Agenda 10/28/2025 Item # 9A (To increase the maximum density units to The Retreat Mixed Use Planned Unit Development)10/28/2025
Item # 9.A
ID# 2025-2913
Executive Summary
This item requires Commission members to provide ex-parte disclosure. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a rezone Ordinance for The Retreat Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to increase the maximum density from 740 dwelling units to 834 dwelling units,
adjust acreage to 208.55+ acres, rename Tracts, revise development standards, and add deviations excluding Tract A. The
subject property is located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North (US 41), ¾ of a mile north of Wiggins Pass Road,
and extends west to Vanderbilt Drive in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
[PL20230015039]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) review staff’s findings and recommendations
along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above-referenced
petition, render a decision regarding this rezoning petition, and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable
codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North (US 41), ¾ of a mile
north of Wiggins Pass Road and extends west to Vanderbilt Drive in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
consisting of 208.55+ acres. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to Ordinance Number 97-71 by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district and to increase the maximum density from 740 dwelling
units to 834 dwelling units, adjust acreage to 208.55 acres, replace parcels B, C and D on the master plan with parcels
B1, B2 and B3, revise tract boundaries except for tract A, add regulations for parcels B1, B2 and B3, revise
development standards for parcels B1, B2 and B3, add an access point for service vehicles, and add deviations for
parcels B1, B2 and B3.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard Petition
PUDA-PL20230015039, The Retreat MPUD (PUDA), on September 4, 2025, and voted 6-0 to forward this petition to
the Board with a recommendation of approval with required changes to the PUD as explained below. The CCPC
approval was unanimous. Letters of objection have been received, and there is opposition to this petition. These
objections comprise an inconsistency with the property owner’s disclosure form, changing zoning and entitlements to
Tract A, the petition not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with density affecting the development rights to
Tract A, the petition being a deterrent on Tract A, and approving the request will grant the applicant special privilege. In
response, the applicant's land use attorney stated that the amendment application is prudent long-range planning for
reinvestment, maintenance, and the viability of a significant Naples Senior Living Provider, is fully supported by county
experts and staff, is consistent with Collier County Best Practices and Standards, and does not change Tract A
entitlements. As such, this petition will be placed on the Regular Agenda. The required changes and additions to be
added to the PUD by the CCPC include:
Table of Contents
• Add “Exhibit C – North MPUD Boundary Enhanced Landscape Buffer Exhibit”
Section 4.4 Perimeter Landscape Buffers
• Add “Along the western half of the north perimeter boundary adjacent to neighboring residential tracts and lots,
an Enhanced Type B Buffer pursuant to Developer Commitment 10.3.I and Exhibit C”
Section 6.9 Native Vegetation
• Add “A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved in
accordance with the applicable requirements LDC Section 3.05.00 Vegetation Removal Protection and
Page 208 of 3380
10/28/2025
Item # 9.A
ID# 2025-2913
Preservation.”
• Add “The total amount of preserved Native Vegetation within this MPUD may vary from the amount indicated
on the Master Plan (28.25 acres) but shall not be less than 22.40 acres (25% of the existing native vegetation).
None of the required 25% of the existing native vegetation or native vegetation exceeding the required 25%
shall be located on Tract A”
Developer Commitments (Only Applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3)
• Add “There are 89.62 acres of existing native vegetation within the subject property. The minimum required
native preservation is 22.40 acres (25% of 89.62 acres of existing native vegetation). The Master Plan preserves
a minimum of 24.69 acres of native vegetation on site within Tract P; however, this may change during
jurisdictional permitting. The minimum required 22.40 acres shall be preserved in any case, and all preserved
native vegetation shall be located on Tracts B1, B2, and B3.”
Master Plan
• Add Exhibit C - North MPUD Boundary Enhanced Landscape Buffer Exhibit
• Add preserve language to Exhibit A, Sheets 1 and 2.
The changes were accepted by staff, and these revisions were added to the Ordinance.
This item advances the Collier County Strategic Plan Objective within Quality of Place to support and enhance the
character of our community
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset
the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the
Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as needed to maintain the adopted Level of
Service (LOS) for public facilities. Other fees collected prior to the issuance of a building permit include building permit
review fees. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the
Planning Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: According to the Future Land Use Map, the subject property is located
within the Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The proposed amendment to modify its
floor area ratio does not affect the consistency with the subdistrict designation. Therefore, it is the determination of the
Comprehensive Planning staff that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
and Future Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s January 31, 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
Page 209 of 3380
10/28/2025
Item # 9.A
ID# 2025-2913
identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the
current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently
operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR
planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant
impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds
2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or
exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a
mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that
addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.”
Staff findings: According to the Traffic Impact Study provided with this petition, the proposed Retreat at Naples
Amendment will generate an additional +/- 24 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadways of US-41, Tamiami Trail
North, and Vanderbilt Drive. This will result in a total of +/- 415 PM peak hour trips for this PUD. The trips generated
will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links:
Roadway/Li
nk
Link Current
Peak Hour
Peak
Direction
Volume/Pea
k Direction
Projecte
d P.M.
Peak
Hour/Pe
al
Direction
Project
Traffic
(1)
2024
Level
of
Servic
e
(LOS)
2024
Remainin
g
Capacity
US-41
Tamiami
Trail
North/98.0
Lee Co
Line to
Wiggin
s Pass
Rd
3,100/NB 7/NB C 863
Vanderbilt
Drive/114.
Bonita
Beach
Rd to
Wiggin
s Pass
Rd.
1,000/NB 1/NB C 397
1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is January 31, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner.
Based on the TIS provided by the applicant and the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD is 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
consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The proposed changes do not affect any of
the GMP's environmental requirements.
Page 210 of 3380
10/28/2025
Item # 9.A
ID# 2025-2913
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site-specific rezone from a Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project which will continue to be known as The
Retreat MPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria
set forth below.
The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that
such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the
proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for MPUD Rezones:
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical
characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contracts, or other instruments or
for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the
continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public
expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed MPUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management
Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on
location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: the subject property's and surrounding areas' ability to accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with MPUD 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.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies, the future land use map, and the
elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested MPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and
nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the
property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed
incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including
Page 211 of 3380
10/28/2025
Item # 9.A
ID# 2025-2913
activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with
existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as
contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a
"core" question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts
already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to
make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed MPUD rezone on the availability of adequate
public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management
Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106,
art.II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the MPUD rezone request that the Board of County
Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare?
The Board must base its decision on competent, substantial evidence presented in the written materials supplied to it,
including, but not limited to, the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons, and
the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing, as these items relate to these criteria. Should this item be denied,
Florida Statutes section 125.022(3) requires the County to provide written notice to the applicant citing applicable
portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial. This item has been approved as to form and
legality and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval._-HFAC
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed Ordinance for Petition PUDA-PL20230015039, The Retreat MPUD.
PREPARED BY: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff report - The Retreat PUDA
2. Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance - revised 9-26-25
3. Attachment B - Existing and Proposed Service Access layouts
4. Attachment C - Existing and Proposed Master Plans
5. Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials
6. Attachment E - Hearing Advertising Signs
7. Attachment F - Opposition Letters
8. Attachment G - CC-Naples, Inc Response Letter to the 8-25-2025 Christopher Thornton Opposition Letter
Page 212 of 3380
10/28/2025
Item # 9.A
ID# 2025-2913
9. Attachment H - Letters of Support
10. legal ad - agenda ID 25-2913 - The Retreat PUDA (PL20230015039) - 10-28-25 BCC
Page 213 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 1 of 16
August 11, 2025
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2025
SUBJECT: PL20230015039 PUDA-THE RETREAT MPUD
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner/Applicant:
CC-Naples, Inc.
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8400
Chicago, IL 60606
Agent(s):
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP
Senior Vice-President
Bowman
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
amendment to Ordinance Number 97-71, The Retreat Planned Unit Development (PUD), and
amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC) 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for the project to be
known as The Retreat MPUD, by amending the PUD document to increase maximum density from
740 dwelling units to 834 dwelling units, adjust acreage to 208.55+ acres, replace parcels C and D on
the master plan with parcels B1, B2 and B3, revise tract boundaries except for tract A, add
regulations for parcels B1, B2 and B3, revise development standards for parcels B1, B2 and B3, add
an access point for service vehicles, and add deviations for parcels B1, B2 and B3.
Page 214 of 3380
Page 2 of 16 PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) August 11, 2025 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North (US 41), ¾ of a mile north of Wiggins Pass Road and extends west to Vanderbilt Drive in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 208.55+ acres. (See location map on following page). Page 215 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 3 of 16
August 11, 2025
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Retreat at Naples PUD was originally approved on November 18, 1997, by Ordinance Number
97-71, which allowed 740 multi-family dwelling units, assisted living facilities (ALF), skilled
nursing, memory care facilities, private club and restaurants, and typical accessory uses, including a
golf course.
The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission consider an amendment to the
existing PUD to consider the following changes:
•Increase of 94 DUs (to 834 DUs), 4DUs per gross acre;
•Clarifying that the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45 applies to the ALF and
related facilities;
•Allowing the existing temporary service drive located at the northwest corner of the
PUD to be a permitted service access;
•Revising existing preserve boundaries;
•Adding Land Use Regulations, Revised Development Standards (for Redevelopment),
including building height and Perimeter Landscape Buffers;
•Updating the Developer Commitments, including adding a Trip Cap;
•Requesting several new deviations;
•Eliminating Tracts B, C, and D and replacing them with Tracts B1, B2, and B3 with
revised dwelling unit numbers and acreages;
•Adding Land Use Regulations for Tract P/Preserves in Tracts B1, B2, and B3;
•Adding Revised Master Plan;
•Adding the following language into Section 6, 7, 8, and 9 headings: Applicable to
Tract A; and Tracts B1, B2, and B3 only as specifically indicated”
•Revising PUD document, Section 3, showing land use regulations applicable to only
Tract A;
•Adding the following language into the Section 11 heading, “Applicable only to Tract
A”
For an analysis of each proposed change, please refer to the Zoning Services Section on page 7 of this
staff report.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved
densities for properties within the surrounding boundaries of The Retreat at Naples MPUD:
North: Developed with single-family residential, commercial, and a golf course,
with a current zoning designation of Audubon Country Club PUD (0.94
DU/AC), which is approved for single and multi-family residential,
commercial, golf course, and country club
East: Tamiami Trail North, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then developed with a
church, an independent/assisted living facility, and a furniture store with a
Page 216 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 4 of 16
August 11, 2025
current zoning designation of Two Lakes Plaza PUD, which is approved for
C-2 and C-3 uses. To the south of Two Lakes Plaza PUD is a developed
shopping center with commercial uses, with a current zoning designation of
Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district
South: Developed single-family and multi-family residential, with a current zoning
designation of Village Place PUD (4 DU/AC), which is approved for single-
family and multi-family residential
West: Vanderbilt Drive, a two-lane local road, was then developed with multi-
family residential, with a current zoning designation of Bay Forest PUD (5.6
DU/AC), which is approved for single-family and multi-family residential.
To the south of Bay Forest PUD is developed with multi-family residential
with a current zoning designation of Waterglades PUD (5.75 DU/AC), which
is approved for multi-family residential. To the south of Waterglades PUD is
developed with single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of
Glen Eden on the Bay PUD (2.3 DU/AC), which is approved for single-
family residential.
Aerial (Prepared by Bowman)
Page 217 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 5 of 16
August 11, 2025
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.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): According to the Future Land Use Map, the subject property
is located within the Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The proposed
amendment to modify its floor area ratio does not affect the consistency with the subdistrict
designation. Therefore, it is the determination of Comprehensive Planning staff that the proposed
PUD amendment is consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s January 31, 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 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 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) provided with this petition, the proposed
Retreat at Naples Amendment will generate an additional +/- 24 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent
roadways of US-41 Tamiami Trail North and Vanderbilt Drive. This will result in a total of +/- 415
PM peak-hour trips for this PUD. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway
network links:
Page 218 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 6 of 16
August 11, 2025
Roadway/Link Link Current Peak
Hour Peak
Direction
Volume/Peak
Direction
Projected PM
Peak Hour/Peak
Direction
Project Traffic
(1)
2024
Level of
Service
(LOS)
2024
Remaining
Capacity
US-41 Tamiami
Trail North/98.0
Lee Co Line to
Wiggins Pass
Rd.
3,100/NB 7/NB C 863
Vanderbilt
Drive/114.0
Bonita Beach
Rd. to Wiggins
Pass Rd.
1,000/NB 1/NB C 397
1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is January 31, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement
provided by the petitioner.
Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent
with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation
Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found
this project consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The proposed
changes do not affect any of the GMP's environmental requirements.
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
ecological concerns. The PUD preserve requirement is 22.98 acres (25% of 89.61 acres of existing
native vegetation); however, the applicant will preserve a total of 28.25 acres. The only change is the
reconfiguration of the preservation areas, which will not alter the previously approved preservation
requirement. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of
the PUD document, Ordinance 97-71. The native vegetation will be placed under preservation and
dedicated to Collier County.
Stormwater: The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to create a stormwater management
problem for the area. The site is currently covered by a South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP # 11-105570-P); however, a Modification to this
permit will be required prior to any proposed change in land use or development. That process will
ensure consistency with all applicable state standards for stormwater systems. In addition, site
development approval (SDP and/or Plat) will be required from Collier County to ensure that local
development standards are maintained and that proposed stormwater system(s) are designed
Page 219 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 7 of 16
August 11, 2025
consistent with relevant LDC and County Ordinances for water quality and water quantity, during
both the interim construction phase and final implementation.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with
the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval.
Landscape Review: The buffers labeled on the Master Plan are consistent with the LDC.
Utility Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the North County
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). The project already
receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. 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 Services Review: The PUD is approximately 208.55+ acres and allows for 740 multi-family
dwelling units, ALF, skilled nursing, memory care facilities, private club and restaurant, and typical
accessory uses, including a golf course. The maximum zoned height is four stories (not to exceed 52
feet), and the actual building height is 59 feet. Direct access to the PUD is provided by Tamiami Trail
North (eastern side of PUD) and Vanderbilt Drive (western side of PUD). Internal accessibility will
be provided throughout the development.
The applicant is proposing 13 changes to the PUD. Below is each proposed change with staff
response.
1.Increase of 94 DUs (to 834 DUs), 4 DUs per gross acre
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section
2.5.2
2.Clarifying that the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45 applies to the ALF and related
facilities
Staff are in support of these changes. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section
1.3 and 2.5.3
3.Allowing the existing temporary service drive located at the northwest corner of the PUD to be a
permitted service access
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment B – Existing and Proposed Service Access
layouts.
4.Revising existing preserve boundaries
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment C – Existing and Proposed Master Plans
for current and proposed preserve locations.
Page 220 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 8 of 16
August 11, 2025
5.Adding Land Use Regulations, Revised Development Standards (for Redevelopment), including
building height, and Perimeter Landscape Buffers
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 4
6.Updating the Developer Commitments, including adding a Trip Cap
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 10
7.Requesting several new deviations
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 12
and see the deviation section of the staff report.
8.Eliminating Tracts B, C, and D and replacing them with Tracts B1, B2, and B3 with revised
dwelling unit numbers and acreages
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section
2.5.1
9. Adding Land Use Regulations for Tract P/Preserves in Tracts B1, B2, and B3
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 5
10. Adding Revised Master Plan
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Exhibit A
11. Adding the following language into the Section 6, 7, 8, and 9 headings, “Applicable to Tract A;
and Tracts B1, B2, and B3 only as specifically indicated”
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Sections 6, 7,
8, and 9
12.Revising PUD Document, Section 3, showing land use regulations applicable to only Tract A
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 3
13. Adding the following language into the Section 11 heading, “Applicable only to Tract A”
Staff are in support of this change. See Attachment A – Proposed draft ordinance, Section 11
Page 221 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 9 of 16
August 11, 2025
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” (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.
The PUD is surrounded by single-family residential and a golf course to the north and
multifamily and single-family residential to the south. To the east, it is developed with an
independent living facility and commercial uses. To the west is developed with multifamily
residential. The amendment proposes no modifications to the intensity and development
standards to Tract A. The combined density for Tracts B1, B2, and B3 has increased to 94
units, thereby totaling 834 units for the entire MPUD. Setbacks generally have increased from
25 feet to 30 feet for Tracts B1, B2, and B3. Building heights have increased from 3 living
stories to 59 feet, with a building separation distance of ½ the building height or as required
by fire code, whichever is greater. Proposed landscape buffers are for a 15’ wide Type “B”
Buffer on the northern and southern perimeters of the PUD, a 20’ wide Type “B” buffer along
Tamiami Trail North, and a 20’ wide Type “D” buffer along Vanderbilt Drive. A trip cap was
added to the PUD that shall not exceed 415 two-way PM peak hour net trips. Staff finds these
changes acceptable, and approval of the petition is not anticipated to adversely influence
living conditions in the neighborhood. 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.
The project already receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. 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 and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public
expense.
The documents submitted with the application and reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office
demonstrate unified control of Tracts B1, B2, and B3.
Page 222 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 10 of 16
August 11, 2025
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 5.
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 amendment proposes no modifications to the intensity and development standards to
Tract A. Setbacks generally have increased from 25 feet to 30 feet for Tracts B1, B2, and B3.
Building heights have increased from 3 living stories to 59 feet, with a building separation
distance of ½ the building height or as required by fire code, whichever is greater. Proposed
landscape buffers are for a 15’ wide Type “B” Buffer on the northern and southern perimeters
of the PUD, a 20’ wide Type “B” buffer along Tamiami Trail North, and a 20’ wide Type “D”
buffer along Vanderbilt Drive. A trip cap was added to the PUD that shall not exceed 415
two-way PM peak hour net trips. Staff finds these changes acceptable, and approval of the
petition is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 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.
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.
The project already receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. 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.
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 223 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 11 of 16
August 11, 2025
7.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
This petition is not proposing the expansion of the building area. The PUD boundary is not
proposed to be modified.
The project already receives CCWSD water and wastewater services. 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 three 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 5 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 4 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 PUD 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 224 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 12 of 16
August 11, 2025
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed changes are not specifically necessary, but are being requested in compliance
with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The petitioner believes the rezoning is
necessary to accommodate the 13 changes as discussed in the Zoning Review section of this
staff report.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The amendment proposes no modifications to the intensity and development standards to
Tract A. The combined density for Tracts B1, B2, and B3 has increased to 94 units, thereby
totaling 834 units for the entire MPUD. Setbacks generally have increased from 25 feet to 30
feet for Tracts B1, B2, and B3. Proposed landscape buffers are for a 15’ wide Type “B”
Buffer on the northern and southern perimeters of the PUD, a 20’ wide Type “B” buffer along
Tamiami Trail North, and a 20’ wide Type “D” buffer along Vanderbilt Drive. Staff are
acceptable with these changes, and approval of the petition is not anticipated to adversely
influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
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). The site drainage is already covered under an existing ERP (11-105570-P). Any
future development, with associated changes to the current stormwater system, will require
a modification to this ERP and 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.
No change is proposed to the maximum zoned building height for Tract A, which is three
living stories. The revised maximum building heights for Tracts B1, B2, and B3 have
increased from 3 living stories to 59 feet with a building separation distance of ½ the building
height or as required by fire code, whichever is greater. Considering these revised changes to
building height staff has determined that the amendment will not result in reduced light or air
to the adjacent areas.
Page 225 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 13 of 16
August 11, 2025
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 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 Retreat MPUD; 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 is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not
review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
The 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.
Page 226 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 14 of 16
August 11, 2025
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management
Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding
Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and
objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by
county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning
process, and staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so
that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION: (Deviations applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.
Proposed Deviation #1: (Sidewalks)
“Deviation 1 (Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section
6.06.02.A.4., which provides sidewalk requirements for single and multi-family development
requiring sidewalks, five feet in width, to be provided within a dedicated public or private right-of-
way or other internal access, to only require such sidewalks in the case of new construction or
“substantial redevelopment”, as sidewalks were not required when the existing development was
approved under The Retreat PUD (Ord 97-71), and to only require sidewalks on one side of a
dedicated public or private right-of-way or other internal access, where residential development is
only on one side of the dedicated public or private right-of-way or other internal access (single
loaded). For the purposes of this deviation, the term “substantial redevelopment” shall mean
redevelopment of a site, structure or structures within this MPUD, where such redevelopment
requires the submittal of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Amendment to an SDP, the value of
proposed new structures exceeds 50% of the value of the existing structures.”
Petitioner’s Justification: As stated above, sidewalks were not required when the existing
development was approved under The Retreat PUD (Ord 97-71). This deviation seeks to only require
sidewalks on one side of a dedicated public or private right-of-way or other internal access, where
residential development is only on one side of a dedicated public or private right-of-way or other
internal access (single loaded). For the purposes of this deviation, the term “substantial
redevelopment” shall mean redevelopment of a site, structure, or structures, within this PUD, where
such redevelopment requires the submittal of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Amendment to an
SDP, and where the value of proposed new structures exceeds 50% of the value of the existing
structures. This Deviation applies to the entire PUD.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees 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
Page 227 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 15 of 16 August 11, 2025
“the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the
community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.”
