community association, including but not limited to transfer of all 3 or part of the development to a Home Owners Association, Property Owners 4 Association, Master Association, or similar entity. Change in ownership of 5 portions of a PUD development shall not absolve the original owner of the 6 requirement to file an annual monitoring report. Transferring responsibility for 7 filing the annual monitoring report to an entity other than the original owner may 8 be demonstrated in the form of an executed agreement between the original 9 owner and the new entity which when filed with the Planning and Zoning 10 Department Director County Manager or designee shall automatically transfer 11 responsibility for filing that annual monitoring report. 12 13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 15 H. Interpretations of PUD documents. The Planning Services Department Director County 16 Manager or designee shall be authorized to interpret the PUD document and PUD master 17 plan. 18 19 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20 21 L. Common open space or common facilities. Any common open space or common facilities 22 established by an adopted master plan of development for a PUD district shall be subject 23 to the following: 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 2. In the event that the organization established to own and maintain common open 28 space or common facilities, or any successor organization, shall at any time after 29 the establishment of the PUD fail to meet conditions in accordance with the 30 adopted PUD master plan of development, the Planning and Zoning Director 31 County Manager or designee may serve written notice upon such organization 32 and/or the owners or residents of the planned unit development and hold a public 33 hearing. If deficiencies of maintenance are not corrected within 30 days after such 34 notice and hearing, the Planning and Zoning Director County Manager or designee 35 shall call upon any public or private agency to maintain the common open 36 space for a period of 1 year. When the Planning and Zoning Director County 37 Manager or designee determines that the subject organization is not prepared or 38 able to maintain the common open space or common facilities, such public or 39 private agency shall continue maintenance for yearly periods. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 43 44 10.02.15 – Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle 45 Redevelopment Area 46 47 A. Mixed Use Project Approval Types. Owners of property located in the Bayshore Gateway 48 Triangle Redevelopment Area designated as Neighborhood Commercial (BZO-NC), 49 Waterfront (BZO-W), and Mixed Use (GTZO-MXD) Subdistricts may submit an application 50 Page 186 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 25 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx for a Mixed Use Project (MUP). The MUP shall allow for a mixture of residential and 1 commercial uses, as permitted under the Table of Uses for the appropriate subdistrict. 2 Applications for a MUP may be approved administratively or through a public hearing 3 process as described in this section. A pre-application meeting is required for all MUP 4 applications. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 2. MUPs Requiring Public Hearing: 9 10 a. MUPs that do not meet the thresholds for administrative approval may be 11 approved by the BZA BCC after recommendation by the CCPC through a 12 public hearing process. 13 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 16 c. There shall be a public hearing before the BZA Planning Commission and 17 BCC legally noticed and advertised pursuant to LDC section 10.03.06. 18 19 d. After a Mixed Use Project has been approved by the BZA BCC, the 20 applicant shall submit a site development plan (SDP) consistent with the 21 conceptual site plan approved by the BZA BCC and meeting the 22 requirements of LDC section 10.02.03 B. The SDP may be submitted 23 concurrent with the MUP application at the applicant's risk. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 27 28 10.03.06 – Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 29 30 This section shall establish the requirements for public hearings and public notices. This section 31 shall be read in conjunction with LDC section 10.03.05 and Chapter 8 of the Administrative 32 Code, which further establishes the public notice procedures for land use petitions . 33 34 A. Ordinance or resolution that is initiated by County or a private entity which does not 35 change the zoning atlas or actual list of uses in a zoning category but does affect the 36 use of land, including, but not limited to, land development code regulations as defined 37 in F.S. § 163.3202, regardless of the percentage of the land affected. This is commonly 38 referred to as a LDC amendment . 39 40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 42 2. The following notice procedures are required: 43 44 a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public hearing in 45 accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 46 47 B. Ordinance or resolution for a rezoning, or a PUD amendment, or a conditional use. For 48 minor conditional use notice requirements see 10.03.06 C, below and for County initiated 49 rezonings, see LDC section 10.03.06 K.: 50 Page 187 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 26 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 2 3 a. One Planning Commission and, if required, an Environmental Advisory 4 Council hearing. 5 6 b. One BCC or BZA hearing. 7 8 2. The following notice procedures are required: 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 c. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public hearing in 13 accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 14 15 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16 17 C. Minor conditional use. 18 19 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 20 21 a. One Hearing Examiner hearing. If not heard by the Hearing Examiner, then 22 pursuant to LDC section 10.03.06 B and if directed by a single Board 23 member, one Planning Commission and BZA. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 c. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing. 28 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 30 31 D. Conditional use extension, or conditional use re-review: 32 33 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 34 35 2. The following notice procedures are required: 36 37 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 38 39 b. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 43 E. Ordinance or resolution for comprehensive plan amendments: 44 45 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 46 47 2. The following notice procedures are required: 48 49 a. Small-scale amendments: 50 Page 188 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 27 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 iii. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public 4 hearing. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 F. Variance, pursuant to LDC section 9.04.02 or a sign variance, pursuant to LDC 9 section 5.06.08: 10 11 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 12 13 a. One Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing. 14 15 b. If heard Hearing Examiner has a conflict, by the one Planning Commission, 16 and one BZA hearing. 17 18 2. The following notice procedures are required: 19 20 a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public hearing. 21 22 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23 24 G. Parking exemption, pursuant to LDC section 4.05.02 K.3: 25 26 1. The following advertised public hearing is required: 27 28 a. One Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing. 29 30 b. If heard by the Hearing Examiner has a conflict, one Planning Commission, 31 and BZA hearing. 32 33 2. The following notice procedures are required: 34 35 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 36 37 c. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing. 38 39 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 40 41 H. PUD Insubstantial Change (PDI) or Boat Dock Facility Extension, Boathouse 42 Establishment, or Boat Dock Canopy Deviation: 43 44 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 45 46 a. One Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing. 47 48 b. If Hearing Examiner has a conflict, one Planning Commission hearing. 49 50 Page 189 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 28 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 2. The following notice procedures are required: 1 2 a. For a PDI, a NIM. See LDC section 10.03.05 A. However, upon written 3 request by the applicant, the Hearing Examiner has the discretion to waive 4 the NIM after the first set of staff review comments have been issued. 5 6 b Mailed Notice prior to the advertised public hearing. 7 8 c. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing. 9 10 d. Posting of a sign prior to the advertised public hearing. 11 12 I. Ordinance or resolution for the establishment, amendment to, or the abandonment of a 13 Development of Regional Impact (DRI): 14 15 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 16 17 a. One Planning Commission hearing. 18 19 b. One BCC hearing. 20 21 2. The following notice procedures are required: 22 23 a. In accordance with F.S. § 380.06 and the Florida Administrative Code. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 J. Ordinance or resolution that is initiated by the BCC and will change the zoning map 28 designation of less than 10 contiguous acres of land. This is commonly referred to as a 29 rezone. 30 31 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32 33 2. The following notice procedures are required: 34 35 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 36 37 b. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public hearing. 38 The advertisement for the Planning Commission hearing shall include a 39 project location map. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 43 K. Ordinance or resolution that is initiated by the BCC and will change the zoning map 44 designation of more than 10 contiguous acres of land or more or an ordinance or resolution 45 that will change the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses of land within a 46 zoning category. This is commonly referred to as a rezone or LDC amendment: 47 48 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 49 50 Page 190 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 29 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 2. The following notice procedures are required: 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 b. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the BCC hearings in accordance 5 with F.S § 125.66 (4) including a project location map. 6 7 i. In lieu of the newspaper legal advertisement, the BCC may mail a 8 written notice to property owners within the area covered by the 9 proposed ordinance or resolution. The notice shall include the time, 10 place and location of both the public hearings before the BCC. 11 12 ii. The first BCC hearing shall be held at least seven days after the 13 first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held 14 at least ten days after the first hearing and shall be advertised at 15 least five days prior to the public hearing. 16 17 * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 19 L. Ordinance or resolution for a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and SSA amendments: 20 21 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 23 2. The following notice procedures are required: 24 25 a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing 26 pursuant to LDC section 4.08.06 E.1. 27 28 M. Resolution or decision for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and SRA amendments. 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 2. The following notice procedures are required: 33 34 a. SRA designation or SRA substantial change : 35 36 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 37 38 iii. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public 39 hearing in accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 43 b. SRA insubstantial change : 44 45 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 46 47 iii. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public 48 hearing. 49 50 Page 191 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 30 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx N. Ordinance or resolution for an MUP located in the mixed use subdistrict of the BZO or 1 GTZO which seeks to utilize the Density Bonus Pool Allocation or request deviations 2 exceeding administrative approval, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.15: 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 2. The following notice procedures are required : 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 c. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to each advertised public hearing. 11 12 O. Approval of Comparable Use Determination pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. 13 14 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 15 16 a. One CCPC or Hearing Examiner or if Board directed, one BZA hearing. 17 18 b. If heard by the Planning Commission , one BZA hearing. 19 20 2. The following notice procedures are required: 21 22 a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 23 accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 P. Official Interpretations, pursuant to LDC section 1.06.00. 28 29 1. The following notice procedures are required for the interpretation of county wide 30 application of the Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code and 31 the building code: 32 33 a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement. 34 35 2. The following notice procedures are required for the interpretation affecting a 36 specific parcel of land. 37 38 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 39 40 c. Newspaper Legal Advertisement. 41 42 Q. Appeal of an Official Interpretation, pursuant to LDC section 1.06.00. 43 44 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 45 46 a. One BZA or Hearing Examiner or if Board directed, one BZA hearing. 47 48 2. The following notice procedures are required: 49 50 Page 192 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 31 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 1 accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 2 3 R. Site Plan with Deviations for Redevelopment, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.03 F, 4 deviations in the GGPOD, pursuant to LDC section 4.02.26 E., and the LBDPA, pursuant 5 to LDC section 4.02.16 C.13. 6 7 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 8 9 a. One Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing. 10 11 b. If heard by the Planning Commission , one BZA hearing. 12 13 b. If Hearing Examiner has a conflict, one Planning Commission hearing. 14 15 2. The following notice procedures are required: 16 17 a. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 18 accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 19 20 b. Mailed Notice prior to the advertised public hearing. 21 22 c. Posting of a sign prior to the advertised public hearing. 23 24 S. Post Take Plan, pursuant to LDC section 9.03.07 D. 25 26 1. The following notice procedures are required: 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 30 b. If a Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing is required, a 31 Newspaper Legal Advertisement. 32 33 2. The following advertised public hearings may shall be required: 34 35 a. If a written objection is received, one Planning Commission or Hearing 36 Examiner or BZA hearing. 37 38 T. Minor Change to a PUD to remove affordable housing contributions, pursuant to LDC 39 section 10.02.13 E.3.c. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 43 2. The following advertised public hearings may be required: 44 45 a. If a written objection is received, one BCC or Hearing Examiner hearing. 46 47 b. If Hearing Examiner has a conflict, one Planning Commission hearing. 48 49 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 Page 193 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 32 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 U. Automobile Service Station Facilities with Fuel Pumps Waiver pursuant to LDC section 2 5.05.05 and Alcohol Beverage Distance Waiver pursuant to LDC section 5.05.01. 3 4 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 5 6 a. One BZA or Hearing Examiner hearing. 7 8 b. If Hearing Examiner has a conflict, one BZA hearing. 9 10 2. The following notice procedures are required: 11 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 14 b. Newspaper Legal Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing . 15 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 18 V. Nonconforming Use Change pursuant to LDC section 9.03.02 D and Nonconforming Use 19 Alteration, pursuant to LDC section 9.03.03 B 5. 20 21 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 22 23 a. One Hearing Examiner or BZA hearing. 24 25 b. If Hearing Examiner has a conflict, one Planning Commission and BZA 26 hearing. 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 30 X. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.3. 31 32 1. The following notice procedures are required: 33 34 a. Newspaper Legal advertisement at least 15 days prior to the Stakeholder 35 Outreach Meeting. 36 37 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 38 39 Y. Compatibility Design Review, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 F. 40 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 42 43 2. The following notice procedures are required: 44 45 a. Newspaper Legal advertisement at least 15 days prior to the advertised 46 public hearing. 47 48 b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required 49 public hearings. For the purposes of this application, all mailed notices shall 50 Page 194 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 33 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the 1 subject property. 2 3 Z. Events in County Right-of-Way, pursuant to LDC section 5.04.05 A.5. 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 2. The following notice procedures are required: 8 9 a. Newspaper Legal advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 10 accordance with F.S. 125.66. 11 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 14 15 10.04.04 – Applications Subject to Type III Review 16 17 The following applications are subject to Type III review: Variances; Administrative Appeals; 18 Certificates of Appropriateness; cConditional uUses; nNonconforming Use Amendments and 19 Alterations; Vested Rights; flood Variances; Parking Agreements. 20 21 For a graphic depiction of the review procedure, please see Illustration 10.04.04 A. 22 23 24 25 Page 195 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 34 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 Illustration 10.04.04 A. 2 3 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 5 10.08.00 - CONDITIONAL USE PROCEDURES 6 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 C. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for a 10 conditional use application and minor conditional use change. 11 12 1. Conditional use application processing time. An application for a conditional use 13 will be considered "open," when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made 14 and the application is assigned a petition processing number. An application for a 15 conditional use will be considered "closed" when the applicant withdraws the 16 subject application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary 17 information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the conditional 18 use, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive 19 further processing and shall be withdrawn and an application "closed" through 20 inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. The Planning and Zoning Department 21 County Manager or designee will notify the applicant of closure by certified mail, 22 Page 196 of 1321 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 35 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx return receipt requested; however, failure to notify by the County shall not eliminate 1 the "closed" status of a petition. An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened 2 by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of 3 a determination of "sufficiency." Further review of the request will be subject to the 4 then current LDC. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 J. Changes and amendments. The County Manager or designee may approve minor 9 changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements 10 authorized by the conditional use. Additional u Uses or expansion of permitted uses not 11 shown on the conceptual site development plan or otherwise specifically provided for in 12 the conditional use application shall require the submission, review, and approval of a new 13 conditional use application. 14 15 Minor conditional use changes or amendments shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner, 16 except for those requests that require an Environmental Advisory Council review or, at the 17 discretion of the Hearing Examiner, are determined to be a matter of great public interest 18 or concern. Additionally, the Commissioner of the District in which the minor conditional 19 use change is located may direct the minor conditional use change to be heard by the 20 Planning Commission in an advisory capacity and then by the BZA for final action. 21 22 When the Hearing Examiner directs a minor conditional use to the Planning Commission, 23 the Hearing Examiner shall consider, all criteria set forth in LDC section 10.08.00 D and 24 the relevant matters in the applicant’s written petition. 25 26 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 27 Page 197 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 36 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 1 2 Contents 3 Contents ....................................................................................................................... 36 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Chapter 8. Public Notice ......................................................................................................... 232 8 A. Generally .......................................................................................................................... 232 9 B. Neighborhood Information Meeting ................................................................................ 233 10 C. Mailed Notice ................................................................................................................... 235 11 D. Newspaper Legal Advertisement ..................................................................................... 237 12 E. Posting of a Sign ............................................................................................................... 238 13 F. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting for Golf Course Conversions (SOM) .............................. 241 14 G. Agent Letter ...................................................................................................................... 245 15 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 18 19 Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 20 Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing 21 22 Chapter 3. Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing 23 24 A. Appeal of an Official Interpretation of the Land Development Code 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 28 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location, if site specific. 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 30 31 B. Boat Dock 32 33 B. 1 Boathouse Establishment 34 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 35 36 Page 198 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 37 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. The County will mail the letters at the applicant’s expense. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the public hearing; b. Petition number; c. Extension and total protrusion of the facility; and d. Date by which written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: Date, time, and location of the hearing; a. Petition number; b. Address of the facility; c. Extension and total protrusion of the facility; d. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location; and e. Date by which written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division. 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template . 1 B.2. Dock Facility Extension 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing. The County will mail the letters at the applicant’s expense. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the public hearing; b. Petition number; c. Extension and total protrusion of the facility; and d. Date by which written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; Page 199 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 38 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx b. Petition number; c. Extension and total protrusion of the facility; d. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location; and e. Date by which written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division. 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 1 B.3. Boat Lift Canopy with Deviations 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing. The County will mail the letters at the applicant’s expense. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the public hearing; b. Petition number; c. Extension and total protrusion of the facility; and d. Date by which written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Petition number; c. Extension and total protrusion of the facility; d. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location; and e. Date by which written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division. 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template . 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 C. Conditional Use (CU) 9 C.1 Conditional Use Permit 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 13 Page 200 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 39 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Notice for Minor Conditional Use petitions Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date .  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template . [Please note: If the Minor Conditional Use petition is to be heard before the BZA, the notice procedures shall be the same as the procedures for all other Conditional Use petitions listed below.] Notice for all other Conditional Use petitions Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 C.2. Conditional Use Extensions 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Page 201 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 40 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Notice for Minor Conditional Use Extension petitions and all other Conditional Use Extension petitions Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. Description of the proposed land uses. 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date.  See Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code for sign template. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 C.3. Conditional Use Re-Review 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Notice for Minor Conditional Use Re-Review petitions and for all other Conditional Use Re-Review petitions Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. Description of the proposed land uses. 8 D. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 D.2. DRI Abandonment 13 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 16 Notice In accordance with F.S. § 380.06 and the Florida Administrative Code. 17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 19 D.3 DRI Development Order Amendment 20 Page 202 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 41 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 Notice In accordance with F.S. § 380.06 and the Florida Administrative Code. 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 E. Mixed Use Project (MUP) – Public Hearing for use of Bonus Density Pool 7 and/or other Deviations 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 Notice Notification requirements are as follows:  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location for the BCC advertisement. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 14 F. Parking Exemption – With a Public Hearing 15 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 18 Page 203 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 42 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Agent Letter: An Agent Letter shall be sent to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property following the initial staff review comments and prior to the resubmittal. See Application Contents for review and approval of letter materials. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing.. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. Clear explanation of the parking relief sought. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised public hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 G. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) 4 5 G.1 Rezoning to a PUD 6 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location; and d. Name and application number. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 Page 204 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 43 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 G.2. PUD Amendment 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Notice Notification requirements are as follows:  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location for the Planning Commission advertisement. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template . 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 G.3. PUD Insubstantial Change 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: A NIM is required, however upon written request by the applicant the Hearing Examiner has the discretion to waive the NIM after the first set of review comments have been issued. This NIM waiver is not applicable to matters coming before the Planning Commission when it is deemed to be the decision maker. If the NIM has not been waived, it shall be completed at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. The NIM shall be advertised, and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: Page 205 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 44 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 H. Rezoning – Standard 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 Notice- Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification Area at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location; d. PUD name and ordinance number; e. Description of rezone; and f. Description of location. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Planning Commission hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template . 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 I. Sign Variance 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 13 Page 206 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 45 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Agent Letter: An Agent Letter shall be sent to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property following the initial staff review comments and prior to the resubmittal. See Application Contents for review and approval of letter materials. 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. The mailed notice shall be sent by the applicant following approval by the Zoning Division. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 J. Variance 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information . 1. Agent Letter: An Agent Letter shall be sent to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property following the initial staff review comments and prior to the resubmittal. See Application Contents for review and approval of letter materials . 2. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. The mailed notice shall be sent by the applicant following approval by the Planning and Zoning Division. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the requested variance; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 4. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template . 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 Page 207 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 46 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx K. Compatibility Design Review 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 L. Comparable Use Determination 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Newspaper Legal Advertisement: At least 15 days before the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The legal advertisement shall include: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; c. Application number and project name; d. PUD name and ordinance number; e. Proposed permitted use; and f. Description of location; and. g. 2 inch x 3 inch map of the project location; * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # Notice Notification requirements are as follows. See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 2. Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice requirement, written notice shall be sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of the golf course at least 15 days prior to the advertised public hearings. 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date.  See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template. Page 208 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 47 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual Chapter 4 | Administrative Procedures Chapter 4. Administrative Procedures 1 2 The permits and approvals listed in this Chapter do not require a public hearing, unless a decision on the permit is 3 appealed. 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 G. Official Interpretation of the Land Development Code 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 Notice – For interpretation of County wide application of the GMP and LDC Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: Upon issuance of the interpretation, the County Manager or designee shall provide a legal advertisement that is published in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Brief summary of interpretation; b. Location of affected property; and c. Appeal time frame. Notice- For interpretations affecting a specific parcel of land Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Notification of affected property owner: If an official interpretation has been requested by an affected party other than the property owner, Collier County shall notify the property owner that an official interpretation has been requested. 2. Mailed Notice: Upon issuance of the interpretation, the County Manager or designee shall provide written notice of the interpretation to property owners within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is requested. 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: Upon issuance of the interpretation, the County Manager or designee shall provide for a legal advertisement that is published in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Brief summary of interpretation; b. Location of affected property; c. Appeal time frame; and d. Project Location Map. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 Page 209 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 48 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 J.6. Special Events 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Notice 1. Mailed Notice: None required, unless it is an event that requires the temporary use of the right-of-way of any arterial or collector roadway of which necessitates closing all or part of the County right-of way between the hours of 7:00 AM through 9:00 AM or 3:30 PM through 6:30 PM. written notice shall be sent 30 days prior to the day of the event, to property owners, neighborhood associations and business associations within one-quarter mile (2,640 feet) of the County Right-of-Way impacted by the event. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisement: For the temporary use of right-of-way, a legal advertisement shall be published at least 30 days before the Hearing Examiner or BCC public hearing date in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Clear explanation of the temporary event’s purpose, use of right-of- way and affect upon the right-of-way between the actual hours of event operations. b. Date, time, and location of the public hearing. c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the event’s location. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 7 8 Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 9 Chapter 6 | Waivers, Exemptions, and Reductions 10 Chapter 6. Waivers, Exemptions, and Reductions 11 E. Alcohol Beverage Distance Waiver 12 13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 15 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Agent Letter: An Agent Letter shall be sent to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property following the initial staff review comments and prior to the resubmittal. See Application Contents for review and approval of letter materials. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. Description of the proposed land uses. 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 Page 210 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 49 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1 G. Facilities with Fuel Pumps Waiver 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Notice Notification requirements are as follows:  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Agent Letter: An Agent Letter shall be sent to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property following the initial staff review comments and prior to the resubmittal. See Application Contents for review and approval of letter materials. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. Description of the proposed land uses. 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 H. Nonconforming Use Change (NUC) 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 Notice Notification requirements are as follows:  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; and b. Clear explanation of the nonconforming use change. 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing date.  See Chapter 8.E of the Administrative Code for sign template. 13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 15 I. Site Plan with Deviations for Redevelopment Projects (-DR) 16 17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 19 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. Page 211 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 50 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisement: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The legal advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Application number and project name; c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of project location; d. Requested deviations and proposed project enhancements; and e. Description of location. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 J. Post Take Plan 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area within 60 days of the date of the submittal of the application. The mailed notice shall include the following information: a. List of requested deviations; b. A brief narrative with justification for the deviations; and c. A copy of the Post Take Plan, in either an 11 in. x 17 in. or 8 ½ in. x 11 in. format. Additional Notice- If Written Objection is Received If a written objection is received from an abutting property owner within 30 days from the date in which the first mailed notice was sent, then the Post Take Plan shall go before the CCPC or BZA, if appealed. The notice requirements for the public hearing are as follows:  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. a. List of requested deviations; b. A brief narrative with justification for the deviations; and c. A copy of the Post Take Plan, in either an 11 in. x 17 in. or 8 ½ in x 11 in. format. Page 212 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 51 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 1. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time and location of the hearing; b. Description of the proposed land uses; and c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 M. Deviation Requests for Projects in the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay 3 District (DR-GGPOD) 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisement: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The legal advertisement shall include at minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Application number and project name; c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of project location; d. Requested deviations and proposed project enhancements; and e. Description of location 3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing date.  See Chapter 8.E of the Administrative Code for sign template. 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 N. Limited Density Bonus Pool Allocation (LDBPA) 11 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 14 Notice Notification requirements are as follows:  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the first advertised hearing. Page 213 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 52 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisement: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Application number and project name; c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of project location; and d. Description of location. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 3 Chapter 8 | Public Notice Chapter 8. Public Notice 4 5 A. Generally 6 7 Many land use decisions in the County require public notice to the general community and/or the 8 surrounding neighborhoods regarding an applicant’s development plans. Each Administrative Code 9 section describes the types of notice required, if any, for a petition or a permit. This section identifies 10 the different types of public notice procedures and specific information necessary to fulfill the notice 11 requirement. 12 13 The following are the types of public notice that may be required: 14 15 1. Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) 16 2. Mailed Written Notice 17 3. Newspaper Legal Advertisement 18 4. Posting of a Sign 19 5. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting for Golf Course Conversions (SOM) 20 6. Agent Letter 21 22 B. Neighborhood Information Meeting 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 26 Notice Requirements The NIM shall be noticed as follows: 1. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in notification area at least 15 days before the NIM meeting. a. The applicant shall also provide written notice of the NIM to property owners, condominium, and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use change and who have formally requested the County to be notified. Each mailed notice shall contain the following: Page 214 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 53 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx “The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application 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.” 2. Newspaper Legal Advertisement: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the NIM meeting in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the NIM meeting; b. Petition name, number and applicant contact info; c. Purpose of the NIM meeting; d. Description of the proposed land uses; and e. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. f. Date on which the advertisement or public notice was first published. Location The applicant must arrange the location of the meeting. To promote increased participation and convenience to the interested members of the public, all NIMs shall be conducted at a physical location, to allow for in-person attendance, and virtually, utilizing videoconferencing technology . The in-person location must be reasonably convenient to the property owners who receive the required notice. The facilities must be of sufficient size to accommodate the expected attendance. Conduct of Meeting and Decorum 1. Conduct of Meeting: A Collier County staff planner or designee shall attend the NIM and record all commitments made by the applicant during the meeting while remaining neutral and providing clarification regarding the next steps the petition must follow in the review process, including the anticipated future public hearings that are associated with the petition. The applicant shall make a presentation of how they intend to develop the subject property. The applicant is required to record the NIM proceedings and provide an audible audio/video copy to the Zoning Division, including a written summary. When video conferencing is used, it must have the capability to capture the written comments from the attendees . These written comments will be included in the written summary of the NIM. The applicant must provide the following at the NIM for review and comment, including but not limited to: a. The proposed uses and density/intensity of the project; b. The proposed Master Plan, when applicable; and c. The current LDC zoning district uses and development regulations. 2. Decorum: The expectation is that all NIM attendees will conduct themselves in such manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. For in-person meetings, the applicant is encouraged to provide a licensed and qualified security detail, which will be at the applicant’s expense. If the applicant or staff planner determines the NIM cannot be completed due to the disorderly conduct of the members of the public, the applicant shall have the right to adjourn the NIM but be required to conduct another duly advertised NIM, either in-person or via videoconferencing technology, or both, at the applicant’s discretion. Page 215 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 54 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Meeting Follow- Up 1. After a NIM is completed, the applicant will submit a written summary of the NIM and any commitments that have been made to the assigned planner. These commitments will: a. Become part of the record of the proceedings; b. Be included in the staff report for any subsequent review and approval bodies; and c. Be considered for inclusion in the conditions of approval of any applicable development order. 2. The County staff planner or designee shall promptly post the written summary and audio/video recording of the NIM to the County’s website for public inspection. Updated Resolution 2023-211 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 D. Newspaper Legal Advertisement 4 5 Applicability For applicable land use petitions, the newspaper legal advertisement shall be as follows. A copy of the newspaper legal advertisement shall be kept available for public inspection during regular business hours of the Office of Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. The notice of proposed enactment shall include where the proposed ordinance or resolution may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance or resolution. Placement and Content The newspaper legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation or on the official website of Collier County as prescribed in F.S. section 50.011. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the hearing; b. Petition name, number and applicant contact info; c. Description of the proposed land uses; and d. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location, as applicable. e. Date on which the advertisement or public notice was first published . Updated 2025-xxxx 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 F. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting for Golf Course Conversions (SOM) 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 SOM Notice Requirements Each SOM shall be noticed as follows: Page 216 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 55 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 3 Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 4 Chapter 13 | Glossary 5 6 Chapter 13. Glossary 7 8 Addressing Checklist An addressing checklist is a form that must be signed by a member of the Addressing Staff. This form indicates the petition type, the legal description, folio/property identification number, the street address, location information, and a survey for unplatted properties. The addressing checklist form can be found on the Collier County website, on the Zoning and Land Use Application page. Applicant A person or entity who files an application with the Growth Management Community Development Department, including their representative or agent. 1. Newspaper Legal Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the SOM in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: a. Date, time, and location of the SOM; b. Petition name, number and applicant contact info; c. Notice of the intention to convert the golf course to a non -golf course use; d. Brief description of the proposed uses; and e. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. 2. Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice requirement, written notice shall be sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of the golf course at least 15 days before the first SOM. The mailed notice shall include the following: a. Date, time, and location of each SOM included in the mailed notice; b. Petition name, number and applicant contact info; c. Notice of the intention to convert the golf course to another use; d. A brief description of the proposed uses; e. A statement describing that the applicant is seeking input through a stakeholder outreach process; f. The user-friendly web address where the meeting materials, such as the Developers Alternatives Statement, can be accessed; g. A brief description of the visual survey and the user-friendly web address where the survey can be accessed; and h. The dates that the web-based visual survey will be available online. Page 217 of 1321 Exhibit A – Administrative Code 56 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Applicant Contact Information The applicant contact information should include, but not limited to the following: • Applicant/owner or agent’s: o Name; o Address; o Phone number; o Email address; and o The name of the firm where the agent is employed, if applicable. Architect A natural person who is licensed under F.S. Chapter 481, Part I to engage in the practice of architecture. Engineer A person who is licensed to engage in the practice of engineering under F.S. Chapter 471, and who practices principally in the design and construction of public works or infrastructure. Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances The general codification of the general and permanent ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The Code of Laws and Ordinances is available online at www.municode.com. Electronic Copies of all Documents An electronic version of all plans and documents, in PDF or Word format, on a CDROM as part of the submittal package. Landscape Architect A person who holds a license to practice landscape architecture in the State of Florida under the authority of F.S. Chapter 481, Part II. Land Development Code (LDC) The Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41. The LDC is available online at www.municode.com. Mailed Notice  See LDC section 10.03.05 B. NIM  See LDC section 10.03.05 A. Newspaper Legal Advertisement  See LDC section 10.03.05 C, and in accordance with F.S. section 125.66 and F.S. section 50.011. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3 Page 218 of 1321 Exhibit B – F.S. Chapter 50 – Legal and Official Advertisements 57 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 219 of 1321 Exhibit B – F.S. Chapter 50 – Legal and Official Advertisements 58 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 220 of 1321 Exhibit B – F.S. Chapter 50 – Legal and Official Advertisements 59 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 221 of 1321 Exhibit B – F.S. Chapter 50 – Legal and Official Advertisements 60 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 222 of 1321 Exhibit B – F.S. Chapter 50 – Legal and Official Advertisements 61 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 223 of 1321 Exhibit C – Public Hearing Requirements by Petition Type 62 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 224 of 1321 Exhibit C – Public Hearing Requirements by Petition Type 63 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Procedural Inconsistencies and Corrections (PL20250000180)\Drafts\PL20250000180 Procedural Inconsistencies - CCPC (07-02-2025).docx Page 225 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 9.C ID# 2025-2761 PL20240013324 - 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone- west side of Tamiami Trial North between 92nd Avenue North and 93rd Avenue North - The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider 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 the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district to the Residential Multi-family-16 (RMF-16) zoning district to allow up to 16 multi-family dwelling units per acre for a total of 28 multi-family dwelling units. The 1.86± acre property is located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North between 92nd Avenue North and 93rd Avenue North, in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] ATTACHMENTS: 1. 9271-9295 TTN Rezone Staff Report 8-21-25 2. Attachment A-Proposed Rezone Ordinance 9271-9295 TTN Rezone - 081825 3. Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memo 7-31-25 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North Rezone 4. Attachment C-NIM Documents 6-5-2025 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North Rezone 5. Attachment D-Application 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North Rezone 6. Affidavit of Posting Notice and photos of public hearing signs (PL20240013324) 8-28-25 7. Notice of Public Hearing Page 226 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 15, 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: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH RMF-16 REZONE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant/Owner: Rachel Development, Inc., a Minnesota Company, authorized to do business in the State of Florida as Rachel Development SWF, Inc., and Vincent RE Development, LLC 4180 Napier Court NE Saint Michael, MN 55376 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP, and Ellen Summers, AICP Bowman 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider 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 the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district to the Residential Multi-family-16 (RMF-16) zoning district to allow up to 16 multi-family dwelling units per acre for a total of 28 multi-family dwelling units. Page 227 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 2 of 11 Location Map Page 228 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 3 of 11 Master Plan Page 229 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 4 of 11 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 1.86± acre parcel is located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North (US 41)and bordered on the north by 93rd Avenue North and on the south by 92nd Avenue North, in Section 33, 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 subject property consists of a single 1.86± acre Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoned parcel with an auto repair and window tinting shop, a closed Burger King restaurant, and a single-family residence. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the 1.86± acre (C-3) parcel to an RMF-16 zoned parcel to allow for the development of 28 multi-family dwelling units with a maximum density of up to one dwelling unit per approximately .06± acres. For reference, see the Master Plan on the preceding page. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: 93rd Avenue North, a local 2-lane road, and then a retail business with a zoning designation of Commercial Intermediate (C-3) South: 92nd Avenue North, a local 2-lane road, and then a retail business with a zoning designation of Commercial Intermediate (C-3) East: Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41), a 6-lane divided principal arterial road, and then mixed-use retail and residential with a zoning designation of Mercato MPUD West: Single-family residential, with a zoning designation of Residential Multi- family-6 (RMF-6) Page 230 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 5 of 11 Aerial Map GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: 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, please see Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s April 7, 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 Subject Parcel Page 231 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 6 of 11 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 a 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 finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Mercato West Rezone development will generate a projected total of +/- 33 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Tamiami Trail North/US-41. The current C-3 uses could potentially generate +/-61 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed rezone represents a potential reduction of +/-(28) PM peak hour trips. The proposed +/- 33 PM peak hour trips 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 Tamiami Trail North (US- 41)/100.0 Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road 3,410/NB 12/NB D (2) 660 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is April 7, 2025. Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Road link is FDOT jurisdiction. 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 staff evaluated the petition. The property is 1.86 acres; the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. Page 232 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (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 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 recommends approval. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. The property has been developed (C-3) and cleared of native vegetation. Therefore, the Master Plan does not show a preserve since no minimum preservation is required. 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: Utility staff have reviewed and approved the petition. The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the north wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). 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. Zoning Review: As previously stated, the subject property consists of a single 1.86± acre Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoned parcel with an auto repair and window tinting shop, a closed Burger King restaurant, and a single-family residence. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the 1.86± acre (C-3) parcel to an RMF-16 zoned parcel to allow for the development of 28 multi-family dwelling units with a maximum density of up to one dwelling unit per approximately .06± acres. The Conceptual Site Plan depicts the proposed multi-family building, along with 10-foot-wide Type D landscape buffers adjacent to the three street right-of-way frontages, and a 15-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer along the adjacent RMF-6 lot, which is occupied by a single-family residence. The proposed commitment to limit the zoned building height to 50 feet is consistent with the current C-3 maximum zoned height of 50 feet. (The maximum RMF-16 building height is 75 feet.) Page 233 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 8 of 11 The zoning surrounding the subject property is Residential Multi-family (RMF-6), Commercial Intermediate (C-3), and Mixed-Use PUD. However, the existing land use pattern in the vicinity of the subject property is single-family, commercial, and mixed-use. The proposed rezoning to change the subject commercial property to residential multi-family is compatible and complementary to the existing development in the area. The petitioner has committed to the following Conditions of Approval, which have been incorporated into Attachment A-Proposed Rezone Ordinance: 1. The maximum Zoned Building Height shall not exceed 50 feet (50’). 2. The maximum total daily trip generation for the MPUD shall not exceed 33 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. To date, 10 letters of objection and one letter of support have been received. 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 proposed changes in relation to the following findings when applicable” (The criteria is 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. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern is characterized by developed commercial to the north, east, and south. To the west is single-family residential. The proposed rezones from (C-3) to (RMF-16) will not create any incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed RMF-16 is a transitional land use between C-3 and RMF-6. It is not an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Page 234 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 9 of 11 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. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to redevelop a property with a defunct fast food restaurant, auto repair uses, and a single- family home into multi-family residences. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant, can be deemed consistent with the County’s land-use policies upon adoption, as reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 noted previously, 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 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. This development should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus, the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed rezone from C-3 to RMF-16 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. Surrounding properties are mostly developed commercial, residential, and mixed-use, as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound Page 235 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 10 of 11 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. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without rezoning the property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed change from C-3 to RMF-16 is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. As previously stated, the proposed RMF-16 rezone is a transition from the existing C-3 to RMF-6. 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; 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 that 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 proposed zoning district would require some site alteration, and this project will undergo 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. Page 236 of 1321 RZ-PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone August 20, 2025 Page 11 of 11 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 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 BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant held the required meeting on June 3, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Library, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida. Approximately 50-55 people, along with the applicant and County Staff, attended the meeting. Except for one neighbor, the neighbors were opposed to the proposed multi-family rezone. They are opposed to change, they do not want additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic in their neighborhood, they do not want a tall building on the edge of their neighborhood, and they are concerned about setting a precedent. They are also concerned about increasing property values and property tax increases related to their properties, and they have expressed concerns about providing affordable housing for working people. For further information, see Attachment C–NIM Documents. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report for content and legal sufficiency on August 19, 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommend that the CCPC forward Petition RZ- PL20240013324, 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North Rezone, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A-Proposed Rezone Ordinance Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment C-NIM Documents Attachment D-Application Page 237 of 1321 [25-CPS-02607/1965209/1]70 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North PL20240013324 8/18/25 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 COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY-16 (RMF-16) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO SIXTEEEN MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR A TOTAL OF 28 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON 1.86± ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) AND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY 93RD AVENUE NORTH AND ON THE SOUTH BY 92ND AVENUE NORTH, IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20240013324] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP and Ellen Summers, AICP of Bowman and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., on behalf of Rachel Development, Inc. and Vincent RE Development, 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 herein described real property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East is changed from a Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District to a Residential Multifamily (RMF-16) Zoning District to allow up to 16 multifamily dwelling units per acre for a total of 28 multifamily dwelling units for a 1.86± acre project to be known as 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North Rezone subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit C. Exhibits A, B and C are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate Page 238 of 1321 [25-CPS-02607/1965209/1]70 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North PL20240013324 8/18/25 2 of 2 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 F. Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – Legal Description Exhibit B – Master Concept Plan Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval Exhibit D – Location Map Page 239 of 1321 Exhibit A Legal Description LOT 1 TROUGHT 14, AND LOT 47 TROUGH 50, BLOCK 53, NAPLES PARK UNIT 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 1.86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS Page 240 of 1321 US-41 TAMIAMI TRAIL N92nd AVE N 93rd AVE N DRY RETENTIONNEW BOUNDRY ZONING: RMF-6 ZONING: RMF-6 15' BUFFER TYPE D10'BUFFERTYPE D15' BUFFER TYPE B 10'BUFFERTYPE D30' SETBACK REQUIRED 30'SETBACKREQUIRED30' SETBACK REQUIRED 30'SETBACKREQUIRED30'9'9'18' 18' 22' 22' 18' 18'9'9'15' 31'56'SETBACKPROVIDED60'31'60'31'24'33'56'SETBACKPROVIDED16'24' 24'156'206'20'30' SETBACK PROVIDED 46'SETBACKPROVIDED46'SETBACKPROVIDED136'86'136'156'93rd AVE N DRY RETENTIONDRY RETENTIONDRY RETENTION0 SCALE: 1" = 10'20'40' 20' N J.R. ENGINEERING EVANS 9271-9295 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH RMF-16 REZONE MASTER CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBIT B July 3, 2025 ·TOTAL LOT AREAS: 1.86 AC ·OPEN SPACE REQUIRED (60%): 1.11 AC ·OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (62%): 1.13 AC ···SOD: 0.87 AC ···POOL: 0.05 AC ···PAVERS (POOL AREA): 0.21 AC ·TOTAL BLDG UNITS FOOTPRINT: 0.47 AC (20,440 S.F) ·POOL HOUSE: 1,1160 S.F. (0.02 AC) ·ASPHALT: 0.23 AC ·MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT: 50 FT ·MAX. DU (28 DU/1.86 ACRE) = 15.05 ·PARKING REQUIRED = 56 SPACES ·PARKING PROVIDED = 60 SPACES ···RESIDENT PARKING = 56 SPACES ···VISITOR / DELIVERY = 4 SPACES ·CURRENT ZONING: C-3 ·PROPOSED ZONING: RMF-16 ·THE SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY NATIVE VEGETATION; THEREFORE, NO PRESERVATION IS REQUIRED. MERCATO_PROPERTIES_R3.DWG Page 241 of 1321 EXHIBIT C 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The maximum Zoned Building Height shall not exceed 50 feet (50’). 2. The maximum total daily trip generation for the MPUD shall not exceed 33 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. Page 242 of 1321 PROJECT SITE TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH8TH ST N91ST AVE N 92ND AVE N 93RD AVE N STRADA PL VANDERBILT BEACH RD VANDE R B I L T B E A C H R DGULF PAVILION DRMERCATO DR M E R C A T O W A Y 0 SCALE: 1" = 60'120'240' 120' N LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT D April 24, 2025 MERCATO_PROPERTIES_R1.DWGJ.R. ENGINEERING EVANS Page 243 of 1321 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Growth Management Community Development Department Zoning Division CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, Planner III, Zoning From: Stephenne Barter, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Date: May 30, 2025 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20240013324 PETITION NAME: 9271-9295 Tamiami Trail North RMF-16 Rezone (RZ) REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone from its current Commercial-3 zoning to a Residential Multi-Family-16 (RMF-16) District to allow 16 dwelling units per acre. LOCATION: The subject site (±1.86-acre) is located west of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail), bounded to the north by 93rd Avenue North and to the south by 92nd Avenue North, in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban – Urban Mixed-Use District – Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map. According to the FLUE, “the purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. FLUE: “1 THE DENSITY RATING SYSTEM IS APPLIED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: a. Within the applicable Urban designated areas, the base density of the Subdistrict is allowed, though not an entitlement. Density may be increased using applicable density bonuses. For purposes of calculating the eligible number of dwelling units for the project, the total number of dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit 0.5 or greater. Acreage used for the calculation of density is exclusive of commercial portions of the project, except within the C-1 through C- 3 Commercial zoning districts, and except within the Commercial Mixed-Use Subdistrict, wherein residential project densities will be calculated on total gross acreage, and except portions of a project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code.” Page 244 of 1321 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Eligible Density: To achieve the 30 multi-family dwelling units the applicant is proposing the use of the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus provided for in the FLUE Density Rating System: “a. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus: 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. 90-23), 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. These bonus dwelling units may be distributed over the entire project. The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses.” This site is identified on the Consistent with FLUE by Policy Maps (FLUE 9), part of the FLUM Series, which is deemed “Consistent By Policy”. Using the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus, the site is eligible for a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 30 DUs for this site (16 DU/A x 1.86A = 29.76 DU  30 DU). Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold]. FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.] FLUE Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: 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 site has frontage along US 41/Tamiami Trail, a principal arterial. The proposed conceptual plan shows direct connections to 92nd Avenue North and 93rd Avenue North. Access to US 41 is controlled by the Florida Department of Transportation.] 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. [Given the location and small size of the site, there is no loop road proposed. Staff finds it unnecessary to provide a loop road due to the location and the nature of the proposed project.] 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 subject site mostly abuts streets (therefore cannot interconnect) but does abut 2 small parcels, which contain a single-family dwelling unit and a duplex; therefore, interconnection with adjacent neighborhoods or developments is not feasible.] 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. [With regard to walkability, the project benefits from an existing sidewalk along US 41/Tamiami Trail. The proposed development does not include a blend of housing densities, a range of housing prices is not provided, and civic facilities are not provided; it is staff’s opinion that none of these are feasible given the small size of the site. The master plan indicates 62 percent open space.] Page 245 of 1321 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis of proposed uses and densities, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone petition to be consistent with Future Land Use Element. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: James Sabo, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Page 246 of 1321 Page 247 of 1321 Page 248 of 1321 Page 249 of 1321 Page 250 of 1321 Page 251 of 1321 Page 252 of 1321 Page 253 of 1321 Page 254 of 1321 Page 255 of 1321 Page 256 of 1321 Page 257 of 1321 Page 258 of 1321 Page 259 of 1321 Page 260 of 1321 Page 261 of 1321 Page 262 of 1321 Page 263 of 1321 Page 264 of 1321 Page 265 of 1321 Page 266 of 1321 Page 267 of 1321 Page 268 of 1321 Page 269 of 1321 Page 270 of 1321 Page 271 of 1321 Page 272 of 1321 Page 273 of 1321 Page 274 of 1321 Page 275 of 1321 Page 276 of 1321 Page 277 of 1321 Page 278 of 1321 Page 279 of 1321 Page 280 of 1321 Page 281 of 1321 Page 282 of 1321 Page 283 of 1321 Page 284 of 1321 Page 285 of 1321 Page 286 of 1321 Page 287 of 1321 Page 288 of 1321 Page 289 of 1321 Page 290 of 1321 Page 291 of 1321 Page 292 of 1321 Page 293 of 1321 Page 294 of 1321 Page 295 of 1321 Page 296 of 1321 Page 297 of 1321 Page 298 of 1321 Page 299 of 1321 Page 300 of 1321 Page 301 of 1321 Page 302 of 1321 Page 303 of 1321 Page 304 of 1321 Page 305 of 1321 Page 306 of 1321 Page 307 of 1321 Page 308 of 1321 Page 309 of 1321 Page 310 of 1321 Page 311 of 1321 Page 312 of 1321 Page 313 of 1321 Page 314 of 1321 Page 315 of 1321 Page 316 of 1321 Page 317 of 1321 Page 318 of 1321 Page 319 of 1321 Page 320 of 1321 Page 321 of 1321 Page 322 of 1321 Page 323 of 1321 Page 324 of 1321 Page 325 of 1321 Page 326 of 1321 Page 327 of 1321 Page 328 of 1321 Page 329 of 1321 Page 330 of 1321 Page 331 of 1321 Page 332 of 1321 Page 333 of 1321 Page 334 of 1321 Page 335 of 1321 Page 336 of 1321 Page 337 of 1321 Page 338 of 1321 Page 339 of 1321 Page 340 of 1321 Page 341 of 1321 Page 342 of 1321 Page 343 of 1321 Page 344 of 1321 Page 345 of 1321 Page 346 of 1321 Page 347 of 1321 Page 348 of 1321 Page 349 of 1321 Page 350 of 1321 Page 351 of 1321 Page 352 of 1321 Page 353 of 1321 Page 354 of 1321 Page 355 of 1321 Page 356 of 1321 Page 357 of 1321 Page 358 of 1321 Page 359 of 1321 Page 360 of 1321 Page 361 of 1321 Page 362 of 1321 Page 363 of 1321 Page 364 of 1321 Page 365 of 1321 Page 366 of 1321 Page 367 of 1321 Page 368 of 1321 Page 369 of 1321 Page 370 of 1321 Page 371 of 1321 Page 372 of 1321 Page 373 of 1321 Page 374 of 1321 Page 375 of 1321 Page 376 of 1321 Page 377 of 1321 Page 378 of 1321 Page 379 of 1321 Page 380 of 1321 Page 381 of 1321 Page 382 of 1321 Page 383 of 1321 Page 384 of 1321 Page 385 of 1321 Page 386 of 1321 Page 387 of 1321 Page 388 of 1321 Page 389 of 1321 Page 390 of 1321 Page 391 of 1321 Page 392 of 1321 Page 393 of 1321 Page 394 of 1321 Page 395 of 1321 Page 396 of 1321 Page 397 of 1321 Page 398 of 1321 Page 399 of 1321 Page 400 of 1321 Page 401 of 1321 Page 402 of 1321 Page 403 of 1321 Page 404 of 1321 Page 405 of 1321 Page 406 of 1321 Page 407 of 1321 Page 408 of 1321 Page 409 of 1321 Page 410 of 1321 Page 411 of 1321 Page 412 of 1321 Page 413 of 1321 Page 414 of 1321 Page 415 of 1321 Page 416 of 1321 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M. on September 18, 2025, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL to consider: 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 COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY-16 (RMF-16) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO SIXTEEEN MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR A TOTAL OF 28 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON 1.86± ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) AND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY 93RD AVENUE NORTH AND ON THE SOUTH BY 92ND AVENUE NORTH, IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20240013324] Page 417 of 1321 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinance will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112, one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, prior to September 18, 2025. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar- of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Bellows at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Joseph K. Schmitt, Chairman Page 418 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 9.D ID# 2025-2762 PL20230018397- 8928 Collier Boulevard PUDZ- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes 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 the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD to allow for the development of 92 multi-family dwelling units, subject to an affordable housing density bonus agreement to provide 30% of the units (28) for households earning 80% to 120% of the county’s Area Median Income (AMI). The subject PUD, consisting of 9.49± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1,300 feet north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] ATTACHMENTS: 1. 8928 Collier Blvd Staff Report 8-21-25 2. Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 070225 3. Attachment B-GMP Consistency Memo 8-19-25 4. Attachment C-NIM Documents 8-14-25 5. Attachment D-Application 8-14-25 6. Affidavit of sign - signed Proof of posting 9-2-25 7. Notice of Public Hearing Page 419 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 1 of 15 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) COMPANION TO GMPA- PL20230013845, BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT _______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Property Owner: Bonita Flores I, LLC 3899 Manix Drive, Suite 405 Naples, FL 34114 Agents: Josh Philpot, AICP Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1412 Jackson Street, Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission consider rezoning 9.49± acres from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD to allow for 92 multi-family residential dwelling units with Affordable Housing. Page 420 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 2 of 15 Page 421 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 3 of 15 MASTER PLAN Page 422 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 4 of 15 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD, consisting of 9.49± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1,300 north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks to rezone 9.49± acres of vacant land with an (A) zoning designation to the 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD to allow for 92 multi-family dwelling units at a density of 9.69 dwelling units per acre. The units will be subject to an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, which will provide 30% of the units (28 units) for households earning 80% to 100% of the County’s Area Median Income (AMI). A minimum of 14 units will be rented to households whose income does not exceed 80% of the AMI. A minimum of 14 units will be rented to households whose income does not exceed 100% of the AMI. See Attachment A – Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Developing single-family residential development with a zoning designation of Hacienda Lakes PUD /Development of Regional Impact (DRI) with a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre East: Developing single-family residential development with a zoning designation of Hacienda Lakes PUD /Development of Regional Impact (DRI) with a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre South: Preserve land with zoning designations of Collier Boulevard, Lord’s Way, PUD, with a density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre. West: Collier Boulevard, a 6-lane divided roadway, and a golf course with a zoning designation of Naples Lakes PUD with a density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre Page 423 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 5 of 15 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Rezone and has found that the subject rezone petition is currently not consistent with the GMP. Approval of this PUD Rezone petition is contingent upon the approval of the companion GMPA petition PL20230013845, Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict, that provides for the requested residential density. For further information, please see Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s May 2024 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, Subject Site Page 424 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 6 of 15 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 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 finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD Rezone development will generate a projected total of +/- 36 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Collier Boulevard/SR-951. 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-951/34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,000/NB 22/NB F (2)(248)(2) 1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is the May 2024 Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2.The existing deficiency is by Trip Bank, not caused by this development. The I-75 and Collier Blvd interchange improvements and the 6-lane improvement of Collier Blvd north of the Golden Gate Canal are in the current work programs for Collier County and FDOT. These improvements are expected to improve the road network once complete. Finally, Florida State Statute 163.3180 is also applicable (see bullet points below). Florida Statute 163.3180 Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct theirproportionate fair share. Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plusprojected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removedfrom the proportionate share calculation. Page 425 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 7 of 15 The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibilityof the maintaining entity. Applicant must receive credit for the anticipated road impact fees. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, and State Statute 163.3180, 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 Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of 8.15 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 1.22 acres (15%) of native vegetation is required to be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, subject to the adoption of the companion GMPA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission’s (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who, in turn, use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning and Land Development Review.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The required preserve is 1.22 acres (15% of 8.15 acres). The environmental data indicate that the proposed project is located in an area with the potential to contain a variety of protected animal species; however, none were observed on-site. The proposed project is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus); however, no evidence was found indicating that trees were being utilized. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within the FWS primary Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) habitat. There were no observations of panther onsite; consultation with FWS may be required to obtain panther mitigation. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicate the presence of black bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A Black Bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review. Additionally, the property contains potential habitat for Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required prior to construction. 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 Page 426 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 8 of 15 the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utility Review: The project is located within the regional potable water service area and the southern wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent Collier Boulevard right-of-way along the western boundary of the project. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Developer commitments are listed in “Exhibit F” of the PUD Exhibit A-F 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 utility acceptance. School Review: Currently, there is existing capacity within the next five years for the proposed development at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. At the time of the site plan or plat, the development project would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area in which the project is located or adjacent concurrency service areas. Stormwater Review: Stormwater staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Affordable Housing Review: The Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff has reviewed the petition. The 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD proposes to be developed as follows: A residential community that will include up to 92 multifamily rental units at a density of 9.69 units per acre. The development proposes to include 30% of the residential units (28 units) as affordable housing, with 15% (14 units) restricted to households below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and 15% (14 units) restricted to households below 100% AMI. For reference, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: Page 427 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 9 of 15 The developer also commits to priority marketing for 50% of the affordable units to Essential Services Personnel. All the above-mentioned restrictions and commitments will remain in effect for thirty (30) years. 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. The Shimberg Center also reports that the average observed monthly rent for apartments in Collier County has risen sharply, doubling over the past decade to $2,933 (as of 2025). Approval of this petition will assist Collier County in addressing the continued need for affordable housing. Zoning and Land Development Review: As previously stated, the request is to rezone the property from the Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district, allowing for the development of 92 multi-family residential units at 10 dwelling units per acre. The units will be subject to an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, which will provide 30% of the units (28 units) for households earning 80% to 100% of the County’s AMI. Zoning staff have evaluated the proposed use related to intensity and compatibility. The proposed density of 9.69 dwelling units per acre is calculated based on an affordable housing commitment allowing a maximum of 92 multi-family dwelling units. The density is similar to the density of 10 dwelling units per acre in the adjacent Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way PUD to the south, which also has an affordable housing component. The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 52 feet and an actual building height of 56 feet, which is less than the zoned building height of 75 feet and an actual building height of 85 feet in the adjacent Hacienda Lakes PUD. The proposed landscape buffers meet the minimum code. There is a proposed 15-foot-wide Type Page 428 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 10 of 15 D landscape buffer along Collier Boulevard (trees 30 feet on center) and a 10 to 15-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer (trees 25 feet on center and a 6-foot-high hedge) along the north and south property lines where there is no preserve. 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, and policies, and future land use map, and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this petition and has found it not consistent with the GMP. Approval of this PUD Rezone petition is contingent upon the companion GMPA petition PL20230013845, Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict, that provides for the requested residential density. Therefore, the PUD may only be found consistent with the GMPA if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. 2.The existing land use pattern. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel will not result in an isolated district 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 district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5.Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, as the petitioner wishes to allow for the development of 92 Page 429 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 11 of 15 residential units, with 10 dwelling units per acre. Furthermore, the proposed RPUD will provide affordable housing. 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 MPUD 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. 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 PUD Rezone will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District environmental resource permitting requirements. 9.Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed PUD Rezone will not reduce light or air to adjacent areas, both inside and outside the PUD. Furthermore, the PUD Document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure that light and air are not seriously reduced in adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of the proposed preserve and open space areas should ensure that light and air are not seriously reduced in adjacent areas. 10.Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff found no evidence that the proposed PUD Rezone would adversely impact property values. 11.Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The property to the west is developed. The properties to the north and south are undergoing building construction. The property to the east is undeveloped. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and PPL process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of the adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. Page 430 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 12 of 15 12.Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed PUD rezone can be found consistent with the LDC and the GMP, subject to the adoption of the companion GMPA. Thus, the proposed change can be deemed to be in alignment with public welfare and not a grant of special privilege. 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 can not be used in accordance with the current zoning. However, the applicant proposes to provide 30% affordable housing (28 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 or 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 merits for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; staff do not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16.The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require site alteration, and this project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or PPL processes, and as part of the building permit process. 17.The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services 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 have concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. Page 431 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 13 of 15 18.Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria:” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project. 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 further 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 are sought, including, but not limited to, any plats and/or site development plans. Water and wastewater mains are available along Collier Boulevard at the western boundary of the project, and 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 utility acceptance. 2.Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3.Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. There is a companion GMPA petition, PL20230013845, for the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict, which provides for the requested residential density. Therefore, the PUD may only be found consistent with the GMPA if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. Page 432 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 14 of 15 4.The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with the adjacent uses. Staff has concluded that this Rezone will not change the project’s compatibility, both internally and externally. 5.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6.The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Water and wastewater mains are available along Collier Boulevard at the western boundary of the project, and 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 utility acceptance. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project. 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 further 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 are sought, including, but not limited to, any plats and/or site development plans. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Water and wastewater mains are available along Collier Boulevard. 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 utility acceptance. 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. Page 433 of 1321 PUDZ-PL20230018397, 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD August 21, 2025 Page 15 of 15 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. There are no deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on May 19, 2025, at the Collier South Regional Library, located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, Florida. One resident attended the meeting virtually via ZOOM, along with the physical presence of the Agent’s team. For further information, see Attachment C–NIM Documents. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on August 20, 2025. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ- PL20230018397, 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the approval of the companion GMPA petition PL20230013845, Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. Attachments: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment C- NIM Documents Attachment D-Application Page 434 of 1321 [24-CPS-02548/1955872/1]90 8928 Collier Blvd / PUDZ-PL20230018397 7/2/25 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 RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230018397] WHEREAS, Josh Phillpott, AICP of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., representing Catana Construction, Inc. 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 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. 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. Page 435 of 1321 [24-CPS-02548/1955872/1]90 8928 Collier Blvd / PUDZ-PL20230018397 7/2/25 2 of 2 SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2025-_____ becomes effective. 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 - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E – List of Deviations Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments Page 436 of 1321 EXHIBIT “A” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 1 of 10 LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents 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. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 92 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL: A.Principal Use: 1.Multi-Family Residential Dwelling Units – Tract “R” Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B.Accessory Use(s): Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, including but not limited to: 1. Carports and garages; and 2.Community administrative facilities and recreational facilities intended to serve residents and guests; and 3.Construction offices (during active construction only); and 4.Leasing offices; and 5.Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas; and 6.Storage shed; and 7.Swimming pools and spas for residents and their guests; and 8.Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. Page 437 of 1321 EXHIBIT “A” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 2 of 10 PRESERVE: A.Allowable Uses: 1.Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2.Mitigation for environmental permitting, as per LDC requirements. 3.Passive Recreation areas, as per LDC requirements. 4.Water management and water management structures, as per LDC requirements. Page 438 of 1321 EXHIBIT “B” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 3 of 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table 1 below sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP), Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) or Plat. TABLE I - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTI -FAMILY Minimum Floor Area Per Unit 550 square feet per dwelling unit Minimum Lot Area N/A Minimum Lot Width N/A Minimum Lot Depth N/A Minimum Setbacks Front 30 Feet Side, North Side 15 Feet Side, South Side 25 feet (Preserve) Rear 30 Feet Maximum Building Height Zoned / Actual Four Maximum Building Height Stories, not to exceed 52 feet as zoned and not to exceed 56 feet actual ACCESSORY STRUCTURES *1 Minimum Setbacks Front SPS* Side, North Side 15 Feet Side, South Side 10 Feet Rear SPS* Footnotes: *SPS – Same as Principal Structure *1 – Community structures such as guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks and access control structures shall have no required internal setback, and are permitted throughout the PUD; however, such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of-way or create site distance issues for motorists and pedestrians or conflict with utility standards for required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures. Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. Page 439 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD/DRIUSE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONED: LORDS WAY MPUDUSE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD/DRIUSE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL170' FPL ESMT 155' ACCESS ESMT CONSERVATION EASEMENTO.R. 2532, PG. 2206SITE BOUNDARYPOTENTIAL 5' ± HIGH RETAINING WALL(FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN TO BEDETERMINED AT TIME OF SITEDEVELOPMENT PLAN)PROP. RIGHT TURN LANEEX. COLLIER BLVD CANALEX. 10' MULTI-USE PATH15' WIDE TYPE 'D' BUFFER 15.5' ROW COMPENSATION 15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER10' WIDE TYPE'A' BUFFER20' LME25' MIN. BLDGSETBACK15' MIN. BLDGSETBACK30' MIN. BLDG SETBACK 15' UTILITY ESMT15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER(SEE NOTE 2)25' PRESERVE BOUNDARY RPUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT ANDPUBLIC WELL40'50'3N Feet0180360LEGENDDETENTION AREALAKE AREAThe Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202025.06.17 4:03:08 PM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\master_concept_plan\215618460 master-plan-c Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460EXHIBIT C MASTER PLANPETITION: 8928 Collier BoulevardPUD (PL20230018397)2025.05.19PRESERVERESIDENTIALINGRESS/EGRESSRNOTES:1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TOMODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTINGREQUIREMENTS.2. PRESERVES CAN BE USED TO MEET LDC LANDSCAPEBUFFER PER LDC SECTION 4.06.05.3. POTENTIAL FUTURE INTERCONNECTION WITH HACIENDALAKES PUDLANDSCAPE BUFFERS:NORTH: 15' TYPE BEAST: 15' TYPE B (SEE NOTE 2)SOUTH: 10' TYPE AWEST: 15' TYPE DTOTAL ACREAGE: 9.49OPEN SPACE: MIN. REQUIRED: 60% / 5.69 AC.OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 61% / 5.79 ACNATIVE VEGETATION: 8.15REQUIRED PRESERVATION (15%): 1.22 ACPROVIDED PRESERVATION: 1.22 ACPage 440 of 1321 EXHIBIT “D” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 5 of 10 Legal Description THE SOUTH ½ OF THE SOUTH ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS & EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET FOR STATE 951. Page 441 of 1321 EXHIBIT “E” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 6 of 10 List of Requested LDC Deviations and Justifications for Each At this time, no deviations are being requested. Page 442 of 1321 EXHIBIT “F” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 7 of 10 List of Development Commitments The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL 1.One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Bonita Flores I, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2.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 a pplicant 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." (Section 125.022, FS) 3.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. TRANSPORTATION 1.The maximum total trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed thirty-six (36) 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 Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA ) or subdivision plat approval. 2.At all times, if the existing 10-foot paved multi-use public pathway adjacent to the PUD is impacted, developer and owner shall provide and maintain an alternative 10-foot multi-use public pathway with, at a minimum, a compacted gravel base or equivalent acceptable to the Collier County Transportation Department. Within 60 days of impacting the existing pathway, the developer or owner shall reconstruct the existing 10-foot paved multi-use pathway adjacent to Page 443 of 1321 EXHIBIT “F” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 8 of 10 the PUD using the same specifications and materials as initial construction of existing 10-foot paved multi-use public pathway by County or FDOT. 3.Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, a bridge providing pedestrian and vehicular access to the site will be completed by owner at its sole expense according to County standards for bridge access to a residential development. Unless County establishes a funding mechanism or County otherwise agrees, owner as shown on the right-of-permit shall own and maintain the bridges that provide vehicular or pedestrian access to the RPUD. 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 during the 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.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 water distribution/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to 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 during the 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. ENVIRONMENTAL 1.The Residential PUD (RPUD) shall be required to preserve 15% of native vegetation. There are 8.15± acres of native vegetation on-site requiring a minimum preservation of 1.22± acres (8.15 X .15 = 1.22). A minimum of 1.22± acres of native vegetation shall be retained on-site. 2.The developer commits to adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable. The informational brochure created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) titled “A Guide to Living in Bear County” will be distributed to future homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel. Residents will be provided with information on how to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash receptacles and the project will utilize bear resistance dumpsters in locations to be determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. Page 444 of 1321 EXHIBIT “F” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 9 of 10 3.Preserves can be used to meet LDC Landscape Buffers per LDC section 4.06.05. 4.Developer may at its option construct a 5± foot high retaining wall as shown on the Master Plan (final location and design to be determined at time of site development plan). AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1.Twenty -eight (28) units (30% of the total approved) will be income and rent restricted as follows: a.Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. b.Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the AMI for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. c.These twenty-eight (28) income and rent-restricted units will be subject to this requirement for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. d.By way of example, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: County (Metro) Percentage Category Income Limit by Number of Persons in Unit Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit 1 2 4 1 2 3 2025 Collier County Median Household Income $113,600 40% $31,840 $36,360 $45,440 $852 $1,023 $1,181 60% $47,760 $54,540 $68,160 $1,278 $1,534 $1,772 80% $63,680 $72,720 $90,880 $1,705 $2,046 $2,363 100% $79,600 $90,900 $113,600 $2,131 $2,557 $2,953 120% $95,520 $109,080 $136,320 $2,557 $3,069 $3,544 140% $111,440 $127,260 $159,040 $2,983 $3,580 $4,135 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation, based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) e.Preference to fifty percent (50%) of the income and rent-restricted units (14 units) shall be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP) and/or military veterans. ESP means natural persons or families with at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, active-duty military, or a government employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, if ESP or military veterans occupy less than 14 units, the next available unit will be offered to ESP and military veterans. This commitment for ESP and military veterans shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. Page 445 of 1321 EXHIBIT “F” 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) July 1, 2025 Page 10 of 10 2.As part of Collier County’s annual monitoring for this PUD, the owner will provide to Collier County Community and Human Services Division (CHS) an annual report at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the adoption of this PUD that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy and income and rent-restricted units. The annual report will be provided in a format approved by CHS. The owner further agrees to on-site monitoring by the County. Page 446 of 1321 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: August 18, 2025 SUBJECT: 8928 Collier Boulevard Planned Unit Development (RPUD) [PL20230018397] _________________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST: To change the zoning district of a property from Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), allowing for development of a multi-family residential neighborhood of 92 dwelling units. LOCATION: The ±9.49-acre subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway, within Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) currently designates this property as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The Urban Residential Fringe designation is intended to provide transitional densities between Urban designated areas and Agricultural/Rural designated areas. The maximum allowable density within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is 1.5 units per gross acre. The site is also located within the Residential Density Band of Activity Center #7. Residential Density Bands allow for increased density of up to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre (DU/A), within 1 mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center. Additional density in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is attainable in various methods, including Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) or eligibility of Affordable Housing Density Bonuses. The companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA-PL20230013845) proposes to re- designate the subject property from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to create a new subdistrict known as the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict, to allow multifamily residential development at a density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed text for the new subdistrict allows these dwelling units at a maximum zoned height of 52 feet and four stories. The site, in its existing FLUE designation, has potential to qualify for increased densities beyond its base entitlement. The eligibility of density offered by the Urban Residential Fringe designation may render the site for an allowance of up to 5.8 DU/A, comprised of its base density of 1.5 DU/A; plus 3.0 DU/A provided through the Residential Density Band; and additionally, up to 1.3 DU/A upon Page 447 of 1321 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ redemption of TDR credits from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending areas. The Urban Residential Fringe subdistrict provisions limit the application of affordable housing to specified properties as listed within the subdistrict text in Paragraph B. on pages 30 and 31 of the FLUE. The legal description of the subject site is not listed as an eligible property. Generally, the surrounding residential properties are approved for significantly lower densities than what is proposed, ranging from 0.78 DU/AC for the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI to 1.67 DU/AC for the Naples Lakes Country Club PUD. Conversely, the adjacent Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict is approved for 10.0 DU/AC. The petitioner seeks to not only increase the residential density of the site but also provide the public benefit of affordable housing. The companion GMPA includes data and analysis in the form of a Market Study, which indicates a considerable gap in demand forecasting for affordable multi-family housing at the rates proposed in the South Collier County submarket area. FLUE Policy Analysis: Certain applicable Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policies are shown as follows in [italics] followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. [The petition, upon approval of the corresponding Growth Management Plan Amendment by the Board of County Commissioners, will then attain consistency with the GMP.] Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. [The proposed development is an infill project within the Urban designated area. Infrastructure is available at the subject site. The development does not represent urban sprawl.] Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The proposed RPUD fronts Collier Boulevard (County Road 951), which will serve as the access point for the development.] Page 448 of 1321 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ 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. [As the scale of the development and dedicated preservation areas limit the capacity available to utilize internal and loop road design, analysis of this policy may not be considered appropriate for a development of this size.] 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 petitioner has indicated an initiative to provide vehicular and/or pedestrian/bicycle interconnection(s) with the adjoining Hacienda Lakes parcel on the north boundary. The location of the interconnection is shown on the conceptual Master Plan.] 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 development will be connected to the multi-use trail along the east side of Collier Boulevard and is within ½ mile walking distance of Activity Center #7. The site will feature 30% open space, including a lake and 1.22 acres of preserve area. The residential component of the development will provide 30% of its one-bedroom and two-bedroom multifamily units as reserved for low and moderate ranges of Area Median Income for a period of 30 years, of which 50% of the reserved units will be rented to essential service personnel and military veterans.] CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Page 449 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & Rezone Request (PL20230018397) Neighborhood Information Meeting: May 19, 2025 5:30P-6:25P Summary In compliance with Collier County’s LDC Administrative Procedures Manual, Chapter 3, Section H, Rezoning – Standard and Chapter 8, Section B, Neighborhood Information Meeting, a Neighborhood Information Meeting for the residents within 500 feet of 8928 Collier Boulevard was held on Monday, May 19, 2025 at 5:30p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, FL 34113 as well as virtually at http://bit.ly/3GsrTPh. The newspaper advertisement affidavit, mailed notice letter, and list of mailing labels for all properties within 500’ is provided in Exhibit A. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit B and demonstrates a total of 3 participants attended the meeting in- person, including the 2 members of Collier County staff and the client, and 1 other attended virtually. The meeting began at approximately 5:38 pm and concluded at approximately 6:25 pm. It was explained that the intent of this neighborhood meeting was to focus on the two requests for the subject property, a growth management plan amendment and a zoning amendment. A presentation was given by the consultants from Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. outlining the Growth Management Plan Amendment request to amend the Future Land Use from Adopted designation Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to a Proposed designation Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. Additionally, the zoning amendment was also outlined and seeks approval from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the property at 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114. The presentation provided an overview of the current future land use and zoning. The proposed development and preliminary master concept plan were shared within a presentation, attached as Exhibit C. The proposed project design discussed includes 92 multi-family residential units. It was mentioned that the details of the project may be refined through the amendment process. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is required after the initial staff review and comment period on the application have been completed and at least 15 days before the first public hearing is held, whether it is the Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, the BCC, or the BZA. After the consultant’s presentation was finished, questions, comments and concerns were shared by attendees in the room and virtually. The following summarizes comments and questions shared. Question/Comment 1: If vehicular interconnection to Hacienda isn't done, would pedestrian/trail access still be considered? ¾ Response: Pedestrian access already exists along Collier Blvd. We would have same challenges with pedestrian as we would vehicular access, if we can get a vehicle connection then pedestrian connection would be similar. When Hacienda Lakes was approved they didn’t have the interconnection proposed, we are proposing it and therefore it is this project’s burden. However, Hacienda Lakes would have to amend their zoning to allow the connection. Collier Blvd trail does provide bike/ped connection just outside the two communities. Page 450 of 1321 2 Question/Comment 2: Could you clarify water treatment. ¾ Response: Stormwater management is required onsite, and everything goes through the South Florida Water Management Permitting. Question/Comment 3: Will all the natural trees be removed or will they be left in the 15’ buffer? ¾ Response: The project is not at that point yet because there is a challenge with grading. The project will do their best to maintain the pre-existing trees. Typically, the existing tree preservation is completed during the site development plan and the detailed engineering plans along with the final grading plans. Question/Comment 4: Kingston street residents (Seven Shores) feel they will lose privacy. They were under the impression by their builder that the subject property to the south was a preserve permanently. ¾ Response: That was not an accurate statement by the builder of Seven Shores (Kingston Street) as this property (subject property) to the south is privately owned and is not a preserve. This project has been in pursuit since September 2023. Page 451 of 1321 Page 452 of 1321 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3510 Kraft Road Suite 200, Naples, FL 34105 \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\NIM 20250519\CollierBLVD_MailNotice.docx April 30, 2025 Re: NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & 8928 Collier Boulevard PUDZ Rezone (PL20230018397) Dear Property Owner: In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code please be advised that Bonita Flores has filed two applications with Collier County. A Growth Management Plan Amendment from Adopted Future Land Use Designation Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to a Proposed Future Land Use Designation of Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. The Rezone application is seeking approval of a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the 9.49+\- acre subject property located east of Collier Boulevard, south of Brighton Boulevard, and north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway. The rezone is seeking to allow for the development of 92 multi-family residential dwelling units, with 28 of those units being designated for Affordable Housing, and of those 14 will be for essential service personnel such as active duty military, military veterans, police or file personnel, child-care workers, teachers and other education personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, or government employees. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application 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. This will provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The NIM will be held on Monday, May 19, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, Florida, 34113 or you may attend virtually at: http://bit.ly/3GsrTPh Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 225-4805, or Josh.Philpott@stantec.com. Sincerely, Josh Philpott, AICP Principal, Planning Page 453 of 1321 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE 3713 MILANO LAKES FL OWNER LLC % REVANTAGE PROPERTY TAX PO BOX A3878 CHICAGO, IL 60690---0 14 50 26 THAT PORTION OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 5957 PG 2583 00418400700 U 3805 TLW LLC 7742 ALICO RD FT MYERS, FL 33912---0 14 50 26 W1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW 1/4, W1/2 OF E1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4, W1/2 OF E1/2 OF E1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 AND AS DESC IN 00416560008 U ANDERSON, SANDRA LEE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-103 53269005220 U BEDNAR FAMILY TRUST 327 FRAZER DRIVE N W NORTH CANTON, OH 44720---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-102 53269005369 U BEINHAUER FAMILY R/L TRUST 22 BEECHNUT DR SOUTH BARRINGTON, IL 60010---9512 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-201 53269005107 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT L1 48590010342 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT L2 48590010368 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 4 48590010782 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 5 48590010805 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 6 48590010821 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 7 48590010847 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 8 48590010863 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 13 48590010960 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 14 48590010986 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 15 48590011008 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 16 48590011024 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 20 48590011105 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 163 48590013967 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 164 48590013983 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 SEVEN SHORES PHASE 1 TRACT OS6A 73250001022 U BONITA FLORES I LLC 2675 HORSESHOE DR #404 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 14 50 26 S1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS W 100FT R/W 00418400302 U BRIGHTON LAND LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT FD-2 48590010148 U CAMP, WILLIAM D & ANN M 20 MONROE AVE DALLAS, PA 18612---1512 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-104 53269005563 U CARLSON, CORY 8959 KINGSTON ST NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 3 48590010766 U COCKSEDGE, PAUL LESLIE WHITE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #204 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-204 53269005327 U COLGIN, JOHN & CINDY 8933 OCEANA WAY NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 12 48590010944 U COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 15 50 26 COMM NE CNR SEC 15, W 100FT TO W R/W LI 951 TO POB, S 892.87FT, W 4870.63FT TO W LI SEC 15, N 882.49FT, E 00418560006 U CRAIG, WAYNE J 4610 WINGED FOOT WAY NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-104 53269005084 U D'ANGELO, DAVID 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #203 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-203 53269005301 U DENISE LEE NYMAN-FINKE TRUST 502 KEEPATAW DRIVE LEMONT, IL 60439---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-202 53269005602 U DOUGLAS P BROWN JR TRUST LEIGH H BROWN TRUST 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #202 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-202 53269005288 U EPSTEIN, HOWARD B & JENNIFER A RANDALL P=& ALICE M ANDREOZZI 5547 MEADOWGLEN DR CLARENCE CENTER, NY 14032---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-201 53269005424 U GAGLIOSTRO, NICHOLAS & SARAH 8951 KINGSTON ST NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 1 48590010724 U GRAHAM, ROBERT M & ELIZABETH B 20 JACKSON POND RD DEDHAM, MA 02026---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-204 53269005482 U HACIENDA NORTH APARTMENTS LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT FD-1 48590010041 U JANE LEE BETTS REV TRUST 4630 WINGED FOOT CT APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34112---8418 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-201 53269005589 U KRINSKY, DANN SHARON A GEHRMANN 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #204 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-204 53269005644 U LIPANI, CARL & LISA 14 COUNTRY CLUB LN MIDDLETON, MA 01949---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-102 53269005042 U MANCHAK, ROBERT & MICHELLE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #104 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-104 53269005246 U MEILINGER, GREGORY PAUL DEIDRE ARLENE MEILINGER 1091 SALDTON DR AKRON, OH 44333---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-202 53269005440 U MROZOWSKI, JOHN C & JULIE F 4935 MANCHESTER COURT ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48306---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-102 53269005204 U NAPLES LAKES CC LLC PO BOX 153 WALES, WI 53183---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-103 53269005385 U NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB LANDSCAPE BUFFER TRACT LESS OR 3214 PG 461(RW RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD) 62030000380 U NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB MF-1, LESS LAKE ARROWHEAD 1A CONDO AS DESC IN OR 2731 PG 1205, LESS LAKE ARROWHEAD 1B 62030000403 U NAPLES LKS COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LESS NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 2 LESS OR 3214 PG 461 RW RATTLESNAKE 62030000283 U NEWTON, VERONICA C 39 E 29TH ST., #4E NEW YORK, NY 10016---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 11 48590010928 U OHANA PROPERTY GROUP LLC 4710 GOLF TER EDINA, MN 55424---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-203 53269005149 U ONEILL, THOMAS J & SUZANNE M 181 MAILANDS ROAD FAIRFIELD, CT 06824---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-203 53269005628 U PANSCH REVOCABLE TRUST 4610 WINGED FOOT WAY #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-103 53269005068 U PAUL W HARTUNG III REV TRUST 5844 ISLAND DRIVE NW CANTON, OH 44718---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-101 53269005343 U PUCILLO, SUSAN ADAMS FREDERICK JOSEPH PUCILLO JR 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-103 53269005547 U REYES, TONY WILLIAM PATRICIA MARIE REYES W186S9656 PARKER DR MUSKEGO, WI 53150---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-102 53269005521 U ROBERTSON, MALCOLM JUDITH C ROBERTSON 42 ELM STREET FALMOUTH, MA 02540---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-104 53269005408 U RONALD K REUM REVOC TRUST 4600 WINGED FT WAY#201 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-201 53269005262 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS2 48590010423 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS4 48590010465 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS5 48590010481 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS11 48590010601 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS12 48590010627 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS13 48590010643 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT R1 48590010685 U SPELLMAN FAMILY TRUST 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-101 53269005505 U SUSAN D MADIGAN TRUST 6 HAMILTON CIR SHREWSBURY, MA 01545---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-204 53269005165 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 17 48590011040 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 18 48590011066 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 19 48590011082 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 101 48590012722 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 102 48590012748 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 103 48590012764 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 104 48590012780 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP CO INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 161 48590013925 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP CO INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 162 48590013941 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT R1A 48590010708 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 9 48590010889 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 10 48590010902 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 21 48590011121 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 99 48590012683 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 100 48590012706 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT A 48590010025 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 2 48590010740 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 22 48590011147 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 23 48590011163 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 24 48590011189 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: PL20230018397 (8928 Collier BLVD (PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/31/2025 | Site Location: 418400302 POList_500.xls Page 454 of 1321 2 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE 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: PL20230018397 (8928 Collier BLVD (PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/31/2025 | Site Location: 418400302 TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 25 48590011202 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 26 48590011228 U TULLY, TIMOTHY J & MARIANNE T 17746 CRESTVIEW DR ORLAND PARK, IL 60467---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-203 53269005466 U HALLER, RICHARD P & VERA 1101-4955 RIVERSIDE DR E WINDSOR N8Y5A3 CANADA LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-101 53269005181 F MENGELE, HANS-PETER & ILONA LYDTINSTRASSE 2 BADEN BADEN D 76530 GERMANY LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-202 53269005123 F PAQUETTE, PAMELA WILLIAM ANDREW KING 118 JOHN WATT WAY #1 THORNBURY N0H 2P0 CANADA LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-101 53269005026 F LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CON DOMINIUM LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM hrd_parcel_id: 53269005000 62030000445 POList_500.xls Page 455 of 1321 Name Phone Number Email Street Address City, State, Zip How did you hear about this meeting? Notes Type of Attendee Nancy Gundlach Collier County Staff In-person Michael Crijan Client In-person Jessica Constantinescu 239-252-4329 Jessica.Constantinescu@colliercountyfl.gov County Website Collier County Staff In-person Sarah Gagliostro 8951 Kingston street Resident: lives on then other side of the north wall Virtual Neighborhood Information Meeting: Collier Blvd PL20230018397 (PUDZ) and PL20230013845 (GMPA) The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project in the future. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released upon a public records request, you can refrain from including information on this sheet. May 19, 2025 @ 5:30p.m. Page 456 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845)& Rezone (PL20230018397)Neighborhood Information MeetingMay 19, 2025Page 457 of 1321 Agenda1. Introductions2. Workshop Procedures 3. Project History4. Details of GMPA Request 5. Details of Rezoning Request6. Status & Upcoming Meetings7. Q&A8. Wrap Up8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 458 of 1321 IntroductionsStantec Representatives Josh Philpott, AICP – Principal, Community DevelopmentJoel Blikstad, PE – Senior Project Manager, Community Development Applicant Representatives Michael Crijan, Property Owner RepresentativeJustin Narine, Catana ConstructionCollier County RepresentativeNancy Gundlach, AICP – Senior Planner, Zoning Services DepartmentJessica Constantinescu – Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 459 of 1321 Workshop ProceduresMEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION•IN PERSON Q&A•VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATIONPage 460 of 1321 Project History9Pre-Application meeting for Growth Management Plan (GMP) & Rezone (PUDZ) applications with Collier County staff - September 6, 2023 9GMP application submitted - March 6, 20249Comments from County on GMP received - April 15, 20249PUDZ application submitted - June, 26, 20249Revised GMP application submitted - July 29, 20249Comments from County on GMP received - Sept 3, 20249Comments from County on PUDZ received - November 1, 20249Revised PUDZ application submitted to County - February 14, 20259Neighborhood Information Meeting for GMP & PUDZ - May 19, 2025 (tonight)8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 461 of 1321 Site Location8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Where: 8928 Collier Boulevard Acres:9.49 acresSouth of: Brighton Boulevard by 600 feetNorth of:Hacienda Lakes Parkway by 1300 feetMilano LakesPlacid VillageSeven ShoresArrowhead VillageSapphire CoveJuliana VillageCollier BlvdHacienda LakesAzalea ParkSubject PropertyNaples Lakes Country ClubPage 462 of 1321 GMPA Request8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025To: Bonita Flores Residential Infill SubdistrictFrom: Urban Residential Fringe SubdistrictMilanoLakesSeven ShoresCollier BlvdHacienda LakesAzalea ParkHacienda Lakes PkwyCollier BlvdUrban ResidentialFringe SubdistrictCollier Boulevard Lord's WayMixed Use SubdistrictUrbanResidentialSubdistrictConservationDesignationSubject PropertySubject PropertyPage 463 of 1321 GMPA RequestFrom: Urban Residential Fringe SubdistrictTo: Bonita Flores Residential Infill SubdistrictRequest: 92 residential Multi-family units (Approx. 10 units per acre)30% (28 units) will be Workforce Housing:•9 units < 80% AMI•9 units < 100% AMI•10 units <120% AMI50% (14 units) of Workforce housing units shall be reserved or Essential Service Personnel •Police, Fire, EMS, Health Care, Teachers, Military, Government employees.Workforce Housing is a 30 year commitment 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Collier BlvdSubject PropertyPage 464 of 1321 GMPA Request8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Collier County (Metro)PercentageCategoryIncome Limit by Number of Persons in UnitRent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit1241232025 Collier CountyMedian Household Income 113,60060% $47,760 $54,540 $68,160 $1,278 $1,534 $1,77280%$63,680 $72,720 $90,880 $1,705 $2,046 $2,363100% $79,600 $90,900 $113,600 $2,131 $2,557 $2,953120%$95,520 $109,080 $122,760 $2,557 $3,069 $3,544140%$111,440 $127,260 $159,040 $2,983 $3,580 $4,135Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation, based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD)https://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/developers-and-property-managers/compliance/limits/rent-limits/2025_rent_limits/florida-housing-rental-programs---2025-income-and-rent-limits--eff--4-1-2025-.pdf?sfvrsn=602ecf7b_4Page 465 of 1321 Rezone Request8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Rezone:From: Rural Agricultural (A) To: Residential PUDPurpose: To allow Multi-family development of 10 du/acre, totaling 92 unitsCommunity Benefit:28 units are designated for Affordable Housing, 14 of which for military veterans, or essential services personnelPage 466 of 1321 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025•Access: Collier Blvd•Optional: Interconnect to Hacienda Lakes•Buffers:•North & East: 15’ Type B Buffer•South: 10’ Type A•West: 15’ Type D Buffer•Building Setbacks•North: 15’ min.•South 25’ min.•West 30’ min. •Height: 4 Stories•Open Space•Required: 60% / 5.69 ac•Provided: 61% / 5.79 ac•Preservation•Required: 15% / 1.22 ac•Provided: 15% / 1.22 acProperty Development RegulationsPage 467 of 1321 Conceptual Site Plan8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 468 of 1321 9Comments from County on GMP received - Sept 3, 20249Comments from County on PUD received - November 1, 20249Revised PUD application submitted to County - February 14, 20259Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) - May 19, 2025 (tonight)GMP Application sufficient (only missing NIM info)Rezone Application Sufficient -TBDCollier County Planning Commission Public Hearing –TBDBoard of County Commissioners Public Hearing -TBDStatus & Upcoming Meetings8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 469 of 1321 IN PERSON QUESTIONS?8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 470 of 1321 Virtual Participation QuestionsMEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION•IN PERSON Q&A•VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATIONPage 471 of 1321 Phone Attendee QuestionsMEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION•IN PERSON Q&A•VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATIONPage 472 of 1321 Contact InfoFor more information or if you have additional questions, contact:Josh.Philpott@stantec.com239-225-48058928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIMMay 19, 2025Page 473 of 1321 Page 474 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ1 ŽĨ11 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PUD Rezone (PUDZ): > ƐƵďƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ ϭϬ͘ϬϮ͘ϭϯ ͘Ͳ&͕͘ Ś͘ϯ'͘ϭ ŽĨƚŚĞ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ ŽĚĞ Amendment to PUD (PUDA): > ƐƵďƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ϭϬ͘ϬϮ͘ϭϯ ͖ ĂŶĚ ϭϬ͘Ϭϯ͘Ϭϲ͖͘ ĂŶĚ Ś͘ϯ'͘Ϯ ŽĨƚŚĞ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ ŽĚĞPUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): >ƐƵďƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϬ͘ϬϮ͘ϭϯ͘Ͳ&͘ Name of Property Owner(s): Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address:City: State: ZIP: Telephone:Cell: E-Mail Address: NameofAgent: Firm: Address: Telephone: City: Cell: State:ZIP: E-Mail Address: If Property is undercontract to be sold: Name of Property Buyer(s): Name of Applicant if different than buyer: Address: Telephone: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: City:State:ZIP: Cell: Address:City:State: ZIP: Telephone: E-Mail Address: Cell: Applicationfor a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) y KE/d&>KZ^/͕>> Dƌ͘:ƵƐƚŝŶEĂƌŝŶĞ͕ĂƚĂŶĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ/ŶĐ͘ 0DQQL['U6XLWHEĂƉůĞƐ &> ϯϰϭϭϰ ũƵƐƚŝŶ͘ŶĂƌŝŶĞΛĐĂƚĂŶĂĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘ĐŽŵ :ŽƐŚWŚŝůƉŽƚƚ͕/W ^ƚĂŶƚĞĐŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ ϭϰϭϮ:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ^ƚ͕͘^ƵŝƚĞϯ &ŽƌƚDǇĞƌƐ &>ϯϯϵϬϭ ;ϮϯϵͿ ϮϮϱͲϰϴϬϱ ;ϮϯϵͿ ϯϭϯͲϯϬϮϱ ũŽƐŚ͘ƉŚŝůƉŽƚƚΛƐƚĂŶƚĞĐ͘ĐŽŵ Page 475 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ2 ŽĨ11 PROPERTY INFORMATION Thisapplicationisrequesting a rezone from: ǌŽŶŝŶŐ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;ƐͿ͘ ŽŶŝŶŐĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;ƐͿ ƚŽƚŚĞ Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use(or range of uses)of theproperty: Original PUD Name: OrdinanceNo.: On a separatesheetattachedtotheapplication,provide a detailedlegaldescriptionoftheproperty covered by the application: x /ĨƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶǀŽůǀĞƐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽŵŽƌĞ ƚŚĂŶŽŶĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŚĂůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶĞĂĐŚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͖ x /Ĩ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ƚŽ ĚŽ ƐŽ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌĞͲĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŚĂůůƐƵďŵŝƚĨŽƵƌ;ϰͿĐŽƉŝĞƐŽĨ Ă ƌĞĐĞŶƚƐƵƌǀĞǇ;ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞůĂƐƚƐŝǆ;ϲͿŵŽŶƚŚƐ͕ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵϭΗƚŽϰϬϬΖƐĐĂůĞͿ͕ĂŶĚ x dŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ŝƐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ƐƵƉƉůǇŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ ůĞŐĂů ĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͘ /Ĩ ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ ĂƌŝƐĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐƚŚĞůĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌΖƐĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŽƌƐĞĂůĞĚ ƐƵƌǀĞǇŵĂǇďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘ Section/Township/Range:ͬͬ Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: Plat Book:Page #: Property I.D. Number: Size of Property:ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: Address/ General Location of Subject Property: PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: REZONE REQUEST ZƵƌĂůŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů WůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;WhͿ ǀĂĐĂŶƚ ϵϮƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇƵŶŝƚƐ ϭϱϱϬϮϲ^ϭͬϮK&^ϭͬϮK&EtϭͬϰK&Etϭͬϰ>^^tϭϬϬ&dZͬt ϭϰ ϱϬ Ϯϲ ϬϬϰϭϴϰϬϬϯϬϮ ĂƐƚŽĨŽůůŝĞƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭ͕ϯϬϬĨĞĞƚŶŽƌƚŚŽĨ,ĂĐŝĞŶĚĂ>ĂŬĞƐWĂƌŬǁĂǇ ϴϵϮϴŽůůŝĞƌůǀĚ͘ y ϵ͘ϰϵнͬͲϰϭϯ͕ϭϱϴϯϯϰϭϮϯϳ Page 476 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ3 ŽĨ11 ASSOCIATIONS Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range:ͬ ͬ Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Metes & Bounds Description: ŽŵƉůĞƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ Ăůů ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ ,ŽŵĞ KǁŶĞƌͬŝǀŝĐ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚŝƐ ƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶϭ͕ϬϬϬĨĞĞƚŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐŚĞĞƚƐŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͘ /ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞĨŽƵŶĚŽŶƚŚĞCivic Associations and Communities page ŽŶƚŚĞŽĂƌĚŽĨŽƵŶƚǇ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ͛ƐǁĞďƐŝƚĞ͘ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ŝƐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ĂŶĚ ƐŚĂůů ĐŽŶĨŝƌŵƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŵĂŝůŝŶŐ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐ ĨŽƌ ĞĂĐŚ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶĂƐƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ^ƚĂƚĞ͕ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŽĨŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ 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 ANDLAND USE DŝǆĞĚhƐĞWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ DŝǆĞĚhƐĞWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ DŝǆĞĚhƐĞWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ hƌďĂŶZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů&ƌŝŶŐĞ^ƵďĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ hƌďĂŶZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů&ƌŝŶŐĞ^ƵďĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŽůůŝĞƌůǀĚ͘>ŽƌĚΖƐtĂǇDŝǆĞĚhƐĞ^ƵďĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ hƌďĂŶZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů^ƵďĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚͲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĞŶƐŝƚǇĂŶĚ ĂƐƚEĂƉůĞƐŝǀŝĐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶĐ͘ ϴϱϵϱŽůůŝĞƌůǀĚ^ƵŝƚĞϭϬϰ͕WDηϰϵ EĂƉůĞƐ &>ϯϰϭϭϮ ϯϰϭϭϮ&>EĂƉůĞƐ1DSOHV/DNHV%OYG EĂƉůĞƐ>ĂŬĞƐŽƵŶƚƌǇůƵď,ŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶĐ͘ Page 477 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ4 ŽĨ11 WƵƌƐƵĂŶƚ ƚŽ > ƐƵďƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ϭϬ͘ϬϮ͘ϭϯ ͕ ϭϬ͘ϬϮ͘Ϭϴ & ĂŶĚ ŚĂƉƚĞƌ ϯ '͘ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ ŽĚĞ͕ ƐƚĂĨĨ͛Ɛ ĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͛Ɛ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽĂƌĚ ŽĨ ŽƵŶƚǇ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ ƐŚĂůů ďĞ ďĂƐĞĚ ƵƉŽŶ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ͘On 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.Ͳ^ĞĞƚƚĂĐŚĞĚΗǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶƌŝƚĞƌŝĂEĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞΗŽĐƵŵĞŶƚͲ Ă͘ dŚĞƐƵŝƚĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĨŽƌƚŚĞƚǇƉĞĂŶĚƉĂƚƚĞƌŶŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽ ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͕ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ͕ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͕ƐĞǁĞƌ͕ ǁĂƚĞƌ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƵƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ ď͘ ĚĞƋƵĂĐǇ ŽĨ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨ ƵŶŝĨŝĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚƐƵŝƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ ŽĨĂŶǇ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͕Žƌ ŽƚŚĞƌŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŽƌĨŽƌĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚŽƐĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇĂƐƚŚĞǇŵĂǇƌĞůĂƚĞƚŽ ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŽƌƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐƚŽďĞŵĂĚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŽĨƐƵĐŚ ĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŶŽƚƚŽďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚĂƚƉƵďůŝĐĞǆƉĞŶƐĞ͘ &ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐƚǇƉĞƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂĚĞŽŶůǇĂĨƚĞƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŽƵŶƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇ͘ Đ͘ ŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚǇ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ Wh ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŐŽĂůƐ͕ ŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ'ƌŽǁƚŚ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWůĂŶ͘ ;dŚŝƐ ŝƐ ƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŝŶŐ ǁŚĂƚ ƐƵďĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕ƉŽůŝĐǇ͕Žƌ ŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶ ĂůůŽǁƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚƵƐĞƐͬĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ĂŶĚĨƵůůǇĞǆƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐͬĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐĂůůĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂŽƌ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ ƚŚĂƚ ƐƵďĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕ƉŽůŝĐǇ͕ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶ͘Ϳ Ě͘ dŚĞ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů ĂŶĚ ĞǆƚĞƌŶĂů ĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚǇ ŽĨ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƵƐĞƐ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ ŵĂǇ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐŽŶůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĂŶĚďƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ Ğ͘ dŚĞ ĂĚĞƋƵĂĐǇ ŽĨ ƵƐĂďůĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŝŶ ĞǆŝƐƚĞŶĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĂƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƚŽ ƐĞƌǀĞ ƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ Ĩ͘ dŚĞƚŝŵŝŶŐŽƌƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ ŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨĂƐƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ ĂĚĞƋƵĂĐǇŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ďŽƚŚƉƵďůŝĐĂŶĚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ͘ Ő͘ dŚĞ ĂďŝůŝƚǇ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ĂŶĚ ŽĨ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ ƚŽ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞ ĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͘ Ś͘ ŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚǇǁŝƚŚWhƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŽƌĂƐƚŽĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƐƵĐŚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞ ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌĐĂƐĞ͕ďĂƐĞĚŽŶĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚƐƵĐŚŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨũƵƐƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐƚŽĂĚĞŐƌĞĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚƚŽůŝƚĞƌĂůĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƵĐŚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ Deed Restrictions: dŚĞ ŽƵŶƚǇ ŝƐ ůĞŐĂůůǇ ƉƌĞĐůƵĚĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ĞŶĨŽƌĐŝŶŐ ĚĞĞĚ ƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͖ ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ ŵĂŶǇ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀĞĂĚŽƉƚĞĚƐƵĐŚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘zŽƵŵĂǇǁŝƐŚƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞĐŝǀŝĐŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĨŽƌǁŚŝĐŚƚŚŝƐƵƐĞŝƐďĞŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂƐĐĞƌƚĂŝŶǁŚĞƚŚĞƌŽƌŶŽƚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ ŝƐĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚďǇĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞĞĚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 478 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ5 ŽĨ11 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 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. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: dŽǇŽƵƌŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ͕ŚĂƐĂƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐďĞĞŶŚĞůĚ ŽŶ ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ͍ /ĨƐŽ͕ǁŚĂƚǁĂƐƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĂƚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͍ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications:dŽ ǇŽƵƌ ŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ͕ ŚĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ďĞĞŶ ĂŶ ŽĨĨŝĐŝĂů ŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƌǌŽŶŝŶŐǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŶĚĞƌĞĚŽŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ͍ zĞƐ EŽ /Ĩ ƐŽ͕ ƉůĞĂƐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽƉŝĞƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ůĂŶĚ ƵƐĞ ƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ DĞĞƚŝŶŐ ;E/DͿ͕ ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚ ƚŽ ŚĂƉƚĞƌϴŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞŽĚĞĂŶĚ>ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϬ͘Ϭϯ͘Ϭϱ͘ &ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞE/D͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚǁŝůůƐƵďŵŝƚĂǁƌŝƚƚĞŶ ƐƵŵŵĂƌǇĂŶĚĂŶǇĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŵĂĚĞĂƚƚŚĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ZĞĨĞƌƚŽŚĂƉƚĞƌϴŽĨƚŚĞ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞŽĚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞE/DƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ tŝƚŚŝŶϯϬĚĂǇƐŽĨĂĚŽƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ;ƐƉĞĐŝĨǇŶĂŵĞͿĂƚƚŚĞŝƌĞǆƉĞŶƐĞƐŚĂůů ƌĞĐŽƌĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ WƵďůŝĐ ZĞĐŽƌĚƐ ŽĨ ŽůůŝĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇ Ă DĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵ ŽĨ hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ŽĨ ĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƐ Žƌ EŽƚŝĐĞ ŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐƚŚĞůĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŚĂƚ ŝƐƚŚĞ ƐƵďũĞĐƚŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐĞĂĐŚĂŶĚĞǀĞƌǇĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚŝŶƚŚĞKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘ dŚĞDĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵŽƌEŽƚŝĐĞƐŚĂůůďĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞŽƵŶƚǇĂŶĚƐŚĂůů ĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨŚĂƉƚĞƌϲϵϱ͕&^͘ ƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚ ĐŽƉǇ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ DĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵ Žƌ EŽƚŝĐĞ ƐŚĂůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽůůŝĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇ WůĂŶŶĞĚ hŶŝƚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ƐƚĂĨĨ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϭϱ ĚĂǇƐ ŽĨ ƌĞĐŽƌĚŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƐĂŝĚDĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵŽƌEŽƚŝĐĞ͘ Eͬ y Page 479 of 1321 WW>/Ed KEdd /E&KZDd/KE ^ƚĂƚĞ͗/W͗ŝƚǇ͗ Ğůů͗ EĂŵĞ ŽĨ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ;ƐͿ͗ ĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ dĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞ͗ ͲDĂŝů ĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ;/Ĩ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞͿ͗ ŝƚǇ͗ ^ƚĂƚĞ͗ /W͗ WZKWZdz/E&KZDd/KE ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶͬdŽǁŶƐŚŝƉͬZĂŶŐĞ͗ͬ >Žƚ͗ ůŽĐŬ͗ ͬ ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ͗ DĞƚĞƐΘ ŽƵŶĚƐ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗ WůĂƚŽŽŬ͗ WĂŐĞ η͗WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/͘͘ EƵŵďĞƌ͗ dzWK& ^t'/^WK^>dK WZKs/ ŚĞĐŬĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͗ Ă͘ ŽƵŶƚǇhƚŝůŝƚǇ ^ǇƐƚĞŵ ď͘ ŝƚǇhƚŝůŝƚǇ^ǇƐƚĞŵ Đ͘ &ƌĂŶĐŚŝƐĞĚ hƚŝůŝƚǇ^ǇƐƚĞŵ Ě͘ WĂĐŬĂŐĞdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚWůĂŶƚ Ğ͘ ^ĞƉƚŝĐ ^ǇƐƚĞŵ WƌŽǀŝĚĞEĂŵĞ͗ ;'W ĂƉĂĐŝƚǇͿ͗ dǇƉĞ͗ dzWK& tdZ^Zs/dK WZKs/ ŚĞĐŬĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͗ WƌŽǀŝĚĞ EĂŵĞ͗ Ă͘ ŽƵŶƚǇhƚŝůŝƚǇ ^ǇƐƚĞŵ ď͘ ŝƚǇhƚŝůŝƚǇ^ǇƐƚĞŵ Đ͘ &ƌĂŶĐŚŝƐĞĚ hƚŝůŝƚǇ^ǇƐƚĞŵ Ě͘ WƌŝǀĂƚĞ ^ǇƐƚĞŵ;tĞůůͿ dŽƚĂů WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽďĞ ^ĞƌǀĞĚ͗ WĞĂŬĂŶĚ ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ĂŝůǇ ĞŵĂŶĚƐ͗ ͘ tĂƚĞƌͲWĞĂŬ͗ ͘ ^ĞǁĞƌͲWĞĂŬ͗ ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ĂŝůǇ͗ ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ĂŝůǇ͗ ^ddDEdK&hd/>/dzWZKs/^/KE^&KZWhZKEZYh^d BONITA FLORES I LLC NAPLES FL 341143899 MANNIX DR, SUITE 405 239-331-3425 JUSTIN.NARINE@CATANACONSTRUCTION.COM 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD 34114NAPLESFL 50 2614 00418400302 ✔ SOUTH COUNTY WRF ✔ COLLIER COUNTY WSD 230 32,200 GPD41,860 GPD 23,000 GPD66 GPM Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 07/2022 Page 6 of 11 Page 480 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ7 ŽĨ11 Narrative statement:WƌŽǀŝĚĞĂďƌŝĞĨ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶĐŝƐĞ ŶĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ĂŶĚ ƐĐŚĞŵĂƚŝĐ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ ŽĨƐĞǁĂŐĞ ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŽďĞ ƵƐĞĚĂƐ ǁĞůůĂƐĂ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŵĞƚŚŽĚŽĨĂĨĨůƵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐůƵĚŐĞ ĚŝƐƉŽƐĂů͘/ĨƉĞƌĐŽůĂƚŝŽŶƉŽŶĚƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞƵƐĞĚ͕ ƚŚĞŶƉĞƌĐŽůĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂĂŶĚƐŽŝůŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨƌŽŵ ƚĞƐƚƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĂŶĚĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇĂƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͘ƚƚĂĐŚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉĂŐĞƐŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͘ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement:/Ĩ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ŝƐ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ŽůůŝĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇ͛Ɛ ƵƚŝůŝƚǇ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͕ Ă ŶŽƚĂƌŝǌĞĚ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ƐŚĂůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ĂŐƌĞĞŝŶŐ ƚŽ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ǁĂƚĞƌ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƐĞǁĂŐĞ ĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽůůŝĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇ hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ƐŚĂůů ŽĐĐƵƌ ƵƉŽŶ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŝŶ ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚĂůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞŽƵŶƚǇŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐŝŶĞĨĨĞĐƚĂƚƚŚĂƚƚŝŵĞ͘dŚŝƐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ƐŚĂůů ĂůƐŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĂŶ ĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĨĞĞƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉĂŝĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽƵŶƚǇ hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝƐƐƵĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƉĞƌŵŝƚƐ ďǇ ƚŚĞ ŽƵŶƚǇ͘ /Ĩ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ƐŚĂůů ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶ ĂŶ ĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ ƚŽ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ƵƚŝůŝƚǇ ĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƐĞƌǀŝŶŐƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚƐĞǁĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘ 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. ͲEŽƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞͲ dŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇƵƚŝůŝƚǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͘ dŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇƵƚŝůŝƚǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͘ Page 481 of 1321 Page 482 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ9 ŽĨ11 dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŝƐƚŽďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞWƌĞͲƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶDĞĞƚŝŶŐĂŶĚĂƚƚŝŵĞ ŽĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂů͘ƚĨŝŶĂůƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂů͕ƚŚĞĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŝƐƚŽďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂŶƵƉͲƚŽͲĚĂƚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ WůĞĂƐĞ ƵƉůŽĂĚ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂů ŝƚĞŵƐ ǁŝƚŚ ĐŽǀĞƌ ƐŚĞĞƚƐ ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚŽĞĂĐŚƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǀŝĂƚŚĞGMD Portal͘ /ŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƐǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚ͕ŽƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞĚ͘View sample PUD document͘ REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED ŽǀĞƌ>ĞƚƚĞƌǁŝƚŚ ŶĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ Ă ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ ĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ŽĨǁŚǇ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ ;ĚŽǁŶůŽĂĚůĂƚĞƐƚǀĞƌƐŝŽŶͿ ݲ WƌĞͲĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŶŽƚĞƐ Affidavit of Authorization͕ƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŶĚŶŽƚĂƌŝǌĞĚ ݲ Property Ownership Disclosure Form ݲ EŽƚĂƌŝǌĞĚĂŶĚ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ ŽǀĞŶĂŶƚ ŽĨ hŶŝĨŝĞĚŽŶƚƌŽů ݲ CompletedAddressing Checklist ݲ tĂƌƌĂŶƚǇ ĞĞĚ;ƐͿ >ŝƐƚ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŝŶŐ ŽǁŶĞƌ ĂŶĚĂůů ƉĂƌƚŝĞƐ ŽĨ ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^ŝŐŶĞĚ ĂŶĚ ƐĞĂůĞĚ ŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůƌĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐŽĨƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĂĞƌŝĂůƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐ;ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƌŽŵWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ƉƉƌĂŝƐĞƌͿ ǁŝƚŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇĂŶĚ͕ŝĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ͕&>h&^ŽĚĞƐǁŝƚŚůĞŐĞŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŽŶĂĞƌŝĂů͘ ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƵƚŝůŝƚǇ ƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ĚĂƚĂ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚ ƚŽ> ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϯ͘Ϭϴ͘ϬϬ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĂƚĂ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĐŽůůĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŽ Ă ƐŝŶŐůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ;/^Ϳ ƉĂĐŬĞƚ Ăƚ ƚŝŵĞ ŽĨ ƉƵďůŝĐ ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͘ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉůĂŶŶĞƌ Ăƚ ƚŝŵĞ ŽĨ ƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͘ >ŝƐƚĞĚŽƌƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƐƵƌǀĞǇ͕ůĞƐƐ ƚŚĂŶϭϮŵŽŶƚŚƐ ŽůĚ͘ /ŶĐůƵĚĞ ĐŽƉŝĞƐŽĨ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐƐƵƌǀĞǇƐ͘ dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇ ;d/^Ϳ ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů^ƵƌǀĞǇ ^ĐŚŽŽů /ŵƉĂĐƚ ŶĂůǇƐŝƐ ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ŝĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ ĐŽƉǇ ŽĨ Ăůů ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚǆŚŝďŝƚƐ Ͳ&;ƐĞĞ ďĞůŽǁ ĨŽƌ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͿ н >ŝƐƚŽĨ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶƐĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ >ǁŝƚŚ ũƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĨŽƌ ĞĂĐŚ ;ƚŚŝƐ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ŝƐ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ĨƌŽŵ ǆŚŝďŝƚͿ *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 y ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲͲEŽƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ͲtĂŝǀĞƌ/ŶĐůƵĚĞĚ Page 483 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ10 ŽĨ11 FEE REQUIREMENTS ZĞǀŝƐĞĚ ŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů DĂƐƚĞƌ^ŝƚĞ WůĂŶ Ϯϰ͟ ǆ ϯϲ͟ĂŶĚ ŽŶĞ ;ϭͿ ϴ Ъ͟ ǆ ϭϭ͟ ĐŽƉǇ KƌŝŐŝŶĂů WhĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚͬŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ ĂŶĚ DĂƐƚĞƌ WůĂŶϮϰ͟ ǆ ϯϲ͟ ʹ KŶůǇ ŝĨ ŵĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ Wh ZĞǀŝƐĞĚWh ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ ĐƌŽƐƐĞĚƚŚƌƵ Θ ƵŶĚĞƌůŝŶĞĚ ŽƉǇŽĨ KĨĨŝĐŝĂů /ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ŽŶŝŶŐ sĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ нdŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ĞǆŚŝďŝƚƐ ĂƌĞƚŽ ďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŽŶĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ĂŶĚ ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ƉĂĐŬĞƚ͗ x ExhibitA: List of Permitted Uses x Exhibit B: Development Standards x ExhibitC: Master Plan- SeeChapter 3 G.1 of theAdministrativeCode x Exhibit D: Legal Description x ExhibitE: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each x Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments /Ĩ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ŝŶ Z&Dh ;ZƵƌĂů &ƌŝŶŐĞ DŝǆĞĚhƐĞͿZĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐ>ĂŶĚ ƌĞĂƐ WƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ>ƐƵďƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϮ͘Ϭϯ͘Ϭϴ͘͘Ϯ͘Ă͘Ϯ͘;ď͘Ϳŝ͘Đ͕͘ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŵƵƐƚĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ&ŽƌĞƐƚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞĂƚ 239-690-3500 ĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ͞tŝůĚĨŝƌĞ DŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶΘWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ͘͟ PLANNERS – INDICATEIF THE PETITION NEEDS TOBEROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ^ĐŚŽŽů ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ;ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐͿ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂŶĐǇŽĨ^t&> hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ WĂƌŬƐĂŶĚZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ /ŵŵŽŬĂůĞĞ tĂƚĞƌͬ^ĞǁĞƌ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŝƚǇ ŽĨEĂƉůĞƐ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ KƚŚĞƌ͗ ŝƚǇ ŽĨ EĂƉůĞƐ hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ KƚŚĞƌ͗ Fire Pre-Application Meeting:ΨϭϱϬ͘ϬϬ ;ƉƉůŝĞĚĂƐĐƌĞĚŝƚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐĨŝƌĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĨĞĞƵƉŽŶƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŽĨ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝĨǁŝƚŚŝŶϵŵŽŶƚŚƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌĞͲĂƉƉŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĚĂƚĞͿ Pre-ApplicationMeeting:ΨϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ PUD Rezone:ΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΎ ƉůƵƐ ΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ ĂŶ ĂĐƌĞ ŽƌĨƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĂŶ ĂĐƌĞ PUD to PUD Rezone: Ψϴ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΎƉůƵƐΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ ĂŶ ĂĐƌĞ Žƌ ĨƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĂŶ ĂĐƌĞ PUD Amendment: Ψϲ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΎƉůƵƐ ΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ ĂŶ ĂĐƌĞ ŽƌĨƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĂŶ ĂĐƌĞComprehensive Planning Consistency Review: ΨϮ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϬϬ Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittaldetermined at pre-application meeting): ΨϮ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EISis not required):Ψϭ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ TransportationReview Fees: x DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁ͗ ΨϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ ;DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇďǇ ŵĂŝů ƚŽ ^ƚĂĨĨͿ ΎĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĨĞĞƐƚŽ ďĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ Ăƚ DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ DĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ x DŝŶŽƌ ^ƚƵĚǇZĞǀŝĞǁ͗ ΨϳϱϬ͘ϬϬ x DĂũŽƌ^ƚƵĚǇZĞǀŝĞǁ Ψϭ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Fire Planning Review Fee:;ΨϯϬϬ Wh͕ WhZͿ ;ΨϭϱϬ WhͿ y y y y y ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ;ŽƌŵĂĐ'ŝďůŝŶ͕^ĂƌĂŚ,ĂƌƌŝŶŐƚŽŶͿ ;EKd͗WĂŝĚϭͬϮϯͬϮϬϮϰͿ ;EKd͗WĂŝĚϭͬϮϯͬϮϬϮϰͿ ƌĞǁŽĚǇ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ ݲ Ͳ EŽƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ݲ Page 484 of 1321 ZĞǀŝƐĞĚϮϬϮϰ WĂŐĞ11 ŽĨ11 *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: 'ƌŽǁƚŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚͮ'DWŽƌƚĂů͗ https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions?Email:'DĐůŝĞŶƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀ Estimated Legal Advertising fee: x W͗ Ψϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϬϬ x ͗ΨϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing Examiner hearing date. (VariableͿ School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: x DŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ &ĞĞƐ͕ ŝĨ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ƚŽ ďĞ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚĞ ^ĐŚŽŽů ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŝŶ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞŽƵŶƚǇ All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, ifrequired 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. ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨWĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌŽƌ ŐĞŶƚ ĂƚĞ WƌŝŶƚĞĚŶĂŵĞĚŽĨƐŝŐŶŝŶŐƉĂƌƚǇ ݲ ݲ ݲ :ŽƐŚWŚŝůƉŽƚƚ͕^ƚĂŶƚĞĐŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ/ŶĐ͘ DĂǇϮϰ͕ϮϬϮϰ Page 485 of 1321 Page 486 of 1321 Page 487 of 1321 Page 488 of 1321 Page 489 of 1321 Page 490 of 1321 Page 491 of 1321 Page 492 of 1321 Page 493 of 1321 Page 494 of 1321 Page 495 of 1321 Page 496 of 1321 Page 497 of 1321 Page 498 of 1321 Page 499 of 1321 Page 500 of 1321 Page 501 of 1321 Page 502 of 1321 Page 503 of 1321 Page 504 of 1321 Page 505 of 1321 Page 506 of 1321 Page 507 of 1321 Page 508 of 1321 Page 509 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 1 of 7 EVALUATION CRITERIA The provided report recognizes how the Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone request complies with the criteria as outlined in LDC §10.02.13.B and furthermore is consistent with LDC §10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G.1. NARRATIVE STATEMENT: The rezone request is for a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), changing the zoning designation from Rural Agricultural to residential PUD for a 9.49+/- acre project located along Collier Blvd, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The residential PUD would provide for a multi-family development with a density of ten (10) dwelling units per acre, allowing for a maximum of 92 units on the property. These units would include one- and two-bedroom apartments, of which 30% (28 units) would be designated as affordable housing. The proposed development would be compatible with the adjacent land uses, which are residential, and would be supported by available infrastructure and services. Additionally, a portion of the residential units would be specifically dedicated for rental by essential services personnel in Collier County, therefore supporting those who need affordable housing amidst the workforce housing crisis in Collier County. This PUD application is intended to process concurrently with the Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA), Planning Project No. PL20230013845, which is an application to change the future land use designation to the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. The proposed Future Land Use Element text, as well as the PUD developer commitments, establish the developer’s commitment to providing the affordable housing units for a period of 30-years. REZONE REQUEST EVALUATION CRITERA RESPONSES: 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 subject property is surrounded by existing and future residential land uses to the north, east, south, and west. The project is being proposed on an undeveloped property in an urban land use area, along a 6-lane major arterial. To the north and east of the subject property is the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Planned Development, with the Seven Shores community currently under construction. The Seven Shores community will include a combination of single-family homes, twin villa residences, and six 4-story apartment buildings. To the south it is bordered by the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict which was recently approved for ten (10) dwelling units per acre, Page 510 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 2 of 7 with affordable housing provisions, matching the density of the proposed PUD project. This 69-acre project is approved for 690 multi-family and/or single-family attached units. Construction of the Azalea Park project has commenced within the Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict, which includes 394 residential units, with a series of 4-story apartment buildings on this site. Farther southeast of the property is a recently approved new subdistrict, Carman Drive Subdistrict, which provides for a multi-family development of 13.9 dwelling units per acre with approximately 22.6% affordable housing. Additionally, further south of the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict is a planned unit development which will include a combination of retail, professional and medical office uses. Continuing south along Collier Boulevard, about 1 mile in distance from the subject property is a regional medical center. The proposed project would include twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units, of which fourteen (14) would be exclusively for essential services personnel, such as those medical professionals who may work nearby, and also available to military veterans, government employees, teachers, active duty military, or police or fire personnel. The location is ideal for multi-family residential infill development and would be beneficial in providing affordable housing units and assisting with the critical affordable housing needs in Collier County. Furthermore, the subject property is located along a major arterial with sufficient roadway capacity to support the proposed project. There is sufficient capacity in the County’s water and sewer services in the area. A detailed level of service study (LOSS) was provided as part of the Small Scale GMPA application. The LOSS recognized that there is sufficiency infrastructure to support the needs of the residential development on this property, to include water, sewer, transportation capacity, as well as other public services and needs. 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. The documents submitted as part of this application demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain site development approval, which ensures appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure by the developer. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy, or other provision Page 511 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 3 of 7 allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy, or other provision.) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Collier County GMP goals, objectives, and policies. Compliance with applicable GMP policies is further elaborated upon below. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 requires that all applications must be consistent with the Future Land Use Map in the GMP. A companion GMPA has been filed which creates a new residential infill subdistrict which would allow for up to 92 multi-family units on this site. Upon approval of the new subdistrict, the project may be deemed consistent with the GMP. Policy 5.5 discourages unacceptable levels of urban sprawl to minimize the cost of community facilities utilizing urban areas for development before redesignating new property for urban intensity. The proposed development is in an area of the County that is designated as Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and has comparable land use types, comparable residential densities nearby, and available infrastructure to support it within the area. This project is an example of an infill development which does not create urban sprawl. The residential density and utilization of the existing infrastructure for this project in its proposed location is a good utilization of vacant land in an urban area. Policy 5.6 requires that new projects will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The proposed project will consist of one and two-story rental units, of which 30% of the units constructed will be income and rent restricted. The PUD master concept plan demonstrates appropriate project buffers consistent with that required in the LDC, and the proposed development standards will ensure that the units are setback from the adjacent roadway and nearby residential development to ensure the compatibility. The subject property is located adjacent on the north and east sides to the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Planned Development, with the Seven Shores community currently under construction. The Seven Shores community will include a combination of single-family homes, twin villa residences, and six 4-story apartment buildings. To the south of the property is the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Planned Development, a 69-acre project, approved for 690 multi-family and/or single- family attached units, which includes affordable housing commitments. Construction of the Azalea Park project has commenced on this site, including 394 residential units, with a series of 4-story apartment buildings on this site. The proposed project will have the same density as the project to the south, as well as be a similar height as a 4-story apartment building. The use of the undeveloped property at 8928 Collier Boulevard for a residential multi-family project is an efficient use of the existing urban area through its creation of essential housing to support the Page 512 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 4 of 7 local employers. It is amongst an already developed and/or under construction area which represents an efficient use of the land and all the available resources within the area. Furthermore, the development of this site with rental units, and 30% being affordable housing rentals directly supports the housing needs of the major employers within the area without urban sprawl. Housing Element Objective 1 recognizes the need to provide new affordable housing units to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate, and affordable workforce housing incomes. The proposed PUD recognizes development commitments that include a minimum of 30% affordable housing requirements. Specifically, twenty-eight (28) of the residential units would be income and rent- restricted for a period of 30-years. Of these units, 14 would be rented to those who are considered in the low-income (80% AMI) housing income range and 14 would be rented to those who are in the moderate-income housing range (100% AMI). Furthermore, fourteen of these affordable housing units would be advertised for rent to essential service personnel and military veterans. Transportation Element Policy 7.1 encourages developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads. The proposed development will have ingress and egress on Collier Boulevard, an arterial road. Policy 7.2 encourages developers to have internal accesses or loop roads to help reduce vehicular congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads. The proposed residential development will have its access along Collier Boulevard, with the drive access leading into the parking lots for the residential building. The project will not have access to any other local streets or adjoining neighborhoods, however, a potential interconnection with Hacienda Lakes PUD to the immediate north will be shown on the MCP, just east and inside the property boundary to allow for a future potential interconnection. This interconnection would be this project’s burden; however, Hacienda Lakes would have to amend their zoning to allow the interconnection. The adjacent property to the south of this project is a preserve area, and this project includes lake and preserve area on the eastern portion, therefore no opportunity for interconnection exists to the south and east. Policy 7.3 encourages developers to connect local streets and interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods. The adjacent neighborhoods are not under unified control and are being developed as separate communities. However, a potential interconnection with Hacienda Lakes PUD to the immediate north will be shown on the MCP to allow for a future potential interconnection. Page 513 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 5 of 7 Policy 7.4 encourages developers to create communities that are walkable, have a blend of densities, have common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing types and prices. The proposed development will include a variety of rental prices for the one and two-bedroom units. The residential building will offer fourteen units for rent at a low- income price range to not exceed 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and fourteen units for rent to not exceed 100% of the AMI. The community property also includes 61% open space, which includes a 1.46 acre lake and 1.22 acres of preserve area. The project will include amenities, such as a courtyard and a community pool. The residential project is located adjacent to a 12’ paved multi-use path running along the east side of Collier Boulevard at the entrance of this project. This path allows for recreational uses, as well as walkable access to commercial uses south of the property along Collier Boulevard. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 6.1 recognizes the protection of native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. The proposed project will meet or exceed the 15% preserve requirement. Additionally, the preserve will meet all Collier County requirements, and all required State and Federal agency permits. Applicable permits will be provided to Collier County at the time of Site Development Plan. Objective 7.1 recognizes the direction of incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. An environmental report has been completed as part of the project preparation to ensure the proposed project will meet or exceed the County’s habitat preservation requirements. A copy of that environmental report is included in this PUD application package. This project will include 15% preservation area. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed amendment will result in a project that is compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed project will include one 4-story residential multi-family building which is compatible with the residential buildings being constructed in the nearby area. To the south, as part of the Azalea Park project, 394 residential units with a series of 4-story buildings has commenced construction. To the north, a combination of single-family homes, twin villa residences, and apartment buildings have commenced construction. The apartment buildings to the north, within the Seven Shores community, will develop in six 4-story buildings. Additionally, a 15’ type B landscape buffer will be required between the subject property and the PUD development to the north and a 10’ type A landscape buffer will be required between the future residential property to the south. The residential community to the south will include a preserve area adjacent to this project. To further buffer these properties, a wall is planned to be Page 514 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 6 of 7 constructed along the southern property line, consistent with the Land Development Code. This wall will be adjacent to the preserve area on the property to the south. On the eastern portion of the property is a lake and 1.22 acres of preserve area. These are the only residential developments directly adjacent to the proposed multi-family residential project. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. 1. The amount of native preserve set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. Specifically, there is 8.15± acres of native vegetation on- site requiring a minimum preservation of 1.22± acres (8.15 X .15 = 1.2). A minimum of 1.22± acres of native vegetation shall be retained on-site. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project currently. As part of the companion GMPA, a detailed level of service analysis has been completed which supports that there is adequate capacity to serve the project, with no negative impacts on the level of service standards for public facilities in the area, to include water, wastewater, solid waste capacity, school capacity, park capacity, and other services. Additionally, a traffic impact statement was prepared showing that there are no negative impacts to the level of service along Collier Boulevard. It does recognize that a 315’ turning bay will be provided for the right-turn ingress traffic which is sufficient to accommodate the projected vehicular flow. The project does not require any major traffic mitigation measures to maintain the adopted level of service on Collier Boulevard. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as roadway capacity, wastewater capacity, potable water capacity, and solid waste capacity to accommodate this project. Additionally, there are available services to support this growth in residential population, to include fire/EMS/sheriff services, school needs, and park availability. This was demonstrated in the detailed level of service study completed as part of the companion GMPA. Recognizing the area around it is either developed or under development, this is an example of urban infill and effectively makes use of that available infrastructure to support it. 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. Page 515 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard PUD (PL20230018397) May 30, 2025 Page 7 of 7 There are no PUD modifications being requested at this time. Page 516 of 1321 Page 517 of 1321 Addressing Checklist (Rev ϭϬ/2022)Page 1 of 1 Operations & Regulatory Management Division Ɣ1RUWK+RUVHVKRH'ULYHƔ1DSOHV)/Ɣ-- www.colliercountyfl.gov ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items ŵĂƌŬĞĚǁŝƚŚ;ΎͿare 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. Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include: -ΎLOCATION 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. LOCATION INFORMATION ΎFOLIO (Property ID) Number(s)of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] ΎLEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] STREET ADDRESS(ES)where applicable, if already assigned. PROJECT INFORMATION 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 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(s) LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] 00418400302 S14, T50, R26 and see attached 8928 Collier Blvd. Naples, FL 34114 8928 Collier Blvd. N/A Page 518 of 1321 Page 519 of 1321 Page 520 of 1321 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 100% 0% 0% Catana Construction Inc. 100% 3899 Mannix Dr. Suite 405, Naples, FL 34114 (for all listed here) Peter Catana, Director, President, Secretary, Treasurer Michael Crijan, Director Jessica Catana, Vice President Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 01/2023 Page 1 of 3 Page 521 of 1321 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: Nov. 10, 2017 by Bonita Flores I,LLC Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 01/2023 Page 2 of 3 Page 522 of 1321 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. ƐƚŚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĞĚĂŐĞŶƚͬĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ĂƚƚĞƐƚƚŚĂƚĂůůŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚŝƐĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŝƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƉĂĐŬĂŐĞ͘/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂůůŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŵĂǇ ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞĚĞůĂǇŽĨƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ͘ ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) ΎdŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĂŶĚĨĞĞƐƐŚĂůůďĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽ͗ 'ƌŽǁƚŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚͮ'DWŽƌƚĂů͗ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĐǀƉŽƌƚĂů͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀͬĐŝƚǇǀŝĞǁǁĞď YƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͍ŵĂŝů͗'DĐůŝĞŶƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀ ______________________________________________ t/O Si t Michael Crijan 4/30/24 Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 01/2023 Page 3 of 3 Page 523 of 1321 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 Current Principal Place of Business: Current Mailing Address: 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US Entity Name:CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC. DOCUMENT# P21000005312 FEI Number: 36-4986225 Certificate of Status Desired: Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: CRIJAN, MICHAEL 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Officer/Director Detail : I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date MICHAEL CRIJAN FILED Apr 15, 2024 Secretary of State 7864339629CC MICHAEL CRIJAN D 04/15/2024 2024 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT No 04/15/2024 Title DPST Name CATANA, PETER Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip: NAPLES FL 34114 Title VP Name CATANA, JESSICA Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip: NAPLES FL 34114 Title D Name CRIJAN, MICHAEL Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip: NAPLES FL 34114 Page 524 of 1321 Revised 2024 Page 6 of 11 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST Name of Applicant(s): Address City:State:ZIP: Telephone: E-Mail Address: Cell: Address of Subject Property (If available): City: State: ZIP: Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block:Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: Plat Book: Page #:Property I.D. 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: Peakand AverageDailyDemands: B. Sewer-Peak: Provide Name: Average Daily: Average Daily: TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED KE/d&>KZ^/>> ϯϴϵϵDĂŶŶŝǆƌ͕͘^ƵŝƚĞϰϬϱ EĂƉůĞƐ &>ϯϰϭϭϰ ϮϯϵͲϯϯϭͲϯϰϮϱ ũƵƐƚŝŶ͘ŶĂƌŝŶĞΛĐĂƚĂŶĂĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘ĐŽŵ ϴϵϮϴŽůůŝĞƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ EĂƉůĞƐ &>ϯϰϭϭϰ ϭϰ ϱϬ Ϯϲ ϬϬϰϭϴϰϬϬϯϬϮ ^Khd,KhEdztZ& y y K>>/ZKhEdzt^ ϮϯϬ A. Water-Peak:ϯϴ͕ϴϳϬ Ϯϱ͕ϲϲϴ Ϯϵ͕ϵϬϬ'W ϮϬ͕ϳϬϬ'W Page 525 of 1321 Page 526 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD/DRIUSE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONED: LORDS WAY MPUDUSE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD/DRI USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R170' FPLESMT155' ACCESSESMT15' WIDE TYPE'D' BUFFER15.5' ROWCOMPENSATION15' WIDE TYPE 'B' BUFFER 10' WIDE TYPE 'B' BUFFER 20' LME 25' MIN. BLDG SETBACK 15' MIN. BLDG SETBACK 30' MIN. BLDG SETBACK15' UTILITYESMT15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER(SEE NOTE 5)25' PRESERVEBOUNDARYCONSERVATION EASEMENTO.R. 2532, PG. 2206SITE BOUNDARY POTENTIAL 5' ± HIGH RETAINING WALL (FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN) PROP. RIGHT TURN LANE EX. COLLIER BLVD CANAL EX. 10' MULTI-USE PATH NFeet 0 180 360LEGEND DETENTION AREA LAKE AREA PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL INGRESS/EGRESS DEVIATION LOCATION R NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. 3. PRESERVE AREAS AS REQUIRED BY LDC SECTION 3.05.07. 4. THE LOCATION OF THE ONSITE LAKE AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTS IS PRELIMINARY AND MAY BE ADJUSTED AT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 5. PRESERVES CAN BE USED TO MEET LDC LANDSCAPE BUFFER PER LDC SECTION 4.06.05. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS: NORTH: 15' TYPE B SOUTH: 10' TYPE A WEST: 15' TYPE D PRINCIPAL SETBACKS: FRONT: 30' MIN SIDE: 15' MIN (NORTH) SIDE: 25' MIN (SOUTH/PRESERVE) REAR: 30' MIN MIN. FLOOR AREA: 550 SF/UNIT MIN. LOT AREA: N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH: N/A MIN. LOT DEPTH: N/A MIN. BLDG. HEIGHT: 52' ZONED, 56' ACTUAL ACCESSORY SETBACKS: FRONT: SPS SIDE: 15' MIN (NORTH) SIDE: 10' MIN (SOUTH/PRESERVE) REAR: SPS TOTAL ACREAGE: 9.49 OPEN SPACE: MIN. REQUIRED/PROVIDED (30%): 2.85 AC NATIVE VEGETATION: 8.15 REQUIRED PRESERVATION (15%): 1.22 AC PROVIDED PRESERVATION: 1.20 AC Page 527 of 1321 Page 528 of 1321 Page 529 of 1321 Page 530 of 1321 FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RDCOLLIER BLVD740 E1 - DisturbedLand – Exotics0-24% - 1.75ac416 H E4 - PineFlatwoods, GraminoidGroundcoverHydric – Exotics50-74% - 7.75acStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009Bonita Flores 1 LLCFLUCCS Map - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024075150Feet($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig2_fluccs_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-02 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipient acceptsfull responsibility for verifying the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claims arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data.Parcel BoundaryFLUCCS BoundaryPrepared by: C.J.B. 05/02/24Notes:1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. Source data: Collier County Property Appraiser, Stantec3. Imagery: ESRI Basemap 2020L E G E N DPage 531 of 1321 FLORIDASPORTSPARKRDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009Bonita Flores 1 LLCLocation Map - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024075150Feet($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig1_location_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-01 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipient acceptsfull responsibility for verifying the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claims arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data.Parcel BoundaryPrepared by: C.J.B. 05/01/24Notes:1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. Source data: Collier County Property Appraiser3. Imagery: ESRI Basemap 2020L E G E N DPage 532 of 1321 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3, Fort Myers FL 33901 May 20, 2024 Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Historical Waiver Application Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD) - PL20230018397 Dear Ms. Gundlach: As part of the application package for the Planned Unit Development Amendment, PL20230018397, please accept the attached historical waiver application for staff’s review. The waiver request is for the subject property located at 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL. This property is approximately 9.49 acres in size and is mostly undeveloped. It does include an active Florida Power & Light (FPL) easement which crosses the eastern end of the property from north to south, which is slightly more than an acre in size. Directly west of that easement is a small Collier County utility building located on a filled construction pad. The remainder of the land to the west, is undeveloped and heavily infested with nuisance and exotic vegetation. Property to the north east, and south is currently under development and has been cleared. These factors help to demonstrate that this area has low potential for historical/archaeological sites on the subject property. The historical waiver application includes the following: 1. Cover Letter with Narrative (this document); 2. Waiver Application Form; 3. Aerial Map; and 4. FLUCCS Map. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 225-4805, or josh.philpott@stantec.com. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Page 533 of 1321 Ma\ 20, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Josh Philpott, AICP Principal, Planning Enclosures cc: Justin Narine, Catana Construction, Inc. Beth Rozansky, AICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. John Blikstad, P.E., Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Page 534 of 1321 Waiver of History Survey Application (HDW) 4/08/24 Page 1 of 5 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 SUBMITTAL DATE: _______________ ASSIGNED PLANNER: _________________________ PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH WAIVER:__________________________________ PROJECT NAME:____________________________________________________________ LOCATION:(Common Description) _____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST:_____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ (Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Growth Management Community Development to waive the requirement for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for historical/archaeological sites.) WAIVER APPLICATION FROM REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT LDC Subsection 2.03.07 E 2.j. May 20, 2024 Ms. Nancy Gundlach PL20230018397 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PUD 8928 Collier Blvd, Naples FL Located along Collier Blvd, approx. 1,300' north of Hacienda Lakes Pkwy Request to waive the requirement of a Historical and Archaeological Survey and Assessment. This site is undeveloped. Page 535 of 1321 Waiver of History Survey Application (HDW) 4/08/24 Page 2 of 5 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: ________________________________ Property I.D. Number _____________________________________ Section/Township/Range: / / Subdivision:____________________________________ Block:________ Lot:_________ Plat Book___________ Page # ____________ Metes & Bounds Description: ________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject any legal description, which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property, and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted. LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Mr. Justin Narine, Catana Construction Inc. 3899 Mannix Dr, Suite 405 Naples FL 34114 239-331-3425 justin.narine@catanaconstruction.com Josh Philpott, AICP Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers FL 33901 (239) 225-4805 (239) 313-3025 josh.philpott@stantec.com 00418400302 14 50 26 15 50 26 S 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 LESS W 100FT R/W Bonita Flores I, LLC Page 536 of 1321 Waiver of History Survey Application (HDW) 4/08/24 Page 3 of 5 Size of Property:________ft. x ___________ft. Total Sq. ft. _________ Acres________ Width Along Roadway:______________________Depth:__________________________ Present Zoning Classification:_______________________________________ __________ Present Use of Property: _____________________________________________________ REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED CoverLetterwithnarrativestatementdetailing the reason for the waiver request Completed application with required attachments (download latest version) AffidavitofAuthorization,signedandnotarized PropertyOwnershipDisclosureForm Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. Any other conditions in previously approved development order(s). Other: PROPERTY INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS 334 1237 413,158 9.49 334' 1237' rural agricultural zacant Page 537 of 1321 Waiver of History Survey Application (HDW) 4/08/24 Page 4 of 5 Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated. $Waiver Request Justification. Interpretation of Aerial Photograph 7KHDWWDFKHGDHULDOVKRZVWKHSURSHUW\LV XQGHYHORSHG$Q)3/HDVHPHQWH[LVWVRQWKHHDVWHUQHGJHRIWKHSURSHUW\ DORQJZLWKDVPDOO&ROOLHU&RXQW\XWLOLW\EXLOGLQJZHVWRIWKH)3/HDVHPHQW 2. Historical Land Use Description: _7KHVLWHFDQEHGHVFULEHGDVKLVWRULFDO ZHWODQGV__________________________________ 3. Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: 7KHSURSHUW\LVKHDYLO\ LQIHVWHGE\QXLVDQFHDQGH[RWLFYHJDWLRQ6HHDWWDFKHG)/8&&60DS____________________ 4. Other: 3URSHUWLHVWRWKHQRUWKDQGHDVWKDYHEHHQFOHDUHGDQGDUHXQGHU GHYHORSPHQW$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKH&RXQW\XWLOLW\EXLOGLQJDQG )3/HDVHPHQWKDYHQRWVKRZQSRWHQWLDOIRUKLVWRULFDODUFKDHRORJLFDOVLWHV B. The County Manager or designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions. He shall be authorized to require examination of the site by an accredited archaeologist where deemed appropriate. The applicant shall bear the cost of such evaluation by an independent accredited archaeologist. The decision of the County Manager or designee regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request, written notice shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the County Manager or designee regarding a waiver request may appeal to the Preservation Board. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. WAIVER CRITERIA Page 538 of 1321 Waiver of History Survey Application (HDW) 4/08/24 Page 5 of 5 A.The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant. B.All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a permanent part of the file. C.All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into a legal size (8 ½” x 14”) folder. ______________________________ Signature of Applicant or Agent ______________________________ Printed Name of Applicant or Agent TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION- The County Manager or designee has made the following determination: Approved on: _____________ By:___________________________________ Approved with Conditions on: ____________By: __________________________________ (see attached) Denied on: _______________ By: __________________________________ (see attached) CERTIFICATION NOTICE OF DECISION Philpott, Joshua Digitally signed by Philpott, Joshua Date: 2024.05.20 13:49:34 -04'00' Josh Philpott Page 539 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)SUBJECT PROPERTY100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)NFeet0120240Page 540 of 1321 C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig2_fluccs_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-02 By: cbernerPage 541 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning Traffic Impact Statement 215618460 Prepared for: Bonita Flores I, LLC 35 Trillium Dr, Unit #1 Kitchener, Ontario N2E 0H2 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated 3510 Kraft Road, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 May 2024 Design with community in mind Page 542 of 1321 Professional Engineer’s Certification I certify that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Additionally, I hereby certify that I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Florida practicing with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and that I have supervised the preparation of and approve the evaluations, findings, opinions, conclusions, and technical advice hereby reported for: PROJECT: 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning Traffic Impact Statement 215618460 LOCATION: Naples, Florida This document titled 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning – Phase 1 Traffic Impact Statement was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the account of Bonita Flores I, LLC. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Prepared by: Page 543 of 1321 1 | Page PURPOSE Stantec has been tasked by Bonita Flores I, LLC to pursue a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Rezoning of the property to permit the development of 92-unit, four-story multifamily residential dwelling units (known in this report as “the Project”). The following traffic analysis submitted in support of this GMPA is intended satisfy the applicable requirements for a Small Scale Traffic Impact Statement as prescribed in Resolution No. 2006-299 from the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, which is based on the number of two-way peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed development (<50 during each peak hour). The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) is to document the impact of the Project on the adjacent roadway network and site access point. STUDY AREA & SITE DESCRIPTION The Project parcel(Property ID #00418400302, 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114) is approximately 9.49 acres in size and is currently within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district as shown on the Collier County Zoning Map. A rezoning is being proposed as part of this Project to develop the property beyond agricultural uses. The subject site is located on the northbound side of Collier Boulevard (Figure 1), with the Hacienda Lakes Parkway located to the south and A Better Way located to the north. The project site is generally located 2.7 miles south of the Interstate 75 interchange (Exit 101), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. A right-in/right-out access driveway (traffic coming from the south and heading to the north) is proposed to serve the Projecton Collier Boulevard. Left-turn egress traffic and left-turn ingress traffic will use the unsignalized thru-cut median openings at intersections with Club Estates Drive (quarter-mile north of the site) and Hacienda Lakes Parkway (quarter-mile south of the site), respectively, to make U-turn movements. The site plan for this development, as of the release of this TIS, is shown on Figure 2. As shown on Figure 2 , a 315’ right-turn bay with 50’ taper is provided for site ingress traffic, which is in conformance with the FDOT Design Manual, the 55 mph design speed, and other right turn bays designed on this segment of Collier Boulevard. The proposed development consists of multi-family structures that are four-stories tall, not to exceed 52’ as zoned and not to exceed 56’ actual. Accordingly, for the purposes of trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 221 was selected to best represent the proposed site. It should be noted that development such as this one that are primarily engaged in the operation of apartments are included in SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) code 6513. FIGURE 1: Project LocationMap Collier Blvd PROJECT LOCATION RRE 1: Page 544 of 1321 2 | Page FIGURE 2: Site Plan Right-in/Right-out Access to/from Collier Boulevard NOT TO SCALE 315’ Turning Bay w/ 50’ Taper for Right-Turn Ingress Page 545 of 1321 3 | Page TRIP GENERATION To evaluate the traffic being generated by the Project, a trip generation analysis was prepared based on the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the development plan of 92 dwelling units of mid- rise housing (Land Use Code 221). Two-way AM and PM peak hour trips to be generated by the Project are 29 and 36, respectively. Trip generation graphs and other backup from the ITE TripGen Web-Based App supporting trip generation calculations shown below in Table 2 are provided in Appendix A. ITE Land Use (Code) Units Unit of Measure Weekday 24-Hr Trips Time Period Peak Hour Trips Enter Rate Exit Rate Enter Trips Exit Trips Multifamily Housing, Mid-Rise (221) 92 Dwelling Units 392 AM Pk Hr 29 23% 77% 7 22 PM Pk Hr 36 61% 39% 22 14 TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The traffic generated by the Project was assigned to Collier Boulevard using the knowledge of the area and engineering judgement as shown in Table 3 (PM peak hour to analyze worst-case), with trips split 50- 50 coming from/going to the north and south. The resulting trip generation based on this distribution is shown in Figure 3. Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic Enter Exit Collier Blvd. 34.0 Davis Blvd. (SR 84) to Project 50% 11 7 Collier Blvd. 34.0 Project to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 50% 11 7 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segment of Collier Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the most recent volume for the applicable link from the Annual Update and Inventory Report (2023 AUIR) plus the trip bank volume for that same link. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4 illustrates the application of projected growth rates versus trip bank addition to generate the projected background (without Project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year of 2026. As shown in Table 4, the trip bank provides a more conservative analysis to be used for the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis: 2,770 vph. Figures from the AUIR for the roadway link adjacent to the project site are highlighted in Appendix B. Roadway Link Link No. 2023 AUIR Peak Hour, Peak Direction Background Volume (trips/hr) Trip Bank 2026 (2023 Plus Trip Bank) AUIR Peak Hour, Peak Direction Trip Bank Projection (trips/hr) Traffic Growth Rate 2026 AUIR Peak Hour (2023 Plus Growth Rate), Peak Direction Growth Rate Projection (trips/hr) Collier Blvd. 34.0 2,120 650 2,770 2% 2,250 TABLE 2: Trip Generation Analysis TABLE 3: Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour TABLE 4: Background Traffic on Collier Blvd Page 546 of 1321 4 | Page FIGURE 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Page 547 of 1321 5 | Page ROADWAY LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The Collier County Transportation Planning staff developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the roadway network for the buildout year of 2026. Staff guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage site-generated volume demand exceeds 2% when compared to both the capacity for the link accessing the site (or 3% if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard). Table 5 summarizes the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis, depicting if this Project is projected to have a significant and adverse impact. Roadway Link Link No. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume (trips/hr) Roadway Link, Peak Direction, Peak Hour Project Volume 2026 Peak Direction, Peak Hour Volume Demand with Project % Volume Capacity Impacted by Project Minimum LOS Exceeded without Project? Minimum LOS Exceeded with Project? Significant Impact? Collier Blvd. 34.0 3,000 (NB) 22 (NB) 2,792 0.7% No No No TURNING BAY SUFFICIENCY FOR SITE ACCESS As previously stated, a 300’ turning bay is being provided for right-turn ingress traffic, which is sufficient to accommodate the maximum projected peak hour ingress volume flow of 22 vehicles per hour, which translates to approximately less than one vehicle every two minutes. Furthermore, left-turn egress traffic and left-turn ingress traffic will use the 360’ left/U-turn bay at Club Estates Drive (quarter-mile north of the site) and the 480’ left/U-turn bay at Hacienda Lakes Parkway (quarter-mile south of the site), respectively, to make U-turn movements. The maximum projected peak hour volume of site vehicles making these U-turn movements is 11 vehicles per hour, which translates to approximately less than one vehicle every five minutes. Therefore, proposed site traffic is not anticipated to have a significant impact on operations at either left/U-turn bay north and south of the site. CONCLUSIONS The Project is estimated to generate 392 two-way trips during a 24-hour average weekday period, 36 of which are expected to occur during the PM peak hour, with 22 entering the site and 14 exiting the site. As demonstrated in the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis, this Project would not have a significant and adverse impact on the adjacent roadway network and, therefore, would not require any major traffic mitigation measures. TABLE 5: Roadway Link LOS Analysis Page 548 of 1321 APPENDIX A ITE TripGen Web-Based App Calculations Page 549 of 1321 273 Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Description Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments and condominiums located in a building that has between four and 10 floors of living space. Access to individual dwelling units is through an outside building entrance, a lobby, elevator, and a set of hallways. Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), off- campus student apartment (mid-rise) (Land Use 226), and mid-rise residential with ground-floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Land Use Subcategory Data are presented for two subcategories for this land use: (1) not close to rail transit and (2) close to rail transit. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is ½ mile or less. Additional Data *-/# .$3.$/ .!*-2#$#*/#/# )0( -*!- .$ )/.)/# )0( -*!*0+$ 2 ''$)" units were available, there were an average of 2.5 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 96 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time-of-day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). It is expected that the number of bedrooms and number of residents are likely correlated to the trips generated by a residential site. To assist in future analysis, trip generation studies of all multifamily housing should attempt to obtain information on occupancy rate and on the mix of residential unit sizes (i.e., number of units by number of bedrooms at the site complex). The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Utah, and Virginia. Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 818, 857, 862, 866, 901, 904, 910, 949, 951, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970, 1004, 1014, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1047, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1071, 1076 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) building that has between four and 10 floors of living space apartments Access to individual dwelling units is through an outside building entrance, a lobby, elevator, and a set of hallways Page 550 of 1321 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 11 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 201 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.54 3.76 - 5.40 0.51 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 4.77(X) - 46.46 R²= 0.93 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 4000 500 1,000 1,500 92 418 392 Page 551 of 1321 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 30 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 173 Directional Distribution: 23% entering, 77% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.37 0.15 - 0.53 0.09 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.44(X) - 11.61 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 5000 100 200 300 92 34 29 Page 552 of 1321 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 31 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 169 Directional Distribution: 61% entering, 39% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.39 0.19 - 0.57 0.08 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.39(X) + 0.34 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 5000 50 100 150 200 92 36 36 Page 553 of 1321 APPENDIX B Collier AUIR Roadway Link Information Excerpt Page 554 of 1321 Attachment "F"57 58 61 63 64 65 66Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic CountsPeak20232022 Net Percent2023 2023TrafficHour 1Peak Peak Change Change2023 Counts + 2023w/TB CountsTrip BankPeak Dir Hour Hour In Volume In VolumeTotal Counts + Trip Bank Counts +LYear YearTCMA orExist Cnt. Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir From From Trip Trip Bank Remaining Trip Bank O Expected ExpectedID# CIE# TCEA Road# Link From To Road Sta. Std*Dir Volume Volume Volume 2022 2022 Bank Volume CapacityV/C S Deficient Deficient1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # 12 13 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 281.0 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 4D 554 D N 2,200 1120 1480 -360-32.14%16 1136 1064 51.6% B2.1 55 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 6D 599 E N 3,000 2190 2250 -60-2.74%35 2225 775 74.2% C2.2 55 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road 6D 503 E N 3,000 2270 2160 110 4.85% 53 2323 677 77.4% D3.0 39 CR31 Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 502 E N 3,000 2150 2180 -30-1.40%14 2164 836 72.1% C4.0 CR31 Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 6D 533 E N 2,800 2090 2210 -120-5.74%0 2090 710 74.6% C5.0 3 CR31 Airport Road Radio Road Davis Boulevard 6D553 E N 2,800 2080 2080 0 0.00% 0 2080 720 74.3% C6.0 3 TCEA CR31 Airport Road Davis Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 552 E S 2,700 1470 1550 -80-5.44%90 1560 1140 57.8% C7.0 TCEA(pt) Bayshore Drive US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Thomasson Drive 4D 521 D S 1,800 730 730 0 0.00% 183 913 887 50.7% B8.0 31 CR 865 Bonita Beach Road West of Vanderbilt Drive Hickory Boulevard 4D 653 D E 1,900 1000 1100 -100-10.00%0 1000 900 52.6% B9.0 Carson Road Lake Trafford Road Immokalee Drive 2U 610 D N 600 290 290 0 0.00% 40 330 270 55.0% B10.0 33 County Barn Road Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 2U 519 D S 900 380 370 10 2.63% 86 466 434 51.8% B11.0 CR29 CR 29 US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Everglades City 2U 582A D S 1,000 180 180 0 0.00% 10 190 810 19.0% B12.0 TCEA SR84 Davis Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Airport Road 6D 558 E E 2,700 1420 1410 10 0.70% 55 1475 1225 54.6% C13.0 48 SR84 Davis Boulevard Airport Road Lakewood Boulevard 4D 559 D E 2,000 1460 1470 -10-0.68%0 1460 540 73.0% C14.0 49 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 4D 658 D E 2,000 1660 1630 30 1.81% 56 1716 284 85.8% D 203115.0 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 538 D E 2,200 1500 1410 90 6.00% 138 1638 562 74.5% C16.1 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road 6D 560 E E 3,300 860 840 20 2.33% 155 1015 2285 30.8% B16.2 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis Boulevard Radio Road Collier Boulevard 6D 601 E W 3,300 1220 1250 -30-2.46%245 1465 1835 44.4% B17.0 62 CR876 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 4D 531D E 2,300 2030 1960 70 3.45% 17 2047 253 89.0% D 202918.0 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 530 E E 2,700 1790 1630 160 8.94% 0 1790 910 66.3% C19.0 5 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road 6D 507 E E 3,550 3010 2770 240 7.97% 0 3010 540 84.8% D 203220.1 74 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Airport Road Livingston Road 6D 508 E E 3,550 3240 3140 100 3.09% 19 3259 291 91.8% D 2027 202620.2 74 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston Road I-75 6D 691 E E 3,550 3370 3340 30 0.89% 0 3370 180 94.9% D 2026 202621.0 74 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway I-75 Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 509 E E 3,300 2270 2020 250 11.01% 10 2280 1020 69.1% C22.0 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 4D 605 D * E 1,980 15201450 70 4.61% 53 1573 407 79.4% D23.0 19 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 2U 594 D N 1,000 700 720 -20-2.86%5 705 295 70.5% C24.1 65 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 4D 595 E N 2,400 1410 1390 20 1.42% 75 1485 915 61.9% C24.2 65 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road 6D 581 E N 2,400 1630 1620 10 0.61% 3 1633 767 68.0% C25.0 88 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 505 E N 3,000 1880 1860 20 1.06% 1 1881 1119 62.7% C26.0 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 504 E S 2,700 2760 2660 100 3.62% 4 2764(64)102.4% F Existing Existing27.0 87 EC-TCMA Green Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 2U 642 D E 900 750 680 70 9.33% 0 750 150 83.3% D203329.0 NW-TCMA Gulfshore Drive 111th Avenue Vanderbilt Beach Road 2U 583a D N 800 220 220 0 0.00% 0 220 580 27.5% B30.1 37 CR951 Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 6D 655 E N 3,000 1870 1810 60 3.21% 386 2256 744 75.2% D30.2 37 CR951 Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,000 1580 1490 90 5.70% 93 1673 1327 55.8% C31.1 85 CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road 6D 536 E N 3,000 2530 2590 -60-2.37%107 2637 363 87.9% D 203031.2 85 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green Boulevard 6D 536 E N 3,000 2530 2590 -60-2.37%91 2621 379 87.4% D 203132.1 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Green Boulevard Golden Gate Pwky 4D 525 D N 2,300 1470 1410 60 4.08% 27 1497 803 65.1% C32.2 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Pwky Golden Gate Main Canal 4D607 D N 2,300 1980 1780 200 10.10% 234 2214 86 96.3% D 202532.3 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main Canal I-75 8D 607 E N 3,600 1980 1780 200 10.10% 387 2367 1233 65.8% C33.0 61 EC-TCMA SR951 Collier Boulevard I-75 Davis Boulevard 8D 573 E N 3,600 3020 3170 -150-4.97%293 3313 287 92.0% D 202834.0 86 CR951 Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 602 E N 3,000 2120 2270 -150-7.08%650 2770 230 92.3% D 202935.0 86 CR951 Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail)6D603 E N 3,200 2250 2230 20 0.89% 434 2684 516 83.9% D36.1 12 SR951 Collier Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Wal-Mart Driveway6D557 E N 2,500 2310 2420 -110-4.76%173 2483 17 99.3% E 2027 202436.2 SR951 Collier Boulevard Wal-Mart Driveway Manatee Road 4D 557 D N 2,000 2310 2420 -110-4.76%140 2450(450)122.5% F Existing Existing37.0 12 SR951 Collier Boulevard Manatee Road Mainsail Drive 4D 627 D N 2,200 1830 1810 20 1.09% 161 1991 209 90.5% D 202938.0 51 SR951 Collier Boulevard Mainsail Drive Marco Island Bridge 4D 627 D N 2,200 1830 1810 20 1.09% 50 1880 320 85.5% D 203239.0 64 NW-TCMA CR846 111th Avenue N. Gulfshore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 2U 585 D E 700 330 390 -60-18.18%0 330 370 47.1% B40.0 1 NW-TCMA CR846 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt Drive US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 613 D E 900 610 700 -90-14.75%0 610 290 67.8% C41.1 6 NW-TCMA CR846 Immokalee Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 566 E E 3,100 1990 2070 -80-4.02%25 2015 1085 65.0% CMinDRAFT - MASTER Attachment F-2023 (072823)34.086CR951Collier BoulevardDavis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road6D602EN3,00021202270-150-7.08%650277023092.3%D2029Page 555 of 1321 Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [¥] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name:___________________________________________ Municipality:_________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type:SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Collier County 00418400302 8928 Collier Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Road & Collier Boulevard Bonita Flores I, LLC Josh Philpott, AICP 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3, Fort Myers, FL 33901 (239) 225-4805 n/a josh.philpott@stantec.com Philpott, Joshua Digitally signed by Philpott, Joshua Date: 2024.05.01 11:45:37 -04'00'05/01/2024 Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Rural Agricultural (A) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Multi Family 14 92 ✔ Page 556 of 1321 Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased:Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ YearsSFMFMHCGTotals by YrGrand TotalGrand TotalInsert totals by unit type by years.Unit Types:SF = Single FamilyMF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile HomesC = Condo/Co-OpG = Government EXAMPLE:Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ YearsSF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --MH N/ACN/AGN/ATotals by Yr75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Grand Total 150.2Page 557 of 1321 Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: -School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; -Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 Page 558 of 1321 Page 559 of 1321 Page 560 of 1321 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M. on September 18, 2025, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN MIXED USE, RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN MIXED USE, BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES. [PL20230013845] AND 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 RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230018397] Page 561 of 1321 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinances will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112, one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, prior to September 18, 2025. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar- of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Bellows at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Page 562 of 1321 Collier County Planning Commission Joseph K. Schmitt, Chairman Page 563 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 9.E ID# 2025-2763 PL20230013845 - Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict (GMPA) - approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by changing the land use designation of property from Urban Mixed Use, Residential Fringe Subdistrict to Urban Mixed Use, Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow for 92 multi-family residential dwelling units with affordable housing; directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 9.49± acres; [Coordinator: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner III, GMCDD Comprehensive Planning Division] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report - Bonita Flores GMPA 2. Ordinance - 081425 3. Exh VIII Rental Housing Market Study 4. GMPA Combined PC Hearing Packet Page 564 of 1321 PL20230013845 1 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: PL20230013845 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GMPA); BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT (ADOPTION HEARING) COMPANION TO: PUDZ-PL20230018397 8928 COLLIER BLVD RPUD ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Josh Philpott, AICP Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1412 Jackson Street Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Owner: Bonita Flores I, LLC 1-35 Trillium Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2E 0H2 Applicant: Justin Narine Catana Construction, Inc. 3899 Mannix Drive Suite 405 Naples, FL 34114 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The ±9.49-acre subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway, within Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Page 565 of 1321 PL20230013845 2 Site Location Page 566 of 1321 PL20230013845 3 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove the subject property from the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and to re-designate it as the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The applicant also proposes to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map (“Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map”) in the FLUM series to identify the Subdistrict. The proposed GMP amendment is attached as Exhibit “A”. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To re-designate the property from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow for the development of up to 92 multifamily dwelling units, of which 14 units (15% of the total units) will be rented to households whose incomes are less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 14 units (15%) will be rented to households whose incomes are less than 100% of the AMI. The subdistrict will reserve fifty percent (50%) of the income-limited units will be rented to military veterans or Essential Service Personnel (ESP). A companion petition (PL20230018397) would rezone the property from Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The ±9.49-acre site is zoned Agricultural (A). The site is mostly undeveloped except for a Collier County Well Station (SRO 27S) located in the rear of the lot. The entire subject property is designated Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map. Surrounding Lands: North – Future Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Zoned: Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 0.78 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum of 1,760 dwelling units throughout 2,262.17± gross acres. East – Future Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Subdistrict. Zoned: Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 0.78 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum of 1,760 dwelling units throughout 2,262.17± gross acres. South – Future Land Use Designation: Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict. Zoned: Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way MPUD. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 10.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum of 690 dwelling units throughout 6.9± gross acres. West – Future Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Zoned: Naples Lakes Country Club PUD. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 1.67 units per gross acre. Maximum of 785 units throughout 470.02± gross acres. In summary, the future land use designations, zoning districts, and existing land uses in the surrounding area are residential. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Future Land Use Element of the GMP currently designates this property as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The Urban Page 567 of 1321 PL20230013845 4 Residential Fringe designation is intended to provide transitional densities between Urban designated areas and Agricultural/Rural designated areas. The maximum allowable density within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is 1.5 units per gross acre. The site is also located within the Residential Density Band of Activity Center #7. Residential Density Bands allow for increased density of up to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre, within 1 mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center. Additional density in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is attainable in various methods, including Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) or eligibility of Affordable Housing Density Bonuses. The applicant is proposing to re-designate the subject property from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to create a new subdistrict known as the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict, to allow multifamily residential development at a density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed text for the new subdistrict allows these dwelling units at a maximum zoned height of 52 feet and four stories. Residential density, affordable housing, and compatibility (including appropriateness of the location) for this project are identified by staff as the main areas of concern to address. Density: The proposed subdistrict will allow up to 92 multifamily rental units, of which 28 units (30% of total) will be restricted as affordable. As mentioned previously, the maximum allowable density within the Urban Residential Fringe is 1.5 units per gross acre. The requested density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre is significantly higher than what is allowed within the current designation. However, the approved density of the immediate surrounding developments varies between 0.78 dwelling units per gross acre and 10.0 dwelling units per gross acre. As this project proposes to establish a new subdistrict, it is not limited by its Future Land Use designation and may request 10.0 dwelling units per acre. Affordable Housing: Of the proposed 92 multifamily rental units, the petitioner has committed to rent 14 units (15% of the total units) to households whose incomes are less than 80% of the AMI and 14 units (15% of the total units) to households whose incomes are less than 100% of the AMI. A preference for 50% of the affordable housing units will be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP). Compatibility: FLUE Policy 5.6 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, a compatibility analysis may include a review of allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space, and location. The area surrounding the proposed subdistrict is primarily comprised of both single-family and multi-family residential, with access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). The nearest commercial designation, Activity Center #7, allows a full array of commercial uses and intensities. Planning principles support locating higher intensity development closer to major roadways, with the intensity of uses diminishing as developments transition lower into single-family residential neighborhoods. An effect of developing a higher density residential community is the balance of preserving the living conditions of the adjacent community, especially maintaining residential character, privacy, and access to natural light. To ensure the surrounding residential communities are not significantly impacted, appropriate setbacks, screening, and landscape buffers should be Page 568 of 1321 PL20230013845 5 established. A minimum 15-foot-wide type ‘B’ is provided on the northern project boundary, a minimum 15-foot wide type ‘D’ buffer is provided on the west project boundary adjacent to Collier Boulevard, and a minimum 10-foot-wide type ‘A’ buffer is provided on the southern project boundary, which is adjacent to a conservation easement within Lord’s Way MPUD. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed within the companion zoning petition. Staff finds that the requested multifamily use will be compatible with the surrounding area (at the level at which GMP amendments are reviewed for compatibility) and, in accordance with best practices, that this is an appropriate location to provide for higher density residential. Needs Analysis: Zonda conducted a market analysis (“8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study, Bonita Flores 1”, included in the backup materials), analyzing market conditions for the subject site by identifying the market area of Collier County (defined as the Collier County jurisdictional boundaries) and an additional 3-mile market area, referred to as the ‘Primary Market Area’, or ‘PMA’, was included to demonstrate the estimated population, rental demand, and rental square feet supply, and the employers within a 3-mile radius of the subject property that would benefit from having rental offerings, and in particular affordable housing offerings, available to employees. Staff notes the following from the market analysis: • The population of the PMA market area is expected to increase by 5.69% between 2024 and 2029, from 32,853 to 34,835 in 2029 per ESRI projections. • The average occupancy rate of the eleven Collier County apartment complexes where data was able to be obtained was 94.41%. Staff notes that the most recent Quarterly Rental Apartment Survey (July 2025) completed by the Collier County Community and Human Services Division indicates an average occupancy rate of 93.5% for all of Collier County. The survey is included in the backup materials for this petition. • Based on the demand modeling within a 3-mile radius of the subject property, the proposed affordable housing percentiles are consistent with the household income ranges supported by prevalent job types in the area. • A demand analysis of market rate apartments indicates a current annual deficit averaging 921, totaling a deficit of 4,603 market rate rental apartments in the market area over a 5- year period. The proposed project will help to decrease the deficit of market rate rental apartments upon its projected delivery in 2026. Based on the market analysis, staff agrees with the applicant that the provided data and analysis reasonably demonstrates a need for the proposed project. CRITERIA FOR GMP AMENDMENTS FLORIDA STATUTES: Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Page 569 of 1321 PL20230013845 6 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Page 570 of 1321 PL20230013845 7 Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. The petitioner must provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan Amendment. For this petition, a market analysis (“8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study, Bonita Flores 1”) was provided by the applicant. Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes: Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises 9.49± acres.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small- scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (d) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Page 571 of 1321 PL20230013845 8 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The applicant conducted a hybrid Neighborhood Information Meeting, held on May 19, 2025 at South Regional Library and commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:15 p.m. The applicant’s agent, Joshua Philpott, AICP, explained the request for the proposed rezone and the companion small scale Growth Management Plan amendment. Mr. Philpott gave a brief presentation in which he gave an overview of the proposed project, introduced the project team, and explained the background of the existing property related to its existing zoning and Future Land Use designations. Mr. Philpott further outlined the details of the rezone and GMP amendment petitions, explaining that the requested multifamily rental project includes a commitment to provide 30% of the units for affordable housing at 80-100% AMI with 50% reserved for essential service personnel and active duty military. The NIM summary is included in the CCPC backup materials. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no transportation or public utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • There are no concerns about impacts on other public infrastructure. • There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use. • The site’s use will create minimal impact on the surrounding area. Environmental Review: Environmental Services Staff verified the acreage of native vegetation on site during the review of the Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) for the project. The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural (A). The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) regarding protecting native vegetation, the preservation requirement is 1.22 acres (15% of 8.15 acres). Native vegetation on-site will be retained by the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.2 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Environmental Services staff recommend approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: A Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by Stantec Consulting Services dated May 2024 was submitted as part of this petition. Transportation Planning staff reviewed the TIS and the petition for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan using the current 2024 AUIR. Staff finds the TIS to be sufficient and have no objections to the Transmittal of this GMPA petition. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the south 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. LEGAL REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on August 26, 2025. Page 572 of 1321 PL20230013845 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition PL20230013845 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve and adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required agencies. NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the October 28, 2026 BCC meeting. Page 573 of 1321 [24-CMP-01221/1964605/1] 51 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PL20230013845 8/14/25 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89- 05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN MIXED USE, RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN MIXED USE, BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES; [PL20230013845] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Catana Construction, Inc., requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on ___________________ considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and Page 574 of 1321 [24-CMP-01221/1964605/1] 51 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PL20230013845 8/14/25 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ___________________; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendment are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Board of County Commissioners directs transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. SECTION THREE: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after Board approval. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued before it has become effective. Page 575 of 1321 [24-CMP-01221/1964605/1] 51 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PL20230013845 8/14/25 3 of 3 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by 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 Attachment: Exhibit A – Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment Page 576 of 1321 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 1 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN – MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 35. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 35. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict The Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict consists of approximately 9.49 acres and is located approximately ¼ mile north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway. It is depicted on the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map. The purpose of this subdistrict is to allow multi-family residential dwelling units, inclusive of workforce housing targeted for essential service personnel such as, but not limited to police officers, fire personnel, child-care workers, teachers or other education personnel, health care personnel, active military, or public employees. Recognizing the need for housing diversity and to make workforce housing feasible, development within this subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a) The development shall be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Page 577 of 1321 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 2 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 b) The development shall be limited to a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total of 92 multi-family rental units. c) Twenty-eight (28) units collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units” will be income and rent restricted as follows: 1. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 2. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 3. The Set Aside Units will be committed for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 4. Preference to fifty percent (50%) of the Set Aside Units shall be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP). i. ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, active military, or public employee. ii. The period of time the rental will be reserved and advertised for ESP persons will be a minimum of 90 days from the date the unit is first available and 45 days thereafter. In the event that no ESP person rents a Set Aside Unit, then the unit may be offered to the general public (non-ESP) but shall remain rent and income restricted. iii. At a minimum, advertising will consist of providing written notice to the Collier County Community and Human Services Division and the human resource departments for local hospitals, the Collier County Public School District, Collier County Government, other municipalities within Collier County, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff’s Office. iv. Advertising for the development shall identify the project prioritizes units for ESP households. v. The Developer shall maintain a waiting list of pre-qualified ESP renters for subsequent vacancies. Waitlist participants will be notified of subsequent vacancies. vi. This commitment for ESP preference shall remain in effect for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. d) The Density Rating System is not applicable to this Subdistrict. Page 578 of 1321 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 3 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Mattson at Vanderbilt Residential Subdistrict Map * Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Page 579 of 1321 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 4 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 Page 580 of 1321 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 5 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 Page 581 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study Naples, FL Bonita Flores 1 December 2023 Page 582 of 1321 Key Findings 4 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview 9 Multifamily Market Supply 33 Multifamily Market Demand 40 Multifamily Market Trends 46 Economic & Demographic Overview 54 Appendix 62 Page 583 of 1321 3 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Background/Objectives, Key Contacts & Limiting Conditions BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES Bonita Flores 1 (“Client”) is considering the development of an affordable housing community on a +/- 9.49-acre property located at 8928 Collier Boulevard in Naples, Florida (“Subject”) and is seeking a density of ten units per acre, resulting in 92 rental units, 30% of which will be allocated toward residents earning 120% of AMI. Approximately nine units (10% of apartments) will be reserved for households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County; additionally, nine units will be reserved for households earning up to 100% of AMI and ten units will be reserved for households earning up to 120% AMI. To move forward with the project, Collier County will require a rezoning application and GMPA amendment. The Client seeks an economic assessment of the current supply and demand metrics in the market to provide support for the rezoning application. Our role at Zonda is to provide you with data, analysis, and conclusions for this effort. Client is responsible for representations about the development plans, marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the difference may be material. We have no responsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. Payment of any and all of our fees and expenses is not in any way contingent upon any factor other than our providing services related to this report. LIMITING CONDITIONS The following key team members participated on this analysis: Tim Sullivan, Senior Managing Principal, oversees our Advisory practice. With over 40 years of experience, Mr. Sullivan is an expert in residential and mixed-use feasibility studies, strategic planning and product development, and regularly conducts market analyses around the United States and internationally. Susan Heffron, AICP, Vice President, managed the assignment. Ms. Heffron has over 20 years of real estate experience in the public and private sectors. She has worked in market research and analysis, entitlements, land use, and community planning, and process and program management for a wide variety of projects throughout the country, including serving as the Community Development and Code Enforcement Manager for the City of Concord, North Carolina, responsible for the coordination of the City’s affordable housing programs. Additional support was provided as needed. KEY CONTACTS Page 584 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 4 Key Findings Page 585 of 1321 5 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Area Median Income (AMI) Affordable Housing Ranges and Rent Limits Key Findings Based on HUD’s median family income of $104,300, the 2024 Income Limits by Persons in Family are shown below. The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market-rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. The 30% will address households making up to 120% of the County Area Median Income (“AMI”); this results in approximately 28 units with income restrictions. Additional details on the proposed unit mix is on the following page. Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Based on AMI categories, the 2024 Rent Limits by Persons by Bedroom range from $548 to $3,630. Based on targeting households that make 120% of the County AMI, potential rents limits for these 28 units can range between $2,193 and $3,630. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,566 to $2,817 threshold. AMI Category 0 Bedroom Limit ($)1 Bedroom Limit ($)2 Bedroom Limit ($)3 Bedroom Limit ($)4 Bedroom Limit ($) 30%$548 $587 $704 $813 $907 50%$913 $978 $1,173 $1,356 $1,512 60%$1,096 $1,174 $1,408 $1,627 $1,815 80%$1,462 $1,566 $1,878 $2,170 $2,420 120%$2,193 $2,349 $2,817 $3,255 $3,630 Florida Housing Rent Limits, 2024 AMI Category 1 Person Limit ($)2 Person Limit ($)3 Person Limit ($)4 Person Limit ($) 30%$21,930 $25,050 $28,170 $31,290 50%$36,550 $41,750 $46,950 $52,150 60%$43,860 $50,100 $56,340 $62,580 80%$58,480 $66,800 $75,120 $83,440 120%$87,720 $100,200 $112,680 $125,160 140%$102,340 $116,900 $131,460 $146,020 Collier County Housing Income Limits, 2024 Page 586 of 1321 6 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market -rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. Approximately nine units (10% of apartments) will be reserved for households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County; additionally, nine units will be reserved for households earning up to 100% of AMI and ten units will be reserved for households earning up to 120% AMI. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the rent restricted units (14 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel (ESP). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 14 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. This commitment for ESP and military veterans shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. Source: Client Subject Unit Mix Key Findings Unit Type Quantity Market Rate Unit Mix Beds Baths 1 Bed 10 16%1 1 2 Bed 54 84%2 1 Unit Type Quantity Affordable Unit Mix Beds Baths 1 Bed 16 57%1 1 2 Bed 12 43%2 1 Subject Unit Mix Market Rate Units - 64 Apartments Affordable Units - 28 Apartments Affordable Housing Represents 30% of Total Project Units Page 587 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 7 Zonda’s research and analysis of the Subject’s Primary Market Area (PMA) as shown on the map on page 10 of this study indicate sufficient market demand for the development of 92 multifamily units at the Subject property as proposed. This is based on several factors, including: Zonda’s proprietary rental demand model for the PMA indicates increasing market demand over the next five years, averaging 921 NEW TO MARKET traditional rental units annually; this demand is in addition to the rental units that are currently built and available for rent within the marketplace. Although there are 1,260 units under construction today, it is improbable that there will be sufficient new construction to meet future needs based on these units being completed. Only 822 units are contemplated for future demand within the SRAs. (Pages 40-44) More specifically, there is an annual demand within the PMA of 908 units in 2024. Per RealPage data, there are approximately NO units on track for delivery in 2024, indicating a gap of 908 new units necessary to meet new rental demand today. In 2025, NEW rental demand is 920 units, yet currently there are only 866 on track for delivery, a gap of 54 NEW units. Combined, this represents a need for more than 962 NEW TO MARKET rental units over the next two years. (Pages 40-44) In 2026, when the Subject is expected to deliver units, new demand is forecasted to be 932 units within the PMA; however, there is only one project currently in construction that could potentially deliver units to the market. These projects represent 394 apartments, or only 42% of future demand in the Subject’s year of delivery. Projects, such as the Subject, will help to fulfill these unmet needs in the marketplace. (Pages 40-44) While there are three communities that were built over the past four years within the PMA, the average age across all properties is more than 14 years. These older communities lack updated interior features and finishes community amenities as well that are found in newer rental properties. The Subject will offer renters new construction with these modern finishes and community amenities, at an affordable price, in a convenient location; this supports the development of the Subject as proposed. (Pages 33-39) As proposed, rent for one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. Most future rental demand in the PMA is for units priced between $1,700 to $2,575; however, through 2027, rental demand is forecasted to slightly increase for units that command between $1,200 and $1,700 as well as $2,250 to $3,425 in monthly rent. During this same time, demand for the lowest priced apartments are forecasted to decline slightly. As proposed, the Subject will fall within the price bands where demand is currently healthy and forecasted to grow over the next several years. (Pages 40-44) Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 588 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 8 Additional key factors supporting the development of the community include: Even as apartments within the South Collier County Submarket are older, the area as a whole reported year over year annualized rent growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. For product built since 2000, monthly rent in South Collier averages $2,318 per month, a rent premium of about 3.7% over the average rent of $2,195 across the market. This premium highlights the strength and desirability of the South Collier submarket for multifamily development. (Pages 46-53) Within the PMA and SMA, household and population are expected in increase over the next five years. These increase are forecasted to result in significantly higher per capita income within the PMA, with declining numbers of households identified as “low income.” Over the same time period, median contracted rents within the Subject’s block group are expected to increase 12% to $1,962. (Pages 11 – 15) Even as apartments within the South Collier County Submarket are older, the area as a whole reported year over year annualized rent growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. For product built since 2000, monthly rent in South Collier averages $2,318 per month, a rent premium of about 3.7% over the average rent of $2,195 across the market. This premium highlights the strength and desirability of the South Collier submarket for multifamily development. (Page 51) The use of concessions in South Collier County Submarket have increased over the past four quarters from a record low of no concessions in the Submarket during the fourth quarter of 2022. Concessions now represent 5.8% of base rent, with approximately 12.9% of units offering concessions. Average concessions previously peaked at 8.4% of the base rent in the third quarter 2020 while percent of units offering concessions previously peaked at 65.2% in the second quarter of the same year. (Page 53) Employment is heavily concentrated in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors; combined these sectors account for nearly 53% of all employment in the area. There are more than 5,100 individuals that commute from the larger region into the PMA for work indicating an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute that increases quality of life which subsequently reduces the impacts of traffic on the greater Naples area. (Page 29) The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, between Tamiami Trail and I-75. These transportation corridors, and nearby transit stops, allow for easy access to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. While a Publix is located with a mile of the site, abundant retailers, including several other grocery stores and pharmacies, numerous local retail establishments, and medical facilities and doctors' offices are located within five miles. Additionally, the Subject’s assigned elementary school is less than two miles south of the Subject, just off Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock; this will be convenient for parents of young children that commute. (Page 32) Within the PMA, much of the land surrounding the site is currently zoned as planned unit development, with six parcels to the south of the site also zoned as Agricultural. Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is an existing multi-family development with a MPUD zoning designation. (Page 20) Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 589 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 9 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 590 of 1321 10 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 In assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County (Secondary Market Area or SMA) as well as a three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (Primary Market Area or PMA); these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, RealPage Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview SubjectSubject Subject Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 591 of 1321 11 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Within the PMA and SMA, household and population are expected in increase over the next five years. These increase are forecasted to result in significantly higher per capita income within the PMA, with declining numbers of households identified as “low income.” Source: ESRI Multifamily Market Area Snapshot 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA Summary 2024 2029 Population 32,853 34,835 Households 16,432 18,054 Median Age 63.6 64.8 Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 Median Household Income $81,284 $92,166 Average Household Income $116,799 $134,847 Per Capita Income $58,769 $70,250 Households in Low Income 2,210 1,763 Households in Middle Income 11,074 12,038 Households in Upper Income 3,148 4,252 Three Mile Radius (PMA) Summary 2024 2029 Population 404,645 427,602 Households 172,735 186,978 Median Age 53.7 54.3 Average Household Size 2.31 2.26 Median Household Income $85,620 $101,783 Average Household Income $135,508 $157,374 Per Capita Income $57,867 $68,836 Households in Low Income Tier 24,572 19,898 Households in Middle Income Tier 104,092 108,787 Households in Upper Income Tier 44,071 58,293 Collier County (SMA) Page 592 of 1321 12 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Population Growth within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Over the next five years, the Subject’s block group is project to have the highest annualized population growth within the PMA. During this time, the block group is forecasted to increase in population by 5.79% annually, significantly higher than the annualized rate of 1.2% within the PMA. Source: ESRI Subject 5.79% Page 593 of 1321 13 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Income Growth within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview By 2029, the median household income within the Subject’s block group is expected to increase 6.2%, to more than $80,400, representing one of the highest income areas outside of the adjoining golf course communities. In 2023, the median household income was $75,722. This is, however, lower than the PMA as whole, where the median household income is projected to by $92,166 by 2029. Source: ESRI Subject $80,408 Page 594 of 1321 14 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Renter Occupied Housing Units within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Through 2029, there is limited renter occupied housing unit growth forecasted within much of the PMA. The Subject’s block group represents one of the largest areas for renter occupied units; these units are expected to increase from 566 housing units to 1,110 over the next five years. Source: ESRI Subject 1,110 Page 595 of 1321 15 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Median Contracted Rent within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Over the next five years, the median contracted rent within the Subject’s block group is forecasted to increase almost 12%. In 2023, the median contracted rent in the area was $1,752 and is expected to increase to $1,962 by 2029. As proposed, one- and two- bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold when delivered in 2026 for the 30% of units designated as affordable housing at the Subject. Source: ESRI Subject $1,962 Page 596 of 1321 16 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict will include a single, 9.49-acre parcel. The site is located on Collier Boulevard, approximately 2.7 miles south of I-75 and less than five miles north of Tamiami Boulevard. The property is currently designated Agriculture per the County’s current zoning regulations and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict per the County’s future land use designation. Source: GoogleEarth Subject Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 597 of 1321 17 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Subject will include 92 one or two bedroom rental apartments. The buildings on the site will be located nearest to Collier Boulevard (“Area R” shaded in purple below) while the rear portion of the site will include a lake area, detention area, and preserve. All parking for renters are surface lots; as proposed there are no garage units included in parking calculations. The community will also include a leasing office, mailroom, clubhouse, and gym. Based on one year to complete the entitlement process and a year for permitting and construction, these apartments are forecasted to begin leasing in 2026. As traditional apartment communities typically lease between 15 and 20 units per month, Zonda forecasts that the community will be stabilized within five months of the start of leasing. Source: Client Subject Site Plan Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 598 of 1321 18 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Surrounding land uses include a mix of residential, commercial, and vacant land as well as industrial land uses to the northeast. Commercial uses in the area include The Florida Sports Park-Reception Pavilion / Swamp Buggy Inc, several golf courses, and a Publix grocery store to the south. Adjoining PUDs and zoning classifications are compatible with the proposed land use at the Subject as they are generally residential in nature. There are multiple healthcare, educational, and governmental facilities with two miles of the Subject while the nearest transit stop is less than a mile south of the property. Source: Google Earth, Collier County, Client Subject Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Commercial Residential Public Works (Law Enforcement) Commercial Vacant Land Golf Course Healthcare Multi-family Residential Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Public Works (Education) Public Works (Education/Library)Public Works (Education) Childcare Page 599 of 1321 19 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Zoning Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Zonda completed a visual audit of Collier County Zoning maps and GIS data to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. Much of Collier County is zoned open space or agricultural in the lesser developed regions of the County, with planned unit development zoning in the heavily populated areas between the coast and Interstate 75. Residential zoning classifications, including ones that could support uses such as those proposed at the Subject, are scattered through much of the western portion of the County, along Tamiami Trail, and west of I-75, as shown on the map to the right. Source: Collier County’ https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88286/636989656568300000Page 600 of 1321 20 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Surrounding Zoning Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Zonda also completed a visual audit of Collier County Zoning within three miles of the Subject to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. In the immediate vicinity of the Subject, much of the land surrounding the site is currently zoned as planned unit development, with six parcels to the south of the site also zoned as Agricultural. Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is an existing multi-family development with a MPUD zoning designation. Source: Collier County; https://colliercountygmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7112ae8012934a5ebbecf2b80e06bb93Page 601 of 1321 21 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Per the Collier County Approved PUD List, dated January 2024, there are 203 active PUD developments in the County as well 177 PUDs that are classified as “Built Out.” Combined, these PUDs account for more than 42,763 total multifamily units. However, within these PUDs there are more than 56,800 multifamily units developed. Even with more units developed than contemplated within the PUDs, there remains a need for an average of 920 NEW multi-family units within the PMA for the Subject, based upon Zonda’s rental demand model. Source: Collier County Collier County Planned Unit Developments, Commercial and Industrial Zoning 58 Acre PUDZ & GMPA Overview PUD Status Total Multifamily Units Developed Multifamily Units Active 20,876 27,318 Built Out 21,887 29,560 Grand Total 42,763 56,878 Page 602 of 1321 22 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, there are approximately 12,996 multi-family dwelling units allowed; of these 478 have been developed. Specific to “Affordable Housing,” there are 882 affordable units allowed, but to date, none have been developed. For additional details on these areas, please see appendix. Source: Collier County Collier County SRA Overlays 58 Acre PUDZ & GMPA Overview SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix)Affordable Housing Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 2,150 11,000 Ave Maria, Town of Developed 478 4,141 Bellmar Village Allowed 2,200 2,750 Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 3,546 4,432 882 Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 10%Min 2,427 Min 882 Brightshore Village Allowed 1,600 2,000 Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Collier Rod & Gun Allowed -225 Collier Rod & Gun Developed Collier Rod & Gun Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 1,000 1,800 Hyde Park Village Developed 75 Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 300, Max Total Combined Rivergrass Village Allowed 2,500 2,500 Rivergrass Village Developed - Rivergrass Village Min/Max Min 250 Max Total Combined Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 603 of 1321 23 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The future land use designations on the west side of Collier Boulevard are focused on urban based residential and mixed-use development; these extends approximately one mile on the east side of Collier Boulevard. Other land use designations in the area are primarily rural agricultural that include sending and receiving lands. Surrounding Land Uses Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County; https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/91411/637557210850130000 Urban Residential Subdistrict Receiving Lands Sending Lands Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Page 604 of 1321 24 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Parcel Inventory Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County Tax Assessor Database Comparably sized parcels in Collier County were analyzed to determine if there was an opportunity to accommodate the proposed uses at the Subject that would not require a rezoning or growth plan amendment. Based on Collier County’s Assessor Data, accessed on November 28, 2023, there are currently 12 parcels within the County meet the following requirements to accommodate the proposed project: •The parcel must be sized between 7.5 and 12.5 acres •The parcel must be vacant but developable (i.e., not internal roadways, common open space, roadways, etc.) •The parcel must currently have a compatible land use code per the assessor’s records •The parcel must have nearby access to significant transportation corridors and public transportation •The parcel must be located in close proximity to everyday conveniences such as dining, retail establishments, and daily services •The surrounding parcels should not be exclusively single family detached homes (i.e. there should be a mix of property types in the area A detailed list of these parcels is on the following page. Page 605 of 1321 25 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Parcel Inventory Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County Tax Assessor Database Parcel ID Owner Base Zoning Future Land Use Address Land Use Code Total Acres 37067680009 Jeffrey Lee Smith Jr Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 830 9th Street NW 0 9.45 41770040003 Hendrix House Inc Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 42nd Avenue, West of Everglades Boulevard 0 9.8 32632360005 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 32632560009 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 00397240007 Gussler Investments LP Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Benfield Road, South of Beck Boulevard 0 10 00741760007 Bohde, John A Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Fiddlers Creek Parkway at Veneta Way 0 10 38056320007 Alan J Vincent Rev. Trust Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 25th Aveunue SW 0 8.16 38056040002 Elizabeth Barclay Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 31st Avenue SW 0 8.01 64700625501 Roberto Bollt MPUD Rural Settlement Area District 13986 Immokalee Road 0 12.23 41829400002 Vanderbilt Living LLC RPUD UR/Vanderbilt Beach Road Residential Subdistrict Cherry Wood Drive 0 7.91 52658000280 Jubliation Holdings PUD Urban Residential Subdistrict Carson Road at Curry Road 0 11.44 48900000120 Missark Naples 3 PUD Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 1040 Borghese Lane 0 8.66 Page 606 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 26 Source: ESRI Traffic Count Map Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, a major north-south transportation corridor between Immokalee Road in northern Collier County and Tamiami Trail in southern Collier County; the site is almost halfway between Interstate 75 and Tamiami Trail . Collier Boulevard, north of Tamiami Trail, averages more than 36,000 cars a day south of the Subject, increasing to 56,000 near the Interstate. From the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, average daily traffic counts increase from 29,000 vehicles per day to more than 45,000 at the edge of a five-mile radius. These traffic counts, coupled with the previously noted commuting patterns of residents in the area, further indicate an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute to employment centers. Subject Page 607 of 1321 27 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Employment by Census Tract and Drive-Time Map Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview The Subject is located is within 45 minutes of many of Southwest Florida’s top employment destinations. Much of developed Collier County is within 45 minutes of the Subject, while areas such as Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, and Estero, in Lee County, are also within 45 minutes. Numerous healthcare employers including Lee Health Coconut Point, as well as most facilities in the NCH Healthcare System and Arthrex, are conveniently located within a reasonably commute of the Site. Both Florida Gulf Coast University and Southwest Florida International Airport are 45 minutes from the Subject. This location bodes well for the success of the project. Source: ESRI; Zonda, FGCU Regional Economic Research Institute Rank Company Employees 1 Lee Health 14,028 2 Lee County School District 11,003 3 Publix Super Market 9,768 4 Lee County Local Government 9,142 5 NCH Healthcare System 8,159 6 Walmart 7,286 7 Collier County School District 5,756 8 Collier County Local Government 5,173 9 Arthrex 4,087 10 Marriott International, Inc.3,620 11 Bayfront Health 2,801 12 Charlotte County Local Government 2,614 13 McDonald's 2,613 14 Home Depot 2,497 15 Charlotte County School District 2,152 16 Winn-Dixie 1,899 17 Hope Hospice 1,838 18 Chico's Fas Inc.1,552 19 Florida Gulf Coast University 1,519 20 Bloomin' Brands, Inc.1,395 Top Southwest Florida Employers 30 Minutes 15 Minutes 45 Minutes Fort Myers Marco Island Big Cypress National Preserve Naples Estero Bonita Springs Florida Panther National Wildlife Picayune Strand State Forest Cape Coral 15 Minute Drive Time 30 Minute Drive Time 45 Minute Drive Time Page 608 of 1321 28 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Employment within the PMA Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Within the Subject’s block group, there are approximately 1,370 total employees. Higher concentrations of employment are located to the north of the Subject, along the northern side of I-75 and to the south of the Subject in the Lely Resort/The Classics Country Club at Lely Resort area. Immediately west of the Subject, on the opposite side of Collier Boulevard are two additional block groups with significant employment, driven in part by the Cedar Hammocks Golf and Country Club (approximately 150 employees), Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club (60 employees), Naples National Golf Club (28 employees), and the Naples Lakes Country Club (13 employees). Source: ESRI; Zonda, Data AxlePage 609 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 29 Employment Concentration and Commute Patterns Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview In 2021, most residents (64.2%) within the PMA commuted less than 25 miles, predominately to the northwest to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. The color-concentrated areas on the map to the right indicate the highest proportion of commuter destinations for residents. Employment is heavily concentrated in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors ; combined these sectors account for nearly 53% of all employment in the area. There are more than 5,100 individuals that commute into the area for work from within the region including Bonita Springs, Immokalee, Estero, and Fort Myers; this commuting pattern indicates an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute that increases quality of life which subsequently reduces the impacts of traffic on the greater Naples area. These in-bound commuters are generally employed in similar sectors those in the PMA; other key sectors include Manufacturing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Administration & Support services. Source: Census Bureau Subject Page 610 of 1321 30 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Wage and Rent Comparison by Industry Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Residents who live within the PMA are employed primarily in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors while in-bound commuters (those who live in a different area but work within the PMA) are also employed in Manufacturing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Administration & Support services. The Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse reported that the 2022 average hourly wage for these segments range from $18 to $35, resulting in average annual wages that range from $37,633 to $72,688. A detailed list of occupations within these industries are provided on the next page. Based on AMI categories, the 2024 Rent Limits by Persons by Bedroom range from $548 to $3,630. Based on targeting households that make 120% of the County AMI, potential rents limits for these 28 units can range between $2,100 and $3,600. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,566 to $2,817 threshold. Source: Census Bureau , Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Industry 2022 Average Hourly Wage (2023 $) 2022 Average Annual Wage (2023 $) Maximum Affordable Rent (30% of Income) HUD 2BR Fair Market Rent % Income Needed for 2 BR FMR # of Workers in 2022 2023 3- Person Median Income Annual Wage as Percent of 3-Person AMI Accommodation And Food Services $18 $37,633 $941 $1,795 57%21,434 $89,900 42% Administrative And Waste Services $26 $54,145 $1,354 $1,795 40%10,978 $89,900 60% Arts, Entertainment, And Recreation $25 $52,221 $1,306 $1,795 41%8,256 $89,900 58% Construction $31 $64,609 $1,615 $1,795 33%19,092 $89,900 72% Health Care And Social Assistance $34 $70,912 $1,773 $1,795 30%22,274 $89,900 79% Manufacturing $35 $72,688 $1,817 $1,795 30%5,158 $89,900 81% Retail Trade $24 $49,642 $1,241 $1,795 43%22,015 $89,900 55% Page 611 of 1321 31 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Wage and Rent Comparison by Occupation Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Census Bureau , Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Occupation 2022 Median Hourly Wage (2023 $) Maximum Affordable Rent (30% of Income) HUD 2BR Fair Market Rent % Income Needed for 2 BR FMR # of Workers in 2022 Annual Wage as a % AMI for a Family of 3 All Occupations $20.30 $1,056 $1,795 51%157,390 47% Bartenders $14.81 $770 $1,795 70%1,010 34% Carpenters $23.78 $1,236 $1,795 44%1,720 55% Cashiers $14.43 $750 $1,795 72%3,930 33% Child, Family, and School Social Workers $22.27 $1,158 $1,795 47%160 52% Childcare Workers $14.96 $778 $1,795 69%440 35% Construction Laborers $19.04 $990 $1,795 54%1,530 44% Cooks, Restaurant $18.10 $941 $1,795 57%3,090 42% Dental Assistants $25.18 $1,310 $1,795 41%420 58% Dishwashers $14.92 $776 $1,795 69%1,060 35% Electricians $25.29 $1,315 $1,795 41%830 59% Fast Food and Counter Workers $14.09 $733 $1,795 74%3,430 33% Food Preparation Workers $16.12 $838 $1,795 64%1,500 37% Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers $24.77 $1,288 $1,795 42%760 57% Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $22.58 $1,174 $1,795 46%1,170 52% Home Health and Personal Care Aides $15.31 $796 $1,795 68%1,420 35% Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $15.25 $793 $1,795 68%390 35% Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses $27.30 $1,420 $1,795 38%620 63% Light Truck Drivers $19.64 $1,021 $1,795 53%850 45% Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $15.29 $795 $1,795 68%1,470 35% Medical Assistants $19.93 $1,036 $1,795 52%1,020 46% Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers $24.66 $1,282 $1,795 42%90 57% Nursing Assistants $17.70 $920 $1,795 59%1,600 41% Office Clerks, General $19.63 $1,021 $1,795 53%3,520 45% Painters, Construction and Maintenance $19.56 $1,017 $1,795 53%1,150 45% Paramedics $41.51 $2,158 $1,795 25%150 96% Pharmacy Technicians $19.19 $998 $1,795 54%550 44% Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $25.11 $1,306 $1,795 41%610 58% Receptionists and Information Clerks $17.82 $927 $1,795 58%1,450 41% Registered Nurses $40.60 $2,111 $1,795 26%2,700 94% Retail Salespersons $15.37 $799 $1,795 67%5,820 36% Roofers $23.67 $1,231 $1,795 44%570 55% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $20.34 $1,058 $1,795 51%1,580 47% Waiters and Waitresses $15.15 $788 $1,795 68%5,540 35%Page 612 of 1321 32 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Regional Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Google Maps Lely ES The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, between Tamiami Trail and I-75. These transportation corridors, and nearby transit stops, allow for easy access to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. While a Publix is located with a mile of the site, abundant retailers, including several other grocery stores and pharmacies, numerous local retail establishments, and medical facilities and doctors' offices are located within five miles. Additionally, the Subject’s assigned elementary school is less than two miles south of the Subject, just off Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock; this will be convenient for parents of young children that commute. Lely HS Page 613 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 33 Multifamily Market Supply Page 614 of 1321 34 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 As previously noted, in assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the area within three miles of the Subject (PMA); these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, MPF Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Supply Subject Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 615 of 1321 35 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Existing Rental Communities Multifamily Market Supply There are 11 conventional rental communities within three miles of the Subject that are either stabilized (a property that has achieved a level of occupancy that is considered sustainable over time) or are in lease-up (typically less than 96% occupied after completion of construction). Combined, these projects account for nearly 3,100 apartments units, with 242 of the units in lease up or under renovation. Properties range from Class A to Class D and include traditional garden style or wrap apartments. There are no purpose-built communities identified in the Submarket. Across all classes of apartments, the average occupancy is 94.41% though December 2023 (the most recent survey date). Effective rents range from $1,277 to $2,519 and averages $2,140 or $1.98 per square foot for an average 1,079 square foot unit. Advenir at Aventine and Milano Lakes are the two closest apartment communities to the Subject; both are market rate complexes. Milano Lakes, located adjacent to the Site, was built in 2018 and is 94% occupied. There are 296 units in the complex, with an average unit size of 1,190 square feet, and a net effective rent of $2,315. Advenir at Aventine, built in 2001, is located to the north of the Subject. The community has 350 units that are comparable to Milano Lakes (1,114 square feet) but with an average effective rent of $2,334. The complex is occupied at 92%. A detailed list of these projects is on the following page with a breakdown of future projects on subsequent pages. Source: MPF Subject Page 616 of 1321 36 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Existing Rental Communities - Continued Multifamily Market Supply Residents who live within three miles of the Subject are employed primarily in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors. Based upon a rent to income ratio of 30% and the average hourly wage for these industries (ranging from $18 to $34 an hour), maximum allowable rents range from $941 to $1,774 per month. Within three miles of the Subject (PMA), there is only one community that has an average effective rent within this range. This lower rents are primarily a function of the age of the communities (22 years old on average). While there are three communities that were built over the past four years, the average age across all properties is more than 14 years. These older communities lack updated interior features and finishes community amenities as well that are found in newer rental properties. The Subject will offer renters new construction with these modern finishes and community amenities, at an affordable price, in a convenient location; this supports the development of the Subject as proposed. Source: MPF Name Effective Rent Effective Rent/SF Occupancy Total Units Year Built Address Stories Property Status Property Style Legacy Naples $2,519 $2.15 94%304 2020 7557 Campania Way 4 Stabilized Garden Advenir at Aventine $2,334 $2.09 92%350 2001 9300 Marino Cir 3 Stabilized Garden Milano Lakes $2,315 $1.95 94%296 2018 3713 Milano Lakes Cir 4 Stabilized Garden Edge 75 $2,308 $2.27 92%320 2021 120 Bedzel Cir 4 Stabilized Garden Inspira $2,304 $2.18 91%304 2018 7425 Inspira Circle 4 Stabilized Garden Sierra Grande $2,196 $1.93 91%300 2014 6975 Sierra Club Cir 4 Stabilized Wrap Shadowwood $2,167 $1.79 100%96 1989 6475 Seawolf Ct 2 Stabilized Garden Briar Landings at the Enclave $1,950 $2.08 98%240 1991 1385 Wildwood Lakes Blvd 2 Stabilized Garden Aster At Lely Resort $1,886 $1.82 92%308 2014 8120 Acacia Street 3 Stabilized Garden Tuscan Isle $1,277 $1.43 100%298 2002 8650 Weir Dr 3 Stabilized Garden Altis Santa Barbara $2,282 $2.08 7%242 2024 4710 Altis Dr 5 Lease-Up Garden $2,140 $1.98 94.41%3,058 2010 Avg. Effective Rent Avg. Affective Rent per Square Foot Average Occupancy Across Stabilized Communities Total Units Within Three Miles Avg. Year Built Page 617 of 1321 37 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Future Rental Communities - Planned and Under Construction Multifamily Market Supply Within the PMA, there are five rental projects under construction and not yet leasing. Communities are located along the same corridors as much of the existing apartment stock in the area. These future communities total 1,260 units, with projects that range in size from 82 to 394 units. Future projects in the submarket are primarily garden style, but also include a community that includes traditional garden apartments as well as townhome units built for rent. As highlighted later in this report, the average annual demand for new apartments in the area is more than 900 units over the next five years; this current pipeline is not sufficient to meet future demand, supporting the development of the Site as proposed. There are two projects under construction south of the Subject on Collier Boulevard. Hammock Park, located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard, topped out its second building in late November 2023, but once complete, will have 265 rental units. Fiori, located adjacent to Hammock Park to the north, will have 127 units once complete. While the community has an active website that is building a VIP list, leasing is not forecasted to begin until mid to late 2024. A detailed list of these projects in on the following page. Source: MPF Subject Page 618 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 38 Future Rental Communities - Planned and Under Construction – Continued Multifamily Market Supply Source: MPF Name Total Units Year Built Address Stories Property Status Property Style EKOS on Santa Barbara 82 2025 4640 Santa Barbara Blvd 4 Under Construction Garden Azalea Park 394 2026 Collier Blvd & Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 4 Under Construction Garden,Townhome Marlowe Naples 216 2025 6050 Whitaker Rd 3 Under Construction Garden Fiori 303 2025 8552 Collier Blvd 4 Under Construction Garden Hammock Park 265 2025 Collier Blvd & Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 4 Under Construction Garden 1,260 Total Future Units Within Three Page 619 of 1321 39 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Short Term Housing Supply Multifamily Market Supply There are more than 2,600 short term and Airbnb type rentals in Collier County that range from a mix of Studio units to larger six plus bedroom homes. Combined, these homes account for over $313 million in average annual revenue. Source: Rabbu, Collier County Rental Type Number of Rentals Market Share Average Annual Revenue Total Average Annual Revenue Studio 47 1.78%$53,998 $2,537,906 1 Bedroom 468 17.73%$62,533 $29,265,444 2 Bedrooms 770 29.18%$88,412 $68,077,240 3 Bedrooms 944 35.77%$129,665 $122,403,760 4 Bedrooms 333 12.62%$196,387 $65,396,871 5 Bedrooms 57 2.16%$310,424 $17,694,168 6+ Bedrooms 20 0.76%$384,225 $7,684,500 Total Rentals 2,639 $313,059,889 Rental Scenario Registration Required More than 3 times per calendar year for periods less than 30 days or 1 calendar month Yes 30 days or 1 calendar month, or more No 3 months to the same renter(s) No As of January 2022, Collier County requires that property owners register with the County if they provide short term leasing of any habitable space, including a room, apartment, living quarters, in any residential building, including but not limited to condominiums, single-family or multi-family homes. The intent of this policy is to collect current and accurate information regarding short-term vacation rental properties, encourage the appropriate management of these properties, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents and visitors to Collier County. Details on this policy are below: Page 620 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 40 Multifamily MarketDemand Page 621 of 1321 41 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 As previously noted, in assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the threee mile radius surrounding the Subject; these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, MPF Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Demand Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 622 of 1321 42 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand Zonda’s proprietary rental demand model for the PMA indicates increasing market demand over the next five years, averaging 921 NEW TO MARKET traditional rental units annually; this demand is in addition to the rental units that are currently built and available for rent within the marketplace. Although there are 1,260 units under construction today, it is improbable that there will be sufficient new construction to meet future needs based on the current pipeline. More specifically, there is an annual demand within the Submarket of 901 units in 2024. Per RealPage data, there are approximately NO units on track for delivery in 2024, indicating a gap of 908 new units necessary to meet new rental demand today. In 2025, NEW rental demand is 920 units, yet currently there are only 866 on track for delivery, a gap of 54 NEW units. In 2026, when the Subject is expected to deliver units, new demand is forecasted to be 932 units; however, there is only one project currently in construction that could potentially deliver units to the market. These projects represent 394 apartments, or only 42% of future demand in the Subject’s year of delivery. Projects, such as the Subject, will help to fulfill these unmet needs in the marketplace. In Collier County, approved PUDs have built 56,878 units (of the 42,763 units planned) while an in the SRAs there are 822 units accounted for but not yet built. RENTAL DEMAND MODEL FLOW CHART: Three Mile Radius Demand Drivers Rental Demand Rental Demand by Individual Catagories Estimated Number Total of Households Rental (2027)Filters / Ratios Demand Minus ( - )Total By Price Buy vs. Rent Annual (Adjusted by By Age By Life Stage Current Number Demand Market) of Households (2022)2023 -901 $1,200 to $1,700 Under25 Young Families Buy New vs. Resale 2024 -908 $1,700 to $2,575 25 to34 Growing Families Equals ( = )2025 -920 $2,575 to $3,425 35 to44 Mature Families 2026 -932 $3,425 to $5,125 45 to54 Couples <45 Annual New Household Income 2027 -940 $5,125 to $6,825 55 to64 Singles Household by Avg -921 $6,825 or Greater 65 to74 Empty Nester Grow th Age of Householder Total -4,603 75 &Greater Retirees Implied Home Sources Price from * Economy.com Income Levels * Esri * Zonda Adjusted Housing Expenditures * US Census Zonda Adjustments as a Percentage of Income Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 623 of 1321 43 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 ▬ Five-Year Average Demand by Rent Range ▬Demand ▬ Demand by Age and Income (Absolute Numbers) ▬▬ Demand by LifeStage (Absolute Numbers) ▬ Annual Household Income Range HH by Income % of Total HH Rent Range Affordability* 2023 to 2027 % of Annual Demand Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 & Greater Young Families Growing Families Mature Families Couples <45 Singles Empty Nester Retirees Income $25,000 - $34,999 3,543 7.1%$850 to $1,200 11 1.2%0 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Income $35,000 - $49,999 4,751 9.5%$1,200 to $1,700 128 13.8%5 14 14 12 17 24 42 11 8 8 9 12 14 66 Income $50,000 - $74,999 8,373 16.7%$1,700 to $2,575 426 46.3%14 49 50 51 63 94 105 39 33 31 29 40 54 200 Income $75,000 - $99,999 6,270 12.5%$2,575 to $3,425 205 22.3%4 22 28 27 32 46 46 19 17 16 14 19 27 92 Income $100,000 - $149,999 8,478 16.9%$3,425 to $5,125 137 14.9%2 14 20 21 24 31 25 13 13 13 9 13 21 56 Income $150,000 - $199,999 4,629 9.2%$5,125 to $6,825 11 1.2%0 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Income $200,000 +8,843 17.6%$6,825 or Greater 1 0.2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Average Demand ($25K+)44,887 89.6%$850 +-921 100.0%25 101 114 114 140 201 224 84 73 69 62 86 119 426 Zonda’s demand model forecasts demand for an average of 921 NEW rental units per year within three miles of the Subject (PMA), exclusive of units that are already built. The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market-rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. The 30% will address households making up to 120% of the County Area Median Income (“AMI”); this results in approximately 28 units with income restrictions. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. The largest demand for apartments in the Submarket are forecasted to come from households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 or monthly rents that range between $1,700 and $3,245; combined, these price bands are expected to account for more than 630 units, or 68.5% of NEW demand. Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 624 of 1321 44 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Hypothetical Rental Demand by Price Point $850 to $1,200 $1,200 to $1,700 $1,700 to $2,575 $2,575 to $3,425 $3,425 to $5,125 $5,125 to $6,825 $6,825+ Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand As proposed, rent for one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. Most future rental demand in the PMA is for units priced between $1,700 to $2,575; however, through 2027, rental demand is forecasted to slightly increase for units that command between $1,200 and $1,700 as well as $2,250 to $3,425 in monthly rent. During this same time, demand for the lowest priced apartments are forecasted to decline slightly. As proposed, the Subject will fall within the price bands where demand is currently healthy and forecasted to grow over the next several years. Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPage Page 625 of 1321 45 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand The greatest proportion of the projected rental demand over the next five years with the PMA will come from Empty Nesters and Retirees, followed by Families, which aligns with the demographic trends of the area. Based on Zonda’s research in the market, current renters in the competitive set are likely to be a mixed renter profile including singles, couples without children, and retirees. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Hypothetical Rental Demand by Year and LifeStage Young Families Growing Families Mature Families Couples <45 Singles Empty Nester Retirees Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 626 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 46 Multifamily Market Trends Page 627 of 1321 47 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 In assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject. The analysis of both market areas allow for a comparison of market conditions at a macro level, tying Zonda’s assessment of the property to county- wide economic and demographic data, to micro-level market conditions to determine a comprehensive understanding of the Subject’s position in the overall market. For overreaching market trends, data is not available at the PMA level; as a result, Zonda specifically analyzed the South Collier County Submarket (shown on the map to the left below) in detail to better understand historical market dynamics. Source: ESRI, RealPage Multifamily Market Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Trends Subject Subject Subject Subject South Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA Page 628 of 1321 48 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Absorption / Supply – Naples MSA Multifamily Apartment Trends Apartment demand significantly outpaced supply in the Naples MSA through the beginning of 2022, but supply over the last six quarters significantly outpaced demand. Occupancy was strong in 2021 as well, peaking near 99% before dropping to 93.3% in the third quarter of 2022. Recently, occupancy declined as demand continued to slow. Going forward, RealPage expects occupancy rates to decline again through mid-2024 and bottom at 92% before gaining ground and stabilizing above 95% in early 2025. RealPage expects demand to return to reasonable levels in 2024 despite a decline in 2023. 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySupply / DemandNaples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Supply Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Demand Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Occupancy Supply / Demand - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Supply 776 778 560 385 296 320 562 865 954 915 906 832 874 930 964 837 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Demand 298 557 -40 434 335 397 1,601 1,993 1,987 1,559 610 -168 -1 170 429 200 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Occupancy 94.5%95.3%93.5%93.9%94.7%95.6%97.1%98.3%98.8%98.4%96.7%95.1%96.0%96.0%95.1%93.3% Source: RealPagePage 629 of 1321 49 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Absorption / Supply – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends Within the South Collier County Submarket, trends are similar with supply outpacing demand over the last six quarters. However, like in the larger MSA, occupancy continues to decline, dropping to 93.0% in the third quarter 2022, the lowest occupancy rate since late 2020. Although occupancy has declined, demand has increased over the past six months, up nearly 565 units since historic low in the fourth quarter of 2024. 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySupply / DemandSouth Collier County Supply South Collier County Demand South Collier County Occupancy Supply / Demand - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Supply 548 617 468 362 296 320 454 649 664 544 410 210 100 150 300 287 South Collier County Demand 282 527 168 284 214 349 988 1,342 1,426 974 243 -376 -506 -325 36 59 South Collier County Occupancy 93.7%94.5%92.9%93.3%93.2%94.8%96.5%97.9%98.3%97.6%95.6%94.3%94.5%94.7%94.1%93.0% Source: RealPagePage 630 of 1321 50 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Occupancy – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends Occupancy levels reached over 98% in 2021 and early 2022 in South Collier County but have since declined to 93% during the third quarter 2023. However, even as occupancy has declined, it is only slightly lower than the average for the market; given the overall size of the Submarket, the size of the project, and the affordability component, the area can support more affordable residential supply. Historically, total occupancy in the market has been closely aligned with the occupancy for product built after 2000, as much of the product in the submarket was constructed over the past decade. It is likely that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Occupancy - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County 93.7%94.5%92.9%93.3%93.2%94.8%96.5%97.9%98.3%97.6%95.6%94.3%94.5%94.7%94.1%93.0% 2000+ Product 93.7%94.7%92.9%95.1%94.1%94.3%95.4%97.2%98.3%97.2%94.5%93.1%95.1%94.8%94.0%92.4% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0% 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0% 98.0% 99.0%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySouth Collier County South Collier County (2000+ Product) Source: RealPagePage 631 of 1321 51 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rent Growth – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The South Collier County Submarket experienced 3.2% quarter over quarter rent decline in the third quarter of 2023, after six quarters of no to slow growth. Annualized rents peaked at nearly 47% year over year growth during the first quarter of 2022 and have steeply declined since that time. However, the Submarket did report year over year annualized growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. Rent Change - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Quarterly % Rent Change -0.1%-2.1%-2.7%1.6%2.8%4.5%9.4%14.1%16.5%2.5%-0.1%-0.7%3.3%4.8%-4.5%-3.2% South Collier County Annual % Rent Change -1.9%-2.9%-5.8%-5.0%-3.3%3.8%19.1%29.3%43.9%46.9%35.4%18.3%5.1%7.4%2.5%0.4% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3Rent ChangeSouth Collier County Quarterly % Rent Change South Collier County Annual % Rent Change Source: RealPagePage 632 of 1321 52 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Pipeline – Under Construction – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The number of units under construction in the South Collier County submarket has declined slightly to 1,200 units after peaking with 1,452 units in the fourth quarter 2022. Over the past year, construction in South Collier County has ranged between 59.6% and 61.7% of the larger Naples MSA, with a four-year average of 62.2%. Through the end of the third quarter 2023, the 1,200 units under construction in the submarket representing 57.6% of all units under construction in the MSA. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3South Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FLUnits Under ConstructionSouth Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL South Collier County Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Units Under Construction - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County 416 864 864 784 764 644 810 535 670 1,259 1,259 1,184 1,462 1,412 1,262 1,200 South Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 58.9%74.9%74.9%73.0%52.5%39.3%40.9%33.5%40.4%49.5%46.5%49.4%59.6%61.0%61.7%57.6% Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 706 1,154 1,154 1,074 1,454 1,638 1,982 1,599 1,660 2,541 2,708 2,399 2,451 2,314 2,047 2,082 Source: RealPagePage 633 of 1321 53 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Concessions – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The use of concessions in South Collier County Submarket have increased over the past four quarters from a record low of no concessions in the Submarket during the fourth quarter of 2022. Concessions now represent 5.8% of base rent, with approximately 12.9% of units offering concessions. Average concessions previously peaked at 8.4% of the base rent in the third quarter 2020 while percent of units offering concessions previously peaked at 65.2% in the second quarter of the same year. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3% of Units Offering ConcessionsAverage ConcessionSouth Collier County Average Concession South Collier County % Units Offering Concession Concessions - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Average Concession 2.7%7.7%5.3%8.4%4.4%5.2%6.2%4.1%3.0%1.6%1.8%0.8%0.0%1.6%2.1%5.8% South Collier County % Units Offering Concession 47.5%35.9%65.2%47.0%51.3%38.6%18.0%11.0%7.2%9.2%10.0%8.7%0.0%1.9%7.3%12.9% Source: RealPagePage 634 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 54 Economic & Demographic Overview Page 635 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 55 Age Comparison Economic & Demographic Overview Retirees make up the largest population segment in Collier County, followed by children and pre-retirees between 55 to 64; all other age cohorts each represent approximately 10% of the local population. Between 2023 and 2028, retirees, followed by individuals aged 35- to 44-years old, are forecasted to experience the greatest increases in the County, increasing 7.6% and 7.0% respectively. The growth in younger populations highlight the need for rental properties that meet the needs to these two diverse segments, while being sensitive to affordability concerns. Source: ESRI Paste Chart Long Here Paste Chart Long Here 14.4%9.3%10.1%10.2%10.3%13.7%32.0%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Population by Age (2023) Collier County 1.9%0.1%-2.8%7.0%-0.6%-6.0%7.6%-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Change in Population by Age (2023 to 2028) Collier County Page 636 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 56 Housing Economic & Demographic Overview In 2023, there were approximately 240,000 total housing units in Collier County, of which nearly 168,000 are occupied. Based on a total population of 387,209, there are an average of 2.37 persons per household. There are 1.66 persons per total dwelling units in the County. While the total population in Collier County is projected to grow 4.4% by 2027, both persons by household and persons per total dwelling unit are forecasted to decline by 0.1% and 0.8% respectively. According to the American Community Survey, approximately 84% of all vacant housing units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use; of these more than 8,000 units are second homes. Less than 5% of vacant homes are units that are available for rent. Source: ESRI, US Census – American Community Survey Paste Chart Long Here 2.37 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Collier County Persons Per Household (2023) 1.66 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Collier County Persons Per Total Dwelling Unit (2023) 125,766 31,971 71,972 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units Vacant Housing Units Housings Units (2023) Page 637 of 1321 57 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Income and Net Worth Economic & Demographic Overview The highest median household income and net worth in Southwest Florida is in Collier County; the County also represents one of the most affluent areas in the entire state of Florida. The median household income in Collier County in 2023 was approximately $13,000 more than the state of Florida. It is also $12,000 more than neighboring Lee County and $3,000 more than Monroe County. The older demographic, combined with higher earning potential workers as well as residents’ accumulated wealth, resulted in a median net worth in the County that was $138,000 more than Monroe County as well as Florida as a whole and approximately $90,000 more than Lee County. Over the next five years, income is projected to increase for all households earning more than $75,000, with the most notable increases in households earning between $150,000 and $199,999. Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Long Here $78K $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Collier County HH. Income (2023) $293K $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Collier County Net Worth (2022) -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or Greater Change in Household Income (2023 to 2028) Collier County Source: ESRIPage 638 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 58 Annual Employment Growth vs. Unemployment – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Following the COVID-19 pandemic, employment in Collier County been robust, with back-to-back years of record job growth; the County added more than 17,000 jobs in two years. After unemployment spiked in 2020 at 7.4%, rapid job recovery resulted in the area’s unemployment rate normalizing below 4%. Slowing job growth is expected to continue through 2027, with the area’s unemployment rate remaining below 4%. Even as a destination for retirees, employment growth and a stable, low unemployment rate are generally good indicators of the overall strength of the economy in Collier County. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 13.0% 14.0% -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Unemployment RateAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthPrior Year Change Unemployment RateSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Non-Farm Employment 123,142 129,725 135,942 142,508 145,483 150,825 155,408 148,317 156,367 165,375 166,538 169,685 171,946 174,197 176,319 Prior Year Change 4,600 6,583 6,217 6,567 2,975 5,342 4,583 (7,092)8,050 9,008 1,163 3,147 2,260 2,252 2,122 Annual % Change 3.9%5.3%4.8%4.8%2.1%3.7%3.0%-4.6%5.4%5.8%0.7%1.9%1.3%1.3%1.2% Unemployment Rate 7.4%6.2%5.3%4.7%4.2%3.6%3.2%7.4%3.7%2.8%2.7%3.5%3.9%3.9%3.9% Page 639 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 59 L12M Job Growth by Sector – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Job growth in Collier County over the last 12 months was led by Education & Health Services; during that same time, Leisure & Hospitality and Trade, Transportation and Utilities, as well as the three high earning employment segments, Financial Activities, Information, and Professional & Business services lost more than 820 positions combined. Even with these losses, related in part to the lingering impacts of Hurricane Ian, the Leisure & Hospitality sector remains the second largest sector in Collier County, driven by the numerous restaurants, resorts, golf courses, and tourist destinations in the area. -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and UtilitiesAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Category Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and Utilities Current Month (Oct-2023)10,025 1,292 20,466 19,067 26,275 13,977 28,714 5,705 9,443 31,108 Current Month (Oct-2022)10,178 1,355 20,864 18,922 25,403 13,859 28,863 5,496 9,438 31,169 12-Month Change -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 Page 640 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 60 Following near historic permit activity in 2021, total building permits in Collier County declined in 2022 and are forecasted to decline again in 2023 to below historic average. Construction activity in Collier County is forecasted to rebound, with an average 6,200 permits issued per year between 2024 and 2027. Historically, there have been more single-family detached building permits issued compared to multifamily building permits (67% compared to 33%) with projections indicating a slight shift toward single family construction through 2027 (72% single family permits versus 28% multifamily permits). Residential Permit Issuances – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FResidential Building PermitsSFD Building Permits MF Building Permits Historical AverageSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Total Building Permits 2,678 3,610 4,060 3,829 4,194 4,386 3,991 4,473 6,766 5,517 3,922 5,603 6,309 6,587 6,318 Annual % Change 66.1%34.8%12.5%-5.7%9.5%4.6%-9.0%12.1%51.3%-18.5%-28.9%42.8%12.6%4.4%-4.1% SFD Building Permits 1,760 2,477 3,078 2,892 2,930 3,253 3,300 3,256 4,380 3,519 3,066 3,560 4,281 4,779 4,822 Annual % Change 35.8%40.7%24.3%-6.0%1.3%11.0%1.4%-1.3%34.5%-19.7%-12.9%16.1%20.3%11.6%0.9% MF Building Permits 918 1,133 982 937 1,264 1,133 691 1,217 2,386 1,998 856 2,043 2,028 1,808 1,496 Annual % Change 190.5%23.4%-13.3%-4.6%34.9%-10.4%-39.0%76.1%96.1%-16.3%-57.1%138.5%-0.7%-10.9%-17.2% Page 641 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 61 Home affordability in Collier County declined significantly in 2022 due to rising prices and rising interest rates; it is projected to fall again in 2023 to near record low affordability. Moody’s forecasts the Affordability Index to rise slowly through 2027. Should it continue as forecasted, this trend will represent one of the longest periods of unaffordability in the area. Affordability – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 77 72 58 48 54 90 151 137 137 140 114 93 90 93 92 90 107 103 86 56 47 49 55 59 61 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FAffordability IndexSource: Moody's Analytics; National Association of Realtors (NAR) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Affordability Index 114.4 93.5 89.9 93.0 92.3 90.2 107.0 103.2 86.1 56.0 47.1 48.8 54.8 58.9 61.1 Page 642 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 62 Appendix Page 643 of 1321 63 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 644 of 1321 64 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 645 of 1321 65 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 646 of 1321 66 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 647 of 1321 67 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 648 of 1321 68 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. ADDIE'S CORNER BUILT OUT 11-08 4/12/2011 2022 250 250 ALLURA BUILT OUT 19-22 9/24/2019 2024 304 304 AMERISITE CB ACTIVE 22-25 6/28/2022 7/19/1905 303 ANTILLES ACTIVE 18-02 2/13/2018 2023 212 96 APRIL CIRCLE**CLOSED OUT 89-76 11/14/1989 1994 120 120 ARBOR LAKE CLUB**CLOSED OUT 90-37 5/15/1990 1995 246 168 ARBOR TRACE**Hawks Nest CLOSED OUT 89-91 12/19/1989 1994 219 211 ARROWHEAD ACTIVE 08-36 3/22/2005 2010 809 332 ASCEND NAPLES ACTIVE 23-50 10/24/2023 2028 208 AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 96-69 6/25/1991 2006 300 36 AVALON OF NAPLES BUILT OUT 15-31 5/12/2015 2020 160 152 BAY FOREST**BUILT OUT 03-24 5/27/2003 2006 697 632 BEAR CREEK**CLOSED OUT 92-20 4/14/1992 1997 120 120 BERKSHIRE LAKES (DRI-82-1)BUILT OUT 15-66 1/13/1998 2003 2,944 2,904 BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS ACTIVE 21-32 9/28/2021 2026 234 BOSLEY BUILT OUT 04-32 5/25/2004 2006 303 276 BOTANICAL PLACE CLOSED OUT 03-38 7/29/2003 2006 218 218 BOYNE SOUTH ACTIVE 04-60 9/21/2004 2010 34 BRIARWOOD ACTIVE 95-33 4/25/1995 2005 525 455 BRITTANY BAY**San Savino CLOSED OUT 00-77 11/28/2000 2005 478 472 CARILLON BUILT OUT 91-111 12/17/1991 2001 180 56 CAY LAGOON**CLOSED OUT 92-37 08-318 5/26/1992 2003 32 32 CHESHIRE ARMS APTS.**CLOSED OUT 84-53 08-318 8/14/1984 1993 60 60 CAMDEN LANDING Cirrus Pointe ACTIVE 21-13 3/9/2021 7/18/1905 127 CITRUS GARDENS**Lakeside CLOSED OUT 89-25 08-318 4/25/1989 1991 252 252 COCOHATCHEE BAY ACTIVE 00-88 05-397 12/12/2000 2028 600 480 COCONILLA BUILT OUT 05-15 3/22/2005 2008 80 80 COLLEGE PARK**CLOSED OUT 96-59 10/8/1996 2001 210 210 COLLEGEWOOD**BUILT OUT 95-65 11/14/1995 1998 106 Page 649 of 1321 69 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. COLLIER BLVD LORD'S WAY First Assembly Ministries Ed & Rehab Campus ACTIVE 22-23 7/22/2008 2027 690 296 COUNTY BARN ROAD BUILT OUT 17-31 6/27/2017 7/14/1905 268 max COURTHOUSE SHADOWS/COLLIER**Collier ACTIVE 16-45 1/28/1992 2021 300 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER North Naples Submarkt ACTIVE 16-32 10/24/2006 2026 300 CRESCENT LAKE ESTATES **CLOSED OUT 86-26 6/17/1986 1994 100 100 CREWS ROAD ACTIVE 22-03 1/25/2022 2027 60 CRICKET LAKE**CLOSED OUT 80-28 3/11/1980 1989 188 188 CROWN POINTE**BUILT OUT 89-31 3/28/1991 2002 127 86 CYPRESS GLEN**CLOSED OUT 87-18 7/30/2002 2004 208 208 CYPRESS GREEN APTS.**Willowbrook CLOSED OUT 87-3 2/6/1987 1992 42 42 CYPRESS WOODS G & C CLUB BUILT OUT 97-36 8/26/1997 2003 658 656 DAVENPORT BUILT OUT 87-75 10/6/1987 1990 44 DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE**BUILT OUT 96-9 3/12/1996 2000 260 248 DONOVAN CENTER BUILT OUT 97-73 11/25/1997 2007 140 140 DUNES, THE BUILT OUT 00-74 11/14/2000 2008 640 635 EBOLI**CLOSED OUT 97-23 5/27/1997 2007 80 80 ENBROOK ACTIVE 20-06 1/14/2020 7/17/1905 526 120 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER ACTIVE 11-30 9/13/2011 2026 12 FALLING WATERS BUILT OUT 03-50 9/23/2003 2006 799 786 FALLING WATERS BEACH RESORT**Woodfield Lakes BUILT OUT 01-68 11/27/2001 2003 451 430 FOXFIRE (DRI)**Bridal Path at Foxfire BUILT OUT 93-31 6/8/1993 1993 704 704 GARDEN LAKE APARTMENTS**CLOSED OUT 89-09 2/14/1989 1991 66 66 GARDEN WALK VILLAGE ACTIVE 96-4 2/13/1996 2003 204 GOLDEN GATE COMMERCE PARK G.G. Health Park ACTIVE 00-41 07-242 3/14/2000 2028 264 264 GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE ACTIVE 22-13 4/26/2022 2028 215 GOLDEN GATE VILLAS**Meadowwood Club CLOSED OUT 84-40 6/5/1984 1990 288 288 GREEN BLVD.**CLOSED OUT 85-23 08-318 6/4/1985 2002 912 912 GREEN HERON (DRI-83-1)Sapphire Lakes BUILT OUT 95-30 4/18/1995 2005 1,188 1,152 GREEN TREE CENTER**CLOSED OUT 81-58 10/20/1981 2001 86 86 H.D. DEVELOPMENT Vita Tuscana BUILT OUT 11-13 11/15/2005 2006 33 Page 650 of 1321 70 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. HACIENDA LAKES (DRI-11-05)ACTIVE 11-41 10/25/2011 6/8/2033 1,232 24 HAMMOCK PARK Hammock ParkCommerce Centre ACTIVE 07-30 11/28/2000 2/27/2017 265 HAVEN AT NORTH NAPLES ACTIVE 23-28 5/23/2023 2028 336 HERON LAKES Forest Park CLOSED OUT 90-79 10/23/1990 2010 352 66 HUNTINGTON WOODS **Amer. Lutheran Ch.CLOSED OUT 86-2 08-318 1/21/1986 1995 26 26 I-75/ALLIGATOR ALLEY**Cali Industries ACTIVE 07-26 2/13/2007 2023 425 320 IBIS COVE CLOSED OUT 99-21 3/9/1999 2004 288 288 IMMOKALEE FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE INC ACTIVE 20-23 9/8/2020 2015 128 IMMOKALEE SENIOR HOUSING ACTIVE 04/29 5/11/2004 5/11/2012 119 30 IMPERIAL LAKES ACTIVE 82-81 9/14/1982 n/a 430 IMPERIAL WEST**BUILT OUT 87-58 7/28/1987 2002 489 481 KELLER ENTRY LEVEL**CLOSED OUT 80-35 08-318 4/8/1980 2002 200 200 KEYSTONE PLACE**Arbor Walk CLOSED OUT 87-72 9/22/1987 1993 406 404 KING'S LAKE (DRI)**BUILT OUT 84-12 2/7/1984 1992 860 840 LELY BAREFOOT BEACH CONDO**CLOSED OUT 87-52 08-318 7/21/1987 2000 50 50 LELY COUNTRY CLUB (DRI-76-1)**BUILT OUT 86-86 12/9/1986 1998 847 576 LELY PALMS OF NAPLES**BUILT OUT 97-5 1/28/1997 1997 296 242 LEMURIA CLOSED OUT 03-68 12/16/2003 2006 72 72 LITTLE HICKORY BAY**CLOSED OUT 79-65 9/11/1979 1993 109 107 LIVINGSTON VILLAGE Marbella Lakes BUILT OUT 03-23 5/13/2003 2006 293 208 LOCH RIDGE (PUD-86-6(1))Kingswood Garden BUILT OUT 04-14 3/9/2004 2007 64 64 MAGNOLIA POND ACTIVE 10-06 04-284 6/9/1998 2/23/2020 106 MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'S CRK(DRI-84-1)ACTIVE 00-84 12/12/2000 12/13/2028 Includes SF 3,048 MARCO SHORES COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 16-37 9/13/1994 2004 1,580 1,162 MEADOW BROOK ESTATES**BUILT OUT 91-5 1/22/1991 2005 306 268 MERCATO ACTIVE 06-32 11/15/2005 2010 175 137 MERIDIAN VILLAGE ACTIVE 13-47 6/6/2006 2025 31 MICELI ACTIVE 92-62 9/1/1992 2003 17 MINI TRIANGLE ACTIVE 18-25 5/8/2018 2027 491 MIRALIA ACTIVE 96-12 3/26/1996 2006 210 205 Page 651 of 1321 71 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. MONTEREY**Woodbridge BUILT OUT 90-28 4/10/1990 2010 775 312 NAPLES BATH & TENNIS CLUB**BUILT OUT 81-61 10/20/1981 1991 423 423 NEW HOPE MINISTRIES Neapolitan Park ACTIVE 16-41 1/29/2008 2021 304 304 NORTH PORT BAY ACTIVE 00-05 05-79 6/13/2000 2007 248 116 NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS**CLOSED OUT 96-77 11/26/1996 2001 54 54 ONE NAPLES ACTIVE 21-09 3/1/2021 2026 140 OSPREYS LANDING**Pelican Lake CLOSED OUT 09-243 10/27/1992 1997 176 176 PAVILION LAKE**Pavilion Club CLOSED OUT 87-41 5/26/1987 1995 156 156 PELICAN BAY (DRI-77-1)No build out date forresidential sect per DCA ACTIVE 04-59 9/21/2004 12/31/2024 5,686 4,346 PINE RIDGE COMMONS ACTIVE 99-94 12/14/1999 2004 325 290 PINEBROOK LAKE**Pinebrook Lake Apt CLOSED OUT 80-56 7/29/1980 1990 160 160 R. ROBERTS ESTATE ACTIVE 14-01 1/21/1992 1/28/2024 79 79 RCMA IMMOKALEE ACTIVE 21-38 10/26/2021 7/18/1905 160 REGAL ACRES ACTIVE 05-36 6/28/2005 2023 300 184 REGENT PARK **CLOSED OUT 85-45 8/20/1985 1996 345 345 RELATED GROUP **CLOSED OUT 96-24 5/28/1996 1998 276 276 RETREAT**Bentley Village BUILT OUT 97-71 11/18/1997 2002 740 728 RIVER REACH**BUILT OUT 85-71 12/10/1985 1995 669 669 RIVERBEND**Sold to St. of Florida CLOSED OUT 81-28 08-318 8/11/1981 1994 78 ROYAL WOODS G&C CLUB**BUILT OUT 96-72 11/26/1996 1994 654 655 RUSSELL SQUARE ACTIVE 18-51 10/23/2018 2023 230 152 SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE BUILT OUT 98-16 3/10/1998 2003 438 438 SALVATION ARMY ACTIVE 01-65 11/27/2001 2004 20 10 SANDERS PINES**CLOSED OUT 88-5 1/12/1988 1993 41 41 SANTA BARBARA WHITAKER Waterford Estates ACTIVE 22-40 10/25/2022 2027 216 SAXON MANOR ISLES**BUILT OUT 94-21 4/5/1994 1999 250 250 SHADOW WOOD Wing South Airpark ACTIVE 08-43 7/13/1982 2028 558 194 SHERWOOD PARK**CLOSED OUT 80-38 4/8/1980 2005 336 336 SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA ACTIVE 98-22 3/24/1998 2026 242 SOUTHAMPTON (PUD87-48(1))**Stonebridge CLOSED OUT 92-24 4/28/1992 2003 562 562 Page 652 of 1321 72 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. SOUTHPOINTE YACHT CLUB**BUILT OUT 88-82 10/25/1988 1993 96 64 SPRINGWOOD**Southern Properties BUILT OUT 82-69 8/10/1982 1995 96 71 SUMMER GLEN APARTMENTS**CLOSED OUT 91-7 1/22/1991 1992 46 46 SUMMERWIND **Woodside Apts.CLOSED OUT 85-79 3/1/1988 1993 368 368 SUMMERWOOD **Timberlake CLOSED OUT 99-61 9/14/1999 1993 60 60 SUNSHINE VILLAGE CLOSED OUT 93-92 12/21/1993 2003 18 THREE HUN.AC.GOODLETTE RD ACTIVE 96-80 12/10/1996 2003 900 890 TIMBERWOOD**Oxford Village CLOSED OUT 88-21 2/23/1988 1995 116 116 TREE TOPS**BUILT OUT 80-91 9/9/1980 1990 180 180 VANDERBILT VILLAS**BUILT OUT 88-27 3/1/1988 2003 54 54 VINEYARDS (DRI-84-2)(DOA-06-01)BUILT OUT 95-62 2/28/2006 5/6/2017 3,491 2,865 WATERGLADES**Villages of Emer.Bay CLOSED OUT 82-51 7/13/1982 1993 235 216 WHIPPOORWILL PINES CLOSED OUT 00-17 3/14/2000 2005 180 180 WHISTLER'S COVE**CLOSED OUT 97-1 1/7/1997 2002 240 240 WHITTENBERG **Victoria Landings CLOSED OUT 96-44 7/23/1996 1998 123 123 WIGGINS BAY**CLOSED OUT 82-121 12/28/1982 2003 587 693 WIGGINS LAKE**BUILT OUT 87-94 11/17/1987 2007 230 204 WILDERNESS C.C.**(PUD-76-35(2))BUILT OUT 99-74 10/26/1999 2004 300 300 WILDWOOD ESTATES CLOSED OUT 81-27 8/11/1981 2006 710 652 WILLOUGHBY GARDENS**Mirage CLOSED OUT 81-67 11/10/1981 1986 90 88 WINTER PARK NORTH**CLOSED OUT 85-77 12/19/1985 1995 96 96 WINTER PARK**CLOSED OUT 83-32 12/9/1986 1990 600 600 Page 653 of 1321 73 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix) Affordable Housing Hotel Units Retail/Service SqFt Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 2,150 11,000 300 1,078,943 Ave Maria, Town of Developed 478 4,141 -235,222 Bellmar Village Allowed 2,200 2,750 -- Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 3,546 4,432 882 -comm'l # Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 10%Min 2,427 Min 882 Brightshore Village Allowed 1,600 2,000 Comm'l # Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed -225 Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 1,000 1,800 -- Hyde Park Village Developed 75 Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 300, Max 1,000 Max Total Combined Rivergrass Village Allowed 2,500 2,500 -- Rivergrass Village Developed - Rivergrass Village Min/Max Min 250 Max Total Combined Allowed Totals 12,996 24,707 882 300 1,078,943 Developed Totals 478 4,216 --235,222 NOTE: Some Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to the Minimums and Maximums required or allowed. ALF/CCRC = Assisted Living Facility/Continuing Care Comp Planning = K = thousand SqFt = Square Feet Max = Maximum CRD = Compact Rural Development SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit BCC = Board of County FAR = Floor Area Ratio MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Comm'l = Commercial Abbreviations: SRA = Stewardship Receiving Area Res. # = Resolution Number Min = Minimum 3,738 -- Min 62.5K, Max 100K 21,089 1,475 1,108,440 2,250 300 100,000 75 Max 1,500 FAR for Comm'l sqft Min 2,250, max 5,000 1,500 -45,000 225 5,000 Min 10% SF, 10% attached Max 300 Min 106K, max 120K Min 10% SF, 10% attached Min 753,440 1,800 300 120,000 3,989 300 753,440 Min 10% SF, 10% attached Min 68,750, Max 85K 3,663 -- 2,475 300 85,000 Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) SFDU ALF/CCRC Units Commercial SqFt 8,850 275 - Page 654 of 1321 74 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed Office SqFt Medical SqFt Civic SqFt Industrial/ Warehouse SqFt Warehouse SqFt Recreational Building SqFt Commercial SqFt University Students Oratory SqFt Course Holes Ave Maria, Town of Allowed --184,000 711,000 40,400 --6,000 63 Ave Maria, Town of Developed --22,319 420,353 40,400 --1,900 18 Bellmar Village Allowed --27,500 ------- Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 27,500 Big Cypress, Town of Allowed comm'l #-86,000 650,000 ----- Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 66,480 Brightshore Village Allowed Comm'l #-20,000 -100,000 ---- Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 20K Max 100K Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed --18,000 -15,000 30,000 --- Hyde Park Village Developed Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 18,000 Rivergrass Village Allowed --25,000 ------18 Rivergrass Village Developed Rivergrass Village Min/Max min 25,000 Allowed Totals --360,500 1,361,000 140,400 15,000 30,000 6,000 -81 Developed Totals --22,319 420,353 40,400 --1,900 -18 Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 655 of 1321 75 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed Res. # BCC Approval Date Estimated Build Out Year Total Acres 2000 TAZ (Comp Planning) Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 05-123 6/14/2005 2027 5,026.94 387, 387.2, 389.1 Ave Maria, Town of Developed Bellmar Village Allowed 21-120 6/8/2021 2033 999.74 386.3, 386.4 Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 23-127 6/27/2023 2043 1,544.46 386.3, 386.4 Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Brightshore Village Allowed 22-209 12/13/2022 2034 681.50 392 Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed 23-183 10/10/2023 2028 259.60 386.1 Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 20-102 6/9/2020 2030 642.52 390.1 Hyde Park Village Developed Hyde Park Village Min/Max Rivergrass Village Allowed 20-24 1/28/2020 2032 997.53 390.2, 386.3, 386.4 Rivergrass Village Developed Rivergrass Village Min/Max Allowed Totals 10,152.29 Developed Totals Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 656 of 1321 76 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2023 Appendix Source: Zonda 2023 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $200,000 or Greater $150,000 to $200,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $35,000 to $50,000 % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/ 01142259121Annual Demand from New HH Growth 5.0%50.0%65.0%75.0%90.0%40.0%20.0% 45Annual Renter Household Growth 20.0%30.0%50.0%75.0%90.0%50.0%15.0%% of Households that Rent a New Home 4/ 15744397359 107Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 6.4%6.4%19.5%22.8%30.9%41.4%42.1%% of Households Renting a Home 3/ 230115225173238143 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,390 16.6%8.3%16.2%12.5%17.1%10.3% 1 12 59 22 14 1 21 8 5 0 0 7.7%Income Qualified Ratio 2/Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand35% Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate21680301910 0 4 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 657 of 1321 77 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2024 Appendix Source: Zonda 2024 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 14 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 43 56 71 39 44 8 15 2 15 78 30 19 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4226119234 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 101 135 231 171 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.4%9.9%16.9%12.5%16.6%8.7%17.1%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,366 1 11 58 22 14 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 658 of 1321 78 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2025 Appendix Source: Zonda 2025 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 15 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 42 55 72 40 46 8 16 2 15 79 30 20 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4235128245 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 99 132 233 174 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.1%9.5%16.7%12.5%16.9%9.2%17.6%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,392 1 11 58 22 15 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 659 of 1321 79 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2026 Appendix Source: Zonda 2026 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 59 23 16 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 40 54 72 40 48 9 16 2 14 79 31 21 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4245137257 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand21850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 96 129 235 178 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/6.8%9.1%16.5%12.5%17.3%9.7%18.2%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,417 1 11 59 23 16 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 660 of 1321 80 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2027 Appendix Source: Zonda 2027 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 10 58 23 16 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 39 52 72 41 49 9 17 2 14 79 31 21 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4251145266 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20860Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 92 125 233 179 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/6.5%8.8%16.4%12.6%17.6%10.2%18.7%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,422 1 10 58 23 16 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 661 of 1321 81 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model – Five Year Average Appendix Source: Zonda AVERAGE HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FROM 2023 THRU 2027 FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 15 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 42 55 72 40 46 8 16 2 15 79 30 20 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4236129246 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 99 133 234 175 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.1%9.5%16.7%12.5%16.9%9.2%17.6%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,397 1 11 58 22 15 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 662 of 1321 Thank you! Zonda 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (877) 966-3210 Page 663 of 1321 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ LV WR EH UHYLHZHG E\ VWDII IRU VXIILFLHQF\ ZLWKLQ FDOHQGDU GD\V IROORZLQJ WKH ILOLQJ GHDGOLQH7KHDSSOLFDQWZLOOEHQRWLILHGLQZULWLQJRIWKHVXIILFLHQF\GHWHUPLQDWLRQ,ILQVXIILFLHQWWKH DSSOLFDQWZLOOKDYHGD\VWRUHPHG\WKHGHILFLHQFLHV)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHSURFHVVLQJRIWKH DSSOLFDWLRQVHH5HVROXWLRQ,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQQLQJ 6HFWLRQDW $33/,&$17&217$&7,1)250$7,21 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV $SSOLFDWLRQWR$PHQG7KH*URZWK0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ /'&VXEVHFWLRQ &KDSWHURIWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&RGH 5HYLVHGPage 1 of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ NaNammeeofof PrPropopeerrtyty OOwwnneerr(s)(s)::____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NaNammeeofof AApppplliicantcant iiffddiiffffeerreenntt ththaannoowwnneerr::____________________________________________________________________________________ AAddddrreess:ss:___________________________________________________C_Ciity:ty: __________________________ SState:tate: ______________ ZZIIP:P: ____________________ TTeelleepphhononee::________________________________________ CelCelll::________________________________________ FFaax:x: ______________________________________ EE--MMaaiill AAddddrreess:ss:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NaNammee ofof AAggeennt:t: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FiFirrmm:: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AdAdddrreess:ss:___________________________________________C_Ciity:ty: ______________________________ StaState:te: __________________ ZZIIP: P: ____________________ TTeelleepphhononee:: __________________________________________ CellCell:: _________________________________________ _ Fax: Fax: __________________________________ EE--MMaaiill AAddddrreess:ss: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EĂŵĞŽĨKǁŶĞƌ;ƐͿŽĨZĞĐŽƌĚƐ͗____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________City: _____________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ___________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 2QDQDGGLWLRQDOSDSHULQFOXGHWKH1DPH&RPSDQ\$GGUHVVDQG4XDOLILFDWLRQVRIDOO FRQVXOWDQWVDQGRWKHUSURIHVVLRQDOVSURYLGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQ DVZHOODV4XDOLILFDWLRQVRIWKH$JHQWLGHQWLILHGDERYH 6HH([KLELW, Bonita Flores I, LLC Mr. Justin Narine, Catana Construction Inc. 3899 Mannix Dr, Ste 405 Naples FL 34114 239-331-3425 justin.narine@catanaconstruction.com Josh Philpott, AICP Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1412 Jackson St, Ste 3 Fort Myers FL 33901 (239) 225-4805 (239) 313-3025 josh.philpott@stantec.com Bonita Flores I, LLC (Michael Crijan, Director) #1-35 Trillium Drive Kitchener Ontario N2E 0H2 (239) 895-5291 -REVISED, May 24, 2024- Page 664 of 1321 $ ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVRZQHGIHHVLPSOHE\DQ,1',9,'8$/7HQDQF\E\WKHHQWLUHW\WHQDQF\LQ FRPPRQRUMRLQWWHQDQF\OLVWDOOSDUWLHVZLWKDQRZQHUVKLSLQWHUHVWDVZHOODVWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI VXFKLQWHUHVW8VHDGGLWLRQDOVKHHWVLIQHFHVVDU\Ϳ͘ 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ ',6&/2685(2),17(5(67,1)250$7,21 % ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVRZQHGE\D&25325$7,21OLVWWKHRIILFHUVDQGVWRFNKROGHUVDQGWKH SHUFHQWDJHRIVWRFNRZQHGE\HDFK & ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVLQWKHQDPHRID75867((OLVWWKHEHQHILFLDULHVRIWKHWUXVWZLWKWKH SHUFHQWDJHRILQWHUHVW ' ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVLQWKHQDPHRID*(1(5$/RU/,0,7('3$571(56+,3OLVWWKHQDPHRI WKHJHQHUDODQGRUOLPLWHGSDUWQHUV 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( Page 665 of 1321 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov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age 666 of 1321 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov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arcel is located east of Collier Boulevard and north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to the north and east. To the south is Urban Mixed Use District, Collier Blvd Lord's Way Mixed Use Subdistrict. To the west is Urban Residential Subdistrict - Residential Density Band Please see EXHIBIT "II"FLU Map 14 50 26 Royal Fakapalm 359 A Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 9.5 ✔ viii, 10, 56, 164 Future Land Use Page 667 of 1321 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ $6)2//2:68VH6WULNHWKURXJKWRLGHQWLI\ODQJXDJHWREHGHOHWHG8VH8QGHUOLQHWR ,GHQWLI\ODQJXDJHWREHDGGHGPXOWLOLQHILOODEOHDUHDVZLOOKROGDVPXFKWH[WDVQHHGHG & $0(1')8785(/$1'86(0$36'(6,*1$7,21)520 72 ' $0(1'27+(50$36$1'(;+,%,76$6)2//2:61DPH 3DJH ( '(6&5,%($'',7,1$/&+$1*(65(48(67(' 5(48,5(',1)250$7,21 3URYLGHJHQHUDOORFDWLRQPDSVKRZLQJVXUURXQGLQJGHYHORSPHQWV38''5,¶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³$´$%29( 3URYLGHDVXPPDU\WDEOHRI)HGHUDO86)LVK :LOGOLIH6HUYLFHDQG6WDWH)ORULGD*DPH )UHVKZDWHU)LVK&RPPLVVLRQOLVWHGSODQWDQGDQLPDOVSHFLHVNQRZQWRRFFXURQWKHVLWHDQGRU NQRZQWRLQKDELWELRORJLFDOFRPPXQLWLHVVLPLODUWRWKHVLWHHJSDQWKHURUEODFNEHDUUDQJHDYLDQ URRNHU\ELUGPLJUDWRU\URXWHHWF,GHQWLI\KLVWRULFDQGRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOVLWHVRQWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\ 127($//$(5,$/60867%($7$6&$/(2)1260$//(57+$1,´ ¶$WOHDVWRQHFRS\UHGXFHG WR[VKDOOEHSURYLGHGRIDOODHULDOVDQGRUPDSV /$1'86( )8785(/$1'86('(6,*1$7,21 6HH([KLELW,, 6HH([KLELW,9 6HH([KLELW9 6HH([KLELW9, 6HH([KLELW9,, Please see Exhibit “III” - Proposed FLUE Text Amendments No additional changes requested. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict This GMPA does not require any further amendments, outside of the inclusion of the subdistrict text and subdistrict map as noted in Exhibit III. ✔ Page 668 of 1321 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ 38%/,&)$&,/,7,(6 3URYLGHWKHH[LVWLQJ/HYHORI6HUYLFH6WDQGDUG/26DQGGRFXPHQWWKHLPSDFWWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJH ZLOOKDYHRQWKHIROORZLQJSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV *52:7+0$1$*(0(17 ,16(57³<´)25<(625³1´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✔ ✔ ✔ Collier Boulevard ✔ ✔ ✔ Response: No, the property is not located within an area of critical concern pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. and it does not create an increase in population by 5%. Page 669 of 1321 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov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´ ¶RUDWDVFDOHDVGHWHUPLQHGGXULQJWKHSUHDSSOLFDWLRQPHHWLQJ $OODWWDFKPHQWVVKRXOGEHFRQVLVWHQWO\UHIHUHQFHGDVDWWDFKPHQWVRUH[KLELWVDQGVKRXOGEHODEHOHGWR FRUUHODWHWRWKHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUPHJ³([KLELW,'´ 3ODQQLQJ&RPPXQLW\7$=PDS7UDIILF$QDO\VLV=RQHPDS=RQLQJPDSVDQG)XWXUH/DQG8VH0DSV 6RPHPDSVDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH=RQLQJ'LYLVLRQZHEVLWHGHSLFWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQKHUHLQ ) 27+(5 ,GHQWLI\WKHIROORZLQJDUHDVUHODWLQJWRWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\ =RQLQJ6HUYLFHV6HFWLRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQQLQJ6HFWLRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6HH([KLELW;, < < ✔ ✔ ✔ Page 670 of 1321 Page 671 of 1321 10 Page 672 of 1321 11 Page 673 of 1321 12 Page 674 of 1321 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3, Fort Myers FL 33901 June 3, 2025 Ms. Jessica Constantinescu Collier County Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: REVISED COVER LETTER for the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment – PL20230013845 Dear Ms. Constantinescu: Enclosed for your review is a revised cover letter to accompany the Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment application, to change the Future Land Use designation within the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan for a 9.49+/- acre project located along Collier Blvd, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. This application is companion to the Planned Unit Development zoning application (PL20230018397) which will subsequently be submitted for review. The initial application request and cover letter was submitted to Collier County on March 6, 2024. Sufficiency responses were received on April 15, and April 19, 2024. As County comments requested further details on items discussed in the cover letter, the applicant cover letter was revised. This application cover letter replaces the original cover letter. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property for this Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) currently has a future land use map designation of Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, zoned Rural Agricultural and is currently undeveloped. The subject parcel is located within an urbanized area, along a six (6)-lane, county-maintained, arterial roadway, largely surrounded by existing and future residential housing developments. To the west of the property, across Collier Boulevard is the Naples Lakes Country Club. Adjacent to the property on the north and east is the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-use Planned Unit Development which is approved for a combination of single and multi-family dwelling units. To the south of the subject parcel is The Lord’s Way Planned Unit Development which was recently approved for a total of 690 residential units on 69 acres (10 dwelling units per acre) with affordable housing components. Page 675 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 2 of 11 REQUEST Catana Construction Inc. (“Applicant”) is requesting approval to amend the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the future land use designation for the 9.49+/- acre property to be recognized as Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. The subdistrict would allow for multi-family residential development that would be consistent and compatible with the present and future residential developments surrounding the subject property. Additionally, the proposed subdistrict would help support policies of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan by providing new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of low and moderate workforce incomes, while ensuring new developments are compatible, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. The proposed multi-family development provides a maximum of 92 dwelling units, which will include one- and two-bedroom residences. It will include 28 affordable housing units, comprising 30% of affordable housing in the development. The project will be required to go through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning process to obtain approval; a subsequent application for the PUD is being submitted. The proposed subdistrict allows for a density of 10 units per acre with a requirement that 30% of the units be affordable housing. This would include fourteen units (15%) to be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County, and fourteen units (15%) to be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed 100% of the AMI. This subdistrict allows for a density of 10 dwelling units per acre to include affordable housing, with a requirement to ensure that 50% of the affordable housing (14 units) are designated for military veterans or essential service personnel such as, but not limited to police or fire personnel, child-care workers, teachers or other education personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, active duty military or government employees. This is intended to help address Collier County’s affordable housing challenges. Additionally, the subdistrict includes a requirement to maintain these affordable housing units at the income thresholds for a period of 30-years. The proposed project is in an ideal location for the proposed density. This currently vacant property is located amongst existing and future residential communities which will consist of single and multi-family developments, of which the adjacent multi-family will have comparable heights and densities. The subject property has adequate infrastructure to support the residential, as it is located along a 6-lane arterial, with proximity to schools, medical, commercial uses, and will be amongst other new residential developments with comparable densities. It would provide an excellent housing location for essential service personnel workers within the area. Page 676 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 3 of 11 LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. Answer: Yes, the proposed land use is a new subdistrict which allows for an increase in density beyond the current future land use designation. Suitability of proposed land: The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and largely surrounded by residential land uses to the north, east, and west. The vacant properties adjacent to the north and south are under construction for residential communities which will have comparable densities and height. The property to the north is under construction for a residential project which will include single, villa, and multi-family residential. The Seven Shores community will have 4-story apartment communities (comparable height to this project). To the south it is bordered by the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict which was recently approved for 10 dwelling units per acre, with affordable housing provisions, matching the density of the proposed Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. It is currently under construction and will include a series of 4-story residential apartment buildings. Farther southeast of the property is a recently approved new subdistrict, Carman Drive Subdistrict, which provides for a multi-family development of 13.9 dwelling units per acre with approximately 22.6% affordable housing. Additionally, further south of the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict is a planned unit development which will include a combination of retail, professional and medical office uses. Continuing south along Collier Boulevard, about 1 mile in distance from the subject property is a regional medical center. The proposed subdistrict would include a minimum of twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units, of which fourteen (14) would be exclusively for military veterans and essential services personnel, such as those medical professionals who may work nearby. The location is ideal for multi-family residential infill development and would be beneficial in providing affordable housing units and assisting with the critical affordable housing needs in Collier County. The provided market analysis provides more analysis and validates the demand for rental units and affordable housing units within this area of Collier County. Furthermore, the subject property is located along a major arterial with sufficient roadway capacity to support the proposed project. There is sufficient capacity in the County’s water and sewer services in the area. Environmentally sensitive land: The property is largely undeveloped and primarily infested with nuisance and exotic vegetation. Please see Exhibit “VII” – Environmental Report for further details regarding the environmentally sensitive lands of the property. Natural resources: The existing habitat on site is of poor wildlife value due to the abundant undesirable species and lack of herbaceous groundcover. Please see Exhibit “VII” – Environmental Page 677 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 4 of 11 Report for further details regarding natural resources identified on the property and the protected species survey completed. Ground water: The property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District Boundary. The proposed project will connect to the county’s central water and sewer systems. ANALYSIS OF SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA IN FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 163.3177 The request complies with the Florida Statutes pertaining to small scale comprehensive plan amendments. The applicable references are stated below, with further details following thereafter as to how this request complies. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, Page 678 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 5 of 11 at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Response: Detailed responses are included below pertaining to each of the three criteria stated in the applicable Florida Statute reference. 1: Support data, surveys and studies were prepared and utilized in the preparation of this project and its growth management plan amendment application. Collectively the following data and studies validate the compliance and consistency of the project with the comprehensive plan. A traffic impact statement was prepared to summarize the transportation impacts which will be generated by the proposed project. A level of services study was completed and provided as part of the application submittal, reviewing impacts on infrastructure and services which would support the project and its users. A market study was performed to validate the need for housing, to include the demand at various housing income levels. An environmental report was prepared which outlined the inspections and analysis done on the subject property. 2: The data was collected from professionally accepted sources. The data compiled and studied in the above criteria 1 was prepared and collected by consultant team professionals, as noted in Exhibit “I” of the initial application submittal. Additionally, each report or tool (noted in criteria 1) references further professionally accepted resources within them. 3: The Market Study provided with the application package summarizes current Collier County population patterns and growth estimates relying on Moody Analytics and the U.S. Census Bureau data. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2,. Florida Statutes The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Response: The subdistrict is located within the County’s Urban designated area. Paragraphs f and g do not apply. With respect to paragraphs a, b, c, d, and e, the level of service study and market Page 679 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 6 of 11 analysis provided as part of the application clearly demonstrate a need for additional rental housing in Collier County, and that this location is excellent in terms of addressing a portion of that need, in an urban area with existing public facilities and services. Relative to paragraphs h and j, this parcel is appropriate for conversion to higher density that will address a market need and maximize the efficient use of existing public facilities and services based on its location within urban designated lands, along a principal arterial. Maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities and services in the urban area discourages sprawl by reducing the demand for conversion of rural lands to accommodate such demand. As to paragraph i, the proposed multi-family development does not directly contribute to job creation and diversification of the County’s economy, the lack of affordable rental housing negatively impacts those objectives. Availability of affordable housing is an important consideration for Collier County to attract new or relocating businesses and to support the existing businesses in the area. The addition of affordable housing in this area will strengthen the workforce, positively impacting the community’s economy. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8. Florida Statutes Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Response: The proposed GMPA is consistent with the intent and procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the Florida Statute referenced above. As part of this application package, Exhibit “IX” Public Facilities Report outlines the various services and facilities necessary to support this proposed residential project. It further shows that there is adequate availability of these services and facilities to support the proposed project. Additionally, Exhibit “VII” Environmental report reviews the soils and environmental conditions of this land documenting its suitability for development. Furthermore, the size of the property in this urban area supports the density requested to develop this residential project. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The request complies with the goals, objectives, policies, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). A further analysis of the compliance with the GMP is provided below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Page 680 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Response: The subject site is part of and largely surrounded by the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict which is intended to provide transitional densities between urban and agricultural areas. The proposed residential infill subdistrict will provide for dwelling unit densities that are consistent with residential development under construction nearby and provide a development which is supported by adequate community facilities, infrastructure, and services. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Response: The proposed subdistrict and future planned unit development will result in a multi- family development located on a parcel which is surrounded by existing and future residential developments. The site will allow for residential infill providing compatible development with its adjacent lands. Furthermore, it includes affordable housing provisions, as do the approved developments planned at the south and southeast. This is complementary to the area and supports a logical use of the available capacity and infrastructure existing in the area. The project is proposed on an undeveloped property in an urban land use area, along a 6-lane major arterial. The subject property is located adjacent on the north and east sides to the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Planned Development, with the Seven Shores community currently under construction. The Seven Shores community will include a combination of single-family homes, twin villa residences, and six 4-story apartment buildings. To the south of the property is the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Planned Development, a 69-acre project, approved for 690 multi-family and/or single-family attached units, which includes affordable housing commitments. Construction of the Azalea Park project has commenced on this site, including 394 residential units, with a series of 4-story apartment buildings on this site. The use of the undeveloped property at 8928 Collier Boulevard for a residential multi-family project is an efficient use of the existing urban area through its creation of essential housing to support the local employers. It is amongst an already developed and/or under construction area which represents an efficient use of the land and all of the available resources within the area. Furthermore, the development of this site with rental units, and 30% being affordable housing rentals directly supports the housing needs of the major employers within the area without urban sprawl. Page 681 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 8 of 11 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. Response: The subdistrict will have its access along Collier Boulevard. The bridge location and access point will be coordinated to ensure adequate spacing with median openings are provided. As part of the PUD rezoning application, a future optional interconnection to the Hacienda Lakes property to the north is included on the Master Concept Plan. While we fully support providing interconnected access between the two projects, no current easements or agreements between the property owners exist. Furthermore, the current Hacienda Lakes PUD does not include an interconnection to the subject property, requiring the Hacienda Lakes PUD to be amended before final approval of an interconnection. 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. Response: The subdistrict will have its access along Collier Boulevard and does not have access to any other internal roads. The traffic impacts do not trigger the need for a traffic signal at the entrance of this property. As part of the PUD rezoning application, a future optional interconnection to the Hacienda Lakes property to the north is included on the Master Concept Plan. While we fully support providing interconnected access between the two projects, no current easements or agreements between the property owners exist. Furthermore, the current Hacienda Lakes PUD does not include an interconnection to the subject property, requiring the Hacienda Lakes PUD to be amended before final approval of an interconnection. 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. Response: The subdistrict will have its access along Collier Boulevard and does not have access to other local streets or adjoining neighborhoods. As discussed previously, a future interconnection to the Hacienda Lakes community to the north is proposed, but subject to the approval of a PUD amendment and other legal agreements between the two properties owners in the future. 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. Response: The proposed development will include one residential building which includes a variety of housing rental prices for one and two-bedroom units. The residential building will offer 14 units for rent at a low-income price range of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and 14 Page 682 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 9 of 11 units for rent at a moderate-income price range of the Collier County AMI. The community property also includes 30% open space, which includes a lake area and 1.22 acres of preserve area. The community is located adjacent to a 12’ paved multi-use path running along the east side of Collier Boulevard. This path allows for recreational uses, as well as walkable access to commercial uses south of the property along Collier Boulevard. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. (The Policies under this Objective apply to all of Collier County except for that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.) Response: Per Policy 6.1.1, the proposed development, consisting of 9.49+/- acres will meet or exceed the preserve requirement of 15%. The preserve will meet all Collier County requirements, and all required State and Federal agency permits will be obtained and provided to Collier County at the time of Site Development Plan. Objective 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. (The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.) Response: As identified within the Environmental Report, future development on the property will meet or exceed the County’s habitat preserve requirements, will be consistent with Policy 7.1.4, and will comply with all state and federal listed species requirements. Transportation Element Policy 5.1: 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 Page 683 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 10 of 11 adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. Response: Based upon Exhibit “X” Traffic Impact Statement, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. The project trip generation will not negatively impact the level of service on Collier Boulevard. Housing Element 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. Response: The proposed subdistrict would allow for 28 affordable and workforce rental housing units for a period of 30-years, of which 50% will be rented exclusively to essential service personnel and military veterans. This supports the Collier County housing needs for workforce incomes. CONCLUSION: In summary, the new subdistrict proposed for this property will allow for the opportunity to ensure there is a contiguous development pattern in this area which is along a major arterial with adequate capacity, adequate public services, and infrastructure to support it. The location and inclusion of affordable housing provisions will guarantee the development helps to support the critical challenge of affordable and workforce housing within Collier County. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 225-4805, or josh.philpott@stantec.com. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Josh Philpott, AICP Principal, Planning Page 684 of 1321 June 4, 2025 Page 11 of 11 Enclosures cc: Justin Narine, Catana Construction, Inc. Jillian Ward, AICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Joel Blikstad, P.E., Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Page 685 of 1321 -REVISED, April 23, 2024- C-ottt*y Public SeMces Department Communrty & Human Services Division CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW Address/Location: 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples FL 34114 Applicant /Agent:Justin Narine. Catana Construction, Ap licant / Josh Phil StanteDott c. Aoen Phone / Email: (239) 331-3425. iustin.narine@catanaconstruction.com I (239\ 225-4805. iosh. philpott@stantec.com Proposed Use residential multi-familV development Number of Affordable Housing Units Planned: Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental By _19- _9 1210/o - 1400/o 810/0 - 120% 51% - 80% 50% or less 30% or less Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ AMI - GAP lncome AMI - Moderate lncome AMI - Low lncome AMI - Very Low lncome AMI - Extremely Low lncome Permit Number,if available: PL20230013845 (GMPA) & PL20230018397 (PUD Proposed Land Use Restriction:PUD Restriction or AHDB Agreement _- Developer Agreement _- lmpact Fee Deferral Agreement _- Grant Restriction - Other: I hereby certify that the above described proiect meets the definition of providing affordable Housing in Collier County and as such is entitled to participale in the County's "Expedited Review Procedures of Affordable Housing" as described in the Coll nty Administrative Code through Resolution No. 2018.40 Date ?1ry1;>ct and Human Services Division By Date: 4123124 / Owner/ Developer/ Contractor This Certification must be submitted to the Growth Management Department with permit application package, or plan revisions, within nine months of date of issuance CommLrnity & Human Seryices oivision . 3339 TamiarniT.ail Easl, Suite 211 ' Naples, Florid? 34112-5361 239252-CARE 12213), 23S-252-CArE (2233)' 239-252-4230 (RSVP) . !a vw colti€rgov rcUtllmanservices Name of Development: Bonita Flores Residential lnfill Subdistrict Size of Property: 9.49 acres Total Number Residential Units Planned: 92 Page 686 of 1321 June 2023 1 GMP Amendment Pre-Application Meeting Standard Comments Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive // Naples, FL 34104 // Phone: 239-252-2400 The Comprehensive Planning Section schedules all GMP amendment pre-application meetings, which are mandatory, and coordinates the review of all amendment petitions received. Per the current Fee Schedule (Resolution 2021-193), the non-refundable pre-application meeting fee is $500.00; it is credited towards the petition fee if the petition is submitted within nine months. The petition fee is $16,700.00 for a large-scale petition ($9,000.00 for a small-scale petition), which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs. For small-scale petitions, there are only two hearings – one each before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC); one legal ad is placed in the Naples Daily News prior to CCPC hearing, and one prior to BCC hearing. For all other amendment petitions, a total of four public hearings are held – Transmittal hearing before CCPC and BCC, and Adoption hearing before CCPC and BCC. The estimated legal advertising costs will be provided to each petitioner and payment will be required prior to advertising for any hearings; any refund due the petitioner after hearings will be provided at that time. In addition to the petition fee and legal ad costs noted above, payment must also be made for a Traffic Impact Study Review Fee. This fee should be submitted directly to the Transportation Planning Section. Please see their website and/or contact them for more details. There is cost to advertise for and conduct a Neighborhood Information Meeting, and to post a public hearing notice(s) (sign(s)). Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and requires the petitioner of a site-specific GMP amendment to hold a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM); this would occur after a finding of sufficiency of the petition submittal but prior to the first public hearing. The LDC also requires the petitioner of a site-specific GMP amendment to post a notice(s) of the public hearings on the property, for both Transmittal and Adoption hearings. A small-scale amendment is limited to a parcel <50 acres and is limited to a map amendment only and any directly-related text; the map amendment cannot result in a conflict between the map and text – there can be no internal inconsistency in the GMP. Note: Notwithstanding the significant changes made in 2011 (HB7207) to Ch. 163, Florida Statutes, Collier continues to consider demonstration of need and reduction in greenhouse gas in evaluating GMP amendments. For the most part, there is no guidance/criteria/standards provided in the GMP by which to review amendments for consistency; an exception is for significant impacts upon public facilities as provided for in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE. However, Chapter 163, F.S., does provide guidance. Note particularly the requirement to provide appropriate data and analysis. Generally, staff reviews for, and an applicant should adequately address in the submittal: • Appropriateness of uses/compatibility with surrounding area. • Impact upon surrounding properties – will it make them less developable under their present FLUM designation? Will it create a domino effect leading to future designation changes on the surrounding properties? • Need for the designation change – data and analysis, e.g. market demand study for commercial uses, to demonstrate the change is warranted, that more inventory of the requested uses is needed. Too often, the data only demonstrates the petition site is viable for the proposed uses (“build it & they will come”) rather than demonstrate there is a need for a new or expanded GMP provision to provide for the proposed uses, and that the need is at the subject location. The data should be specific to the proposed land uses, proposed Page 687 of 1321 June 2023 2 trade service area, persons per household in subject area, etc. as applicable. It is recognized there is more than one acceptable methodology, e.g. radial distance from site (ULI standards for neighborhood/community/regional commercial centers), drive time, etc. Regardless of methodology, the raw data needs to be submitted to allow staff to review it for completeness and accuracy (sometimes parcels are omitted, double counted, included when shouldn’t be, etc.). Also, as with all submitted documents, maps of trade service area need to be legible and include adequate identification features, e.g. major roads, Section-Township-Range. • Whether there is a specific or general community vision that the amendment addresses, e.g. a redevelopment area. • The proposed amendment should correlate to the results of the needs analysis. Too often a need is demonstrated for one set of uses but the amendment is for other uses or goes beyond those uses for which a need is demonstrated (e.g., need is for rental apartments, but amendment allows multifamily uses generally). • LOSS (level of service standards) impacts upon public facilities – roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, parks & recreation facilities, etc. • Within the above is consideration of site-specific impacts, e.g. impact upon wetlands and listed species habitats on-site and nearby; and, traffic impacts (operational/safety) from the traffic volume generated/attracted and/or the ingress/egress points – turning movements, median openings, traffic signals, etc. Included within this would be a comparison between impacts that would be expected under the existing zoning and/or FLUM designation vs. that which could be expected under the proposed amendment. • Consistency/conformity/harmony with other Goals, Objectives, Policies (GOPs) and provisions in the Element being amended and any other Element of the GMP relevant to the petition, as well as any other applicable regulations (e.g. Manatee Protection Plan, specific LDC provisions). • Furtherance of existing GOPs relevant to the petition. • Furtherance of any other plans or designations that is applicable or relevant to the petition (e.g. a redevelopment plan, Area of Critical State Concern, Rural Area of Opportunity). • Energy efficiency and conservation, reduction of greenhouse gases, reduction of vehicle miles travelled, etc., as [previously] required in HB 697 (2008). • GMP amendment provisions/requirements for a comprehensive plan and plan amendment in Ch. 163.3177(1)(f), and 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 8., Florida Statutes. It is important to carefully organize the amendment package; be sure all exhibits are consistently labeled, are in the proper order, and are correctly referenced on the pages of the application. For site-specific amendments, be sure to clearly identify the subject site, include North arrow and scale, and source. A petition narrative is often helpful. Page 688 of 1321 Pre-app notes: PL20230013845 8929 Collier Blvd (GMPA) • The applicant is proposing approximately 90 multifamily dwelling units (rental) on 9.25 acres for an approximate density of 9 DUs/acre. Access is proposed to be on Collier Blvd and the development will be generally consistent with the Lords Way PUD/subdistrict to the south. • List and address Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 and Policies 7.1-7.4 as applicable. • List and address applicable provisions of Florida Statues 163.3187 and 163.3177 for amending the Growth Management Plan (GMP), including 163.3177.(1).(f), which requires that all amendments be based on relevant/appropriate data and analysis. • Provide a needs analysis demonstrating the demand for the proposed use at this location, as well as the appropriateness of the subject site. The needs analysis should address the requested density increase as well as the proposed affordable housing income thresholds. Please include narrative justification for the market area utilized. • GMPA requires a Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM) which can be combined with the PUDA/DOA NIM. • There was a discussion of potentially matching the affordability commitment of 30% that’s proposed in the Ascend Naples project that will be heard at the Planning Commission on 9/22/23. The project numbers for that project are PL20220003213 (GMPA) and PL20220002908 (PUDZ). Page 689 of 1321 1 Rachel Hansen From:ThomasClarkeVEN Sent:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 5:46 PM To:Rachel Hansen Subject:FW: PL20230013845 8929 Collier Blvd ( GMPA) Attachments:PUDZ-PUDA checklist FOR REVIEWERS 2-2017.doc; Environmental data Checklist updated December 2016.doc Rachel, Craigs notes for your GMPA today. Thomas Clarke Operations Analyst - Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2526 From: Craig Brown <Craig.Brown@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2023 5:45 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20230013845 8929 Collier Blvd ( GMPA) Thomas, Here are my notes these notes apply to both the GMPA and the PUDZ. 1. Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLUCFCS 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. 2. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zones ect.) be sure to include Black Bear and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 Page 690 of 1321 2 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 (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). (15 % of native vegetation is required for preservation.) Label the Master plan with a note that the preservation is to be addressed off-site and provide the calculation in the packet submitted. 4. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. 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 15% of the native vegetation existing onsite). 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). 7. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. Environmental fee $2,500.00 (PUDZ only) Craig Brown Environmental Supervisor Development Review Division (239) 252-2548. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 691 of 1321 Environmental Data Checklist Project Name __________________________________________________ The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 1. Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. 2. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. 7. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the Page 692 of 1321 location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. 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. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 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. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off-site parcel(s) if off-site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. Page 693 of 1321 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project’s compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. b. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project’s design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? Page 694 of 1321 27. PUD master plan or PPL/SDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. 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. 28. Additional comments 29. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) Page 695 of 1321 Environmental PUDZ-PUDA Checklist (non-RFMU) Project Name__________________________________ 1. Is the project is 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 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation in ventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 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 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 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. Preserve Width - P603 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 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 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 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 – P 522 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 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section UP FOR DISCUSSION – DISCUSS WITH CAO 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” Alternate format: A. Uses subject to LDC section Allowable uses within County required preserves: 1. Nature trails that do not reduce the amount of required preserve. 2. Passive Recreation uses, as per LDC requirements. 3. Stormwater only when in accordance with the LDC. Page 696 of 1321 PUD Commitments and Site Plan notes Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document or master plan: 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. 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. 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? Additional Comments: Page 697 of 1321 Environmental Data Checklist Project Name __________________________________________________ The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 1. Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. 2. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. 7. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the Page 698 of 1321 location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. 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. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 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. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off-site parcel(s) if off-site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. Page 699 of 1321 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project’s compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. b. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project’s design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? Page 700 of 1321 27. PUD master plan or PPL/SDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. 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. 28. Additional comments 29. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) Page 701 of 1321 Environmental PUDZ-PUDA Checklist (non-RFMU) Project Name__________________________________ 1. Is the project is 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 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation in ventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 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 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 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. Preserve Width - P603 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 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 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 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 – P 522 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 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section UP FOR DISCUSSION – DISCUSS WITH CAO 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” Alternate format: A. Uses subject to LDC section Allowable uses within County required preserves: 1. Nature trails that do not reduce the amount of required preserve. 2. Passive Recreation uses, as per LDC requirements. 3. Stormwater only when in accordance with the LDC. Page 702 of 1321 PUD Commitments and Site Plan notes Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document or master plan: 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. 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. 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? Additional Comments: Page 703 of 1321 1 Rachel Hansen From:Michael Sawyer Sent:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 3:35 PM To:ThomasClarkeVEN; Rachel Hansen Subject:Pre-App notes for Collier Boulevard GMPA Please provide the following notes for Transportation Planning: For this GMPA: Transportation Planning: A methodology meeting by email is required and provide a note on the TIS cover sheet that the fee will be collected at the time of GMPA submittal. Address all transportation elements of the GMP. Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. For the companion PUD (not this GMPA): A trip limit/cap Developer Commitment based on TIS will be required using standard language: “The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed ____ 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.” Also, note with the PUD that potential interconnections are not possible/practicable due to adjacent PUD development(s) accommodations. The access crossing the canal may require relocation and/or modification of the stormwater canal and/or the multi-use pathway due to elevation/construction requirements which may also require additional/expansion of easement into the project limits; again, this is not an issue for the GMPA but will be at the time of PUD conceptually. Suggest investigating this access sooner rather than later. Let us know of any questions moving forward. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 704 of 1321 Addressing Checklist (Rev 10/2022) Page 1 of 1 Operations & Regulatory Management Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with (*) 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. Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include: -* 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. LOCATION INFORMATION *FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of 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. PROJECT INFORMATION 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 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(s) LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] Page 705 of 1321 Page 706 of 1321 Page 707 of 1321 EXHIBIT “I” QualiﬁcaƟons of the Consultants and Professionals Bonita Flores ResidenƟal Inﬁll Subdistrict (PL20230013845) Agent: Josh PhilpoƩ, AICP Stantec 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Josh.PhilpoƩ@stantec.com Planning: Beth Rozansky, AICP Stantec 3510 KraŌ Road Suite 200 Naples FL 34105‐5029 Beth.Rozansky@stantec.com Engineering: Joel Blikstad, M.Eng., P.E. Stantec 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Joel.Blikstad@stantec.com Environmental: Craig SchmiƩler, CSE, PWS Stantec 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Craig.SchmiƩler@stantec.com Tra ffic Engineer: MaƩhew Maher, PE, PTOE, RSP2I Stantec 300 Primera Boulevard, Suite 300 Lake Mary, FL 32746 MaƩhew.Maher@stantec.com Housing Analysis: Susan Heffron, ACIP, LEED AP BD+C Zonda 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SHeffron@zondahome.com Page 708 of 1321 * denotes projects completed with other firms Joshua Philpott AICP Senior Planner 22 years of experience · Fort Myers, Florida Josh is an urban planner with 21 years of experience in community and land use planning, with a focus on airport planning and compatibility. His experience includes working on a variety of large-scale projects for both public and private sector clients. Prior to joining Stantec, Josh was the manager of planning for the Lee County Port Authority and was responsible for managing the long-term planning, noise, and airspace programs for Southwest Florida International Airport and Page Field General Aviation Airport. During his time there, he worked on several projects and initiatives to protecting the long-term operational capacity of the airport from encroachment of incompatible development, while also helping guide future development of non-aviation uses at both airports. Josh represented LCPA on several committees and working groups including the Lee County MPO Technical Advisory Committee, the FDOT Airport Zoning Re-write (F.S. Chapter 333) working group, South-Central Florida Metroplex Study, and the FDOT Airport License working group. Josh was also the project manager for the 2011 Part 150 Noise Study that involved the implementation of NextGen flight procedures to help reduce the aircraft noise and overflights of populated areas, while increasing airport operation efficiency. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Natural Resource Management (Concentration in Urban Planning), Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina, United States, 2002 REGISTRATIONS Certified Planner #151648, American Institute of Certified Planners MEMBERSHIPS Member, American Planning Association Member, Florida Planning and Zoning Association Member, Florida Airport Council PROJECT EXPERIENCE URBAN PLANNING Lee County Department of Community Development* | Lee County | Fort Myers, Florida | Senior Planner Responsible for preparation of staff reports analyzing merits of applications for compliance with Land Development Code and consistency with Lee County Comprehensive Plan. Presented staff analysis and testimony at public hearings for Lee County Hearing Examiner and County Commissioners, Planning Agencies, Zoning Boards, City of Bonita Springs, and Town of Fort Myers Beach. Reviewed Zoning Applications for Administrative Approval, Special Exception, Consumption on Premises, Conventional Rezoning, Variance, and Development of County Impact, and Development of Regional Impacts. Managed and coordinated GIS data and operations and oversee specialty GIS projects for Lee County Community Development. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE The Ivy Towers Airspace Analysis | Naples, Florida | 2017 | Senior Planner Provided preliminary airspace review for The Ivy Towers, a proposed multi-story multi-family development which is located along the extended centerline of the approach to Runway 05 at Naples Municipal Airport. The airspace analysis was done to determine the potential height of the buildings without negatively impacting the navigable airspace around the airport. LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Hyatt Coconut Plantation Vacation Resort | Estero, Florida | 2017 | Senior Planner Responsible for ensuring the project complied with all aspects of the zoning and land development code regulations for the expansion of the Hyatt Coconut Plantation Resort. PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLANNING Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park | Collier County | Collier County, Florida | 2016 | Senior Planner Assisted with facilitating the public outreach component of the public information campaign and community visioning effort for this 160-acre regional park, resulting in a citizen driven design process that culminated in a Master Plan that was approved by the Board of Commissioners in 2016. Page 709 of 1321 Beth Rozansky AICP, MBA COMMUNITY PLANNER 12 years of experience · Naples, Florida Beth is an urban planner with over 10 years in County government planning, impact fee administration and public private partnership experience. In her county government roles, she helped facilitate development agreements and partnerships for roadways and other community facilities. She spearheaded community charettes and workshops to successfully develop a master plan for a 420-acre mixed-use economic development community. As impact fee administrator, was responsible for collection and implementation of 9 impact fee systems, including the development of a new mobility fee system. She also has over 21 years in the military, presently serving as a logistics and supply officer, having managed million- dollar budgets and contracts for the Navy. She extends her skills beyond the office and military, having served on a County advisory board for infrastructure surtax citizen oversight and various other local nonprofit roles. She brings a strong understanding of land planning, financial considerations, and developing solutions to advance projects forward. Beth's experience includes facilitating projects and negotiations amongst different entities, whether local, state and federal agencies and private interests. EDUCATION MBA, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA, 2010 Bachelors, Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 2005 Associates, Information Systems Technology, Air Force Community College, Montgomery, Alabama, USA, 2006 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING American Institute of Certified Planners, American Planning Association's Professional Institute, Florida, 2012 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Care Volunteer & Veteran Services Volunteer, Avow Hospice, Naples, Florida, US Board Member, Women's Foundation of Collier County, Naples, Florida, USA 11-2021 - 8/2022 Advisory Board Member, Collier County Advisory Board: Infrastructure Surtax Oversight Committee, Naples, FL, USA 1/2019-10/2020 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY U.S. Navy Reserves Supply Corp Officer 2012 – 2024 ꞏ 12 years Supply and logistics officer assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency. Trained to support diverse responsibilities of logistics and supply, with specialty in aviation supply management. Deployed Oct 2020-2021 providing contract management for all communications and information technology in support of Operation East Africa Counter Terrorism. U.S. Air Force Reserves Command Post Controller 2002 - 2012 ꞏ 10 years Managed command and control systems for various Air Force units. Activated in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from April 2003 through August 2005. Sarasota County Government Impact Fee Administrator 2013 - 2016 ꞏ 3 years Responsible for the collection and implementation of 9 impact fee systems generating over $15 million annually to fund improvements to road, fire, emergency medical services, law enforcement, justice, government, parks, libraries, and school facilities. Facilitated development agreements and public private partnerships totaling over $125 million for roadways, land interests, park projects, stormwater facilities, transit facilities, and other community facilities. Implemented a new mobility fee system and led the adoption of the ordinance. Coordinated interlocal funding agreements between state, local municipalities, private developers, and nonprofit organizations. Sarasota County Government Senior Planner 2007 - 2013 ꞏ 6 years Developed first ever Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the county, coordinating stakeholder interests through a robust public engagement program and County Commission adoption. Facilitated updates to the Capital Improvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County Government Planner 2005 - 2007 ꞏ 2 years Evaluated and processed land use change petitions. Provided community assistance in understanding land use planning. Page 710 of 1321 * denotes projects completed with other firms Joel Blikstad P.E. Senior Project Manager 10 years of experience · Fort Myers, Florida Joel brings over 9 years of experience in land development to Stantec. He's an efficient, organized leader with proven management skills in a range of project sizes. He has experience in both the public and private sector land development projects, with extensive knowledge of permitting, stormwater management and utility design, project scheduling and coordination, and client management. EDUCATION Master of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States, 2016 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, United States, 2013 REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer #84364, State of Florida, 2017- Present PROJECT EXPERIENCE INSTITUTIONAL SITE DESIGN Community School of Naples* | Community School of Naples, Inc. | Naples, FL, USA | USD 6.5M | 2019-2022 | Project Manager Joel served as project manager for several campus expansion projects for the Community School of Naples, including a new STEM facility, football stadium, performance gym, volleyball courts, and lower school dining facility. Joel served as engineer-of-record, responsible for overseeing the design, permitting, construction observation, and project closeout. This project was completed during Joel's tenure at RWA, Inc. TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN Collier Area Transit (CAT) Transfer Facility* | Collier County | Immokalee, FL, USA | 2020 | Project Manager Project Manager responsible for oversight of the design of a Collier Area Transfer facility in Immokalee, Florida. Responsibilities included design of the sanitary sewer, stormwater management, and water distribution systems, as well as a 60% design set of plans. The final deliverable was a Design Criteria Package delivered to the design-build team. COMMERCIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT Naples Infiniti/Volvo* | AMSI, Inc. | Naples, FL, USA | USD 1.8M | 2016-2017 | Civil Engineer Joel was the staff engineer responsible for the design and technical support for a new car dealership in Naples, FL. Joel was responsible for all the technical support for this project, including creating construction plans, coordinating with several different consultants, preparing and submitting permitting paperwork, and designing the supporting utility infrastructure and drainage. This project was completed during Joel's tenure at RWA, Inc. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Apartment Development at Pine Island Road | Land America, LLC | Cape Coral, FL, USA | USD 4.6M | 2022- Present | Project Manager Joel leads a team of engineers, landscape architects, and environmental professionals to design, engineer, and permit a multi-family development with a total of 437 units in five buildings in Cape Coral. The project includes permits through the City of Cape Coral, South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Department of Transportation. The project also includes platting through the City of Cape Coral. As part of the project, the team was faced with designing the development around existing commercial outparcels, as well as constructing a frontage road to serve adjacent properties. The project team is working closely with the City of Cape Coral to resolve transportation, landscaping, stormwater, and utility infrastructure concerns to ensure the proposed development would work for both the client and the City. Page 711 of 1321 * denotes projects completed with other firms Craig Schmittler C.S.E., P.W.S. Senior Ecologist 40 years of experience · Fort Myers, Florida A well-recognized talent in the Southwest Florida Environmental Community, Craig offers over 39 years of environmental project experience that includes work on numerous habitat restoration projects and habitat management plans, regional mitigation banks, Developments of Regional Impact (DRI’s), large-scale residential golf course communities, commercial/industrial developments, agricultural projects, aquaculture projects, FDOT road and utility projects, FEMA emergency housing site assessments and commercial mines. He is an authorized gopher tortoise agent and has completed hundreds of successful gopher tortoise relocations, He is considered an expert in the environmental permitting processes for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Southwest Florida Water Management District along with numerous local state and municipal regulatory agencies. He is also recognized as an expert in the field of jurisdictional wetland assessments, listed species assessments and permitting, gopher tortoise relocations and listed species management plans. EDUCATION Master of Science, Zoology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, United States, 1984 Bachelor of Science, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, United States, 1982 REGISTRATIONS Professional Mangrove Trimmer, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America Qualified Stormwater Management Inspector, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Professional Wetland Scientist #776, Society of Wetland Scientists Advanced Open Water Diver, Professional Association of Diving Instructors MEMBERSHIPS Member, Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Member, Florida Native Plant Society Member, Society of Wetland Scientists Member, National Association of Environmental Professionals Member, Ecological Society of America PROJECT EXPERIENCE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Districtwide Mitigation and Environmental Services Support, FDOT District 4 WETLAND RESTORATION AND MITIGATION Pond Apple Slough, FDOT District IV* | Florida | Senior Environmental Scientist Sheridan Street Natural Area, FDOT District IV* | Florida | Senior Environmental Scientist ENDANGERED SPECIES/SPECIES AT RISK ASSESSMENTS Riverwood DRI | El Jobean, Florida | Senior Ecologist Bonita Bay DRI | Bonita Springs, Florida | Senior Ecologist Pelican Landing DRI | Bonita Springs, Florida | Senior Environmental Scientist Bell Property Gopher Tortoise Permitting and Relocations | Manatee County, Florida Esplanade Gopher Tortoise Permitting and Relocations | Sarasota County, Florida Naples Memorial Gardens | Collier County, Florida | Project Manager NATURAL RESOURCE SERVICES Alico DRI | Lee County, Florida | Project Ecologist Grey Oaks | Barron Collier Partnership | Collier County, Florida | 2008-present | Primary Ecologist Rodina South | Viera Company, The | Hendry County, Florida | 2009-present | Senior Ecologist Brookhill Utility Improvements Design | City of Fort Myers | Lee County, Florida | 2008-present | Ecologist Pelican Landing Master Planned Community | WCI Communities LP | Lee County, Florida | 2008-present | Ecologist Pelican Marsh Master Planned Community | WCI Communities LP | Collier County, Florida | 2008-present | Ecologist Madison Park Residential Community | Centex Homes | Collier County, Florida | 2008-present | Senior Ecologist Page 712 of 1321 * denotes projects completed with other firms Matthew Maher PE, PTOE, RSP₂ᵢ Traffic Engineer and Transportation Planner 16 years of experience · Lake Mary, Florida Mr. Maher is a Senior Traffic Engineer who has twelve years of experience. He has served as a Project Manager during traffic engineering and transportation planning projects for both public and private sector clients, which have involved the oversight of traffic impact studies, alternative analyses, concept development studies, traffic signal plans, parking demand studies, transit-oriented development studies, traffic operation analyses, Complete Streets studies and traffic calming studies. Whether he is presenting technical findings to clients or explaining the results of analyses in layman's terms at Public Information Centers and planning board testimonies, Mr. Maher's knowledge of and passion for traffic engineering is evident. EDUCATION ArcGIS Course, Rutgers University, New Jersey, 2014 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Transportation Concentration, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2008 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING Roadway and Traffic Safety Improvement Program, NJLTAP - Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 2020 Road Safety Audit 3-Part Series, Florida LTAP Center, Tampa, Florida, United States, 2020 Traffic Signal Design Workshop, CAIT - Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 2019 Highway Safety Manual Workshop, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia, United States, 2017 CAIT - Rutgers University, Traffic Calming, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 2020 REGISTRATIONS Road Safety Professional 2 #4 (Infrastructure), Transportation Professional Certification Board Inc., 2019-2022 Professional Engineer #097599, State of New York Professional Engineer #79833, State of Florida Certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer #3404, Transportation Professional Certification Board Inc. Professional Engineer #24GE04998500, State of New Jersey MEMBERSHIPS Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008- Present PROJECT EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Garden State Parkway Interchange 127 Southbound Entrance Merge Improvements - Concept Study, OPS A3679, Task D-10 | New Jersey Turnpike Authority | Woodbridge, New Jersey | 2019-Present | Project Manager Route 46/Route 3/Valley Road/Notch Road Interchanges Project | New Jersey Department of Transportation | Township of Little Falls, Borough of Woodland Park and the City of Clifton, Passaic County, New Jersey | USD 160M | 2008-2021 | Task Manager Jersey City Traffic Engineering On-Call | Jersey City, NJ | 2018-2020 | Task Manager Cape May County Professional General Engineering Services and Project Management Support | Cape May County, New Jersey | 2015-2019 | Task Manager US Route 9W (Fletcher Avenue) at I-95 | New Jersey Department of Transportation | Fort Lee, New Jersey | USD 4.4M | 2008-Present | Traffic Engineer Cross Street (CR 626) Reconstruction, Augusta Boulevard to East Veterans Highway (CR 528) | County of Ocean | Ocean County, New Jersey | 2018-Present | Task Manager Garden State Parkway Crossover Mitigation Study - Dualized Roadways | New Jersey, United States | 2019- 2020 | Project Manager Design Assessment of Emergency Access Gates and Access Control Study, OPS A3758, Task O-2 | New Jersey Turnpike Authority | Various Locations, New Jersey | 2020 | Traffic Engineer TRAFFIC SAFETY Somerset County Roadway Safety Study | Somerset County, NJ, USA | 2020-2021 | Project Manager Applying Video Data Analytics to Determine Near-Miss Collisions | PANY&NJ | New York, New York, United States | 2020 | Project Manager Page 713 of 1321 SUSAN C. HEFFRON, AICP, LEED AP BD+C sheffron@zondahome.com • (704) 277-9084 SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS • Extensive experience in land acquisition and entitlements, market research and analysis, budgeting, planning, and program, process, and project management • Effectively able to communicate complicated concepts in an understandable, persuasive manner with culturally diverse audiences • Successful maximization of limited resources through strategic and tactical plans to achieve client satisfaction, enhance overall performance and increase productivity while meeting deadlines and goals • Adept and experienced in problem solving and providing solutions with excellent qualifications in project organization, leadership and interpersonal communications in both the public and private sectors PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE VICE PRESIDENT - ADVISORY 2023 – Present ZONDA SENIOR MANAGER - ADVISORY 2021 – 2023 ZONDA REGIONAL MARKET ANALYST 2018 – 2020 DR HORTON STRATEGIC MARKETING MANAGER 2016 – 2018 TAYLOR MORRISON MARKET ANALYST 2014 – 2016 DR HORTON PERFORMANCE MANAGER 2010 – 2014 JONES LANG LASALLE ENTITLEMENT PLANNER 2007 – 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FORWARD PLANNER IN LAND ACQUISITION 2004 – 2007 KB HOME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER 2003 – 2004 CITY OF CONCORD SENIOR PLANNER 2000 – 2003 CITY OF CONCORD EDUCATION, TRAINING, LICENSES, AND CERTIFICATIONS MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PFEIFFER UNIVERSITY MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURE, BACHELOR OF ARTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE Minor in Western Antiquity and Classical Languages License, North Carolina Real Estate Broker Certified, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Certified, LEED AP BD + C (Building Design and Construction) Member, American Planning Association Page 714 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU): COLLIER BLVD. LORD'S WAY MIXED USE SUBDISTRICTCOLLIER BOULEVARD LORD'S WAYFUTURE LAND USE (FLU): URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICTHACIENDA LAKESSUBJECT PROPERTY(9.5 AC.)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU):URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU): URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBRISTRICT - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BANDNAPLES LAKES COUNTY CLUB FUTURE LAND USE (FLU): URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICTHACIENDA LAKESNFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.28 4:10:01 PM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_4 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460FUTURE LAND USE ANDADJACENT LANDS MAP2024.02.014Page 715 of 1321 EXHIBIT “III” Proposed Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Text Amendments Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict (PL20230013845) Overview: The incorporation of the new subdistrict will require an amendment in four areas within the FLUE, as outlined below. These changes are based upon the FLUE version dated May 23, 2023, and does not reflect any subsequently approved subdistricts after this date. CHANGE 1: TABLE OF CONTENTS (page vi) Amend *FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (pages vii-viii) *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** * Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict * Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Map * Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map CHANGE 2: Policy 1.5: (page 9-10) The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 29. Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict 30. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict CHANGE 3: Page 56, add the new subdistrict text following subdistrict 29, or as subsequently amended: 30. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict consists of ± 9.49 acres and is located along Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow multi- family rental residential development at a density of up to 10 units per acre and to provide affordable residential units to accommodate the workforce in Collier County, thereby advancing the intent of Goal 1 of the Housing Element. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. Development shall be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Page 716 of 1321 EXHIBIT “III” b. The development shall be limited to a maximum residential density of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total of 92 multi-family units. c. Twenty-eight (28) units (30% of the total approved) will be income and rent restricted as follows: 1. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 2. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 3. These twenty-eight (28) income and rent-restricted units will be subject to this requirement for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. 4. Preference to fifty percent (50%) of the income and rent-restricted units (14 units) shall be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP) and military veterans. ESP means natural persons or families with at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, active duty military, or a government employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 14 units are occupied by ESP or military veterans, the next available unit will be offered to ESP and military veterans. This commitment for ESP and military veterans shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. 5. As part of Collier County’s annual monitoring for this PUD, the owner will provide to Collier County Community and Human Services Division (CHS) an annual report at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the adoption of this PUD that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy and income and rent-restricted units. The annual report will be provided in a format approved by CHS. The owner further agrees to on-site monitoring by the County. d. The Density Rating System is not applicable to this Subdistrict. CHANGE 4: “FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES” (page 163-164) *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** (LXXXV) Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map (LXXXVI) Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Page 717 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)ZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)COLLIER BOULEVARD LORD'S WAYZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESSUBJECT PROPERTY100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)ZONED: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)NAPLES LAKES COUNTY CLUB NFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:18 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_1 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTSAND EXISTING ZONING MAP2024.02.011Page 718 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)SUBJECT PROPERTY100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)NFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:25 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_2 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460COLLIER COUNTY AERIALLOCATION MAP2024.02.0121.AERIAL SHOWN WAS FLOWN DEC. 2022, AND PROVIDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.Page 719 of 1321 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)ZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)COLLIER BOULEVARD LORD'S WAYZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENTOF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESSUBJECT PROPERTY(9.5 AC.)ZONED: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)NAPLES LAKES COUNTY CLUB EXISTING LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL (HACIENDA LAKES)EXISTING LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL (HACIENDA LAKES)EXISTING LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT300'300'ZONED: RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (A)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU):URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICTEXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE (NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB)100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)ZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENTOF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESEXISTING LAND USE:UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIALNFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:28 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_3 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460EXISTING LAND USE ANDZONING MAP2024.02.013SUMMARY TABLENORTHSOUTHEASTWESTMIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OFREGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL(HACIENDA LAKES PUD)MIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTMIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OFREGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL(HACIENDA LAKES PUD)PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (PUD)100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL; PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951);GOLF COURSE (NAPLESLAKES COUNTRY CLUB)ZONINGEXISTING LAND USEUNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL(HACIENDA LAKES PUD)Page 720 of 1321 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD Environmental Assessment Report April 30, 2024 Prepared for: Bonita Flores, 1 LLC #1-35 Trillium Drive Kitchener, ON Canada N2E OH2 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc 1412 Jackson St, Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Project Number: 215618460 Page 721 of 1321 The conclusions in the Report titled 8928 Collier Boulevard are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk. Stantec has assumed all information received from Bonita Flores, 1 LLC (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein. This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client. While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result. Prepared by: Signature Craig D Schmittler, CSE, PWS Printed Name Reviewed by: Signature ElOi Danielson Printed Name Approved by: Signature Sharon Ewe Printed Name nd that may result. Signature Signature Page 722 of 1321 Click or tap here to enter text. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction and Project Location .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES & FLUCCS CODES ...................................................... 1 2.1 Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification ........................................................................ 1 2.2 FLUCCS Codes ............................................................................................................................. 2 3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................. 3 4 LISTED SPECIES........................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Protected Species ......................................................................................................................... 3 5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS .................................................................................... 4 Table 1. FLUCCS Codes Within Project Area .............................................................................................. 2 Figure 1. Location Map ................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. FLUCCS Map ............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. Soils Map ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Listed Species Transect Map ...................................................................................................... 16 Page 723 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction and Project Location Stantec was requested to perform an environmental inspection for listed species, potential wetlands, and critical habitat related to proposed development of the project property. The project is located at 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida (Figure 1). The respective Parcel ID is 00418400302 in the Collier County Property Appraiser’s records. The property is undeveloped and is approximately 9.5 acres. There is a main canal of the Golden Gate Canal system along the western edge of the property, conservation lands to the immediate south, and cleared land that is currently being developed to the east and north. An active Florida Power & Light (FPL) easement crosses the eastern end of the property from north to south, isolating an area slightly more than an acre in size. A small Collier County utility building has been constructed on a filled pad near the southern property boundary on the west side of the FPL easement. 1.2 Site Conditions The subject parcel at 8928 Collier Boulevard is currently undeveloped and heavily infested by nuisance and exotic vegetation due to alterations of the historic hydroperiod coupled with a large wildfire several years ago. There are numerous mature slash pine, cabbage palms and cypress throughout the property. Several dense palmetto clumps are also present in higher elevations. However, the majority of the site can be described as historic wetlands that have been negatively affected by the close proximity of the main Golden Gate Canal and its drawdown effects to the surficial aquifer on site. The entire property is heavily invaded by melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenerva) and to a lesser extent Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia) as a result of the previous disturbances. The existing habitat on-site is of poor wildlife value due to the lack of herbaceous groundcover and the abundant undesirable species. The adjacent property to the north and east has been cleared and is currently being developed. CR 951 and the Golden Gate Canal lie to the west and a small conservation area associated with the previous development to the south lies immediately adjacent to the property on the southern boundary. 2 Vegetative Communities & FLUCCS Codes 2.1 Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification The existing habitat and land use categories for the property were verified on-site during the field inspection. The vegetation assemblages were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). The attached FLUCCS map (Figure 2. FLUCCS Mapdepicts the location of cover and vegetation within the property (Table 1). Most of the property is vegetated by Page 724 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 2 undesirable species within historic flatwoods and forested wetland habitats. The existing land use categories are listed below. 2.2 FLUCCS Codes FLUCCS Code 416 – H - E3: Pine Flatwoods, Graminoid groundcover, Hydric, Exotics 50-74%: The pine flatwoods habitats on site contain a mixture of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cypress (Taxodium distichum), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in the canopy. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), downy rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), briars (Smilax sp.), and grape vines (Vitis sp.) make up the shrub and vines midstory. Ground cover include beggartick (Bidens alba), sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), and carpetgrass (Axonopus sp.). This area gets inundated infrequently during the summer rainy season as indicated by algal mats, hydric rooting on the vegetation, and the absence of upland groundcover species. FLUCCS Code 740 E1: Disturbed Land, Exotics 0-24%: This map unit describes the eastern most portion of the property that lies east of the FPL easement and includes a small parcel along the southern property boundary and adjacent to the FPL easement where a small Collier County Utility facility has been constructed on an elevated fill pad. This area had previously been cleared and is sparsely revegetated with ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Brazilian pepper, broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and other invasive colonizing grasses and forbs. There is a considerable amount of bare sand present due to high caprock throughout this area. There was no evidence of hydrologic indicators throughout this general area (no signs of standing water, algal mats, adventitious rooting, etc.). Table 1. FLUCCS Codes Within Project Area FLUCCS Code Description Acreage 416 – H – E3 Pine Flatwoods, Graminoid Groundcover, Hydric, Exotics 50-74% 7.75 740 – E1 Disturbed Land, Exotics 0-24% 1.75 Total Acreage 9.50 Page 725 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 3 3 Soils The property contains two (2) soil unit types. Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (7.97 acres), which is a hydric soil type and has 0 to 2 percent slopes. Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum, Urban Complex (1.53 acres) which is an upland soil type and also has 0 to 2 percent slopes. Please see (Figure 3) for the soils map of the property. The hydric soil type throughout much of the site further verifies a significant portion of the property is jurisdictional wetland habitat. This hydric soil type is typically present when soils are saturated or slightly inundated during the summer rainy season. Caprock is usually within 12-15 inches of the surface, which results in poor drainage and contributes to standing water being present for lengthy periods. The urban complex soils are indicative of previously being cleared and filled or altered and no longer functioning as a wetland soil. This soil type is present where the county utility building and FPL transmission corridor have been developed on the eastern edge and southeastern corner of the property. 4 Listed Species 4.1 Protected Species A protected species survey was conducted by Stantec Senior Environmental Scientist Craig Schmittler, CSE, PWS, on December 28, 2023. Parallel meandering pedestrian transects were utilized to assure 100% coverage of the project area in accordance with the methodologies outlined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (Figure 4). The purpose of the survey was to inspect the property for the potential presence of listed species, regulated by FWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), potentially inhabiting the project site. Any listed species (flora or fauna) present would require permitting or at a minimum best management practice (BMP) implementation during construction to assure no impacts were incurred by those listed species. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a desktop review was conducted of public databases containing species occurrence records in and around the project area. The primary species of interest were the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), and the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). The immediately adjoining properties to the north and south have recently been cleared and are currently being developed. Page 726 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 4 The high caprock coupled with the high water table in the summer rainy season renders much of this property unsuitable for gopher tortoise burrows/habitat. There were no burrows, scat, or other signs of tortoise presence observed during this 100% survey of the property. There is the potential for indigo snakes due to favorable habitat occurring on site despite the absence of tortoises. BMPs for the protection of eastern indigo snakes will be implemented during construction to provide protection for this species, if present. No cavities or openings in the trees were observed that could potentially be used as roost/den sites for the Florida bonneted bat. In addition, the dense growth of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper further reduces the potential for use of this site by the bonneted bats. A single squirrel day bed/nest was observed on-site toward the western side of the property in a mature cypress tree. The potential for Big Cypress fox squirrels is only moderate due to the lack of suitable habitat on the properties abutting the north and east property boundaries (both sites have been recently cleared). However, natural habitat is present to the south and on-site, but is severely impacted by exotic species reducing the habitat values for this species. To summarize the possible listed species use of the property, the eastern indigo snake and Big Cypress fox squirrel are the only two (2) listed species that can be potentially present on site. Poor quality habitat or no habitat present reduces the potential for gopher tortoises, Florida bonneted bats, and burrowing owls to be present on the property. No signs of these species were observed so it is unlikely these species are present. BMP’s for the eastern indigo snake will be implemented during all clearing and construction activities to assure the safety of this species, if present. 5 Jurisdictional Wetlands A majority of the subject property can be considered jurisdictional wetland habitat pursuant to the definition under 62.340 F.A.C. The presence of algal matting, adventitious rooting, stain lines, and hydric vegetation throughout the site are indicative of hydric conditions present during the summer rainy season. The soils present also had stripping and organic bodies, which are commonly found in seasonally ponded wetlands. The historic conditions on site may be permanently altered and negatively affected as a result of the recent clearing and development of the property to the north and east of this site. Development of the property will require Environmental Resource Permitting through the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection and depending upon the Waters of the Unitted States determination for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), may also require 404 permitting through the USACOE. The filled/disturbed portions of the site existing under the FPL easement and the county utility building may require permit modifications to develop. Mitigation for development related wetland impacts would be required at a local mitigation bank. Corkscrew Mitigation Bank and Panther Island are the only 2 banks available with credits available at this time. Wetland mitigation credits at those two banks are currently selling for $190,000 per credit. Page 727 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 8 Figure 1. Location Map Page 728 of 1321 FLORIDASPORTSPARKRDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCLocation M ap - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig1_location_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-01 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/01/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: Collie r Co unty Property Appraiser3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 729 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 11 Figure 2. FLUCCS Map Page 730 of 1321 FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RDCOLLIER BLVD740 E1 - Dis turbedLand – Exotics0-24% - 1.75ac 416 H E4 - PineFlatwoods, GraminoidGroundcoverHydric – Exotics50-74% - 7.75a c Stantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCFLUCCS Map - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig2_fluccs_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-02 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary FLUCCS Boundary Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/02/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: Collie r Co unty Property Appraiser, Stantec3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 731 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 14 Figure 3. Soils Map Page 732 of 1321 128 - Pineda FineSand, Lim es toneSubstratum-Urban LandComplex, 0 To 2 PercentSlopes - 0.05ac 128 - Pineda FineSand, LimestoneSubstratum-Urba n LandComplex, 0 To 2Percent Slopes - 1.48a c 14 - Pineda Fine Sa nd,Limestone Substra tum,0 To 2 PercentSlopes - 7.75ac 14 - Pineda Fine Sand,Limestone Substratum,0 To 2 PercentSlopes - 0.22ac FLORIDASPORTSPARKRDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCNRCS Soils Map - C ollier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig4_soils_map_20240209.mxd Revised: 2024-05-02 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary NRCS Soils Boundary Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/02/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: NRCS, C ollier Coun ty Property Appra iser, Sta ntec3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 733 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 16 Figure 4. Listed Species Transect Map Page 734 of 1321 kj FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCListed Specie s M ap - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig3_listed_species_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-01 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary kj Squirrel Nest – Unkno wnSpecies Gopher Torto ise Transect Florida P anther Focus Ar ea Florida Bonneted BatConsultation Area Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/01/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: Collie r Co unty Property Appraiser, Stantec, F WC, US FW S3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 735 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study Naples, FL Bonita Flores 1 December 2023 Page 736 of 1321 Key Findings 4 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview 9 Multifamily Market Supply 33 Multifamily Market Demand 40 Multifamily Market Trends 46 Economic & Demographic Overview 54 Appendix 62 Page 737 of 1321 3 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Background/Objectives, Key Contacts & Limiting Conditions BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES Bonita Flores 1 (“Client”) is considering the development of an affordable housing community on a +/- 9.49-acre property located at 8928 Collier Boulevard in Naples, Florida (“Subject”) and is seeking a density of ten units per acre, resulting in 92 rental units, 30% of which will be allocated toward residents earning 120% of AMI. Approximately nine units (10% of apartments) will be reserved for households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County; additionally, nine units will be reserved for households earning up to 100% of AMI and ten units will be reserved for households earning up to 120% AMI. To move forward with the project, Collier County will require a rezoning application and GMPA amendment. The Client seeks an economic assessment of the current supply and demand metrics in the market to provide support for the rezoning application. Our role at Zonda is to provide you with data, analysis, and conclusions for this effort. Client is responsible for representations about the development plans, marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the difference may be material. We have no responsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. Payment of any and all of our fees and expenses is not in any way contingent upon any factor other than our providing services related to this report. LIMITING CONDITIONS The following key team members participated on this analysis: Tim Sullivan, Senior Managing Principal, oversees our Advisory practice. With over 40 years of experience, Mr. Sullivan is an expert in residential and mixed-use feasibility studies, strategic planning and product development, and regularly conducts market analyses around the United States and internationally. Susan Heffron, AICP, Vice President, managed the assignment. Ms. Heffron has over 20 years of real estate experience in the public and private sectors. She has worked in market research and analysis, entitlements, land use, and community planning, and process and program management for a wide variety of projects throughout the country, including serving as the Community Development and Code Enforcement Manager for the City of Concord, North Carolina, responsible for the coordination of the City’s affordable housing programs. Additional support was provided as needed. KEY CONTACTS Page 738 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 4 Key Findings Page 739 of 1321 5 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Area Median Income (AMI) Affordable Housing Ranges and Rent Limits Key Findings Based on HUD’s median family income of $104,300, the 2024 Income Limits by Persons in Family are shown below. The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market-rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. The 30% will address households making up to 120% of the County Area Median Income (“AMI”); this results in approximately 28 units with income restrictions. Additional details on the proposed unit mix is on the following page. Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Based on AMI categories, the 2024 Rent Limits by Persons by Bedroom range from $548 to $3,630. Based on targeting households that make 120% of the County AMI, potential rents limits for these 28 units can range between $2,193 and $3,630. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,566 to $2,817 threshold. AMI Category 0 Bedroom Limit ($)1 Bedroom Limit ($)2 Bedroom Limit ($)3 Bedroom Limit ($)4 Bedroom Limit ($) 30%$548 $587 $704 $813 $907 50%$913 $978 $1,173 $1,356 $1,512 60%$1,096 $1,174 $1,408 $1,627 $1,815 80%$1,462 $1,566 $1,878 $2,170 $2,420 120%$2,193 $2,349 $2,817 $3,255 $3,630 Florida Housing Rent Limits, 2024 AMI Category 1 Person Limit ($)2 Person Limit ($)3 Person Limit ($)4 Person Limit ($) 30%$21,930 $25,050 $28,170 $31,290 50%$36,550 $41,750 $46,950 $52,150 60%$43,860 $50,100 $56,340 $62,580 80%$58,480 $66,800 $75,120 $83,440 120%$87,720 $100,200 $112,680 $125,160 140%$102,340 $116,900 $131,460 $146,020 Collier County Housing Income Limits, 2024 Page 740 of 1321 6 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market -rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. Approximately nine units (10% of apartments) will be reserved for households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County; additionally, nine units will be reserved for households earning up to 100% of AMI and ten units will be reserved for households earning up to 120% AMI. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the rent restricted units (14 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel (ESP). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 14 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. This commitment for ESP and military veterans shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. Source: Client Subject Unit Mix Key Findings Unit Type Quantity Market Rate Unit Mix Beds Baths 1 Bed 10 16%1 1 2 Bed 54 84%2 1 Unit Type Quantity Affordable Unit Mix Beds Baths 1 Bed 16 57%1 1 2 Bed 12 43%2 1 Subject Unit Mix Market Rate Units - 64 Apartments Affordable Units - 28 Apartments Affordable Housing Represents 30% of Total Project Units Page 741 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 7 Zonda’s research and analysis of the Subject’s Primary Market Area (PMA) as shown on the map on page 10 of this study indicate sufficient market demand for the development of 92 multifamily units at the Subject property as proposed. This is based on several factors, including: Zonda’s proprietary rental demand model for the PMA indicates increasing market demand over the next five years, averaging 921 NEW TO MARKET traditional rental units annually; this demand is in addition to the rental units that are currently built and available for rent within the marketplace. Although there are 1,260 units under construction today, it is improbable that there will be sufficient new construction to meet future needs based on these units being completed. Only 822 units are contemplated for future demand within the SRAs. (Pages 40-44) More specifically, there is an annual demand within the PMA of 908 units in 2024. Per RealPage data, there are approximately NO units on track for delivery in 2024, indicating a gap of 908 new units necessary to meet new rental demand today. In 2025, NEW rental demand is 920 units, yet currently there are only 866 on track for delivery, a gap of 54 NEW units. Combined, this represents a need for more than 962 NEW TO MARKET rental units over the next two years. (Pages 40-44) In 2026, when the Subject is expected to deliver units, new demand is forecasted to be 932 units within the PMA; however, there is only one project currently in construction that could potentially deliver units to the market. These projects represent 394 apartments, or only 42% of future demand in the Subject’s year of delivery. Projects, such as the Subject, will help to fulfill these unmet needs in the marketplace. (Pages 40-44) While there are three communities that were built over the past four years within the PMA, the average age across all properties is more than 14 years. These older communities lack updated interior features and finishes community amenities as well that are found in newer rental properties. The Subject will offer renters new construction with these modern finishes and community amenities, at an affordable price, in a convenient location; this supports the development of the Subject as proposed. (Pages 33-39) As proposed, rent for one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. Most future rental demand in the PMA is for units priced between $1,700 to $2,575; however, through 2027, rental demand is forecasted to slightly increase for units that command between $1,200 and $1,700 as well as $2,250 to $3,425 in monthly rent. During this same time, demand for the lowest priced apartments are forecasted to decline slightly. As proposed, the Subject will fall within the price bands where demand is currently healthy and forecasted to grow over the next several years. (Pages 40-44) Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 742 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 8 Additional key factors supporting the development of the community include: Even as apartments within the South Collier County Submarket are older, the area as a whole reported year over year annualized rent growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. For product built since 2000, monthly rent in South Collier averages $2,318 per month, a rent premium of about 3.7% over the average rent of $2,195 across the market. This premium highlights the strength and desirability of the South Collier submarket for multifamily development. (Pages 46-53) Within the PMA and SMA, household and population are expected in increase over the next five years. These increase are forecasted to result in significantly higher per capita income within the PMA, with declining numbers of households identified as “low income.” Over the same time period, median contracted rents within the Subject’s block group are expected to increase 12% to $1,962. (Pages 11 – 15) Even as apartments within the South Collier County Submarket are older, the area as a whole reported year over year annualized rent growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. For product built since 2000, monthly rent in South Collier averages $2,318 per month, a rent premium of about 3.7% over the average rent of $2,195 across the market. This premium highlights the strength and desirability of the South Collier submarket for multifamily development. (Page 51) The use of concessions in South Collier County Submarket have increased over the past four quarters from a record low of no concessions in the Submarket during the fourth quarter of 2022. Concessions now represent 5.8% of base rent, with approximately 12.9% of units offering concessions. Average concessions previously peaked at 8.4% of the base rent in the third quarter 2020 while percent of units offering concessions previously peaked at 65.2% in the second quarter of the same year. (Page 53) Employment is heavily concentrated in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors; combined these sectors account for nearly 53% of all employment in the area. There are more than 5,100 individuals that commute from the larger region into the PMA for work indicating an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute that increases quality of life which subsequently reduces the impacts of traffic on the greater Naples area. (Page 29) The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, between Tamiami Trail and I-75. These transportation corridors, and nearby transit stops, allow for easy access to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. While a Publix is located with a mile of the site, abundant retailers, including several other grocery stores and pharmacies, numerous local retail establishments, and medical facilities and doctors' offices are located within five miles. Additionally, the Subject’s assigned elementary school is less than two miles south of the Subject, just off Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock; this will be convenient for parents of young children that commute. (Page 32) Within the PMA, much of the land surrounding the site is currently zoned as planned unit development, with six parcels to the south of the site also zoned as Agricultural. Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is an existing multi-family development with a MPUD zoning designation. (Page 20) Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 743 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 9 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 744 of 1321 10 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 In assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County (Secondary Market Area or SMA) as well as a three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (Primary Market Area or PMA); these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, RealPage Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview SubjectSubject Subject Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 745 of 1321 11 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Within the PMA and SMA, household and population are expected in increase over the next five years. These increase are forecasted to result in significantly higher per capita income within the PMA, with declining numbers of households identified as “low income.” Source: ESRI Multifamily Market Area Snapshot 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA Summary 2024 2029 Population 32,853 34,835 Households 16,432 18,054 Median Age 63.6 64.8 Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 Median Household Income $81,284 $92,166 Average Household Income $116,799 $134,847 Per Capita Income $58,769 $70,250 Households in Low Income 2,210 1,763 Households in Middle Income 11,074 12,038 Households in Upper Income 3,148 4,252 Three Mile Radius (PMA) Summary 2024 2029 Population 404,645 427,602 Households 172,735 186,978 Median Age 53.7 54.3 Average Household Size 2.31 2.26 Median Household Income $85,620 $101,783 Average Household Income $135,508 $157,374 Per Capita Income $57,867 $68,836 Households in Low Income Tier 24,572 19,898 Households in Middle Income Tier 104,092 108,787 Households in Upper Income Tier 44,071 58,293 Collier County (SMA) Page 746 of 1321 12 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Population Growth within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Over the next five years, the Subject’s block group is project to have the highest annualized population growth within the PMA. During this time, the block group is forecasted to increase in population by 5.79% annually, significantly higher than the annualized rate of 1.2% within the PMA. Source: ESRI Subject 5.79% Page 747 of 1321 13 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Income Growth within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview By 2029, the median household income within the Subject’s block group is expected to increase 6.2%, to more than $80,400, representing one of the highest income areas outside of the adjoining golf course communities. In 2023, the median household income was $75,722. This is, however, lower than the PMA as whole, where the median household income is projected to by $92,166 by 2029. Source: ESRI Subject $80,408 Page 748 of 1321 14 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Renter Occupied Housing Units within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Through 2029, there is limited renter occupied housing unit growth forecasted within much of the PMA. The Subject’s block group represents one of the largest areas for renter occupied units; these units are expected to increase from 566 housing units to 1,110 over the next five years. Source: ESRI Subject 1,110 Page 749 of 1321 15 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Median Contracted Rent within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Over the next five years, the median contracted rent within the Subject’s block group is forecasted to increase almost 12%. In 2023, the median contracted rent in the area was $1,752 and is expected to increase to $1,962 by 2029. As proposed, one- and two- bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold when delivered in 2026 for the 30% of units designated as affordable housing at the Subject. Source: ESRI Subject $1,962 Page 750 of 1321 16 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict will include a single, 9.49-acre parcel. The site is located on Collier Boulevard, approximately 2.7 miles south of I-75 and less than five miles north of Tamiami Boulevard. The property is currently designated Agriculture per the County’s current zoning regulations and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict per the County’s future land use designation. Source: GoogleEarth Subject Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 751 of 1321 17 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Subject will include 92 one or two bedroom rental apartments. The buildings on the site will be located nearest to Collier Boulevard (“Area R” shaded in purple below) while the rear portion of the site will include a lake area, detention area, and preserve. All parking for renters are surface lots; as proposed there are no garage units included in parking calculations. The community will also include a leasing office, mailroom, clubhouse, and gym. Based on one year to complete the entitlement process and a year for permitting and construction, these apartments are forecasted to begin leasing in 2026. As traditional apartment communities typically lease between 15 and 20 units per month, Zonda forecasts that the community will be stabilized within five months of the start of leasing. Source: Client Subject Site Plan Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 752 of 1321 18 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Surrounding land uses include a mix of residential, commercial, and vacant land as well as industrial land uses to the northeast. Commercial uses in the area include The Florida Sports Park-Reception Pavilion / Swamp Buggy Inc, several golf courses, and a Publix grocery store to the south. Adjoining PUDs and zoning classifications are compatible with the proposed land use at the Subject as they are generally residential in nature. There are multiple healthcare, educational, and governmental facilities with two miles of the Subject while the nearest transit stop is less than a mile south of the property. Source: Google Earth, Collier County, Client Subject Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Commercial Residential Public Works (Law Enforcement) Commercial Vacant Land Golf Course Healthcare Multi-family Residential Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Public Works (Education) Public Works (Education/Library)Public Works (Education) Childcare Page 753 of 1321 19 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Zoning Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Zonda completed a visual audit of Collier County Zoning maps and GIS data to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. Much of Collier County is zoned open space or agricultural in the lesser developed regions of the County, with planned unit development zoning in the heavily populated areas between the coast and Interstate 75. Residential zoning classifications, including ones that could support uses such as those proposed at the Subject, are scattered through much of the western portion of the County, along Tamiami Trail, and west of I-75, as shown on the map to the right. Source: Collier County’ https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88286/636989656568300000Page 754 of 1321 20 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Surrounding Zoning Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Zonda also completed a visual audit of Collier County Zoning within three miles of the Subject to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. In the immediate vicinity of the Subject, much of the land surrounding the site is currently zoned as planned unit development, with six parcels to the south of the site also zoned as Agricultural. Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is an existing multi-family development with a MPUD zoning designation. Source: Collier County; https://colliercountygmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7112ae8012934a5ebbecf2b80e06bb93Page 755 of 1321 21 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Per the Collier County Approved PUD List, dated January 2024, there are 203 active PUD developments in the County as well 177 PUDs that are classified as “Built Out.” Combined, these PUDs account for more than 42,763 total multifamily units. However, within these PUDs there are more than 56,800 multifamily units developed. Even with more units developed than contemplated within the PUDs, there remains a need for an average of 920 NEW multi-family units within the PMA for the Subject, based upon Zonda’s rental demand model. Source: Collier County Collier County Planned Unit Developments, Commercial and Industrial Zoning 58 Acre PUDZ & GMPA Overview PUD Status Total Multifamily Units Developed Multifamily Units Active 20,876 27,318 Built Out 21,887 29,560 Grand Total 42,763 56,878 Page 756 of 1321 22 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, there are approximately 12,996 multi-family dwelling units allowed; of these 478 have been developed. Specific to “Affordable Housing,” there are 882 affordable units allowed, but to date, none have been developed. For additional details on these areas, please see appendix. Source: Collier County Collier County SRA Overlays 58 Acre PUDZ & GMPA Overview SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix)Affordable Housing Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 2,150 11,000 Ave Maria, Town of Developed 478 4,141 Bellmar Village Allowed 2,200 2,750 Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 3,546 4,432 882 Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 10%Min 2,427 Min 882 Brightshore Village Allowed 1,600 2,000 Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Collier Rod & Gun Allowed -225 Collier Rod & Gun Developed Collier Rod & Gun Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 1,000 1,800 Hyde Park Village Developed 75 Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 300, Max Total Combined Rivergrass Village Allowed 2,500 2,500 Rivergrass Village Developed - Rivergrass Village Min/Max Min 250 Max Total Combined Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 757 of 1321 23 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The future land use designations on the west side of Collier Boulevard are focused on urban based residential and mixed-use development; these extends approximately one mile on the east side of Collier Boulevard. Other land use designations in the area are primarily rural agricultural that include sending and receiving lands. Surrounding Land Uses Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County; https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/91411/637557210850130000 Urban Residential Subdistrict Receiving Lands Sending Lands Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Page 758 of 1321 24 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Parcel Inventory Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County Tax Assessor Database Comparably sized parcels in Collier County were analyzed to determine if there was an opportunity to accommodate the proposed uses at the Subject that would not require a rezoning or growth plan amendment. Based on Collier County’s Assessor Data, accessed on November 28, 2023, there are currently 12 parcels within the County meet the following requirements to accommodate the proposed project: •The parcel must be sized between 7.5 and 12.5 acres •The parcel must be vacant but developable (i.e., not internal roadways, common open space, roadways, etc.) •The parcel must currently have a compatible land use code per the assessor’s records •The parcel must have nearby access to significant transportation corridors and public transportation •The parcel must be located in close proximity to everyday conveniences such as dining, retail establishments, and daily services •The surrounding parcels should not be exclusively single family detached homes (i.e. there should be a mix of property types in the area A detailed list of these parcels is on the following page. Page 759 of 1321 25 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Parcel Inventory Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County Tax Assessor Database Parcel ID Owner Base Zoning Future Land Use Address Land Use Code Total Acres 37067680009 Jeffrey Lee Smith Jr Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 830 9th Street NW 0 9.45 41770040003 Hendrix House Inc Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 42nd Avenue, West of Everglades Boulevard 0 9.8 32632360005 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 32632560009 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 00397240007 Gussler Investments LP Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Benfield Road, South of Beck Boulevard 0 10 00741760007 Bohde, John A Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Fiddlers Creek Parkway at Veneta Way 0 10 38056320007 Alan J Vincent Rev. Trust Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 25th Aveunue SW 0 8.16 38056040002 Elizabeth Barclay Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 31st Avenue SW 0 8.01 64700625501 Roberto Bollt MPUD Rural Settlement Area District 13986 Immokalee Road 0 12.23 41829400002 Vanderbilt Living LLC RPUD UR/Vanderbilt Beach Road Residential Subdistrict Cherry Wood Drive 0 7.91 52658000280 Jubliation Holdings PUD Urban Residential Subdistrict Carson Road at Curry Road 0 11.44 48900000120 Missark Naples 3 PUD Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 1040 Borghese Lane 0 8.66 Page 760 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 26 Source: ESRI Traffic Count Map Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, a major north-south transportation corridor between Immokalee Road in northern Collier County and Tamiami Trail in southern Collier County; the site is almost halfway between Interstate 75 and Tamiami Trail . Collier Boulevard, north of Tamiami Trail, averages more than 36,000 cars a day south of the Subject, increasing to 56,000 near the Interstate. From the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, average daily traffic counts increase from 29,000 vehicles per day to more than 45,000 at the edge of a five-mile radius. These traffic counts, coupled with the previously noted commuting patterns of residents in the area, further indicate an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute to employment centers. Subject Page 761 of 1321 27 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Employment by Census Tract and Drive-Time Map Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview The Subject is located is within 45 minutes of many of Southwest Florida’s top employment destinations. Much of developed Collier County is within 45 minutes of the Subject, while areas such as Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, and Estero, in Lee County, are also within 45 minutes. Numerous healthcare employers including Lee Health Coconut Point, as well as most facilities in the NCH Healthcare System and Arthrex, are conveniently located within a reasonably commute of the Site. Both Florida Gulf Coast University and Southwest Florida International Airport are 45 minutes from the Subject. This location bodes well for the success of the project. Source: ESRI; Zonda, FGCU Regional Economic Research Institute Rank Company Employees 1 Lee Health 14,028 2 Lee County School District 11,003 3 Publix Super Market 9,768 4 Lee County Local Government 9,142 5 NCH Healthcare System 8,159 6 Walmart 7,286 7 Collier County School District 5,756 8 Collier County Local Government 5,173 9 Arthrex 4,087 10 Marriott International, Inc.3,620 11 Bayfront Health 2,801 12 Charlotte County Local Government 2,614 13 McDonald's 2,613 14 Home Depot 2,497 15 Charlotte County School District 2,152 16 Winn-Dixie 1,899 17 Hope Hospice 1,838 18 Chico's Fas Inc.1,552 19 Florida Gulf Coast University 1,519 20 Bloomin' Brands, Inc.1,395 Top Southwest Florida Employers 30 Minutes 15 Minutes 45 Minutes Fort Myers Marco Island Big Cypress National Preserve Naples Estero Bonita Springs Florida Panther National Wildlife Picayune Strand State Forest Cape Coral 15 Minute Drive Time 30 Minute Drive Time 45 Minute Drive Time Page 762 of 1321 28 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Employment within the PMA Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Within the Subject’s block group, there are approximately 1,370 total employees. Higher concentrations of employment are located to the north of the Subject, along the northern side of I-75 and to the south of the Subject in the Lely Resort/The Classics Country Club at Lely Resort area. Immediately west of the Subject, on the opposite side of Collier Boulevard are two additional block groups with significant employment, driven in part by the Cedar Hammocks Golf and Country Club (approximately 150 employees), Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club (60 employees), Naples National Golf Club (28 employees), and the Naples Lakes Country Club (13 employees). Source: ESRI; Zonda, Data AxlePage 763 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 29 Employment Concentration and Commute Patterns Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview In 2021, most residents (64.2%) within the PMA commuted less than 25 miles, predominately to the northwest to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. The color-concentrated areas on the map to the right indicate the highest proportion of commuter destinations for residents. Employment is heavily concentrated in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors ; combined these sectors account for nearly 53% of all employment in the area. There are more than 5,100 individuals that commute into the area for work from within the region including Bonita Springs, Immokalee, Estero, and Fort Myers; this commuting pattern indicates an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute that increases quality of life which subsequently reduces the impacts of traffic on the greater Naples area. These in-bound commuters are generally employed in similar sectors those in the PMA; other key sectors include Manufacturing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Administration & Support services. Source: Census Bureau Subject Page 764 of 1321 30 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Wage and Rent Comparison by Industry Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Residents who live within the PMA are employed primarily in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors while in-bound commuters (those who live in a different area but work within the PMA) are also employed in Manufacturing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Administration & Support services. The Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse reported that the 2022 average hourly wage for these segments range from $18 to $35, resulting in average annual wages that range from $37,633 to $72,688. A detailed list of occupations within these industries are provided on the next page. Based on AMI categories, the 2024 Rent Limits by Persons by Bedroom range from $548 to $3,630. Based on targeting households that make 120% of the County AMI, potential rents limits for these 28 units can range between $2,100 and $3,600. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,566 to $2,817 threshold. Source: Census Bureau , Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Industry 2022 Average Hourly Wage (2023 $) 2022 Average Annual Wage (2023 $) Maximum Affordable Rent (30% of Income) HUD 2BR Fair Market Rent % Income Needed for 2 BR FMR # of Workers in 2022 2023 3- Person Median Income Annual Wage as Percent of 3-Person AMI Accommodation And Food Services $18 $37,633 $941 $1,795 57%21,434 $89,900 42% Administrative And Waste Services $26 $54,145 $1,354 $1,795 40%10,978 $89,900 60% Arts, Entertainment, And Recreation $25 $52,221 $1,306 $1,795 41%8,256 $89,900 58% Construction $31 $64,609 $1,615 $1,795 33%19,092 $89,900 72% Health Care And Social Assistance $34 $70,912 $1,773 $1,795 30%22,274 $89,900 79% Manufacturing $35 $72,688 $1,817 $1,795 30%5,158 $89,900 81% Retail Trade $24 $49,642 $1,241 $1,795 43%22,015 $89,900 55% Page 765 of 1321 31 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Wage and Rent Comparison by Occupation Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Census Bureau , Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Occupation 2022 Median Hourly Wage (2023 $) Maximum Affordable Rent (30% of Income) HUD 2BR Fair Market Rent % Income Needed for 2 BR FMR # of Workers in 2022 Annual Wage as a % AMI for a Family of 3 All Occupations $20.30 $1,056 $1,795 51%157,390 47% Bartenders $14.81 $770 $1,795 70%1,010 34% Carpenters $23.78 $1,236 $1,795 44%1,720 55% Cashiers $14.43 $750 $1,795 72%3,930 33% Child, Family, and School Social Workers $22.27 $1,158 $1,795 47%160 52% Childcare Workers $14.96 $778 $1,795 69%440 35% Construction Laborers $19.04 $990 $1,795 54%1,530 44% Cooks, Restaurant $18.10 $941 $1,795 57%3,090 42% Dental Assistants $25.18 $1,310 $1,795 41%420 58% Dishwashers $14.92 $776 $1,795 69%1,060 35% Electricians $25.29 $1,315 $1,795 41%830 59% Fast Food and Counter Workers $14.09 $733 $1,795 74%3,430 33% Food Preparation Workers $16.12 $838 $1,795 64%1,500 37% Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers $24.77 $1,288 $1,795 42%760 57% Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $22.58 $1,174 $1,795 46%1,170 52% Home Health and Personal Care Aides $15.31 $796 $1,795 68%1,420 35% Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $15.25 $793 $1,795 68%390 35% Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses $27.30 $1,420 $1,795 38%620 63% Light Truck Drivers $19.64 $1,021 $1,795 53%850 45% Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $15.29 $795 $1,795 68%1,470 35% Medical Assistants $19.93 $1,036 $1,795 52%1,020 46% Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers $24.66 $1,282 $1,795 42%90 57% Nursing Assistants $17.70 $920 $1,795 59%1,600 41% Office Clerks, General $19.63 $1,021 $1,795 53%3,520 45% Painters, Construction and Maintenance $19.56 $1,017 $1,795 53%1,150 45% Paramedics $41.51 $2,158 $1,795 25%150 96% Pharmacy Technicians $19.19 $998 $1,795 54%550 44% Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $25.11 $1,306 $1,795 41%610 58% Receptionists and Information Clerks $17.82 $927 $1,795 58%1,450 41% Registered Nurses $40.60 $2,111 $1,795 26%2,700 94% Retail Salespersons $15.37 $799 $1,795 67%5,820 36% Roofers $23.67 $1,231 $1,795 44%570 55% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $20.34 $1,058 $1,795 51%1,580 47% Waiters and Waitresses $15.15 $788 $1,795 68%5,540 35%Page 766 of 1321 32 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Regional Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Google Maps Lely ES The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, between Tamiami Trail and I-75. These transportation corridors, and nearby transit stops, allow for easy access to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. While a Publix is located with a mile of the site, abundant retailers, including several other grocery stores and pharmacies, numerous local retail establishments, and medical facilities and doctors' offices are located within five miles. Additionally, the Subject’s assigned elementary school is less than two miles south of the Subject, just off Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock; this will be convenient for parents of young children that commute. Lely HS Page 767 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 33 Multifamily Market Supply Page 768 of 1321 34 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 As previously noted, in assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the area within three miles of the Subject (PMA); these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, MPF Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Supply Subject Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 769 of 1321 35 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Existing Rental Communities Multifamily Market Supply There are 11 conventional rental communities within three miles of the Subject that are either stabilized (a property that has achieved a level of occupancy that is considered sustainable over time) or are in lease-up (typically less than 96% occupied after completion of construction). Combined, these projects account for nearly 3,100 apartments units, with 242 of the units in lease up or under renovation. Properties range from Class A to Class D and include traditional garden style or wrap apartments. There are no purpose-built communities identified in the Submarket. Across all classes of apartments, the average occupancy is 94.41% though December 2023 (the most recent survey date). Effective rents range from $1,277 to $2,519 and averages $2,140 or $1.98 per square foot for an average 1,079 square foot unit. Advenir at Aventine and Milano Lakes are the two closest apartment communities to the Subject; both are market rate complexes. Milano Lakes, located adjacent to the Site, was built in 2018 and is 94% occupied. There are 296 units in the complex, with an average unit size of 1,190 square feet, and a net effective rent of $2,315. Advenir at Aventine, built in 2001, is located to the north of the Subject. The community has 350 units that are comparable to Milano Lakes (1,114 square feet) but with an average effective rent of $2,334. The complex is occupied at 92%. A detailed list of these projects is on the following page with a breakdown of future projects on subsequent pages. Source: MPF Subject Page 770 of 1321 36 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Existing Rental Communities - Continued Multifamily Market Supply Residents who live within three miles of the Subject are employed primarily in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors. Based upon a rent to income ratio of 30% and the average hourly wage for these industries (ranging from $18 to $34 an hour), maximum allowable rents range from $941 to $1,774 per month. Within three miles of the Subject (PMA), there is only one community that has an average effective rent within this range. This lower rents are primarily a function of the age of the communities (22 years old on average). While there are three communities that were built over the past four years, the average age across all properties is more than 14 years. These older communities lack updated interior features and finishes community amenities as well that are found in newer rental properties. The Subject will offer renters new construction with these modern finishes and community amenities, at an affordable price, in a convenient location; this supports the development of the Subject as proposed. Source: MPF Name Effective Rent Effective Rent/SF Occupancy Total Units Year Built Address Stories Property Status Property Style Legacy Naples $2,519 $2.15 94%304 2020 7557 Campania Way 4 Stabilized Garden Advenir at Aventine $2,334 $2.09 92%350 2001 9300 Marino Cir 3 Stabilized Garden Milano Lakes $2,315 $1.95 94%296 2018 3713 Milano Lakes Cir 4 Stabilized Garden Edge 75 $2,308 $2.27 92%320 2021 120 Bedzel Cir 4 Stabilized Garden Inspira $2,304 $2.18 91%304 2018 7425 Inspira Circle 4 Stabilized Garden Sierra Grande $2,196 $1.93 91%300 2014 6975 Sierra Club Cir 4 Stabilized Wrap Shadowwood $2,167 $1.79 100%96 1989 6475 Seawolf Ct 2 Stabilized Garden Briar Landings at the Enclave $1,950 $2.08 98%240 1991 1385 Wildwood Lakes Blvd 2 Stabilized Garden Aster At Lely Resort $1,886 $1.82 92%308 2014 8120 Acacia Street 3 Stabilized Garden Tuscan Isle $1,277 $1.43 100%298 2002 8650 Weir Dr 3 Stabilized Garden Altis Santa Barbara $2,282 $2.08 7%242 2024 4710 Altis Dr 5 Lease-Up Garden $2,140 $1.98 94.41%3,058 2010 Avg. Effective Rent Avg. Affective Rent per Square Foot Average Occupancy Across Stabilized Communities Total Units Within Three Miles Avg. Year Built Page 771 of 1321 37 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Future Rental Communities - Planned and Under Construction Multifamily Market Supply Within the PMA, there are five rental projects under construction and not yet leasing. Communities are located along the same corridors as much of the existing apartment stock in the area. These future communities total 1,260 units, with projects that range in size from 82 to 394 units. Future projects in the submarket are primarily garden style, but also include a community that includes traditional garden apartments as well as townhome units built for rent. As highlighted later in this report, the average annual demand for new apartments in the area is more than 900 units over the next five years; this current pipeline is not sufficient to meet future demand, supporting the development of the Site as proposed. There are two projects under construction south of the Subject on Collier Boulevard. Hammock Park, located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard, topped out its second building in late November 2023, but once complete, will have 265 rental units. Fiori, located adjacent to Hammock Park to the north, will have 127 units once complete. While the community has an active website that is building a VIP list, leasing is not forecasted to begin until mid to late 2024. A detailed list of these projects in on the following page. Source: MPF Subject Page 772 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 38 Future Rental Communities - Planned and Under Construction – Continued Multifamily Market Supply Source: MPF Name Total Units Year Built Address Stories Property Status Property Style EKOS on Santa Barbara 82 2025 4640 Santa Barbara Blvd 4 Under Construction Garden Azalea Park 394 2026 Collier Blvd & Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 4 Under Construction Garden,Townhome Marlowe Naples 216 2025 6050 Whitaker Rd 3 Under Construction Garden Fiori 303 2025 8552 Collier Blvd 4 Under Construction Garden Hammock Park 265 2025 Collier Blvd & Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 4 Under Construction Garden 1,260 Total Future Units Within Three Page 773 of 1321 39 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Short Term Housing Supply Multifamily Market Supply There are more than 2,600 short term and Airbnb type rentals in Collier County that range from a mix of Studio units to larger six plus bedroom homes. Combined, these homes account for over $313 million in average annual revenue. Source: Rabbu, Collier County Rental Type Number of Rentals Market Share Average Annual Revenue Total Average Annual Revenue Studio 47 1.78%$53,998 $2,537,906 1 Bedroom 468 17.73%$62,533 $29,265,444 2 Bedrooms 770 29.18%$88,412 $68,077,240 3 Bedrooms 944 35.77%$129,665 $122,403,760 4 Bedrooms 333 12.62%$196,387 $65,396,871 5 Bedrooms 57 2.16%$310,424 $17,694,168 6+ Bedrooms 20 0.76%$384,225 $7,684,500 Total Rentals 2,639 $313,059,889 Rental Scenario Registration Required More than 3 times per calendar year for periods less than 30 days or 1 calendar month Yes 30 days or 1 calendar month, or more No 3 months to the same renter(s) No As of January 2022, Collier County requires that property owners register with the County if they provide short term leasing of any habitable space, including a room, apartment, living quarters, in any residential building, including but not limited to condominiums, single-family or multi-family homes. The intent of this policy is to collect current and accurate information regarding short-term vacation rental properties, encourage the appropriate management of these properties, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents and visitors to Collier County. Details on this policy are below: Page 774 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 40 Multifamily MarketDemand Page 775 of 1321 41 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 As previously noted, in assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the threee mile radius surrounding the Subject; these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, MPF Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Demand Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 776 of 1321 42 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand Zonda’s proprietary rental demand model for the PMA indicates increasing market demand over the next five years, averaging 921 NEW TO MARKET traditional rental units annually; this demand is in addition to the rental units that are currently built and available for rent within the marketplace. Although there are 1,260 units under construction today, it is improbable that there will be sufficient new construction to meet future needs based on the current pipeline. More specifically, there is an annual demand within the Submarket of 901 units in 2024. Per RealPage data, there are approximately NO units on track for delivery in 2024, indicating a gap of 908 new units necessary to meet new rental demand today. In 2025, NEW rental demand is 920 units, yet currently there are only 866 on track for delivery, a gap of 54 NEW units. In 2026, when the Subject is expected to deliver units, new demand is forecasted to be 932 units; however, there is only one project currently in construction that could potentially deliver units to the market. These projects represent 394 apartments, or only 42% of future demand in the Subject’s year of delivery. Projects, such as the Subject, will help to fulfill these unmet needs in the marketplace. In Collier County, approved PUDs have built 56,878 units (of the 42,763 units planned) while an in the SRAs there are 822 units accounted for but not yet built. RENTAL DEMAND MODEL FLOW CHART: Three Mile Radius Demand Drivers Rental Demand Rental Demand by Individual Catagories Estimated Number Total of Households Rental (2027)Filters / Ratios Demand Minus ( - )Total By Price Buy vs. Rent Annual (Adjusted by By Age By Life Stage Current Number Demand Market) of Households (2022)2023 -901 $1,200 to $1,700 Under25 Young Families Buy New vs. Resale 2024 -908 $1,700 to $2,575 25 to34 Growing Families Equals ( = )2025 -920 $2,575 to $3,425 35 to44 Mature Families 2026 -932 $3,425 to $5,125 45 to54 Couples <45 Annual New Household Income 2027 -940 $5,125 to $6,825 55 to64 Singles Household by Avg -921 $6,825 or Greater 65 to74 Empty Nester Grow th Age of Householder Total -4,603 75 &Greater Retirees Implied Home Sources Price from * Economy.com Income Levels * Esri * Zonda Adjusted Housing Expenditures * US Census Zonda Adjustments as a Percentage of Income Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 777 of 1321 43 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 ▬ Five-Year Average Demand by Rent Range ▬Demand ▬ Demand by Age and Income (Absolute Numbers) ▬▬ Demand by LifeStage (Absolute Numbers) ▬ Annual Household Income Range HH by Income % of Total HH Rent Range Affordability* 2023 to 2027 % of Annual Demand Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 & Greater Young Families Growing Families Mature Families Couples <45 Singles Empty Nester Retirees Income $25,000 - $34,999 3,543 7.1%$850 to $1,200 11 1.2%0 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Income $35,000 - $49,999 4,751 9.5%$1,200 to $1,700 128 13.8%5 14 14 12 17 24 42 11 8 8 9 12 14 66 Income $50,000 - $74,999 8,373 16.7%$1,700 to $2,575 426 46.3%14 49 50 51 63 94 105 39 33 31 29 40 54 200 Income $75,000 - $99,999 6,270 12.5%$2,575 to $3,425 205 22.3%4 22 28 27 32 46 46 19 17 16 14 19 27 92 Income $100,000 - $149,999 8,478 16.9%$3,425 to $5,125 137 14.9%2 14 20 21 24 31 25 13 13 13 9 13 21 56 Income $150,000 - $199,999 4,629 9.2%$5,125 to $6,825 11 1.2%0 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Income $200,000 +8,843 17.6%$6,825 or Greater 1 0.2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Average Demand ($25K+)44,887 89.6%$850 +-921 100.0%25 101 114 114 140 201 224 84 73 69 62 86 119 426 Zonda’s demand model forecasts demand for an average of 921 NEW rental units per year within three miles of the Subject (PMA), exclusive of units that are already built. The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market-rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. The 30% will address households making up to 120% of the County Area Median Income (“AMI”); this results in approximately 28 units with income restrictions. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. The largest demand for apartments in the Submarket are forecasted to come from households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 or monthly rents that range between $1,700 and $3,245; combined, these price bands are expected to account for more than 630 units, or 68.5% of NEW demand. Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 778 of 1321 44 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Hypothetical Rental Demand by Price Point $850 to $1,200 $1,200 to $1,700 $1,700 to $2,575 $2,575 to $3,425 $3,425 to $5,125 $5,125 to $6,825 $6,825+ Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand As proposed, rent for one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. Most future rental demand in the PMA is for units priced between $1,700 to $2,575; however, through 2027, rental demand is forecasted to slightly increase for units that command between $1,200 and $1,700 as well as $2,250 to $3,425 in monthly rent. During this same time, demand for the lowest priced apartments are forecasted to decline slightly. As proposed, the Subject will fall within the price bands where demand is currently healthy and forecasted to grow over the next several years. Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPage Page 779 of 1321 45 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand The greatest proportion of the projected rental demand over the next five years with the PMA will come from Empty Nesters and Retirees, followed by Families, which aligns with the demographic trends of the area. Based on Zonda’s research in the market, current renters in the competitive set are likely to be a mixed renter profile including singles, couples without children, and retirees. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Hypothetical Rental Demand by Year and LifeStage Young Families Growing Families Mature Families Couples <45 Singles Empty Nester Retirees Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 780 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 46 Multifamily Market Trends Page 781 of 1321 47 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 In assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject. The analysis of both market areas allow for a comparison of market conditions at a macro level, tying Zonda’s assessment of the property to county- wide economic and demographic data, to micro-level market conditions to determine a comprehensive understanding of the Subject’s position in the overall market. For overreaching market trends, data is not available at the PMA level; as a result, Zonda specifically analyzed the South Collier County Submarket (shown on the map to the left below) in detail to better understand historical market dynamics. Source: ESRI, RealPage Multifamily Market Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Trends Subject Subject Subject Subject South Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA Page 782 of 1321 48 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Absorption / Supply – Naples MSA Multifamily Apartment Trends Apartment demand significantly outpaced supply in the Naples MSA through the beginning of 2022, but supply over the last six quarters significantly outpaced demand. Occupancy was strong in 2021 as well, peaking near 99% before dropping to 93.3% in the third quarter of 2022. Recently, occupancy declined as demand continued to slow. Going forward, RealPage expects occupancy rates to decline again through mid-2024 and bottom at 92% before gaining ground and stabilizing above 95% in early 2025. RealPage expects demand to return to reasonable levels in 2024 despite a decline in 2023. 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySupply / DemandNaples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Supply Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Demand Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Occupancy Supply / Demand - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Supply 776 778 560 385 296 320 562 865 954 915 906 832 874 930 964 837 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Demand 298 557 -40 434 335 397 1,601 1,993 1,987 1,559 610 -168 -1 170 429 200 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Occupancy 94.5%95.3%93.5%93.9%94.7%95.6%97.1%98.3%98.8%98.4%96.7%95.1%96.0%96.0%95.1%93.3% Source: RealPagePage 783 of 1321 49 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Absorption / Supply – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends Within the South Collier County Submarket, trends are similar with supply outpacing demand over the last six quarters. However, like in the larger MSA, occupancy continues to decline, dropping to 93.0% in the third quarter 2022, the lowest occupancy rate since late 2020. Although occupancy has declined, demand has increased over the past six months, up nearly 565 units since historic low in the fourth quarter of 2024. 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySupply / DemandSouth Collier County Supply South Collier County Demand South Collier County Occupancy Supply / Demand - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Supply 548 617 468 362 296 320 454 649 664 544 410 210 100 150 300 287 South Collier County Demand 282 527 168 284 214 349 988 1,342 1,426 974 243 -376 -506 -325 36 59 South Collier County Occupancy 93.7%94.5%92.9%93.3%93.2%94.8%96.5%97.9%98.3%97.6%95.6%94.3%94.5%94.7%94.1%93.0% Source: RealPagePage 784 of 1321 50 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Occupancy – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends Occupancy levels reached over 98% in 2021 and early 2022 in South Collier County but have since declined to 93% during the third quarter 2023. However, even as occupancy has declined, it is only slightly lower than the average for the market; given the overall size of the Submarket, the size of the project, and the affordability component, the area can support more affordable residential supply. Historically, total occupancy in the market has been closely aligned with the occupancy for product built after 2000, as much of the product in the submarket was constructed over the past decade. It is likely that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Occupancy - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County 93.7%94.5%92.9%93.3%93.2%94.8%96.5%97.9%98.3%97.6%95.6%94.3%94.5%94.7%94.1%93.0% 2000+ Product 93.7%94.7%92.9%95.1%94.1%94.3%95.4%97.2%98.3%97.2%94.5%93.1%95.1%94.8%94.0%92.4% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0% 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0% 98.0% 99.0%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySouth Collier County South Collier County (2000+ Product) Source: RealPagePage 785 of 1321 51 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rent Growth – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The South Collier County Submarket experienced 3.2% quarter over quarter rent decline in the third quarter of 2023, after six quarters of no to slow growth. Annualized rents peaked at nearly 47% year over year growth during the first quarter of 2022 and have steeply declined since that time. However, the Submarket did report year over year annualized growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. Rent Change - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Quarterly % Rent Change -0.1%-2.1%-2.7%1.6%2.8%4.5%9.4%14.1%16.5%2.5%-0.1%-0.7%3.3%4.8%-4.5%-3.2% South Collier County Annual % Rent Change -1.9%-2.9%-5.8%-5.0%-3.3%3.8%19.1%29.3%43.9%46.9%35.4%18.3%5.1%7.4%2.5%0.4% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3Rent ChangeSouth Collier County Quarterly % Rent Change South Collier County Annual % Rent Change Source: RealPagePage 786 of 1321 52 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Pipeline – Under Construction – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The number of units under construction in the South Collier County submarket has declined slightly to 1,200 units after peaking with 1,452 units in the fourth quarter 2022. Over the past year, construction in South Collier County has ranged between 59.6% and 61.7% of the larger Naples MSA, with a four-year average of 62.2%. Through the end of the third quarter 2023, the 1,200 units under construction in the submarket representing 57.6% of all units under construction in the MSA. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3South Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FLUnits Under ConstructionSouth Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL South Collier County Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Units Under Construction - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County 416 864 864 784 764 644 810 535 670 1,259 1,259 1,184 1,462 1,412 1,262 1,200 South Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 58.9%74.9%74.9%73.0%52.5%39.3%40.9%33.5%40.4%49.5%46.5%49.4%59.6%61.0%61.7%57.6% Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 706 1,154 1,154 1,074 1,454 1,638 1,982 1,599 1,660 2,541 2,708 2,399 2,451 2,314 2,047 2,082 Source: RealPagePage 787 of 1321 53 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Concessions – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The use of concessions in South Collier County Submarket have increased over the past four quarters from a record low of no concessions in the Submarket during the fourth quarter of 2022. Concessions now represent 5.8% of base rent, with approximately 12.9% of units offering concessions. Average concessions previously peaked at 8.4% of the base rent in the third quarter 2020 while percent of units offering concessions previously peaked at 65.2% in the second quarter of the same year. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3% of Units Offering ConcessionsAverage ConcessionSouth Collier County Average Concession South Collier County % Units Offering Concession Concessions - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Average Concession 2.7%7.7%5.3%8.4%4.4%5.2%6.2%4.1%3.0%1.6%1.8%0.8%0.0%1.6%2.1%5.8% South Collier County % Units Offering Concession 47.5%35.9%65.2%47.0%51.3%38.6%18.0%11.0%7.2%9.2%10.0%8.7%0.0%1.9%7.3%12.9% Source: RealPagePage 788 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 54 Economic & Demographic Overview Page 789 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 55 Age Comparison Economic & Demographic Overview Retirees make up the largest population segment in Collier County, followed by children and pre-retirees between 55 to 64; all other age cohorts each represent approximately 10% of the local population. Between 2023 and 2028, retirees, followed by individuals aged 35- to 44-years old, are forecasted to experience the greatest increases in the County, increasing 7.6% and 7.0% respectively. The growth in younger populations highlight the need for rental properties that meet the needs to these two diverse segments, while being sensitive to affordability concerns. Source: ESRI Paste Chart Long Here Paste Chart Long Here 14.4%9.3%10.1%10.2%10.3%13.7%32.0%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Population by Age (2023) Collier County 1.9%0.1%-2.8%7.0%-0.6%-6.0%7.6%-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Change in Population by Age (2023 to 2028) Collier County Page 790 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 56 Housing Economic & Demographic Overview In 2023, there were approximately 240,000 total housing units in Collier County, of which nearly 168,000 are occupied. Based on a total population of 387,209, there are an average of 2.37 persons per household. There are 1.66 persons per total dwelling units in the County. While the total population in Collier County is projected to grow 4.4% by 2027, both persons by household and persons per total dwelling unit are forecasted to decline by 0.1% and 0.8% respectively. According to the American Community Survey, approximately 84% of all vacant housing units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use; of these more than 8,000 units are second homes. Less than 5% of vacant homes are units that are available for rent. Source: ESRI, US Census – American Community Survey Paste Chart Long Here 2.37 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Collier County Persons Per Household (2023) 1.66 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Collier County Persons Per Total Dwelling Unit (2023) 125,766 31,971 71,972 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units Vacant Housing Units Housings Units (2023) Page 791 of 1321 57 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Income and Net Worth Economic & Demographic Overview The highest median household income and net worth in Southwest Florida is in Collier County; the County also represents one of the most affluent areas in the entire state of Florida. The median household income in Collier County in 2023 was approximately $13,000 more than the state of Florida. It is also $12,000 more than neighboring Lee County and $3,000 more than Monroe County. The older demographic, combined with higher earning potential workers as well as residents’ accumulated wealth, resulted in a median net worth in the County that was $138,000 more than Monroe County as well as Florida as a whole and approximately $90,000 more than Lee County. Over the next five years, income is projected to increase for all households earning more than $75,000, with the most notable increases in households earning between $150,000 and $199,999. Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Long Here $78K $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Collier County HH. Income (2023) $293K $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Collier County Net Worth (2022) -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or Greater Change in Household Income (2023 to 2028) Collier County Source: ESRIPage 792 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 58 Annual Employment Growth vs. Unemployment – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Following the COVID-19 pandemic, employment in Collier County been robust, with back-to-back years of record job growth; the County added more than 17,000 jobs in two years. After unemployment spiked in 2020 at 7.4%, rapid job recovery resulted in the area’s unemployment rate normalizing below 4%. Slowing job growth is expected to continue through 2027, with the area’s unemployment rate remaining below 4%. Even as a destination for retirees, employment growth and a stable, low unemployment rate are generally good indicators of the overall strength of the economy in Collier County. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 13.0% 14.0% -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Unemployment RateAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthPrior Year Change Unemployment RateSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Non-Farm Employment 123,142 129,725 135,942 142,508 145,483 150,825 155,408 148,317 156,367 165,375 166,538 169,685 171,946 174,197 176,319 Prior Year Change 4,600 6,583 6,217 6,567 2,975 5,342 4,583 (7,092)8,050 9,008 1,163 3,147 2,260 2,252 2,122 Annual % Change 3.9%5.3%4.8%4.8%2.1%3.7%3.0%-4.6%5.4%5.8%0.7%1.9%1.3%1.3%1.2% Unemployment Rate 7.4%6.2%5.3%4.7%4.2%3.6%3.2%7.4%3.7%2.8%2.7%3.5%3.9%3.9%3.9% Page 793 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 59 L12M Job Growth by Sector – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Job growth in Collier County over the last 12 months was led by Education & Health Services; during that same time, Leisure & Hospitality and Trade, Transportation and Utilities, as well as the three high earning employment segments, Financial Activities, Information, and Professional & Business services lost more than 820 positions combined. Even with these losses, related in part to the lingering impacts of Hurricane Ian, the Leisure & Hospitality sector remains the second largest sector in Collier County, driven by the numerous restaurants, resorts, golf courses, and tourist destinations in the area. -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and UtilitiesAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Category Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and Utilities Current Month (Oct-2023)10,025 1,292 20,466 19,067 26,275 13,977 28,714 5,705 9,443 31,108 Current Month (Oct-2022)10,178 1,355 20,864 18,922 25,403 13,859 28,863 5,496 9,438 31,169 12-Month Change -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 Page 794 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 60 Following near historic permit activity in 2021, total building permits in Collier County declined in 2022 and are forecasted to decline again in 2023 to below historic average. Construction activity in Collier County is forecasted to rebound, with an average 6,200 permits issued per year between 2024 and 2027. Historically, there have been more single-family detached building permits issued compared to multifamily building permits (67% compared to 33%) with projections indicating a slight shift toward single family construction through 2027 (72% single family permits versus 28% multifamily permits). Residential Permit Issuances – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FResidential Building PermitsSFD Building Permits MF Building Permits Historical AverageSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Total Building Permits 2,678 3,610 4,060 3,829 4,194 4,386 3,991 4,473 6,766 5,517 3,922 5,603 6,309 6,587 6,318 Annual % Change 66.1%34.8%12.5%-5.7%9.5%4.6%-9.0%12.1%51.3%-18.5%-28.9%42.8%12.6%4.4%-4.1% SFD Building Permits 1,760 2,477 3,078 2,892 2,930 3,253 3,300 3,256 4,380 3,519 3,066 3,560 4,281 4,779 4,822 Annual % Change 35.8%40.7%24.3%-6.0%1.3%11.0%1.4%-1.3%34.5%-19.7%-12.9%16.1%20.3%11.6%0.9% MF Building Permits 918 1,133 982 937 1,264 1,133 691 1,217 2,386 1,998 856 2,043 2,028 1,808 1,496 Annual % Change 190.5%23.4%-13.3%-4.6%34.9%-10.4%-39.0%76.1%96.1%-16.3%-57.1%138.5%-0.7%-10.9%-17.2% Page 795 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 61 Home affordability in Collier County declined significantly in 2022 due to rising prices and rising interest rates; it is projected to fall again in 2023 to near record low affordability. Moody’s forecasts the Affordability Index to rise slowly through 2027. Should it continue as forecasted, this trend will represent one of the longest periods of unaffordability in the area. Affordability – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 77 72 58 48 54 90 151 137 137 140 114 93 90 93 92 90 107 103 86 56 47 49 55 59 61 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FAffordability IndexSource: Moody's Analytics; National Association of Realtors (NAR) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Affordability Index 114.4 93.5 89.9 93.0 92.3 90.2 107.0 103.2 86.1 56.0 47.1 48.8 54.8 58.9 61.1 Page 796 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 62 Appendix Page 797 of 1321 63 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 798 of 1321 64 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 799 of 1321 65 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 800 of 1321 66 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 801 of 1321 67 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 802 of 1321 68 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. ADDIE'S CORNER BUILT OUT 11-08 4/12/2011 2022 250 250 ALLURA BUILT OUT 19-22 9/24/2019 2024 304 304 AMERISITE CB ACTIVE 22-25 6/28/2022 7/19/1905 303 ANTILLES ACTIVE 18-02 2/13/2018 2023 212 96 APRIL CIRCLE**CLOSED OUT 89-76 11/14/1989 1994 120 120 ARBOR LAKE CLUB**CLOSED OUT 90-37 5/15/1990 1995 246 168 ARBOR TRACE**Hawks Nest CLOSED OUT 89-91 12/19/1989 1994 219 211 ARROWHEAD ACTIVE 08-36 3/22/2005 2010 809 332 ASCEND NAPLES ACTIVE 23-50 10/24/2023 2028 208 AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 96-69 6/25/1991 2006 300 36 AVALON OF NAPLES BUILT OUT 15-31 5/12/2015 2020 160 152 BAY FOREST**BUILT OUT 03-24 5/27/2003 2006 697 632 BEAR CREEK**CLOSED OUT 92-20 4/14/1992 1997 120 120 BERKSHIRE LAKES (DRI-82-1)BUILT OUT 15-66 1/13/1998 2003 2,944 2,904 BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS ACTIVE 21-32 9/28/2021 2026 234 BOSLEY BUILT OUT 04-32 5/25/2004 2006 303 276 BOTANICAL PLACE CLOSED OUT 03-38 7/29/2003 2006 218 218 BOYNE SOUTH ACTIVE 04-60 9/21/2004 2010 34 BRIARWOOD ACTIVE 95-33 4/25/1995 2005 525 455 BRITTANY BAY**San Savino CLOSED OUT 00-77 11/28/2000 2005 478 472 CARILLON BUILT OUT 91-111 12/17/1991 2001 180 56 CAY LAGOON**CLOSED OUT 92-37 08-318 5/26/1992 2003 32 32 CHESHIRE ARMS APTS.**CLOSED OUT 84-53 08-318 8/14/1984 1993 60 60 CAMDEN LANDING Cirrus Pointe ACTIVE 21-13 3/9/2021 7/18/1905 127 CITRUS GARDENS**Lakeside CLOSED OUT 89-25 08-318 4/25/1989 1991 252 252 COCOHATCHEE BAY ACTIVE 00-88 05-397 12/12/2000 2028 600 480 COCONILLA BUILT OUT 05-15 3/22/2005 2008 80 80 COLLEGE PARK**CLOSED OUT 96-59 10/8/1996 2001 210 210 COLLEGEWOOD**BUILT OUT 95-65 11/14/1995 1998 106 Page 803 of 1321 69 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. COLLIER BLVD LORD'S WAY First Assembly Ministries Ed & Rehab Campus ACTIVE 22-23 7/22/2008 2027 690 296 COUNTY BARN ROAD BUILT OUT 17-31 6/27/2017 7/14/1905 268 max COURTHOUSE SHADOWS/COLLIER**Collier ACTIVE 16-45 1/28/1992 2021 300 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER North Naples Submarkt ACTIVE 16-32 10/24/2006 2026 300 CRESCENT LAKE ESTATES **CLOSED OUT 86-26 6/17/1986 1994 100 100 CREWS ROAD ACTIVE 22-03 1/25/2022 2027 60 CRICKET LAKE**CLOSED OUT 80-28 3/11/1980 1989 188 188 CROWN POINTE**BUILT OUT 89-31 3/28/1991 2002 127 86 CYPRESS GLEN**CLOSED OUT 87-18 7/30/2002 2004 208 208 CYPRESS GREEN APTS.**Willowbrook CLOSED OUT 87-3 2/6/1987 1992 42 42 CYPRESS WOODS G & C CLUB BUILT OUT 97-36 8/26/1997 2003 658 656 DAVENPORT BUILT OUT 87-75 10/6/1987 1990 44 DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE**BUILT OUT 96-9 3/12/1996 2000 260 248 DONOVAN CENTER BUILT OUT 97-73 11/25/1997 2007 140 140 DUNES, THE BUILT OUT 00-74 11/14/2000 2008 640 635 EBOLI**CLOSED OUT 97-23 5/27/1997 2007 80 80 ENBROOK ACTIVE 20-06 1/14/2020 7/17/1905 526 120 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER ACTIVE 11-30 9/13/2011 2026 12 FALLING WATERS BUILT OUT 03-50 9/23/2003 2006 799 786 FALLING WATERS BEACH RESORT**Woodfield Lakes BUILT OUT 01-68 11/27/2001 2003 451 430 FOXFIRE (DRI)**Bridal Path at Foxfire BUILT OUT 93-31 6/8/1993 1993 704 704 GARDEN LAKE APARTMENTS**CLOSED OUT 89-09 2/14/1989 1991 66 66 GARDEN WALK VILLAGE ACTIVE 96-4 2/13/1996 2003 204 GOLDEN GATE COMMERCE PARK G.G. Health Park ACTIVE 00-41 07-242 3/14/2000 2028 264 264 GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE ACTIVE 22-13 4/26/2022 2028 215 GOLDEN GATE VILLAS**Meadowwood Club CLOSED OUT 84-40 6/5/1984 1990 288 288 GREEN BLVD.**CLOSED OUT 85-23 08-318 6/4/1985 2002 912 912 GREEN HERON (DRI-83-1)Sapphire Lakes BUILT OUT 95-30 4/18/1995 2005 1,188 1,152 GREEN TREE CENTER**CLOSED OUT 81-58 10/20/1981 2001 86 86 H.D. DEVELOPMENT Vita Tuscana BUILT OUT 11-13 11/15/2005 2006 33 Page 804 of 1321 70 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. HACIENDA LAKES (DRI-11-05)ACTIVE 11-41 10/25/2011 6/8/2033 1,232 24 HAMMOCK PARK Hammock ParkCommerce Centre ACTIVE 07-30 11/28/2000 2/27/2017 265 HAVEN AT NORTH NAPLES ACTIVE 23-28 5/23/2023 2028 336 HERON LAKES Forest Park CLOSED OUT 90-79 10/23/1990 2010 352 66 HUNTINGTON WOODS **Amer. Lutheran Ch.CLOSED OUT 86-2 08-318 1/21/1986 1995 26 26 I-75/ALLIGATOR ALLEY**Cali Industries ACTIVE 07-26 2/13/2007 2023 425 320 IBIS COVE CLOSED OUT 99-21 3/9/1999 2004 288 288 IMMOKALEE FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE INC ACTIVE 20-23 9/8/2020 2015 128 IMMOKALEE SENIOR HOUSING ACTIVE 04/29 5/11/2004 5/11/2012 119 30 IMPERIAL LAKES ACTIVE 82-81 9/14/1982 n/a 430 IMPERIAL WEST**BUILT OUT 87-58 7/28/1987 2002 489 481 KELLER ENTRY LEVEL**CLOSED OUT 80-35 08-318 4/8/1980 2002 200 200 KEYSTONE PLACE**Arbor Walk CLOSED OUT 87-72 9/22/1987 1993 406 404 KING'S LAKE (DRI)**BUILT OUT 84-12 2/7/1984 1992 860 840 LELY BAREFOOT BEACH CONDO**CLOSED OUT 87-52 08-318 7/21/1987 2000 50 50 LELY COUNTRY CLUB (DRI-76-1)**BUILT OUT 86-86 12/9/1986 1998 847 576 LELY PALMS OF NAPLES**BUILT OUT 97-5 1/28/1997 1997 296 242 LEMURIA CLOSED OUT 03-68 12/16/2003 2006 72 72 LITTLE HICKORY BAY**CLOSED OUT 79-65 9/11/1979 1993 109 107 LIVINGSTON VILLAGE Marbella Lakes BUILT OUT 03-23 5/13/2003 2006 293 208 LOCH RIDGE (PUD-86-6(1))Kingswood Garden BUILT OUT 04-14 3/9/2004 2007 64 64 MAGNOLIA POND ACTIVE 10-06 04-284 6/9/1998 2/23/2020 106 MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'S CRK(DRI-84-1)ACTIVE 00-84 12/12/2000 12/13/2028 Includes SF 3,048 MARCO SHORES COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 16-37 9/13/1994 2004 1,580 1,162 MEADOW BROOK ESTATES**BUILT OUT 91-5 1/22/1991 2005 306 268 MERCATO ACTIVE 06-32 11/15/2005 2010 175 137 MERIDIAN VILLAGE ACTIVE 13-47 6/6/2006 2025 31 MICELI ACTIVE 92-62 9/1/1992 2003 17 MINI TRIANGLE ACTIVE 18-25 5/8/2018 2027 491 MIRALIA ACTIVE 96-12 3/26/1996 2006 210 205 Page 805 of 1321 71 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. MONTEREY**Woodbridge BUILT OUT 90-28 4/10/1990 2010 775 312 NAPLES BATH & TENNIS CLUB**BUILT OUT 81-61 10/20/1981 1991 423 423 NEW HOPE MINISTRIES Neapolitan Park ACTIVE 16-41 1/29/2008 2021 304 304 NORTH PORT BAY ACTIVE 00-05 05-79 6/13/2000 2007 248 116 NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS**CLOSED OUT 96-77 11/26/1996 2001 54 54 ONE NAPLES ACTIVE 21-09 3/1/2021 2026 140 OSPREYS LANDING**Pelican Lake CLOSED OUT 09-243 10/27/1992 1997 176 176 PAVILION LAKE**Pavilion Club CLOSED OUT 87-41 5/26/1987 1995 156 156 PELICAN BAY (DRI-77-1)No build out date forresidential sect per DCA ACTIVE 04-59 9/21/2004 12/31/2024 5,686 4,346 PINE RIDGE COMMONS ACTIVE 99-94 12/14/1999 2004 325 290 PINEBROOK LAKE**Pinebrook Lake Apt CLOSED OUT 80-56 7/29/1980 1990 160 160 R. ROBERTS ESTATE ACTIVE 14-01 1/21/1992 1/28/2024 79 79 RCMA IMMOKALEE ACTIVE 21-38 10/26/2021 7/18/1905 160 REGAL ACRES ACTIVE 05-36 6/28/2005 2023 300 184 REGENT PARK **CLOSED OUT 85-45 8/20/1985 1996 345 345 RELATED GROUP **CLOSED OUT 96-24 5/28/1996 1998 276 276 RETREAT**Bentley Village BUILT OUT 97-71 11/18/1997 2002 740 728 RIVER REACH**BUILT OUT 85-71 12/10/1985 1995 669 669 RIVERBEND**Sold to St. of Florida CLOSED OUT 81-28 08-318 8/11/1981 1994 78 ROYAL WOODS G&C CLUB**BUILT OUT 96-72 11/26/1996 1994 654 655 RUSSELL SQUARE ACTIVE 18-51 10/23/2018 2023 230 152 SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE BUILT OUT 98-16 3/10/1998 2003 438 438 SALVATION ARMY ACTIVE 01-65 11/27/2001 2004 20 10 SANDERS PINES**CLOSED OUT 88-5 1/12/1988 1993 41 41 SANTA BARBARA WHITAKER Waterford Estates ACTIVE 22-40 10/25/2022 2027 216 SAXON MANOR ISLES**BUILT OUT 94-21 4/5/1994 1999 250 250 SHADOW WOOD Wing South Airpark ACTIVE 08-43 7/13/1982 2028 558 194 SHERWOOD PARK**CLOSED OUT 80-38 4/8/1980 2005 336 336 SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA ACTIVE 98-22 3/24/1998 2026 242 SOUTHAMPTON (PUD87-48(1))**Stonebridge CLOSED OUT 92-24 4/28/1992 2003 562 562 Page 806 of 1321 72 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. SOUTHPOINTE YACHT CLUB**BUILT OUT 88-82 10/25/1988 1993 96 64 SPRINGWOOD**Southern Properties BUILT OUT 82-69 8/10/1982 1995 96 71 SUMMER GLEN APARTMENTS**CLOSED OUT 91-7 1/22/1991 1992 46 46 SUMMERWIND **Woodside Apts.CLOSED OUT 85-79 3/1/1988 1993 368 368 SUMMERWOOD **Timberlake CLOSED OUT 99-61 9/14/1999 1993 60 60 SUNSHINE VILLAGE CLOSED OUT 93-92 12/21/1993 2003 18 THREE HUN.AC.GOODLETTE RD ACTIVE 96-80 12/10/1996 2003 900 890 TIMBERWOOD**Oxford Village CLOSED OUT 88-21 2/23/1988 1995 116 116 TREE TOPS**BUILT OUT 80-91 9/9/1980 1990 180 180 VANDERBILT VILLAS**BUILT OUT 88-27 3/1/1988 2003 54 54 VINEYARDS (DRI-84-2)(DOA-06-01)BUILT OUT 95-62 2/28/2006 5/6/2017 3,491 2,865 WATERGLADES**Villages of Emer.Bay CLOSED OUT 82-51 7/13/1982 1993 235 216 WHIPPOORWILL PINES CLOSED OUT 00-17 3/14/2000 2005 180 180 WHISTLER'S COVE**CLOSED OUT 97-1 1/7/1997 2002 240 240 WHITTENBERG **Victoria Landings CLOSED OUT 96-44 7/23/1996 1998 123 123 WIGGINS BAY**CLOSED OUT 82-121 12/28/1982 2003 587 693 WIGGINS LAKE**BUILT OUT 87-94 11/17/1987 2007 230 204 WILDERNESS C.C.**(PUD-76-35(2))BUILT OUT 99-74 10/26/1999 2004 300 300 WILDWOOD ESTATES CLOSED OUT 81-27 8/11/1981 2006 710 652 WILLOUGHBY GARDENS**Mirage CLOSED OUT 81-67 11/10/1981 1986 90 88 WINTER PARK NORTH**CLOSED OUT 85-77 12/19/1985 1995 96 96 WINTER PARK**CLOSED OUT 83-32 12/9/1986 1990 600 600 Page 807 of 1321 73 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix) Affordable Housing Hotel Units Retail/Service SqFt Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 2,150 11,000 300 1,078,943 Ave Maria, Town of Developed 478 4,141 -235,222 Bellmar Village Allowed 2,200 2,750 -- Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 3,546 4,432 882 -comm'l # Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 10%Min 2,427 Min 882 Brightshore Village Allowed 1,600 2,000 Comm'l # Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed -225 Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 1,000 1,800 -- Hyde Park Village Developed 75 Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 300, Max 1,000 Max Total Combined Rivergrass Village Allowed 2,500 2,500 -- Rivergrass Village Developed - Rivergrass Village Min/Max Min 250 Max Total Combined Allowed Totals 12,996 24,707 882 300 1,078,943 Developed Totals 478 4,216 --235,222 NOTE: Some Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to the Minimums and Maximums required or allowed. ALF/CCRC = Assisted Living Facility/Continuing Care Comp Planning = K = thousand SqFt = Square Feet Max = Maximum CRD = Compact Rural Development SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit BCC = Board of County FAR = Floor Area Ratio MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Comm'l = Commercial Abbreviations: SRA = Stewardship Receiving Area Res. # = Resolution Number Min = Minimum 3,738 -- Min 62.5K, Max 100K 21,089 1,475 1,108,440 2,250 300 100,000 75 Max 1,500 FAR for Comm'l sqft Min 2,250, max 5,000 1,500 -45,000 225 5,000 Min 10% SF, 10% attached Max 300 Min 106K, max 120K Min 10% SF, 10% attached Min 753,440 1,800 300 120,000 3,989 300 753,440 Min 10% SF, 10% attached Min 68,750, Max 85K 3,663 -- 2,475 300 85,000 Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) SFDU ALF/CCRC Units Commercial SqFt 8,850 275 - Page 808 of 1321 74 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed Office SqFt Medical SqFt Civic SqFt Industrial/ Warehouse SqFt Warehouse SqFt Recreational Building SqFt Commercial SqFt University Students Oratory SqFt Course Holes Ave Maria, Town of Allowed --184,000 711,000 40,400 --6,000 63 Ave Maria, Town of Developed --22,319 420,353 40,400 --1,900 18 Bellmar Village Allowed --27,500 ------- Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 27,500 Big Cypress, Town of Allowed comm'l #-86,000 650,000 ----- Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 66,480 Brightshore Village Allowed Comm'l #-20,000 -100,000 ---- Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 20K Max 100K Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed --18,000 -15,000 30,000 --- Hyde Park Village Developed Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 18,000 Rivergrass Village Allowed --25,000 ------18 Rivergrass Village Developed Rivergrass Village Min/Max min 25,000 Allowed Totals --360,500 1,361,000 140,400 15,000 30,000 6,000 -81 Developed Totals --22,319 420,353 40,400 --1,900 -18 Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 809 of 1321 75 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed Res. # BCC Approval Date Estimated Build Out Year Total Acres 2000 TAZ (Comp Planning) Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 05-123 6/14/2005 2027 5,026.94 387, 387.2, 389.1 Ave Maria, Town of Developed Bellmar Village Allowed 21-120 6/8/2021 2033 999.74 386.3, 386.4 Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 23-127 6/27/2023 2043 1,544.46 386.3, 386.4 Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Brightshore Village Allowed 22-209 12/13/2022 2034 681.50 392 Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed 23-183 10/10/2023 2028 259.60 386.1 Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 20-102 6/9/2020 2030 642.52 390.1 Hyde Park Village Developed Hyde Park Village Min/Max Rivergrass Village Allowed 20-24 1/28/2020 2032 997.53 390.2, 386.3, 386.4 Rivergrass Village Developed Rivergrass Village Min/Max Allowed Totals 10,152.29 Developed Totals Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 810 of 1321 76 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2023 Appendix Source: Zonda 2023 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $200,000 or Greater $150,000 to $200,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $35,000 to $50,000 % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/ 01142259121Annual Demand from New HH Growth 5.0%50.0%65.0%75.0%90.0%40.0%20.0% 45Annual Renter Household Growth 20.0%30.0%50.0%75.0%90.0%50.0%15.0%% of Households that Rent a New Home 4/ 15744397359 107Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 6.4%6.4%19.5%22.8%30.9%41.4%42.1%% of Households Renting a Home 3/ 230115225173238143 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,390 16.6%8.3%16.2%12.5%17.1%10.3% 1 12 59 22 14 1 21 8 5 0 0 7.7%Income Qualified Ratio 2/Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand35% Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate21680301910 0 4 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 811 of 1321 77 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2024 Appendix Source: Zonda 2024 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 14 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 43 56 71 39 44 8 15 2 15 78 30 19 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4226119234 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 101 135 231 171 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.4%9.9%16.9%12.5%16.6%8.7%17.1%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,366 1 11 58 22 14 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 812 of 1321 78 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2025 Appendix Source: Zonda 2025 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 15 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 42 55 72 40 46 8 16 2 15 79 30 20 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4235128245 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 99 132 233 174 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.1%9.5%16.7%12.5%16.9%9.2%17.6%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,392 1 11 58 22 15 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 813 of 1321 79 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2026 Appendix Source: Zonda 2026 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 59 23 16 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 40 54 72 40 48 9 16 2 14 79 31 21 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4245137257 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand21850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 96 129 235 178 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/6.8%9.1%16.5%12.5%17.3%9.7%18.2%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,417 1 11 59 23 16 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 814 of 1321 80 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2027 Appendix Source: Zonda 2027 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 10 58 23 16 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 39 52 72 41 49 9 17 2 14 79 31 21 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4251145266 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20860Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 92 125 233 179 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/6.5%8.8%16.4%12.6%17.6%10.2%18.7%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,422 1 10 58 23 16 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 815 of 1321 81 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model – Five Year Average Appendix Source: Zonda AVERAGE HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FROM 2023 THRU 2027 FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 15 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 42 55 72 40 46 8 16 2 15 79 30 20 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4236129246 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 99 133 234 175 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.1%9.5%16.7%12.5%16.9%9.2%17.6%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,397 1 11 58 22 15 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 816 of 1321 Thank you! Zonda 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (877) 966-3210 Page 817 of 1321 Ta Page 818 of 1321 Page 819 of 1321 2024-2029 2024-2029 Summary 2024 2029 Change Annual Rate Population 32,853 34,835 1,982 1.18% Households 16,432 18,054 1,622 1.90% Median Age 63.6 64.8 1.2 0.37% Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 -0.06 -0.62% Number Percent Number Percent Household Income Base 16,432 100%18,054 100% 889 5.4%774 4.3% 590 3.6%431 2.4% 956 5.8%731 4.0% 1,557 9.5%1,275 7.1% 3,364 20.5%3,524 19.5% 2,718 16.5%3,066 17.0% 3,007 18.3%3,711 20.6% 1,532 9.3%2,191 12.1% 1,819 11.1%2,352 13.0% $81,284 $92,166 $116,799 $134,847 $58,769 $70,250 Number Percent Number Percent 7.7 6.4 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.8 11.2 10.7 2.8 3.0 2,210 13.4%1,763 9.8% 11,074 67.4%12,038 66.7% 3,148 19.2%4,252 23.6% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 340 1,305 1,336 1,493 2,558 4,219 5,181 <$15,000 35 44 56 65 116 196 378 $15,000-$24,999 28 38 33 31 74 127 259 $25,000-$34,999 36 101 74 69 108 198 370 $35,000-$49,999 60 144 112 118 193 372 558 $50,000-$74,999 80 337 303 304 464 762 1,114 $75,000-$99,999 58 253 226 237 400 740 805 $100,000-$149,999 32 223 292 353 542 787 778 $150,000-$199,999 8 79 112 143 292 512 385 $200,000+4 86 130 172 370 523 535 Households in Low Income Tier Households in Middle Income Tier Households in Upper Income Tier 2024 Households by Income and Age of Householder P90-P50 Ratio P50-P10 Ratio 80-20 Share Ratio 90-40 Share Ratio Per Capita Income 2024 2029 Households by Income P90-P10 Ratio $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000+ Median Household Income Average Household Income $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 Longitude: -81.68671 2024 2029 Income Inequality Measures <$15,000 Household Income Profile Naples Afforable 8930-8960 Collier Blvd, Naples, Florida, 34114 Rings: 3 mile radii Latitude: 26.12171 Page 820 of 1321 Median HH Income $52,338 $73,731 $83,217 $90,066 $94,083 $88,403 $72,199 Average HH Income $63,170 $98,029 $113,315 $122,631 $133,552 $126,505 $108,089 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 10.3%3.4%4.2%4.4%4.5%4.6%7.3% $15,000-$24,999 8.2%2.9%2.5%2.1%2.9%3.0%5.0% $25,000-$34,999 10.6%7.7%5.5%4.6%4.2%4.7%7.1% $35,000-$49,999 17.6%11.0%8.4%7.9%7.5%8.8%10.8% $50,000-$74,999 23.5%25.8%22.7%20.4%18.1%18.1%21.5% $75,000-$99,999 17.1%19.4%16.9%15.9%15.6%17.5%15.5% $100,000-$149,999 9.4%17.1%21.9%23.6%21.2%18.7%15.0% $150,000-$199,999 2.4%6.1%8.4%9.6%11.4%12.1%7.4% $200,000+1.2%6.6%9.7%11.5%14.5%12.4%10.3% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 351 1,382 1,479 1,610 2,509 4,461 6,262 <$15,000 33 33 43 50 77 158 380 $15,000-$24,999 19 23 20 18 44 90 216 $25,000-$34,999 27 72 48 44 70 142 327 $35,000-$49,999 46 118 86 89 128 278 530 $50,000-$74,999 91 341 330 306 430 766 1,260 $75,000-$99,999 73 289 261 256 387 771 1,029 $100,000-$149,999 44 273 362 425 584 918 1,105 $150,000-$199,999 13 117 162 201 373 700 625 $200,000+5 115 168 219 416 639 790 Median HH Income $61,010 $81,964 $94,150 $102,927 $106,829 $100,904 $83,327 Average HH Income $74,104 $114,922 $130,187 $141,296 $153,219 $145,169 $127,376 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 9.4%2.4%2.9%3.1%3.1%3.5%6.1% $15,000-$24,999 5.4%1.7%1.4%1.1%1.8%2.0%3.4% $25,000-$34,999 7.7%5.2%3.2%2.7%2.8%3.2%5.2% $35,000-$49,999 13.1%8.5%5.8%5.5%5.1%6.2%8.5% $50,000-$74,999 25.9%24.7%22.3%19.0%17.1%17.2%20.1% $75,000-$99,999 20.8%20.9%17.6%15.9%15.4%17.3%16.4% $100,000-$149,999 12.5%19.8%24.5%26.4%23.3%20.6%17.6% $150,000-$199,999 3.7%8.5%11.0%12.5%14.9%15.7%10.0% $200,000+1.4%8.3%11.4%13.6%16.6%14.3%12.6% 2029 Households by Income and Age of Householder Percent Distribution Data Note: 2024 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2024 and 2029 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2029. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. ©2024 Esri Percent Distribution Page 821 of 1321 2024-2029 2024-2029 Summary 2024 2029 Change Annual Rate Population 32,853 34,835 1,982 1.18% Households 16,432 18,054 1,622 1.90% Median Age 63.6 64.8 1.2 0.37% Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 -0.06 -0.62% Number Percent Number Percent Household Income Base 16,432 100%18,054 100% 889 5.4%774 4.3% 590 3.6%431 2.4% 956 5.8%731 4.0% 1,557 9.5%1,275 7.1% 3,364 20.5%3,524 19.5% 2,718 16.5%3,066 17.0% 3,007 18.3%3,711 20.6% 1,532 9.3%2,191 12.1% 1,819 11.1%2,352 13.0% $81,284 $92,166 $116,799 $134,847 $58,769 $70,250 Number Percent Number Percent 7.7 6.4 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.8 11.2 10.7 2.8 3.0 2,210 13.4%1,763 9.8% 11,074 67.4%12,038 66.7% 3,148 19.2%4,252 23.6% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 340 1,305 1,336 1,493 2,558 4,219 5,181 <$15,000 35 44 56 65 116 196 378 $15,000-$24,999 28 38 33 31 74 127 259 $25,000-$34,999 36 101 74 69 108 198 370 $35,000-$49,999 60 144 112 118 193 372 558 $50,000-$74,999 80 337 303 304 464 762 1,114 $75,000-$99,999 58 253 226 237 400 740 805 $100,000-$149,999 32 223 292 353 542 787 778 $150,000-$199,999 8 79 112 143 292 512 385 $200,000+4 86 130 172 370 523 535 Households in Low Income Tier Households in Middle Income Tier Households in Upper Income Tier 2024 Households by Income and Age of Householder P90-P50 Ratio P50-P10 Ratio 80-20 Share Ratio 90-40 Share Ratio Per Capita Income 2024 2029 Households by Income P90-P10 Ratio $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000+ Median Household Income Average Household Income $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 Longitude: -81.68671 2024 2029 Income Inequality Measures <$15,000 Household Income Profile Naples Afforable 8930-8960 Collier Blvd, Naples, Florida, 34114 Rings: 3 mile radii Latitude: 26.12171 Page 822 of 1321 Median HH Income $52,338 $73,731 $83,217 $90,066 $94,083 $88,403 $72,199 Average HH Income $63,170 $98,029 $113,315 $122,631 $133,552 $126,505 $108,089 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 10.3%3.4%4.2%4.4%4.5%4.6%7.3% $15,000-$24,999 8.2%2.9%2.5%2.1%2.9%3.0%5.0% $25,000-$34,999 10.6%7.7%5.5%4.6%4.2%4.7%7.1% $35,000-$49,999 17.6%11.0%8.4%7.9%7.5%8.8%10.8% $50,000-$74,999 23.5%25.8%22.7%20.4%18.1%18.1%21.5% $75,000-$99,999 17.1%19.4%16.9%15.9%15.6%17.5%15.5% $100,000-$149,999 9.4%17.1%21.9%23.6%21.2%18.7%15.0% $150,000-$199,999 2.4%6.1%8.4%9.6%11.4%12.1%7.4% $200,000+1.2%6.6%9.7%11.5%14.5%12.4%10.3% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 351 1,382 1,479 1,610 2,509 4,461 6,262 <$15,000 33 33 43 50 77 158 380 $15,000-$24,999 19 23 20 18 44 90 216 $25,000-$34,999 27 72 48 44 70 142 327 $35,000-$49,999 46 118 86 89 128 278 530 $50,000-$74,999 91 341 330 306 430 766 1,260 $75,000-$99,999 73 289 261 256 387 771 1,029 $100,000-$149,999 44 273 362 425 584 918 1,105 $150,000-$199,999 13 117 162 201 373 700 625 $200,000+5 115 168 219 416 639 790 Median HH Income $61,010 $81,964 $94,150 $102,927 $106,829 $100,904 $83,327 Average HH Income $74,104 $114,922 $130,187 $141,296 $153,219 $145,169 $127,376 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 9.4%2.4%2.9%3.1%3.1%3.5%6.1% $15,000-$24,999 5.4%1.7%1.4%1.1%1.8%2.0%3.4% $25,000-$34,999 7.7%5.2%3.2%2.7%2.8%3.2%5.2% $35,000-$49,999 13.1%8.5%5.8%5.5%5.1%6.2%8.5% $50,000-$74,999 25.9%24.7%22.3%19.0%17.1%17.2%20.1% $75,000-$99,999 20.8%20.9%17.6%15.9%15.4%17.3%16.4% $100,000-$149,999 12.5%19.8%24.5%26.4%23.3%20.6%17.6% $150,000-$199,999 3.7%8.5%11.0%12.5%14.9%15.7%10.0% $200,000+1.4%8.3%11.4%13.6%16.6%14.3%12.6% 2029 Households by Income and Age of Householder Percent Distribution Data Note: 2024 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2024 and 2029 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2029. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. ©2024 Esri Percent Distribution Page 823 of 1321 SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix)AffordableHousingHotelUnitsRetail/ServiceSqFtOffice SqFtMedicalSqFtCivic SqFtIndustrial/Warehouse WarehouseSqFtRecreationalBuilding SqFtCommercialSqFtUniversityStudentsOratorySqFtCourseHolesRes. #BCC ApprovalEstimated BuildTotal Acres2000 TAZ (CompAve Maria, Town ofAllowed 2,150 11,000 300 1,078,943 - - 184,000 711,000 40,400 - - 6,000 63 05-123 6/14/2005 2027 5,026.94 387, 387.2, Ave Maria, Town ofDeveloped 478 4,141 - 235,222 - - 22,319 420,353 40,400 - - 1,900 18Bellmar VillageAllowed 2,200 2,750 - - - - 27,500 - - - - - - - 21-120 6/8/2021 2033 999.74 386.3, 386.4Bellmar VillageDevelopedBellmar VillageMin/Max Min 10% Max Total CombinedMin Big Cypress, Town ofAllowed 3,546 4,432 882 - comm'l # comm'l # - 86,000 650,000 - - - - - 23-127 6/27/2023 2043 1,544.46 386.3, 386.4Big Cypress, Town ofDevelopedBig Cypress, Town ofMin/Max Min 10% Min 2,427 Min 882 Min Brightshore VillageAllowed 1,600 2,000 Comm'l # Comm'l # - 20,000 - 100,000 - - - - 22-209 12/13/2022 2034 681.50 392Brightshore VillageDevelopedBrightshore VillageMin/Max Min 10% Max Total CombinedMin 20K Max 100KCollier Rod & Gun Allowed - 22523-183 10/10/2023 2028 259.60 386.1Collier Rod & Gun DevelopedCollier Rod & Gun Min/MaxHyde Park VillageAllowed 1,000 1,800 - - - - 18,000 - 15,000 30,000 - - - 20-102 6/9/2020 2030 642.52 390.1Hyde Park VillageDeveloped 75Hyde Park VillageMin/Max Min 300, Max Total CombinedMin Rivergrass VillageAllowed 2,500 2,500 - - - - 25,000 - - - - - - 18 20-24 1/28/2020 2032 997.53 390.2, Rivergrass VillageDeveloped -Rivergrass VillageMin/Max Min 250 Max Total Combinedmin Allowed Totals 12,996 24,707 882 300 1,078,943 - - 360,500 1,361,000 140,400 15,000 30,000 6,000 - 81 10,152.29Developed Totals 478 4,216 - - 235,222 - - 22,319 420,353 40,400 - - 1,900 - 18NOTE: Some Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to the Minimums and Maximums required or allowed.Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs)SFDUALF/CCRC UnitsCommercial SqFt8,850 275 -3,663 - -2,475 300 85,000Min 10% SF, Min 68,750, Max 3,989 300 753,440Min 10% SF, Min 753,4401,800 300 120,000Min 10% SF, Max 300 Min 106K, max 2255,000Min 2,250, max 1,500 - 45,00075Max 1,500 FAR for Comm'l 2,250 300 100,000Min 62.5K, Max 21,089 1,475 1,108,4403,738 - -Abbreviations:SRA = Stewardship Receiving Area Res. # = Resolution Number Min = MinimumSFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit BCC = Board of County Commissioners FAR = Floor Area RatioMFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Comm'l = CommercialALF/CCRC = Assisted Living Facility/Continuing Care Comp Planning = Comprehensive Planning K = thousandSqFt = Square Feet Max = Maximum CRD = Compact Rural DevelopmentPage 824 of 1321 Parcel ID Owner Base Zoning Future Land Use Address Land Use Code Total Acres 37067680009 Jeffrey Lee Smith Jr Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 830 9th Street NW 0 9.45 41770040003 Hendrix House Inc Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 42nd Avenue, West of Everglades Boulevard 0 9.8 32632360005 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 32632560009 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 00397240007 Gussler Investments LP Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Benfield Road, South of Beck Boulevard 0 10 00741760007 Bohde, John A Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Fiddlers Creek Parkway at Veneta Way 0 10 38056320007 Alan J Vincent Rev. Trust Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 25th Aveunue SW 0 8.16 38056040002 Elizabeth Barclay Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 31st Avenue SW 0 8.01 64700625501 Roberto Bollt MPUD Rural Settlement Area District 13986 Immokalee Road 0 12.23 41829400002 Vanderbilt Living LLC RPUD UR/Vanderbilt Beach Road Residential Subdistrict Cherry Wood Drive 0 7.91 52658000280 Jubliation Holdings PUD Urban Residential Subdistrict Carson Road at Curry Road 0 11.44 48900000120 Missark Naples 3 PUD Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 1040 Borghese Lane 0 8.66 Page 825 of 1321 EXHIBIT “IX” Public FaciliƟes Level of Service Standard (LOSS) Analysis Bonita Flores ResidenƟal Inﬁll Subdistrict (PL20230013845) Revised April 29, 2024 The proposed growth management plan amendment acknowledges a new subdistrict which would result in an increase in residenƟal density. The subject property of 9.5+/‐ acres would allow for a maximum of 92 residenƟal dwelling units. The following analysis reviews the project impacts on the level of service (LOS) for the public faciliƟes necessary to support the project and acknowledges consistency with the Capital Improvement Element ObjecƟve 1 and Policies. Capital Improvement Element ObjecƟve 1: (PUBLIC FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS) IdenƟfy and deﬁne types of public faciliƟes, establish standards for levels of service for each such public facility, and determine what quanƟty of addiƟonal public faciliƟes is needed in order to achieve and maintain the standards. The following public faciliƟes analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, ﬁre/EMS/sheriff, and solid waste. The source for the LOS informaƟon is the Collier County 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), unless otherwise noted. POTABLE WATER The property is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) regional potable water service area. Adopted Level of Service Standard = 130 gpd/person/day for Collier County UƟliƟes Proposed Project Demand for residenƟal mulƟ‐family: 92 dwelling units x 2.5people/DU x 130 gpd/person = 29,900 gpd Peak: 29,900 gpd x 1.3 = 38,870 gpd The proposed project results in a total potable water demand of 38,870 gpd. There are no exisƟng or anƟcipated capacity issues. The project will not have any signiﬁcant impact on the potable water system and therefore there is no LOS issue created by the proposed project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR WASTEWATER The property is located within the South Collier Water ReclamaƟon Facility (SCWRF) Service Area. The adopted level of service standard is based on residenƟal populaƟon generaƟng 90 gallons per capita day (gpcd). Proposed Project Demand for residenƟal mulƟ‐family: 92 dwelling units x 2.5 people/DU x 90 gpd/person = 20,700 gpd Peak: 20,700 gpd x 1.24 = 25,668 gpd Page 826 of 1321 2 The proposed project results in a total sanitary sewer demand of 25,668 gpd. There are no exisƟng or anƟcipated capacity issues. The project will not have any signiﬁcant impact on the wastewater system and therefore there is no LOS issue created by the proposed project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR DRAINAGE The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quanƟty and quality standards established in Ordinances 74‐50, 90‐10, 2001‐2 and LDC Ordinance 2004‐41, as may be amended. The Bonita Flores ResidenƟal Inﬁll Subdistrict project will be designed to Collier County and SFWMD standards and will have no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service. PARKS: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL The Collier County parks level of service standards are set at 1.2 acres per 1,000/populaƟon for community parks and 2.7 acres per 1,000/populaƟon for regional parks. According to the Collier County AUIR, the community park inventory as of 9/30/2023 is 553.09 acres and on 9/30/2028 is expected to be 559.47 acres, represenƟng a 6.38‐acre deﬁcit. Furthermore, the regional park facility inventory as of 9/30/2023 is 1,561.71 acres and is expected to be 1,388.65 acres on 9/30/2028, represenƟng a 173.06‐acre surplus. The increased residenƟal units will be responsible for paying park impact fees. No adverse impacts to community or regional parks result from this new project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR SCHOOLS Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) level of service is based on uƟlizaƟon of school faciliƟes which is a factor of enrollment to capacity. The level of service district‐wide is 95% of the permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for elementary and middle schools and 100% for high schools. The project is located within E3 concurrency service area (CSA) for elementary, M2 CSA for middle, and H2 for high school. The subject site with within the E3, Southwest Area North for elementary schools; the M2, Southwest Area for middle schools; and the H2, Southwest Area for high schools. The E3 CSA includes two elementary schools, Avalon and Lely. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,305 students, a 2022/2023 peak enrollment of 844 students, and a projected 2027/2028 enrollment of 847 students (65% capacity). Enrollment at Lely is being monitored; the enrollment forecast may include a boundary adjustment. The M2 and H2 CSAs include Lely and Naples High Schools, and East Naples, Gulfview, and Manatee Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,916 students, a 2022/2023 peak enrolment of 3,238 students, and a projected 2027/2028 enrollment of 3,110 students (79% capacity). The middle schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,014 students, a 2022/2023 peak enrollment of 2,180 students, and a projected 2027/2028 enrollment of 1,899 (63% capacity). There is available capacity in the public schools nearby to accommodate the growth due to this project and there are no adverse impacts to schools because of this project. AddiƟonally, the increased residenƟal units will pay school impact fees. Page 827 of 1321 3 Data Source: Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan, FY 24‐43 ROADWAYS Please refer to the Tra ffic Impact Statement for the project’s projected impacts on the adjacent roadways and trip generaƟon rates. The project will not create any negaƟve impact on the level of service for Collier Boulevard. FIRE, EMS, SHERIFF The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue StaƟon #25, along with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Medic #25, is co‐located approximately 1 mile from the property. EMS level of service standard is 1 unit/16,400 populaƟon which reﬂects an 8‐minute response Ɵme. No signiﬁcant impacts will be made to Fire Control and EMS level of service as a result of the proposed residenƟal project. Impact fees for ﬁre and EMS will be collected prior to cerƟﬁcate of occupancy to ensure the project contributes its fair share of the cost of the capital improvements necessary to support this project. The Fire Control and EMS locaƟon intended to serve the project is: Greater Naples Fire Rescue ‐ StaƟon #25 3675 Hacienda Lakes Boulevard Naples, FL 34114 The proposed project is located within District 3 of the Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) patrol. The project is located approximately 2 miles from Sheriff ’s Office faciliƟes which includes a police substaƟon, administraƟon office, and the Emergency CommunicaƟons Center (911). The CCSO facility closest to the subject property is: Collier County Sheriff's Office ‐ District 3 8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy Naples, FL 34113 Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR SOLID WASTE The proposed project is located within the District 1 Solid Waste CollecƟon Service Area. According to the Collier County 2023 AUIR, currently there is an exisƟng landﬁll capacity of 12,665,407 tons, and a ten‐year remaining landﬁll capacity of 3,088,013 tons. The esƟmated Ɵmeframe remaining for landﬁll capacity is 37 years. The proposed project will increase the populaƟon by approximately 230 people at buildout. Using a ton’s per capita disposal rate of 0.67 (esƟmated rate at buildout per the 2023 AUIR), a populaƟon increase of 230 people will generate an addiƟonal 154.1 tons per year. There is adequate capacity to accommodate the addiƟonal solid waste disposal generated by the proposed project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR Page 828 of 1321 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'SOFFICE - DISTRICT 3LELY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLPHYSICIANS REGIONALLELY HIGH SCHOOLPARKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLGREATER NAPLES FIRERESCUE - STATION #75GREATER NAPLES FIRERESCUE - STATION #72GREATER NAPLES FIRERESCUE - STATION #21COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'SOFFICE - PROCUREMENT1 MILE2 MILESSUBJECT PROPERTYCOLLIER COUNTY EMS 25NFeet030006000The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:26:42 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_6b Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIESMAP2024.02.016B1.AERIAL SHOWN WAS FLOWN DEC. 2022, AND PROVIDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES NOTES1.POLICE PROTECTION IS PROVIDE BY COLLIER COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE2.FIRE PROTECTION IS PROVIDED BY GREATER NAPLESFIRE RESCUE DISTRICT.3.THERE ARE NO WELL FIELDS WITHIN OR IN CLOSEPROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY4.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THECOUNTY'S COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES LEGEND-SCHOOL-HOSPITAL-SHERIFF / FIRE DEPARTMENT / EMSPage 829 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning Traffic Impact Statement 215618460 Prepared for: Bonita Flores I, LLC 35 Trillium Dr, Unit #1 Kitchener, Ontario N2E 0H2 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated 3510 Kraft Road, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 May 2024 Design with community in mind Page 830 of 1321 Professional Engineer’s Certification I certify that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Additionally, I hereby certify that I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Florida practicing with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and that I have supervised the preparation of and approve the evaluations, findings, opinions, conclusions, and technical advice hereby reported for: PROJECT: 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning Traffic Impact Statement 215618460 LOCATION: Naples, Florida This document titled 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning – Phase 1 Traffic Impact Statement was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the account of Bonita Flores I, LLC. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Prepared by: Page 831 of 1321 1 | Page PURPOSE Stantec has been tasked by Bonita Flores I, LLC to pursue a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Rezoning of the property to permit the development of 92-unit, four-story multifamily residential dwelling units (known in this report as “the Project”). The following traffic analysis submitted in support of this GMPA is intended satisfy the applicable requirements for a Small Scale Traffic Impact Statement as prescribed in Resolution No. 2006-299 from the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, which is based on the number of two-way peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed development (<50 during each peak hour). The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) is to document the impact of the Project on the adjacent roadway network and site access point. STUDY AREA & SITE DESCRIPTION The Project parcel (Property ID #00418400302, 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114) is approximately 9.49 acres in size and is currently within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district as shown on the Collier County Zoning Map. A rezoning is being proposed as part of this Project to develop the property beyond agricultural uses. The subject site is located on the northbound side of Collier Boulevard (Figure 1 ), with the Hacienda Lakes Parkway located to the south and A Better Way located to the north. The project site is generally located 2.7 miles south of the Interstate 75 interchange (Exit 101), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. A right-in/right-out access driveway (traffic coming from the south and heading to the north) is proposed to serve the Project on Collier Boulevard. Left-turn egress traffic and left-turn ingress traffic will use the unsignalized thru-cut median openings at intersections with Club Estates Drive (quarter-mile north of the site) and Hacienda Lakes Parkway (quarter-mile south of the site), respectively, to make U-turn movements. The site plan for this development, as of the release of this TIS, is shown on Figure 2. As shown on Figure 2, a 315’ right-turn bay with 50’ taper is provided for site ingress traffic, which is in conformance with the FDOT Design Manual, the 55 mph design speed, and other right turn bays designed on this segment of Collier Boulevard. The proposed development consists of multi-family structures that are four-stories tall, not to exceed 52’ as zoned and not to exceed 56’ actual. Accordingly, for the purposes of trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 221 was selected to best represent the proposed site. It should be noted that development such as this one that are primarily engaged in the operation of apartments are included in SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) code 6513. FIGURE 1: Project Location Map Collier Blvd PROJECT LOCATION Page 832 of 1321 2 | Page FIGURE 2: Site Plan Right-in/Right-out Access to/from Collier Boulevard NOT TO SCALE 315’ Turning Bay w/ 50’ Taper for Right-Turn Ingress Page 833 of 1321 3 | Page TRIP GENERATION To evaluate the traffic being generated by the Project, a trip generation analysis was prepared based on the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the development plan of 92 dwelling units of mid- rise housing (Land Use Code 221). Two-way AM and PM peak hour trips to be generated by the Project are 29 and 36, respectively. Trip generation graphs and other backup from the ITE TripGen Web-Based App supporting trip generation calculations shown below in Table 2 are provided in Appendix A. ITE Land Use (Code) Units Unit of Measure Weekday 24-Hr Trips Time Period Peak Hour Trips Enter Rate Exit Rate Enter Trips Exit Trips Multifamily Housing, Mid-Rise (221) 92 Dwelling Units 392 AM Pk Hr 29 23% 77% 7 22 PM Pk Hr 36 61% 39% 22 14 TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The traffic generated by the Project was assigned to Collier Boulevard using the knowledge of the area and engineering judgement as shown in Table 3 (PM peak hour to analyze worst-case), with trips split 50- 50 coming from/going to the north and south. The resulting trip generation based on this distribution is shown in Figure 3. Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic Enter Exit Collier Blvd. 34.0 Davis Blvd. (SR 84) to Project 50% 11 7 Collier Blvd. 34.0 Project to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 50% 11 7 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segment of Collier Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the most recent volume for the applicable link from the Annual Update and Inventory Report (2023 AUIR) plus the trip bank volume for that same link. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4 illustrates the application of projected growth rates versus trip bank addition to generate the projected background (without Project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year of 2026. As shown in Table 4, the trip bank provides a more conservative analysis to be used for the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis: 2,770 vph. Figures from the AUIR for the roadway link adjacent to the project site are highlighted in Appendix B. Roadway Link Link No. 2023 AUIR Peak Hour, Peak Direction Background Volume (trips/hr) Trip Bank 2026 (2023 Plus Trip Bank) AUIR Peak Hour, Peak Direction Trip Bank Projection (trips/hr) Traffic Growth Rate 2026 AUIR Peak Hour (2023 Plus Growth Rate), Peak Direction Growth Rate Projection (trips/hr) Collier Blvd. 34.0 2,120 650 2,770 2% 2,250 TABLE 2: Trip Generation Analysis TABLE 3: Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour TABLE 4: Background Traffic on Collier Blvd Page 834 of 1321 4 | Page FIGURE 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Page 835 of 1321 5 | Page ROADWAY LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The Collier County Transportation Planning staff developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the roadway network for the buildout year of 2026. Staff guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage site-generated volume demand exceeds 2% when compared to both the capacity for the link accessing the site (or 3% if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard). Table 5 summarizes the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis, depicting if this Project is projected to have a significant and adverse impact. Roadway Link Link No. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume (trips/hr) Roadway Link, Peak Direction, Peak Hour Project Volume 2026 Peak Direction, Peak Hour Volume Demand with Project % Volume Capacity Impacted by Project Minimum LOS Exceeded without Project? Minimum LOS Exceeded with Project? Significant Impact? Collier Blvd. 34.0 3,000 (NB) 22 (NB) 2,792 0.7% No No No TURNING BAY SUFFICIENCY FOR SITE ACCESS As previously stated, a 300’ turning bay is being provided for right-turn ingress traffic, which is sufficient to accommodate the maximum projected peak hour ingress volume flow of 22 vehicles per hour, which translates to approximately less than one vehicle every two minutes. Furthermore, left-turn egress traffic and left-turn ingress traffic will use the 360’ left/U-turn bay at Club Estates Drive (quarter-mile north of the site) and the 480’ left/U-turn bay at Hacienda Lakes Parkway (quarter-mile south of the site), respectively, to make U-turn movements. The maximum projected peak hour volume of site vehicles making these U-turn movements is 11 vehicles per hour, which translates to approximately less than one vehicle every five minutes. Therefore, proposed site traffic is not anticipated to have a significant impact on operations at either left/U-turn bay north and south of the site. CONCLUSIONS The Project is estimated to generate 392 two-way trips during a 24-hour average weekday period, 36 of which are expected to occur during the PM peak hour, with 22 entering the site and 14 exiting the site. As demonstrated in the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis, this Project would not have a significant and adverse impact on the adjacent roadway network and, therefore, would not require any major traffic mitigation measures. TABLE 5: Roadway Link LOS Analysis Page 836 of 1321 APPENDIX A ITE TripGen Web-Based App Calculations Page 837 of 1321 273 Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Description Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments and condominiums located in a building that has between four and 10 floors of living space. Access to individual dwelling units is through an outside building entrance, a lobby, elevator, and a set of hallways. Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), off- campus student apartment (mid-rise) (Land Use 226), and mid-rise residential with ground-floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Land Use Subcategory Data are presented for two subcategories for this land use: (1) not close to rail transit and (2) close to rail transit. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is ½ mile or less. Additional Data For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.5 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 96 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time-of-day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). It is expected that the number of bedrooms and number of residents are likely correlated to the trips generated by a residential site. To assist in future analysis, trip generation studies of all multifamily housing should attempt to obtain information on occupancy rate and on the mix of residential unit sizes (i.e., number of units by number of bedrooms at the site complex). The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Utah, and Virginia. Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 818, 857, 862, 866, 901, 904, 910, 949, 951, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970, 1004, 1014, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1047, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1071, 1076 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) Page 838 of 1321 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:11 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:201 Directional Distribution:50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.54 3.76 - 5.40 0.51 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 4.77(X) - 46.46 R²= 0.93 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 4000 500 1,000 1,500 92 418 392 Page 839 of 1321 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:30 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:173 Directional Distribution:23% entering, 77% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.37 0.15 - 0.53 0.09 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.44(X) - 11.61 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 5000 100 200 300 92 34 29 Page 840 of 1321 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:31 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:169 Directional Distribution:61% entering, 39% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.39 0.19 - 0.57 0.08 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.39(X) + 0.34 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 5000 50 100 150 200 92 36 36 Page 841 of 1321 APPENDIX B Collier AUIR Roadway Link Information Excerpt Page 842 of 1321 Attachment "F"57 58 61 63 64 65 66Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic CountsPeak20232022 Net Percent2023 2023TrafficHour 1Peak Peak Change Change2023 Counts + 2023w/TB CountsTrip BankPeak Dir Hour Hour In Volume In VolumeTotal Counts + Trip Bank Counts +LYear YearTCMA orExist Cnt. Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir From From Trip Trip Bank Remaining Trip Bank O Expected ExpectedID# CIE# TCEA Road#LinkFromToRoad Sta. Std*Dir Volume Volume Volume 2022 2022 Bank Volume CapacityV/C S Deficient Deficient1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # 12 13 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 281.0 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport RoadImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 4D 554 D N 2,200 1120 1480 -360-32.14%16 1136 1064 51.6% B2.1 55 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport RoadVanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 6D 599 E N 3,000 2190 2250 -60-2.74%35 2225 775 74.2% C2.2 55 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport RoadOrange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road6D 503 E N 3,000 2270 2160 110 4.85% 53 2323 677 77.4% D3.0 39CR31 Airport RoadPine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway 6D 502 E N 3,000 2150 2180 -30-1.40%14 2164 836 72.1% C4.0CR31 Airport RoadGolden Gate Parkway Radio Road6D 533 E N 2,800 2090 2210 -120-5.74%0 2090 710 74.6% C5.0 3CR31 Airport RoadRadio RoadDavis Boulevard6D553 E N 2,800 2080 20800 0.00% 0 2080 720 74.3% C6.0 3 TCEA CR31 Airport RoadDavis BoulevardUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 552 E S 2,700 1470 1550 -80-5.44%90 1560 1140 57.8% C7.0TCEA(pt)Bayshore DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Thomasson Drive4D 521 D S 1,800 730 7300 0.00% 183 913 887 50.7% B8.0 31CR 865 Bonita Beach Road West of Vanderbilt Drive Hickory Boulevard4D 653 D E 1,900 1000 1100 -100-10.00%0 1000 900 52.6% B9.0Carson RoadLake Trafford Road Immokalee Drive2U 610 D N 600 290 2900 0.00% 40 330 270 55.0% B10.0 33County Barn Road Davis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road 2U 519 D S 900 380 370 10 2.63% 86 466 434 51.8% B11.0CR29 CR 29US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Everglades City2U 582A D S 1,000 180 1800 0.00% 10 190 810 19.0% B12.0TCEA SR84 Davis BoulevardUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Airport Road6D 558 E E 2,700 1420 1410 10 0.70% 55 1475 1225 54.6% C13.0 48SR84 Davis BoulevardAirport RoadLakewood Boulevard 4D 559 D E 2,000 1460 1470 -10-0.68%0 1460 540 73.0% C14.0 49 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardLakewood Boulevard County Barn Road4D 658 D E 2,000 1660 1630 30 1.81% 56 1716 284 85.8% D203115.0 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardCounty Barn RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard 4D 538 D E 2,200 1500 1410 90 6.00% 138 1638 562 74.5% C16.1 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardSanta Barbara Boulevard Radio Road6D 560 E E 3,300 860 840 20 2.33% 155 1015 2285 30.8% B16.2 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardRadio RoadCollier Boulevard6D 601 E W 3,300 1220 1250 -30-2.46%245 1465 1835 44.4% B17.0 62CR876 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier BoulevardWilson Boulevard4D 531D E 2,300 2030 1960 70 3.45% 17 2047 253 89.0% D202918.0CR886 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 530 E E 2,700 1790 1630 160 8.94% 0 1790 910 66.3% C19.0 5CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road6D 507 E E 3,550 3010 2770 240 7.97% 0 3010 540 84.8% D203220.1 74CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Airport RoadLivingston Road6D 508 E E 3,550 3240 3140 100 3.09% 19 3259 291 91.8% D 2027 202620.2 74 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston RoadI-756D 691 E E 3,550 3370 3340 30 0.89% 0 3370 180 94.9% D 2026 202621.0 74 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway I-75Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 509 E E 3,300 2270 2020 250 11.01% 10 2280 1020 69.1% C22.0 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard4D 605 D * E 1,980 15201450 70 4.61% 53 1573 407 79.4% D23.0 19 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 594 D N 1,000 700 720 -20-2.86%5 705 295 70.5% C24.1 65 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 4D 595 E N 2,400 1410 1390 20 1.42% 75 1485 915 61.9% C24.2 65 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road6D 581 E N 2,400 1630 1620 10 0.61% 3 1633 767 68.0% C25.0 88CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway 6D 505 E N 3,000 1880 1860 20 1.06% 1 1881 1119 62.7% C26.0CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 504 E S 2,700 2760 2660 100 3.62% 4 2764(64)102.4% F Existing Existing27.0 87 EC-TCMAGreen Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard2U 642 D E 900 750 680 70 9.33% 0 750 150 83.3% D203329.0NW-TCMAGulfshore Drive111th AvenueVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 583a D N 800 220 2200 0.00% 0 220 580 27.5% B30.1 37CR951 Collier Boulevard Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 655 E N 3,000 1870 1810 60 3.21% 386 2256 744 75.2% D30.2 37CR951 Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,000 1580 1490 90 5.70% 93 1673 1327 55.8% C31.1 85CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road6D 536 E N 3,000 2530 2590 -60-2.37%107 2637 363 87.9% D203031.2 85 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Pine Ridge RoadGreen Boulevard6D 536 E N 3,000 2530 2590 -60-2.37%91 2621 379 87.4% D203132.1 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Green BoulevardGolden Gate Pwky4D 525 D N 2,300 1470 1410 60 4.08% 27 1497 803 65.1% C32.2 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate PwkyGolden Gate Main Canal 4D607 D N 2,300 19801780 200 10.10% 234 2214 86 96.3% D202532.3 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main Canal I-758D 607 E N 3,600 1980 1780 200 10.10% 387 2367 1233 65.8% C33.0 61 EC-TCMA SR951 Collier Boulevard I-75Davis Boulevard8D 573 E N 3,600 3020 3170 -150-4.97%293 3313 287 92.0% D202834.0 86CR951 Collier Boulevard Davis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 602 E N 3,000 2120 2270 -150-7.08%650 2770 230 92.3% D202935.0 86CR951 Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail)6D603 E N 3,200 2250 2230 20 0.89% 434 2684 516 83.9% D36.1 12SR951 Collier Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Wal-Mart Driveway6D557 E N 2,500 2310 2420 -110-4.76%173 2483 17 99.3% E 2027 202436.2SR951 Collier Boulevard Wal-Mart Driveway Manatee Road4D 557 D N 2,000 2310 2420 -110-4.76%140 2450(450)122.5% F Existing Existing37.0 12SR951 Collier Boulevard Manatee RoadMainsail Drive4D 627 D N 2,200 1830 1810 20 1.09% 161 1991 209 90.5% D202938.0 51SR951 Collier Boulevard Mainsail DriveMarco Island Bridge4D 627 D N 2,200 1830 1810 20 1.09% 50 1880 320 85.5% D203239.0 64 NW-TCMA CR846 111th Avenue N. Gulfshore DriveVanderbilt Drive2U 585 D E 700 330 390 -60-18.18%0 330 370 47.1% B40.0 1 NW-TCMA CR846 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 613 D E 900 610 700 -90-14.75%0 610 290 67.8% C41.1 6 NW-TCMA CR846 Immokalee Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 566 E E 3,100 1990 2070 -80-4.02%25 2015 1085 65.0% CMinDRAFT - MASTER Attachment F-2023 (072823)34.086CR951Collier BoulevardDavis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road6D602EN3,00021202270-150-7.08%650277023092.3%D2029Page 843 of 1321 The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:39 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_5 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460FLOOD ZONE MAP2024.02.015SUBJECT PROPERTYNPage 844 of 1321 Page 845 of 1321 Page 846 of 1321 CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC Minutes of the July 12, 2024 Meeting of the Board of Directors Meeting Location: Naples, FL Present: Peter Catana Absent: N/A 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Peter Catana, President. 2.Roll Call and Quorum The secretary called the roll, and a quorum was present. 3.Approval of Minutes The minutes of the previous meeting held on March 14, 2022 were reviewed and approved as presented. 4.Purpose of the Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and authorize an individual to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company, as well as to take out loans. 5.Presentation and Discussion Peter Catana, President, presented the proposal to authorize Michael Crijan to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company and to take out loans. The presentation included details such as the scope of authority, financial limits, and any specific conditions. The board discussed the proposal, asking questions and seeking clarification on various aspects. 6.Resolution and Authorization Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was resolved: "Be it resolved that Michael Crijan is hereby authorized to purchase, sell, and mortgage real property on behalf of the corporation, subject to the following conditions: None. The Board of Directors empowers Michael Crijan to sign all necessary documents, contracts, and agreements related to the purchase, sale, and financing of real property, including but not limited to deeds, contracts of sale, loan agreements, promissory notes, Docusign Envelope ID: F6C84422-0C40-49E3-AB4A-26B562445DBA Page 847 of 1321 and other related documents. The financial limit for each loan transaction shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000)." 7.Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Catana, President, July 12, 2024. Approved: Peter Catana Docusign Envelope ID: F6C84422-0C40-49E3-AB4A-26B562445DBA Page 848 of 1321 BONITA FLORES I, LLC Minutes of the July 17, 2024 Meeting of the Board of Directors Meeting Location: Naples, FL Present: Peter Catana Absent: N/A 1.Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Peter Catana, President. 2.Roll Call and Quorum The secretary called the roll, and a quorum was present. 3.Purpose of the Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and authorize an individual to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company, as well as to take out loans. 4.Presentation and Discussion Peter Catana, President, presented the proposal to authorize Michael Crijan to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company and to take out loans. The presentation included details such as the scope of authority, financial limits, and any specific conditions. The board discussed the proposal, asking questions and seeking clarification on various aspects. 5.Resolution and Authorization Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was resolved: "Be it resolved that Michael Crijan is hereby authorized to purchase, sell, and mortgage real property on behalf of the corporation, subject to the following conditions: None. The Board of Directors empowers Michael Crijan to sign all necessary documents, contracts, and agreements related to the purchase, sale, and financing of real property, including but not limited to deeds, contracts of sale, loan agreements, promissory notes, Docusign Envelope ID: 69181631-D751-4321-A544-6DBADE204E0C Page 849 of 1321 and other related documents. The financial limit for each loan transaction shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000)." 6.Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Catana a/k/a Petru Catana , President, July 17, 2024. Approved: Peter Catana a/k/a Petru Catana Docusign Envelope ID: 69181631-D751-4321-A544-6DBADE204E0C Page 850 of 1321 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 851 of 1321 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 852 of 1321 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 853 of 1321 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 Current Principal Place of Business: Current Mailing Address: 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US Entity Name: CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC. DOCUMENT# P21000005312 FEI Number: 36-4986225 Certificate of Status Desired: Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: CRIJAN, MICHAEL 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Officer/Director Detail : I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date MICHAEL CRIJAN FILED Apr 15, 2024 Secretary of State 7864339629CC MICHAEL CRIJAN D 04/15/2024 2024 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT No 04/15/2024 Title DPST Name CATANA, PETER Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Title VP Name CATANA, JESSICA Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Title D Name CRIJAN, MICHAEL Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Page 854 of 1321 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 855 of 1321 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 856 of 1321 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 857 of 1321 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 Current Principal Place of Business: Current Mailing Address: 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US Entity Name: BONITA FLORES I, LLC DOCUMENT# L13000030368 FEI Number: 90-0944849 Certificate of Status Desired: Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Authorized Person(s) Detail : I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date MICHAEL CRIJAN FILED Apr 24, 2024 Secretary of State 5439884490CC PETER CATANA MGRM 04/24/2024 2024 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT No 04/24/2024 Title MGRM Name CATANA, PETER Address 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Title DIRECTOR Name CRIJAN, MICHAEL Address 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Page 858 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & Rezone Request (PL20230018397) Neighborhood Information Meeting: May 19, 2025 5:30P-6:25P Summary In compliance with Collier County’s LDC Administrative Procedures Manual, Chapter 3, Section H, Rezoning – Standard and Chapter 8, Section B, Neighborhood Information Meeting, a Neighborhood Information Meeting for the residents within 500 feet of 8928 Collier Boulevard was held on Monday, May 19, 2025 at 5:30p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, FL 34113 as well as virtually at http://bit.ly/3GsrTPh. The newspaper advertisement affidavit, mailed notice letter, and list of mailing labels for all properties within 500’ is provided in Exhibit A. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit B and demonstrates a total of 3 participants attended the meeting in- person, including the 2 members of Collier County staff and the client, and 1 other attended virtually. The meeting began at approximately 5:38 pm and concluded at approximately 6:25 pm. It was explained that the intent of this neighborhood meeting was to focus on the two requests for the subject property, a growth management plan amendment and a zoning amendment. A presentation was given by the consultants from Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. outlining the Growth Management Plan Amendment request to amend the Future Land Use from Adopted designation Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to a Proposed designation Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. Additionally, the zoning amendment was also outlined and seeks approval from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the property at 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114. The presentation provided an overview of the current future land use and zoning. The proposed development and preliminary master concept plan were shared within a presentation, attached as Exhibit C. The proposed project design discussed includes 92 multi-family residential units. It was mentioned that the details of the project may be refined through the amendment process. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is required after the initial staff review and comment period on the application have been completed and at least 15 days before the first public hearing is held, whether it is the Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, the BCC, or the BZA. After the consultant’s presentation was finished, questions, comments and concerns were shared by attendees in the room and virtually. The following summarizes comments and questions shared. Question/Comment 1: If vehicular interconnection to Hacienda isn't done, would pedestrian/trail access still be considered?  Response: Pedestrian access already exists along Collier Blvd. We would have same challenges with pedestrian as we would vehicular access, if we can get a vehicle connection then pedestrian connection would be similar. When Hacienda Lakes was approved they didn’t have the interconnection proposed, we are proposing it and therefore it is this project’s burden. However, Hacienda Lakes would have to amend their zoning to allow the connection. Collier Blvd trail does provide bike/ped connection just outside the two communities. Page 859 of 1321 2 Question/Comment 2: Could you clarify water treatment.  Response: Stormwater management is required onsite, and everything goes through the South Florida Water Management Permitting. Question/Comment 3: Will all the natural trees be removed or will they be left in the 15’ buffer?  Response: The project is not at that point yet because there is a challenge with grading. The project will do their best to maintain the pre-existing trees. Typically, the existing tree preservation is completed during the site development plan and the detailed engineering plans along with the final grading plans. Question/Comment 4: Kingston street residents (Seven Shores) feel they will lose privacy. They were under the impression by their builder that the subject property to the south was a preserve permanently.  Response: That was not an accurate statement by the builder of Seven Shores (Kingston Street) as this property (subject property) to the south is privately owned and is not a preserve. This project has been in pursuit since September 2023. Page 860 of 1321 Page 861 of 1321 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3510 Kraft Road Suite 200, Naples, FL 34105 \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\NIM 20250519\CollierBLVD_MailNotice.docx April 30, 2025 Re: NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & 8928 Collier Boulevard PUDZ Rezone (PL20230018397) Dear Property Owner: In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code please be advised that Bonita Flores has filed two applications with Collier County. A Growth Management Plan Amendment from Adopted Future Land Use Designation Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to a Proposed Future Land Use Designation of Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. The Rezone application is seeking approval of a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the 9.49+\- acre subject property located east of Collier Boulevard, south of Brighton Boulevard, and north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway. The rezone is seeking to allow for the development of 92 multi-family residential dwelling units, with 28 of those units being designated for Affordable Housing, and of those 14 will be for essential service personnel such as active duty military, military veterans, police or file personnel, child-care workers, teachers and other education personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, or government employees. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application 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. This will provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The NIM will be held on Monday, May 19, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, Florida, 34113 or you may attend virtually at: http://bit.ly/3GsrTPh Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 225-4805, or Josh.Philpott@stantec.com. Sincerely, Josh Philpott, AICP Principal, Planning Page 862 of 1321 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE 3713 MILANO LAKES FL OWNER LLC % REVANTAGE PROPERTY TAX PO BOX A3878 CHICAGO, IL 60690---0 14 50 26 THAT PORTION OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 5957 PG 2583 00418400700 U 3805 TLW LLC 7742 ALICO RD FT MYERS, FL 33912---0 14 50 26 W1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW 1/4, W1/2 OF E1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4, W1/2 OF E1/2 OF E1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 AND AS DESC IN 00416560008 U ANDERSON, SANDRA LEE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-103 53269005220 U BEDNAR FAMILY TRUST 327 FRAZER DRIVE N W NORTH CANTON, OH 44720---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-102 53269005369 U BEINHAUER FAMILY R/L TRUST 22 BEECHNUT DR SOUTH BARRINGTON, IL 60010---9512 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-201 53269005107 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT L1 48590010342 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT L2 48590010368 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 4 48590010782 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 5 48590010805 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 6 48590010821 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 7 48590010847 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 8 48590010863 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 13 48590010960 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 14 48590010986 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 15 48590011008 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 16 48590011024 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 20 48590011105 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 163 48590013967 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 164 48590013983 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 SEVEN SHORES PHASE 1 TRACT OS6A 73250001022 U BONITA FLORES I LLC 2675 HORSESHOE DR #404 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 14 50 26 S1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS W 100FT R/W 00418400302 U BRIGHTON LAND LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT FD-2 48590010148 U CAMP, WILLIAM D & ANN M 20 MONROE AVE DALLAS, PA 18612---1512 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-104 53269005563 U CARLSON, CORY 8959 KINGSTON ST NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 3 48590010766 U COCKSEDGE, PAUL LESLIE WHITE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #204 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-204 53269005327 U COLGIN, JOHN & CINDY 8933 OCEANA WAY NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 12 48590010944 U COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 15 50 26 COMM NE CNR SEC 15,W 100FT TO W R/W LI 951 TO POB, S 892.87FT, W 4870.63FT TO W LI SEC 15, N 882.49FT, E 00418560006 U CRAIG, WAYNE J 4610 WINGED FOOT WAY NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-104 53269005084 U D'ANGELO, DAVID 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #203 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-203 53269005301 U DENISE LEE NYMAN-FINKE TRUST 502 KEEPATAW DRIVE LEMONT, IL 60439---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-202 53269005602 U DOUGLAS P BROWN JR TRUST LEIGH H BROWN TRUST 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #202 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-202 53269005288 U EPSTEIN, HOWARD B & JENNIFER A RANDALL P=& ALICE M ANDREOZZI 5547 MEADOWGLEN DR CLARENCE CENTER, NY 14032---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-201 53269005424 U GAGLIOSTRO, NICHOLAS & SARAH 8951 KINGSTON ST NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 1 48590010724 U GRAHAM, ROBERT M & ELIZABETH B 20 JACKSON POND RD DEDHAM, MA 02026---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-204 53269005482 U HACIENDA NORTH APARTMENTS LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT FD-1 48590010041 U JANE LEE BETTS REV TRUST 4630 WINGED FOOT CT APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34112---8418 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-201 53269005589 U KRINSKY, DANN SHARON A GEHRMANN 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #204 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-204 53269005644 U LIPANI, CARL & LISA 14 COUNTRY CLUB LN MIDDLETON, MA 01949---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-102 53269005042 U MANCHAK, ROBERT & MICHELLE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #104 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-104 53269005246 U MEILINGER, GREGORY PAUL DEIDRE ARLENE MEILINGER 1091 SALDTON DR AKRON, OH 44333---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-202 53269005440 U MROZOWSKI, JOHN C & JULIE F 4935 MANCHESTER COURT ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48306---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-102 53269005204 U NAPLES LAKES CC LLC PO BOX 153 WALES, WI 53183---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-103 53269005385 U NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB LANDSCAPE BUFFER TRACT LESS OR 3214 PG 461(RW RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD)62030000380 U NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB MF-1, LESS LAKE ARROWHEAD 1A CONDO AS DESC IN OR 2731 PG 1205, LESS LAKE ARROWHEAD 1B 62030000403 U NAPLES LKS COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LESS NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 2 LESS OR 3214 PG 461 RW RATTLESNAKE 62030000283 U NEWTON, VERONICA C 39 E 29TH ST., #4E NEW YORK, NY 10016---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 11 48590010928 U OHANA PROPERTY GROUP LLC 4710 GOLF TER EDINA, MN 55424---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-203 53269005149 U ONEILL, THOMAS J & SUZANNE M 181 MAILANDS ROAD FAIRFIELD, CT 06824---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-203 53269005628 U PANSCH REVOCABLE TRUST 4610 WINGED FOOT WAY #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-103 53269005068 U PAUL W HARTUNG III REV TRUST 5844 ISLAND DRIVE NW CANTON, OH 44718---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-101 53269005343 U PUCILLO, SUSAN ADAMS FREDERICK JOSEPH PUCILLO JR 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-103 53269005547 U REYES, TONY WILLIAM PATRICIA MARIE REYES W186S9656 PARKER DR MUSKEGO, WI 53150---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-102 53269005521 U ROBERTSON, MALCOLM JUDITH C ROBERTSON 42 ELM STREET FALMOUTH, MA 02540---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-104 53269005408 U RONALD K REUM REVOC TRUST 4600 WINGED FT WAY#201 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-201 53269005262 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS2 48590010423 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS4 48590010465 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS5 48590010481 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS11 48590010601 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS12 48590010627 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS13 48590010643 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT R1 48590010685 U SPELLMAN FAMILY TRUST 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-101 53269005505 U SUSAN D MADIGAN TRUST 6 HAMILTON CIR SHREWSBURY, MA 01545---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-204 53269005165 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 17 48590011040 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 18 48590011066 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 19 48590011082 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 101 48590012722 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 102 48590012748 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 103 48590012764 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 104 48590012780 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP CO INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 161 48590013925 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP CO INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 162 48590013941 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT R1A 48590010708 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 9 48590010889 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 10 48590010902 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 21 48590011121 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 99 48590012683 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 100 48590012706 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT A 48590010025 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 2 48590010740 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 22 48590011147 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 23 48590011163 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 24 48590011189 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: PL20230018397 (8928 Collier BLVD (PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/31/2025 | Site Location: 418400302 POList_500.xls Page 863 of 1321 2 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE 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: PL20230018397 (8928 Collier BLVD (PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/31/2025 | Site Location: 418400302 TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 25 48590011202 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 26 48590011228 U TULLY, TIMOTHY J & MARIANNE T 17746 CRESTVIEW DR ORLAND PARK, IL 60467---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-203 53269005466 U HALLER, RICHARD P & VERA 1101-4955 RIVERSIDE DR E WINDSOR N8Y5A3 CANADA LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-101 53269005181 F MENGELE, HANS-PETER & ILONA LYDTINSTRASSE 2 BADEN BADEN D 76530 GERMANY LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-202 53269005123 F PAQUETTE, PAMELA WILLIAM ANDREW KING 118 JOHN WATT WAY #1 THORNBURY N0H 2P0 CANADA LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-101 53269005026 F LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CON DOMINIUM LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM hrd_parcel_id: 53269005000 62030000445 POList_500.xls Page 864 of 1321 Name Phone Number Email Street Address City, State, Zip How did you hear about this meeting?Notes Type of Attendee Nancy Gundlach Collier County Staff In-person Michael Crijan Client In-person Jessica Constantinescu 239-252-4329 Jessica.Constantinescu@colliercountyfl.gov County Website Collier County Staff In-person Sarah Gagliostro 8951 Kingston street Resident: lives on then other side of the north wall Virtual Neighborhood Information Meeting: Collier Blvd PL20230018397 (PUDZ) and PL20230013845 (GMPA) The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project in the future. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released upon a public records request, you can refrain from including information on this sheet. May 19, 2025 @ 5:30p.m. Page 865 of 1321 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & Rezone (PL20230018397) Neighborhood Information Meeting May 19, 2025 Page 866 of 1321 Agenda 1.Introductions 2.Workshop Procedures 3.Project History 4.Details of GMPA Request 5.Details of Rezoning Request 6.Status & Upcoming Meetings 7.Q&A 8.Wrap Up 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 867 of 1321 Introductions Stantec Representatives Josh Philpott, AICP – Principal, Community Development Joel Blikstad, PE – Senior Project Manager, Community Development Applicant Representatives Michael Crijan, Property Owner Representative Justin Narine, Catana Construction Collier County Representative Nancy Gundlach, AICP – Senior Planner, Zoning Services Department Jessica Constantinescu – Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 868 of 1321 Workshop Procedures MEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION •IN PERSON Q&A •VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATION Page 869 of 1321 Project History Pre-Application meeting for Growth Management Plan (GMP) & Rezone (PUDZ) applications with Collier County staff - September 6, 2023 GMP application submitted - March 6, 2024 Comments from County on GMP received - April 15, 2024 PUDZ application submitted - June, 26, 2024 Revised GMP application submitted - July 29, 2024 Comments from County on GMP received - Sept 3, 2024 Comments from County on PUDZ received - November 1, 2024 Revised PUDZ application submitted to County - February 14, 2025 Neighborhood Information Meeting for GMP & PUDZ - May 19, 2025 (tonight) 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 870 of 1321 Site Location 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Where: 8928 Collier Boulevard Acres: 9.49 acres South of: Brighton Boulevard by 600 feet North of: Hacienda Lakes Parkway by 1300 feet Milano Lakes Placid Village Seven Shores Arrowhead Village Sapphire Cove Juliana Village Collier BlvdHacienda Lakes Azalea Park Subject PropertyNaples Lakes Country Club Page 871 of 1321 GMPA Request 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 To: Bonita Flores Residential Infill SubdistrictFrom: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Milano Lakes Seven Shores Collier BlvdHacienda Lakes Azalea Park Hacienda Lakes PkwyCollier BlvdUrban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Lord's Way Mixed Use Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict Conservation Designation Subject Property Subject Property Page 872 of 1321 GMPA Request From: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict To: Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Request: 92 residential Multi-family units (Approx. 10 units per acre) 30% (28 units) will be Workforce Housing: •9 units < 80% AMI •9 units < 100% AMI •10 units <120% AMI 50% (14 units) of Workforce housing units shall be reserved or Essential Service Personnel • Police, Fire, EMS, Health Care, Teachers, Military, Government employees. Workforce Housing is a 30 year commitment 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Collier BlvdSubject Property Page 873 of 1321 GMPA Request 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Collier County (Metro) Percentage Category Income Limit by Number of Persons in Unit Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit 1 2 4 1 2 3 2025 Collier County Median Household Income $113,600 60%$47,760 $54,540 $68,160 $1,278 $1,534 $1,772 80%$63,680 $72,720 $90,880 $1,705 $2,046 $2,363 100%$79,600 $90,900 $113,600 $2,131 $2,557 $2,953 120%$95,520 $109,080 $122,760 $2,557 $3,069 $3,544 140%$111,440 $127,260 $159,040 $2,983 $3,580 $4,135 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation, based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/developers-and-property-managers/compliance/limits/rent- limits/2025_rent_limits/florida-housing-rental-programs---2025-income-and-rent-limits--eff--4-1-2025-.pdf?sfvrsn=602ecf7b_4 Page 874 of 1321 Rezone Request 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Rezone: From: Rural Agricultural (A) To: Residential PUD Purpose: To allow Multi-family development of 10 du/acre, totaling 92 units Community Benefit: 28 units are designated for Affordable Housing, 14 of which for military veterans, or essential services personnel Page 875 of 1321 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 •Access: Collier Blvd •Optional: Interconnect to Hacienda Lakes •Buffers: •North & East: 15’ Type B Buffer •South: 10’ Type A •West: 15’ Type D Buffer •Building Setbacks •North: 15’ min. •South 25’ min. •West 30’ min. •Height: 4 Stories •Open Space •Required: 60% / 5.69 ac •Provided: 61% / 5.79 ac •Preservation •Required: 15% / 1.22 ac •Provided: 15% / 1.22 ac Property Development Regulations Page 876 of 1321 Conceptual Site Plan 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 877 of 1321 Comments from County on GMP received - Sept 3, 2024 Comments from County on PUD received - November 1, 2024 Revised PUD application submitted to County - February 14, 2025 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) - May 19, 2025 (tonight) GMP Application sufficient (only missing NIM info) Rezone Application Sufficient - TBD Collier County Planning Commission Public Hearing – TBD Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing - TBD Status & Upcoming Meetings 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 878 of 1321 IN PERSON QUESTIONS? 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 879 of 1321 Virtual Participation Questions MEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION •IN PERSON Q&A •VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATION Page 880 of 1321 Phone Attendee Questions MEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION •IN PERSON Q&A •VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATION Page 881 of 1321 Contact Info For more information or if you have additional questions, contact: Josh.Philpott@stantec.com 239-225-4805 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 882 of 1321 Page 883 of 1321 9/18/2025 Item # 9.F ID# 2025-2779 PL20240013221 - Santa Barbara Landings RPUD (PUDA) - approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-53 the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development, as amended, by increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on part of the east side of Tract B, increase the height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B; and by providing an effective date. Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74± acres out of 41.6± acres. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, Planner III] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report - Santa Barbara Landings PUDA 2. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 09-02-25 3. Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Memo 4. Attachment C - Draft Ekos on Santa Barbara II -Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement 5. Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials 6. Attachment E - Opposition Letters 7. Attachment F - Hearing Advertising Sign Page 884 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 1 of 18 September 5, 2025 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD AMENDMENT (PUDA -PL20240013221) PROPERTY OWNER/CONTRACT PURCHASER/AGENT: Owner: Contract Purchaser: S & C Santa Barbara, LLC MHP Collier IV, LLC 6192 Whitaker Rd 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 Naples, FL 34112 Miami, FL 33131 Agent: Patrick Vanasse, AICP The Neighborhood Company 5618 Whispering Willow Way Fort Myers, FL 33908 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission consider an amendment to Ordinance Number 2005-53, the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development, as amended, by increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on a portion of the west side of Tract B, increase the maximum height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74+ acres out of 41.6+ acres (See location map on following page). Page 885 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 2 of 18 September 5, 2025 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In 2005, the 41.6-acre property was rezoned from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) pursuant to Ordinance 05-53 to add 43 mixed residential dwelling units to the 248 existing dwelling units for a total of 291 dwelling units. Per the October 31, 2024, PUD Monitoring Report, a total of 248 dwelling units have been constructed in the RPUD. In 2021, an insubstantial change to the RPUD was approved via HEX No 2021-01. The intent was to modify Condition 2.12.B and the PUD master plan to require the wall along Tract B only, to modify Condition 2.14.A.3 to require interconnection of the internal sidewalk concurrent with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02.B, and Page 886 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 3 of 18 September 5, 2025 revisions to PUD Monitoring, Environmental and Housing conditions so that current Land Development Code standards and Policies apply, for Tract B of the PUD property. The 41.6±‐acre RPUD is comprised of two development tracts. At the time of original rezoning from RFM‐ 6 to PUD, the northerly 35.3±‐acre tract (Tract A) was developed with 248 multifamily dwelling units, which is now a condominium community known as Granada Lakes Villas. The southerly 6.74± acres designated as Tract B was approved for a maximum of 43 mixed residential dwelling units. Currently, MHP Collier IV, LLC is the contract purchaser for Tract B and is requesting a PUD amendment to the RPUD to consider the following changes: •Increase of 41 DUs (to a total of 332 DUs) or 1 DU per gross acre for a maximum density of 8 DUs per gross acre. •All proposed 84 units for Tract B will be affordable. •The eight foot precast wall shall be constructed along the portion of the eastern boundary of the PUD (HEX Decision 21-01), as depicted in Exhibits A-1. •Permit an increase in height to 4 stories or 50’ for multi-family dwellings for Tract B. •Adding 650 SF one-bedroom and 950 SF two-bedroom units for Tract B. •Adding a single building of 84 units for Tract B. •Requesting two new deviations. •Updating housing commitments with a proposed Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. •Adding Revised Master Plan specific to Tract B For an analysis of each proposed change, please refer to the Zoning Services Section on page 8 of this staff report. Page 887 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 4 of 18 September 5, 2025 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of Tract B within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD: North: Multi-family residences (Santa Barbara Landings RPUD); maximum density: 7DU/AC East: Single and multifamily residential, (Plantation PUD); maximum density: 4.99DU/AC South: Multi-Family residential, zoned Bembridge EMS Complex PUD; maximum density: 6DU/AC West: Santa Barbara RD, then developed with golf course and multi-family, zoned Berkshire Lakes PUD; maximum density: 3.96DU/AC Aerial (Prepared by The Neighborhood Company) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. 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 amendment petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP as summarized below. Page 888 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 5 of 18 September 5, 2025 Future Land Use Element (FLUE): According to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), the subject property is located in the Urban residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-use District as identified on the county-wide FLUM of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The purpose of the subdistrict is to provide for residential development in areas where public facilities are concentrated. The proposed amendment to modify the permitted density from 7 units per acre to 8 by including an affordable housing commitment that is applicable to all the proposed 84 residential units on tract B, with 71 units reserved for households between 51% - 80% AMI and 13 reserved for households at or below 50% AMI. Therefore, the Comprehensive Planning staff determines that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Future Land Use Element. (See Attachment B – FLUE Consistency Memo) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s April 18, 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 impact if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occurs: a.For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. b.For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c.For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed Santa Barbara Landings PUDA development will generate a projected total of 33+/- PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway Santa Barbara Boulevard. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Page 889 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 6 of 18 September 5, 2025 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 Santa Barbara Boulevard/78.0 Radio Rd to Davis Boulevard 3,100/NB 10/NB C 1,283 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is April 18, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 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 Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 41.6 acres. A minimum of 3 acres (25% of the native vegetation) preserve is required and shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. STAFF ANALYSIS: 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 (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. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Review.” Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The PUD preserve requirement is 3.00 acres (25% of the native vegetation). Ordinance 2005-53 required 1.62 acres of restored preservation for the existing developed property. The subject property, Tract B, will provide 1.71 acres of preservation, 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 2005-53. The native vegetation will be preserved 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 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates the presence of the Black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan must be included in the PPL or SDP review. Page 890 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 7 of 18 September 5, 2025 The proposed project is located within the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). The property contains 19 observed cavity trees (Page 46 of 72 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. Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Any proposed stormwater management system resulting from this PUDA will be addressed through an Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) process with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). (Note: An ERP application is currently under review by the SFWMD under ERP Application# 250806-55695). Any proposed stormwater system will also be evaluated through the Collier County Site Development Permit (SDP) and/or Plans and Plat (PPL) permitting process. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Landscape Review: The proposed changes do not result in changes to previously approved buffers. The buffers labeled on the updated Master Plan match what is on the previous approved Master Plan. Affordable Housing Review: The Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff has provided the following comments… the Santa Barbara Landings PUDA (with its accompanying Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, see Attachment C) proposes to be developed in as follows: A residential community that will include up to 332 multifamily rental units at a density of 8 units per acre. The development proposes to include 25% of the residential units (84 units) as affordable housing. The affordability of the 84 affordable units is proposed as follows: 13 units (16%) restricted to less than 50%AMI 71 units restricted to between 51% - 80% AMI For reference, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: Page 891 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 8 of 18 September 5, 2025 All the above-mentioned restrictions and commitments will remain in effect for a minimum of thirty (30) years. 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. 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 now $2,933 (2025). Approval of this development will assist Collier County in addressing the continued need for affordable housing. The Housing Policy & Economic Development staff recommends approval of the Santa Barbara Landings PUDA and its associated Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the south 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 RPUD 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. Zoning Services Review: The PUD is approximately 41.6 acres and allows for 291 residential units. The PUD allows single-family and multi-family dwelling units. The petition proposes 84 units on Tract B. The height will increase for Tract B from 2 stories or 30’ to 4 stories or 50’ for multi-family dwellings. Direct access to Tract B is provided by Santa Barbara Blvd (western side of PUD) Internal accessibility will be provided only via a gated emergency access located at the northeast section of the PUD. The applicant is proposing 9 changes to the PUD. Below is each proposed change with staff response. 1. Section 2.2 limits the project to an overall density of 7 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 291 units. To date, 248 units have been built on Tract A, leaving a balance of 43 units. This amendment requests an increase in total project density to 8 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 332 units using an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB). The additional 41 units will allow the developer, McDowell Housing Partners, to provide 84 multi-family rental units on Tract B. Of the 84 units, 71 will be reserved for households with incomes between 51% - 80% of the area median income (AMI), and 13 will be reserved for households with incomes at or below 50% AMI. Staff is in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 2.2 Page 892 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 9 of 18 September 5, 2025 2. Section 2.12 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls requires that an 8’ precast wall be constructed along the eastern boundary of the PUD. This amendment requests that the eight foot precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along the eastern boundary of the PUD, as depicted in Exhibits A and A-1. Staff is in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 2.12 3. Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) dictates a maximum zoned building height of 2 stories or 30’ for all permitted residential types. This amendment requests a separate building height standard for Tract B, specifically to permit a maximum height of 4 stories or 50’ for multi-family dwellings. Increased height will allow the developer to provide an affordable multi-family product within the relatively small footprint of Tract B, maximizing the preservation and open space, consistent with the Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I development. Staff is in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 3.4, Table 1 4. Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) requires a minimum floor area per unit of 750 square feet. This amendment requests a minimum floor area of 650 square feet to accommodate proposed one-bedroom units and 950 square feet for two-bedroom units, being consistent with affordable housing units and the Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I development. Staff is in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 3.4, Table 1 5. Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) limits attached multi-family structures within Tract B to four dwelling units per structure. This amendment proposes to remove this condition (Footnote 5) to allow for a single building consisting of 84 units. Staff is in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 3.4, Table 1 6. Section 5.11 Housing outlines housing commitments for Tract B, including a requirement for 50% of the units to be owner-occupied. This amendment requests to update these commitments consistent with the proposed Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement, as well as utilizing the most current housing commitment language provided by Collier County. By removing the 50% owner-occupied requirement, the project will be able to provide 100% of the units as affordable. Staff is in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 5.11 Page 893 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 10 of 18 September 5, 2025 7. This amendment requests changes to the approved master plan specific to Tract B, including a minor reconfiguration of the preserve areas and the removal of building footprints. The amended master plan for Tract B will still provide a total of 1.75 ± acres of preserve. Staff is in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Exhibit A-1, Tract B Master Plan. 8. Miscellaneous edits to the PUD ordinance include updating ownership and any language that may be outdated. Staff is in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance. 9. Adding new deviations to Section 2.14 Staff supports Deviation 4 (Preservation Standards) and Deviation 5 (Multi-Family Dwellings – Parking Space Requirements). See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 2.14, and Deviations Discussions section of this staff report. 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.” (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold). 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. Tract B is surrounded by multifamily to the north, west, and south. Multifamily and single-family are to the east. For Tract B, the trip cap will not exceed 33 two-way PM peak-hour trips. The project will be required to comply with County regulations regarding traffic, water, sewer, drainage, and other utilities. Water and wastewater mains are available along Santa Barbara Boulevard. 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. The project will be required to comply with County regulations regarding traffic, water, sewer, drainage, and other utilities. With these parameters addressed, the site is suitable for the proposed development. 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 Page 894 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 11 of 18 September 5, 2025 and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate unified control of the property. 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 conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 4. 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 PUD is proposing to increase the maximum building height of 30 feet to 50 feet (4 stories for Tract B. The existing setbacks and landscape buffers remain unchanged. There is appropriate buffering both internally and externally to the project. The proposed changes do not result in changes to previously approved buffers. The buffers labeled on the updated Master Plan match what is on the previous approved Master Plan. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No deviation from the required usable open space is being requested. Per the PUD Master Plan, the site provides the 30% open space requirement. Compliance will be evaluated at the time of SDP or PPL. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Water and wastewater mains are available along Santa Barbara Boulevard. 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. As noted above, the 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. Page 895 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 12 of 18 September 5, 2025 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. This petition does not propose the expansion of the building area. The PUD boundary is not proposed to be modified. Water and wastewater mains are available along Santa Barbara Boulevard. 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. 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. The petitioner is requesting two new deviations to the LDC. 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.” 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Staff determined the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of the GMP, as described on page 4 of this report. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern is described and shown in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section on page 3 of this report. The proposed amendment is consistent with the land use pattern in the vicinity. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is currently zoned RPUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. Page 896 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 13 of 18 September 5, 2025 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not specifically necessary, but is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The petitioner believes the rezoning is necessary to accommodate the increase in density and height, and to add a conceptual site plan for Tract B. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The amendment proposes to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on the west side of Tract B, increase the height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B. Staff is of the opinion that these changes is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood and will be compatible with the Ekos development to the south. 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 noted above, the 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. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). (Note: An ERP application is currently under review by the SFWMD under ERP Application# 250806-55695). Any proposed stormwater system will also be evaluated through the Collier County Site Development Permit (SDP) and/or Plans and Plat (PPL) permitting process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. On Tract B, the height will increase from 2 stories or 30’ to 4 stories or 50’ for multi- family dwellings. Distance between principal structures remains the same at 15’ for multi-family dwellings. Staff are of the opinion that these changes will not result in reduced light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors, including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value Page 897 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 14 of 18 September 5, 2025 determination is driven by market value. The PUD Amendment, as proposed, is aligned with the development pattern, uses, and building types in the surrounding area of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD; therefore, the PUD Amendment should 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. The proposed amendment 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 contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed PUD Amendment complies with the GMP, the amendment is effectively in alignment with public policy guiding future land use in the interest of the public welfare. In light of this fact, the proposed change 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 subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed development cannot be constructed to meet the petitioner’s needs without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; staff do 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 site is already developed. The PUD modifications will be subject to evaluation 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 Page 898 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 15 of 18 September 5, 2025 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 outlined 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 who 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. DEVIATIONS DISCUSSION: The PUD was approved via Ordinance 05-53 with three deviations. The petitioner is now seeking to add two deviations. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Section 2.14. The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation for this deviation are listed below. Deviation #4: (Preservation Standards) “Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A-1.” Petitioners' Justification: The original Master Plan (adopted by Ordinance 2005-53, as amended) was approved with two preservation areas, as the approval pre-dated the requirement for contiguous preservation. This deviation seeks to maintain the separate preservation area locations. At 6.74± acres, Tract B has a relatively constrained developable area, and preserve areas were selected, in part, with the desire to provide enhanced buffering from the existing residential communities to the north (Granada Lakes Villas) and east (Plantation PUD). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff recommends the APPROVAL of the deviation request. The subject property is restricted to the uses proposed. The access road, located along the eastern boundary of the property, will allow for design flexibility by establishing access and utilizing the preserve areas as an enhanced buffer for adjacent existing uses. Since the proposed access road prevents the required interconnectivity for the preserved areas required by LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, Environmental Services staff supports the deviation request to allow the preservation areas not to be contiguous. Black Bear management will be required as part of the SDP/PPL. Moreover, Zoning Staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as shown that the deviation is Page 899 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 16 of 18 September 5, 2025 “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #5: (Multi-Family Dwellings – Parking Space Requirements) “Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities 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 for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces. Petitioners Justification: The proposed 84-unit development would require 156 parking spaces per the LDC, as detailed below: Use Units and LDC Ratio Parking Required 1 Bedroom Unit 60 @ 1.75/unit 105 2 Bedroom Unit 24 @ 2/unit 48 3 Bedroom Unit 0 @ 2/unit 0 Office 900 SF @ 1 per 300 SF (*50%) 1.5 Clubhouse 600 SF @ 1 per 200 SF (*50%) 1.5 TOTAL 156 156 parking spaces equate to a space-per-unit ratio of 1.85. The proposed 10% reduction would require 140 parking spaces or a space-per-unit ratio of 1.67. The developer of the proposed project, MHP Collier IV, LLC, has developed many multi-family developments in Florida, with multiple existing projects in Collier County. The space-per-unit ratio of MHP’s Collier County projects ranges from 1.24 to 1.99, with an average of 1.5. To date, no parking deficiencies have been identified in these developments. The requested ratio of 1.67 is higher than the average of 1.5, suggesting that 140 spaces will provide sufficient parking for the development. Additionally, over 70% of the proposed units will be one-bedroom, which are anticipated to be single-vehicle households. 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 LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation Page 900 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 17 of 18 September 5, 2025 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 May 8, 2025, at Ekos on Santa Barbara Apartments clubhouse, located at 4640 Santa Barbara Blvd., Naples, FL. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 7:00 p.m. Patrick Vanasse, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions from the consultant team and staff, and gave a PowerPoint. Eduardo Teran, McDowell Housing Partners (MHP), and Rachel Hansen (The Neighborhood Company) continued the presentation. The presentation consisted of an overview of the proposed PUDA application. Following the agent’s presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant questions regarding the proposed development. The issues discussed were the proposed density, affordable housing percentages, wall between Tract B and neighborhood to the east, Phase 1 acreage, emergency exit, pedestrian walkway, PUD Master Plan Map, height of buildings, fence, traffic, traffic light, federal funding for the project, rental units for 99 years, flooding, drainage, dumpsters, buyer for Tract B, preserves, PUD developer commitments in the HOA documents, gated community, and timeline for completion. All questions and concerns were answered by Patrick Vanasse and the consulting team. No commitments were made. A copy of the NIM summary, sign-in sheet, and NIM PowerPoint presentation is 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 areas not to be contiguous as required by LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s office on September 2, 2025. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward this petition, PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA, to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A) Draft Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Memo C) Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement D) Application/Backup Materials E) Opposition Letters F) Hearing Advertisement Sign Page 901 of 1321 PL20240013221 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD PUDA Page 18 of 18 September 5, 2025 Page 902 of 1321 [25-CPS-02609/1961898/1] 85 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 1 of 2 9/2/25 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-53, AS AMENDED, THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD), BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 291 TO 332 UNITS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 84 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON TRACT B OF THE RPUD, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A WALL ON PART OF THE EAST SIDE OF TRACT B, INCREASE THE HEIGHT ON TRACT B AND ADD A DETAILED MASTER PLAN FOR TRACT B; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. TRACT B IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 40, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.74± ACRES OUT OF THE 41.6± ACRE RPUD. [PL20240013221] WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2005-53 which created the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and WHEREAS, the Collier County Hearing Examiner approved insubstantial changes to the RPUD in HEX Decision 2021-01; and WHEREAS, MHP Collier IV, LLC, represented by Patrick Vanasse, AICP of The Neighborhood Company, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the RPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. The PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 2005-53, as amended, is hereby amended in accordance with the revised PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. Page 903 of 1321 [25-CPS-02609/1961898/1] 85 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 2 of 2 9/2/25 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ 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 Attachment: Exhibit A - PUD Document with Exhibits Page 904 of 1321 09/02/2025 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 41.6± Acres Located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 And St. George Group Corporation 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390 Miami, FL 33126 MHP Collier IV, LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 PREPARED BY: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 And D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Insubstantial Change for St. George Group, Corp by: Johnson Engineering. Inc. 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 (HEX Decision 21-01) Amendment for MHP Collier IV, LLC prepared by: The Neighborhood Company 5618 Whispering Willow Way Fort Myers, FL 33908 EXHIBIT “A” Page 905 of 1321 09/02/2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES i STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA III-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREA IV-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS V-1 Page 906 of 1321 i 09/02/2025 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A-I EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D TABLE I CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN TRACT B MASTER PLAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LOCATION MAP BOUNDARY SURVEY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III-3 Page 907 of 1321 ii 09/02/2025 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE This (HEX Decision 21-01) Residential Planned Unit Development is on approximately 41.6± acres of land located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. Approximately 6.3 acres of the property is encumbered with a 100' wide roadway easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard, making the net site approximately 35.3 acres. The name of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. The development of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as established in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies of the land development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Plan and applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The density provided for in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD complies with the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the residential density band, which extends from the Mixed-use activity center located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The density permissible is 4 dwelling units per acre. Up to 3 dwelling units per acre may be added within the density band, bringing the permissible base density to 7 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density may be added subject to the criteria in the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Base density 4.0du/acre Density band 3.0du/acre Affordable Housing Density Bonus 1.0du/acre Maximum permitted density 7.0 8.0du/acre Requested density 7.0 8.0du/acre (291 332 units) At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 84 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 332 dwelling units. All property within the RPUD boundary shall be utilized in calculating the project density. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with the applicable land development regulations as required in Objective 3 of the FLUE, except as may be modified in this RPUD document 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 6. The design of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD protects the function of the existing Page 908 of 1321 iii 09/02/2025 drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as required in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This project shall be subject to applicable Sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. Page 909 of 1321 I-1 09/02/2025 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Section I sets forth the location and ownership of the property, and describes the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 41.6 acres more or less, is described as: The west half (W. ½) of the west half (W. ½) of the northwest quarter (N.W. ¼) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, all being situated in Collier County, Florida, less the north 50 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is currently owned by: TRACT A: unit owners of the Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association Inc. and Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association Inc. whose address is 145 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, FL 34104 (HEX Decision 21-01), and TRACT B: St. George Group, Corp, MHP Collier IV, LLC, whose address is 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390, Miami, FL, 33126 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300, Miami, FL 33131. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project is located in Section 04, Township 50, Range 26 and is generally bordered on the north by Radio Road, on the east by Plantation PUD; on the south by Bembridge PUD on the west by Santa Barbara Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is RMF-6. C. According to FEMA/FIRM Map Panel Number 120067 415 D, dated June 3, 1986, the property is located within Zone X. D. Soils on the site generally include Hallandale fine sand and Boca, Rivera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland fine sand depressional. Page 910 of 1321 I-2 09/02/2025 E. Existing vegetation on the site consists of melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, palmetto prairie, pine flatwoood, cypress, Cabbage Palm and disturbed lands. Wetland areas have been heavily impacted by melaleuca. F. According to the Collier County Drainage Atlas, the site is located in the Lely Canal Basin. The conceptual water management plan is depicted in the Surface Water Management Report, which accompanied the rezone application submittal. 1.5 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance is known and cited as the "Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." Page 911 of 1321 II-1 09/02/2025 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Section II delineates and generally describes the plan of development and identifies relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD is a mixed-use residential project and will consist of two development parcels and multiple preservation areas. Categories of land uses include those for residential and preserve areas. The Residential areas are designed to accommodate single-family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings. The overall project density is 7 8 dwelling units per acre and the maximum units permitted in the RPUD shall be 291 332 units. B. Exhibit "A" depicts the RPUD Master Plan. Exhibit A-I depicts the Master Plan for Tract B. The RPUD Master Plan includes a table that summarizes land use acreage. The location, size and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan approval. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorize the construction of improvements. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted from this RPUD Document or associated exhibits, the provisions of other sections of the land development codes, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code. Page 912 of 1321 II-2 09/02/2025 2.4 LAND USES Land uses are generally depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined by the developer at the time of site development plan approval, preliminary subdivision plat approval, or final subdivision plat approval subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Collier County LDC. 2.5 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may utilize land within the rights-of-way within the RPUD for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and unified signage. This utilization is subject to review and administrative approval during the development review process by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations. 2.6 MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE A. Construction offices and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 5 and Chapter 10 of the LDC. B. Model Homes may be permitted in multi-family and townhome buildings may be utilized for wet or dry models, subject to the time frames specified in Chapter 5 of the LDC. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by LDC. 2.8 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30% of the project (12.48± acres) shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.9 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum of three (3) acres of native vegetation shall be maintained on the subject site through a combination of preservation of existing native vegetation and revegetation of native vegetation. The areas of retained native vegetation and replanted native vegetation are shown as Preserve areas on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. Page 913 of 1321 II-3 09/02/2025 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE One or more Property Owner's Association (POA) will provide common area maintenance. The POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in Chapter 2 of the LDC. I. Individual Projects a) Site Planning: Each distinct project within the RPUD will provide an aesthetically appealing, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles. The orientation of buildings and structures will be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. b) Landscaping: Where applicable, plantings along public rights- of way will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. 2.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS A. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the RPUD, excluding preserves. B. The maximum fence, wall or berm height internal to the RPUD shall be eight (8) feet, not including those portions of walls incorporated into project identification signs. The maximum fence height shall be measured relative to the greater of the crown of the adjacent roadway or the adjacent minimum finished floor, as applicable. The eight (8') foot high precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along a portion of the eastern boundary of the PUD, as depicted in Exhibit A-I. C. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). Page 914 of 1321 II-4 09/02/2025 2.13 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL Signage shall be consistent with Section 5.06 of the LDC. 2.14 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS/DEVIATIONS The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with Chapter 10 of the LDC. A. Chapter 6, Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths 1. Existing site constraints prohibit retrofitting of the site with sidewalks meeting standards in Chapter 6 of the LDC. 2. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on only one (1) side of the internal local or private roadway exceeding one thousand (1,000) feet in length serving the project's additional 43-unit component Tract B. 3. The developer of Tract B s hall construct a sidewalk interconnection concurrently with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A. The developer of Tract B shall coordinate with the School District of Collier County to construct a sidewalk interconnection from Tract B to the adjacent school property at time of 1Tract B development permitting. (HEX Decision 21-01) 4. The developer shall make payment-in-lieu of construction of the sidewalk within Santa Barbara Boulevard, due to its programmed improvement in the five-year work program. B. Section 4.06.00, Landscaping, buffering and vegetation retention 1. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). C. Construction Standards Manual, Streets and access improvements 1. Construction Standards Manual, Street Right-of-Way Width Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs shall be forty (40) feet. Drive aisles serving multi-family tracts shall not be required to meet this standard. Page 915 of 1321 II-5 09/02/2025 2. Construction Standards Manual, Dead-end Streets Cul-de-sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Construction Standards Manual, Intersection Radii Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty-five (25) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five (35) foot radius for intersections at project entrances. D. Section 3.05.07, Preservation Standards 1. A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off- site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A- 1. E. Section 4.05.04, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings 1. A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities 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 for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces for Tract B. 2.15 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses that generally serve the entire RPUD or distinct projects there within. B. General Permitted Uses: Page 916 of 1321 II-6 09/02/2025 1. Essential services as set forth under Chapter 2 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.12 of this document. 7. Signage. Page 917 of 1321 III-1 09/02/2025 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE Section III establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated Residential "R" on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "R" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate multiple family residential types, recreational uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Acreage is based on a conceptual design. Actual acreage of the development and preserve areas shall be established at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. Areas designated as "R" accommodate internal roadways, open space, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar facilities that are accessory or customary to residential development. B. Areas designated as "R" are intended to provide a maximum of 291 332 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Single-family attached and detached. 2. Duplex and two-family. 3. Multiple-family. 4. Townhomes B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Common indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Sales and leasing facilities. 3. Clubhouse, meeting rooms. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this area. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. Page 918 of 1321 III-2 09/02/2025 B. Required Parking: Parking within the residential area shall be provided based on the following standards: 1. Recreation Facilities - 2 per court, 1 per 600 square feet of building area, 1 per 200 square feet of pool water area. No additional parking shall be required for outdoor playground facilities. Up to 10 parking spaces per recreational facility may be directly loaded off a private roadway serving the recreational area. 2. Temporary Model Sales Facility - minimum 6 parking spaces per building. Parking for models or temporary sales facilities shall be permitted to back directly onto private roadways serving the units. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. Page 919 of 1321 III-3 09/02/2025 TABLE I SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Permitted Uses and Standards Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Duplex, Single Family Attached and Townhouse5 Multi-Family Dwellings 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' NA NA Front Yard Setback1 20' /23' 20'/23 20'/23' 20'/23' Side Yard Setback 6' 0' or 6' 0' or 6' 15' Rear Yard Setback2 15' 15' 15' 15' Santa Barbara Blvd. R-0-W Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Accessory Setback2 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Setback3 Accessory Principal 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract A 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract B 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 4 Stories or 50’ Distance Between4 Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 15' Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract A 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract B 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 650 SF (1 bedroom) 950 SF (2 bedroom) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 1Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road or access easement, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). For multiple family buildings served by an unplatted driveway, no setback shall be required; however, adequate stacking shall be provided to accommodate vehicular parking. For Tract B, front entry garage setback shall be a minimum of 23' from private ROW or back edge of sidewalk. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the setback must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance, Chapter 134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. C. For structures with side or rear entry garages, the minimum front yard may be reduced to 12'. 2Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, or open space (non-preserve) may be reduced to 0' feet; however, a reduced building setback shall not reduce the width of any required landscape buffer, as may be applicable. 3For purposes of this Section, accessory structures shall include but not be limited to attached screen enclosures and roofed lanais. 4A minimum building separation of twelve (12) feet between detached structures. Detached garages may be separated by a minimum often (10) feet. 5Attached single family and multi-family structures within Tract B shall not exceed 4 dwelling units per structure. Page 920 of 1321 IV-1 09/02/2025 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Section IV establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated as Preserve "P" on the RPUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, subject to review and approval by local, state & federal agencies as required, for other than the following: B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding impervious paved trails). 2. Water management facilities. 3. Any other preserve and related use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Building setbacks shall be 20 feet from the RPUD boundary for any permitted structure. B. Maximum zoned height for any structure shall be 20'. 4.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed preserve areas depicted on the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Master Plan are intended to meet the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservation areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval based on jurisdictional agency permit requirements. Page 921 of 1321 IV-2 09/02/2025 Approximately 6 acres of native vegetation exists on-site at the time of rezoning application. Through retention of existing native vegetation and revegetation of open spaces on-site, the developer shall provide a minimum of 3 acres of on-site native vegetation, which shall consist of a minimum of ±1.5 acres of retained vegetation and ±1.5 acres of replanted and enhanced native vegetation. A. Tract B will provide 1.75 acres of the minimum 3 acres of required preserve. Page 922 of 1321 V-1 09/02/2025 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat, Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. These developer commitments will be enforced through provisions agreed to be included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions or similar recorded instrument. Such provisions must be enforceable by lot owners against the developer, its successors and assigns, regardless of turnover or not to any property or homeowners' association. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. Page 923 of 1321 V-2 09/02/2025 5.4 PUD MONITORING (HEX Decision 21-01) A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD Insubstantial Change amendment approval dated January 7, 2021, the Managing Entity for Tract B is St. George Group, Corp MHP Collier IV, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. (HEX Decision 21-01) 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. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC. 5.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25- year return frequency. A. The project will be permitted with the South Florida Water Management District and copies of the applicable permits will be provided to Collier County prior to issuance of applicable County permits. Page 924 of 1321 V-3 09/02/2025 B. Existing lakes already constructed as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed to continue to exist in accordance with the cross sections shown on Surface Water Management Plan, Exhibit "B". Any new lakes must meet the requirements of the then current LDC. 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. C. Water and wastewater systems shall be constructed in accordance with State of Florida Laws and Collier County's Codes and Ordinances. D. All construction plans, technical specifications and hydraulic design reports are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division prior to commencement of construction E. Upon completion of construction, all water and wastewater systems within the project shall be tested and must meet minimum County standards and requirements. The system(s), or a portion thereof, that is found to meet the requirements set forth in item #5 below, may then be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. F. If County's utility system does not have access readily available to serve a project within the County's service area, extensions to the County infrastructure may be required. All required extensions shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer, fiscally and otherwise (time and schedule), unless such extension has been previously defined in the County Water and/or Wastewater Master Plan. In such case, the developer may negotiate an upsizing agreement with the County. If it is determined by the County that neither of these two options are feasible, an interim system may be considered. G. Items on the following list shall be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance upon approval from the Board of County Commissioners if they are located within a County right-of-way or County Utility Easement (CUE), are in compliance with the latest revision of the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, and are connected to the County Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Systems: Page 925 of 1321 V-4 09/02/2025 1. Potable water lines 6” or larger, including water meters and backflow devices that are not on fire lines. 2. Gravity wastewater lines 8" or larger. 3. Wastewater lift stations that are located within a CUE. 4. Force mains 4” or larger. 5. CUE's that are determined to be necessary to access and maintain utility systems and structures. 6. Non-potable irrigation water lines 6" or larger, including the water meter and backflow devices. For potable and reclaimed water distribution systems that will not be conveyed to the County, a master meter shall be required. Such systems shall be owned and maintained by the applicant, his successor or assigns, from the customer side of the master meter and backflow device or the check valve at the property line or County Utility Easement limit. School and park developments are included in the list of types of developments whose internal systems the applicant or assigns shall be responsible to own and maintain. H. Private lift stations shall conform to the same specifications that apply to public lift stations, unless a Deviation from the Ordinance has been granted in advance and writing by the County Wastewater. The lift station Control Package shall include an operable Telemetry Control System, as specified by County Standards. I. H. The developer will pay all impact fees in accordance with the latest revision of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Code of Laws Section 74.303(d). J. I. PUDs and DRIs shall have only one master pump station. K. J. Lift station easement areas shall be designed to 30 feet by 30 feet, or twice the wetwell depth by twice the wetwell depth, whichever is larger. L. K. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of bulk containers service (garbage dumpsters and/or compactors) for all commercial and industrial establishments, unless authorization for alternative means of disposal is approved by the Public Utilities Division. Bulk container service shall be required to all multi-family projects not receiving curbside pickup. Solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of curbside pickup for all units on the annual Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Special Assessment Roll's. All individual units within a deed-restricted area must have an enclosed location other than the residential structure, such as a carport or garage for the storage of individual solid waste containers, or as otherwise permitted in Section 5.03.04 of the LDC. Page 926 of 1321 V-5 09/02/2025 M. L. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, all provisions and facilities for solid waste collection and disposal shall conform to all portions of Section 5.03.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) of the latest edition of the LDC. M. 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 Collier County 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. N. 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 water distribution/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to 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 Collier County 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. 5.8 TRAFFIC The development of this RPUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County Land Development code (LDC). B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. Page 927 of 1321 V-6 09/02/2025 D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 74 and Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of the LDC, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a Right-of-way Permit. F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. H. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right- of-way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. K. A. Upon written request by Collier County the property owner shall dedicate, to Collier County without compensation, an area of approximately 721± square feet for road right-of-way purposes, as depicted on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan. Page 928 of 1321 V-7 09/02/2025 L. A temporary construction access for all site work and vertical construction on Tract B shall be located along Santa Barbara Boulevard as shown on the PUD Master Plan and subject to issuance of the appropriate right-of-way permit. Temporary construction access shall be limited to one year from issuance of development permit (PPL or SDP). To limit the access to construction activities only, signage is required to indicate Construction Only, and barricades are required to block access during non-working hours. Prior to final approval by the County, the temporary access shall be totally removed, and right-of-way shall be restored. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. The maximum total daily trip generation for Tract B shall not exceed 33 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 applications for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL (HEX Decision 21-01) A. A minimum of (3.0 acres) of the on-site native vegetation shall be retained or revegetated, consistent with Chapter 3 of the LDC as conceptually shown as preserve areas on the Exhibit "A", Conceptual RPUD Master Plan. 1. Of the 3.0 acres of preserve, 1.71 shall be existing native vegetation and 1.62 acres shall be restoration. 5.11 HOUSING A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the owner of Tract B has agreed to construct 71 rental units for residents in or below the low income category (80 percent or less of County median income) and 13 rental units for residents in or below the very low income category (50 percent or less of County median income). These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. B. By way of example, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income Limits are: Page 929 of 1321 V-8 09/02/2025 The developer or successors and assigns shall require a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units developed within Tract B of the RPUD to be initially sold to individuals or families that use the dwelling unit as their primary residence. The deed to the initial purchaser shall include a restriction that the initial purchaser shall use the unit as their primary residence. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the owner will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units, including rent data for rented units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Owner agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to sell a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units constructed within Tract B of the RPUD to persons employed in Collier County and earning a family income that is up to 140% of the County' s median income. Page 930 of 1321 Page 931 of 1321 Page 932 of 1321 Page 933 of 1321 Page 934 of 1321 Page 935 of 1321 Page 936 of 1321 Page 937 of 1321 Growth Management Community Development Department Zoning Division—Comprehensive Planning Section 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: Tim Finn, Planner III, Zoning From: Parker Klopf, Planner III, Comprehensive Planning Date: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20240013221 PETITION NAME: Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Amendment REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on the west side of Tract B, increase the height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B. LOCATION: Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Sanat Barbara Boulevard, in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74+ acres out of 41.6+ acres COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located in the Urban residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-use District as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). In 2005, the 41.6-acre property was rezoned from Residential Multi Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) pursuant to Ordinance 05-53 to add 43 mixed residential dwelling units to the 248 existing dwelling units for a total of 291 dwelling units or a density of 7 units an acre. Per the October 31, 2024 PUD Monitoring Report, a total of 248 dwelling units have been constructed in the RPUD, all of which are the existing units located on tract A. This amendment proposes to increase the density to a maximum of 332 units or a density of 8 units an acre over the entirety of the property with no change in density on Tract A. This is b etter stated as an increase in the number of units permitted on tract B from 43 to 84 units. This increase in density is being justified by committing 71 units for households between 51% - 80% Area Median Income (AMI) Page 938 of 1321 and 13 units for households at or below 30% AMI, see affordable housing density bonus agreement. Based on staff review of the proposed amendment and the accompanying affordable housing agreement it is the determination of Comprehensive Planning Staff that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Future Land Use Plan. Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold]. FLUE Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. As stated above the maximum allowed density within the Urban Residential Area is 4 DU/A, the proposed project has a proposed density of 3 DU/A. Staff have concluded that the requested density is less than allowed by the FLUE making it consistent with the GMP. FLUE Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The proposed development is within the Urban Designated Area of the Future Land Use Map and is serviced by utilities provided by the Collier County. Approval of this project is not urban sprawl and development at the proposed density is a good utilization of the existing infrastructure from a planning perspective. 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 proposed project will consist of a single multi-family structure. The property immediately north of the subject property is designated as tract A and consists of existing multi-family development. To the south is the entrance to an elementary school that includes a County owned Multi-family development. To the west is Santa Barbra Blvd. which is a six-lane divided highway and to the East of the property is residential single family development with a limit of 3-5 units an acre. The conceptual PUD master plan demonstrates appropriate project buffers consistent with that required in the LDC, and the proposed development standards will ensure that the units are setback from the adjacent roadway and nea rby residences to insure the compatibility. Page 939 of 1321 FLUE Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed- use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Based on staff review of the proposed Master Plan the subject property is interconnecting with tract A which meets the intent of this policy. FLUE Objective 7, and implementing Policies 7.1-7.4 Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed amendment to the PUD does promote smart growth policies by using existing urban designated land, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adding an access point to the adjacent elementary school, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County. CONCLUSION: The proposed density of 8 units is complementary and compatible with surrounding development. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed amendment to the PUD has been deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Page 940 of 1321 Page 1 of 26 [This space for recording] AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made as this _____ day of ________________, 2025 by and between MHP Collier IV, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (together, with its successors and assigns, collectively, the “Developer ”'), S & C Santa Barbara LLC , a Florida limited liability company (the “Owner”) and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the “Commission”), collectively, the “Parties”. RECITALS A. The S & C Santa Barbara LLC owns a portion of approximately ±6.74 acres of real property located in the of the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (the “Santa Barbara RPUD”), which real property is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property” or “Tract B”). B. MHP Collier IV, LLC is the contract purchaser of the Property. C.. The Santa Barbara RPUD permits a maximum of 291 residential units, at a density of 7 units per acre. The gross acreage of the Santa Barbara RPUD is ±41.6 acres. D. It is the Developer’s intent to construct a multifamily housing development with a maximum of 84 residential units (the “Units”) on the Property (the “Development”), which would require the Santa Barbara RPUD to be amended to permit the construction of a maximum of 332 residential units at a density of 8 units per gross acre across the Santa Barbara RPUD. If the Density Bonus (as defined below) is approved, the number of affordable Units constructed by Developer shall be 84, which would represent 25.3% percent of the total 332 units approved for the Santa Barbara RPUD. E. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus from the Commission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance 04-41, as Land Development Code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in Page 941 of 1321 Page 2 of 26 accordance with the strict limitations and applicability of said provisions. F. The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer of 1 unit per acre for the Santa Barbara RPUD, increasing the density of the overall Santa Barbara RPUD to 8 units per acre, and authorizing the construction of 41 bonus units on the Property, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable, workforce, and gap units as specified in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the Density Bonus of 1 unit per acre requested by the Developer for the Santa Barbara RPUD and the benefits conferred thereby on the Property, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer Agreements. The Developer hereby agrees to provide the following Affordable Housing Units (as defined below) for the Development, in accordance with this Agreement and as specified in Exhibits A through G attached hereto and incorporated herein. a. All eighty-four (84) of the Units of the Development will be provided for those earning 80% percent or less of the Collier County (Naples-Marco Island Metro Statistical Area) area median income, as determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“AMI”) (each, individually, an “Affordable Housing Unit” and, collectively, the “Affordable Housing Units”). b. All Affordable Housing Units will be rentals. c. The Units will include multi-family units with a variety of 1 bedroom/1 bathroom and 2 bedrooms/2 bathrooms units. d. No Affordable Housing Unit in the Development shall be rented to a tenant whose income has not initially been verified and certified in accordance with this section as an extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income household. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be submitted to the County Manager or designee for approval provided, however, that pursuant to Section 2.06.05.B.6. of the Collier County, Florida Land Development Code, Developer shall be Page 942 of 1321 Page 3 of 26 deemed to have satisfied the verification obligations if the Developer has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualification requirements of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and provided the County Community and Human Services Division with a copy of applicable Florida Housing Finance Corporation compliance and program reports. Tenant income verification and certification shall be repeated annually to assure continued eligibility provided, however, that pursuant to Section 2.06.05.B.6. of the Collier County, Florida Land Development Code, Developer shall be deemed in compliance with the reporting obligations required herein if the Developer has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualification requirements of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and provided the County Community and Human Services Division a copy of the annual Florida Housing Finance Corporation compliance and program reports. If, upon annual recertification, a household’s income is determined to exceed 120% of AMI, the Property shall not be deemed to be in non-compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, so long as the next available unit is rented to an extremely low-income, very low- income, or low-income person or household, or in conjunction with federal Low Income Tax Credit requirements, if applicable. e. The following provisions shall be applicable to the Affordable Housing Units: i. Defined terms. For the purposes of this Agreement, “Phasing” shall mean: (a) the phased construction of buildings or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan; or (b) in developments where phased construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development. ii. Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Collier County (Naples-Marco Island) Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Page 943 of 1321 Page 4 of 26 Federal Register, as adjusted for household members as shown on the tables attached hereto as Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. iii. Eligibility and Qualification of Renter. Household income eligibility is a three- step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Renter; 2) verification of family housing unit provided under the affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of eligible Renter by the Community and Human Services Division. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying renters by accepting applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all Affordable Housing Units in the subject Development. All applications, forms and other documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Community and Human Services Division. If, upon annual income recertification, the income of a household residing in an Affordable Housing Unit is determined to be in excess of the applicable limit for the income category to which such household was initially designated (i.e., extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income) (an “Over-Income Household”), the Property/Development shall not be deemed to be in violation of this Agreement, provided that: (i) the next available Unit within the Development is leased to a household meeting the income eligibility requirements of the category originally assigned to such Affordable Housing Unit; and (ii) the lease of the Over -Income Household is not renewed upon expiration or termination of the then-current term of such lease if, at such time, the Over-Income Household’s income continues to exceed the applicable limit for its originally assigned income category; provided, however, that if the Over -Income Household would be eligible to qualify for an Affordable Housing Unit within another Page 944 of 1321 Page 5 of 26 income category for the Development, and an Affordable Housing Unit is available for rent within such category, then (a) the Unit occupied by the Over-Income Household may be re-designated as an Affordable Housing Unit within such category or (b) the Over-Income Household may move to occupy such available Affordable Housing Unit, and in either case the Property/Development shall not be deemed to be in violation of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the Developer is required to comply with any tenant eligibility and qualification requirements in connection with financing (including federal Low Income Tax Credits) from Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the Property shall be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement so long as the Property is in-compliance with such Florida Housing Finance Corporation requirements. Further notwithstanding anything to the contrary, and for avoidance of doubt, Affordable Housing Units of a particular income category shall be floating units, and shall not be limited or fixed to particular Units in the Development. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible Renter family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC §§ 2.06.05 and 2.06.06, respectively. (1) Application. A potential renter shall apply to the Developer, the property manager of the Development (the “Management Agent”), or other agent (of the Developer or Management Agent) to qualify as an extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income household for the purpose of renting and occupying an Affordable Housing Unit pursuant to the affordable housing density bonus program. The Preliminary Application for an Affordable Housing Unit shall be provided to Collier County Community and Human Services Division as shown in Exhibit D, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (2) Income Verification and Certification . No Affordable Housing Unit in the Development shall be rented whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.05. Page 945 of 1321 Page 6 of 26 (3) Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupant(s) (including all household members) to verify all regular sources of income (including all household members) in the form of the Affordable-Housing Applicant Income Verification attached as Exhibit E hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the “Applicant Income Verification”). The most recent year’s federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including all household members) may be used for the purpose of income verification, attached to the Applicant Income Verification, including an statement to release the return, occupant verification of the return and a signature block with the date of application. The Applicant Income Verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 180-day period, the information may be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original Applicant Income Verification. After this time, a new Applicant Income Verification must be completed. (4) Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an Affordable Housing Unit and Applicant Income Verification, the Developer shall require that an income certification form in the form of the Affordable-Housing Applicant Income Certification attached as Exhibit F hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the “Applicant Income Certification”) be executed by the potential occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the Affordable Housing Unit by the occupant. Income certification shall assure that the potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential occupant as eligible to occupy an affordable housing unit under the affordable housing density bonus program. Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00, may be conducted by the Community and Human Services Division upon reasonable notice. Page 946 of 1321 Page 7 of 26 iv. Annual Progress and Monitoring Report . The Developer shall provide the Community and Human Services Division an annual progress and monitoring report regarding the delivery of Affordable Housing Units throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to ensure compliance with LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or before September 30 of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the Community and Human Services Division. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the Community and Human Services Division within sixty (60) days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written extension not to exceed thirty (30) days is granted prior to expiration of the sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted in a single year. v. Occupancy Restrictions. No Affordable Housing Unit in the Development shall be occupied by the Developer, any person related to or affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager. 3. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for the Density Bonus, in addition to the existing residential density of 7 units per acre for the Santa Barbara RPUD, and is therefore granted a density bonus of 1 density bonus units per acre for the Santa Barbara RPUD (the “Density Bonus”), for a total density (total = density bonus units per acre X gross acreage) of 8 units/ac, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00 for the for the Santa Barbara RPUD. The Commission further agrees that, in the aggregate, a maximum number of 332 units may be constructed in the Santa Barbara RPUD, and that the Developer may construct 84 Units on the Property, provided the Developer is able to secure building permit(s) from Collier County. 4. Commission Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Commission acting through the Community and Human Services Division or its successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepare and make available to the Developer any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions which are applicable to the Affordable Housing Units. Page 947 of 1321 Page 8 of 26 5. Violations and Enforcement. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC§ 2.06.00 to sell, rent, or occupy, or attempt to sell, rent, or occupy, any individual Affordable Housing Unit provided under the affordable -workforce housing density bonus program except as specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the Community and Human Services Division or by any other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by LDC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the Commission or its designee by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, or by civil enforcement as allowed by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Developer may sell, assign, transfer, or convey the Affordable Housing Units in connection with a sale of the entire Property and/or Development. 6. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to maintain the Affordable Housing Units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC § 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise approved Unit located or to be located upon the Property until the entire project is in full compliance with this Agreement and with LDC § 2.06.00, as amended. 7. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance written notice thereof. The Developer may assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the express written consent of the Commission, provided that it gives the Commission thirty (30) days advance written notice thereof. 8. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all other provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Parties. 9. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the Parties at the following Page 948 of 1321 Page 9 of 26 addresses: To the Commission: Collier County Community and Human Services 3339 E Tamiami Trail, Building H, Suite 211 Naples, FL 34112 To the Developer: MHP Collier IV, LLC 777 Brickell Ave, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Attn: Christopher Shear Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Party of such new address in the manner set forth above. 10. Authority to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that the Collier County Community and Human Services Division or their designee shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer’s obligations hereunder. 11. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all third party claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses and professional fees actually incurred, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any claim of willful misconduct or gross negligence arising out of a breach of this Agreement by the Developer. This Paragraph shall in no way be construed to relieve Collier County of the normal and usual duties of a reasonably prudent monitoring agent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the foregoing indemnification shall not apply to any claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses resulting from the negligence or intentional misconduct of Collier County, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. 12. Covenants. The Developer and Owner agree that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Property and against every person then having any ownership interest at any time and from time to time until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 15 below. However, the Parties agree that if Developer transfers or conveys the Property to another person or entity, Developer shall have no further obligation hereunder and any person seeking to enforce the terms hereof shall look solely to Developer's successor in interest for the performance of said obligations. 13. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded at County's expense in the official records of Collier Page 949 of 1321 Page 10 of 26 County, Florida. 14. Entire Agreement. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto and shall inure to and be binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 15. Termination. Each affordable or gap housing unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable housing for thirty (30) years, as provided in the LDC § 2.06.04. 16. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the written agreement of both Parties. 17. Discrimination. a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall discriminate against any owner/renters or potential owner/renters because of said owners/renters’ race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap. b. When the Developer advertises, rents or maintains an Affordable Housing Unit, it must advertise rent, and maintain the same in a non-discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in renting such Affordable Housing Unit. c. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale or rental of any Affordable Housing Units, if any. d. The Affordable Housing Units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the Development, if any. e. The square footage, construction and design of the Affordable Housing Units shall be the same as market rate dwelling units in the Development, if any. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same for market rate units, if any, and the Affordable Housing Units. For developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical amenities as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same in both the market rate units, if any, and the affordable-workforce units in each phase. Units Page 950 of 1321 Page 11 of 26 in a subsequent phase may contain different amenities than units in a previous phase so long as the amenities for market rate units, if any, and affordable, workforce, and gap units are the same within each phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable-workforce unit in any phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Developer Application. 18. Intentionally Omitted. 19. Intentionally Omitted. 20. Consistency. This Agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and land development regulations of Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the extent that they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable-workforce housing units and the amount of affordable-workforce housing density bonus approved for the development. 21. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Development Agreement. This Agreement is a distinct and separate agreement from "development agreements" as defined by Section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended. 22. Preapplication. Developer has executed and submitted to Collier County the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit G and incorporated by reference herein. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 24. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document requested by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 15 above. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] Page 951 of 1321 Page 12 of 26 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: _________________________________ Signature Printed Name: _____________________ Mailing Address: 777 Brickell Ave., Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 _________________________________ Signature Printed Name: _____________________ Mailing Address: 777 Brickell Ave., Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 AS TO THE DEVELOPER: MHP COLLIER IV, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: MHP Collier IV Manager, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, its Manager By: ________________________________ Printed Name:________________________ Title: _______________________________ STATE OF _______________ COUNTY OF _____________ The foregoing was acknowledged before me by ________________________________, as ______________________ of MHP Collier IV Manager, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Manager of MHP Collier IV, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, by means of physical presence, who ☐ is personally known to me or ☐ has produced ______________ as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this _______ day of ______________________ 2025. ________________________________ Notary Public Signature [Affix Notarial Seal] ________________________________ Notary Public Printed Name My Commission Expires: ___________ Page 952 of 1321 Page 13 of 26 WITNESSES: _________________________________ Signature Printed Name: _____________________ Mailing Address: 6192 Whitaker Road Naples, FL 34112 _________________________________ Signature Printed Name: _____________________ Mailing Address: 6192 Whitaker Road Naples, FL 34112 AS TO THE OWNER: S & C Santa Barbara LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: ________________________________ Printed Name:________________________ Title: _______________________________ STATE OF _______________ COUNTY OF _____________ The foregoing was acknowledged before me by ________________________________, as ______________________ of S & C Santa Barbara, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, by means of physical presence, who ☐ is personally known to me or ☐ has produced ______________ as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this _______ day of ______________________ 2025. ________________________________ Notary Public Signature [Affix Notarial Seal] ________________________________ Notary Public Printed Name My Commission Expires: ___________ Page 953 of 1321 Page 14 of 26 ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: _____________________________ , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: ________________________________ Heidi Ashton Managing Assistant County Attorney AS TO COMMISSION: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ___________________________________ Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Prepared by: Heidi Ashton, Esq. Collier County Attorney’s Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 Attachments: Exhibit A – Legal Description Exhibit B – Affordable Housing Units/Base Monthly Rents Exhibit C – Income and Rent Level Exhibit D – Preliminary Application for Affordable Housing Unit Exhibit E – Affordable-Housing Applicant Income Verification Exhibit F – Affordable-Housing Applicant Income Certification Exhibit G – Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Page 954 of 1321 Page 15 of 26 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence run North 01°00'26" West, along the East line of the West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4, for a distance of 480.72 feet, thence run South 76°13'51" West for a distance of 82.23 feet to a point on a circular curve, concave Northeast, whose radius point bears North 5°44'34" East, a distance of 73.16 feet there from; thence run Northwesterly along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 73.16 feet, through a central angle of 38°08'34", subtended by a chord of 47.81 feet at a bearing of North 65°11'09" West, for a distance of 48.70 feet to the end of said curve; thence run North 90°00'00" West for a distance of 125.77 feet; thence run south 35°38'35" West for a distance of 22.57 feet to a point on a circular curve, concave Northwest, whose radius point bears North 29°08'13" West, a distance of 65.22 feet there from; thence run Southwesterly, along the arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 65.22 feet, through a central angle of 49°30'54", subtended by a chord of 54.63 feet at a bearing of South 85°37'14" West, for a distance of 56.36 feet to the end of said curve; thence run North 69°37'17" West for a distance of 34.93 feet; thence South 27°06'45" West for a distance of 104.54 feet to a point on a circular curve, concave Northwest, whose radius point bears North 56°29'42" West, a distance of 52.77 feet there from; thence run Westerly, along the arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 52.77 feet, through a central angle of 101°32'18", subtended by a chord of 81.75 feet at a bearing of South 84°16'27" West, for a distance of 93.51 feet to the end of said curve; thence run North 48°37'36" West for a distance of 88.05 feet; thence run South 88°57'22" West for a distance of 113.05 feet to a point on the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4; thence run South 01°02'39" East, along the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4, for a distance of 439.34 feet to the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4; thence run North 88°49'14" East, along the South line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4, for a distance of 658.08 feet to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH a 24 foot wide ingress and egress Easement lying 12 feet each side of the centerline of the existing Santa Clara Drive. and TOGETHER WITH those certain non-exclusive easements as created and set forth in that certain Warranty Deed by and between Blue Bell-Meridian Partners, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership and Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC, a limited liability company recorded April 19, 2005 in Official Records Book 3777, Page 3934, as re-recorded in Official Records Book 3920, Page 1403, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Page 955 of 1321 Page 16 of 26 EXHIBIT B NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS/MONTHLY BASE RENTS Of the 332 units proposed for the Santa Barbara RPUD, the 84 units to be constructed on the Property will be restricted for rental to households earning 80% percent or less of the Collier County (Naples-Marco Island Metro Statistical Area) area median income, as determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Of such 84 units, 13 units will be rented to the income category of very low income and 71 units will be rented to the income category of low income, as shown on Exhibit G to this Agreement. For rent and income levels, please see Exhibit C to this Agreement. (1) Base residential density allowed in this Development – 7 units/acre. (2) Gross acreage of Santa Barbara RPUD - ±41.6 acres. (3) Gross acreage of the Development - ±6.74 acres. (4) Maximum number of affordable housing density bonus units allowed in this Development pursuant to LDC Section 2.06.00 - 1 unit. (5) Gross residential density of this Development (including affordable housing density bonus units) – 8 units/acre. (6) Percentage of Affordable H ousing Units pledged by the Developer (as a percentage of the total number units in the Santa Barbara RPUD) - 25%. Page 956 of 1321 Page 17 of 26 EXHIBIT C INCOME AND RENT LEVELS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND MODERATEINCOME Pursuant to LDC Section 1.08.02., moderate income is 80% to 120% of the median income, low income is 50% to 80% of the median income, very low income is less than 50% of the median income, and extremely low income is less than 30% income. UTILITY ALLOWANCES ONE B/R TWO B/R THREE B/R FOUR B/R LOCATION UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT Naples and Coastal Collier County 71.00 91.00 128.00 156.00 YOU MUST DEDUCT UTILITIES TO CALCULATE NET RENTS. Page 957 of 1321 Page 18 of 26 EXHIBIT D PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE- HOUSING UNIT Date Occupancy Desired: ________ Date of Application:________ Amount of Sec. Deposit:_____ Your Name:__________________________ Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes ___ No ___ Co-Tenant Name______________________ Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes ___ No ___ Present Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Landlord _______________________________How Long at this Address: _________ Landlord’s Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip Telephone No. If you have resided at your present address less than 3 years, please state previous address: ____________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Previous Landlord ______________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip Telephone No. APPLICANT: Present Employers Name _______________________________________________________ Address and Telephone No.______________________________________________________ How long with Present Employer:____________ Job Title_____________________________ Gross Salary: Hourly $_____ Weekly $_____ Every 2 Weeks $________ Monthly $________ Social Security Number ______________________ Birth Date ________________________ Previous Employers Name _______________________________________________________ Address and Telephone No.______________________________________________________ How long with Previous Employer ____________ Job Title____________________________ CO-TENANT: Present Employers Name ________________________________________________________ Address and Telephone No._______________________________________________________ How long with Present Employer:____________ Job Title______________________________ Gross Salary: Hourly $_____ Weekly $______ Every 2 Weeks $_______ Monthly $_________ Social Security Number ______________________ Birth Date __________________________ Previous Employers Name _______________________________________________________ Address and Telephone No._______________________________________________________ Page 958 of 1321 Page 19 of 26 How long with Previous Employer __________ Job Title_______________________________ NAMES OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOCIAL SECURITY 1. 2. 3. PERSONAL REFERENCES (Not Relatives) 1. Name: ____________________ Address:_______________________ How Long Known:________ 2. Name: ____________________ Address:_______________________ How Long Known:________ Page 959 of 1321 Page 20 of 26 EXHIBIT E AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICATION THE VERIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR’S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP UNIT. Date: ______________________ Applicant’s Name:_____________________________ Social Security Number __________________ Co-Tenant’s Name: _____________________________Social Security Number __________________ Present Address: ____________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip Telephone No. ______________ I hereby make application for a single family unit at _______________________________. I hereby declare and reveal all of my sources of income. I am aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report my assets or forms of income from pensions, stocks, bonds, real property rent, sale or ownership is a fraudulent act punishable by law. Knowingly falsifying information on this form is cause for refusal of occupancy. I hereby certify that this will be my permanent residence and that I have no other assisted housing. I understand that this information is for the purpose of computing my annual income to determine my qualification to buy an affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit. I understand that I am not required to surrender my ownership or rights or claimed property, pensions or capital gains, etc. Applicant Co-Occupant Amount Frequency Amount Frequency Received of Pay Received of Pay Wages/Salary $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Bonuses $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Tips $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Commissions $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Interest Income $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Trust Fund Income $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Unemployment $_______ $_______ $_______ $________ Workman’s Compensation $_______ $_______ $_______ $________ Welfare $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Food Stamps $_______ $______ $______ $________ Social Security $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Social Security Disability $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Supplemental SSI $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Family Assistance $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Child Support $_______ $_______ $______ $________ Veterans Benefits $_______ $_______ $ $________ Widows Benefits $_______ $_______ $_____ $_______ Union Pension $_______ $_______ $_____ $_______ Self-Employment Business, Page 960 of 1321 Page 21 of 26 Silent Partner, etc. $_______ $_____ $_____ $_______ Private Insurance Pension $_______ $_______ $______ $________ TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $___________ $__________ THE SAME MUST BE EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FAILURE TO REPORT ALL SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FOR TENANCY IN AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT. Page 961 of 1321 Page 22 of 26 EXHIBIT F AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATION THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR’S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE UNIT. APPLICANT: Present Employer: _______________________________________ Job Title: _____________________ Address:_____________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip I, __________________________, hereby authorize the release of information requested (Applicant) on this certification form. ___________________________________ Signature of Applicant STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing was acknowledged before me by ________________________________, by means of ____ physical presence or ____online notarization, who is personally known to me _______or has produced ______________ as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this _______ day of ______________________, 20___. (notary seal) _____________________________ Notary Public Print Name____________________ My Commission Expires: Page 962 of 1321 Page 23 of 26 EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION Applicant’s Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: $______________________. Number of Hours Worked (Weekly):_____. Frequency of Pay: ________________. Amount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $___________ $______________ Monthly Annually _____________________ Supervisor STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing was acknowledged before me by ________________________________, by means of ____ physical presence or ____online notarization, who is personally known to me _______or has produced ______________ as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this _______ day of ______________________, 20___. (notary seal) _____________________________ Notary Public Print Name____________________ My Commission Expires: THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR’S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE UNIT. Page 963 of 1321 Page 24 of 26 EXHIBIT G DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS Pursuant to LDC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it with any accompanying documentation to Collier County. All items requested must be provided. 1. Please state what zoning districts are proposed by the applicant, if any, on the Property and the acreage of each; Santa Barbara Landings RPUD; (±41.6 Acres) 2. Has an application for rezoning been requested in conjunction with the affordable, workforce and gap housing Density bonus? ___X_Yes ___ No If yes, state date of application – 02/25/2025 and if the request has been approved, state the Ordinance number N/A. 3. Gross density of the proposed development. - 8 units per acre Gross acreage of the proposed development - ±6.74ac. (Tract B) Of 41.6 total gross acreage for the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD 4. Are affordable-workforce housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an application for a planned unit development (PUD)? _X Yes No. If yes, please state name and location of the PUD and any other identifying information. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD - PUDA-PL20240013221 5. Name of applicant - MHP Collier IV, LLC Name of land developer if not the same as Applicant: N/A 6. Please complete the following tables as they apply to the proposed development. Page 964 of 1321 Page 25 of 26 TABLE I Total Number of Units in Development – 84 Units Type of Owner Unit Rental Occupied Efficiency One Bedroom __60___ Two Bedroom __24___ Three Bedroom _____ Other Bedroom (Four) _____ TOTAL ___84__ _____ TABLE II Number of Affordable Housing Units Total Number of Affordable- Work-force Units in the Development – 84 Affordable Housing Units Proposed Use for Density Bonus Units – 41 Units Rental Owner Occupied Rental Owner Occupied LOW INCOME, INCOME CATEGORY 50-80% MI Efficiency 1 Bedroom _51 __41_ 2 Bedroom _20 _ 3 Bedroom Other TOTAL __71_ __41_ Page 965 of 1321 Page 26 of 26 VERY LOW INCOME, INCOME CATEGORY 50% OR LESS MI Efficiency 1 Bedroom __9__ 2 Bedroom __4__ 3 Bedroom Other (4 bedroom) TOTAL __13_ 7. Please provide a physical description of the Affordable Housing Units by type of unit (very low income, low income) and by number of bedrooms. Include in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used throughout the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appliances provided such as washer/dryer, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans; and any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit “D” if needed. The Development will consist of a single, four-story, elevator-served building comprising 84 high-quality rental units designed to meet the needs of extremely low-income, very low-come, and low-income families. The proposed unit mix is 60 one-bedroom/one-bathroom and 24 two-bedroom/two-bathroom. The Development will include essential amenities to enhance resident experience, including a leasing office, a community clubroom, a covered outdoor terrace, and a tot lot. The Development will be developed to meet National Green Building Standard (NGBS) Bronze certification and will incorporate Energy Star 1.1 upgrades. 8. Please supply any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this request for an affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additional pages if needed. Page 966 of 1321 Collier County Planning Commission Agenda Packet Checklist for PUDs to be submitted by Applicants and Agents Application •Narrative of rezone request •Property Information •Property Ownership and general description of site Disclosure of Interest Affidavit of Unified Control Affidavit of Representation NIM Information (Sign-in sheet, notes, minutes and/or summary, audio or video recording) Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Environmental Data Historical/Archeological Survey or Waiver Utility Letter Deviation Justifications Boundary Survey Amended PUD Ordinance (the last submitted Ordinance with strikethrough – color preferred) Other documents (as needed, on a case-by-case basis) such as relevant prior ordinances, conditional uses, historical documents, any “private or legal” agreements affecting the PUD etc. Write details below. I understand that by submitting the above materials, it is the agent/applicant’s responsibility to ensure all materials are in the same order for all copies of backup materials to provide to the CCPC and the CD must contain the documents in one pdf file (not multiple files) in the same order as the printed materials. It is the agent’s responsibility to ensure no documentation is left out. Signature of Agent Representative Date Printed Name of Signing Agent Representative •Staff Report •Complete Draft Ordinance /Resolution initialed by County Attorney Materials provided by Planner: Please provide the following documents to support your petition request: Materials to be provided by applicant: Page 967 of 1321 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 968 of 1321 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 969 of 1321 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 970 of 1321 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 971 of 1321 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 972 of 1321 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST Name of Applicant(s): MHP Collier IV, LLC Address: 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 City: Miami State: FL Zip: 33131 Telephone: (786) 604-2846 Cell: E-Mail Address: Address of Subject Property (If available): Parcel ID 00400246503 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 3411 Section/Township/Range: 4 / 50 / 26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: 4 50 26 THAT PORTION OF THE W1/2 OF THE W1/2 OF THE NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 3920 PG 1399 Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: 00400246503 Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System d.Package Treatment Plant Provide Name: (GPD Capacity): Collier County e.Septic System 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: 84 multi-family units; Peak and Average Daily Demands: Provide Name: Collier County A.Water-Peak: B.Sewer-Peak: 39,690 gpd 86,976 gpd Average Daily Demands: 29,400 gpd Average Daily Demands: 21,000 gpd PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 6 of 11 PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Page 973 of 1321 Sanitary sewer system will consist of 8" PVC gravity mains connected by a series of manholes to an on-site grinder lift station. The grinder lift station will pump the sewage from the site to the existing 20" PVC force main located within the Santa Barbara Blvd right -of-way (ROW). Acknowledged. 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 7 of 11 Page 974 of 1321 Page 975 of 1321 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 976 of 1321 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 977 of 1321 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 978 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 1 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) NARRATIVE STATEMENT AND EVALUATION CRITERIA BACKGROUND & REQUEST Santa Barbara Landings Tract B comprises ±6.74 acres of the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The subject property is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The original Santa Barbara Landings RPUD was approved for residential development via Ordinance 05- 53 and consists of ±41.6 acres over two development tracts. At the time of original rezoning from RFM‐6 to RPUD in 2005, the northerly ±35.3‐acre (Tract A) was developed with 248 multifamily dwelling units, which TRACT B SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE I Page 979 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 2 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company is now a condominium community known as Granada Lakes Villas. Tract B was approved for mixed residential dwelling units and was limited to a maximum of 43 units based on the overall PUD limit of 291 units. The applicant, MHP Collier IV, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the RPUD to allow additional units on Tract B through the use of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The development will serve as Phase II of the Ekos on Santa Barbara project, with Phase I located directly south of the subject property. The proposed changes to the RPUD are specific to Tract B and will allow for increased density and modified development standards for multi-family development. The changes are numbered 1 through 8 and are described below: • Change #1: Section 2.2 limits the project to an overall density of 7 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 291 units. To date, 248 units have been built on Tract A, leaving a balance of 43 units. This amendment requests an increase in total project density to 8 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 332 units using an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB). The additional 41 units will allow the developer, McDowell Housing Partners, to provide 84 multi-family rental units on Tract B. Of the 84 units, 71 will be reserved for households with incomes between 51% - 80% of the area median income (AMI) and 13 will be reserved for households with incomes at or below 30% AMI. • Change #2: Section 2.12 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls requires that an 8’ precast wall be constructed along the eastern boundary of the PUD. This amendment requests that the requirement be reduced for Tract B as shown on the Master Plan. As depicted in the proposed site plan, the majority of the eastern boundary of Tract B is the ±0.97-acre preserve area. This preserve area, combined with an additional 25’ setback and 6’ landscape buffer reserve, will provide significant buffering for the adjacent Plantation PUD residences. The three single-family homes closest to the eastern boundary of Tract B will be separated from the proposed multi-family development by approximately 160’ of vegetated preserve and landscape buffer. The proposed wall will span the portion of the boundary north of the preserve, a distance of ±120’. • Change #3: Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) dictates a maximum zoned building height of 2 stories or 30’ for all permitted residential types. This amendment requests a separate building height standard for Tract B, specifically to permit a maximum height of 4 stories or 50’ for multi-family dwellings. Increased height will allow the developer to provide an affordable multi-family product within the relatively small footprint of Tract B to maximize preserve and open space, consistent with the Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I development. • Change #4: Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) requires a minimum floor area per unit 750 square feet. This amendment requests a minimum floor area of 650 square feet to accommodate proposed one-bedroom units consistent with affordable housing units and the Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I development. • Change #5: Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) limits attached multi-family structures within Tract B to four dwelling units per structure. This amendment proposes to remove this condition to allow for a single building consisting of 84 units. • Change #6: Section 5.11 Housing outlines housing commitments for Tract B, including a requirement for 50% of the units to be owner-occupied. This amendment requests to update these commitments consistent with the proposed Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement, as well as utilizing the most current housing commitment language provided by Collier County. By removing the 50% owner-occupied requirement, the project will be able to provide 100% of the units as affordable. Page 980 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 3 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company • Change #7: This amendment requests changes to the approved master plan specific to Tract B, including a minor reconfiguration of the preserve areas and the removal of building footprints. The amended master plan for Tract B will still provide a total of ±1.75 acres of preserve. • Change #8: Miscellaneous edits to the PUD ordinance include updating ownership and any language that may be outdated. EVALUATION CRITERIA 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. Santa Barbara Landings is an existing residential PUD and both Tracts A and B currently permit multi-family development. The property is designated Urban Residential in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and is within the Density Band for Mixed Use Activity Center #6 at Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard; this future land use designation permits increased density through an AHDB. The proposed Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase II development is ideally located adjacent to the existing Phase I development, as well as adjacent to Calusa Park Elementary School. The affordable units can support teachers and families at Calusa Park and provide housing in close proximity to work and school. A Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared to outline the project’s impact on area roadway networks. The development on Tract A has existing access points off Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road, and the proposed development on Tract B will feature an additional access point off Santa Barbara Boulevard consistent with the County’s access separation requirements. The RPUD is served by Collier County Public Utilities (refer to the Statement of Utility Provision). Stormwater has been conceptually reviewed and will be finalized at the time of Site Development Plan permitting. Table 1 below summarizes the development pattern surrounding Tract B. Future Land Use District Zoning District Existing Uses NORTH Urban Residential Subdistrict Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Granada Lake Villas SOUTH Urban Residential Subdistrict Bembridge EMS Complex MPUD Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I and Calusa Park Elementary EAST Urban Residential Subdistrict Plantation RPUD Single-family residences WEST Urban Residential Subdistrict Berkshire Lakes PUD/DRI ROW/multi-family residences Page 981 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 4 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 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. A Covenant of Unified Control has been provided by the current owner of Tract B. The applicant, MHP Collier IV, LLC, is the contract purchaser for Tract B. Operation and maintenance responsibility for development on Tract B shall be assumed by MHP Collier IV, LLC or potential assignees. 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.) Santa Barbara Landings RPUD was found consistent with the GMP per Ordinance 05-53. The existing maximum of 291 units and density of 7.0 units per acre was achieved using the density band bonus of 3.0 units/acre. The requested addition of 1 unit/acre is achieved through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus consistent with the Density Rating System of the GMP: 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. All 84 units of the proposed Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase II will be set aside as affordable, with 71 units reserved for households between 51% - 80% AMI and 13 reserved for households at or below 30% AMI. Providing for affordable housing meets the overall goal of the Housing Element of the GMP, which is “to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County”. The project remains consistent with the policies identified in the approval of Ordinance 05-53. 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. As mentioned previously, multi-family housing is already a permitted use within Tract B of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. There is technically no maximum unit limit specific to Tract B; the existing limit of 43 units is tied to the overall limit for the PUD and the number of units previously developed on Tract A. With respect to compatibility, the site is designed in a way that reduces the impact of increased height and density to the residential neighbors to the north and east, with the building situated in the center of the development area and well buffered by landscaping and preserve area. The only proposed change to buffering and screening requirements is the reduction of the precast wall on the eastern PUD boundary, which has no significant impact on compatibility as the eastern preserve and landscape buffer provides over 150 feet of dense, vegetated buffering from adjacent Page 982 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 5 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company development . All other existing buffering and screening requirements will be met by the proposed development. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The existing RPUD requires a minimum of 30% open space for the entire PUD. Tract A has an estimated 19.96 acres of open space and Tract B proposes 1.98 acres of open space for a total of 53.7%. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Please refer to the Transportation Impact Statement and Level of Service Analysis included within this application. The development, as proposed, will not have a negative impact upon existing private and public facilities. Payment of impact fees and timing of adequate public facilities certification are mechanisms to ensure the development is appropriately serviced. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property is identified as a residential tract within the existing PUD and is entitled to development of multi-family housing. This request does not exceed the maximum residential density permitted by the Density Rating System of the GMP nor does it represent an expansion of the existing PUD boundary. All county utilities are available to the site and have sufficient capacity to support the development. Per the project TIS, Santa Barbara Boulevard has sufficient capacity and will continue to maintain an acceptable level of service. 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. The proposed PUD Amendment complies with all applicable regulations set forth within the PUD and the Collier County Land Development Code. All modifications to the PUD are for the purpose of providing affordable housing as a public benefit. LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5: 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 is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and meets the intent of the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the FLUE as well as the Housing Element of the GMP. See “Consistency with the Growth Management Plan” section below. 2. The existing land use pattern. Santa Barbara Landings is an existing residential PUD and both Tracts A and B currently permit multi-family development. The extension of the Ekos on Santa Barbara project from Phase I to Phase II on the subject property is a logical expansion of high-quality affordable housing. Page 983 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 6 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. This amendment has no impact on the existing RPUD boundary and therefore does not create an isolated district 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. Existing boundaries were not illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions. This amendment does not propose any changes to the previously approved PUD boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. There is a well-demonstrated need for affordable housing in Collier County, particularly within the low (51%-80% AMI) and extremely low (30% or less AMI) income categories. The University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies estimates that there is a shortage of available affordable units in Collier County of 4,196 for households up to 30% AMI and 5,877 units for households up to 80% AMI (Shimberg Center for Housing Studies analysis of 2021 American Community Survey). The proposed development, with 100% of the units set aside as affordable, is a unique product in Collier County and requires minor amendments to the existing PUD to be economically feasible. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. Tract B has been identified as permitting residential development since the initial rezone to RPUD and the proposed development will be adequately buffered per the development standards in the RPUD ordinance. 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. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) has been prepared to outline the project’s impact on area roadway networks and concludes that there is sufficient capacity along all surrounding roadways to accommodate 84 units on Tract B. The purposed direct right-in/right-out access will serve the development on Tract B and prevent increased traffic through the existing development on Tract A. An analysis of the proposed access on Santa Barbara Boulevard has been included in the TIS and demonstrates that the proposed access is more compatible with the development on Tract A. Without access on Santa Barbara Boulevard, all of the project traffic would be required to use the existing driveway serving the Granda Lakes Villas community to the north via existing internal roadways, which is occupied by a completely different housing development/end-product. As a result, additional congestion and delays will be created at the existing driveway, which is also currently served by substandard left and right turn lanes. Furthermore, additional conflicts would be created within the existing internal roadways serving the Granda Lakes Villas community, which could degrade the existing neighborhood quality as well as increased risk to pedestrian safety and parking issues. Page 984 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 7 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change does not create a drainage problem. The development on Tract B will be designed to meet all Collier County and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) stormwater standards. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. This amendment will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed changes are consistent with the zoning and Future Land Use designations that have been in place since the original approval of Santa Barbara Landing RPUD in 2005 and should therefore have no adverse impact on 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. The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. The subject property is surrounded by existing development and the proposed use has always been contemplated on Tract B. 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 LDC and 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 existing RPUD does not permit the proposed density which would allow 84 units on Tract B, which will help address Collier County’s housing needs. More specifically, this project addresses housing for income levels that are significantly underrepresented in the County’s exiting rental stock. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed density is consistent with the Density Rating System of the GMP and the changes to development standards have been designed in such a way to be compatible with surrounding development. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The site is already appropriately zoned for the proposed residential uses; the PUDA is requested only to provide additional housing through the AHDB program, which is encouraged within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Page 985 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 8 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 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 degree of site alteration which would be required to make Tract B usable for any of the range of residential uses under the existing RPUD is typical of and not different from any other similar development in Collier County. 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. The proposed project will not decrease the level of service standards for drainage, roadways, utilities, recreation/open space, solid waste, and schools as well as not cause adverse effects on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County. 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 of County Commissioners. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Future Land Use Element 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.) Santa Barbara Landings is an existing PUD and has been designed to be compatible with adjacent developments. With respect to compatibility, the site is designed in a way that reduces the impact of increased height and density to the residential neighbors to the north and east, with the building situated in the center of the development area and well buffered by landscaping and preserve area, which consists of a minimum of 159 feet of buffer and overall separation from closest abutting residential. The only proposed change to buffering and screening requirements is the reduction of the precast wall on the eastern PUD boundary, which has no significant impact on compatibility as the eastern preserve provides sufficient buffering from adjacent development. All other existing buffering and screening requirements will be met by the proposed development. Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. The subject property is within the Urban Residential Subdistrict and Santa Barbara Landings RPUD was found consistent with the GMP per Ordinance 05-53. The existing maximum of 291 units and density of 7.0 units per acre was achieved using the density band bonus of 3.0 units/acre. The requested addition of 1 unit/acre is achieved through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus consistent with the Density Rating Page 986 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 9 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company System of the GMP: 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. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. This amendment proposes an additional access point on Santa Barbara Boulevard to serve the development on Tract B. 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. Tract B will be developed with internal vehicular drive aisles and circulation. Emergency access is proposed between Tract B and Tract A via Santa Clara Drive. 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. As depicted on the Master Plan, a pedestrian crosswalk and access is proposed to connect the proposed Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase II to Phase I across the Calusa Park elementary school entrance road. 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 development on Tract B will be designed with sidewalks throughout the site and a sidewalk connection to Santa Barbara Boulevard and the school entrance road will be constructed to encourage a walkable community. Page 987 of 1321 Page 988 of 1321 Page 989 of 1321 Page 990 of 1321 EKOS on Santa Barbara II – Owner Entity MHP Collier IV, LLC a Florida limited liability company Formed: 08/23/2023 EIN: 99-4841841 Manager/Member MHP Collier IV Manager, LLC a Florida limited liability company Formed: 08/22/2023 EIN: 99-4574413 .01% Manager/Member W. Patrick McDowell 2001 Trust a Revocable Trust 80% Sole Trustee & Beneficiary W. Patrick McDowell a Natural Person Manager/Member Shear Holdings, LLC a Florida limited liability company Formed: 9/5/2019 (Effective 8/29/2019) EIN: 84-4844479 20% Sole Member/Manager Christopher L. Shear a Natural Person Investor Member W. Patrick McDowell a Natural Person 99.99% Page 991 of 1321 Page 992 of 1321 Page 993 of 1321 Page 994 of 1321 Page 995 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 1 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company DATE: May 14, 2025 TO: Tim Finn, AICP, Planner III Collier County– Planning and Zoning Division FROM: Patrick Vanasse, AICP The Neighborhood Company PROJECT NAME: Santa Barbara Landings PUDA (PL20240013221) SUBJECT: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Summary The Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on May 8, 2025 at approximately 5:30pm. 14 people attended in person and 5 participated via Zoom (see attached sign-in sheet and Zoom attendee list). Applicant and Agent Attendees are as follows: • Patrick Vanasse, AICP, President – The Neighborhood Company • Rachel Hansen, AICP, Planner – The Neighborhood Company • Eduardo Teran, Director of Development – McDowell Housing Partners • Michael Pappas, PE, Director of Engineering – RWA Engineering • Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager – Collier County • Yury Bykau, PE – TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. (via Zoom) MEMORANDUM Page 996 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 2 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company The following provides a summary of the meeting presentation along with questions, concerns, or issues that were raised at the meeting and the applicant team’s responses. Presentation Summary (Started at approximately 6:15 pm): Mr. Vanasse began the meeting by introducing himself and the project team, as well as noting that the meeting was being recorded over Zoom to meet Collier County requirements. He then started the presentation by explaining the intent of the NIM and an overview of the presentation contents. Mr. Vanasse then turned the presentation over to Eduardo Teran, Director of Development for McDowell Housing Partners (MHP). Mr. Teran gave an overview of MHP’s mission to provide high-quality affordable housing and noted some of the other locations in Florida with current MHP projects, including four existing developments in Collier County. He gave additional details about the meeting’s location, Ekos at Santa Barbara Phase I, and provided photos of the entire complex as well as of interior finishes of an example unit. Mr. Teran presented initial renderings of the proposed development and explained the proposed income restrictions for the project’s 84 units. Rachel Hansen continued the presentation with an overview of the proposed amendment to the Santa Barbara Landings PUD. She explained the land use of the surrounding properties and provided the subject property’s zoning and future land use designation. Ms. Hansen explained the specifics of the requested amendment to increase the permitted units on Tract B of the PUD from 43 to 84 and gave an overview of the other requested changes, including increased height from 3 to 4 stories and changes to development standards. Ms. Hansen emphasized that the proposed changes to Tract B have no impact on the existing development on Tract A (Granada Lakes Villas). From there, Ms. Hansen gave an overview of the current draft Master Plan for Tract B, pointing out the additional access on Santa Barbara Boulevard and the gated emergency-only access between Tract A and B. Additional site design considerations were emphasizes, such as the locations of the preserve areas as buffers to nearby residential, the orientation of the proposed building closer to Santa Barbara Boulevard, and proposed pedestrian access between Tracts A and B as a benefit to children who attend Calusa Elementary School to the south of the proposed project. The presentation concluded with Ms. Hansen outlining the process and timeline for the application review process and future public hearings. The floor was then opened for questions. Zoom participants were required to type their questions in the chat box, which were then addressed individually after the meeting presentation had concluded. Questions Summary: Q: My question is, you basically said that the density it’s zoned for now is seven units per acre. We have 6.74 acres, but you're saying that you're looking for an increase to eight units per acre. My math doesn't seem to make sense, because if you're at eight units per acre, you should be at 64 units? A: Mr. Vanasse: So the reason it's only one unit per acre is because the zoning for Tract B is the same zoning as Tract A. It's one PUD, and the way the county looks at density, it's based on the gross acreage of your entire PUD. So in going in to amend the existing PUD, we told them how many units we wanted for this project, and it came out to an increase of one unit per acre on the gross acreage. Q: Just a clarification; Tract A and B include the apartments to the north, so by you going from 7 to 8 units per acre, they cannot add any more units on their property [Tract A] without going back to council. And they have no association with you, correct? But you’re changing something that they have to live by because you’re adding more units. Because they could probably add another building on their property and still be under that 7 [units per acre]. Page 997 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 3 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Vanasse: The existing density for the PUD has already been allocated between Tract A and Tract B. So any remaining density is already allocated to Tract B. They could get more density on Tract A – they would have to go through the same zoning amendment process and the way to achieve that density is through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The total bonus that could be requested is 16 units per acre on the gross acreage. Q: The housing here that we’re sitting in, what percentage of it is affordable housing? A: Mr. Teran: 100% of the project is affordable. Q: So the new one is only going to be 30, 40% or 60 to 70%? A: Mr. Teran: I would like to clarify that. Low-income housing ranges up to about 80% of what we call average median income. So, for example, the Collier County average median income is $115,000. For explanation’s sake let’s say that’s $100,000. If we’re serving populations at the 30, 60, and 70% AMI, we’re serving people that make 30, 60, and $70,000 and we cannot serve people who make above that for the specific units that we have committed to Florida Housing and to the County. So when I say that 100% of these are affordable housing, is that they are within those set aside commitments. Ms. Hansen: We actually do have a slide on that. These are the breakdowns by unit as well as the most recent income data from Florida Housing Finance Corporation [see slide 15 of the presentation]. Q: So the buildings in Tract B, the number of them that are affordable, won’t affect any of the numbers in this development here? A: Mr. Teran: They’re complete separate projects and developments. We’re only talking about Tract A and B in that regard because they’re in one Planned Unit Development. Mr. Vanasse: Just to clarify, the reason we’re holding the meeting here is the county wants you to hold the meeting close to where the project is being proposed. They own this project so it made sense, but also, we wanted people to get to experience and see exactly what they built. So that's why it’s held here. Two separate projects, but by being here, you get to see the type of building, the type of quality project they build. Q: On Tract B, when that PUD was created, there was a requirement that there’s a wall between Tract B and the neighborhood to the east. An 8-foot, solid concrete wall. And the way it read, you can’t even start building on Tract B until that wall is in place. Are you aware of that and is that still in your plans or is that going to be a change that you request? A: Mr. Vanasse: Yes, we’re aware. It’s slightly modified, and I’ll let Rachel walk you through the design, but what we’ve done is create a much wider preserve than was originally in that area. We believe the preserve will provide significant buffering and any sound attenuation needed, so we’re requesting to not put in that wall except in the area where there is no preserve. Ms. Hansen: The wall will be in the section where there is no preserve as indicated on the Master Plan. C: I’d like to come back to the Master Plan because it’s not what’s currently in the original PUD and that’s not acceptable. Q: What’s the acreage that Phase I is sitting on? A: Mr. Teran: I will need to get back to you on that but I will get you an answer. Q: What the other gentleman was trying to say is that we were under the understanding that there was supposed to be an 8-foot wall the entire length of the property to Radio Road. Is that no longer in affect? Page 998 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 4 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company So basically now that 8-foot wall that was going to be built the entire length of Tract A and Tract B is now being changed to about 20 feet? A: Ms. Hansen: We have no control over Tract A and we are making no changes to Tract A, so whatever the requirement is for Tract A would remain in place. We’re only proposing to change that requirement for Tract B. Tract B and Tract A have separate ownership, so we have no control over the continuation of the wall. Q: But you’re the same PUD. So you’re using the PUD for density, but you don’t want to use it to make the obligation of continuing the wall the entire way? A: Mr. Teran: We have responsibility to provide what is in our Tract, so that is why we’re only making changes to Tract B. You mentioned we’re using the whole PUD for density, but that’s because in the County’s eyes, this is seen as a cluster, and we cannot request to increase the density only within Tract B. We need to request a PUD-wide increase in density. We’re happy to provide the revised PUD that’s going through approval, and you can see the list of changes that we’re requesting. Q: I am a property owner next door in Granada Lakes and I’m confused why our private property has to be part of an emergency exit and a pedestrian walkway for people that don’t belong to that community. Also, I am concerned because I like living there, I like that I can walk my dog every morning, and I don’t want it to become like Santa Barbara, like a busy in-and-out of people I don’t know. I just wonder why, if it’s a private road, would you use it as a public entrance? A: Mr. Vanasse: I’ll start with the first question, which is why is there an emergency access depicted on the Master Plan. At one point there was one owner/developer for all of Santa Barbara Landings, including where you are. Over time, the ownership has changed. Ownership can change – the folks that own Tract A could decide to sell – but the zoning stays in place with the land. With that, MHP is looking to purchase Tract B and they are subject to that zoning. The developer that owned it originally went through a zoning process and designed a Master Plan and they showed roads coming all the way down to Tract B. That access is needed in between Tract A and Tract B because of the existing Master Plan; however, we understood that the neighbors to the north may not like additional traffic on their roads, so we are asking for a new access point from Santa Barbara for all the traffic associated with Tract B. However, fire rescue and police want to maintain that emergency access only. If, for whatever reason, the entrance on Santa Barbara is blocked and they needed to get to Tract B, they would drive through Tract A to get there. That’s the reason why the emergency access is maintained. Mr. Teran: In addition to that, if you look at the County’s records, there is what is called an easement that runs through the property that says, if the County requires it, it has to be a loop road. That was a future provision that was required in Tract A; however, we didn’t want to encumber Tract A with additional traffic. It would be a lose-lose situation for us if we’re using your property as access, which is why we’ve requested the additional access. Just to give a little more color, this will be a closed gate that will have a lock that is only accessible by the fire department or emergency services. However, this [the pedestrian access] will be an open crosswalk, which I understand is a requirement for development standards. There will also be a continuous fence separating both properties in addition to the large preserve area that’s creating some buffer as well. Mr. Vanasse: That access will allow pedestrian connections. We are very cognizant that there is a school here and that children may want to walk to school. This walkway [between Tract B and Calusa Elementary] will be improved with a walkway to be a safe environment for the kids to walk back and forth to school. C: I guess I’m not understanding it clearly or I’m not picturing it, especially the one you said will be open, so people will be able to walk through my community. I don’t want to say that they’re going to be doing bad things, but potentially they could be stealing packages and there’s no accountability because we don’t know who they are. Page 999 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 5 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Teran: I would like to clarify something for everybody’s peace of mind. Our properties have security cameras and security measures in place in case there are any issues. Currently this is a forested area that people could technically find a way across the fence and go into your property. From our perspective, if it’s not a gated community you can’t prevent people from going in there. However, we actually see this connecting walkway as a potential benefit for families that have children who will have safer access to school. We will have families in our development who will have a direct route to school. But what we want to get across is that, from a vehicular perspective, your impact will be absolutely minimal and limited to emergency services. If there are pedestrians, we can’t really limit them just as much as they could walk down the road and come into your community from the entrance. Q: Has the developer considered a project that would not increase the 7 unit per acre density? [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: The density increase is required to do a project that would be greater than 43 units, and I’m sure Eduardo can correct me if I’m wrong, but from an economic feasibility standpoint, the 84 units is what's required to make this project work. Mr. Teran: Furthermore, we have to get approval from Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which is the entity that regulates affordable housing development or low-income housing development in the state, and we have committed to provide the 84 units to them and we cannot bring that number down. We can increase it, but we cannot bring that number down. So, at this point, we are just proposing to provide our 84 units and cannot provide less. Q: What is the Santa Barbara on your map? It says “Santa Barbara Landings PUD Tract A Not Subject to this Amendment”. What is this exactly referring to? A: Ms. Hansen: That’s referring to the Granada Lakes Villas community. That development is considered Tract A and again, the changes that we’re proposing have no impact on Tract A, but we do have to visually show that Tract A is there. That’s just how the County has asked us to notate it on the proposed Master Plan. Q: Number one, why is this four stories high when the other one is only three stories? Everyone in our community will look up and see a high rise. I don’t think that blends with the community very well. Secondly, my neighbor Carlos is in that area right at the end where your emergency exit is going to be. I don’t think that’s a very good plan, for Carlos to look out his back door and see all that. Why wouldn’t you come up through the school? The fire department is right next door; it’s quicker to get there that way than go all the way around A: Mr. Vanasse: Just so you all are aware, we’ve asked for the access on Santa Barbara. There is no guarantee we’ll get that access. If it was just up to the County transportation people, they would direct all the traffic through existing Tract A. We are requesting that access, so we can avoid that to be good neighbors. But what they're mandating is that we keep that interconnection. Again, it's not a question of is this going to be used on a daily basis? It's a fire and rescue; it's a safety issue. And the idea is that for firefighters and EMT people, the easiest route is going to be right off Santa Barbara. The school is a private road that we cannot access. So, 99% of the time, they would access this over here [on Santa Barbara], but in case this gets blocked for whatever reason, then they would go through Tract A. Mr. Teran: I just want to add to that; we have talked to the school board to see if they would be open to an access there, and we’ve been told there is no opportunity for vehicular access in that area. [Regarding the question on height] we’re working within constraints that we have on the site; one of the larger constraints being our preserve requirements. You know, this is an approximately 6.74-acre property, and we have to provide over acre or an acre and a half of these preserves. Between that and being able to accommodate parking, the way that we were able to achieve that is to make this a four-story four story mid-rise. We are trying to face it against the road so that we are providing as much buffer from most areas within reason. And again, you have a nice, large preserve area that's going to be filled with native vegetation, hopefully providing a little bit more buffer to that regard. Page 1000 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 6 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company Q: Who is going to pay for the fence? A: Mr. Teran: We will pay for the fence. Q: Is there any plan to add another light to stop traffic, which is already very heavy? A: Mr. Vanasse: With regards to traffic, we are mandated to do a traffic study, which we've done. What that traffic study looks at is how many trips are generated from this specific project, but also how much existing background traffic there is on the road. I know for a lot of people, any extra trip on the road, when the roads are already busy, especially in season; for a lot of people, one more [trip] is too many. However, our traffic study says that we are not imposing a significant impact on the roadway. Also, when it comes to any kind of light, we don't control that. An individual developer cannot request a light and put a light just because he desires to do so. You have to go through DOT, Department of Transportation, and you have to go through strict requirements—they call those warrants. You have to meet multiple warrants before you can put in a light. The county does that, and at this point there is not a significant warrant to allow for another light. Q: Are you receiving any state or Federal funding for this project? A: Mr. Teran: Yes, we’re receiving Federal funding. It’s called Community Development Block Grant. This is for Disaster Recovery. And again, that is administered and regulated by Florida Housing Finance Corporation. If you'd like more information on that, I invite you to their website and they provide ample information. If you send me your email I can send you with the more information on that as well. Q: Are you required to keep a certain standard for a certain amount of years and then after that are you free from that? A: Mr. Teran: Yes, we do have restriction requirements. For this project it’s going to be 99 years rental restriction. If we were ever to sell this property, whoever buys it from us needs to maintain those requirements and obviously upkeep of property. Q: So those have to remain rental units for 99 years? There’s no chance they could be sold as apartments like Granada Lakes was sold? A: Mr. Teran: Yes, low-income rental units for 99 years. No, they cannot be sold. After 99 years, maybe. C: We have a flooding issue that involves Granada Lakes and all of the Plantation development. With each community that gets built, this flooding issue gets a little worse. It started with the elementary school and continues with Ekos because the way the water drains, it goes from our lakes in our development at Plantation over to Davis Boulevard. Every year it gets worse and as more things get added onto this corner, water’s not going away. I know he [the engineer] does his job to make this pass code, but we’re the ones that have to live here. It takes months for the water to drain. I’m afraid with this being built, we’re going to be in a flood zone now. A: Mr. Pappas: Santa Barbara Landings was designed in 1986; we pulled the plans from County records to analyze the existing water management system and how it was designed. The way it was designed is that there’s a perimeter water management berm that was designed around the entire project. The entire project has lakes built in, and there’s a lake interconnect with drainage pipes that connect all the lakes together. There’s a discharge here near the preserve and then there’s a control structure that discharges into Santa Barbara. With the perimeter berm being installed here, that essentially isolates the community for water management. [Back and forth discussion about the current state of drainage within the Plantation PUD and Santa Barbara Landings PUD and the perimeter berm system.] Q: Can you explain how the system is supposed to drain? Page 1001 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 7 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Pappas: Again, the perimeter berm should be along the project sides. Santa Barbara Landings drains into the preserve, and a control structure drains into Santa Barbara Boulevard. What we’re going to maintain when we design the system here is to model what’s existing today and incorporating that into what our design is for the community on Tract B. We’ll have a separate water management system that provides water management for the developable area, with a berm around our project that’s going to be even higher because we’re going to have to elevate higher than what’s there today. That will discharge to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Our Tract B developable area will have a separate control structure that will hold and discharge; we have to design to the 25 year/3 day storm event which is approximately 13 inches of rainfall over a three-day period. Mr. Vanasse: We understand the concern for sure. If you guys, as a community, have an engineer you’ve worked with before, put them in contact with Mike because I think it’s always good for them to talk. What we’ve seen in the past is that these communities are built at different times; people see other developments come online and they assume that the problem is caused by new development, but a lot of times existing developments were sheet flowing to their neighbors and when their neighbors start building, the sheet flow no longer happens from those older communities. I think there’s a need for the engineers to talk amongst themselves and see if there are solutions there. Q: Why does the emergency access road have to go so close to Plantation Circle? Take the road more west. A: Mr. Teran: Tract A has dumpsters at that location [near the connection to Tract B]. We are coming to the east of those dumpsters, which is where the recorded easement and access location is located. C: You’re disrupting a whole lot for a couple dumpsters. A: Mr. Vanasse: One thing we want to point out is this property is already zoned and approved with a Master Plan. And I think it's important, just so you guys understand, that you've got a developer trying to design a project as best as they can with given constraints. I think if we pull up the existing Master Plan, what you'll see is a Master Plan that is currently in place, that is currently approved, and if not for the developer asking for the more density, this could be built tomorrow without any zoning action, without any public meetings. Folks, this is the existing Master Plan that is already included as part of the zoning on Tract A and Tract B. Again, like I said, if not for the little modifications that the McDowell Housing group is asking for, this could be built tomorrow without any kind of public hearing process. They would just have to go through a site development plan which is an administrative process. Mr. Teran: And what you see on the Master Plan is the access that we’re proposing to be emergency access only, this would currently be permitted as an entrance to what was the previously designed development [on Tract B] with two interconnections: one near Santa Barbara and one in the back near Plantation. This is what was previously approved, so what we’re trying to do is say that it doesn’t make sense for our existing neighbors to the north or for us to use Santa Barbara Landings as the main traffic thoroughfare. So, we’re requesting this entrance on Santa Barbara Boulevard. C: The developer is seeking a variance and not adhering to the existing Master Plan. [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: That’s correct, we’re seeking to amend the PUD and that’s why we’re going through this process to make changes to the Master Plan. Q: Has the buyer purchased Tract B yet? A: Mr. Teran: We’re currently under contract with the land but we have not procured it yet. Q: Based on the original PUD, that wall that we keep talking about – the entire length of Tract A and B— needs to be in place before anything can be sold off. So in order for you guys to buy that land, the owner of Tract A needs to put that wall in all the way. It’s in the PUD. Why would you change something that somebody else is responsible for? Page 1002 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 8 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Teran: We’re not proposing any changes to the Tract A requirements. I would have to go back to the PUD to read that language that you’re indicating. However, I do want to make it clear that we are not modifying any of the requirements for Tract A. We are strictly focused on modifying the requirements for our development. C: I agree that you can’t make changes to their property. My interpretation was that you legally cannot buy Tract B until the wall is in place. As a community, we could bring a class action lawsuit saying you can’t buy this until somebody else does that wall. A: Mr. Teran: I would have to look at the PUD for the specifics. Mr. Vanasse: This is something we can look into and get back to you on. Q: This [the renderings in the presentation] is something like what’s going to be built – is it going to be exactly like this? A: Mr. Teran: We’re in very preliminary stages of design and this is the current concept we’re proposing. Will the end building look exactly like this? I don’t have an answer to that at this point. The general layout of the building— we will be providing that covered terrace in the back as well as amenities. Q: What height is this building? How is this building going to impact the residents of Plantation Circle in terms of light, in terms of general privacy? Our board president has spent many, many hours on the flooding situation on Plantation Circle because everyone is building something else and no one will talk responsibility for the fact that the flooding situation is now critical. A: Ms. Hansen: To answer your first question about height, the building on Tract B would be limited to four stories or 50 feet of zoned height. Zoned height is measured from base flood elevation to the mid-point of a slanted roof. If you measure from grade it could be plus-or-minus a few feet. Mr. Vanasse: With regards to providing buffering and the distance to adjacent neighbors, this preserve [near Plantation PUD] is over 130 feet in width. That vegetation will remain, so it will provide quite a bit of buffering. We believe the buffering will shield most of what the neighbors can see. The building was specifically designed to be as far away from the neighbors as possible, so there was some thought and consideration put into the design. Q: This is all well and good, this is nice. I like the fact that there’s something there. But again, coming back to this road and the fact that there’s a small 8-foot wall there—this is where I live [near boundary of Plantation PUD]. There’s no preserve there for me. So I’m looking straight at a wall and then your building. Second of all, near this building [Ekos Phase I] is a drain that comes out—it used to be a drain. We can watch it during storms now that these buildings are here and it flows in. Now you’re saying your going to build parking lots over here. I see the back of my house being flooded. A: Mr. Vanasse: I think this gentleman is reiterating the issue of flooding. We hear you. Our engineer is going to look at meeting all the requirements on our site. If you have those discussions with your engineer or if there are maintenance issues, we’re happy to talk to the County and find out if it’s regarding existing drains and if there’s a maintenance solution. Mike will meet or exceed any requirements from the Water Management District and the County. Mr. Teran: Just want to reiterate that we can control what’s on our piece of property but we cannot control what’s on surrounding pieces of property. Having said that, we do believe that we’re designing our stormwater management on our property to keep it contained as required by development standards. Mr. Pappas: Additionally, the discharge from Tract A and B, once Tract B is developed, will be the same. No more allowable discharge than it is today. There was also a perimeter berm designed around the entire school site as well, and I believe this [Ekos Phase I] was inside the school development when it was built. Page 1003 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 9 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company Mr. Vanasse: The other question was about the interconnection and emergency access. I’ll just reiterate that we have the existing road in Tract A and the connection is there in order for us to provide that emergency access. I understand the issue, but it’s been approved in that location for years and years, and that will not change. Ms. Hansen: I do also want to point out that in addition to the wall, there is a required 15-foot landscape buffer, so it won’t just be a wall. There will be a 15-foot wide landscape buffer there, too. Q: What about the requirement for a certain amount of preserve required for the entire PUD? [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: The PUD requires 3 acres of total preserve. We are proposing what was previously approved in the current Master Plan for Tract B. The acreages are slightly different between the two preserves, but we are proposing to provide the same amount of preserve that was previously approved for Tract B. Q: In 2005, both Tract A and Tract B were under unified control, which was the developer who got the zoning for Tract B and converted the apartments to condominiums. My understanding is that in the PUD at the time, Section 5 required the developer to put the commitments from the PUD in the HOA documents. The HOA documents did not contain any information regarding the PUD and the rezoning. So now Tract A and Tract B are now separate ownership interests. By you asking for density bonus based on Tract A’s land, aren’t you required to have Tract A’s approval for that? What if Tract A wanted to go get the same bonus right now? A: Mr. Vanasse: Yes, Tract A could ask for more density. My understanding is that Tract A’s approval is not required. If Tract B were asking to make changes to Tract A, yes, by all means, it would be a requirement to get consent from Tract A. But again, this is completely isolated to Tract B and changes to their development standards. The same would apply to Tract A. If they were willing to go in and make changes, they could ask for more density through the provision of affordable housing. Tract A would not need Tract B’s permission to do so. Q: Are you required to put your PUD developer commitments in your HOA documents? A: Mr. Vanasse: PUD documents are a separate legal entity in themselves, pertaining to zoning. Ownership and the type of ownership, or condo documents and those types of documents are separate legal documents. Both are independent and serve different purposes. When it comes to zoning conditions, they go into the zoning ordinance, and they are recorded through the county. As for condo documents, my understanding is that it is a private matter amongst the owners and is independent from zoning. Q: Are you required to disclose your PUD documents in the HOA documents? A: Mr. Teran: We cannot provide an answer for that at this time, but we can follow up with our land use attorney and get you the correct information. C: You mentioned that there are preserves on Tract A, which falls into the same issue. The PUD documents pursuant to the original PUD were required to be put into the HOA documents and were not put in. Therefore the individual owners of Tract A had no knowledge until recently that this PUD existed except if you listed at your exceptions page of a title document. So Tract A is not in a position to provide preserves for this project to meet PUD requirements. A: Mr. Vanasse: Thank you. My first comment would be shame on that developer. Mr. Teran: We really appreciate your input. We’re here to be good neighbors, which is why we’re here. I do want to do a quick clarification and say that us bringing this project did not create those preserve requirements for Tract A. Those requirements have been there and have not been met for many years. I understand that it was not disclosed to the condo owners, but that is what was originally committed to the county. Having said that, we’ve spoken Page 1004 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 10 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company internally, and we want to work with you guys and figure out a solution for this preserve issue. We don’t have an answer for you today, but we want to have an open dialogue and figure out what the different paths to getting to a solution are. Q: Regarding the emergency exit, if that is not approved would you still develop it going through our neighborhood? A: Mr. Teran: Getting approval of the main entrance [off Santa Barbara] is a large consideration for us and if we don’t get approval, it will cause us to take a second look. It is one of the main considerations of this project. Mr. Vanasse: I want to add that the county keeps track of these meetings, and they consider input from the neighbors. Obviously, you as neighbors voicing that you want to see that access on Santa Barbara, is something they’ll take into consideration in evaluating the project and making a decision. C: You seem to use tract A when it benefits your arguments but ignore any requirements that would be placed on the property owners such as the wall and the maintenance of a currently nonexistent preserve on Tract A. [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: I think we acknowledged those issues. We appreciate the comment, but we’ve covered those issues so far. Q: You mentioned this meeting is being recorded; where will it be accessible and will there be any other ways to voice concerns to the county? A: Mr. Vanasse: You can provide comments to us directly, but from a public hearing process standpoint, we have to go to the Collier County Planning Commission. That’s a public hearing that’s going to be advertised. The public can provide input at that hearing. You can also contact the county – we have a dedicated reviewer for this project and you can provide comments to the reviewer. Once we’re done with this meeting, we’ll provide a summary to county staff that will be uploaded to the county website with all the other documents for this project. All those files can be downloaded and if you have trouble getting access you can call the county and they can help you with access. Last but not least, after this goes to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Then we go to another hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. That will be advertised and open to the public. You can also talk to County Commissioners at any time. Their email addresses are on the county website. Q: Is the pedestrian access a requirement? A: Mr. Vanasse: There are policies in the comp plan that highly recommend connections. Some projects do ask for deviations from providing interconnection. In this case, we provided the interconnection to be consistent with the comp plan, but also we understand that there are kids in Tract A and the idea was to provide safe access to the school. If you don’t think that’s a good idea, we’ll take that into consideration. Q: Is that access going to be gated? Is it any easy way for our children to walk, yes. But they’ve also been walking on the sidewalk [on Santa Barbara Blvd]. Unless it was locked and only for Tract A and Tract B people, it seems like anyone could go through there. A: Mr. Vanasse: Understood, we’ll take that into consideration. Mr. Teran: We cannot prevent people from going through that access, but if there is strong opposition to there being a sidewalk we can take that into consideration. Q: If this were to go through, what is the timeline for completion? Page 1005 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 11 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Teran: We’re looking to break ground approximately quarter two of next year, so it would be the April to June time range. About a year to break ground and then approximately sixteen to eighteen months of construction. So we would be looking at approximately two and a half years between today and having a finished product Conclusion: Since there were no further questions or comments, Mr. Vanasse adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:00pm. Mr. Vanasse also expressed that people can call and send any further comments to his team. He then reminded everyone of the future public hearings and noted there will be notifications for those hearings. Page 1006 of 1321 Page 1007 of 1321 Name (original name)Email Total duration (minutes)Guest Yury (TR Transportation)85 Yes CONSULTANT TEAM The Neighborhood Co.kg@theneighborhood.company 102 No CONSULTANT TEAM read.ai meeting notes 66 Yes MEETING NOTES David 89 Yes Xiomara Wong 91 Yes John D 99 Yes JenniferK 92 Yes Mario 44 Yes Page 1008 of 1321 Page 1 of 2 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239.398.2016 www.theneighborhood.company April 11, 2025 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PL20240013221) for the following property: Tract B comprises ±6.74 acres of the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The subject property is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Property ID: 00400246503). TRACT B SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE I Page 1009 of 1321 Page 2 of 2 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239.398.2016 www.theneighborhood.company The applicant, MHP Collier IV, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD to allow additional units on Tract B through the use of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus, increasing the maximum number of units for Tract B from 43 to 84. The development will serve as Phase II of the Ekos on Santa Barbara project, with Phase I located directly south of the subject property. Of the 84 units, 71 will be reserved for households with incomes between 51% - 80% of the area median income (AMI) and 13 will be reserved for households with incomes at or below 30% AMI. The proposed changes to the RPUD are specific to Tract B and will allow for increased density and modified development standards for multi-family development, including increased height and minor modifications to landscaping. In compliance with Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you with an opportunity to fully understand the proposed amendment. The meeting will be held on May 8, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at the Ekos on Santa Barbara Apartments clubhouse, located at the following address: 4640 Santa Barbara Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of the impending zoning application 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. If you are unable to attend in person, a Zoom option will be available. If you would like to participate via Zoom, please send an email to rh@theneighborhood.company prior to May 7 to request the meeting link. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at pv@theneighborhood.company or 239-398- 2016. Sincerely, Patrick Vanasse, AICP President & Partner Page 1010 of 1321 Page 1011 of 1321 Page 1012 of 1321 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment -PL20240013221 Collier County, FL Neighborhood Information Meeting May 8, 2025 1 Page 1013 of 1321 Intent To inform the public of the multi-family residential apartments proposed and the zoning petition that has been submitted to Collier County (PL20240013221). 2 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required as part of PUDA petition. Page 1014 of 1321 Applicant Team Applicant •McDowell Housing Partners •Christopher Shear, COO Land Use Attorney •Davies Duke •Noel Davies, Esq. Civil Engineer •RWA Engineering •Michael Pappas, PE 3 Ecologist •Earth Tech Environmental •Jeremy Sterk Transportation Engineer •TR Transportation Consultants •Yury Bykau, PE Land Use Planner •The Neighborhood Company •Patrick Vanasse, AICP Page 1015 of 1321 MHP Overview •Mission: Create and preserve high-quality housing communities that provide America’s workforce and seniors with a safe and sustainable place to call home, while implementing high-value resident services and programs to ensure tenant satisfaction. •Expertise: Proven success utilizing intricate financing products and methods. •Commitment: MHP commits to unwaveringly pursue all sources of funding available to complete the development of a new housing community. 4 Page 1016 of 1321 5 Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase 1 Page 1017 of 1321 6 Page 1018 of 1321 7 Page 1019 of 1321 Subject Property 8 TRACT B SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE I Page 1020 of 1321 Subject Property •Tract B of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD (±6.74 acres) •Located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard •Zoned Santa Barbara Landings RPUD •Rezoned from RMF-6 to PUD in 2005 •Approved for 248 dwelling units on Tract A and 43 units on Tract B (7 dwelling units/acre) •Urban Residential Future Land Use designation 9 Page 1021 of 1321 Request •An amendment to the RPUD to allow additional units on Tract B through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus •Tract B increase from 43 to 84 •Proposed changes are specific to Tract B •Density increase from 7 units/acre to 8 units/acre •Request has no impact on approved density for Tract A 10 Page 1022 of 1321 11 Approx. location of Tract A dumpster Property line will be fenced Gated emergency access only Page 1023 of 1321 Site Design Consideration •Preserve location •Orientation toward Santa Barbara Boulevard •Vehicle access limited solely to Santa Barbara – gated emergency access to Santa Clara •Pedestrian access available as a benefit to children walking to Calusa Park Elementary 12 Page 1024 of 1321 Next Steps •Staff Review •Finding of Sufficiency •Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) •Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 13 Page 1025 of 1321 Questions? 14 Patrick Vanasse, AICP (239) 398-2016 / pv@theneighborhood.company Eduardo Teran, Director of Development (786) 604-2797 / eteran@mcdhousing.com Page 1026 of 1321 Affordable Housing •All 84 units will be set aside as affordable (1 and 2 bedrooms) •71 units @ 51-80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) •13 units @ below 30% AMI 15 Page 1027 of 1321 5/27/2025 Item # 11.B ID# 2025-1143 Executive Summary Recommendation to review staff findings of the Board-directed on-site evaluation of parking capacity for various multifamily developments within Collier County, provide direction to staff regarding policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects, and provide direction on adjusting the adopted parking standards through an amendment to the Land Development Code. OBJECTIVE: To provide the Board of County Commissioners with information regarding staff observations of the current parking capacity and demand within various multifamily developments within Collier County in order to evaluate and determine if parking deficiencies exist under the current Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) parking standards or where parking reductions from the LDC parking standards have been granted. CONSIDERATIONS: During the Staff and Commission General Communications portion of their agenda on October 22, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners (Board), directed staff to bring back a study regarding multifamily off- street parking standards in various Florida jurisdictions. The discussion was initiated by Commissioner McDaniel who indicated that the standards in Collier County (County) did not require the necessary amount of parking demanded by the County’ s multifamily complexes. Staff conducted a study by comparing the off-street parking requirements from 12 jurisdictions located throughout the State of Florida, including Lee County, Palm Beach County, and the City of Naples. The study revealed that the parking standards in Collier County are mid-range when compared to the other jurisdictions—neither too restrictive nor too lenient. Additionally, staff noted that the parking deviation process may be requested by petitioners for projects zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and that LDC section 4.05.04 F.3 also allows for up to a 20 percent parking reduction through the APR process. Staff presented these findings to the Board on January 14, 2025. The Board then directed staff to visit multifamily projects throughout the County between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to determine if parking deficiencies exist during that timeframe and to report back to the Board with its observations. Additionally, staff was directed to refrain from approving any Administrative Parking Reduction (APR) applications until further notice from the Board, but that parking deviations may still be requested by petitioners. Staff compiled a list of communities to investigate, with the intent of representing a broad cross-section of multifamily projects located throughout the County, including those designed as apartment buildings, condominiums, and townhouses. Staff used approved Site Development Plans (SDP)/Final Subdivision Plats (PPL) to assist with documenting each development’s site layout, unit count, and types of parking facilities. A total of 12 communities were chosen. Five were approved with an APR and the remaining seven did not have any approved parking reductions. Staff visited the 12 communities between February 11, 2025, and March 4, 2025, when parking demand was believed to be at its highest—during the workweek, on either a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday evening, between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Staff systematically drove around each community, performing informal windshield surveys by observing the various types of parking facilities (e.g., privately-owned driveways/garages, off-street surface parking lots, and on-street parking) and taking notes of the approximate percentage of occupied spaces, both within designated and undesignated guest parking areas, driveway parking, service vehicle parking, handicap parking, or other residential parking. Staff documented, including taking photographs, if any vehicles were unlawfully parked in a street or over a driveway or other parking-related issue. A table compiling all of staff’s findings for each of the 12 communities is provided in Attachment “A.” Staff also noted if there were any past documented parking concerns or complaints. Staff’s observations revealed that adequate parking exists within all 12 communities except for one community (i.e., The Ranch at Orange Blossom). No parking issues were identified at any of the other communities, including those approved with parking reductions. Unlawfully parked vehicles were observed within three other communities (i.e., Meadow Lake Apartments, Summit Place in Naples, and Avion Woods), but this was possibly attributed to a lack of self-enforcement issue rather than a deficiency of available parking, and which may be experienced within any community, including those developed with single-family detached homes. The multi-family portion of the Ranch at Orange Blossom community contains 264 units, all three-bedrooms with a one car garage and driveway. There is no amenity center within this section of the development. The required number of parking spaces per LDC is 528 parking spaces; however, the community provides 604 parking spaces on site per the Page 1028 of 1321 5/27/2025 Item # 11.B ID# 2025-1143 Final Subdivision Plans (Phase 5- PL20210000781 & Phase 2 - PL20200000907). Additional parking over the code requirement is provided via 76 auxiliary spaces in the form of off-street surface parking lots and on-street parking areas, and the remaining 528 spaces are provided via 1-car garages and driveways. Staff's observations of the community, even with additional parking, were as follows: The off-street parking lots were nearly entirely filled. The on-street parking areas were completely filled. While there were many vacant driveways, the development as a whole had 10-12 vehicles unlawfully parked (either parked within the street or over a sidewalk). Photographs of staff observations are attached to this executive summary as Attachment “B.” Staff suspects this community is having a parking problem. Based on observed parking deficiencies within the townhome community of The Ranch at Orange Blossom with some empty driveways, but underprovided publicly accessible parking, staff determined further examination, and focus should be placed on multifamily communities designed as townhome style developments. Staff noted that three of the four townhome communities evaluated provided parking that exceeded the LDC parking standards. The Ranch at Orange Blossom for example was one of the communities with the least additional parking from the LDC requirement, being 14 percent over the parking requirement and Summit Place in Naples being the community with the most additional parking at 58 percent over the required parking. Avion Woods the only development which provided exactly the required parking was the smallest townhome community evaluated containing 26 units, all two-bedrooms. To highlight if the observed parking deficiency within The Ranch at Orange Blossom community would be unique to Collier County’s current parking standards, staff updated the twelve-jurisdiction multifamily parking standards comparison matrix presented to the Board at its January 14, 2025 meeting. Staff updated the last column of the matrix to evaluate the parking requirement for a 264 unit, three-bedroom townhome community (i.e. The Ranch at Orange Blossom). Additionally, it was identified that four of the twelve jurisdictions had separate townhome and multifamily parking calculation requirements. These parking standards were included in the updated Multifamily Parking Space Regulation Comparison Matrix provided as Attachment “C” of this executive summary. The required parking for a townhome project such as The Ranch at Orange Blossom based on each of the twelve evaluated jurisdiction's parking standards ranged from 264 to 594 parking spaces. Collier County’s parking requirement of 528 parking spaces for The Ranch at Orange Blossom was therefore identified as somewhere in the middle range in terms of the amount of parking required relative to the other eleven Florida jurisdictions evaluated. Furthermore, The Ranch at Orange Blossom currently provides 604 parking spaces, exceeding the highest parking requirement of the twelve jurisdictions evaluated of 594 required parking spaces, showing that the parking deficiency observed would most probably be seen in all of the evaluated Florida jurisdictions, not only Collier. Based on the findings of this evaluation, staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects and potential land development code amendments to adjust the current parking requirements. An additional consideration that may factor into the evaluation is that any increase in the multifamily parking requirement may render a large percentage of existing multifamily complexes as ‘non-conforming’ under a newer standard, as well as Ch. 2023-349, Laws of Florida (amending “Senate Bill 250”), which renders more restrictive or burdensome amendments to Collier County’s land development regulations before October 1, 2026, void ab initio. This item is consistent with the Collier County strategic plan objective to preserve and enhance the character of our community. FISCAL IMPACT: If directed, budget allocations have been provided within the appropriate cost centers for the necessary staffing for the Land Development Code Amendment (LDCA) process. Additionally, based on the fact that an increase in the parking requirements for multifamily complexes would render a percentage of existing complexes as non-conforming, a cost will be borne by these complexes to address their parking deficiencies if any modifications/additions are sought for the complexes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address specific parking requirements for multifamily apartment complexes, and any modification to the parking requirements will have no effect on the GMP. Page 1029 of 1321 5/27/2025 Item # 11.B ID# 2025-1143 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board direction. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATIONS: To review the staff’s on-site evaluations of parking capacity and demand within multifamily communities in the County and provide direction for policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects and any recommended adjustment to the County’s standards. PREPARED BY: Josephine Medina, AICP, Planner III– Zoning Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A - Multifamily Parking On-Site Observations 2. Attachment B - The Ranch at Orange Blossom Parking Photographs 3. Attachment C - Multifamily Parking Space Regulation Comparisons Page 1030 of 1321 Page 1031 of 1321 Page 1032 of 1321 Page 1033 of 1321 Page 1034 of 1321 Page 1035 of 1321 Page 1036 of 1321 Page 1037 of 1321 Page 1038 of 1321 Page 1039 of 1321 Page 1040 of 1321 Page 1041 of 1321 Page 1042 of 1321 Page 1043 of 1321 Page 1044 of 1321 Page 1045 of 1321 Page 1046 of 1321 Page 1047 of 1321 Page 1048 of 1321 Page 1049 of 1321 Page 1050 of 1321 Page 1051 of 1321 Page 1052 of 1321 Page 1053 of 1321 Page 1054 of 1321 Page 1055 of 1321 Page 1056 of 1321 Page 1057 of 1321 Page 1058 of 1321 Page 1059 of 1321 Page 1060 of 1321 Page 1061 of 1321 EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE II Environmental Data for PUDA SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: February 14, 2025 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 1062 of 1321 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 Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. A lone parcel at the south end of the PUD remains undeveloped. The amendment is to address development of this last parcel (Subject Property). This information is in response to the items in the PUDA Pre-Application Notes as provided by Collier County. PROPERTY LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of a single parcel (Folio: 00400246503) at the south end of the Santa Barbara Landing RPUD. Access to the property is through the existing Granada Lake Villas. According to the survey provided by the engineer, the property is 6.74 acres. See Location Map and Aerial Map in Appendix A. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST See page 3.A.3 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 FLU CFCS 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 or SFWMD. Please see FLUCCS Map in Appendix A. FLUCCS 130, Residential High Density This FLUCCS category is the existing residential community (Granada Lake Villas). It consists of buildings, roadways, landscaping, and water management areas. FLUCCS 411-E1, Pine Flatwoods (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the middle preserve in the existing developed portion of the PUD. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). These patches are the only remaining native areas in this preserve. FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community makes up the majority of the undeveloped parcel in the south. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid-story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. Page 1063 of 1321 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com FLUCCS 411-E4, Pine Flatwoods (>75% Exotics) This community is found in the northernmost preserve area of the PUD, adjacent to Radio Road. Canopy consists of scattered slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid-story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 624-E2, Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the center of the Subject Property surrounded on all sides by Pine flatwoods. This community mostly consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, and cabbage palm, with moderate levels of exotic recruitment including earleaf acacia and brazilian pepper in the canopy and midstory. Groundcover was sparse with scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Lands This community is found in the middle preserve in the existing developed portion of the PUD. Canopy vegetation is absent. Groundcover is largely bahia grass that is actively mowed and maintained. This portion of the preserve will need restoration. FLUCCS 810, Road Right of Way This community is found buffering the roadways to the west and south of the Subject Property. These areas are mechanically mowed and maintained. This community consists of a variety of grasses as ground cover with absent midstory or canopy vegetation. Native vegetation calculations: Original PUD Native Vegetation Requirement: 3.0 Acres Previously Provided Preserve Areas (2): 1.62 acres Areas within the 1.62 acres will need exotic removal and/or restoration Preserve Provided in Currently Undeveloped Parcel: 1.71 2 areas that were previously identified in the original PUD Total Preserve Provided: 3.02 acres See Native Vegetation Preserve Map, Site Plan Map, and Wetland ID Map in Appendix A for the proposed preservation areas, site plan layout, and wetland location. 2. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zone 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 eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). See Protected Species Survey in Appendix B and Florida Bonneted Bat Cavity Survey in Appendix C. No listed species were observed on the property. Page 1064 of 1321 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 (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.l.d-e). (25% of native vegetation is required for preservation.) Label the Master plan with a note that the preservation is to be addressed off-site and provide the calculation in the packet submitted. 4. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. OBJECTIVE 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements… The project will protect native vegetation by providing at least 3 acres of indigenous preserve as outlined in the original PUD. The location of the preserves was established in the original PUD and the current request is consistent with those sizes and locations. CCME GOAL 7: TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE COUNTY’S FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE. OBJECTIVE 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats… A listed species survey was conducted on the Subject Property in January 2025, with no observations nor signs of listed species utilization was observed on the Subject Property. See Appendix B for the Listed Species Survey. 5. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. A listed species survey was conducted on the Subject Property in January 2025, with no observations nor signs of listed species utilization was observed on the Subject Property. See Appendix B for the Listed Species Survey. 6. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed storm water management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. The project will be permitted through the SFWMD once the PUDA is approved. The specifics of the water management system will be determined at that time. 7. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCME. Page 1065 of 1321 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com See Comment #1 above. Native vegetation calculations: Original PUD Native Vegetation Requirement: 3.0 Acres Previously Provided Preserve Areas (2): 1.62 acres Areas within the 1.62 acres will need exotic removal and/or restoration Preserve Provided in Currently Undeveloped Parcel: 1.71 2 areas that were previously identified in the original PUD Total Preserve Provided: 3.02 acres See Native Vegetation Preserve Map in Appendix A for the proposed preservation areas. 8. Please indicate if the original PUD had environmental commitments and address how the commitments will be included or excluded as part of the proposed petition. From an environmental perspective, the updated PUD will provide native vegetation preserves in the same locations and sizes as the original PUD. Page 1066 of 1321 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL-SIZED EXHIBITS Page 1067 of 1321 Page 1068 of 1321 Page 1069 of 1321 Page 1070 of 1321 Page 1071 of 1321 Page 1072 of 1321 Page 1073 of 1321 Page 1074 of 1321 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY Page 1075 of 1321 EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA II Protected Species Survey NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50, RANGE 26 Prepared For: Prepared By: January 2025 McDowell Housing Partners 777 Brickell Ave, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33131 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 1076 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY METHODS & MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 3 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 5.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 5 6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDICIES Appendix A Full Sized Exhibits Page 1077 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a search for listed species on the property referred to as Ekos on Santa Barbara II (Subject Property) prior to development. The field assessment occurred on January 20, 2025, 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 one (1) parcel (Folio # 00400246503) east of Santa Barbara Blvd. The Subject Property is located just north of an access roadway, a residential community, and a large man-made stormwater pond; just south of Santa Clara Drive and residential housing; in Collier County, Florida. According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the Subject Property totals approximately 6.66 acres. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) 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) (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits). 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 Appendix A for full sized exhibits). 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 R1 GNSS Receiver for sub-meter accuracy. 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 three (3) man-hours were logged on the Subject Property during this species survey (see Table 1). TABLE 1. FIELD TIME SPENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATE START TIME END TIME NO. ECOLOGISTS MAN HOURS TASK January 20, 2025 1:30 pm 3:00 pm 2 3 Species Survey Fieldwork Page 1078 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Subject Property is vacant and vegetated. The majority of the Subject Property consists of pine flatwoods with road right of ways bordering the road access on the west and south boundaries of the parcel. There is a wetland in the center of the parcel. Residential communities are located adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the Subject Property. An access road, residential community, man-made retention pond, and Calusa Park Elementary School are located to the south of the Subject Property. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: North: Residential East: Residential South: Roadway / Residential / Man-made retention pond / Calusa Park Elementary West: Santa Barbara Blvd / Countryside Golf Course and Country Club Table 2 lists the FLUCCS communities located on the Subject Property. The community descriptions correspond to the FLUCCS Map (see Appendix A for full sized exhibits). 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 Caesar weed. Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub-canopy. TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411-E3 Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) 3.61 624-E2 Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) 1.90 810 Road Right of Way 1.15 Site Total: 6.66 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 Page 1079 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the Subject Property. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid- story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 624-E2, Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the center of the Subject Property surrounded on all sides by Pine flatwoods. This community mostly consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, and cabbage palm, with moderate levels of exotic recruitment including earleaf acacia and brazilian pepper in the canopy and midstory. Groundcover was sparse with scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS 810, Road Right of Way This community is found buffering the roadways to the west and south of the Subject Property. These areas are mechanically mowed and maintained. This community consists of a variety of grasses as ground cover with absent midstory or canopy vegetation. 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 for full sized exhibits). TABLE 3. SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVATIONS LISTED 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 REPTILES Brown Anole Anolis sagrei DV N - = listed species Abbreviations Observations: Observations: Status: C = Cavity N = Nest CE = Commercially Exploited DB = Day Bed OH = Observed Hole/Burrow FE = Federally Endangered DV = Direct Visual OT = Observed Tracks FT = Federally Threatened HV = Heard Vocalization(s) R = Remains SSC = Species of Special Concern MT = Marked Tree S = Scat 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: Page 1080 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 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. No signs of Florida Bonneted Bat utilization were observed on the Subject Property, habitat is not ideal for bonneted bat roosting due to the dense understory that mostly consists of exotic species. During the Protected Species Survey fieldwork, two (2) snags that contained tree cavities were observed. A Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey will be conducted. 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. Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) The Subject Property falls outside the USFWS Primary Panther Habitat Zones. Four (4) panther telemetry points were located within a two-mile radius of the Subject Property in 2023. All 4 telemetry points within a two-mile radius of the Subject Property were from one individual panther (FP262) with the latest being May 8, 2023. Panther usage of the Subject Property is unlikely due to the surrounding development and proximity to major roadways. Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) The Subject Property falls within abundant black bear habitat (FWC). Thirty-two (32) black bear-related calls have been documented within a one-mile radius of the Subject Property in 2017 through 2018. FWC stopped radio-tracking black bears in 2018. FWC Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required to be followed for Florida black bear. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) The Subject Property falls within one (1) 18.6 mile core foraging area for a known wood stork colony. Usage of the Subject Property for foraging or roosting by wood storks is unlikely due to the high levels of exotic vegetation and surrounding development. Page 1081 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 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 Page 1082 of 1321 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS Page 1083 of 1321 Page 1084 of 1321 Page 1085 of 1321 Page 1086 of 1321 Page 1087 of 1321 Page 1088 of 1321 Page 1089 of 1321 Page 1090 of 1321 Page 1091 of 1321 Page 1092 of 1321 Page 1093 of 1321 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX C BONETTED BAT CAVITY SURVEY Page 1094 of 1321 EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA II FLORIDA BONNETED BAT TREE CAVITY SURVEY COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: February 2025 McDowell Housing Partners 777 Brickell Ave, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33131 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 1095 of 1321 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) ...................................................................................... 4 5.0 SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS .......................................................................................................... 5 6.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 5 7.0 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 6 8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDICES Appendix A Full Sized Exhibits Appendix B Tree Cavity Photographs Page 1096 of 1321 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 February 8, 2025 for Florida bonneted bat (FBB) (Eumops floridanus) on the property referred to as Ekos on Santa Barbara II (Subject Property) prior to development. Tree cavities/potential roost sites were originally identified by ETE during a Protected Species Survey performed in January 2025. 2.0 LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of one (1) parcel (Folio # 00400246503) east of Santa Barbara Blvd. The Subject Property is located just north of an access roadway, a residential community, and a large man-made stormwater pond; just south of Santa Clara Drive and residential housing; in Collier County, Florida. According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the Subject Property totals approximately 6.66 acres. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Temperatures during the fieldwork for this survey were in the mid 70’s with partly cloudy skies. The Subject Property is vacant and vegetated. The majority of the Subject Property consists of pine flatwoods with road right of ways bordering the road access on the west and south boundaries of the parcel. There is a wetland in the center of the parcel. Residential communities are located adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the Subject Property. An access road, residential community, man-made retention pond, and Calusa Park Elementary School are located to the south of the Subject Property. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) 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: Residential East: Residential South: Roadway / Residential / Man-made retention pond / Calusa Park Elementary West: Santa Barbara Blvd / Countryside Golf Course and Country Club 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 Caesar weed. Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation. 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 1097 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411-E3 Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) 3.61 624-E2 Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) 1.90 810 Road Right of Way 1.15 Site Total: 6.66 FLUCCS DESCRIPTIONS * = exotic species+ FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the Subject Property. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid- story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 624-E2, Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the center of the Subject Property surrounded on all sides by Pine flatwoods. This community mostly consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, and cabbage palm, with moderate levels of exotic recruitment including earleaf acacia and brazilian pepper in the canopy and midstory. Groundcover was sparse with scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS 810, Road Right of Way This community is found buffering the roadways to the west and south of the Subject Property. These areas are mechanically mowed and maintained. This community consists of a variety of grasses as ground cover with absent midstory or canopy vegetation. 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 for full sized exhibits). 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 >20 feet in height, snags 10ft or taller • Cavity opening ≥1 inch. E1 = <25% Total Exotic Coverage E2 = 26-50% Total Exotic Coverage E3 = 51-75% Total Exotic Coverage E4 = >75% Total Exotic Coverage Page 1098 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 5.0 SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS During the January 2025 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 February 4, 2025 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 B. 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 February 8, 2025, and the cavity peeping activities occurred on the same day. 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 (see Appendix B for Tree Cavity Photographs). Nine-teen (19) snag trees with a total of thirty-one (31) cavities were initially identified/flagged (see Appendix A for full sized exhibits). TABLE 2. TREE CAVITY INFORMATION Tree Cavity Number Condition and Species of Tree Height of Cavity (Ft) Inspection Status C1 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 36.5ft Cavity B: 35.5ft Cavity C: 31.5ft All Cavities Vacant C2 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 18.5ft All Cavities Vacant C3 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 35ft Cavity B: 32ft Cavity C: 28.5ft All Cavities Vacant C4 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 25.5ft Cavity B: 20.5ft Cavity C: 20ft Cavity D: 18.7ft Cavity E: 13.2ft All Cavities Vacant C5 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C6 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C7 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C8 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep Page 1099 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com C9 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 23.7ft All Cavities Vacant C10 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C11 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 25.5ft Cavity B: 24.5ft Cavity C: 22ft Cavity D: 23.5ft All Cavities Vacant C12 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 19ft All Cavities Vacant C13 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 19.5ft All Cavities Vacant C14 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 22ft Cavity B: 20ft All Cavities Vacant C15 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 18ft All Cavities Vacant C16 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 27ft All Cavities Vacant C17 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 26ft All Cavities Vacant C18 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 21ft All Cavities Vacant C19 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep 7.0 SUMMARY ETE conducted a search for potential Florida bonneted bat cavities/potential roost sites on the Subject Property on February 8, 2025. Nine-teen (19) snag trees with a total of thirty-one (31) cavities were initially identified during a Protected Species Survey that was conducted in January, 2025. 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 moderate to 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 1100 of 1321 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. “2023 FISC List of Invasive Plant Species.” https://www.floridainvasives.org/plant-list/2023-invasive-plant-species/ 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. https://myfwc.com/media/1962/florida-bonneted-bat-bsr.pdf 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 1101 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS Page 1102 of 1321 Page 1103 of 1321 Page 1104 of 1321 Page 1105 of 1321 Page 1106 of 1321 Page 1107 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B TREE CAVITY PHOTOGRAPHS Page 1108 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C1 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 36.5 View facing up View facing down C A B Page 1109 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C1 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 35.5 Cavity #: C Height (ft): 31.5 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up *More cavities >40 ft, did not Peep Page 1110 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C2 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 18.5 View facing up View facing down A Page 1111 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C3 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 35 View facing up View facing down A B C Page 1112 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C3 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 32 Cavity #: C Height (ft):28.5 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 1113 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C4 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 25.5 View facing up View facing down A B C D E Page 1114 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C4 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 20.5 Cavity #: C Height (ft): 20 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 1115 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C4 Cavity #:D Height (ft):18.7 Cavity #: E Height (ft): 13.2 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 1116 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C5 Cavity #: A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A Page 1117 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C6 Cavity #: A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A Page 1118 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C7, C8 Cavity #: A, A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A A C7 C8 Page 1119 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C9 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 23.7 View facing up View facing down A Page 1120 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C10 Cavity #: A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A Page 1121 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C11 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 25.5 View facing down A B C D View facing up: no photo, open at top Page 1122 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C11 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 24.5 Cavity #: C Height (ft): 22 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 1123 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C11 Cavity #:D Height (ft): 23.5 View facing down View facing up Page 1124 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C12 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 19.0 View facing up View facing down A Page 1125 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C13 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 19.5 View facing up View facing down A Page 1126 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C14 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 22 View facing up View facing down B A Page 1127 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C14 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 20 View facing down View facing up Page 1128 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C15 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 18 View facing up View facing down A Page 1129 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C16 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 27 View facing up View facing down A Page 1130 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C17 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 26 View facing up View facing down A Page 1131 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C18 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 21 View facing up View facing down A Page 1132 of 1321 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C19 Cavity #: A Height (ft): Could not peep, too thick of understory, cavities too high Page 1133 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landing PUDA Page 1 of 2 Submittal #3 06/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | PHONE NUMBER www.theneighborhood.company SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi- family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1- bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities 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 for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces. Justification: The proposed 84-unit development would require 156 parking spaces per the LDC, as detailed below. Use Units and LDC Ratio Parking Required 1 Bed 60 @ 1.75/unit 105 2 Bed 24 @ 2/unit 48 3 Bed 0 @ 2/unit 0 Office 900 SF @ 1 per 300 SF (*50%) 1.5 Clubhouse 600 SF @ 1 per 200 SF (*50%) 1.5 TOTAL 156 156 parking spaces equates to a space-per-unit ratio of 1.85. The proposed 10% reduction would require 140 parking spaces or a space-per-unit ratio of 1.67. The developer of the proposed project, MHP Collier IV, LLC, has developed many multi-family developments in Florida, with multiple existing projects in Collier County. The space-per-unit ratio of MHP’s Collier County projects ranges from 1.24 to 1.99, with an average of 1.5. To date, no parking deficiencies have been identified in these developments. The requested ratio of 1.67 is higher than the average of 1.5, suggesting that 140 spaces will provide sufficient parking for the development. Additionally, over 70% of the proposed units will be one bedroom, which are anticipated to be single-vehicle households. At their May 27, 2025 hearing, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners concurred with County staff’s findings related to multi-family parking reductions, finding that only one out of twelve multi-family communities surveyed had a parking deficiency. Page 1134 of 1321 Santa Barbara Landing PUDA Page 2 of 2 Submittal #3 06/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | PHONE NUMBER www.theneighborhood.company Per the Executive Summary prepared by County staff (included in this submittal), none of the communities surveyed which had previously been granted Administrative Parking Reductions had parking issues or observed deficiencies, suggesting that reasonable reductions in multi-family parking standards have no negative impact on the communities themselves. 2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A-1. Justification: The original Master Plan (adopted by Ordinance 2005-53, as amended) was approved with two preservation areas, as the approval pre-dated the requirement for contiguous preservations. This deviation seeks to maintain the separate preservation area locations. At ±6.74 acres, Tract B has a relatively constrained developable area and preserve areas were selected, in part, with the desire to provide enhanced buffering from the existing residential communities to the north (Granada Lakes Villas) and east (Plantation PUD). Page 1135 of 1321 © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 TomTom Property : 1 CLIENT: TITLE:FILE NO.:SHEET OFNO.REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEBY COASTAL 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 A CECI GROUP COMPANY Serving Florida Since 1977 THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (CECI) OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO CECI OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES.FLORIDA BUSINESS AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 2464COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: 10/31/2024FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 5295PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPERTHE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDANOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE ANDLICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPERDATE OF SIGNATURE: RICHARD J. EWING, PSMCHECKED: F.B. ACAD NO. PG. DRAWN: DATE: REF. NO. SCALE: SEC.TWP.RNG.ALTA/NSPS SURVEYORS CERTIFICATETHE UNDERSIGNED, BEING A REGISTERED SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CERTIFIES TO THE FOLLOWING:MHP COLLIER IV, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYNELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLPFIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY1. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2021 MINIMUM STANDARDDETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(A), 7(A),7(B)(1), 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, AND 20 OF TABLE A THEREOF.2. THE SURVEY WAS MADE ON THE GROUND ON OCTOBER 31, 2024, AND CORRECTLY SHOWS THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE LOCATION OFUTILITIES OBSERVED OR SHOWN ON RECORD DOCUMENTS AS SERVING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER MATTERS SITUATED ON THE SUBJECTPROPERTY.3. THE LOCATION OF EACH EASEMENT, RIGHT OF WAY, SERVITUDE, AND OTHER MATTER AFFECTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND LISTED IN TITLECOMMITMENT NO. 12025933 , SUPPLIED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 WITH RESPECT TOTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY, HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE SURVEY, TOGETHER WITH APPROPRIATE RECORDING REFERENCES, TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH MATTERSCAN BE LOCATED. THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND DESCRIBED ON THE SURVEY IS THE SAME PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT TITLE COMMITMENT. THE LOCATION OFALL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN ACCORD WITH MINIMUM SETBACK PROVISIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD REFERENCED IN SUCHTITLE COMMITMENT.4. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE SURVEY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X AND AE, ELEVATION 10.5, PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO 12021C0414J FOR COMMUNITY NO. 120067 IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED.5. ANY POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS ARE NOTED ON THE SURVEY.CECI GROUP SERVICES COASTAL AND MARINE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES LAND AND MARINE SURVEY AND MAPPING 24.3192124.319 24.319-ALTAGENERAL NOTES1. = FOUND 3"X3" CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH ALUMINUM DISC (ILLEGIBLE).2. = FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AS NOTED.3. = SET 5/8"IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED CEC LB 2464.4. BEARINGS BASED ON A GRID BEARING OF N88°49'14"E ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4.5. DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD ZONE X, AND FLOOD ZONE AE ELEVATION 10.5 PER F.I.R.M. COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 120067 MAP NO. 12021C 0414J DATED FEBRUARY 08, 2024.6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (N.A.V.D. 88).7. ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.8. THIS SURVEY IS CERTIFIED TO THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY, NOT THE DATE OF SIGNATURE.9. TITLE COMMITMENT NO. 12025933, SUPPLIED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 25, 2024, WAS REVIEWED BY THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOR. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS CORRESPOND WITH SCHEDULE B-II OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED COMMITMENT.SCHEDULE B-II5.ORDINANCES 75-20 (WATER), 75-21 (TREES), AND 75-24 (ZONING), AS RECORDED MAY 8, 1975, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 619, PAGES 1177THROUGH 1381, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.6.RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF COLLIER COUNTY RECORDED MAY 22, 1985, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1136, PAGE 2334. (PLOTTEDHEREON)7.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF COLLIER COUNTY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1985, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1153, PAGE 1378. (DOES NOT AFFECTDESCRIBED PROPERTY)8.RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, EASEMENTS, AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, AUGUST 27, 1986, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK1214, PAGE 1533. (NOT-PLOTTABLE)9.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1986, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1229, PAGE 1786.(DOES NOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)10.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF COUNTYWATER-SEWER DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDARECORDED APRIL 29, 1987, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1264, PAGE 1642. (DOES NOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)11.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1987, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1293, PAGE 311. (DOESNOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)12.MUTUAL AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 27, 1989, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1436, PAGE 14;AS AFFECTED BY THAT CERTAIN PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF MUTUAL AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED JULY14, 1989, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1845, PAGE 1237. (DOES NOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND PROVISIONS OF THAT CERTAIN UTILITY FACILITIES WARRANTY DEED IN FAVOR OF THE BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OFCOUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1993, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1794, PAGE 1010; TOGETHER WITH BILL OF SALERECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 21993, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1794, PAGE 1007.14.EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED APRIL 19, 2005, INOFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3777, PAGE 3934 AND RE-RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 2005, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3920, PAGE 1403.15.RIGHTS OF TENANTS OCCUPYING ALL OR PART OF THE INSURED LAND UNDER UNRECORDED LEASES OR RENTAL AGREEMENTS.(NOT-PLOTTABLE) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01°00'26" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THEWEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR A DISTANCE OF 480.72 FEET, THENCE RUN SOUTH76°13'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 82.23 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARSNORTH 5°44'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THERIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 73.16 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°08'34", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 47.81 FEET AT A BEARINGOF NORTH 65°11'09" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 90°00'00" WEST FOR ADISTANCE OF 125.77 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35°38'35" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 22.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE,CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 29°08'13" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.22 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUNSOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 65.22 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF49°30'54", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 54.63 FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 85°37'14" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.36 FEET TO THE ENDOF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 69°37'17" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27°06'45" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF104.54 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 56°29'42" WEST, ADISTANCE OF 52.77 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUN WESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF52.77 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 101°32'18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 81.75 FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 84°16'27" WEST,FOR A DISTANCE OF 93.51 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 48°37'36" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.05 FEET;THENCE RUN SOUTH 88°57'22" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 113.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01°02'39" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR ADISTANCE OF 439.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN NORTH88°49'14" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR A DISTANCE OF 658.08 FEET TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.TOGETHER WITH A 24-FOOT-WIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT LYING 12 FEET EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTINGSANTA CLARA DRIVE.PHONE: (239)643-2324 FAX: (239)643-1143 www.coastalengineering.com E-Mail: info@cecifl.com N/A MMW RJENOT TO SCALECOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDALYING IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,LOCATION MAPALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPART OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWESTQUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDAMHP COLLIER IV, LLC ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF LANDS LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA G715 26 11/06/24 26E50S4NO SITE ADDRESS PROJECT LOCATIONPage 1136 of 1321 XXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTELOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHU OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUEAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4 S76°13'51"W 82.23'(D)S76°06'59"W 82.17'(S)N90°00'00"W 125.77'(D)N89°52'32"W 125.77'(S)S27°06'45"W 104.54'(D)S27°10'01"W 104.55'(S)N48°37'36"W 88.05'(D)N48°37'24"W 88.04'(S)S88°57'22"W 113.05'(D)S89°08'25"W 113.05'(S)S01°02'39"E 439.34'(D)S01°02'07"E 439.61'(S)N88°49'14"E 658.08'(D)N88°49'14"E 658.08'(S)SANTA BARBARA LANDINGSPARCEL ID 00400200002PLANTATION(PLAT BOOK 80, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82)CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARYPARCEL ID 00399840007POINT OF BEGINNINGSOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALFOF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWESTQUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAC1C2C3L 1L2(VACANT LAND)APPROXIMATELY 293,530 SQUARE FEET,OR 6.74 ACRES OF LANDSOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4N01°00'26"W 480.72'(D) N01°00'29"W 480.72'(S)FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN (ILLEGIBLE)FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN (ILLEGIBLE)FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FLOOD ZONE XFLOOD ZONE AEELEVATION = 10.5FLOOD ZONE XFLOOD ZONE AEELEVATION = 10.5SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD20' RIGHT OF WAY 99.99'13.06'CORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 1.6' SOUTHOF PROPERTY LINECHAIN LINKFENCE IS 1.4' SOUTHOF PROPERTY CORNERCORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.6' NORTHOF PROPERTY LINECORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.2' EASTOF PROPERTY LINECORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 1.1' WESTAND 0.7' NORTHOF PROPERTY CORNERCORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.8' WESTOF PROPERTY LINECHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.7' WESTOF PROPERTY LINECORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.9' EASTOF PROPERTY CORNERCORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.5' NORTHOF PROPERTY CORNER100' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 1136, PAGE 2334)ACCESS EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 2970, PAGES 3324-3330)120' 120'303.47'ACCESS EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 2970, PAGES 3324-3330)RIGHT-OF-WAY,DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 4023,PAGES 4072-4073)WEST 1/4 CORNER OFSECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,OLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAWEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4100.00'558.08'APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF SANTA CLARA DRIVE(24' WIDE INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT AS LISTED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION CLIENT: TITLE:FILE NO.:SHEET OFNO.REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATE BY COASTAL 28421 BONITA CROSSINGS BOULEVARD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. COASTAL AND MARINE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES LAND AND MARINE SURVEY AND MAPPING BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE: (239)643-2324 FAX: (239)643-1143 www.coastalengineering.com E-Mail: info@cecifl.com Serving Florida Since 1977 THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (CECI) OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO CECI OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES. CHECKED: F.B. ACAD NO. PG. DRAWN: DATE: REF. NO. SCALE: SEC.TWP.RNG.24.31922MHP COLLIER IV, LLC 1" = 40' G715 26 26E50S 24.319 24.319-ALTA 11/06/24 MMW RJE 4LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTEROF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEINGMORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01°00'26" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THEWEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FORA DISTANCE OF 480.72 FEET, THENCE RUN SOUTH 76°13'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF82.23 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUSPOINT BEARS NORTH 5°44'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET THERE FROM; THENCERUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUSOF 73.16 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°08'34", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF47.81 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 65°11'09" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.70 FEET TOTHE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 90°00'00" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF125.77 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35°38'35" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 22.57 FEET TO APOINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARSNORTH 29°08'13" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.22 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUNSOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF65.22 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49°30'54", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 54.63FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 85°37'14" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.36 FEET TO THEEND OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 69°37'17" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.93FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27°06'45" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 104.54 FEET TO A POINT ON ACIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH56°29'42" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 52.77 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUN WESTERLY,ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 52.77 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 101°32'18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 81.75 FEET AT ABEARING OF SOUTH 84°16'27" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 93.51 FEET TO THE END OF SAIDCURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 48°37'36" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.05 FEET; THENCERUN SOUTH 88°57'22" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 113.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01°02'39"EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR ADISTANCE OF 439.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN NORTH 88°49'14" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR A DISTANCE OF 658.08 FEET TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.TOGETHER WITH A 24-FOOT-WIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT LYING 12 FEET EACHSIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING SANTA CLARA DRIVE.GENERAL NOTES1. = FOUND 3"X3" CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH ALUMINUM DISC (ILLEGIBLE).2. = FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AS NOTED.3. = SET 5/8"IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED CEC LB 2464.4. BEARINGS BASED ON A GRID BEARING OF N88°49'14"E ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4.5. DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD ZONE X, AND FLOOD ZONE AE ELEVATION 10.5 PER F.I.R.M. COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 120067 MAP NO. 12021C 0414J DATED FEBRUARY 08, 2024.6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (N.A.V.D. 88).7. ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.8. THIS SURVEY IS CERTIFIED TO THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY, NOT THE DATE OF SIGNATURE.LEGEND(S) = SURVEY DATA(D) = DESCRIPTION DATA(TYP.) = TYPICALOHU = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE = SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE = WOOD POWER POLE = CONCRETE POWER POLE = HAND HOLE = LIGHT POLE = ELECTRIC SERVICE = FIBER OPTIC MARKER = TELEPHONE RISER = SCHEDULE BII ITEMSCALE: 1" = 40'402004080CXX - CURVE TABLECURVEC1(D)C2(D)C3(D)RADIUS73.16'65.22'52.77'DELTA38°08'34"49°30'54"101°32'18"LENGTH48.70'56.36'93.51'CHORD47.81'54.63'81.75'BEARINGN65°11'09"WS85°37'14"WS84°16'27"WLXX - LINE TABLELINEL1(D)L2(D)BEARINGS35°38'35"WN69°37'17"WDISTANCE22.57'34.93'C1(S)C2(S)C3(S)48.47'56.40'93.61'47.59'54.66'81.81'N65°25'30"WS85°36'12"WS84°21'49"WL1(S)L2(S)S35°33'11"WN69°38'14"W22.62'34.89'TELALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF LANDS LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAPage 1137 of 1321 [25-CPS-02609/1964280/1] 100 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 1 of 2 8/13/25 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-53 THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 291 TO 332 UNITS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 84 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON TRACT B OF THE RPUD, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRACT B, INCREASE THE HEIGHT ON TRACT B AND ADD A DETAILED MASTER PLAN FOR TRACT B; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. TRACT B IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 40, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.74± ACRES OUT OF 41.6± ACRES. [PL20240013221] WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2005-53 which created the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and WHEREAS, the Collier County Hearing Examiner approved insubstantial changes to the RPUD in HEX Decision 2021-01; and WHEREAS, MHP Collier IV, LLC, represented by Patrick Vanasse, AICP of The Neighborhood Company, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the RPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. The PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 2005-53, as amended, is hereby amended in accordance with the revised PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. Page 1138 of 1321 [25-CPS-02609/1964280/1] 100 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 2 of 2 8/13/25 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ 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 Attachment: Exhibit A - PUD Document with Exhibits Page 1139 of 1321 07/08/2025 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 41.6± Acres Located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 And St. George Group Corporation 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390 Miami, FL 33126 MHP Collier IV, LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 PREPARED BY: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 And D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Insubstantial Change for St. George Group, Corp by: Johnson Engineering. Inc. 