Proposed Deviation #2: (Right-of-Way Width)
“Deviation 2 (Street System Requirements) seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N., “Street System
Requirements”, which requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet to instead allow a width of
50 feet for roadways within this PUD.”
Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation was previously approved under The Retreat PUD (Ord 97-
71), to remain in place. This deviation applies to the entire PUD.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees 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 is
“justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.”
Proposed Deviation #3: (Type A Buffer)
“Deviation 3 (Required Permitter Buffers) seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1, Table 2.4,
which requires a 10-foot-wide Type A Buffer in the northeast corner of the PUD adjacent to the
commercial medical use to the north, to instead allow for a 9-foot-wide Type A Buffer.”
Petitioner’s Justification: This is an existing condition. There is an access drive that is located 9 feet
from the property line in this location. There is also a substantial mature buffer, and a wall located
along the perimeter of the adjacent medical office parcel. The required Type A Buffer plantings can
be accommodated in the 9-foot buffer width.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees 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 is
“justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.”
Page 228 of 3380
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA) Page 16 of 16
August 11, 2025
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on April 23, 2025, at Collier County Public Library Headquarters,
Sugden Theater, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, FL. The meeting commenced at
approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:53 p.m. Bob Mulhere, the agent, conducted the meeting,
introducing the consultant team and staff, and gave a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation
consisted of an overview of the proposed 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 density increase, FAR increase, construction,
locations of buildings, notification of NIM meeting, access road off Vanderbilt Rd, moving the
powerlines, size of new units, traffic, and the project in the submittal process. All questions and
concerns were answered by Bob and the consulting team. No commitments were made. A copy
of the NIM summary, sign-in sheet, and NIM PowerPoint presentation are included in
Attachment D.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW
This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as it does not meet
the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier
County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the
proposed petition.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW:
This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s office on August 1, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward this petition,
PL20230015039 The Retreat MPUD (PUDA), to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with
a recommendation of approval.
Attachments:
A)Proposed Draft Ordinance
B)Existing and Proposed Service Access layouts
C)Existing and Proposed Master Plans
D)Application/Backup Materials
Page 229 of 3380
[24-CPS-02569/1970776/1]100 1 of 2
The Retreat – PL20230015039
9/26/25
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 97-71, THE RETREAT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD), AND 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 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING
DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
THE RETREAT MPUD, BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO
INCREASE MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM 740 DWELLING UNITS TO
834 DWELLING UNITS, ADJUST ACREAGE TO 208.55 ACRES,
REPLACE PARCELS B, C AND D ON THE MASTER PLAN WITH
PARCELS B1, B2 AND B3, REVISE TRACT BOUNDARIES EXCEPT
FOR TRACT A, ADD REGULATIONS FOR PARCELS B1, B2 AND B3,
REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCELS B1, B2 AND
B3, ADD AN ACCESS POINT FOR SERVICE VEHICLES, AND ADD
DEVIATIONS FOR PARCELS B1, B2 AND B3; AND BY PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (US 41), ¾ OF A
MILE NORTH OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND EXTENDS WEST TO
VANDERBILT DRIVE IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (PL20230015039)
WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 97-71, which established The Retreat Planned Unit Development (“The Retreat
PUD”); and
WHEREAS, CC-Naples, Inc. represented by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Bowman,
petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend The Retreat PUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document.
Exhibit “A”, the PUD Document, attached to Ordinance No. 97-71, as amended, is
hereby amended and replaced with the Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Page 230 of 3380
[24-CPS-02569/1970776/1]100 2 of 2
The Retreat – PL20230015039
9/26/25
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 – MPUD Document and Master Plan
Page 231 of 3380
Page 1 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
THE RETREAT AT NAPLES
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) AMENDMENT
Prepared by:
Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc.
715 Tenth Street South
Naples, Florida 34102
Tel. (941) 262-4617
Prepared by:
Bowman Consulting Group, LTD
950 Encore Way, Suite 230
Nales FL 33410
CCPC Date:
BCC Date:
Approved Ordinance:
October, 1997
HMA File No. 96.60
Page 232 of 3380
Page 2 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 Statement of Compliance
SECTION 2 Property Description and P.U.D. Master Plan
SECTION 3 Land Use Regulations for Tracts A, B & C
SECTION 4 Land Use Regulations for Tract D Tracts B1, B2, & B3
SECTION 5 Land Use Regulations for Tract P/Preserve for Tracts B1, B2, & B3
SECTION 6 5 General Development Standards Applicable to Tract A; and Tracts B1, B2 and
B3 Only as Specifically Indicated
SECTION 7 6 Environmental Standards Applicable to Tract A; and Tracts B1, B2 and B3
Only as Specifically Indicated
SECTION 7 8 Utility Standards Applicable to Tract A; and Tracts B1, B2 and B3 Only as
Specifically Indicated
SECTION 8 9 Engineering Standards Applicable to Tract A; and Tracts B1, B2 and B3 Only
as Specifically Indicated
SECTION 9 10 Roadway Improvement Standards Developer Commitments
SECTION 10 11 Exceptions to Subdivision Regulations Applicable to Tract A
SECTION 12 List of Deviations (Applicable to Tracts B1, B2 and B3)
EXHIBIT A MPUD Master Plan
EXHIBIT B Legal Description
EXHIBIT C North MPUD Boundary Enhanced Landscape Buffer Exhibit
Page 233 of 3380
Page 3 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 1
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The development of 208.551 acres in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, known as The
Retreat at Naples Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, is in compliance with the planning goals and
objectives of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, based on the following reasons:
1.1 The proposed plan is consistent with Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan which permits the use of clustered residential
development and Planned Unit Development techniques within the Urban Designated Area
subject to regulations contained in the LDC and/or this MPUD, and Policy 5.10, which permits
care facilities. ,which the subject property fully complies with.
1.2 Changes to PUDs approved prior to adoption of the Growth Management Plan and found to be
consistent through the County’s Zoning Re-evaluation program are permitted by Future Land
Use Policy 5.1 provided that density or intensity of development is not increased, and this PUD
change does not represent such an increase.
1.23 The requested residential densityies of 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre is permitted by the
FLUE Density Rating System, given that the subject property is designated Urban and is not
located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. for the subject property have been determined to
be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan through the County’s Zoning
Re-evaluation program in accordance with Policy 3.1K, of the Future Land Use Element of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan.
1.3 The Assisted Living Facility (ALF) and Skilled Nursing Facility are allowable uses with the
FLUE Urban designation and this MPUD provides for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
0.45 for the Assisted Living Facility (ALF) and Skilled Nursing Facility, or as may be permitted
under LDC Section 5.05.04, Group Housing, if greater than 0.45.
1.4 The project is planned to incorporate natural systems into the water management plan to
enhance their natural functions.
1.5 The project will be is served by a complete range of public services and utilities provided
approved by the Collier County.
1.6 The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations, including the Collier
County Growth Management Plan.
1.7 The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangements of
structures, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards contained
herein.
Page 234 of 3380
Page 4 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 2
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND P.U.D. MASTER PLAN
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location of the property, and to describe the
existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed.
2.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
See Attached Exhibit B.
2.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A. The project site This MPUD contains approximately 208.55+/-1 acres, and is located in
Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, which is approximately ¾ of one (1) mile
North of Wiggins Pass Road, and runs from adjacent to US 41 on the east, and , west to
County Road 901 (Vanderbilt Drive, on the west). (See attached legal description
Exhibit B.)
2.4 GENERAL
The following are general provisions applicable to this the MPUD Master Plan:
A. Regulations for development The Retreat Planned Unit Development shall be in
accordance with the provision set forth in this contents of this document, the MPUD, or
Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier
County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. Should these
regulations fail to provide specific development standards, then the provisions of the
most similar zoning district in the Collier County LCD shall apply. where this MPUD
does not provide for specific development standards or other regulations, the
requirements set forth in the LDC shall apply.
B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the same as the
definitions set forth in the LDC. in effect at the time of building permit application.
C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the
development of The Retreat Planned Unit Development shall become part of the
regulations which govern the manner in which this site may be developed.
D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency
review under the provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Division 3.15 of the LDC
Page 235 of 3380
Page 5 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, Final Plat Approval, or
building permit issuance applicable to this development.
2.5 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY AND FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
2.5.1. DENSITY BY TRACT
TRACT A 178 Units (3.3201 Units Per Acre) ± 53.55 Acres
TRACT B 190 Units* 2.76 Units Per Acre ± 68.87 Acres
TRACT C 234 Units 5.85 Units Per Acre ± 39.99 Acres
TRACT D 138 Units 2.99 Units Per Acre ± 46.10 Acres
TOTAL 740 Units 3.55 Units Per Acre ± 208.51 Acres
TRACT B1* 234 Units 5.85 Units Per Acre ± 39.97 Acres
TRACT B2* 187 Units 4.05 Units Per Acre ± 46.13 Acres
TRACT B3* 235 Units 3.41 Units Per Acre ± 68.90 Acres
TOTAL PUD: 834 Units 4.00 Units Per Acre ± 208.55 Acres
* The 656 aggregate units assigned to Tracts B1, B2, and B3 may be freely allocated amongst
Tracts B1, B2, and B3, subject to the maximum density of 656 units.
2.5.2. MAXIUMUM DENSITY
Total dwelling units on count Tracts A, B, C and D for this MPUD shall not toexceed 834 740
units (4.0 dwelling units per gross acre).
2.5.3. FAR LIMITAION
The ALF and Skilled Nursing Facilities shall not exceed a FAR of 0.45, or as may be permitted
under LDC Section 5.05.04, Group Housing, if greater than 0.45.
*The development of Assisted Living Facilities on Tract B shall be in conformance with the
requirements of Sections 2.6.26 of the Collier County Land Development Code that permit a
maximum floor area ratio of 0.45.
2.6 PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS
The Project PUD Master Plan, including layout of streets of the various tracts is illustrated
graphically by Exhibit “A”. There shall be four (4) land use tracts, plus necessary street rights-
of-way, the general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit “A”.
Page 236 of 3380
Page 6 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 3
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR TRACTS A, B & C
3.1 PERMITTED USES FOR TRACTS A, B & C
TRACT A: Multi-family dwellings, recreation areas and facilities.
TRACT B: Multi-family dwellings attached and detached patio-homes/villas, and detached
single family homes, private recreation areas and facilities, recreation clubs and
Assisted Living Facilities as an auxiliary use including a non-commercial (non-
profit) health care facility for residents/members and their guests only to provide
medical and general services for residents and members.
TRACT C: Multi-family dwellings, recreation facilities and auxiliary uses including a
private non-commercial (non-profit) health care facility for members, residents
only and a private club and restaurant for residents, members and their guests
only, as well as the provision of any on site non-profit medical and general
services facility for members and residents.
3.2 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
TRACTS A, B, AND C:
Accessory uses and structures customary in Planned Unit Development residential
neighborhoods; recreation facilities, including a nine (9) hole golf course, which are accessory
to individual building sites, groups of building sites, or residences, grounds and equipment
maintenance, laundry and housekeeping buildings.
3.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Minimum Lakefront Setback: 20 feet from Lake Boundary regardless
of presence of bikeways or walkways.
Tracts A, B and C:
Minimum Commons front Setback: 25 feet from Commons boundary lines.
Minimum setback from Retreat Drive: 25 feet.
Minimum setback from U.S. 41: 40 feet.
Minimum setback from cul-de-sac Principal buildings: 25 feet
and loop access drives: Parking structures: None.
(Covered and uncovered parking may
Page 237 of 3380
Page 7 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
be integral with access drives)
Minimum building separation: One-half the sum of the heights of
adjoining buildings.
Minimum dwelling unit floor areas: Tract A: 1200 sq. ft.
Tract B: 900 sq. ft.
Tract C: 750 sq. ft.
Maximum height of principal structures: 3 living stories
(Ground floor parking may occur under the
first living story.)
Minimum off-street parking: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
3.4 RECREATIONAL AREAS
TRACTS A & B:
Recreation and common areas as indicated on the MPUD Master Plan.
TRACT C:
One recreation area to serve proposed dwelling units as indicated on the PUD Master Plan.
Page 238 of 3380
Page 8 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 4
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR TRACTS B1, B2, & B3
4.1 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES
(1) Multi-family dwellings.
(2) Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), which may include a Skilled Nursing Facility and a
non-commercial health care facility for residents/members and their guests to provide
medical and general services for residents and members.
4.2 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
(1) Accessory uses and structures customarily allowed in multifamily and ALF
developments, including but not limited to, private recreational facilities such as
clubhouses, tennis and pickleball courts, swimming pools, and similar active and passive
recreational facilities,
(2) A childcare facility as an accessory use within the Health Care Facility, limited to the
child of employees working within the MPUD and relatives of residents who may be
visiting;
(3) Grounds and equipment maintenance facilities;
(4) One 18-hole golf course and associated pro-shop and golf course amenities and other
customary accessory uses of golf courses.
4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TABLE I: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARD
CLUBHOUSE/ REC.
/MAINTENANCE
BUILDINGS1
ALF/SKILLED
NURSING
MULTI-FAMILY
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F. 20,000 S.F. 1 Acre
MIN. LOT WIDTH N/A 100’ 150’
MIN. FLOOR AREA N/A N/A 750 S.F./DU
MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PUD PERIMITER BOUNDARY5
NORTH1,3 N/A 30’ 30’
EAST3 30’ 30’ 30’
SOUTH3 30’ N/A 30’
WEST1,3 30’ 30’ 30’
OTHER MINIMUM SETBACKS
FROM PLATTED TRACT
BOUNDARIES 10’ 10’ 10’
MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK4 25’ 25’ 25’
MIN. LAKE SETBACK2 0’ 0’ 0
FROM RETREAT DRIVE3 25’ 25’ 25’
FROM OTHER INTERNAL
DRIVES/ROADS1, 3 20’ 20’ 20’
Page 239 of 3380
Page 9 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
STANDARD
CLUBHOUSE/ REC.
/MAINTENANCE
BUILDINGS1
ALF/SKILLED
NURSING
MULTI-FAMILY
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
½ OF THE ZONED BUILDING
HEIGHT OR AS REQ. BY FIRE
CODE, WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
½ OF THE ZONED
BUILDING HEIGHT OR
AS REQ. BY FIRE
CODE, WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
½ OF THE ZONED
BUILDING HEIGHT OR
AS REQ. BY FIRE
CODE, WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
ZONED3 40’ 4 STORIES NTE 52’ 4 STORIES NTE 52’
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
ACTUAL 48’ 59’ 59’
MAX. FAR N/A 0.45 N/A
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FROM PERIMETER PUD
BOUNDARY SPS SPS SPS
FROM RETREAT DRIVE3 SPS SPS SPS
FROM OTHER INTERNAL
DRIVES/ROADS1, 3 SPS SPS
SPS
MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’ 10’
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES SPS SPS SPS
MAX. HEIGHT ZONED 20’ 20’ 20’
MAX. HEIGHT ACTUAL 25’ 25’ 25’
SPS = Same as Principal Structures; NTE = Not to Exceed; S.F. = Square Feet; BH = Building Height.
Footnotes:
1. The Maintenance Building, located in the Northwest corner of the PUD, may be set back 15’from Bentley Drive.
2. Setback may be 0’ to the lake maintenance easement.
3. Single-story garage/carports (NTE 25’ in Actual Height) and trash enclosures shall be setback a minimum of 20’, except where there is an
adjacent sidewalk, in which case, garages and carports shall be 23’ from the edge of the sidewalk or otherwise designed such that parked
vehicles do not encroach onto the sidewalk.
4. The required 25’ setback (vegetated upland buffer adjacent to the preserve/wetland) may be reduced by up to 50% where a structural buffer in
the form of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with fencing is used.
4.4 PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS
North:
Along the western half of the north perimeter boundary, adjacent to neighboring residential
tracts and lots, an Enhanced Type B Buffer pursuant to Developer Commitment 10.3.I. and
Exhibit C.
Adjacent to Golf Course: No buffer required.
Northeast: Adjacent to Commercial Medical Office: 9-foot-wide Type A Buffer.
South: Adjacent to neighboring residential tracts and lots: 15-foot-wide Type B Buffer.
Adjacent to Preserve/Golf Course: No buffer required.
East: 20-foot-wide Type D Buffer.
West: 20-foot-wide Type D Buffer.
Required perimeter buffers in Tracts B1, B2, and B3 may be installed at the time of SDP or
SDPA for development or redevelopment within the specified tracts.
Page 240 of 3380
Page 10 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 5
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR TRACT P/PRESERVES IN TRACTS B1, B2, AND B3
5.5 TRACT P/ PRESERVE
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole
or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
(1) Preservation of native habitat.
B. Accessory Uses:
(1) Passive recreational uses;
(2) Stormwater management structures and facilities;
(3) Pervious and impervious pathways and boardwalks;
(4) Benches for seating; and
(5) Conservation-related and recreational activities as allowed by the LDC.
C. Development Standards: See Section 4.3 Table 1.
SECTION 4
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR TRACT D
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to indicate the development plan and regulations for Tract D.
4.2 PERMITTED USES FOR TRACT D
TRACT D: Multi-family dwellings, recreation facilities and auxiliary uses including a
private non-commercial (non-profit) health care facility for members/residents
only and a private club and restaurant for members/residents and their guests
only, as well as the provision on site on a non-profit basis of medical and general
services for members and residents.
4.3 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES FOR TRACT D
TRACT D: Accessory uses and structures in Planned Unit Development residential
neighborhoods; A child care facility as an accessory use within the Bentley
Village Health Care Facility II; recreation facilities which are accessory to
individual building sites, groups of building sites or residences, or The Retreat
project as a whole; grounds and equipment maintenance facilities on
maintenance sites; golf course and associated pro-shop and golf course amenities
and other customary accessory uses of golf courses.
Page 241 of 3380
Page 11 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
The above-referenced child care facility shall meet the following requirements:
A. The use of the child care facility shall be restricted to employees only, and shall be non-
profit in nature.
B. The child care facility shall provide a 4-foot high non-gated fence around the entire
outdoor recreation play areas. The only access to the play areas shall be via the child
care facility.
C. The child care facility shall comply with the State of Florida, Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services Child Day Care Standards Chapter 10M-12, Florida
Administrative Code, as may amended from time to time.
4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Minimum Lakefront Setback: Tract D: 20 feet from Lake Boundary regardless
of presence of bikeways or walkways.
Minimum Commons front Setback: 25 feet from Commons boundary lines as
indicated on plat.
Minimum setback from Retreat Drive: 25 feet.
Minimum setback from U.S. 41: 40 feet.
Minimum setback from cul-de-sac Principal buildings: 25 feet
and loop access drives: Parking structures: Non
(covered and uncovered parking may be integral
with access drives).
Minimum building separation: One-half the sum of the heights of adjoining
buildings.
Minimum dwelling unit floor areas: Tract D: 750 sq. ft.
Minimum offstreet parking: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
4.5 RECREATIONAL AREAS
TRACT D: Recreational commons and nine (9) hole golf course.
Page 242 of 3380
Page 12 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 65
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRACT A; AND TRACTS B1,
B2 AND B3 ONLY AS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED
56.1 DWELLING UNIT DISTRIBUTION (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
Dwelling unit distribution throughout The Retreat project shall occur as indicated on the PUD
Master Plan. Upon site development plan approval by the Director of the Department of
Community Development, changes in the number of dwelling units permitted on individual
building sites, and/or in individual building site boundaries, shall be permitted, so long as the
total number of units in Tract A does not exceed 178 units, and the total project dwelling unit
count does not exceed 834740, exclusive of Assisted Living Facilities which are limited to an
F.A.R. of .45 in accordance with Section 2.5.3 of this ordinance.
56.2 SITE CLEARING AND DRAINAGE (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
Clearing, grading, earthwork, and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with
Collier County LDC and the standards and commitments of this document at the time of
construction plan approval.
56.3 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
Easements, where required, shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and other
purposes as may be required by Article 3 of the Collier County LDC.
All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the
continued operation and maintenance of all services and utilities to insure ensure compliance
with applicable regulations in effect at the time, construction plans, site plans or plat approvals
are requested, in accordance with Article 3 of the Collier County LDC.
56.4 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
The PUD Master Plan shall be understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy
the project, the neighborhood and the general local environment.
Amendments to this ordinance and Master Plan shall be pursuant to the Section 2.7.3.5 of
Collier County LDC, at the time the amendment is requested.
56.5 PROVISION FOR OFFSITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL (Also applicable to
Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
The excavation of earthen material and its stockpiling in preparation of water management
facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. If, after consideration of fill
Page 243 of 3380
Page 13 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
activities on buildable portions of the project site, there is a surplus of earthen material, offsite
disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions:
A. Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a “Development Excavation”
pursuant to Section 3.5.5.1.3 of the LDC, whereby offsite removal shall not exceed ten
(10) percent of the total volume excavated up to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards.
B. A timetable to facilitate said removal shall be submitted to the Development Services’
Manager for approval. Said timetable shall include the length of time it will take to
complete said removal, hours of operation and haul routes.
C. All other provisions of Section 3.5 of the LDC are applicable.
5.6 SUNSET AND MONITORING PROVISIONS
The Retreat PUD shall be subject to Section 2.7.3.4 Time Limits for Approved PUD Master
Plans and Section 2.7.3.6, Monitoring Requirements.
56.76. COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
Common Area Maintenance, including the maintenance of common facilities, open spaces and
the water management facilities shall be the responsibility of the owners’ association, together
with any applicable permits and conditions from applicable local, State or Federal permitting
agencies.
56.78 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
All landscaping requirements, buffers, walls, berms, etc. shall be developed in conformance
with the requirements of Division 2.4 of the Collier County LDC pertaining to landscaping and
buffering. Required perimeter buffers in Tracts B1, B2, and B3 may be installed at the time of
SDP or SDPA for development or redevelopment within the specified tracts.
56.89 SIGNS
As provided for within Section 2.5, Signs of the Collier County LDC.
5.10 POLLING PLACE
A polling place will be provided in accordance with Section 2.6.30 of the Collier County Land
Development Code, as may be determined to be necessary by the Collier County Supervisor of
Elections.
Page 244 of 3380
Page 14 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
56.910 NATIVE VEGETATION (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3).
A minimum of Twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved
in accordance with the applicable requirements LDC Section 3.05.00 Vegetation Removal,
Protection, and Preservation of Division 3.9 Vegetation Removal, Protection, and Preservation,
of the Collier County LDC.
The total amount of preserved Native Vegetation within this MPUD may vary from the amount
indicated on the Master Plan (28.25 acres) but shall not be less than 22.40 acres (25% of the
existing native vegetation). None of the required 25% of the existing native vegetation native
vegetation or native vegetation exceeding the required 25% shall be located on Tract A.
SECTION 67
Page 245 of 3380
Page 15 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRACT A; AND TRACTS B1, B2 AND
B3 ONLY AS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED
67.1 A site clearing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Division for their review
and approval prior to any substantial work on the site. This plan may be submitted in phases to
coincide with the development schedule. The site clearing plan shall clearly depict how the final
site layout incorporates retained native vegetation to the maximum extent possible and how
roads, buildings, lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have been oriented to accommodate this
goal.
67.2 Native species shall be utilized, where available, to the maximum extent possible in the site
landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be submitted to the Community Development
Division for their review and approval. This plan will depict the incorporation of native species
and their mix with other species, if any. The goal of site landscaping shall be the re-creation of
native vegetation and habitat characteristics lost on the site during construction or due to past
activities. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
67.3 All exotic plants, as defined in the County Code, shall be removed during each phase of
construction from development areas, open space areas, and preserve areas. Following site
development, a maintenance program shall be implemented to prevent re-invasion of the site
by such exotic species. This plan, which will describe control techniques and inspection
intervals, shall be filed with and approved by the Community Development Division. All
prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the site and it shall be maintained free of
exotics in perpetuity (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
67.4 If during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities, an
archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, all development at that
location shall be immediately stopped and the Community Development Division notified.
Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the Community
Development Division or a designated consultant to access the find and determine the proper
course of action in regard to its salvageability. The Community Development Division will
respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal
interruption to any constructional activities.
67.5 The slough area is to be strictly protected and flagged prior to the commencement of any work.
67.6 The boundary of the slough area, as well as the corridor of the boardwalk, shall be field
inspected and approved by the Collier County Current Planning Environmental Staff. (Also
applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
67.7 Structures, roads, and buildings shall be oriented to effect maximum protection of native scrub
and sand pine habitat. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
67.8 This PUD shall comply with the environmental sections of the Collier County Land
Development Code and Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management
Page 246 of 3380
Page 16 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
Element in effect at the time of final development order approval. (Also applicable to Tracts
B1, B2, and B3.)
67.9 An exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan as required by Subsection 3.9.6.6.5 of the
Land Development Code shall be submitted, for preserves area within the Retreat PUD Tracts
A, C and D, for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
future development or redevelopment. issued for Tract B. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2,
and B3.)
67.10 Exotic vegetation within Tract B including all preserve areas, shall be removed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Tract B development or redevelopment within this
PUD. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
67.11 PUD approval does not absolve the applicant from supplying necessary information as
required for subsequent site plan approval (i.e., wildlife surveys, etc.). (Also applicable to
Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
67.12 Buffer shall be provided in accordance with Subsection 3.2.8.4.7.3 of the Land Development
Code. All preserve areas shall be recorded, by separate instrument, as conservation/preservation
tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County with no responsibility
for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or as per Florida Statutes
Section 704.06. Coller County Real Property Division shall be contacted if the conservation
areas are to be dedicated to Collier County.
67.13 A Gopher Tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted to Current Planning
Environmental Staff for review and approval. A copy of the approved plan language shall be
included on the Final Site Development Plan.
67.14 Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental
Resource Permit rules and be subject to review and approval by Collier County Planning
Environmental Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for
impacts to Collier County wetlands.
67.15 Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from
the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty-five (25) feet from the
landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be
provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be
subject to review and approval by Collier County Current Planning Environmental Staff.
Page 247 of 3380
Page 17 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 78
UTILITY DIVISION CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO TRACT A; AND TRACTS B1,
B2 AND B3 ONLY AS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED
78.1 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. 88-76, as amended, and other
applicable County rules and regulations.
78.2 All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be
constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance
with the County’s established rates. Should the County not be in a position to provide water
and/or sewer, customers shall be customers of the interim utility established to serve the
project until the County’s off-site water and/or sewer facilities to serve the project. (Also
applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
78.3 Appropriate easements for any project internal water improvements shall be documented on
the construction plans and shall be dedicated to the Collier County Water-Sewer District.
(Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
78.4 Construction drawings, technical specifications and all pertinent design information shall be
submitted in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 97-17 or amendments made thereto
and shall be approved prior to the issuance of development construction approval. (Also
applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
Page 248 of 3380
Page 18 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 89
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO TRACT A; AND TRACTS B1, B2
AND B3 ONLY AS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED
89.1 Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Collier County
Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until
approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is approved by
Collier County granted by Planning Services Department. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2,
and B3.)
89.2 Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate
provisions of Division 3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (Also applicable to
Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
89.3 A copy of South Florida Water Management District Permit, or Early Work Permit, or Permit
Modification, is required prior to construction plan approval. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2,
and B3.)
89.4 Platting is required in accordance with Division 3 of the Collier County Land Development
Code, where applicable. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
89.5 Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Right-
of-Way Ordinance No. 82-91.
89.6 If applicable, prior to construction, a Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way permit
shall be provided. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
89.7 An Excavation Permit will may be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division
3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code and South Florida Water Management
District. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
89.8 Access into each tract as shown on the site plan is informational only. Location and number are
subject to Preliminary Plat or SDP approval, as required by Article 3 of the Collier County Land
Development Code. (Also applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
Page 249 of 3380
Page 19 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 910
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
910.1 Where the principal project collector street intersects with US 41 and with C-901, developer
shall install project improvements including left-turn storage lanes for north-bound US 41
traffic, and for south-bound C-901 traffic; and right-turn deceleration lanes for south-bound US
41 traffic and north-bound C-901 traffic when determined to be warranted by the County.
910.2 If a future determination is made by the County Engineer and DOT that a traffic signal is
warranted at the intersection of the project’s principal access road and US 41, the Retreat
project’s property owners shall pay for our contribution to the capital costs of said traffic signal
in accord with the County cost sharing policy then in force. After installation, the signal will be
owner, operated and maintained by the County.
10.3 Developer Commitments Only Applicable to Tracts B1, B2, and B3.)
A. The Managing Entity shall be responsible for MPUD monitoring until close-out of the
MPUD and shall also be responsible for satisfying all MPUD commitments until close-
out of the MPUD. At the time of this MPUD approval, the Managing Entity is CC-
Naples Inc.; should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and
commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding
document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such
approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval
of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become a 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
MPUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the
Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be
relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the MPUD is closed out, then the
Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of MPUD
commitments.
B. 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 of federal agency and does not
create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal
agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. (Section
125.022, Florida Statutes).
C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of
the development.
D. The maximum total daily trip generation for the MPUD shall not exceed 415 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 250 of 3380
Page 20 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
E. There are 89.62 acres of existing native vegetation within the subject property. The
minimum required native preservation is 22.40 acres (25% of 89.62 acres of existing
native vegetation). The Master Plan preserves a minimum of 24.69 acres of native
vegetation on site within Tract P, however, this may change during jurisdictional
permitting. The minimum required 22.40 acres shall be preserved in any case, and all
preserved native vegetation shall be located on Tracts B1, B2, and B3.
F. A listed species management plan will be provided for the project at the time of
development approval for Tracts B1, B2, and B3, and the P - Preserve Tracts. The
management plan will address how listed species will be protected, including the listed
plant species observed within the development footprint and proposed preserve areas.
G. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development
Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the
wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the
total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are
necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be
determined by the County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such
improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at
the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the
need for such improvements and/or upgrades.
H. 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 Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such
improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at
the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the
need for such improvements and/or upgrades.
I. The Developer shall install an enhanced perimeter landscape buffer along the western
half of the north boundary of the MPUD, as depicted on Exhibit “C”. The enhanced
perimeter buffer may be installed as part of an approved SDP or SDP Amendment, as
additional redevelopment occurs in Tracts B1 and B2.
Page 251 of 3380
Page 21 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 1011
EXCEPTIONS TO THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (APPLICABLE ONLY
TO TRACT A)
1011.1 The requirements for sidewalks and bicycle paths shall be waived, as required by Subsection
3.2.8.3.17 of the LDC, and sidewalk/bicycle paths shall be installed as indicated on the approved
Master Plan.
1011.2 Street name signs shall be approved by the County Engineer, but need not meet the
USDOTFHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as required by Subsection
3.2.8.3.19 of the LDC. Street pavement painting, striping, and reflective edging requirements
shall be waived.
1011.3 The requirement that local street connections to collector streets shall be a minimum of 660 ft.
apart shall be waived, as required by Section 3.2.8.4.1.
1011.4 Right of way width for the private local drives may be 50 feet rather than 60 feet, as required
by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5 of the LDC.
1011.5 The requirement that cul-de-sac streets shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length
shall be waived, as required by Section 3.2.8.4.16.6.
1011.6 The requirements that curbed streets have a minimum tangent of 100 feet at intersection shall
be waived, as required by Section 3.2.8.4.16.10.
1011.7 The requirements of 100 feet minimum length tangents between curbs on all streets shall be
waived, as required by Section 3.2.8.4.16.10.
1011.8 The requirements for spare utility casings shall be waived, as required by Section 3.2.8.3.24.
Page 252 of 3380
Page 22 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
SECTION 12
LIST OF DEVIATIONS (APPLICABLE TO TRACTS B1, B2, AND B3)
12.1 Deviation 1: (Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements) requests relief from LDC
Section 6.06.02.A.4., which provides sidewalk requirements for single and multi-family
development requiring sidewalks, five feet in width, to be provided within a dedicated
public or private right-of-way or other internal access, to only require such sidewalks in
the case of new construction or “substantial redevelopment”, as sidewalks were not required
when the existing development was approved under The Retreat PUD (Ord 97-71), and to
only require sidewalks on one side of a dedicated public or private right-of-way or other
internal access, where residential development is only on one side of the dedicated public
or private right-of-way or other internal access (single loaded). For the purposes of this
deviation, the term “substantial redevelopment” shall mean redevelopment of a site,
structure or structures within this MPUD, where such redevelopment requires the submittal
of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Amendment to an SDP, the value of proposed new
structures exceeds 50% of the value of the existing structures.
12.2 Deviation 2: (Street System Requirements) requests relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N.,
“Street System Requirements”, which requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet to
instead allow a width of 50 feet for roadways within this PUD.
12.3 Deviation 3: (Required Permitter Buffers) requests relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1.,
Table 2.4 which requires a 10-foot-wide Type A Buffer in the northeast corner of the PUD
adjacent to the commercial medical use to the north, to instead allow for a 9-foot-wide Type
A Buffer.
Page 253 of 3380
Page 23 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
Page 254 of 3380
Page 24 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
Page 255 of 3380
Page 25 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
Page 256 of 3380
Page 26 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Northern 1/2 of the SOUTH 1/2; and the Northern 1/2 of the Southern 1/2 of the SOUTH 1/2: ALL
IN Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
LESS AND EXCEPT the West 50 feet thereof, previously conveyed to Collier County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, by instrument recorded in O.R. Book 33, Page 545, Public Records
of Collier County, Florida,
LESS AND EXCEPT that certain portion of the above-described property East of the West line of the
property described in the condemnation proceedings filed by the Division of Administration, State of
Florida, Department Transportation, as more fully described in O.R. Book 520, Page 668, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida, consisting of 208.551 acres, more or less.
Page 257 of 3380
Page 27 of 27
C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8Z2A2PP6\The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (PL-20230015039) (9-10-2025) rjm_.docx
Page 258 of 3380
Vanderbilt Drive Vanderbilt Drive Existing Service Access
Proposed Service Access
Page 259 of 3380
Page 260 of 3380
Page 261 of 3380
Page 262 of 3380
Page 263 of 3380
Page 264 of 3380
Page 265 of 3380
Page 266 of 3380
Page 267 of 3380
Page 268 of 3380
Page 269 of 3380
Page 270 of 3380
Page 271 of 3380
Page 272 of 3380
Page 273 of 3380
Page 274 of 3380
Page 275 of 3380
Page 276 of 3380
Page 277 of 3380
Page 278 of 3380
Page 279 of 3380
Page 280 of 3380
Page 281 of 3380
Page 282 of 3380
Page 283 of 3380
Page 284 of 3380
Page 285 of 3380
Page 286 of 3380
Page 287 of 3380
Page 288 of 3380
Page 289 of 3380
Page 290 of 3380
Page 291 of 3380
Page 292 of 3380
Page 293 of 3380
Page 294 of 3380
Page 295 of 3380
Page 296 of 3380
Page 297 of 3380
Page 298 of 3380
Page 299 of 3380
Page 300 of 3380
Page 301 of 3380
Page 302 of 3380
Page 303 of 3380
Page 304 of 3380
Page 305 of 3380
Page 306 of 3380
Page 307 of 3380
Page 308 of 3380
Page 309 of 3380
Page 310 of 3380
Page 311 of 3380
Page 312 of 3380
Page 313 of 3380
Page 314 of 3380
Page 315 of 3380
Page 316 of 3380
Page 317 of 3380
Page 318 of 3380
Page 319 of 3380
Page 320 of 3380
Page 321 of 3380
Page 322 of 3380
Page 323 of 3380
Page 324 of 3380
Page 325 of 3380
Page 326 of 3380
Page 327 of 3380
Page 328 of 3380
Page 329 of 3380
Page 330 of 3380
Page 331 of 3380
Page 332 of 3380
Page 333 of 3380
Page 334 of 3380
Page 335 of 3380
Page 336 of 3380
Page 337 of 3380
Page 338 of 3380
Page 339 of 3380
Page 340 of 3380
Page 341 of 3380
Page 342 of 3380
Page 343 of 3380
Page 344 of 3380
Page 345 of 3380
Page 346 of 3380
Page 347 of 3380
Page 348 of 3380
Page 349 of 3380
Page 350 of 3380
Page 351 of 3380
Page 352 of 3380
Page 353 of 3380
Page 354 of 3380
Page 355 of 3380
Page 356 of 3380
Page 357 of 3380
Page 358 of 3380
Page 359 of 3380
Page 360 of 3380
Page 361 of 3380
Page 362 of 3380
Page 363 of 3380
Page 364 of 3380
Page 365 of 3380
Page 366 of 3380
Page 367 of 3380
Page 368 of 3380
Page 369 of 3380
Page 370 of 3380
Page 371 of 3380
Page 372 of 3380
Page 373 of 3380
Page 374 of 3380
Page 375 of 3380
Page 376 of 3380
Page 377 of 3380
Page 378 of 3380
Page 379 of 3380
Page 380 of 3380
Page 381 of 3380
Page 382 of 3380
Page 383 of 3380
Page 384 of 3380
Page 385 of 3380
Page 386 of 3380
Page 387 of 3380
Page 388 of 3380
Page 389 of 3380
Page 390 of 3380
Page 391 of 3380
Page 392 of 3380
Page 393 of 3380
Page 394 of 3380
Page 395 of 3380
Page 396 of 3380
Page 397 of 3380
Page 398 of 3380
Page 399 of 3380
Page 400 of 3380
Page 401 of 3380
Page 402 of 3380
Page 403 of 3380
Page 404 of 3380
Page 405 of 3380
Page 406 of 3380
Page 407 of 3380
Page 408 of 3380
Page 409 of 3380
Page 410 of 3380
Page 411 of 3380
Page 412 of 3380
Page 413 of 3380
Page 414 of 3380
Page 415 of 3380
Page 416 of 3380
Page 417 of 3380
Page 418 of 3380
Page 419 of 3380
Page 420 of 3380
Page 421 of 3380
Page 422 of 3380
Page 423 of 3380
Page 424 of 3380
Page 425 of 3380
Page 426 of 3380
Page 427 of 3380
Page 428 of 3380
Page 429 of 3380
Page 430 of 3380
Page 431 of 3380
Page 432 of 3380
Page 433 of 3380
Page 434 of 3380
Page 435 of 3380
Page 436 of 3380
Page 437 of 3380
Page 438 of 3380
Page 439 of 3380
Page 440 of 3380
Page 441 of 3380
Page 442 of 3380
Page 443 of 3380
Page 444 of 3380
Page 445 of 3380
Page 446 of 3380
Page 447 of 3380
Page 448 of 3380
Page 449 of 3380
Page 450 of 3380
Page 451 of 3380
Page 452 of 3380
Page 453 of 3380
Page 454 of 3380
Page 455 of 3380
Page 456 of 3380
Page 457 of 3380
Page 458 of 3380
Page 459 of 3380
Page 460 of 3380
Page 461 of 3380
Page 462 of 3380
Page 463 of 3380
Page 464 of 3380
Page 465 of 3380
Page 466 of 3380
Page 467 of 3380
Page 468 of 3380
Page 469 of 3380
Page 470 of 3380
Page 471 of 3380
Page 472 of 3380
Page 473 of 3380
Page 474 of 3380
Page 475 of 3380
Page 476 of 3380
Page 477 of 3380
Page 478 of 3380
Page 479 of 3380
Page 480 of 3380
Page 481 of 3380
Page 482 of 3380
Page 483 of 3380
Page 484 of 3380
The Retreat at Naples PUD Amendment (Ord. 97-1)
Neighborhood Information Meeting
April 23, 2025
PL-20230015039 Page 485 of 3380
Project Team
•Nancy Tolan, VP, Vi Living
•Bob Mulhere, FAICP, Senior VP Bowman
•Terry Cole, Senior VP, Bowman
•Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
•Bethany Brosious, Vice President, Passarella & Associates
2
Page 486 of 3380
Introductions and Background
Nancy Tolan, VP, Vi Living
3
Page 487 of 3380
Bob Mulhere, FAICP, Bowman
4
Page 488 of 3380
Project Location
5
Audubon Country Club (PUD)
Village Place (PUD)
The Retreat PUD
Page 489 of 3380
Growth Management Plan Future Land Use
6
Up to 4 DU’s per acre is allowed in the Urban Area (if the project is not located in the
Coastal High Hazard Area).
Page 490 of 3380
Zoning
The Retreat PUD
Audubon CC PUD
The Village Place PUD
Page 491 of 3380
The Existing Retreat PUD:
•Originally approved on November 18, 1997 (Ordinance 97-71)
•Located in Section 9, Township 48S, Range 25E, ¾ of a mile north of
Wiggins Pass Road
•Located between Tamiami Trail N and Vanderbilt Dr. (with access to both)
•208.51 acres in size
•Approved for 740 multifamily dwelling units, ALF, Skilled Nursing, and
Memory Care Facilities, private club and restaurant; and typical accessory
uses including a golf course.
Page 492 of 3380
9
Tract D
Tract A
Tract B
Tract C
Existing Master Plan
Page 493 of 3380
10
Tract B1 Tract B2
Tract A Tract B3
(Proposed) Master Plan
Page 494 of 3380
The Proposed Retreat PUD Amendment
Requesting:
•Increase of 94 DUs (to 834 DUs) 4DUs per gross acre;
•Clarifying that the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45 applies to the ALF and
related facilities;
•Allowing the existing temporary service drive located at the northwest corner of
the PUD to be a permitted service access;
•Revising existing preserve boundaries;
•Revised Development Standards (for Redevelopment), including building height;
•Updating the Developer Commitments, including adding a Trip Cap;
•Requesting several new deviations.
Page 495 of 3380
Vanderbilt Drive Vanderbilt Drive Existing Service Access
Proposed Service Access
Page 496 of 3380
Building, actual height of:The vertical distance from the
average centerline elevation of the adjacent roadways to
the highest structure or appurtenances without the
exclusions of section 4.02.01.