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 (HEX Decision 21-01) Amendment for MHP Collier IV, LLC prepared by: The Neighborhood Company 5618 Whispering Willow Way Fort Myers, FL 33908 EXHIBIT “A” Page 1140 of 1321 07/08/2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES i STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA III-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREA IV-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS V-1 Page 1141 of 1321 i 07/08/2025 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A-I EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D TABLE I CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN TRACT B MASTER PLAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LOCATION MAP BOUNDARY SURVEY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III-3 Page 1142 of 1321 ii 07/08/2025 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE This (HEX Decision 21-01) Residential Planned Unit Development is on approximately 41.6± acres of land located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. Approximately 6.3 acres of the property is encumbered with a 100' wide roadway easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard, making the net site approximately 35.3 acres. The name of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. The development of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as established in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies of the land development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Plan and applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The density provided for in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD complies with the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the residential density band, which extends from the Mixed-use activity center located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The density permissible is 4 dwelling units per acre. Up to 3 dwelling units per acre may be added within the density band, bringing the permissible base density to 7 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density may be added subject to the criteria in the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Base density 4.0du/acre Density band 3.0du/acre Affordable Housing Density Bonus 1.0du/acre Maximum permitted density 7.0 8.0du/acre Requested density 7.0 8.0du/acre (291 332 units) At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 84 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 332 dwelling units. All property within the RPUD boundary shall be utilized in calculating the project density. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with the applicable land development regulations as required in Objective 3 of the FLUE, except as may be modified in this RPUD document 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 6. The design of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD protects the function of the existing Page 1143 of 1321 iii 07/08/2025 drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as required in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This project shall be subject to applicable Sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. Page 1144 of 1321 I-1 07/08/2025 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Section I sets forth the location and ownership of the property, and describes the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 41.6 acres more or less, is described as: The west half (W. ½) of the west half (W. ½) of the northwest quarter (N.W. ¼) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, all being situated in Collier County, Florida, less the north 50 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is currently owned by: TRACT A: unit owners of the Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association Inc. and Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association Inc. whose address is 145 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, FL 34104 (HEX Decision 21-01), and TRACT B: St. George Group, Corp, MHP Collier IV, LLC, whose address is 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390, Miami, FL, 33126 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300, Miami, FL 33131. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project is located in Section 04, Township 50, Range 26 and is generally bordered on the north by Radio Road, on the east by Plantation PUD; on the south by Bembridge PUD on the west by Santa Barbara Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is RMF-6. C. According to FEMA/FIRM Map Panel Number 120067 415 D, dated June 3, 1986, the property is located within Zone X. D. Soils on the site generally include Hallandale fine sand and Boca, Rivera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland fine sand depressional. Page 1145 of 1321 I-2 07/08/2025 E. Existing vegetation on the site consists of melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, palmetto prairie, pine flatwoood, cypress, Cabbage Palm and disturbed lands. Wetland areas have been heavily impacted by melaleuca. F. According to the Collier County Drainage Atlas, the site is located in the Lely Canal Basin. The conceptual water management plan is depicted in the Surface Water Management Report, which accompanied the rezone application submittal. 1.5 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance is known and cited as the "Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." Page 1146 of 1321 II-1 07/08/2025 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Section II delineates and generally describes the plan of development and identifies relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD is a mixed-use residential project and will consist of two development parcels and multiple preservation areas. Categories of land uses include those for residential and preserve areas. The Residential areas are designed to accommodate single-family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings. The overall project density is 7 8 dwelling units per acre and the maximum units permitted in the RPUD shall be 291 332 units. B. Exhibit "A" depicts the RPUD Master Plan. Exhibit A-I depicts the Master Plan for Tract B. The RPUD Master Plan includes a table that summarizes land use acreage. The location, size and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan approval. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorize the construction of improvements. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted from this RPUD Document or associated exhibits, the provisions of other sections of the land development codes, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code. Page 1147 of 1321 II-2 07/08/2025 2.4 LAND USES Land uses are generally depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined by the developer at the time of site development plan approval, preliminary subdivision plat approval, or final subdivision plat approval subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Collier County LDC. 2.5 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may utilize land within the rights-of-way within the RPUD for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and unified signage. This utilization is subject to review and administrative approval during the development review process by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations. 2.6 MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE A. Construction offices and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 5 and Chapter 10 of the LDC. B. Model Homes may be permitted in multi-family and townhome buildings may be utilized for wet or dry models, subject to the time frames specified in Chapter 5 of the LDC. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by LDC. 2.8 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30% of the project (12.48± acres) shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.9 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum of three (3) acres of native vegetation shall be maintained on the subject site through a combination of preservation of existing native vegetation and revegetation of native vegetation. The areas of retained native vegetation and replanted native vegetation are shown as Preserve areas on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. Page 1148 of 1321 II-3 07/08/2025 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE One or more Property Owner's Association (POA) will provide common area maintenance. The POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in Chapter 2 of the LDC. I. Individual Projects a) Site Planning: Each distinct project within the RPUD will provide an aesthetically appealing, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles. The orientation of buildings and structures will be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. b) Landscaping: Where applicable, plantings along public rights- of way will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. 2.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS A. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the RPUD, excluding preserves. B. The maximum fence, wall or berm height internal to the RPUD shall be eight (8) feet, not including those portions of walls incorporated into project identification signs. The maximum fence height shall be measured relative to the greater of the crown of the adjacent roadway or the adjacent minimum finished floor, as applicable. The eight (8') foot high precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along a portion of the eastern boundary of the PUD (HEX Decision 21-01), as depicted in Exhibits A and A-I. C. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). Page 1149 of 1321 II-4 07/08/2025 2.13 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL Signage shall be consistent with Section 5.06 of the LDC. 2.14 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS/DEVIATIONS The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with Chapter 10 of the LDC. A. Chapter 6, Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths 1. Existing site constraints prohibit retrofitting of the site with sidewalks meeting standards in Chapter 6 of the LDC. 2. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on only one (1) side of the internal local or private roadway exceeding one thousand (1,000) feet in length serving the project's additional 43-unit component Tract B. 3. The developer of Tract B s hall construct a sidewalk interconnection concurrently with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A. The developer of Tract B shall coordinate with the School District of Collier County to construct a sidewalk interconnection from Tract B to the adjacent school property at time of 1Tract B development permitting. (HEX Decision 21-01) 4. The developer shall make payment-in-lieu of construction of the sidewalk within Santa Barbara Boulevard, due to its programmed improvement in the five-year work program. B. Section 4.06.00, Landscaping, buffering and vegetation retention 1. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). C. Construction Standards Manual, Streets and access improvements 1. Construction Standards Manual, Street Right-of-Way Width Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs shall be forty (40) feet. Drive aisles serving multi-family tracts shall not be required to meet this standard. Page 1150 of 1321 II-5 07/08/2025 2. Construction Standards Manual, Dead-end Streets Cul-de-sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Construction Standards Manual, Intersection Radii Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty-five (25) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five (35) foot radius for intersections at project entrances. D. Section 3.05.07, Preservation Standards 1. A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off- site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A- 1. E. Section 4.05.04, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings 1. A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities 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 for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces for Tract B. 2.15 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses that generally serve the entire RPUD or distinct projects there within. B. General Permitted Uses: Page 1151 of 1321 II-6 07/08/2025 1. Essential services as set forth under Chapter 2 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.12 of this document. 7. Signage. Page 1152 of 1321 III-1 07/08/2025 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE Section III establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated Residential "R" on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "R" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate multiple family residential types, recreational uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Acreage is based on a conceptual design. Actual acreage of the development and preserve areas shall be established at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. Areas designated as "R" accommodate internal roadways, open space, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar facilities that are accessory or customary to residential development. B. Areas designated as "R" are intended to provide a maximum of 291 332 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Single-family attached and detached. 2. Duplex and two-family. 3. Multiple-family. 4. Townhomes B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Common indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Sales and leasing facilities. 3. Clubhouse, meeting rooms. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this area. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. Page 1153 of 1321 III-2 07/08/2025 B. Required Parking: Parking within the residential area shall be provided based on the following standards: 1. Recreation Facilities - 2 per court, 1 per 600 square feet of building area, 1 per 200 square feet of pool water area. No additional parking shall be required for outdoor playground facilities. Up to 10 parking spaces per recreational facility may be directly loaded off a private roadway serving the recreational area. 2. Temporary Model Sales Facility - minimum 6 parking spaces per building. Parking for models or temporary sales facilities shall be permitted to back directly onto private roadways serving the units. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. Page 1154 of 1321 III-3 07/08/2025 TABLE I SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Permitted Uses and Standards Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Duplex, Single Family Attached and Townhouse5 Multi-Family Dwellings 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' NA NA Front Yard Setback1 20' /23' 20'/23 20'/23' 20'/23' Side Yard Setback 6' 0' or 6' 0' or 6' 15' Rear Yard Setback2 15' 15' 15' 15' Santa Barbara Blvd. R-0-W Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Accessory Setback2 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Setback3 Accessory Principal 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract A 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract B 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 4 Stories or 50’ Distance Between4 Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 15' Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract A 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract B 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 650 SF (1 bedroom) 950 SF (2 bedroom) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 1Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road or access easement, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). For multiple family buildings served by an unplatted driveway, no setback shall be required; however, adequate stacking shall be provided to accommodate vehicular parking. For Tract B, front entry garage setback shall be a minimum of 23' from private ROW or back edge of sidewalk. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the setback must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance, Chapter 134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. C. For structures with side or rear entry garages, the minimum front yard may be reduced to 12'. 2Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, or open space (non-preserve) may be reduced to 0' feet; however, a reduced building setback shall not reduce the width of any required landscape buffer, as may be applicable. 3For purposes of this Section, accessory structures shall include but not be limited to attached screen enclosures and roofed lanais. 4A minimum building separation of twelve (12) feet between detached structures. Detached garages may be separated by a minimum often (10) feet. 5Attached single family and multi-family structures within Tract B shall not exceed 4 dwelling units per structure. Page 1155 of 1321 IV-1 07/08/2025 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Section IV establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated as Preserve "P" on the RPUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, subject to review and approval by local, state & federal agencies as required, for other than the following: B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding impervious paved trails). 2. Water management facilities. 3. Any other preserve and related use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Building setbacks shall be 20 feet from the RPUD boundary for any permitted structure. B. Maximum zoned height for any structure shall be 20'. 4.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed preserve areas depicted on the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Master Plan are intended to meet the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservation areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval based on jurisdictional agency permit requirements. Page 1156 of 1321 IV-2 07/08/2025 Approximately 6 acres of native vegetation exists on-site at the time of rezoning application. Through retention of existing native vegetation and revegetation of open spaces on-site, the developer shall provide a minimum of 3 acres of on-site native vegetation, which shall consist of a minimum of ±1.5 acres of retained vegetation and ±1.5 acres of replanted and enhanced native vegetation. A. Tract B will provide 1.75 acres of the minimum 3 acres of required preserve. Page 1157 of 1321 V-1 07/08/2025 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat, Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. These developer commitments will be enforced through provisions agreed to be included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions or similar recorded instrument. Such provisions must be enforceable by lot owners against the developer, its successors and assigns, regardless of turnover or not to any property or homeowners' association. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. Page 1158 of 1321 V-2 07/08/2025 5.4 PUD MONITORING (HEX Decision 21-01) A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD Insubstantial Change amendment approval dated January 7, 2021, the Managing Entity for Tract B is St. George Group, Corp MHP Collier IV, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. (HEX Decision 21-01) 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. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC. 5.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25- year return frequency. A. The project will be permitted with the South Florida Water Management District and copies of the applicable permits will be provided to Collier County prior to issuance of applicable County permits. Page 1159 of 1321 V-3 07/08/2025 B. Existing lakes already constructed as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed to continue to exist in accordance with the cross sections shown on Surface Water Management Plan, Exhibit "B". Any new lakes must meet the requirements of the then current LDC. 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. C. Water and wastewater systems shall be constructed in accordance with State of Florida Laws and Collier County's Codes and Ordinances. D. All construction plans, technical specifications and hydraulic design reports are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division prior to commencement of construction E. Upon completion of construction, all water and wastewater systems within the project shall be tested and must meet minimum County standards and requirements. The system(s), or a portion thereof, that is found to meet the requirements set forth in item #5 below, may then be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. F. If County's utility system does not have access readily available to serve a project within the County's service area, extensions to the County infrastructure may be required. All required extensions shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer, fiscally and otherwise (time and schedule), unless such extension has been previously defined in the County Water and/or Wastewater Master Plan. In such case, the developer may negotiate an upsizing agreement with the County. If it is determined by the County that neither of these two options are feasible, an interim system may be considered. G. Items on the following list shall be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance upon approval from the Board of County Commissioners if they are located within a County right-of-way or County Utility Easement (CUE), are in compliance with the latest revision of the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, and are connected to the County Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Systems: Page 1160 of 1321 V-4 07/08/2025 1. Potable water lines 6” or larger, including water meters and backflow devices that are not on fire lines. 2. Gravity wastewater lines 8" or larger. 3. Wastewater lift stations that are located within a CUE. 4. Force mains 4” or larger. 5. CUE's that are determined to be necessary to access and maintain utility systems and structures. 6. Non-potable irrigation water lines 6" or larger, including the water meter and backflow devices. For potable and reclaimed water distribution systems that will not be conveyed to the County, a master meter shall be required. Such systems shall be owned and maintained by the applicant, his successor or assigns, from the customer side of the master meter and backflow device or the check valve at the property line or County Utility Easement limit. School and park developments are included in the list of types of developments whose internal systems the applicant or assigns shall be responsible to own and maintain. H. Private lift stations shall conform to the same specifications that apply to public lift stations, unless a Deviation from the Ordinance has been granted in advance and writing by the County Wastewater. The lift station Control Package shall include an operable Telemetry Control System, as specified by County Standards. I. H. The developer will pay all impact fees in accordance with the latest revision of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Code of Laws Section 74.303(d). J. I. PUDs and DRIs shall have only one master pump station. K. J. Lift station easement areas shall be designed to 30 feet by 30 feet, or twice the wetwell depth by twice the wetwell depth, whichever is larger. L. K. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of bulk containers service (garbage dumpsters and/or compactors) for all commercial and industrial establishments, unless authorization for alternative means of disposal is approved by the Public Utilities Division. Bulk container service shall be required to all multi-family projects not receiving curbside pickup. Solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of curbside pickup for all units on the annual Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Special Assessment Roll's. All individual units within a deed-restricted area must have an enclosed location other than the residential structure, such as a carport or garage for the storage of individual solid waste containers, or as otherwise permitted in Section 5.03.04 of the LDC. Page 1161 of 1321 V-5 07/08/2025 M. L. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, all provisions and facilities for solid waste collection and disposal shall conform to all portions of Section 5.03.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) of the latest edition of the LDC. M. 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 Collier County 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. N. 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 water distribution/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to 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 Collier County 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. 5.8 TRAFFIC The development of this RPUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County Land Development code (LDC). B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. Page 1162 of 1321 V-6 07/08/2025 D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 74 and Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of the LDC, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a Right-of-way Permit. F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. H. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right- of-way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. K. A. Upon written request by Collier County the property owner shall dedicate, to Collier County without compensation, an area of approximately 721± square feet for road right-of-way purposes, as depicted on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan. Page 1163 of 1321 V-7 07/08/2025 L. A temporary construction access for all site work and vertical construction on Tract B shall be located along Santa Barbara Boulevard as shown on the PUD Master Plan and subject to issuance of the appropriate right-of-way permit. Temporary construction access shall be limited to one year from issuance of development permit (PPL or SDP). To limit the access to construction activities only, signage is required to indicate Construction Only, and barricades are required to block access during non-working hours. Prior to final approval by the County, the temporary access shall be totally removed, and right-of-way shall be restored. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. The maximum total daily trip generation for Tract B shall not exceed 33 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 applications for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL (HEX Decision 21-01) A. A minimum of (3.0 acres) of the on-site native vegetation shall be retained or revegetated, consistent with Chapter 3 of the LDC as conceptually shown as preserve areas on the Exhibit "A", Conceptual RPUD Master Plan. 1. Of the 3.0 acres of preserve, 1.71 shall be existing native vegetation and 1.62 acres shall be restoration. 5.11 HOUSING A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the owner of Tract B has agreed to construct 71 rental units for residents in or below the low income category (80 percent or less of County median income) and 13 rental units for residents in or below the extremely low income category (30 percent or less of County median income). These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. B. By way of example, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income Limits are: Page 1164 of 1321 V-8 07/08/2025 The developer or successors and assigns shall require a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units developed within Tract B of the RPUD to be initially sold to individuals or families that use the dwelling unit as their primary residence. The deed to the initial purchaser shall include a restriction that the initial purchaser shall use the unit as their primary residence. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the owner will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units, including rent data for rented units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Owner agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to sell a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units constructed within Tract B of the RPUD to persons employed in Collier County and earning a family income that is up to 140% of the County' s median income. Page 1165 of 1321 Page 1166 of 1321 TRACTBOUNDARYSANTA BARBARA BLVD PUDBOUNDARY8' BUFFER WALLPER PUDPROPOSEDTURNLANEPROPOSED6' SIDEWALKSANTA BARBARALANDINGS (PUD)(TRACT A - NOT SUBJECT TOTHIS AMENDMENT)PLANTATION(PUD)6' SIDEWALK(HEX DECISION 21-01)100'RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENT12' ROWCOMPENSATIONBEMBRIDGE EMS COMPLEX (PUD)EKOS AT SANTABARBARA PHASE I6' CROSS WALK (HEX DECISION 21-01)CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARYSCHOOL ROAD ENTRANCE6' SIDEWALK(HEX DECISION 21-01)R (MF)W/M(0.31 ACRES)D/AD/AD/AD/AR (MF)R (MF)25' PRESERVESETBACK6' BUFFERRESERVATIONGATEDEMERGENCYACCESS ONLY15' TYPE BBUFFERP0.84± ACRESP0.91± ACRES15' SIDE YARD SETBACK15' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE BW/M(0.09 ACRES)W/M(0.15 ACRES)W/M(0.03 ACRES)W/M(0.09 ACRES)AVERAGE 20' (MIN 15')TYPE D BUFFER(HEX DECISION 21-01)122DATEREVISION#DRAWN 04080SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUDA EXHIBIT A-1 - RPUD MASTER PLAN - TRACT B CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE:5618 WHISPERING WILLOW WAY | FORT MYERS, FL 33908 WWW.THENEIGHBORHOOD.COMPANY DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: DRAWN: DESIGN: 24038.01.01 F.L.01/25 P.V. Z-1 MHP COLLIER IV, LLCLEGENDW/M - WATER MANAGEMENTP - PRESERVE:MF - RESIDENTIAL - MULTI-FAMILYD/A - DRIVE AISLE- PUD BOUNDARY- INTERNAL DRIVE AISLE- ROAD EASEMENT- INGRESS - EGRESS- EXTERNAL ROAD/ROW- DEVIATIONS#Page 1167 of 1321 DATEREVISION#DRAWN CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE:5618 WHISPERING WILLOW WAY | FORT MYERS, FL 33908 WWW.THENEIGHBORHOOD.COMPANY 03060DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: DRAWN: DESIGN: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUDA NOTES 24038.01.01 F.L.01/25 P.V. MHP COLLIER IV, LLC RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES:1. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.2. THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED ATEITHER PRELIMINARY SDP APPROVAL OR PPL APPROVAL.3. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTICVEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGSWITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. IN ORDER TOMEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A TYPE 'B' BUFFER, A 6-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATIONLOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVE WILL BE CONVEYED TO A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ORCONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. THE 6' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERRESERVATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE MASTER PLAN. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESERVE DOESNOT MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER REMOVAL OF EXOTICS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGWITHIN THE PRESERVE, PLANTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE 6' WIDE RESERVATION TO MEET THEBUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE TYPE, SIZE AND NUMBER OF SUCH PLANTINGS, IF NECESSARY, WILL BEDETERMINED AT TIME OF INITIAL SDP OR PLAT AND INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THESDP OR PLAT.SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREAUSEACREAGEMFRESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY3.00PPRESERVE1.75W/MWATER MANAGEMENT 0.67D/ADRIVE AISLE1.31TOTAL6.73 AC.±PRESERVE:1. REQUIRED (ENTIRE RPUD): 3.0 ACa. REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION (ENTIRE PUD): 1.71 ACb. REQUIRED RESTORIATION (ENTIRE PUD): 1.62 AC2.PROVIDED (TRACT B): 1.75 ACOPEN SPACE:1. REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (ENTIRE RPUD): 30% OF 41.59 AC OR 12.48 AC2.PROVIDED (TRACT A): 19.96 AC3. PROVIDED (TRACT B): 1.98 ACINTENSITY:1. MAXMIUM UNITS (ENTIRE RPUD): 3322.MAXIMUM UNITS (TRACT B): 84DEVIATIONS:1. DEVIATION 1 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04, TABLE 17, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FORMULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS, WHICH REQUIRES:ALL UNITS SHALL HAVE 1 PER UNIT PLUS VISITOR PARKING COMPUTED AT 0.5 PER EFFICIENCY UNIT, 0.75 PER1-BEDROOM UNIT, AND 1 PER 2-BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT. OFFICE/ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS SHALLHAVE PARKING PROVIDED AT 50 PERCENT OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTS. WHERE SMALL-SCALE RECREATIONFACILITIES ARE ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE-FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AND INTENDED ONLY FOR THERESIDENTS OF THAT PROJECT, EXCLUSIVE OF GOLF COURSES/CLUBHOUSES, THE RECREATION FACILITIES MAYBE COMPUTED AT 50 PERCENT OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE DWELLING UNITSARE NOT WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES AND AT 25 PERCENT OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTSWHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE DWELLING UNITS ARE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES.TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR A 10% REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING FOR A TOTAL OF 140 PARKING SPACES.2. DEVIATION 2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 3.05.07.A.5, WHICH REQUIRES THAT PRESERVATION AREAS BEINTERCONNECTED WITHIN THE SITE AND TO ADJOINING OFF-SITE PRESERVATION AREAS OR WILDLIFECORRIDORS, TO INSTEAD ALLOW TWO SEPARATE PRESERVATION AREAS FOR TRACT B AS DEPICTED ON THEMASTER PLAN, EXHIBIT A-1.Z-2Page 1168 of 1321 Page 1169 of 1321 Page 1170 of 1321 Page 1171 of 1321 Page 1172 of 1321 Page 1 of 4 HEX NO. 2021-01 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. December 1 , 2020 PETITION. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20190000959 – St. George Group, Corp. requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 05-53, the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, to modify Condition 2.12.B and the PUD master plan to require the wall along Tract B only, to modify Condition 2.14.A.3 to require interconnection of the internal sidewalk concurrent with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02.B, and revisions to PUD Monitoring, Environmental and Housing conditions so that current Land Development Code standards and policies apply, for Tract B of the PUD property consisting of 6.7 ± acres, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd, approximately 2,300 feet south of Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The Petition seeks to modify the wall, sidewalk, and environmental/housing monitoring conditions pertaining to the unimproved tract of a two-tract PUD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petition. 2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with Collier County Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person. 5. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. Page 1173 of 1321 Page 2 of 4 ANALYSIS. The PUD has two-tracts, Tract A and Tract B. Although part of the same PUD, the two tracts have separate owners. Tract A, significantly larger than Tract B, is built out, and on or about 2006 became a condominium community, managed by a condominium association, which is not the original developer. Tract B, the small tract, is undeveloped and unaffiliated with the Tract A condominium association. The owner of Tract B is requesting insubstantial changes to the PUD as to Tract B. The Tract A association submitted written and in-person objections to the County planning staff and at the public hearing. In fact, the association president testified at the hearing via internet/phone, and the association’s lawyer presented the association’s legal position at the hearing. The gist of these objections pertains to the status of the application and applicant, whether the application can be decided by the Hearing Examiner (jurisdiction), and the application’s impact on Tract A. It is not uncommon or illegal for a PUD to have multiple tracts and multiple owners. Nothing in the County codes precludes an owner of part of a PUD to file an application for an insubstantial change, nor does any County code preclude the Hearing Examiner to decide on the application, once County planning staff has determined that the application is complete. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s representative(s), County staff and from the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence showing the application is complete and properly before the Hearing Examiner, and that the requested insubstantial changes to the PUD are only applicable to Tract B, as requested by the applicant and representatives of Tract A. Regarding the substantive requests of the Petition, first, it is appropriate to reflect changes pertaining to names of owners and location of owners’ offices for Tract A and B. This is ministerial. Therefore, this information is changed where appropriate in the attached revised PUD and master plan. Second, the PUD at section 2.12.B requires an 8-foot “precast wall” along the eastern boundary of the PUD “concurrent with development of the residential units in tract B.” Striking this phrase only changes the timing for construction of the wall, not whether the wall is required. The wall will remain a requirement for both Tracts A and B. Third, section 2.14.A.3 of the current PUD requires a sidewalk connecting Tract B with Tract A pool/club area.” As stated above, Tract A is now a condominium community managed by its association separate from Tract B, so disconnecting future development on Tract B to Tract A’s pool/club area is an appropriate insubstantial change. The sidewalk interconnection is more appropriate with the connecting roadways and adjacent school as shown on the master plan. These sidewalk insubstantial changes are in keeping with the PUD and changes that have occurred since the original PUD approval. Fourth, section 5.4.A and B merely refer to the schedule of development section of Chapter 10 of the County’s land development code. Since this is a requirement without it being expressed in the Page 1174 of 1321 Page 3 of 4 PUD, this insubstantial change striking the language from the PUD does not change the applicant’s responsibility to adhere to the land development code. Chapter 10 of the land development code requires PUD monitoring, and the new proposed insubstantial language change clarifies the monitoring responsibility relative to the new ownership and management of Tracts A and B respectively. Fifth, section 5.8 lists traffic conditions for the PUD but does not have a condition addressing temporary ingress and egress during construction of Tract B. The added language protects the health, safety and quit enjoyment of residents in Tract A. Sixth, section 5.10 of the PUD largely reiterates the environmental requirements in the County’s land development code, and it is therefore appropriate to delete these, except the section stipulating the minimum acreage of “on-site native vegetation.” Because the minimum acres (3 acres) would not be part of the land development code, it is appropriate to retain this language. Seventh, 5.11 of the PUD was drafted with the intent to address the affordability of housing in the county. As noted above, Tract A is built out and is now a condominium association community. Also, how the county addresses housing affordability is different today than it was when the PUD was approved. The changes to this section are logical and appropriate to align with current practice. Therefore, based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s representative(s), County staff and from the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2. of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20190000959, filed by Laura DeJohn, AICP of Johnson Engineering representing Armando Bucelo, Jr. of St. George Group, Corp., with respect to the property described as 6.7 ± acres, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd, approximately 2,300 feet south of Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, Ordinance No.05- 33, for the following: An insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 05-53, the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, to modify the text of the RPUD and master plan, more fully detailed in the attached Exhibits A and B and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A – Revised Santa Barbara Landings PUD Document Exhibit B – Master Plan Revisions Page 1175 of 1321 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 05-33, 6.7 ± acres, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd, approximately 2,300 feet south of Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. CONDITIONS. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. The Hearing Examiner retains jurisdictions to correct scrivener errors. DISCLAIMER. 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. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ireJanuary7, 2021 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 4 Page 1176 of 1321 EXHIBIT “A” Page 1177 of 1321 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 41.6± Acres Located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 And St. George Group, Corporation 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 40I Coral Gables, Florida 33134 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390 Miami, FL 33126 PREPARED BY: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 And D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Insubstantial Change for St. George Group, Corp by: Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 DATE FILED DATE APPROVED BY CPCC DATE APPROVED BY BCC 10-11-2005 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-53 INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE: _____________ EXHIBIT "A" Page 1178 of 1321 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE i STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA III-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREA IV-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS V-1 Page 1179 of 1321 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT C LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT D BOUNDARY SURVEY TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III-3 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline i Page 1180 of 1321 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC and St. George Group, Corporation intends to create a This Residential Planned Unit Development is on approximately 41.6± acres of land located in Section 04., Township 50 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. Approximately 6.3 acres of the property is encumbered with a 100' wide roadway easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard, making the net site approximately 35.3 acres. The name of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. The development of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as established in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies of the land development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Plan and applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The density provided for in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD complies with the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the residential density band, which extends from the Mixed-use activity center located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The density permissible is 4 dwelling units per acre. Up to 3 dwelling units per acre may be added within the density band, bringing the permissible base density to 7 dwelling units per acre. Base density Density band Maximum permitted density Requested density 4.0 du/acre 3.0du/acre 7.0 du/acre 7.0 du/acre (291 units) At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 dwelling units. All property within the RPUD boundary shall be utilized in calculating the project density. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with the applicable land development regulations as required in Objective 3 of the FLUE, except as may be modified in this RPUD document 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline ii Page 1181 of 1321 6. The design of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD protects the function of the existing drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as required in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This project shall be subject to applicable Sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline iii Page 1182 of 1321 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Section I sets forth the location and ownership of the property, and describes the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 41.6 acres more or less, is described as: The west half (W. ½) of the west half (W. ½) of the northwest quarter (N.W. ¼) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, all being situated in Collier County, Florida, less the north 50 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is currently owned by: TRACT A: unit owners of the Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC Landings Property Owner’s Association Inc. and Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association Inc., whose address is 145 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, FL 34104, and TRACT B: St. George Group, Corporation, whose address is: 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390, Miami, FL 33126 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project is located in Section 04, Township 50, Range 26 and is generally bordered on the north by Radio Road, on the east by Plantation PUD; on the south by Bembridge PUD on the west by Santa Barbara Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is RMF-6. C. According to FEMA/FIRM Map Panel Number 120067 415 D, dated June 3, 1986, the property is located within Zone X. D. Soils on the site generally include Hallandale fine sand and Boca, Rivera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland fine sand depressional. E. Existing vegetation on the site consists of melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, palmetto prairie, pine flatwoood, cypress, Cabbage Palm and disturbed lands. Wetland areas have been heavily impacted by melaleuca. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline I-1 Page 1183 of 1321 F. According to the Collier County Drainage Atlas, the site is located in the Lely Canal Basin. The conceptual water management plan is depicted in the Surface Water Management Report, which accompanied the rezone application submittal. 1.5 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance is known and cited as the "Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline I-2 Page 1184 of 1321 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Section II delineates and generally describes the plan of development and identifies relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD is a mixed-use residential project and will consist of two development parcels and multiple preservation areas. Categories of land uses include those for residential and preserve areas. The Residential areas are designed to accommodate single-family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings. The overall project density is 7 dwelling units per acre and the maximum units permitted in the RPUD shall be 291 units. B. Exhibit "A" depicts the RPUD Master Plan. The RPUD Master Plan includes a table that summarizes land use acreage. The location, size and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat approval. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorize the construction of improvements. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted from this RPUD Document or associated exhibits, the provisions of other sections of the land development codes, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II- 1 Page 1185 of 1321 2.4 LAND USES Land uses are generally depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined by the developer at the time of site development plan approval, preliminary subdivision plat approval, or final subdivision plat approval subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Collier County LDC. 2.5 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may utilize land within the rights-of-way within the RPUD for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and unified signage. This utilization is subject to review and administrative approval during the development review process by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations. 2.6 MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE A. Construction offices and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 5 and Chapter IO of the LDC. B. Model Homes may be permitted in multi-family and townhome buildings may be utilized for wet or dry models, subject to the time frames specified in Chapter 5 of the LDC. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by LDC. 2.8 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30% of the project (12.48± acres) shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.9 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum of three (3) acres of native vegetation shall be maintained on the subject site through a combination of preservation of existing native vegetation and revegetation of native vegetation. The areas of retained native vegetation and replanted native vegetation are shown as Preserve areas on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit A. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-2 Page 1186 of 1321 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE One or more Property Owner's Association (POA) will provide common area maintenance. The POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in Chapter 2 of the LDC. I. Individual Projects a) Site Planning: Each distinct project within the RPUD will provide an aesthetically appealing, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles. The orientation of buildings and structures will be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. b) Landscaping: Where applicable, plantings along public rights-of way will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. 2.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS A. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the RPUD, excluding preserves. B. The maximum fence, wall or berm height internal to the RPUD shall be eight 8) feet, not including those portions of walls incorporated into project identification signs. The maximum fence height shall be measured relative to the greater of the crown of the adjacent roadway or the adjacent minimum finished floor, as applicable. The eight (8') foot high precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along the eastern boundary of the PUD concurrent with development of the residential units in tract B. C. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-3 Page 1187 of 1321 2.13 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL Signage shall be consistent with Section 5.06 of the LDC. 2.14 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS / DEVIATIONS 1. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with Chapter 10 of the LDC. A. Chapter 6, Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths 1. Existing site constraints prohibit retrofitting of the site with sidewalks meeting standards in Chapter 6 of the LDC. 2. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on only one (1) side of the internal local or private roadway exceeding one thousand (1,000) feet in length serving the project's additional 43 unit component. 3. An internal sidewalk connection from the southernmost development tract (Tract B) to the existing pool/club area shall be provided at the time of construction within Tract B. The developer of Tract B shall construct a sidewalk interconnection concurrently with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A. The developer of Tract B shall coordinate with the School District of Collier County to construct a sidewalk interconnection from Tract B to the adjacent school property at time of Tract B development permitting. 4. The developer shall make payment-in-lieu of construction of the sidewalk within Santa Barbara Boulevard, due to its programmed improvement in the five-year work program. B. Section 4.06.00, Landscaping, buffering and vegetation retention 1. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). C. Construction Standards Manual, Streets and access improvements 1. Construction Standards Manual, Street Right-of-Way Width Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs shall be forty (40) feet. Drive aisles serving multi-family tracts shall not be required to meet this standard. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-4 Page 1188 of 1321 2. Construction Standards Manual, Dead-end Streets Cul-de-sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Construction Standards Manual, Intersection Radii Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty five (25) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five (35) foot radius for intersections at project entrances. 2.15 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses that generally serve the entire RPUD or distinct projects there within. B. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under Chapter 2 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.12 of this document. 7. Signage. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-5 Page 1189 of 1321 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE Section III establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated Residential "R" on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "R" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate multiple family residential types, recreational uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Acreage is based on a conceptual design. Actual acreage of the development and preserve areas shall be established at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. Areas designated as "R" accommodate internal roadways, open space, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar facilities that are accessory or customary to residential development. B. Areas designated as "R" are intended to provide a maximum of 291 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Single-family attached and detached. 2. Duplex and two-family. 3. Multiple-family. 4. Townhomes B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Common indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Sales and leasing facilities. 3. Clubhouse, meeting rooms. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this area. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline III-1 Page 1190 of 1321 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. B. Required Parking: Parking within the residential area shall be provided based on the following standards: 1. Recreation Facilities - 2 per court, 1 per 600 square feet of building area, 1 per 200 square feet of pool water area. No additional parking shall be required for outdoor playground facilities. Up to 10 parking spaces per recreational facility may be directly loaded off a private roadway serving the recreational area. 2. Temporary Model Sales Facility - minimum 6 parking spaces per building. Parking for models or temporary sales facilities shall be permitted to back directly onto private roadways serving the units. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline III-2 Page 1191 of 1321 TABLE I SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Permitted Uses and Standards Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Duplex, Single Family Attached and Townhouse5 Multi-Family Dwellings 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' NA NA Front Yard Setback1 20'/23' 20'/23 20'/23' 20'/23' Side Yard Setback 6' 0' or 6' 0' or6' 15' Rear Yard Setback2 15' 15' 15' 15' Santa Barbara Blvd. R-O-W Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Accessory Setback2 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Setback3 Accessory Principal 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' Maximum Zoned Building Height 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' Distance Between4 Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 15' Floor Area Min. (SF) 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 1 Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road or access easement, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). For multiple family buildings served by an unplatted driveway, no setback shall be required; however, adequate stacking shall be provided to accommodate vehicular parking. For tract B, front entry garage setback shall be a minimum of 23' from private row or back edge of sidewalk. C. For structures with side or rear entry garages, the minimum front yard may be reduced to 12'. 2Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, or open space (non-preserve) may be reduced to O' feet; however, a reduced building setback shall not reduce the width of any required landscape buffer, as may be applicable. 3 For purposes of this Section, accessory structures shall include but not be limited to attached screen enclosures and roofed lanais. 4 A minimum building separation of twelve (12) feet between detached structures. Detached garages may be separated by a minimum of ten (10) feet. 5Attached single-family and multi-family structures within Tract B shall not exceed 4 dwelling units per structure. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline III-3 Page 1192 of 1321 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Section IV establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated as Preserve "P" on the RPUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, subject to review and approval by local, state federal agencies as required, for other than the following: B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding impervious paved trails). 2. Water management facilities. 3. Any other preserve and related use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Building setbacks shall be 20 feet from the RPUD boundary for any permitted structure. B. Maximum zoned height for any structure shall be 20'. 4.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed preserve areas depicted on the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Master Plan are intended to meet the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservation areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval based on jurisdictional agency permit requirements. Approximately 6 acres of native vegetation exists on-site at the time of rezoning application. Through retention of existing native vegetation and revegetation of open 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline IV-1 Page 1193 of 1321 spaces on-site, the developer shall provide a minimum of 3 acres of on-site native vegetation, which shall consist of a minimum of 1.5 acres of retained vegetation and 1.5 acres of replanted and enhanced native vegetation. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline IV-2 Page 1194 of 1321 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat, Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. These developer commitments will be enforced through provisions agreed to be included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions or similar recorded instrument. Such provisions must be enforceable by lot owners against the developer, it successors and assigns, regardless of turnover or not to any property or homeowners' association. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. 5.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/PUD MONITORING REPORT A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time limits pursuant to Chapter 10 of the LDC. B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Chapter 10 of the LDC. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-1 Page 1195 of 1321 A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD Insubstantial Change approval dated__________2020, the Managing Entity for Tract B is St. George Group, Corp. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC. 5.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. A. The project will be permitted with the South Florida Water Management District and copies of the applicable permits will be provided to Collier County prior to issuance of applicable County permits. B. Existing lakes already constructed as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed to continue to exist in accordance with the cross sections shown on Surface Water Management Plan, Exhibit "B". Any new lakes must meet the requirements of the then current LDC. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-2 Page 1196 of 1321 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. C. Water and wastewater systems shall be constructed in accordance with State of Florida Laws and Collier County's Codes and Ordinances. D. All construction plans, technical specifications and hydraulic design reports are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division prior to commencement of construction E. Upon completion of construction, all water and wastewater systems within the project shall be tested and must meet minimum County standards and requirements. The system(s), or a portion thereof, that is found to meet the requirements set forth in item #5 below, may then be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. F. If County's utility system does not have access readily available to serve a project within the County's service area, extensions to the County infrastructure may be required. All required extensions shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer, fiscally and otherwise (time and schedule), unless such extension has been previously defined in the County Water and/or Wastewater Master Plan. In such case, the developer may negotiate an upsizing agreement with the County. If it is determined by the County that neither of these two options are feasible, in interim system may be considered. G. Items on the following list shall be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance upon approval from the Board of County Commissioners if they are located within a County right-of-way or County Utility Easement (CUE), are in compliance with the latest revision of the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, and are connected to the County Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Systems: 1. Potable water lines 6" or larger, including water meters and backflow devices that are not on fire lines. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-3 Page 1197 of 1321 2. Gravity wastewater lines 8" or larger. 3. Wastewater lift stations that are located within a CUE. 4. Force mains 4" or larger. 5. CUE's that are determined to be necessary to access and maintain utility systems and structures. 6. Non-potable irrigation water lines 6" or larger, including the water meter and backflow devices. For potable and reclaimed water distribution systems that will not be conveyed to the County, a master meter shall be required. Such systems shall be owned and maintained by the applicant, his successor or assigns, from the customer side of the master meter and backflow device or the check valve at the property line or County Utility Easement limit. School and park developments are included in the list of types of developments whose internal systems the applicant or assigns shall be responsible to own and maintain. H. Private lift stations shall conform to the same specifications that apply to public lift stations, unless a Deviation from the Ordinance has been granted in advance and writing by the County Wastewater. The lift station Control Package shall include an operable Telemetry Control System, as specified by County Standards. I. The developer will pay all impact fees in accordance with the latest revision of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Code of Laws Section 74.303(d). J. PUD's and DRI's shall have only one master pump station. K. Lift station easement areas shall be designed to 30 feet by 30 feet, or twice the wetwell depth by twice the wetwell depth, whichever is larger. L. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of bulk containers service (garbage dumpsters and/or compactors) for all commercial and industrial establishments, unless authorization for alternative means of disposal is approved by the Public Utilities Division. Bulk container service shall be required to all multi-family projects not receiving curbside pickup. Solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of curbside pickup for all units on the annual Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Special Assessment Roll's. All individual units within a deed-restricted area must have an enclosed location other than the residential structure, such as a carport or garage for the storage of individual solid waste containers, or as otherwise permitted in Section 5.03.04 of the LDC. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-4 Page 1198 of 1321 M. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, all provisions and facilities for solid waste collection and disposal shall conform to all portions of Section 5.03.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) of the latest edition of the LDC. 5.8 TRAFFIC The development of this RPUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier county Land Development code (LDC). B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 74 and Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of the LDC, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a Right-of-way Permit. F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-5 Page 1199 of 1321 H. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right- of-way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. K. Upon written request by Collier County the property owner shall dedicate, to Collier County without compensation, an area of approximately 721± square feet for road right-of-way purposes, as depicted on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan. L. A temporary construction access for all site work and vertical construction on Tract B shall be located along Santa Barbara Boulevard, as shown on the PUD Master Plan and subject to issuance of the appropriate right-of-way permit. Temporary construction access shall be limited to one year from issuance of development permit (PPL or SDP). To limit the access to construction activities only, signage is required to indicate Construction Only, and barricades are required to block access during non-working hours. Prior to final approval by the County, the temporary access shall be totally removed, and right-of-way shall be restored. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL A. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to Final Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval for all parcels included on that project. All category 1 invasive exotic plants as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Council shall be removed in Preserve areas, and annual removal (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. A.B. A minimum of (3.0 acres) of the on-site native vegetation shall be retained or revegetated, consistent with Chapter 3 of the LDC as conceptually shown as preserve areas on the Exhibit "A", Conceptual RPUD Master Plan. C. Setbacks from preserves shall be as required in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, Table I. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-6 Page 1200 of 1321 D. All preserve areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be so dedicated on all plats or recorded as an easement for site plans pursuant to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes, for plats and be dedicated to the project's homeowners' association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibility, and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All documentation necessary to record conservation easements over the preserve areas shall be provided prior to the next SDP approval for this RPUD. E. This RPUD shall comply with the guidelines of the USFWS and FFWCC for impacts to protected species. A habitat management plan for those species shall be submitted to environmental review staff for review and approval prior to site plan approval. F. This RPUD shall be in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, and LDC, except as may be modified herein, at the time of final development order approval. G. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided to environmental staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management and maintenance. A SFWMD jurisdictional determination shall be shown on the site development plan. H. All approved agency permits shall be submitted prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. I. A replanting plan for the re-created preserve areas shall be provided at the time of next development order submittal. Perimeter berms shall be located outside of all upland/wetland preserves. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-7 Page 1201 of 1321 5.11 HOUSING A. The developer or successors and assigns shall pay the sum of $1,000.00 to Collier County from the closing of each of the dwelling units constructed within Tract B" of the RPUD. The payment shall be made within seven (7) days of the closing of the residential unit. AB. The developer or successors and assigns shall require a minimum of fifty percent 50%) of the dwelling units developed within Tract B of the RPUD to be initially sold to individuals or families that use the dwelling unit as their primary residence. The deed to the initial purchaser shall include a restriction that the initial purchaser shall use the unit as their primary residence. C. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to make available for sale a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units at a sales price less than 240,000.00. BD. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to sell a minimum of ten percent 10%) of the total number of dwelling units constructed within Tract B of the RPUD to persons employed in Collier County and earning a family income ranging between 100% and 125 that is up to 140% of the County's median income. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-8 Page 1202 of 1321 EXHIBIT “B” Page 1203 of 1321 Page 1204 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Friday, July 18, 2025 10:40 AM To:Timothy Finn Cc:Ray Bellows; Michael Bosi; Jennifer Merino Subject:Santa Barbara Landings RPUD - PL20240013221 - Preserve Issues EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Tim, I am following up on our prior emails and would like a meeƟng to clarify the condiƟons of the current proposed RPUD for Santa Barabara Landings. I have been out of town on a family trip and just returned. The current 6/20/25 Amended RPUD in SecƟon 5.10 Environmental requires 1.62 acres of preserve restora Ɵon, presumably in Tract A since the Tract B site plan does not contain it. As we have previously told you, the original RPUD Amendment with preserve restoraƟon was not conveyed/disclosed to the owners of Tract A pursuant to the condiƟons of SecƟon 5.2 General – 2nd paragraph and thus this condiƟon is in violaƟon of the original RPUD. Further, the condiƟons for the development of Tract B were placed on the developer of Tract B and not on the owners of Tract A, again as a condiƟon of the original RPUD and current RPUD. Further, the current and proposed developer of Tract B do not own Tract A and have no authority on Tract A property. The issue is the Master Plan (Exhibit A) from the RPUD shows the creaƟon of the restored preserves in Tract A and retaining 1.7 acres of naƟve vegetaƟon on Tract B (Exhibit A-1) as a condiƟons of Tract B development (SecƟon 5.10), however, these condiƟons can no longer be achieved by the Tract B developer since they do not own or have any rights to Tract A, and they will not be able to restore any preserves on Tract A. Thus the condi Ɵons of SecƟon 5.10 of the proposed RPUD can’t be met. AddiƟonally, then SecƟon 5.4 PUD Monitoring can’t be met either, since all the condiƟons of the RPUD will not be achieved. I believe the staff needs to re-evaluate the preserve restoraƟon condiƟon of 1.62 acres in Tract A under SecƟon 5.10 as a condiƟon of the RPUD or we can wait for the property to be built and then involve Collier County Code Enforcement to resolve the problem, which might also delay the C/O from being issued for the development. Tim, when can we meet to discuss? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 1205 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Thursday, June 5, 2025 12:36 PM To:Heidi Ashton; Timothy Finn Cc:Ray Bellows; 'Jennifer Merino'; Michael Bosi Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Wall & Preserves Response? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Heidi, These issues where brought up at the 2020 PUD Hearings and were ignored since the Developer wanted an insubstantial change. Tract A HOA just wants to confirm that the Developer of Tract B is the responsible party for the Wall and Preserves per the existing PUD or proposed PUD Amendment. What is Development Review Staff’s position on this? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:45 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net; Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Wall & Preserves Response? All, These issues will be discussed at time of the public hearings. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8773 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:19 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Wall & Preserves Response? Page 1206 of 1321 2 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Tim & Ray, What is the County’s position on the Developer Commitments, Sec 5.2 within the PUD and BOCC Minutes to pay for the Tract A Preserves and Wall within Santa Barabara Landings? Section 5.2 clearly says the Developer will provide for them and NOT the HOA or Owners. Therefore the RPUD needs to be clear about this. Please confirm the County’s position. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:42 AM To: 'Timothy Finn' <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: 'Heidi Ashton' <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Ray Bellows' <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; 'Michael Bosi' <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Response? Tim, I am little confused here. I recall during the PUD approval process that the County requires submission of the proposed HOA documents for review to insure they meet county requirements. If they no longer do, then that is fine. The question still begs – How does the County Development Review process review Developer Commitments and why are they are they required in a PUD Document? Does the County even require a Developer to meet and satisfy the PUD Commitments that are included in every PUD? If so, then why are the Developer Commitments in Section 5.2 of the SBL RPUD being ignored? Regardless of the question about disclosure of Developer Commitments in the HOA documents, it is clear that Section 5.2 states the Developer is responsible for the Developer Commitments and not the HOA or Unit Owners. Also the BOCC approval minutes from 2005 clear state the Developer was installing the wall. In the current proposed Amendment I see no discussion or requirements for the Developer to install the wall and preserves in Tract A and acts as if Tract A HOA is supposed to pay for the wall and preserves. Is the County going to ignore the wall and preserve requirements in Tract A for the development of Tract B? If so, the proposed Amendment should delete those requirements from the RPUD. Please confirm the county’s position on what are the requirements within Tract A for the development of Tract B and does the existing RPUD and proposed Amendment require the Developer to pay for them. I will look forward to your response. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 1207 of 1321 3 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:09 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Response? Hi Frank, In discussion with Ray, we have reviewed the timeline of changes with the PUD, and we uphold the determination of the County Attorney’s office that the County is not involved with the private Declarations of Condominium created by the Developer. Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 9:20 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Response? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Tim and Ray, Just following up. Do we need another meeting to discuss? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 1:01 PM To: 'Timothy Finn' <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Cc: 'Heidi Ashton' <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Ray Bellows' <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Page 1208 of 1321 4 Tim & Ray, Thank you for the County Attorney’s response. I guess Heidi doesn’t want to comment on who is responsible for the requirements of the RPUD. We all know that the HEX decision on the wall as Heidi noted. The questions though remain. First, the RPUD required the Developer to make Commitments and put them in the HOA Docs (Section 5.2 of RPUD), which wasn’t done. Secondly, who is responsible for the Developer Commitments – the developer of Tract B (keep in mind Tract A was existing and the sole purpose of the RPUD was for developing Tract B). So we are back to the beginning. Tract A was never notified of the RPUD Commitments (not in the HOA Docs) and thus do not apply to Tract A and if the County believes otherwise, then the Developer of Tract B is the responsible party for the Commitments pursuant to Section 5.2 of the RPUD and the Minutes of the BOCC meeting approving the original RPUD. Net result, how do you want move forward with Amendment as submitted? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:36 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Frank, See below correspondence from the County Attorney Office. Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:18 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Page 1209 of 1321 5 Ray and Tim, The County is not involved with the private Declarations of Condominium created by the Developer. The current wall commitment is in HEX decision 21-01 copied below: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8773 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Rachel Hansen <rh@theneighborhood.company>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company>; fcproperties@comcast.net; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Ailyn, Please set a Zoom meeting with everyone on this email regarding the above referenced project. Thank you Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Page 1210 of 1321 6 Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 1211 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Friday, May 30, 2025 1:01 PM To:Timothy Finn; 'Jennifer Merino' Cc:Heidi Ashton; Ray Bellows Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Tim & Ray, Thank you for the County Attorney’s response. I guess Heidi doesn’t want to comment on who is responsible for the requirements of the RPUD. We all know that the HEX decision on the wall as Heidi noted. The questions though remain. First, the RPUD required the Developer to make Commitments and put them in the HOA Docs (Section 5.2 of RPUD), which wasn’t done. Secondly, who is responsible for the Developer Commitments – the developer of Tract B (keep in mind Tract A was existing and the sole purpose of the RPUD was for developing Tract B). So we are back to the beginning. Tract A was never notified of the RPUD Commitments (not in the HOA Docs) and thus do not apply to Tract A and if the County believes otherwise, then the Developer of Tract B is the responsible party for the Commitments pursuant to Section 5.2 of the RPUD and the Minutes of the BOCC meeting approving the original RPUD. Net result, how do you want move forward with Amendment as submitted? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:36 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Frank, See below correspondence from the County Attorney Office. Page 1212 of 1321 2 Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:18 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Ray and Tim, The County is not involved with the private Declarations of Condominium created by the Developer. The current wall commitment is in HEX decision 21-01 copied below: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8773 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Rachel Hansen <rh@theneighborhood.company>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company>; fcproperties@comcast.net; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Ailyn, Please set a Zoom meeting with everyone on this email regarding the above referenced project. Thank you Page 1213 of 1321 3 Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Page 1214 of 1321 4 Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 1215 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Friday, May 16, 2025 5:04 PM To:Timothy Finn; Ray Bellows Cc:Jennifer Merino Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Zoom meeting Attachments:BCC Minutes 10_11_2005 - PUD Approval.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Thank you for hosƟng the Zoom meeƟng today to discuss the Santa Barbara Landings PUD. I will look forward to the County AƩorney’s thoughts and will be happy to send them any info I have. I did look up the BOCC Minutes from the October 11, 2005 PUD Approval that Eduardo menƟoned and have aƩached the specific pages. You will note on the 4th page, the applicant’s aƩorney specifically said the Developer (not the AssociaƟon) agreed to build the wall on the eastern boundary, but no comments about the preserves. The discussion mostly dealt with the affordable housing commitment. However, I would envision the same thought regarding the wall would apply to the preserves, especially in the reading of the Developer Commitments in SecƟon 5.2 of the PUD and Master Plan. Thanks again and I look forward to the responses. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 1216 of 1321 October 11, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 11, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and 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: CHAIRMAN:Fred W. Coyle Frank Halas Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Courts Page 1 Page 1217 of 1321 October 11, 2005 Applause.) Item #8B ORDINANCE 2005-53: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD, ST. GEORGE GROUP, CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL MUL TIPLE- FAMILY -6 (RMF -6) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could leave quietly, we're going to continue. The next item is 8B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Santa Barbara Landing PUD, St. George Group Corporation, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from residential multifamily 6, RMF-6, to residential planned unit development, RPUD, to be as the Santa Barbara Landing PUD for property located at the Southeast Comer of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who are going to give testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn. The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Ex parte disclosure by commISSIoners. Page 147 Page 1218 of 1321 October 11,2005 Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular item, I only had correspondence, and, of course, I discussed this with staff yesterday in my pre-meeting here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings. I met with, not only staff, but Rich Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold, Bill Hoover, A.I. Buccello (phonetic), probably murdered that name, and Alfred Zicoro phonetic). I did. Well, anyways, forgive me sometime, okay. And I have correspondence, and it's all available, for anyone that wishes to see it, in my folder. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's Polish. He's not Italian. He just spells it differently. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Capice? CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have met with the petitioners and their representatives, and Mr. Y ovanovich, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you were there, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. and Mrs. Buccello, and I got a nice note from them, as well. Each one of them signed it. I thank you for that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received two e-mails from Laurie Young and one anonymous letter. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Great. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of thé petitioner. Also here is Wayne Arnold, who is the planner on the project, as well as his firm has done some of the engineering related to the rezone request. And you met Mr. Buccello. Page 148 Page 1219 of 1321 October 11,2005 Today before you you have a request to rezone some RMF-6 property to a residential PUD. The property is located at the comer of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Weare requesting a rezone from the RMF -6 to seven units per acre. The property is located within the activity center, residential density band, which is at Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We have worked with the residents of Plantation, which is our -- which are our neighbors to the east. And in that we -- they had a couple of requests as we went through the process. They requested that we construct a wall along our east boundary for the entire length of the PUD. There currently does not exist a wall in there, and we agreed to construct that wall. They also asked us -- and it's difficult to see, I believe on the visualizer -- to reconfigure -- maybe this will work a little better, Jim. That was the -- Jim's going to put up there the original master plan. They asked us to relocate -- relocate these buildings right here. Do you see that on there? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get to get on the mike, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. They asked us to reconfigure the buildings right here and put them like so to increase the preserve closer to them, which we worked with them, and actually that request came at the planning commission meeting, and we made that change with them at the time. We have -- this is a -- an existing apartment complex that's going to be basically converted to a condominium. I think it's important to understand the price points of the units in this area, and who -- who we are intending to serve with the -- with the project. We have committed that a minimum -- and this is a minimum number -- of 50 percent of the units will be sold for less than 240,000. The reality is, we believe more will be sold for less than Page 149 fi Page 1220 of 1321 October 11, 2005 that amount, but that's the minimum number that we're going to commit to that. We've also agreed that, you know, 10 percent of the units will be set aside for gap housing. Individuals will have to qualify for gap housing, which is between 100 and 125 percent of the median income. And we have also committed that 50 percent of the units have got to be the primary residence. We do not want an investor-purchased community. So we are attempting to make sure that we are serving people who need homes in this price point, that these units will not be snapped up by investors, and we want at least 50 percent of the units, and probably more, will be the primary residences for people who live there. We have also agreed to kind of follow the standard that's been recently established regarding affordable housing, and for the new 43 units that we're requesting, we would -- we would make a contribution to the same Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund of $1,000 per closing paid within seven days of the closing, as -- so I believe we have taken into consideration quite a range of housing that really needs to be addressed in this community. There's only one -- there's only one staff condition, and I think they -- it's an error in what the planning commission said. There's a condition in there that says that we will not have more than four units per acre on tract B. Well, tract B is about six units -- six acres, so we're going to have a -- we're going to have about seven units per acre. What we committed to is we would not have buildings that were greater than four-unit buildings, and that's the commitment. It's not four units per acre, but it's the buildings will be not greater than four units. There were a couple of others things that, you know, we've agreed to do for the benefits of the community overall. There's a comer clip that is needed for improvements to Santa Barbara, and we Page 150 Page 1221 of 1321 October 11, 2005 have agreed to give that to Collier County, and also we were requested to make a cash payment for the sidewalk to be constructed in Santa Barbara Boulevard. The county's going to be improving Santa Barbara Boulevard. And they were -- asked us to make an additional payment above our impact fees for the sidewalk, and we have agreed to do that as well. I think that hits the highlights of the project. I would request that you recommend approval -- or actually not recommend, you get to vote -- that you adopt the requested PUD as I've outlined it and as your staff has outlined it, with that one change to the staff condition, that there be four-unit buildings and not units per acre. And with that, we look forward to moving forward in working with the sheriffs department, the school board, the county, and the hospital to make some housing available to people who really need the housing in this community. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have regarding this particular petition. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Let me first say, I was delighted to meet with these folks and talk about this housing. There's a great difference between affordable housing and gap housing. I'm sure that you might be aware of that. With gap housing, which is above $150,000, it fills the gap of those -- that price range of homes that will -- we keep talking about, but we keep labeling it affordable housing, except the teachers don't qualify for affordable housing, but they will qualify for something like this if investors don't go in and buy it up off of the market. And so I had a very lively conversation with these wonderful people and asked that they be deed restricted so that they're sold to the people, the owner-occupied primary-domiciled residents, and that way then we can be assured that we are going to be filling some of this housing that right now is falling between the -- the gaps. Page 151 Page 1222 of 1321 October 11, 2005 Another thing that I have suggested to staffmembers, Joe, Jim, I mentioned it to these people, but I mentioned it more clearly to the other ones, and that is, we need a clearinghouse. Mr. Bocelli was -- Buccello, I think I'm thinking of the opera star right now, Bocelli, right, Andrea Bocelli? He was saying he'd be happy to do this. He's got investors who would buy five- and 10-unit clumps, and they would love to buy up this price range. He said he would do that, but he has to know how to market this. So I'm going to be working with them closely because this is a direct answer to what I'm working on with my gap housing committee. But we need a clearinghouse. I'm not saying it must be through the county. I don't know if we can even do that. Maybe through the chamber, maybe through the EDC, and we'll get that thing together pretty quickly at our next gap housing meeting so that when houses go on the market and we want them to be purchased by those who need and cannot buy this type of housing because they don't qualify for affordable, I want them to be able to go to one sole source and have all of that housing listed, so I wanted to say that on the record. And as far as I'm concerned, this is exactly what we're trying to -- this is the housing that we're trying to stimulate, and we've got some right here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did I hear a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With -- mentioning that it will be a for-sale product deed restricted to owner-occupied primary-domiciled residence. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't forget the $1,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. And 43 units will pay 1 ;000 for affordable housing into the Affordable Housing Trust. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second? Page 152 Page 1223 of 1321 October 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I'm concerned about that this was RMF-6. And I understand where this gentleman's trying to go and he's trying to address affordable housing, but I'm also concerned about the impact, and I guess this is in a TCMA traffic area. But I'm concerned, as I brought up in the other issue that came before us, again, we look at this as a di minimis traffic, and I'm concerned that if we keep having other PUDs come before us to increase density where we've already established that, I'm wondering where that's going to lead us as far as traffic impact for other citizens here in Collier County. Maybe Norm Feder can address this, or Don Scott. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It will fail the concurrency test whenever we reach that point and no further densities will be allowed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that was something -- Commissioner Halas, I was so glad you brought that up, because that was what my concern was as well, and I quickly called upon Norm to tell me if these 43 units are going to change the composition of that roadway, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't think the 43 units are going to change. My concern is that as each developer decides that he's going to get involved in this -- get involved and wants to increase his density, that we're going to end up with a problem here, I believe, down the road. I just want to get that information out so that I have a better understanding of what's happening here in this whole TCMA area. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. I think Commissioner Coyle kind of touched on that too. This-- approving today still, they're still subj ect to concurrency. This proj ect the other one wasn't de minimis. This one is de minimis on the links, but also we have a lot of improvements programmed for the Page 153 Page 1224 of 1321 October 11, 2005 area, like Santa Barbara, the six-laning from the Parkway down to Davis, Santa Barbara Extension, Davis further on with FDOT. So we have a lot of projects in the area that address the increase in traffic. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is and this will be for Rich or whoever would like to address this. You said that we're going to be addressing gap housing. And did you say that it was 150,000 price -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. I said it's between 100 and 125 percent of the median income. So those people will have to verify that they're making less than 125 percent of the median income. Now, we're committing that 50 percent of the units overall, minimum of 50 percent, will be sold for less than 240. So, you know, you're talking probably very reasonably or moderately priced housing by Naples' standards to serve -- to serve the workforce. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So when you say it's lower -- some of these units are going to be lower than 240,000 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have some that will be under 200-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's your best guess that it may be? Is this where the 150,000 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The affordable -- I think you're using the term affordable. But we're probably going to have -- how many percent? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, just tell me basically is it going to be around 175,000 or-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll probably have 50 percent of our homes that will be less than 200-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is within the reach of the people that we've identified as gap eligible -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because remember, we're not talking about a person, one person, who makes, let's say, $75,000. We're Page 154 Page 1225 of 1321 October 11, 2005 talking about family income, not individual income. We're talking about total family income, no individual income MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. When I said that number, it was, if you've got four workers in the family, it's go to be less than that; two workers, one worker, it's got to be less than that threshold. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one question, and that is, this is including paying the impact fees; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's raise impact fees really fast. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, please don't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your deviations, have we cut those down? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe staff was okay with all of the deviations. The only issue I think was one with the sidewalk, and that's been resolved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That one I'm not concerned about, but I'm more concerned about the street right-of-way, street width. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a -- that's a standard width of right-of-way that you find for private roads within the PUDs that are coming through. These will be private roads, not public roads. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So -- and keep in mind that you're talking about 248 existing units already, so there's kind of more like driveways through that community, and then the additional six acres, we're talking about 50-foot right-of-ways in there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. So the existing, you just want for it to stay the same? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Page 155 Page 1226 of 1321 October 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other one would -- oh, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry if that wasn't very clear. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does -- we have no public speakers. Does staff have a presentation that they feel they need to make? MR. DeRUNTZ: We'll pass. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to pass. Okay. Any other questions by commissioners? No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager? MR. MUDD: Just for some clarification. I just want to make sure that we tie in this median income in this 50 percent and the units less than $240,000 to make sure that we're getting it, exactly what we want to get to, those professionals and their salaries. Now, just for clarification, you know, somebody could come in, say, median income -- and I come up from up north and I come down here, and I say, my median income -- and it could be my retirement pay -- is blankety-blank, and I show it to this particular developer; therefore, I qualify for this unit, but I don't work for anybody, and, see so I'm worried that we don't have that tied quite tight enough yet to make sure that that 50 percent, okay, that gap housing and those units that are going to be less than that $240,000 that are going to be deed restricted are locked in correctly, okay, because there's 50 percent that aren't, okay. So we've got to tie that 50 percent just a little bit tighter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let's clarify that. Ifwe need to clarify, and it's 10 percent gap housing, 50 percent will be sold for less than 240-, but 10 percent is set aside, guaranteed, to people who fit into the gap. It means more. We can obviously provide more, and we're hoping we'll get more because we're setting aside this number of units in those price points, and we're going to work with Collier County, the school board, the sheriffs department, and the hospitals to Page 156 Page 1227 of 1321 October 11, 2005 get the word out that these units are out here, please -- we want to give you first priority, if you will, through advertising, to come and use -- buy these units. Jim, if you've got an idea of what you want me to say as far as on the 10 percent to make sure I don't sell you a unit because you're not working anymore, we want to -- we want to make sure that we don't have you take up one of those units. So do we need to say it's -- MR. MUDD: Cormac, can you give me some specificity on this? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Good afternoon. For the record, Cormac Giblin, housing and grants manager. From my notes in the back of the room, I think I heard 50 percent of the units would be sold for $240,000 or less, 50 percent of the units would be restricted as on owner-occupied units only, and of which all of that, 10 percent must go towards households earning between 100 and 125 percent of median income. The first clarification is, I'd like to know if the 50 percent that sell for less than 240- are the same 50 percent that are going to be restricted to owner-occupied. I think that's the first point that should be clarified. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the intent. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Yeah. MR. GIBLIN: And then to the question at hand then, that other or that 10 percent that are the gap housing units, how do we monitor that? Who do we accept as a workforce housing client or fits that mold? We can certainly share our -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You. MR. GIBLIN: We can certainly share our income qualification forms with the developer, with which he can submit his PUD monitoring reports as part, using those forms, to make sure that everyone who buys one of those units fits the definition that the board is creating. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's the point that we're getting at. Page 157 Page 1228 of 1321 October 11, 2005 We don't have anything that specifically says that you've got to be employed in Collier County to meet those income requirements. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we can add that -- we can add that as a requirement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you legally? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we can. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can -- we can go ahead and require that 10 percent be employed in Collier County. I think that's -- I don't think any body's done that to date. I mean, I don't think anybody's made that absolute -- I mean, even -- I think even your affordable housing guidelines don't require that a person who buys the unit actually works in Collier County. I mean, theoretically they could live in Lee. But we would like to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, does that make you happy? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I just -- I think all of us are concerned that when we provide housing at this reasonable price, that we'll have a lot of snowbirds come down here and take up these units, and I think that's our biggest concern, not so much where they're going to work, but the idea that people can come down here and find out that they've got reasonable housing and they take it away from the people that we really need to address, and that's the people that take care of the infrastructure of Collier County. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree, Commissioner Halas. And we've talked to Commissioner Fiala about getting the word out. But I also can't -- I can't limit myself -- I've got to be able to sell the project, sell the product. We want to get the word out. We believe by getting the word out, there's going to be a lot of demand from the people who need it, Page 158 Page 1229 of 1321 October 11, 2005 but that's also, you know, part of making sure that they come and buy the product. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But people watch this television network, and they're probably on the phone right now to one of their uncles up north and saying, hey, I got a heck of a deal for you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're specifying that 50 percent of them can only be sold to full-time residents -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Primary residents -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of Collier County. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they have to meet the homestead requirements of Collier County before they can even buy that 50 percent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. They have to be domicile. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they've got to stop being snowbirds, at least most of the year. But nevertheless -- MR. YO V ANOVICH: I mean, Commissioner, we're doing -- we're trying to button up every loophole there is out there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've gone further than any other developer has gone. MR. BUCCELLO: May I say a word? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Please state your name for the record. MR. BUCCELLO: A.J. Buccello -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BUCCELLO: -- for the record. My only concern -- 1'd be more than happy to agree, have agreed to every single request made to us. But also, what happens if we try and we cannot meet that 50 percent -- I believe you and I spoke about that, Mr. Chairman -- within a period of 30 days, 45 days, whatever is customary down here, what do I do? Do I come back to you? Page 159 Page 1230 of 1321 October 11, 2005 If I try, Commissioner Fiala, to proceed in the direction that I want to go -- because as most of you know, I'm also a member of the National Housing Development Corporation, which is a largest affordable housing entity in the United States. So I've been involved in affordable housing for many, many years, way before this. What happens if after that we try, we -- school board, government offices, everywhere, Mr. Chairman, and we do not sell that 50 percent, not under the 240-? And just to answer your question, Commissioner, we will be selling quite a lot more for less than 240-. As a matter of fact, without a commitment being made at this time, they'll be less than 190-, probably less than 185-. But the commitment is less than 240-. What happens if -- my only concern is that 50 percent to primary residents. What happens if we did not succeed; may I come back to you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you can come back to us for relief from some of these stipulations. MR. BUCCELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's going to sell them. I think they're going to sell like hot cakes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, they will, yeah. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coming back to us, it might be something that we want to put in the inventory for future employees or something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We think we're going to be able to sell those units, but obviously we want to have the back-up plan. We just CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will probably send you a list of prospective buyers. Page 160 Page 1231 of 1321 October 11, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would like that, but I cannot -- there will be no commissions. MR. MUDD: Especially for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala for approval, I think seconded by Commissioner Coletta, if I remember correctly. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. MR. BUCCELLO: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- would you like to take a break? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We need to take a break. A brief recess was had.) Item #10K APPLICATION BY PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS, INCORPORATED FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. Page 161 Page 1232 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:01 PM To:Timothy Finn; Ailyn Padron Cc:Ray Bellows; Heidi Ashton; 'Rachel Hansen'; 'Pat Vanasse'; 'Jennifer Merino'; eteran@mcdhousing.com Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Copy of Santa Barbara Landings Declaration of Protective Covenants & Restrictions Attachments:Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association - Master Association.pdf; Granada Lakes Condo Site Survey.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello All, In case you haven’t found a copy of the recorded Declaration for Santa Barbara Landings, see attached. Also a copy of the Condo Survey from the Declaration of Condominium for Granada Lakes Villas. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Rachel Hansen <rh@theneighborhood.company>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company>; fcproperties@comcast.net; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Ailyn, Please set a Zoom meeting with everyone on this email regarding the above referenced project. Thank you Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1233 of 1321 2 From: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 1234 of 1321 Page 1235 of 1321 Page 1236 of 1321 Page 1237 of 1321 Page 1238 of 1321 Page 1239 of 1321 Page 1240 of 1321 Page 1241 of 1321 Page 1242 of 1321 Page 1243 of 1321 Page 1244 of 1321 Page 1245 of 1321 Page 1246 of 1321 Page 1247 of 1321 Page 1248 of 1321 Page 1249 of 1321 Page 1250 of 1321 Page 1251 of 1321 Page 1252 of 1321 Page 1253 of 1321 Page 1254 of 1321 Page 1255 of 1321 Page 1256 of 1321 Page 1257 of 1321 Page 1258 of 1321 Page 1259 of 1321 Page 1260 of 1321 Page 1261 of 1321 Page 1262 of 1321 Page 1263 of 1321 Page 1264 of 1321 Page 1265 of 1321 Page 1266 of 1321 Page 1267 of 1321 Page 1268 of 1321 Page 1269 of 1321 Page 1270 of 1321 Page 1271 of 1321 Page 1272 of 1321 Page 1273 of 1321 Page 1274 of 1321 Page 1275 of 1321 Page 1276 of 1321 Page 1277 of 1321 Page 1278 of 1321 Page 1279 of 1321 Page 1280 of 1321 Page 1281 of 1321 Page 1282 of 1321 Page 1283 of 1321 Page 1284 of 1321 Page 1285 of 1321 Page 1286 of 1321 Page 1287 of 1321 Page 1288 of 1321 Page 1289 of 1321 Page 1290 of 1321 Page 1291 of 1321 Page 1292 of 1321 Page 1293 of 1321 Page 1294 of 1321 Page 1295 of 1321 Page 1296 of 1321 Page 1297 of 1321 Page 1298 of 1321 Page 1299 of 1321 Page 1300 of 1321 Page 1301 of 1321 Page 1302 of 1321 Page 1303 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:Ray Bellows Sent:Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To:Timothy Finn Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Attachments:Opposition Letter.pdf Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Page 1304 of 1321 2 Cell (239) 250-1300 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 1305 of 1321 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:35 AM To:Timothy Finn Cc:'Jennifer Merino'; 'Pat Vanasse' Subject:RE: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 - Secondary Question EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Thank you Tim. I will be attending the Neighborhood Meeting, but I suggest you review the info I sent you since it may raise significant questions regarding the application. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 7:50 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net Cc: 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 - Secondary Question Good morning, Please attend next weeks Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 8th to ask questions and voice your concerns with the agent and staff. Please see attached for the date, time, and location. Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 7:35 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Page 1306 of 1321 2 Cc: 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 - Secondary Question EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Tim, I have a question regarding the whole Density Bonus for Tract B at Santa Barbara Landings. Tract B is requesting the Bonus Density based on the entire property – Tract A and Tract B. Tract B owners do not own or control Tract A, so why are they entitled to Bonus Density on Tract A. What happens if Tract A owners would like to apply for a Bonus Density on just Tract property? Keep in mind again, none of the 2005 Density Increase for Tract B was never inserted / disclosed in the HOA Documents for Tract A. I think we should talk. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 4:09 PM To: 'Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov' <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; 'pv@theneighborhood.company' <pv@theneighborhood.company> Subject: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 Hello Tim, Please see the attached letter regarding the PUD Amendment for Santa Barbara Landings. We would like to meet with you and or your staff to discuss our concerns as the owner of Tract A. Please let me know when that will be convenient. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 1307 of 1321 Page 1308 of 1321 Page 1309 of 1321 Page 1310 of 1321 Page 1311 of 1321 Page 1312 of 1321 Page 1313 of 1321 Page 1314 of 1321 Page 1315 of 1321 Page 1316 of 1321 Page 1317 of 1321 Page 1318 of 1321 Page 1319 of 1321 Page 1320 of 1321 Page 1321 of 1321