Building, zoned height of:The vertical distance from the
first finished floor to the highest point of the roof surface
of a flat or Bermuda roof, to the deck line of a mansard
roof and to the mean height level between eaves and
ridge of gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. Where minimum
floor elevations have been established by law or permit
requirements, the building height shall be measured from
such required minimum floor elevations.
PUD Zoned Height: 4 stories, NTE 52’
PUD Actual Height: 59’
Page 497 of 3380
Page 498 of 3380
Page 499 of 3380
Page 500 of 3380
Page 501 of 3380
Deviations 18
Page 502 of 3380
Deviations 19
Deviation 4: (Required Permitter Buffers) requests relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1., Table 2.4 which requires a
10-foot-wide Type A Buffer in the northeast corner of the PUD adjacent to the commercial medical use to the north, to
instead allow for a 9-foot-wide Type A Buffer.
Page 503 of 3380
Questions?
20
Page 504 of 3380
Page 505 of 3380
Page 506 of 3380
Page 507 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Robert Hadfield <roberthadfield0514@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 2:35 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:PL20230015039 Objection
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cauon when
opening a#achments or clicking links.
I object to the above peon. I live in the retreat at address 517 lake Louise Court Unit 204. I reiterate the objecons
submi#ed on behalf of Retreat Naples One Assoc.
Bob Hadfield
Page 508 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Bob Frohman <bfrohman@bellsouth.net>
Sent:Sunday, August 31, 2025 4:00 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Tom Frohman; Carol Frohman
Subject:PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Mr Finn,
I and my siblings are owners of a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and we
oppose petition PL20230015039. We support and reiterate the objections
submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc,
dated August 22, 2025. We especially object to being “end run” by the
petitioner in not engaging ALL owners, and the timing of the hearing with short
notice, and in the middle of the off season when many of us are not in Florida.
Sincerely,
Bob Frohman
544 Retreat Drive, Unit 103
Naples, FL 34110
704-957-3776
106 Ventana Ct
Mooresville, NC 28117
Page 509 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Schmalz, Robert F <rfs3@psu.edu>
Sent:Sunday, August 31, 2025 11:10 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Petition
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 Sir: “I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at
Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.”
Robert Schmalz
Retreat #2 517 Lake Louise Court, #203
Page 510 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:John Leary <lazer08204@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, August 29, 2025 9:37 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Retreat HOA Petition
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I own a condo within the Retreat HOA, and I strongly oppose the request laid out in the petition
PL20230015039. I support and reiterate the objections raised by the Retreat at Naples Number One
Condominium Owners Association.
Thank you.
John Leary
Page 511 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Lori Bell <four.bells2@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 29, 2025 1:53 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:stefany@naplesfloridarealty.com
Subject:Objection-PL20230015039
Attachments:objection letter Retreat One 8.22.2025.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.
Good afternoon Tim.
We live at 521 Lake Louise CRT, unit 103, at The Retreat in Naples.
Our HOA has submitted an objection to a petition for development very close to our site—PL20230015039.
Please know that we whole heartedly support the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples. They have laid out
our position in their objection letter below. This development would significantly impact our quality of life; and in addition to
all the legal/bylaw associated objections outlined, it would be irresponsible to build in an already densely populated site,
paving over important nature preserve space. If we have learned nothing from the past few years, we should have learned that
our green space and wetlands need to be preserved, if we are to preserve our living space.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Doug & Lori Bell
521 Lake Louise CRT
Unit 103
Naples, Florida
34110
Four. Bells2@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone.... complete with typos!
Page 512 of 3380
August 22, 2025
VIA EMAIL TO: Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
AND VIA US MAIL
Timothy Finn
Collier County GMCD
Planning and Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Dr
Naples FL 34104
RE: Letter of Objection; The Retreat at Naples PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn:
This letter of objection is submitted on behalf of our client The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc. (48 units), with a mailing address of 1004 Collier Center Way, Suite 105, Naples
FL 34110, with respect to PUDA (PL20230015039) that was submitted by CC-Naples, Inc. as the
petitioner. Please include this letter of objection in the official record and minutes for the hearing
on this matter that is currently scheduled to go before the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) on September 4, 2025, and at any subsequent hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), and any continuation thereof.
Although the petitioner paid the pre-application fee two years ago and submitted the application
one year ago, and the petitioner’s team has been refining the proposal during all of that time, our
client only learned of the September 4, 2025 hearing date a few days ago. Therefore, due to
scheduling conflicts I will be unable to attend the CCPC hearing and it is possible that no
representatives from our client will be able to attend either. We do expect to attend the BCC
hearing which we understand is tentatively scheduled for October 28, 2025. Please note also that
we have not been privy to any staff report for this matter as there is not one published in the GMCD
portal, and the agenda and backup documents for the September 4, 2025 CCPC hearing are not yet
available on the county clerk’s Board Minutes and Records website. We are therefore by necessity
submitting our comments without the benefit of the staff report or knowledge whether the staff is
recommending approval or denial and whether any of our concerns may have been addressed.
Please note that we are advised that the objections of our client are also supported by the boards
of neighboring condominium associations at The Retreat at Naples No. Two Condo Association,
Inc. (20 units), The Retreat at Naples No. Three Condo Association, Inc. (10 units), The Retreat
Waterside, Inc. (44 units), The Retreat Waterside II, Inc. (22 units), and Waterside Place
Condominium Association, Inc. (20 units), and we anticipate representatives of these associations
to attend and/or submit their own written objections. Therefore, these objections are supported by
all six (6) condominium associations that are located within The Retreat Homeowner’s
Association, Inc., representing a total of 164 condominium units. The unit owners represented by
Page 513 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 2 of 5
these associations all own property that is located within the boundaries of the Retreat PUD that
is proposed to be amended by the subject application.
Objection 1. Failure to provide Property Ownership Disclosure. The county’s form of the
“Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone
(PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR)” reflects on Page 9 of 11 that a “Property Ownership Disclosure Form”
is required. The form of the “Property Ownership Disclosure Form” similarly indicates on Page 1
of 3 that “This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning
Verification Letters.” In the Collier County Administrative Code for Land Development, §§3G1
and 3G2 state that the required submittal materials for a PUDA include the “Property Ownership
Disclosure Form.” On the form of the Property Ownership Disclosure Form, the instructions in
Section b indicate that “If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: . . .” In this matter, the only Property
Ownership Disclosure Form that has been submitted by the applicant and uploaded in the portal
on December 19, 2024 provides the name of the corporate landowner as CC-Naples, Inc. and
provides the 2024 corporate annual report which discloses four individuals (J. Kevin Poorman,
Gary Smith, Tara Cope, and Thomas Muszynski) as the officers and directors. However, the
disclosure does not identify any stockholders of CC-Naples, Inc. Without disclosure of the
stockholders, and the percentage of stock owned by each, as required by the disclosure form, the
PUDA application is not sufficient. Further, as a practical matter, without that disclosure it is
impossible for the county staff, the members of the CCPC, and the members of the BCC to
determine whether they have a conflict of interest. The application should be rejected unless this
defect is corrected.
Objection 2. Petitioner may not apply to rezone property it does not own, and petitioner is
not entitled to density of more than 4 units per acre on the lands that it does own.
The petitioner is facing a double-edged sword in that if they are to achieve the goal of upzoning
for more than 4 units per acre on their lands within the PUD, they must either rezone all of the
lands in the PUD including the portions that they do not own, and then scrape or reallocate the
extra density that has been created to their land (which is the method that the petitioner has chosen),
or else they need to convince the county to let them have more than 4 units per acre on the lands
that they do own. As a result, the petitioner has attempted to obfuscate and hide the fact that they
are upzoning the entire PUD and then taking the additional density from Tract A that they do not
own in order to achieve more than 4 units per acre density that is prohibited by the FLUE.
Stated very simply, our client objects to the upzoning and then scraping off new density from their
lands in the PUD and all other aspects of the PUDA petition that change the applicable zoning on
their lands within the PUD without their consent and without their joinder in the application.
The Collier County Land Development Code provides in Section 10.02.08 that an amendment to
the zoning atlas may be proposed by the BCC, or by the CCPC, or by the BZA, or by any other
agency or department of the County, or by “Any person other than those listed . . . above;
provided, however, that no person shall propose an amendment for the rezoning of property
(except as agent or attorney for an owner) which he does not own. The name of the owner shall
appear in each application.” Therefore, the LDC prohibits the petitioner from rezoning Tract A
unless the owner of Tract A has joined in the petition.
Page 514 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 3 of 5
The fact that the petitioner has applied to rezone Tract A is evidenced by the proposed changes
regarding density. At its most basic, the petition seeks to increase the overall project density from
740 units (3.55 units per acre) to 834 units (4 units per acre) for the entire 208.51 acres, and then
allocate all of the newly created density (834-740 = 94) from the entire acreage to only the
petitioner’s lands, so that none of the newly created density goes to Tract A, even though the Tract
A acreage was used to reach the density numbers. Because the property is designated as Urban
Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan limits the density to 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The upzoning as
proposed by the petition results in the petitioner’s lands getting 4.23 units per acre, or else it results
in the overall density of the PUD being 4 units per acre and all of the new density from Tract A
getting shifted to petitioner’s land. One or the other must be true, and both violate the LDC. The
fact is that the PUD is no longer under unified ownership, and the petitioner is not permitted to
shift density from lands in the PUD that it does not own.
According to the master plan in the existing zoning under Ord. 97-71, the land where our client
and the other five existing condominium associations are located is designated as Tract A. The
Tract A lands have been subdivided as Lots 1-19, The Retreat Unit One, PB 12, page 100. The
Tract A lands where the condominium properties are located are in the southwest portion of the
PUD. Under the current zoning in Ord. 97-71, Tract A is zoned for 53.55 acres of land and a
maximum density of 3.32 1 units per acre for a total of 178 units. The petitioner’s lands in the
existing PUD, which are identified in Ord. 97-71 as Tracts B, C and D, are zoned for 68.87 acres
and 2.76 units per acre for Tract B (190 units), 39.99 acres and 5.85 units per acre for Tract C
(234 units), and 46.10 acres and 2.99 units per acre for Tract D (138 units), for a total of 562 units.
In other words, under the zoning that exists today, the entire PUD of 208.55 acres is capped at 740
units, with 178 of those units allocated to Tract A which is not owned by petitioner 2, and 562 units
allocated to the petitioner’s Tracts B, C and D, for an overall average density throughout the PUD
of 3.55 units per acre. When the original PUD was approved, all of the acreage was under common
ownership and shifting density around from tract to tract was not an issue.
The petitioner has now proposed the PUDA to upzone the entire acreage of the PUD of 208.55
acres to an overall average at the maximum density allowed under the Future Land Use Element
of the Growth Management Plan of 4 units per acre. As a result, if approved, the PUD as a whole
will be allowed 208.55 x 4 = 834 units. However, the petition does not propose to upzone Tract A
to 4 units per acre and allocate those extra 36 units to Tract A for future redevelopment. Instead,
if the petition is approved, our client and the other condominium associations in Tract A will still
be capped at 178 units, while the extra density from the Tract A acreage and from the Tract B, C,
and D acreage will all be allocated Tracts B, C and D, so that the petitioner gets 656 units and an
average density of 4.23 units per acre.
This issue of the identity of the petitioner and the need to avoid affecting the rights of Tract A was
astutely raised by the comments of County Attorney’s Office in the GMD review letter dated
1 The PUD Ord. 97-71 actually says Tract A has a density of 3.01 units per acre, which is apparently a typo and should be 3.32 to reach
the 178 units allowed. The petitioner proposes to correct this typo as part of the PUDA.
2 The petitioner does appear to own Lots 16 and 19 in Tract A, as well as two condominium units in The Retreat at Naples No. Three
Condominium Association, Inc., but this fact does not give the petitioner the right to rezone Tract A or to scrape the upzoned density
from Tract A.
Page 515 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 4 of 5
December 19, 2024 3 and the same concern was reiterated by the CAO in the GMD review letter
dated March 14, 2025. In addition, in an apparent attempt to address or sidestep this issue, the
Notes on the PUD Exhibit document that is part of the proposed PUDA changes states “No changes
are being made to Tract “A” as part of this PUDA.” This self-serving statement is simply not true
and is contradicted by what is being proposed.
If the petitioner is going to modify the PUD so that its 155 acres goes from 562 units to 656 units,
then the density on the petitioner’s lands will go from 3.63 units per acre to 4.23 units per acre.
Therefore, the petitioner is either upzoning Tract A without the joinder of the owner of Tract A
and then scraping the extra density from Tract A to be used on petitioner’s tracts, or else the
petitioner is proposing to exceed the 4 units per acre cap on its lands that is imposed by the FLUE.
The fact that the petition does propose to “rezone” Tract A is further evidenced by impacts other
than the upzoning and scraping of density. For example, another proposal of the PUDA is to
redesignate and reconfigure the preserve areas throughout the PUD master plan. In the existing
PUD Ord. 97-71, all or almost all of the preserve areas are located in petitioner’s Tract B (proposed
to be renamed as Tract B3), and there is little to no preserve located in Tract A. However, under
the proposed reconfiguration, the new master plan does create several new preserve areas that are
in the Retreat HOA lake tract, and the Retreat HOA tennis court tract, and the Retreat HOA
swimming pool tract, all within Tract A. Not only does the new PUDA master plan create new
preserve areas within Tract A on land that does not belong to petitioner, but the proposed new
verbiage in PUD Sections 7.3, 7.9, and 7.10 now will impose for the first time a new requirement
that all prohibited exotic vegetation must be removed from the entire site. The title of PUDA
section 7 in the proposed ordinance makes it very clear that this new exotic vegetation requirement
is “applicable to Tract A” as that new language is proposed and underlined. So not only does the
petitioner seek to satisfy its preservation and native preservation requirements by designating new
preserves on land it does not own, but it also proposes to implement a new requirement for removal
of exotics from those newly created preserve areas that did not exist before.
With respect to the specific rezone criteria to be considered in reviewing the proposed petition, it
is the position of our client that items 1, 11, 12, and 13 have not been met. With respect to criteria
1, whether the proposal is consistent with the GMP, the FLUE and FLUM, it is clear that the
petition proposes to have 4.23 units per acre density on the petitioner’s lands, which exceeds the
4 unit per acre cap. The only way the petitioner avoids this problem is by obfuscating the fact that
in reality they are upzoning Tract A and taking density from lands that are not theirs.
3 The review comment by the CAO on page 3 of the December 19, 2024 GMD review letter provides as follows:
Rejected Review: County Attorney Review
Reviewed By: Derek Perry
Email: Derek.Perry@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-8066
Correction Comment 1:
Please see the attached CAO markup as a preliminary review. The owners of Tract A do not appear to be a party to this
PUDA, and thus their property rights must remain intact and vested throughout the amendment. Additionally, there are
careless mistakes and numbers that don’t add up. Please review the document carefully for the second submittal. Substantive
review to commence upon second submittal. Applicant is encouraged to utilize the post-review meeting to work with staff
to address issues raised at this first review. As always, please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or need
anything: Derek D. Perry, (239) 252-8066. [emphasis added]
Page 516 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 5 of 5
With respect to rezone criteria 11, the proposal will be a deterrent to future redevelopment of the
condominium association parcels on Tract A. While those parcels are currently built out with their
existing units, it is no longer unusual for condominium projects to be terminated and demolished
and then redeveloped if they experience significant damage from hurricanes. If the lands in this
PUD are deserving and entitled to 4 units per acre, then the condominium associations in Tract A
object to having their future redevelopment potential reduced by this petition which takes away 36
units of future development. Those extra 36 units should be allocated to Tract A.
With respect to rezone criteria 12, the petition will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare in that the petitioner is not supposed to be
able to rezone land that it does not own, and is not supposed be able to be approved for more than
4 units per acre.
With respect to rezone criteria 13, there is no substantial reason why the property cannot continue
to be used in accordance with the existing zoning. According to the PUD master list, the PUD is
“built out.” The petitioner owns three out of the four tracts within the PUD and is already allocated
the right to build 562 units on its 155 acres. The proposal is to upzone the petitioner’s acreage and
gain 94 units from their land, while only 58 of those new units could possibly come from the
petitioner’s lands, and 36 are being taken from Tract A.
Our client requests that the petition be denied, or in the alternative if approved that the 36 units to
be created by upzoning the Tract A acreage must be allocated to Tract A, such that Tract A has
204 units, and petitioner’s Tracts B1, B2 and B3 have 620 units. Our client does not waive any
rights and reserves the right to supplement these objections. Our client further reserves and does
not waive any rights to density allocations or restrictions arising from any restrictive covenant
including but not limited to the Second Amended and Restated Declaration for the Retreat recorded
July 10, 2024 at OR 6378, page 3588.
Very truly yours,
THORNTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
Christopher J. Thornton, Esquire
For the firm
E-mail: cthornton@swflalaw.com
cc: Heidi Ashton-Cicko (via email to Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov)
Robert Mulhere (rmulhere@bowman.com)
Client
Page 517 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Ron Entringer <rentringer42@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 29, 2025 9:09 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat
HOA, and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and support and reiterate
the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc.
Ronald Entringer
513 Lake Louise Circle, Unit 102
Page 518 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Shirley Moore <shirshpa@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 26, 2025 8:49 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:management@pmigulfcoast.com
Subject:Objection to Petition PL20230015039-Retreat at Naples
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Mr. Finn.
We own a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and oppose the
petition (PL20230015039).
We support the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One
Condo Association, Inc. and hope this does not move forward.
Thank you.
William and Shirley Moore
Page 519 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Patricia Smith <regatta1005@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 26, 2025 5:57 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Retreat Petition
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of
The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Patricia S Smith
NAPNAP Sack LLC
545 Retreat Drive #101
Naples,Fl. 34110
Cell. 203-981-6151
Sent from my iPhone
Page 520 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Ben Owens <cyberfive@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 8:49 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Petition PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cau Ɵon when
opening aƩachments or clicking links.
Mr. Finn,
My husband and I ( Anne and Ben Owens) live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and we oppose the
PeƟƟon PL 20230015039, and we support and reiterate the objecƟons submiƩed on behalf of the Retreat at Naples No.
One Condo AssociaƟon, Inc. Please support us and do the right thing.
Anne and Ben Owens
560 Retreat Drive, Unit 102
Naples, Florida
Sent from my iPad
Page 521 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:drfurman1@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 5:56 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:cthornton@swflalaw.com; 'PMI Gulf Coast'
Subject:I oppose the petition (PL20230015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of
The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.”
Dr. Morey Furman
917 386-4738
Drfurman1@verizon.net
Page 522 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Steve Kays <slkays@mmm.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 5:21 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Lance Horn
Subject:Objection to CC-Naples, Inc PUDA 20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Good afternoon Mr. Finn: I live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA, and I
oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat
at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steven L. Kays | Senior R&D Contract Manager
Government R&D Contracts Department
3M Center, 220-7W-07 | St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 | United States
Mobile: +1 612 747 9428
slkays@mmm.com
Page 523 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Mike <maz0762@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 3:08 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Petition PL20230015039
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.
Attention: Mr. Finn,
I reside at 576 Retreat Dr, Suite 202, Naples, FL 34110, within The Retreat HOA. I oppose petition
PL20230015039 and fully support the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One
Condominium Association, Inc.
Sincerely,
Michael and Ismat Ziccardi
Page 524 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Joseph Kerr <j.kerr102639@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 2:13 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Hello
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
"I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039) and I
support and reiterate the objection submitted on behalf for the Retreat at Naples No. One Condominium
Association, Inc.
Dr. Joseph J. Kerr
Page 525 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Bruce Bruchman <bdbruchman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 1:18 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:PUDA20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
As an owner in Retreat Waterside II, I EMPHATICALLY oppose this petition!!!
Bentley Vi is owned by Classic Residences by Hyatt. It's one of 10 communities in 6 states. C R is owned
by Penny Pritzker, a relative of J P Pritz, who also owns all Hyatt hotels. The Pritzer family members
are BILLIONaires, Governor J P alone is worth 4 billion.
Aside from illegally stealing land owned by the Retreat, the Pritzkers are rich enough & certainly don't
need the money generated by 100 additional units. By the way, we're talking 25 % more utilization, costs,
wear & tear & depreciation of Retreat assets by the prospective new residents of Bentley Vi.
It would be absurd for the commission to grant the petition!!!
Sincerely,
Bruce Bruchman
Page 526 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Lisa Vall <lisa.ghia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 1:38 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Sue Sutto; David Garafola
Subject:Retreat objection
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,
I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and
I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc.”
Elise G Vall
545 Lake Louise Circle #203
Naples, FL 34110
At birth, you are given a name that serves as your identification.
It is up to you to create the name that will define you.
Lisa
From my iPhone
Page 527 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Lisa Sette <lbsette@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 1:24 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Scott Benjamin; Lisa Sette; Michael Sette
Subject:Opposition to the petition (PL20230015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
“I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, Building 545 and I oppose the
petition (PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on
behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.”
Lisa Benjamin Sette on behalf of Patricia Benjamin, Owner
Page 528 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Dean Seigman <deanii231544@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 1:14 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and I
support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc.
Dean Seigman
544 Retreat Drive
Unit 104
Naples, FL 34110
Page 529 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:persistanc@aol.com
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 12:13 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Rezoning Petition PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cau Ɵon when
opening aƩachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn:
I live in a condominium unit (528 Retreat Drive unit 201) within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the rezoning pe ƟƟon
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objecƟons submiƩed on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One
Condo AssociaƟon, Inc.
Frank J. Chiz
Page 530 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Nicholas Stano <nickstano@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2025 11:04 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:Retreat Objection Letter
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of
The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.”
nstano@icloud.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Page 531 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Francis Pfeiffer <flplrp@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 6:05 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:Letter of Objection Regarding Opposing PL20230015039
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.
Planning Commission
Attention: Timothy Finn
Dear Mr. Finn and The Planning Commision Team I live in a condominium within the Retreat HOA, and I Strongly
OPPOSE The Petition (PL20230015039),
and I Support and Reiterate the Objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association.
Thank You for hearing and understanding my concerns,
Loretta Pfeiffer
Page 532 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Francis Pfeiffer <flplrp@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:54 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:Letter of Objection Reguarding opposing PL20230015039
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.
Planning Commission
Attention: Timothy Finn
I live in a condominium within the Retreat HOA, and I OPPOSE The Petition (PL20230015039),
and I Support and Reiterate the Objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association.
Warm Reguards,
Lisa Feicht
oh2fly@sbcglobal.net
Page 533 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Anthony Feicht <anthony.e.feicht@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:51 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:Letter of Objection - Opposing Petition PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Mr. Timothy Finn,
I live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the
petition (PL20230015039), and support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The
Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.”
Respectfully,
Anthony Feicht
Sent from my iPhone
Page 534 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Paul Burger <pdburger2@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 3:57 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Paul Burger; lhorn@xs4all.nl; Gerry Hawkshaw
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I have lived since 1990 in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the
Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and support and reiterate
the objections submitted on behalf of "The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc.” The above petition is equivalent to another land grab by the owners
and management of Bentley Village/VI.
Page 535 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:bekkbkb@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 2:47 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Lance Horn; Gerry Hawkshaw
Subject:RE: Letter of Objection; The Retreat at Naples PUDA (PL20230015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn:
We live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA. We oppose the
petition (PL20230015039). We support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The
Retreat at Naples NO. One Association, Inc.
Very truly yours,
Keeline Living Trust
William S. Keeline, Ellen M. Keeline
531 Lake Louise Cir
Unit 101
Naples, FL 34110
Page 536 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Chester Ashton <ashtoncj72@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 2:41 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl; ghawkshaw51@gmail.com
Subject:Attn: Timothy Finn, Collier County FL Planning Commission
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Mr. Finn,
"I live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the
petition (PL20230015039) and support and reiterate the objects submitted on behalf of
The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc."
Chester J. & Melodie J. Ashton
523 Lake Louise Circle #102
Naples, FL 34110
Page 537 of 3380
I live in a condominium unit at the Retreat Waterside ll within the Retreat HOA, and I
oppose the petition PL20230015039 , and support and reiterate the objections submitted
on behalf of the Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Jeffrey PWiddel
Page 538 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Jim Dalzell <dalzelljamesp@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 1:13 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:James Dalzell
Subject:Opposition to petition (PL202300015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cau Ɵon when
opening aƩachments or clicking links.
Sent from my iPhone
My name is James Dalzell and we live at 524 Lake Louise Circle, unit 501 that is a unit within the Retreat HOA and we
opposed the peƟƟon (PL20230015039) and we support and reiterate, the objecƟon submiƩed on behalf of the Retreat
of Naples, Number one Condo-associaƟon Inc.
Best- James Dalzell
Page 539 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:John Baxter <Jbax666@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 12:22 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl; John Baxter; Carolyn Baxter
Subject:Owners opposed to The Retreat at Naples (PL20230015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Mr. Finn -
We've been a property owners in Naples for 25 years. Last week we received notification of petition
PL20230015039.
We currently live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA,
and we oppose the petition (PL20230015039). We support and reiterate the objections
submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Respectfully;
John & Carolyn Baxter
529 Lake Louise Cir.
Unit 201
Naples, FL 34110
Page 540 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:JAMES SIMON <jimandhelensimon@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 9:38 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:CC-Naples, Inc. Letter of Objection to PUDA(PL20230015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I live in a condominium unit at 560 Retreat Drive, Unit 201, within the Retreat HOA,
and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039) by CC-Naples, Inc. I support and reiterate
the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc. by Thornton Law Firm, PLLC.
Sincerely,
James G. Simon
Treasurer, The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association
Page 541 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Sharon Hill <hillshar@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 9:32 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Gerry Hawkshaw; lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:Letter of Objection; The Retreat at Naples PUDA (PL20230015039)
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.
Timothy Finn Collier County GMCD
Planning and Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Dr
Naples FL 34104
RE: Letter of Objection; The Retreat at Naples PUDA (PL20230015039)
We live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and we oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and we support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of
The Retreat at Naples No. one Condo Association, Inc.
Please do not include us in Bentley's process of development. We are not part of
them
Jerry and Sharon Hill
Retreat Waterside Two
527 Lake Lousie Circle unit 102
Naples Fl 34110
--
Sharon Hill
Centennial, Co
Page 542 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Thomas Geiselhart <tgeiselhart@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 6:00 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl; Robert Hadfield
Subject:Formal Letter of Objection to CC-Naples, Inc PUDA 20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am the Trustee of my fathers Estate which owns a condominium unit at
The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and support and reiterate the objections submitted on
behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Thanks in advance for your support in this very important matter.
Thomas J. Geiselhart
Trustee for Estate of Thomas C. Geiselhart
517 Lake Louise Circle
Unit 201
Naples, FL 34110
Von meinem iPad gesendet
Page 543 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Thomas Geiselhart <tgeiselhart@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:54 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Gerry Hawkshaw; lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:Formal Letter of Objection to CC-Naples, Inc PUDA 20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I live in a condominium unit at The Retreat Waterside II within the Retreat HOA, and I
oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and support and reiterate the objections
submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Thanks in advance for your support in this very important matter.
Thomas J. & Brita Geiselhart
523 Lake Louise Circle
Unit 201
Naples, FL 34110
Von meinem iPad gesendet
Page 544 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Thomas Schweizer <tschweizer36@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 5:42 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl
Subject:PUDA PL 20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cau Ɵon when
opening aƩachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am Secretary/ Treasurer of The Retreat Waterside II, Inc., a sub associaƟon within the Retreat Homeowners AssociaƟon
and represent 22 unit owners, and we oppose CC Naples peƟƟon (PL20230015039), and support and reiterate the
objecƟons submiƩed on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo AssociaƟon, Inc.
Yours truly
Thomas Schweizer
Sent from my iPhone
Page 545 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Ted Anderson <twdkahome@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 3:36 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@xs4all.nl; Gerry Hawkshaw
Subject:CC-Naples, Inc PUDA 20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
My wife and I own the condo, 525 Lake Louise Circle, Unit 202, Retreat Waterside II. I am Vice President
of the Retreat Waterside II HOA. My wife and I are opposed to CC Naples petition (PL20230015039)
and support and reiterate the objection submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Associations, Inc.
We returned home the middle of April after 3.5 months onsite. During that time we did not hear one thing
about the petition until we arrived home. How can Bentley include our property/associations without
consulting anyone about their plans and think it’s best for all of us? It appears they are trying to slide
everything under the table for their benefit. Your help preventing this from passing will be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ted and Deborah Anderson
525 Lake Louise Circle
Unit 202
Naples FL, 34110
Page 546 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Pat Kupper <pjkupper@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 2:53 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Lance Horn
Subject:Retreat HOA opposition to (PL20230015039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of
The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Patricia Kupper
Page 547 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Gerry Hawkshaw <ghawkshaw51@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 12:36 PM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:Heidi Ashton
Subject:PUDA PL20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am the President of The Retreat Waterside II, Inc., a sub association within The Retreat Homeowners
Association (RHOA), and represent 22 unit owners, and we oppose CC Naples petition (PL20230015039)
and support and reiterate the objections submitted by Thornton Law Firm on behalf of The Retreat at
Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
Yours truly,
Gerry Hawkshaw
Page 548 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Linda Wilson <linwilson58@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 10:59 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Cc:lhorn@sx4all.ni
Subject:Objection to CC-Naples, Inc PUDA 20230015039
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
I live at 505 Lake Louise Circle, Unit 104, Naples, Fl, a condominium unit within
The Retreat Waterside. I oppose the petition (PL20230015039), and I support and
reiterate the objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One
Condo Association, Inc.
Sincerely,
Linda Wilson
Page 549 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Sue Sutto <suesutto@suesutto.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 9:48 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:PUDA(PL202300115039)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme cau Ɵon when
opening aƩachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I live at 541 Lake Louise Circle, unit 101 within the Retreat HOA. I am also the President of our 48 unit development
with The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo AssociaƟon, Inc. Our 48 unit AssociaƟon within The Retreat at Naples No.
One Condo AssociaƟon, Inc. objects to the peƟƟon of CC-Naples hereby aƩached by The Thornton Law Firm, PLLC.
Thank you for your consideraƟon.
Sue SuƩo
541 Lake Louise Circle
Unit 101
Naples, FL 34110
Sue SuƩo
Sue SuƩo ProperƟes
4058 Chilton Ct.
Erie, PA 16505
814-450-0350
suesuƩo@suesuƩo.com <mailto:suesuƩo@suesuƩo.com>
Page 550 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Lance Horn <lhorn@xs4all.nl>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 9:13 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:CC-Naples, Inc. Letter of Objection to PUDA(PL20230015039)
Importance:High
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Mr. Finn,
I live in a condominium unit at 541 Lake Louise Circle, unit 201, within the Retreat HOA,
and I oppose the petition (PL20230015039) by CC-Naples, Inc. I support and reiterate the
objections submitted on behalf of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.
by Thornton Law Firm, PLLC.
Sincerely,
Clarence E. Horn, III
Page 551 of 3380
1
Timothy Finn
From:Kevin Williams <kevin4osu@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:11 AM
To:Timothy Finn
Subject:CC Naples taking Units Per Acre from the Retreat
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
“I live in a condominium unit within the Retreat HOA, and I oppose the petition
(PL20230015039), and I support and reiterate the objections submitted on behalf
of The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.” Kevin Williams
President The Retreat Waterside Inc 505 Lake Louise Circle Unit 204
Page 552 of 3380
August 22, 2025
VIA EMAIL TO: Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
AND VIA US MAIL
Timothy Finn
Collier County GMCD
Planning and Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Dr
Naples FL 34104
RE: Letter of Objection; The Retreat at Naples PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn:
This letter of objection is submitted on behalf of our client The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo
Association, Inc. (48 units), with a mailing address of 1004 Collier Center Way, Suite 105, Naples
FL 34110, with respect to PUDA (PL20230015039) that was submitted by CC-Naples, Inc. as the
petitioner. Please include this letter of objection in the official record and minutes for the hearing
on this matter that is currently scheduled to go before the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) on September 4, 2025, and at any subsequent hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), and any continuation thereof.
Although the petitioner paid the pre-application fee two years ago and submitted the application
one year ago, and the petitioner’s team has been refining the proposal during all of that time, our
client only learned of the September 4, 2025 hearing date a few days ago. Therefore, due to
scheduling conflicts I will be unable to attend the CCPC hearing and it is possible that no
representatives from our client will be able to attend either. We do expect to attend the BCC
hearing which we understand is tentatively scheduled for October 28, 2025. Please note also that
we have not been privy to any staff report for this matter as there is not one published in the GMCD
portal, and the agenda and backup documents for the September 4, 2025 CCPC hearing are not yet
available on the county clerk’s Board Minutes and Records website. We are therefore by necessity
submitting our comments without the benefit of the staff report or knowledge whether the staff is
recommending approval or denial and whether any of our concerns may have been addressed.
Please note that we are advised that the objections of our client are also supported by the boards
of neighboring condominium associations at The Retreat at Naples No. Two Condo Association,
Inc. (20 units), The Retreat at Naples No. Three Condo Association, Inc. (10 units), The Retreat
Waterside, Inc. (44 units), The Retreat Waterside II, Inc. (22 units), and Waterside Place
Condominium Association, Inc. (20 units), and we anticipate representatives of these associations
to attend and/or submit their own written objections. Therefore, these objections are supported by
all six (6) condominium associations that are located within The Retreat Homeowner’s
Association, Inc., representing a total of 164 condominium units. The unit owners represented by
Page 553 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 2 of 5
these associations all own property that is located within the boundaries of the Retreat PUD that
is proposed to be amended by the subject application.
Objection 1. Failure to provide Property Ownership Disclosure. The county’s form of the
“Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone
(PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR)” reflects on Page 9 of 11 that a “Property Ownership Disclosure Form”
is required. The form of the “Property Ownership Disclosure Form” similarly indicates on Page 1
of 3 that “This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning
Verification Letters.” In the Collier County Administrative Code for Land Development, §§3G1
and 3G2 state that the required submittal materials for a PUDA include the “Property Ownership
Disclosure Form.” On the form of the Property Ownership Disclosure Form, the instructions in
Section b indicate that “If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: . . .” In this matter, the only Property
Ownership Disclosure Form that has been submitted by the applicant and uploaded in the portal
on December 19, 2024 provides the name of the corporate landowner as CC-Naples, Inc. and
provides the 2024 corporate annual report which discloses four individuals (J. Kevin Poorman,
Gary Smith, Tara Cope, and Thomas Muszynski) as the officers and directors. However, the
disclosure does not identify any stockholders of CC-Naples, Inc. Without disclosure of the
stockholders, and the percentage of stock owned by each, as required by the disclosure form, the
PUDA application is not sufficient. Further, as a practical matter, without that disclosure it is
impossible for the county staff, the members of the CCPC, and the members of the BCC to
determine whether they have a conflict of interest. The application should be rejected unless this
defect is corrected.
Objection 2. Petitioner may not apply to rezone property it does not own, and petitioner is
not entitled to density of more than 4 units per acre on the lands that it does own.
The petitioner is facing a double-edged sword in that if they are to achieve the goal of upzoning
for more than 4 units per acre on their lands within the PUD, they must either rezone all of the
lands in the PUD including the portions that they do not own, and then scrape or reallocate the
extra density that has been created to their land (which is the method that the petitioner has chosen),
or else they need to convince the county to let them have more than 4 units per acre on the lands
that they do own. As a result, the petitioner has attempted to obfuscate and hide the fact that they
are upzoning the entire PUD and then taking the additional density from Tract A that they do not
own in order to achieve more than 4 units per acre density that is prohibited by the FLUE.
Stated very simply, our client objects to the upzoning and then scraping off new density from their
lands in the PUD and all other aspects of the PUDA petition that change the applicable zoning on
their lands within the PUD without their consent and without their joinder in the application.
The Collier County Land Development Code provides in Section 10.02.08 that an amendment to
the zoning atlas may be proposed by the BCC, or by the CCPC, or by the BZA, or by any other
agency or department of the County, or by “Any person other than those listed . . . above;
provided, however, that no person shall propose an amendment for the rezoning of property
(except as agent or attorney for an owner) which he does not own. The name of the owner shall
appear in each application.” Therefore, the LDC prohibits the petitioner from rezoning Tract A
unless the owner of Tract A has joined in the petition.
Page 554 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 3 of 5
The fact that the petitioner has applied to rezone Tract A is evidenced by the proposed changes
regarding density. At its most basic, the petition seeks to increase the overall project density from
740 units (3.55 units per acre) to 834 units (4 units per acre) for the entire 208.51 acres, and then
allocate all of the newly created density (834-740 = 94) from the entire acreage to only the
petitioner’s lands, so that none of the newly created density goes to Tract A, even though the Tract
A acreage was used to reach the density numbers. Because the property is designated as Urban
Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan limits the density to 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The upzoning as
proposed by the petition results in the petitioner’s lands getting 4.23 units per acre, or else it results
in the overall density of the PUD being 4 units per acre and all of the new density from Tract A
getting shifted to petitioner’s land. One or the other must be true, and both violate the LDC. The
fact is that the PUD is no longer under unified ownership, and the petitioner is not permitted to
shift density from lands in the PUD that it does not own.
According to the master plan in the existing zoning under Ord. 97-71, the land where our client
and the other five existing condominium associations are located is designated as Tract A. The
Tract A lands have been subdivided as Lots 1-19, The Retreat Unit One, PB 12, page 100. The
Tract A lands where the condominium properties are located are in the southwest portion of the
PUD. Under the current zoning in Ord. 97-71, Tract A is zoned for 53.55 acres of land and a
maximum density of 3.32 1 units per acre for a total of 178 units. The petitioner’s lands in the
existing PUD, which are identified in Ord. 97-71 as Tracts B, C and D, are zoned for 68.87 acres
and 2.76 units per acre for Tract B (190 units), 39.99 acres and 5.85 units per acre for Tract C
(234 units), and 46.10 acres and 2.99 units per acre for Tract D (138 units), for a total of 562 units.
In other words, under the zoning that exists today, the entire PUD of 208.55 acres is capped at 740
units, with 178 of those units allocated to Tract A which is not owned by petitioner 2, and 562 units
allocated to the petitioner’s Tracts B, C and D, for an overall average density throughout the PUD
of 3.55 units per acre. When the original PUD was approved, all of the acreage was under common
ownership and shifting density around from tract to tract was not an issue.
The petitioner has now proposed the PUDA to upzone the entire acreage of the PUD of 208.55
acres to an overall average at the maximum density allowed under the Future Land Use Element
of the Growth Management Plan of 4 units per acre. As a result, if approved, the PUD as a whole
will be allowed 208.55 x 4 = 834 units. However, the petition does not propose to upzone Tract A
to 4 units per acre and allocate those extra 36 units to Tract A for future redevelopment. Instead,
if the petition is approved, our client and the other condominium associations in Tract A will still
be capped at 178 units, while the extra density from the Tract A acreage and from the Tract B, C,
and D acreage will all be allocated Tracts B, C and D, so that the petitioner gets 656 units and an
average density of 4.23 units per acre.
This issue of the identity of the petitioner and the need to avoid affecting the rights of Tract A was
astutely raised by the comments of County Attorney’s Office in the GMD review letter dated
1 The PUD Ord. 97-71 actually says Tract A has a density of 3.01 units per acre, which is apparently a typo and should be 3.32 to reach
the 178 units allowed. The petitioner proposes to correct this typo as part of the PUDA.
2 The petitioner does appear to own Lots 16 and 19 in Tract A, as well as two condominium units in The Retreat at Naples No. Three
Condominium Association, Inc., but this fact does not give the petitioner the right to rezone Tract A or to scrape the upzoned density
from Tract A.
Page 555 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 4 of 5
December 19, 2024 3 and the same concern was reiterated by the CAO in the GMD review letter
dated March 14, 2025. In addition, in an apparent attempt to address or sidestep this issue, the
Notes on the PUD Exhibit document that is part of the proposed PUDA changes states “No changes
are being made to Tract “A” as part of this PUDA.” This self-serving statement is simply not true
and is contradicted by what is being proposed.
If the petitioner is going to modify the PUD so that its 155 acres goes from 562 units to 656 units,
then the density on the petitioner’s lands will go from 3.63 units per acre to 4.23 units per acre.
Therefore, the petitioner is either upzoning Tract A without the joinder of the owner of Tract A
and then scraping the extra density from Tract A to be used on petitioner’s tracts, or else the
petitioner is proposing to exceed the 4 units per acre cap on its lands that is imposed by the FLUE.
The fact that the petition does propose to “rezone” Tract A is further evidenced by impacts other
than the upzoning and scraping of density. For example, another proposal of the PUDA is to
redesignate and reconfigure the preserve areas throughout the PUD master plan. In the existing
PUD Ord. 97-71, all or almost all of the preserve areas are located in petitioner’s Tract B (proposed
to be renamed as Tract B3), and there is little to no preserve located in Tract A. However, under
the proposed reconfiguration, the new master plan does create several new preserve areas that are
in the Retreat HOA lake tract, and the Retreat HOA tennis court tract, and the Retreat HOA
swimming pool tract, all within Tract A. Not only does the new PUDA master plan create new
preserve areas within Tract A on land that does not belong to petitioner, but the proposed new
verbiage in PUD Sections 7.3, 7.9, and 7.10 now will impose for the first time a new requirement
that all prohibited exotic vegetation must be removed from the entire site. The title of PUDA
section 7 in the proposed ordinance makes it very clear that this new exotic vegetation requirement
is “applicable to Tract A” as that new language is proposed and underlined. So not only does the
petitioner seek to satisfy its preservation and native preservation requirements by designating new
preserves on land it does not own, but it also proposes to implement a new requirement for removal
of exotics from those newly created preserve areas that did not exist before.
With respect to the specific rezone criteria to be considered in reviewing the proposed petition, it
is the position of our client that items 1, 11, 12, and 13 have not been met. With respect to criteria
1, whether the proposal is consistent with the GMP, the FLUE and FLUM, it is clear that the
petition proposes to have 4.23 units per acre density on the petitioner’s lands, which exceeds the
4 unit per acre cap. The only way the petitioner avoids this problem is by obfuscating the fact that
in reality they are upzoning Tract A and taking density from lands that are not theirs.
3 The review comment by the CAO on page 3 of the December 19, 2024 GMD review letter provides as follows:
Rejected Review: County Attorney Review
Reviewed By: Derek Perry
Email: Derek.Perry@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-8066
Correction Comment 1:
Please see the attached CAO markup as a preliminary review. The owners of Tract A do not appear to be a party to this
PUDA, and thus their property rights must remain intact and vested throughout the amendment. Additionally, there are
careless mistakes and numbers that don’t add up. Please review the document carefully for the second submittal. Substantive
review to commence upon second submittal. Applicant is encouraged to utilize the post-review meeting to work with staff
to address issues raised at this first review. As always, please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or need
anything: Derek D. Perry, (239) 252-8066. [emphasis added]
Page 556 of 3380
August 22, 2025
Page 5 of 5
With respect to rezone criteria 11, the proposal will be a deterrent to future redevelopment of the
condominium association parcels on Tract A. While those parcels are currently built out with their
existing units, it is no longer unusual for condominium projects to be terminated and demolished
and then redeveloped if they experience significant damage from hurricanes. If the lands in this
PUD are deserving and entitled to 4 units per acre, then the condominium associations in Tract A
object to having their future redevelopment potential reduced by this petition which takes away 36
units of future development. Those extra 36 units should be allocated to Tract A.
With respect to rezone criteria 12, the petition will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare in that the petitioner is not supposed to be
able to rezone land that it does not own, and is not supposed be able to be approved for more than
4 units per acre.
With respect to rezone criteria 13, there is no substantial reason why the property cannot continue
to be used in accordance with the existing zoning. According to the PUD master list, the PUD is
“built out.” The petitioner owns three out of the four tracts within the PUD and is already allocated
the right to build 562 units on its 155 acres. The proposal is to upzone the petitioner’s acreage and
gain 94 units from their land, while only 58 of those new units could possibly come from the
petitioner’s lands, and 36 are being taken from Tract A.
Our client requests that the petition be denied, or in the alternative if approved that the 36 units to
be created by upzoning the Tract A acreage must be allocated to Tract A, such that Tract A has
204 units, and petitioner’s Tracts B1, B2 and B3 have 620 units. Our client does not waive any
rights and reserves the right to supplement these objections. Our client further reserves and does
not waive any rights to density allocations or restrictions arising from any restrictive covenant
including but not limited to the Second Amended and Restated Declaration for the Retreat recorded
July 10, 2024 at OR 6378, page 3588.
Very truly yours,
THORNTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
Christopher J. Thornton, Esquire
For the firm
E-mail: cthornton@swflalaw.com
cc: Heidi Ashton-Cicko (via email to Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov)
Robert Mulhere (rmulhere@bowman.com)
Client
Page 557 of 3380
To: Mr. Timothy Finn
Date: August 22, 2025
Re: Formal Objection to PUDA 20230015039
The purpose of this letter is to submit a formal written objection to PUDA 20230015039
(“PUDA) regarding CC Naples’s proposed revisions to PUD 97-71. This written
narrative is being submitted to you as the Collier County staff member with the
responsibility of assuring that this information complies with the ten (10) day receipt
requirement and becomes a permanent part of the record.
I have previously submitted to Mr. Perry, Mr. Hill and yourself a letter in an email dated
May 19, 2025, identifying various objections to the PUDA. That letter was prepared by
me following the NIM held on April 23, 2025, and is incorporated herein by this
reference. I have attempted not be redundant in both of my letters.
I will attempt to summarize the absurdity of CC Naples proposed changes by some
specific facts:
PUD 82-97, PUD 86-27 and the current PUD 97-71 covers a period of 45 years – the
maximum housing density within these documents has always been 740 Units within our
208.51acre Community, which is broken down by TRACTS.
- The Maximum Density TRACTS in PUD 97-71 are detailed below:
Tract A (The Retreat) 178 Units 3.01 Units Per Acre 53.55 Acres
Tract B (East of Us to 41) 190 Units 2.76 Units Per Acre 68.87 Acres
Tract C (North of Tract A) 234 Units 5.85 Units Per Acre 39.99 Acres
Tract D (N/E of Us to 41) 138 Units 2.99 Units Per Acre 46.10 Acres
740 Units 3.55 Units Per Acre 208.51 Acres
Comments as to Increase in Density
A.) The Retreat does not agree to an increase in any housing density.
B.) CC Naples seeks an increase in 94 Senior Housing Units (834 Units minus 740
Units). This is based on 4 units per Acre (4 x 208.55 acres = 834 Units). They
also assert that all these units will be used by them anywhere and anytime they
want within their three (3) Tracts B, C, D which they want to rename as
Tracts B1, B2, B3.
My Objection: The Retreat has 53.55 acres and is currently limited to 178 units
(3.01 Units per Acre). So, if the 4 units per acre does happen -- Tract A’s
proportionate share increase would be either 36 Units based on acreage
(53.55/208.51 X 834 minus 178) or as high as 53 Units if computed based on 3.1
Units (4.0 - 3.1 = .99 X 53.55).
My Objection: The allotted Units per Acre by TRACT, as stated in the current
PUD, has been properly monitored (tracking, compiling and verifying information
related to the PUD to ensure the developers meet their obligations) by Collier
County Planning and Zoning Division during Vi’s Developments of TRACT B in
1997; and TRACT D over the past several years (West Clubhouse; East
Page 558 of 3380
Building/Residence; Critical Care and Assisted Living Expansions and the four
(4) recent Northeast Units). CC Naples has nowhere else to build in the
Community except on Tract C which currently has 234 Units (smaller sq. ft. floor
plans) and has 5.85 Units per acre limit. So, they are already well over the 4.0
units per acre reflected in their proposed PUD.
My Objection: Their reference that the 94 Unit addition is for “Senior Living”
ignores the fact that Retreat (Tract A) has no age ownership restrictions since we
are not an over 55 community. On the other hand, CC Naples cliental are ‘leasing’
units which incorporates an Assisted Living and Critical Care living phases
program based on the health of its lessee. So, their stating that a PUDA will have
94 Senior Living Units is misleading. However, it does imply that they intend to
use our Units for their sole benefit.
C.) While their proposed MAP provides some detailed information, it specifically
omits by design the most critical element -- the number of housing units per
TRACT (all prior PUDs provided this critical element). Again, this is misleading
since it would have highlighted that their request for increase in density and its
allocation is absurd.
My Objection: CC Naples proposes to assign Tract A an new density of 3.32
dwelling units per acre—up from the current 3.01. CC-Naples has no control or
ownership over Tract A. This is not merely a cartographic oversight or a non-
material boundary adjustment. This is a direct attempt to leverage Tract A’s
entitlements to absorb more units into Tracts B, C and D without legal authority,
transfer, or consent. This conclusion is based on all relevant land use maps and the
proposed PUD ordinance language. Fact is, Collier County Attorney Perry
acknowledged that Tract A is not a party to the amendment and thus their property
rights must remain intact and vested throughout the amendment.
My Objection: The use of Tract A’s land area and entitlements—absent an
executed transfer agreement or unified control covenant—violates both the
Collier County Land Development Code and the governing documents of the
Association.
- Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.13(B)(1)(b) requires that
applications for PUD amendments demonstrate “adequacy of evidence of unified
control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other
instruments.” This PUDA includes Tract A, which is controlled by The Retreat
HOA (as to Common Lands) and its Six (6) Retreat Condominium Associations
(by owner membership in building lots). No unified control or consent agreement
with CC‐Naples exists. The Associations were not listed as co-applicants; have
not participated in the amendment process and have not transferred or
relinquished any rights related to Tract A.
- Section 6.1 of the RHOA Declaration limits the authority to initiate amendments
or redevelopment actions under the PUD.
Page 559 of 3380
D.) Is there a need for additional units?
I leave that up to the Commissioners to decide. However, in their response to that
question during the April 23rd NIM, they asserted it was based on sales and
marketing data focusing on potential customers who wanted more living space
and higher ceilings.
My Objection: Okay, then just increase floor plans size on TRACT C by
consolidating some of the 234 Units. Done.
My Objection: Currently, from Jan 1 to July 30 of this year approximately
350,000 vehicles have entered the community -- primarily for Vi staff and
services. That is about 105 vehicles per hour (16 hour day) which approximately
equates to one (1) vehicle every 30 seconds. Increased density will exacerbate the
situation. This volume is significant but reflects the difference between ‘owner ’
occupied residences (the Retreat) and operating a business of leasing units to
Seniors (CC Naples) and providing them food, daily health care services, etc.,
both located within the same community.
Comments on TRACTS and Boundaries
A.) My Objection: Change in nomenclature (TRACTS B, C, D to B1, B2, B3) creates
confusion not clarity to 45 years of historical legal documents – PUDs, Property
Descriptions in Land Records, operating documents like Declarations, Cost
Sharing Agreements, etc. However, it is necessary for Vi to circumvent Collier
County’s control and monitoring of Units during their future development of
Tract C or for that matter any of the other Tracts.
B.) My Objection: They have made two submissions relative to Preserve Areas:
1.) CC Naples assert that a Preserve Area exist on Tract A over by the tennis
courts which is factually incorrect. It is Common Area not a Preserve Area
(See Ref Bk 3 Pgs 49,50).
2.) They assert that the Preserve Area on the North boundary (Cypress Area)
should be eliminated. This should not happen. The Preserve Areas should not
be encroached upon for purposes of future construction projects of CC Naples
for the sole purpose of making profits for them at the expense of the scenic
and natural backdrop of the lake.
3.) No changes to Tract A should be permitted since it is not a party to the PUDA.
Comments on New Access Point, High Tension Wires and Building Heights
A.) CC Naples is requesting an additional access point (the Northwest corner of the
property) for service vehicles, it relates to the road that borders the northern
boundary of our complex (previously used for the construction of Vi new Units).
They assert that these vehicles would no longer need to travel on Retreat Drive.
My Objections: The North boundary line was originally a swale with a cart path
which they removed and put in a ‘temporary road’ for their developments several
years ago with an understanding with the RHOA that the property (swale and cart
path) would be restored to its original state. Furthermore, they also asserted the
Page 560 of 3380
electric towers will eventually be buried and the swale will be restored with cart
path to walk on (as reflected in the PUDA). A time limit should be placed on both
of these promises or it may never be done.
Other Significant Concerns
Permitting CC Naples to take our future building rights to be used at their sole discretion
fails to recognize that such action would prevent Tract A owners to proceed with its own
redevelopment options through its six (6) Condominium Associations. For example, we
live in area of high risk associated with hurricanes, which could force the demolition of a
building. Association owners may wish to have the option to build a three-story building
similar to that which currently exists in Retreat Condo Association #1. Allowing CC
Naples to take those development rights from us without our acquiescence is unlawful.
Section 6.1 of the RHOA Declaration limits the authority to initiate amendments or
redevelopment actions under the PUD to only those parties that “develop, own, maintain,
operate or otherwise control” the portion of the property being affected. Accordingly,
CC- Naples—despite being a sub-association for administrative purposes—has no
authority to initiate PUD amendments affecting Tract A, which it neither owns nor
controls.
Furthermore, any attempt to assign development rights or density from Tract A governed
property to an unaffiliated party like CC- Naples would still require approval under
applicable county law and internal governance. I urge Collier County’s Planning
Commission and the Board of Commissioners to permit Tract A governed property rights
to be controlled by us not CC Naples.
As discussed above, if the PUDA is approved in its current form, the Retreat Associations
faces several legal and operational risks: Loss of Future Development Flexibility;
Increased Density burdens of traffic; Loss of Scenic and Natural setting within the
Community; and Increased Cost burdens on roads, utilities and stormwater systems street
which is controlled by the RHOA cost-sharing agreements.
If the amendment were to be approved without correcting these errors, the Association
would have a basis to challenge the action on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Furthermore, Tract A members (owners) may claim that their property rights have been
impaired without proper notice, vote, or compensation, raising concerns of fiduciary
breach at all levels of administration.
My General Observation
As previously noted, Tract A members (owners) in Homeowner and Condo Associations
have been left in the dark and blindsided by CC Naples PUDA. CC Naples is a
profitmaking business operating a Senior Assisted Living Facility for wealthy individuals
and have little or no respect for its neighbor (Tract A owners) despite the fact that we
share the same community.
Page 561 of 3380
CC Naples has a past history of taking ‘common areas within the community’ for their
own member’s benefit, enjoyment and financial gain. For example:
- The entire Western ‘Common Area’ bordering Vanderbilt Dr from Retreat Drive to
Audubon property line (building various structures to service only their members);
- Walking/Cart Paths during their West Clubhouse development 7 years ago;
- Walking/Cart Paths during their East Clubhouse development 5 years ago;
- Walking/Cart Paths during the most recent Development; and
- The entire North border of the property which was a drainage Swale and cart path
they made into a road (part of the current PUD proposal).
So, what CC Naples are attempting to do now in their proposed PUD just reflects a much
higher level of contempt and disrespect towards the Retreat Tract A’s Homeowner and
Condo Associations, its Board Members, Representatives and owners. It is simply an
attempt to railroad this PUDA through the County without the consent, participation, or
legal authority of either The Retreat Homeowners Association and/or TRACT A Condo
Associations.
With all due respect to the Collier County Boards and Commissioners who will decide
the outcome of PUDA 20230015039, I request that this written formal objection be
placed in the Record for review and consideration.
Regards,
Mark A. Quatrano
Page 562 of 3380
Tim Finn (239.252.4312); Derek Perry (239.252.8066); Chris Hall
Gentlemen,
My name is Mark Quatrano, my wife and I live at 521 Lake Louise CT Unit 102. Our
home is located within the Retreat Community in the Retreat Condominium #2
Association. I am a former Director of the Retreat Homeowners Association and former
President of our sub-association for over a decade.
I write you to address our concerns regarding the revisions to PUD 97-71, specifically,
the revisions proposed by CC Naples in PL20230015039. I attended and spoke at the
Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and hope you have reviewed the recorded
video of that April meeting.
I would like to first address the fact that CC Naples submitted their proposed revision to
you in September 2023. Yet, none of the Retreat’s six sub-associations were aware of
this until we received a mailing from Bowman in April of 2025, a week before the NIM
took place. The proposed revisions were never mentioned at two Annual RHOA
meetings in 2024 or 2025 attend by the TRACT A owners. So, we were blindsided by
CC Naples and then shocked to hear of their proposed increase in density of 94 Senior
Housing Units (834 Units minus 740 Units). This is based on 4 units per Acre (4 x
208.55 acres = 834 Units).
The computation and terminology used by CC Naples is incorrect and misleading .
1.) CC Naples does not own TRACT A, which has 53.55 acres with 178 Units (3.01
Units per Acre) under PUD 97-71, which is consistent with all prior PUD’s 82-097
and PUD 86-27 issued, followed and monitored since the community was
originally developed by Concord Ltd. Co.
2.) TRACT A is not an over 55 community. The Units are all individually owned and
can be owned or sold to anyone – young or old. The 178 Units all fall within the
purview of six-sub associations. So, CC Naples terminology as “Senior Housing
Units” by CC Naples is misleading and is simply incorrect.
3.) Furthermore, requesting an increase of 94 Senior Housing Units also fails to
recognize that 48.195 of such Units (those attributed to TRACT A: 4.0-3.01 Units
X 53.55 acres) are not available to be used by CC Naples in their computation
and/or their ultimate use in their TRACTS B, C & D, which they want to rename
TRACTS B1, B2, B3.
4.) So, even assuming the increase to 4.0 Units per acre is permitted by the Collier
County Board of Commissioners, 48.195 of such Units are property rights of the
TRACT A owners not CC Naples.
So, why the need for an increase in density?
Page 563 of 3380
We assert that CC Naples’s purpose in requesting the modification to the current PUD is
two-fold. Circumventing Collier County’s monitoring of Units as they proceed with their
next redevelopment at TRACT C and profiteering.
1.) Their proposed MAP specifically omits the most critical element regarding density
--- the number of housing units to be allocated to each TRACT.
Fact is, over the past several years CC Naples has fully developed and
renovated TRACTS B and D. Collier County has been properly monitoring these
redevelopments making sure CC Naples stays within the TRACT’s maximum
Unit density levels of the PUD 97-71. We don’t dispute these two facts. We note
that, CC Naples’s Unit count doesn’t include Units in their Critical Care, Assisted
Living or their Guest Hotel. Simply put, they have no more space in TRACTS B
and D, which leaves only TRACT C for them to do any future expansion.
2.) However, TRACT C currently has 234 Units (smaller sq. ft. floor plans) and a
current 5.85 Units per acre limit. So, they are already well over the 4.0 units per
acre reflected in their proposed PUD for that specific TRACT. They assert the
increase is needed because prospective customers demand more living space. If
so, why not just increase the floor plans size by consolidating some of the 234
Units. If two units were consolidated into one Unit this would free up Units.
3.) Obviously, 94 additional Units (irrespective of 48.195 Units belonging to Tract A
owners) would generate millions of dollars in profits for them at the cost of
increased density to us in the Retreat, which is located directly across the street
from TRACT C.
Retreat doesn’t want increased density – more people and cars and more
assisted living staffing. This is the difference between owner occupied residences
(the Retreat) and an Assisted Living business (CC Naples leases Units to its
Seniors) are both located within the same gated community. The key difference
being a business operates with the goal of making profits, and a Condo
Association goal is to breakeven.
Comments on TRACTS and Boundaries
Change in nomenclature (TRACTS B, C, D to B1, B2, B3) creates confusion not clarity
to 45 years of historical legal documents – PUDs, Property Descriptions in Land
Records, operating documents like Declarations, Cost Sharing Agreements, etc.
We recognize this is a Zoning issue and the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners holds the authority to prepare, adopt and enforce the Land
Development Code, which includes regulations related to Planned Unit Developments.
Page 564 of 3380
Furthermore, that PUD Monitoring section of the Planning and Zoning Division within
Collier County government is responsible for tracking, compiling and verifying
information related to PUD annual reports and ensuring developers meet their
obligations.
We in the Retreat (TRACT A) do not support any increase in housing density.
We would like you all to know that the Retreat Sub-Associations are in the process of
securing legal representation in this matter. We expect that you will recognize and
protect our rights of ownership on any Units attributed to TRACT A in a revised PUD.
Best Regards,
Mark A Quatrano,
Page 565 of 3380
23739208 _1
999 Vanderbilt Beach Rd
Suite 401
Naples, FL 34108
Direct Dial 239.649.2736
PHONE 239.649.6200 FAX 239.261.3659
alupo@ralaw.com
WWW.RALAW.COM
August 25, 2025
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP
Principal Planner
Collier County Growth Management Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: CC-Naples, Inc./ Response to August 22, 2025 Letter of Objection/ The
Retreat at Naples PUDA (PL-20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn:
As introduction, this Firm is local general counsel to CC-Naples, Inc. (“CC-Naples” or
“Applicant”). This letter is related to my client’s pending application PL-20230015039 (“Application”)
to amend existing Collier County PUD Ordinance No. 97-71 (The Retreat at Naples Planned Unit
Development) and is sent to address The Retreat at Naples No. One Condo Association, Inc.’s (“Retreat
I Condo’s”) Letter of Objection dated August 22, 2025 (“Letter”). Please include this response within
all submissions which contain the Letter. In addition, this letter provides the history of Applicant’s
transparency and communications with the Retreat Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (“Master
Association”), the master homeowner’s association within The Retreat PUD which comprises both
Retreat I Condo and other subassociations within The Retreat PUD, along with CC-Naples supporting
documentation for Applicant’s Application.
I.Retreat I Condo’s Misunderstanding of Zoning Action.
The Letter of Objection hinges on the Retreat I Condo’s misunderstanding of zoning actions.
Namely, the Retreat I Condo accuses Applicant of upzoning the entirety of the property and
“scraping density” from Tract A to the benefit of Applicant’s Tracts B, C and D without the consent
of the Tract A property owners. As discussed below, it appears that the Retreat I Condo
misapprehends both the County’s regulations and the private agreements which affect the
respective parties’ rights and obligations.
The Letter repeatedly states that the Application requests to rezone Tract A, citing both density
“scraping” and reconfiguration of the onsite indigenous open space (designated “Preserve” on the
MCP). This is plainly false. This is not a rezoning to PUD, but an amendment to the portions of
the PUD Property owned by the Applicant in conformance with the County’s LDC.
Page 566 of 3380
Page 2
23739208 _1
The Retreat I Condo cites concerns over the Application’s impact on its hypothetical future
redevelopment to increase the number of approved units on its property. This is founded upon the
erroneous belief that the 4 du/acre base density is a density cap. Additionally, the Retreat I Condo
misconstrues their rights to add density in the event of a hurricane. The Retreat I Condo’s vested
rights include the number of units currently constructed, which remain unaffected by the
Application. Hypothetical opinions are not competent substantial evidence. Katherine’s Bay, LLC
v. Fagan, 52 So.3d 19 (1st DCA 2010). Regardless, the current regulations do not prohibit approval
of such request. The undersigned respectfully submits that it would behoove the Retreat I Condo
to review the Density Rating System and the Master Association’s governing documents to
understand the nature and extent of their future development rights.
As evidenced by the Application’s request to maintain the number of approved units for Tract A,
the Applicant has not requested to transfer any density from Tract A to Tracts B1-B3; rather, the
request to increase density on Tracts B1-B3 is derived from the LDC base density for the project.
If the Retreat I Condo wishes to increase their density in the future to the base density or to a higher
bonus density, they are free to do so and this Application would not interfere with such approval.
The Retreat I Condo also argues that the criteria for approval are not met. First, the Retreat I
Condo argues that the Application fails to satisfy Criterion 1, requiring consistency with the
comprehensive plan. Again, the Retreat I Condo misunderstands that 4 dus/acre is the base density
permitted by right, not a density cap.
The Retreat I Condo next asserts that the Application fails to satisfy Criterion 11, arguing that
approval of the Application would be a deterrent to redevelopment because, in the Retreat I
Condo’s opinion, it would restrict their “future redevelopment potential.” First, redevelopment
does not always equate to increasing density, especially in the context of rebuilding after a
hurricane. Should the Retreat I Condo wish to leverage the impacts of a natural disaster for their
financial benefit, they can seek to do so through the same process the Applicant has followed.
Second, as discussed above, the Retreat I Condo misunderstands the County’s Density Rating
System and the density allocations within The Retreat. The Application does not deter the Retreat
I Condo’s, or anyone else’s, ability to redevelop.
The Retreat I Condo also asserts that the Application fails to satisfy Criterion 12, alleging that it
would confer a special privilege to the Applicant in contrast with the public welfare. The density
requested comports with both the County’s requirements and the Applicant’s density allocation
within The Retreat. No special privilege would be given to Applicant upon approval of the
Application.
Finally, the Retreat I Condo argues that the Application fails to satisfy Criterion 13 because the
PUD is already “built out” and because they object to the Applicant’s exercise of its density rights.
This fails for the same reasons as their objection to Criterion 1 fails.
Page 567 of 3380
Page 3
23739208 _1
The Retreat I Condo cites other objections that similarly fail to pass muster. Applicant
representatives sit on the Board of the Master Association and interface with the condominium
associations within Tract A on a regular basis regarding a variety of matters. The Retreat I Condo
contains only 48 units within the Master Association’s 556 units. Regardless, Florida law is clear
that notice of the hearings on the proposed request is not provided to take a poll of the neighbors,
but rather to provide potentially affected property owners with notice of a decision that might
affect their rights. Orange County v. City of Apopka, 299 So.2d 652, 655 (Fla.App.1974). As
such, opposition is not to be given even a cumulative effect. See Id.
The Retreat I Condo asserts that the Applicant intends to “obfuscate” some alleged nefarious
attempt to rob the Retreat I Condo of its property rights; however, this position ignores both the
Applicant’s density entitlements and the substance of the Application. The Applicant possesses
the right to develop the remaining units. Indeed, the Second Amended and Restated Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Retreat, recorded in O.R. Book 6378, Page
3588, Public Records of Collier County, Florida (“Declaration”) provides that the Declarant and
its successors retain any remaining allowable density “yet or not used” within The Retreat. Per
Section 1.10 of the Declaration, the Applicant is the Declarant. Therefore, the Applicant retains
legal rights to develop the remaining density, including the additional units requested.
It is elementary that the Applicant’s density entitlements would be allocated to the Property it
owns, hence no proposed changes to Tract A. This has been consistently discussed in the
Application case file and in communications between the Applicant and Tract A property owners.1
It is pertinent to note that the Retreat I Condo requests, as one of its “relief”, reallocation of units
from the Applicant’s property to Tract A. As stated above, Retreat I Condo has the right to propose
its own application under the Density Rating System. The Retreat I Condo acknowledges that the
Applicant and County have worked on this Application for two (2) years; however, the Letter
conveniently omits any reference to the Applicant’s actual good faith communications with Tract
A property owners during this time. The Retreat I Condo did not request to join the Application,
yet now claims at the eleventh hour an unsubstantiated entitlement to the Applicant’s property
rights. This is the very act that the Retreat I Condo condemns.
1 The revision to Tract A density is not an actual increase to the density entitlements for this area, but
is intended to correct a minor mathematical error. Ordinance 97-71 approved 178 units within Tract
A, which contains +/- 53.55 acres. The codified density of 3.01 was simply a scrivener’s error, as this
density calculation would have allowed 161 units, not 178. The density approved in 1997 was actually
3.32. As such, the density calculation proposed for Tract A does not change the entitlements for Tract
A but simply corrects an erroneous calculation. Such correction is immaterial and does not require
Condo consent, nor would such correction require a public hearing.
Page 568 of 3380
Page 4
23739208 _1
II.History of Transparency and Communication with Master Association
Over the past several years, Applicant and Retreat I Condo’s Master Association
negotiated, and the Master Association Board and its members approved, agreements anticipating
CC-Naples continued, strategic redevelopment of its Bentley Village property. CC-Naples
approaches its commitment to Bentley Village with thoughtful, long-term planning, and once
specific plans are authorized by the CC-Naples Board, these plans are disclosed to both its Bentley
Village residents and members of The Retreat at Association Board meetings which are open to
all owners within The Retreat community.
The Retreat is a master planned community/homeowner’s association within The Retreat
PUD that encompasses The Retreat - Unit One Plat and Bentley Village Phase I & Phase II, each
subject to The Retreat Declaration and administered by the Association. Over the past two years,
the Association Board and Retreat Members approved a Second Amended and Restated
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Retreat, recorded in O.R. Book
6378, Page 3588, Public Records of Collier County, Florida (“Declaration”), and the Association
Board approved an Amended and Restated Agreement of Easements and Covenant to Share Costs
(“Covenant to Share Costs” or “Covenant”). The Covenant to Share Costs was approved by the
Master Association Board and recorded on October 3, 2023. A copy is attached for your reference.
As part of the 2023 Covenant to Share Costs, the Association granted to CC-Naples, among
other obligations and powers, the right, power and authority to create, build, construct, maintain,
repair, replace, preserve, provide, alter, operate and/or improve signage, landscaping and lighting,
entry gates, gate control devices, control entry access, roadways, guardhouses, and manned
courtesy entry gates (including related secured or controlled access services), on, upon, to, from
and/or between U.S. Highway 41, Vanderbilt Drive and Retreat Drive.
This Covenant, which was negotiated as part of the larger discussion along with the
subsequently-approved Declaration, bolstered CC-Naples’ long term goal of continued
redevelopment to maintain Vi at Bentley Village in the first-class, resort-style standard adopted
by CC-Naples consistent with its ownership, development, management, operation and
reinvestment in, of and upon the Bentley Village Properties contained within The Retreat PUD.
This Covenant also specifically contains language allowing for the amendment of the
Covenant to Share Costs, if needed, to specifically comply with any requirement that Collier
County may impose as part of CC-Naples’ land use applications. See Section 3.8 of the Covenant.
This document was approved by the Master Association Board at an open Board meeting following
numerous discussions at other open Board meetings of the Master Association Board.
After the Covenant to Share Costs was approved and recorded, the Retreat Master
Association and CC-Naples negotiated and finalized the Declaration, which was ultimately
approved at a special meeting of members of The Retreat on June 20, 2024. Again, this
Declaration was approved by both the Master Association Board and the Retreat
membership, and it recognizes (1) CC-Naples as the Declarant under the Declaration, (2)
Page 569 of 3380
Page 5
23739208 _1
CC-Naples’ entitlement to any remaining density credits and (3) stated the Association’s
endorsement, consent to and support of CC-Naples’ land use development proposals in
obtaining these known, allowable density rights.
Declaration Section 9.13, copied below, provides the Declarant and its successors retain
any remaining allowable density “yet or not used” within The Retreat.
CC-Naples, as the Tract B owner, is the Declarant under the Declaration. See Declaration
section 1.10. Further, Declaration section 2.1(e), copied below, provides that the Retreat Board
should not unreasonably withhold or delay its endorse, consent to and support of CC-Naples’ land
use development proposals in furtherance of obtaining its allowable density rights under
Declaration Section 9.13.
The above is submitted to provide the context and background as to the long history of
transparency between CC-Naples and the Master Association as to the current application, CC-
Naples entitlement to its request in the subject application under the Retreat Declaration and The
Retreat community’s support for the requested density request and transfer.
Please let me know if I can provide further clarification or context to any of these issues.
Page 570 of 3380
Page 6
23739208 _1
Very truly yours,
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
Ashley D. Lupo B.C.S.
Board Certified Specialist
Condominium and Planned Development
Law
Page 571 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3619
INSTR 6459824 OR 6293 PG 20 E-RECORDED 10/3/2023 11:00 AM PAGES 34
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
REC $290.50
Return to:
Neal P. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 8400
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Aboiv space left blank for recording purposes.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT OF EASEMENTS
AND
COVENANT TO SHARE COSTS
This AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF EASEMENTS AND COVENANT TO
SHARE COSTS (the "Agreement") is duly authorized and effective as of January 1, 2023 (the
"Effective Date"), by and between:
• The Retreat Homeowners Association, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation
(interchangeably, the "Association", the "Master Association", and/or the "RHOA");
and
• CC-Naples, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(as the context dictates, "CC-Naples" and/or the "Tract B Owner");
and, solely with respect to the Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of
Surface Water Management System (with Cross-Easements) attached hereto as Exhibit D
and incorporated by reference,
• Classic Bentley Village, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation
(as the context dictates, "Bentley Village" or "CBVI");
together, the "Parties".
This Agreement amends, restates, replaces and supersedes in its entirety the AGREEMENT OF
EASEMENTS AND COVENANT TO SHARE COSTS, as recorded at Official Records Book
2376, Pages 2143, et seq., Public Records of Collier County, Florida ("Original Agreement").
This Agreement shall not be deemed to be an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Retreat, as recorded at Official
Records Book 2376, Pages 1997, et. seq., Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
1
Page 572 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3620
OR 6293 PG 21
RECITALS
A. The Retreat is a planned unit development located within Section 9, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The Retreat originally was envisioned to be
developed as a master community of residential properties by Concord Co. Ltd., an Ohio limited
partnership (interchangeably, the "Original Declarant" and/or the "Original Master
Developer"). The Original Master Developer created The Retreat in its capacity as the Original
Declarant pursuant to a 1)eclaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Retreat,
(as amended, supplemented, and later, further amended and restated, as historically described in
Exhibit A-1, herein, and therein described, as it may be amended or amended and restated from
time to time, the "Declaration").
B. The Retreat consists or certain real property subjected to the Declaration and legally
described as a whole in Exhibit A-2 attached hereto (herein, described as a whole, the "Retreat
Property"). The Retreat Property is comprised of three plat areas or master land parcels commonly
known by name and/or tract as follows (herein, as each described below, the "Retreat
Properties"):
(i) The Retreat — Unit One, described, platted and recorded at Plat Book 12,
Pages 100-102, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and referenced by illustration
in Reference Book 3, Page 49, Public Records of Collier County, Florida as "Tract A".
Tract A contains within it two common area sub-associations known as (1) The Retreat
Commons One Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Commons
One"), and (2) The Retreat Commons Two I I omeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as "Commons Two"); and
(ii) Bentley Village, Phase I (a/kia The Retreat — Unit 2) referenced as
"unplatted" at Plat Book 12, Pages 100-102, Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
and referenced by illustration in Reference Book 3, Page 49, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida as "Tract C"; and
(iii) Bentley Village, Phase 11 (a/k/a Bentley I Greens) referenced by
illustration in Reference Book 3, Page 49, Public Records or Collier County, Florida as
"Tract D".
C. The Declaration imposes upon each of the Retreat Properties obligations and
responsibilities for the maintenance, operation, management, and improvement of The Retreat.
The Retreat is administered by the Association, as authorized by the Declaration, for the mutual
benefit and on behalf of each of the Retreat Properties in favor the Association members.
D. CC-Naples is the owner of certain real property commonly referred to as Bentley
Village, Phase 111 (i.e., The Bragger Parcel a/k/a Bentley Village Greens at The Retreat), which
is legally described as a whole in Exhibit B attached hereto, and referenced by illustration in
Reference Book 3, Page 49, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, as "Tract D". CC-Naples,
its successors and assigns, and all future named title owners of all or a portion of Tract B are
herein referred to as the "Tract B Owner", or collectively, the "Tract B Owners".
Page 573 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3621
OR 6293 PG 22
E. Pursuant to a Certificate of Authority issued by the Florida Office of Insurance
Regulation (OIR), CC-Naples is licensed to develop, own and operate the continuing care
retirement community known as Vi at Bentley Village, located within Section 9, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and part of The Retreat at Naples Planned Unit
Development, which is depicted and described in The Official Zoning Atlas of Collier County,
Florida at Map Numher 8509S (attached hereto as Exhibit C) as Ordinance No. 97-71, and is
further ratified by relerence in Ordinance No. 04-01 of Collier County, Florida (the "Retreat
PUD"). The continuing care retirement community campus of Vi at Bentley Village consists
primarily of three contiguous, connected and abutting plat areas and/or master land parcels (herein,
as each described, the "Bentley Village Property") that are unified in common control,
management and operation by CC-Naples, through its operational entity, Classic Bentley Village,
Inc. ("CBVI").
The Retreat PUD identifies the Bentley Village Property by tract as follows:
(i) Tract B (i.e., Bentley t'illage, Phase III), which is contiguous to, but not
part of, the Retreat Property. As or the Effective Date, the Tract B Owners have not
subjected, and do not intend to submit, Tract B to the Declaration, nor do the
Tract B Owners desire for Tract B to be administered by the Association as one of the
Retreat Properties; and
(ii) Tract C (i.e., Bentley Village, Phase I a/k/a Retreat — Unit 2), which is
one of the Retreat Properties. As part of The Retreat, Tract A is subject to the Declaration
administered by the Association; and
(iii) Tract D (i.e., Bentley Village, Phase II a/k/a Bentley Village Greens),
which is one of the Retreat Properties. As part or The Retreat, Tract D is subject to the
Declaration administered by the Association.
F. Pursuant to the Declaration, the Association administers Bentley Village Phase
(Tract C) and Bentley Village Phase II (Tract D) together as one common area sub-association
of The Retreat collectively referred to as "Bentley Village". Commons One, Commons Two and
Bentley Village are the only sub-associations that operate within The Retreat, and the Association
acts as a master homeowners' association delegating certain responsibilities and obligations to
those sub-associations in favor the Association members and the Retreat Properties. The
Association is charged with the operation, management, improvement, maintenance, repair,
upkeep, insuring and replacement of certain private roads, sidewalks, entry gates, gate control
devices, guardhouses or manned courtesy entry gates, perimeter fences, berms, retention walls,
surface water management systems, catch basins, storm drains, stormwater pipes, junction boxes,
water control structures, weirs, lagoons, swales, sloughs, wetlands, preserve areas, conservation
areas, drainage easements, stormwater detention areas, drainage courses, culverts, retention ponds,
lakes, lake banks, wells, pumps, pumping stations, pump houses, irrigation systems, sprinkler
systems, bridges, scenic views, maintenance areas, landscaping, trees, shrubs, plantings, littorals,
grasses, landscaping buffers, utility services, light poles and light fixtures, signage, recreational
facilities, bike paths, walking paths, golf cart paths, jogging paths, foot bridges, benches, resting
areas, utility services, entrance signs, sound buffers, personal property, equipment, fixtures, real
property titled in the name of the Association, and other capital improvements contained within
Page 574 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3622
OR 6293 PG 23
and/or laid upon the Retreat Property (referred to interchangeably as "Common Area(s)" and/or
"Common Facilitv(ies)"), in each instance, intended for the mutual and/or beneficial use and
enjoyment of the Association's members, such other persons as set forth in the Declaration, or as
the Association's board of directors may permit by invitation, license, agreement, delegation,
resolution, or consent. In addition to its obligations and responsibilities for the maintenance,
operation, management and improvement of the Common Areas and Common Facilities in the
Retreat, the Association is charged with the responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water
management system in The Retreat, as well as on Tract B, pursuant to the current iteration of the
Declaration as of the Effect i \ e Date of this Agreement.
G. The Association, CC-Naples, and the Tract B Owner entered into the Original
Agreement to establish easements over a portion of Retreat Drive located on Tract B in favor of
the Association members, The Retreat, and the Retreat Properties. The Original Agreement also
established an easement in favor of the Bentley Village Properties over the roadway designated as
Tract R on the plat of The Retreat Unit One, recorded in Plat Book 12, pages 100 through 102,
Public Records of Collier County, Horida '("Tract R") and described on Exhibit R attached
hereto. This roadway was dedicated to the Association for maintenance, repair and replacement
responsibility.
H. CC-Naples (on behalf of the Bentley Village sub-association, and separately, on
behalf of the Tract B Owner) and the Association mutually desire to (i) restate and amend certain
maintenance, operation and other responsibilities set forth in the Original Agreement, (ii) reaffirm
the easements over Retreat Drive set forth in the Original Agreement, and (iii) provide continuous,
expedient, efficient and effective administration, operation, maintenance, improvement and
replacement of Common Areas and Common Facilities deemed to primarily and/or exclusively
service, benefit or burden the Bentley Village Properties to the first-class, resort-style standard
adopted by CC-Naples consistent with its ownership, development, management, operation and
reinvestment in, of and upon Vi at Bentley Village, and the Bentley Village Properties contained
within the Retreat PUD; in each instance, by assigning, delegating, appointing and transferring
from the Association to CC-Naples the exclusive discretion, oversight, control, and responsibility
of, for and over the orderly and unified operation, management, improvement, maintenance, repair,
upkeep, insurance and replacement of the Surface Water Management System, the "Lake
Properties" (depicted by illustration in Exhibit L attached to this Agreement and incorporated
by reference), the Common Areas and Common Facilities located within or upon (and thus deemed
to primarily benefit and serve) the Bentley Village Properties; and further, by providing a
framework for the practical and equitable allocation of costs and expenses by and among the
Association's three sub-associations (i.e., Commons One, Commons Two, and Bentley Village),
the Tract B Owner, and the Association.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above Recitals, which are true
and correct and incorporated herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the Association
and CC-Naples hereby amend and restate the Original Agreement as revised by this Agreement.
The Parties reaffirm that Tract B and the Retreat Property (Tract A, Tract C and Tract D,
inclusive) shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the covenants, conditions and easements
contained herein, which are made for the express benefit of the Association, Bentley Village, the
Page 575 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3623
OR 6293 PG 24
Tract B Owner, and their respective members, owners, heirs, successors, successors-in-title, and
assigns, and their invitees, guests, tenants, occupants, and shall be deemed to run with the land.
ARTICLE I
EASEMENTS
1.1 Tract R and Common Areas Easement.
Association grants to CC-Naples, the Tract B Owner, and their respective
occupants, agents, invitees, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement over, under and
across that portion of Tract R which is improved with the private roadway known as Retreat Drive,
in order to provide access, ingress and egress to and from U.S. Highway 41 and/or Vanderbilt
Drive to, from, over and upon any portion of Tract B and the Retreat Properties which is improved
with the private roadway known as Retreat Drive.
Further, the Association grants to CC-Naples and the Tract B Owner a right to enter
upon and use the Common Areas and Common Facilities in a manner similar to the use available
to the members of the Association.
1.2 Association Grant of Easement.
Association hereby grants a non-exclusive easement over, under and across that
portion of Retreat Drive and Common Areas as described which is reasonably necessary or
desirable for CC-Naples to operate, maintain, repair, replace or improve any portion of the
Common Areas and Common Facilities for which that responsibility is delegated to CC-Naples
under this Agreement or a separate agreement.
Association hereby grants and delegates to CC-Naples a non-exclusive easement
and the right, power and authority to create, build, construct, maintain, repair, replace, preserve,
provide, alter, operate and/or improve signage, landscaping and lighting, entry gates, gate control
devices, control entry access, guardhouses, and manned courtesy entry gates (including related
secured or controlled access services), on, upon, to, from and/or between U.S. Highway 41,
Vanderbilt Drive and Retreat Drive.
1.3 Tract B Owner Grant of Easement.
The Tract B Owner hereby grants to Association, the Association members and sub-
associations, The Retreat, the Retreat Properties, and their respective occupants, agents, invitees,
successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement over, under and across that portion of Tract B
which is improved with the private roadway known as Retreat Drive, in order to provide access,
ingress and egress to and from U.S. Highway 41 and/or Vanderbilt Drive to, from, over and upon
any portion of Tract B which is improved with the private roadway known as Retreat Drive.
Further, the Tract B Owner hereby grants to Association a nonexclusive easement
over, under and across that portion of Retreat Drive located on Tract B which is reasonably
necessary for Association to maintain, repair and replace that portion of Retreat Drive located on
Page 576 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3624
OR 6293 PG 25
Tract B, unless, that responsibility remains delegated to CC-Naples under this Agreement or a
separate agreement, in CC-Naples' discretion.
1 .4 Surface Water Management System Easement.
The Retreat Properties and Tract B shall be burdened with blanket easements,
which are hereby granted and conveyed and/or ratified hereby for drainage, collection and flow of
surface water in a manner consistent with the approved, constructed and improved Surface Water
Management System within the Retreat PUD as provided for by the surface water management
agreement terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit D to this Agreement and, to the extent
applicable to the Retreat Properties only, the Declaration and other Governing Documents of The
Retreat.
ARTICLE II
MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, and ASSESSMENTS
2.1 CC-Naples Obligations. CC-Naples, on behalf of the Bentley Village sub-
association and the Tract B Owner, due to the uni lied and common control exerted by CC-Naples
over Trait B, Tract C, and Trait B, hereby shall, and will continue to:
(a) operate, repair, replace, maintain and improve:
(i) all landscaping within medians, rights-of-way and entryways of
Retreat Drive over Tract B; and
(ii) all landscaping within medians and rights-of-way of Retreat
Drive dedicated and owned in fee simple by the Association within Tract R, subject to charge,
payment and/or equitable adjustment consistent with Section 4.2(j) of the Declaration or the then
current governing documents of the Association; and
(iii) the access control (guard) houses or other access control
facilities located, or hereinafter constructed, at the entrances to the Retreat Property and/or the
Bentley Village Property from public roads; and
(iv) any and all Common Areas and Common Facilities on or within
the Bentley Village Property (including, but not limited to, all private roads, sidewalks, portions
of perimeter fences, berms, retention walls, bridges, scenic views, maintenance areas, landscaping,
trees, shrubs, plantings, littorals, grasses, utility services, light poles and light fixtures, signage,
recreational facilities, bike paths, walking paths, benches, resting areas, utility services, personal
property, and equipment fixtures), each and all of which shall be deemed to primarily or
exclusively serve and benefit the Bentley Village Property, and thereupon located or relocated at
the discretion of CC-Naples in furtherance of the continued operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement and improvement of the continuing care retirement community known as Vi at
Bentley Village; and further,
Page 577 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3625
OR 6293 PG 26
(b) operate, repair, replace, maintain and improve the Surface Water
Management System and the Lake Properties (depicted by illustration in Exhibit L attached to
this Agreement and incorporated by reference), including but not limited to, all berms, retention
walls, surface -water and storm water management systems and detention areas, catch basins, storm
drains, stormwater pipes, junction boxes, water control structures, weirs, lagoons, swales, sloughs,
wetlands, preserve areas, conservation areas, drainage easements, stormwater detention areas,
drainage courses, culverts, retention ponds, lakes, lake banks, wells, pumps, pumping stations,
pump houses, irrigation systems on or within the Bentley Village Property, and thereupon located
or relocated at the discretion of CC-Naples in furtherance of the continued operation, maintenance,
replacement and improvement of the continuing care retirement community known as Vi at
Bentley Village, as provided for by the surface water management agreement terms and conditions
set forth in Exhibit D to this Agreement; provided, further, CC-Naples will operate, manage,
maintain and repair the same within Tract A (The Retreat — Unit One) for the benefit of Commons
One and/or Commons Two sub-associations by equitable allocation, charge, credit, offset, payment
and/or adjustment consistent with Section 4.2(j) of the Declaration, the then current governing
documents of the Association, or by other agreement with the Association; and further,
(c) to the extent that CC-Naples operates and maintains (i) Retreat Drive, (ii)
the access control (guard) houses or other access control facilities located (or hereinafter
constructed) at the entrances to the Retreat Property and/or the Bentley Village Property from
public roads, and/or (iii) the Lake Properties or Surface Water Management Systems located on
Tract B, Tract C, and Tract D, and as long as commercially reasonable and available outside of
the surplus lines market, commencing on December 31, 2023, or sooner if practicable, secure and
maintain property and liability insurance on the insurable improvements on the Bentley Village
Property that CC-Naples has the obligation to operate and maintain hereunder, which insurance
policies shall name the Association as an additional insured; and further,
(d) subcontract for or otherwise maintain access control services for The
Retreat; provided, CC-Naples is not a guarantor of such access control, and does not provide for
or guarantee the safety or security of persons or property within The Retreat.
2.2 Responsibility and Obligation for Assessments.
The Declaration establishes the obligation for CC-Naples to pay assessments on
behalf of the Bentley Village sub-association to Association. In consideration for the
responsibilities and obligations that CC-Naples is undertaking in this Agreement at its direct cost
and expense with respect to the Bentley Village Property, there is no additional obligation for
assessments of the Tract B Owner for Tract B Units other than what is provided for in the
Declaration as it exists on the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Association is not responsible
for reimbursing the costs of the work CC-Naples undertakes herein, unless otherwise specifically
stated in this Agreement, in the Declaration, or by resolution, consent or other agreement with the
Association, save for the cost and expense of work undertaken by CC-Naples which benefits,
enriches or serves Tract A and/or Commons One and/or Commons Two sub-associations, by
equitable allocation, charge, credit, offset, payment and/or adjustment consistent with Section
4.2(j) of the Declaration or the then current governing documents of the Association.
Page 578 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3626
OR 6293 PG 27
All Retreat reserve funds properly deposited and existing as of the Effective Date
of this Agreement remain the property of the Association, with no obligation to fund any work CC-
Naples agrees to undertake pursuant to this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically stated in this
Agreement, in the Declaration, or by other agreement with the Association, except for the cost and
expense of any work undertaken by CC-Naples which benefits, enriches or serves Tract A and/or
Commons One and/or Commons Two sub-associations by equitable allocation, charge, credit,
offset, payment and/or adjustment consistent with Section 4.2(j) of the Declaration or the then
current governing documents of the Association.
ARTICLE III
GENERAL
3.1 Notice. Any notice provided for in this Agreement shall be served by
registered or certified mail, or overnight delivery, addressed as follows:
(i) if to the Association, to the president or secretary of the Association; and
(ii) if to CC-Naples, c/o Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership, 233
South Wacker Drive, Suite 8400, Chicago, Illinois, 60606, Attention: Chief Legal Officer.
With a copy to the registered agent as set forth in the records of the Florida Division
of Corporations by the same delivery method. All such notices shall, for all purposes, be deemed
delivered upon actual delivery to the party or address specified above or upon refusal to accept
delivery.
3.2 Amendment for Necessity. This Agreement may be amended unilaterally by
either party, if such amendment is necessary (a) to bring any provision hereof into compliance with
any applicable governmental statute, ordinance, rule or regulation or judicial determination,
including but not limited to the ordinances, rules and regulations of Collier County; (b) to enable
any reputable title insurance company to issue title insurance coverage providing insurable legal
access with respect to any portion of the Retreat Property or Tract B; or (c) to permit any
institutional or governmental lender, purchaser, guarantor or insurer of mortgage loans, including,
for example, the Federal National Mortgage Association or the U. S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, to make, purchase, guarantee or insure mortgage loans on any portion of the Retreat
Property or Tract B; provided, however, that no such amendment shall have a material adverse
effect on the rights and privileges of any of the parties hereto or their respective occupants,
successors and assigns. Any such amendment shall become effective upon recording in the public
records of Collier County, Florida.
3.3 Duration. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and bind the land
and shall be and remain in effect for a period of 50 years after the Effective Date, after which time
this Agreement shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years, unless such
extension is disapproved by at least a majority of the Board of the Association and approved by
CC-Naples. Provided, however, that the easement rights and privileges reserved and granted in
Article I hereof shall be perpetual, unless modified, amended or terminated by (i) two-thirds
Page 579 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3627
OR 6293 PG 28
(2/3rds) of the Members of the Association, and (ii) CC-Naples, its successors or assigns, and (iii)
the Tract B Owner, its successor or assigns.
3.4 Interpretation. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under
the laws of the State or Florida.
3.5 Se' erability. Whenever possible, each provision or this Agreement shall be
interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid, but it application of any provision of this
Agreement to any person or to any property shall be prohibited or held invalid, such prohibition
or invalidity shall not affect any other provision or the application of any provision which can be
given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this
Agreement are declared to be se' erabl e.
3.6 Captions. The captions of each Article and Section hereof are inserted only
for convenience and are in no way to be construed as defining, limiting, extending or otherwise
modifying or adding to the contents of any particular Article or Section to which they refer.
3.7 Enforcement. This Agreement may be enforced by the parties hereto, their
heirs, successors, successors-in-interest and assigns, by the bringing of an action at law or in equity.
In the event it becomes necessary to bring an action to enforce any provision of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees from the
non-prevailing party. All disputes, claims, actions, and controversies arising from or related to this
Agreement shall be submitted to pre-suit mediation, pursuant to the same procedures set forth in
Florida Statute 720.311(2023), prior to commencing anv litigation regarding this Agreement. If
the dispute, claim, action, or controversy is not resole ed through pre-suit mediation, then the
dispute, claim, action, or controversy may be resolved by litigation unless both parties consent to
arbitration of the dispute.
3.8 Consent by Mortgagees and Governmental Entities. In the event any lender
or other entity that is not a party to this Agreement has an interest in any portion of The Retreat
Property or Tract B, and such entity claims that its interest is superior to the encumbrance created
hereby, or if in order to satisfy a governmental rule, law or regulation a party determines in its
reasonable judgment that this Agreement be amended or clarified the parties agree to take such
steps and execute such documents as are reasonably necessary to obtain the consent of such party
to this Agreement and bring this Agreement into regulatory compliance, and if reasonably
necessary, to obtain the subordination by such entity of its interest to the encumbrance created
hereby. The other party shall not unreasonably withhold such consent.
3.9 Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended except by a written
instrument, executed by the Association and CC-Naples or their respective successors in-interest.
In no event shall a change of conditions or circumstances operate to amend any provisions of this
Agreement.
3.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall constitute but one (1) agreement. Electronic signatures are deemed an original.
Page 580 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3628
OR 6293 PG 29
3.11 Representation. This Agreement is a joint product of the parties and may
not be more strictly construed against any party. All parties to this Agreement represent that they
have full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of their respective entities, and all
prerequisite approvals, if any, have been obtained. The Parties acknowledge and agree that each
has had the opportunity to consult with such expert of their choice as they may have desired, and
they have had the opportunity to discuss this matter and the matters which are the subject hereof,
and have in fact consulted with, counsel of their choice.
3.12 Binding Covenant - Recordation. The parties agree that this Agreement is
a covenant running with the land and the obligations and any modifications shall be binding on the
parties, the parties' heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, and, as applicable, its
officers, directors, members, employees, and agents. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement
will be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and
year first above written.
[Signatures on following pages]
Page 581 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3629
OR 6293 PG 30
ASSOCIATION
WITNESSES THE RETREAT HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
By: 0-iktS
Name: C_e) R„(31 \s"N\ k T
Title:
Date:
Ftl-Etc; 4e3N.
. cs V-132.3
The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF EASEMENTS AND
COVENANT TO SHARE COSTS was acknowledged before me this ZO day of September
2023, by 65e' Sytk",,A asTleeSiden* of The Retreat Homeowners
Association, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation, who is
personally known to me or who has produced -Deiie/5 Lac as identification and
who did (did not) take an oath.
r -( SEAL)
ASHLEY HEMMES
Notary Public, State of Michigan
County of Kent
My Commission Expires, 99-10-`
Acting in the County of
Nota
Aak
(Name ty printed, or stamped)
Page 582 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3630
OR 6293 PG 31
TRACT 'W OWNER
WITNESSES
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK
CC-NAPLES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
By:
Name: Gary A. Smith
Title: President
Date: September 19, 2023
JURAT/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
:ss
The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATEI ) AGREEMENT OF EASEMENTS AND
COVENANT TO SHARE COSTS was sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th day of
September, 2023, by Gary A. Smith as President of CC-Naples. Inc., a Delaware corporation, on
behalf of the corporation, who is personally known to me of who has produced-
f+s-itlerrtifrcatievi and who did (did not)-take an oath.
(SEAL)
OFFICIAL SEAL
LAKEBA GARCIA
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS
KANE COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 03/04/2026
tarn
M- /0E6 j c /1,-
(Name typed, printed, or stamped)
Page 583 of 3380
OR 6378 PG 3631
OR 6293 PG 32
BENTLEY VILLAGE
WITNESSES CLASSIC BENTLEY VILLAGE, INC.,
a Florida not-for-profit corporation
Print N me:
By:
Name: Tho as J. Muszynski
Title: Vice President & Treasurer
Print ame: Date: September 19, 2023
JURAT/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
:ss
COUNTY OF COOK
The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF EASEMENTS AND
COVENANT TO SHARE COSTS was sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th day of
September, 2023, by Thomas J. Muszynski as Vice President and Treasurer of Classic Bentley
Village, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation, who is personally
known to me erwho-fras-prozlirmi as-itleatit tie a and who did 4aiti-not—take an
oath.
(SEAL)
OFFICIAL SEAL
LAKEBA GARCIA
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS
KANE COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 03/04/2026
LA-11615A— 6 PrZo4 4-
(Name typed, printed, or stamped)
Page 584 of 3380
Page 585 of 3380
Page 586 of 3380
Timothy Finn Planner Ill Collier County Growth Management 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA(PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
LLl},u&a1 <G, Em-ore1n I)
vY\i\ L, lv1'1\ J\' � YiYI,
3 2.{!;;. l,( �\J--q,f �;;k. e-;'�
S2--s2. Go1ts,dA---Jyy-\,V/__,I
ih �la, ;f?, �±�lb
Page 587 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Tir 1 t yr nr @ro Ii rroL 'ltyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissi oners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the comm unity in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
��\;�\ b��� r\ \ n�h«\J\ \S R�\��"�-��
Page 588 of 3380
Page 589 of 3380
Page 590 of 3380
Page 591 of 3380
Page 592 of 3380
Page 593 of 3380
Page 594 of 3380
Page 595 of 3380
Page 596 of 3380
Page 597 of 3380
Page 598 of 3380
Page 599 of 3380
Page 600 of 3380
Page 601 of 3380
Page 602 of 3380
Page 603 of 3380
Page 604 of 3380
Page 605 of 3380
Page 606 of 3380
Page 607 of 3380
Page 608 of 3380
Page 609 of 3380
Page 610 of 3380
Page 611 of 3380
Page 612 of 3380
Page 613 of 3380
Page 614 of 3380
Page 615 of 3380
Page 616 of 3380
Page 617 of 3380
Page 618 of 3380
Page 619 of 3380
Page 620 of 3380
Page 621 of 3380
Page 622 of 3380
Page 623 of 3380
Page 624 of 3380
Page 625 of 3380
Page 626 of 3380
Page 627 of 3380
Page 628 of 3380
Page 629 of 3380
Page 630 of 3380
Page 631 of 3380
Page 632 of 3380
Page 633 of 3380
Page 634 of 3380
Page 635 of 3380
Page 636 of 3380
Page 637 of 3380
Page 638 of 3380
Page 639 of 3380
Page 640 of 3380
Page 641 of 3380
PL-20230015039Page 642 of 3380
Judith C Yohe
701 Retreat Dr, apt. 325
August26,2025
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Tiroothy.Finn@colUercauotyfl.gov
Naples, FL34110
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Vill age and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Print this fi
�C-� u.::
Building Representative, Bldg. F
701 Retreat Dr, Apt. 325
Naples, Florida 34110
Page 643 of 3380
TU11ochy Finn
Planner 111
C.Ollier County Growth Management
2300 . Hol"SC5hoe Drive
1apfe� FL 341 04
1irnolhy,Finn'@col1krtAYoO'JL�
RE: PUDA (PL2023001 .5039)
De&rMr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Villa,yc and am writing to dcmonstm1c
my support for tl:ie PUD Amendment as proposed. Plca.s.e share
my suppor1 wilh The Collier C-ounty ;iatt The Collier County
l'Jan Commission, and The County Board ofCommissioaers.
I strongfy wge The County lO approve the amendment. This
will allow Bfflt ley Villas to con1inue to rct vc lop and maintain
the community in keepi ng wilh the fiAe stewardship and
respectful rcin\·estmcnt in the faciliti lhc &ntley Village
residcntS and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the
years.
Respcdf'ully,
Page 644 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@colliercounMl.gov
RE: PUDA {PL20230015039}
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewar dship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Marla Ray
Building #24 Representative
2434 Golfside Dr, Naples, FL 34110
Page 645 of 3380
PL-20230015039Page 646 of 3380
August26,2025
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support
for the PU D Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The
Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County
Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley
Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with
the fine stewardship and res pectful re investment in the facilities the Bentley
Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
<l�hJ(i�b�
John Campbell
Resident·
2724 Golfside Ct., Naples, FL 34110
Page 647 of 3380
August26,2025
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@coUiercountyfl.gov
RE= PUDA {PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn.
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support
for the PUD Amendment as propos ed. Please share my support with The
Collier County staff. The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County
Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge-The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley
Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with
the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley
Village residents and The RetreatAssociation have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Resident
2724 Golfside Ct., Naples, FL 34110
Page 648 of 3380
Timothy Finn Planner III Collier County Growth Management 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Timothv.finn a colliercounh fl.gov RE: PUDA (PL20230015039) Dear Mr. Finn, I am a resident of Vi at Bentley Village and am miting to indicate my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners. I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years. Bentley Village is a tangible benefit to the community. I hope that you will vote to help us not only maintain the property but improve it for the foreseeable future. Respectfully, � � ::.,�c:::---Douglas C. Stather President, Resident Council 725 Bentley Drive Naples, FL 34110 Page 649 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples. FL34104
Timothy,Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my suppqrt for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff. The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
2>c!ilAJ1� W1U<1t!:
&u1Lo1.<10 3g £Ef?R.E"SGTJ7477r/E
� 3 I 0 BJ poA/r JR..,1 AM: 5 g--d._tf
/J/}--/JL/?5 1 Fe-3 rf-110
Page 650 of 3380
August 25, 2025
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL34104
Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl._gov
RE: PUDA {PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
contjnue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine ste wardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
�?x:JJ��ve. �
Oliver D Gildersleeve, Jr
Represent�tive for the Coach Homes
520 lake Louise Circle, Unit 702
Naples, Fl 34110
650-283-5398 cell
ogilders@sbcglobal.net
Page 651 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL34104
Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amend ment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine steward ship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Jrio Ii es /I, "3,4 ;u) &' /T a f{tl ;lh
d)e-Pu 7y =r}f' /;12-?!,r1-1 LD I Ntf-; !J-<f f h,J11 ,Je:ri::H; e!L
aS/3 GuLfSrDE Vt<-! vc
/IAt)cs, fl 3/Jld
Page 652 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
]rnothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the
PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff,
The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The
Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Page 653 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Il l
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the
PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff,
The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commi ssioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The
Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
t§.ulL01!{G LJ... M£Sa.JTA77\(&
/�5 8arrl6-r P.L'/VE
ti lfftt:;"'5, rL-3L/I I tJI
Page 654 of 3380
Timothy Finn Planner Ill Collier County Growth Management 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Iimothy.Finn@colliercouoJ;¥fl_.goy
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will alLQw Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
ti Vl:-\C-/ td. (V\ � k'. �l 2-tS
l�1,,D6t KC.Pi<C,-5C.VTATIV& i�l,\)� (.p \2..b�-, .. Jl\9'.J 0 19 R'61iX,,-:lT'�
'2--101 \[ I �v,J ()Ol,u.,-0�, Vb I AvA(l.T'yY\ b<,....JT 3 t; 3 .3
N {\\?L.etj 1i.o fZ.-1 Di'.\ � 4 I I 0
Page 655 of 3380
8/27/2025 4:14 PM FROM: Staples
Timothy Finn Planner Ill Collier County Growth Management 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104
Tirnothy.Finn@colliercountvfl.gov
TO: +12394312009 P.2
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
l J 2 6 1 I G i> its,·). L (c) v•-_-.it
Page 656 of 3380
August 26, 2025
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy .Finn@collieLcouotyfl._gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Patricia Mett
Representative of Building 4
414 Bentley Drive
Naples, Fl 34110
Page 657 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner III
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy,.Finn@colliercounty.!lgQY
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate
my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share
my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County
Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This
will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain
the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and
respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village
residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the
years.
Page 658 of 3380
Timothy Finn Planner Ill Collier County Growth Management 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 TimothY..Finn@colliercounty.tLgru:: RE: PUDA(PL20230015039) Dear Mr. Finn, I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners. I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years. Respectfully, _aL-��
/4(fkr,;-sc,.;-r1tr; vi: tf' '70115. AS,? 3 �'t> Ft . .tJtJ[?._
f-/-o I � IF-r;tJ. k Ar 't> p__ ,
UAJ1T 3olf N{J,/Jt,..�S rL. 3'1-1/o I
Page 659 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timoth¼Finn@coll iercou11MLgcy
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
{O
Page 660 of 3380
701 Retreat Drive #333
Naples, FL 34110
August25,2025
Mr. Timothy Finn
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 3410 4
RE: PUDA {PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
rI am a resident at Bentley Village and am witing in support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with the Collier County staff, the Collier County Plan Commission, and the Collier County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge the County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and
respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Yours truly, il/h"" l� Nancy C. Hobert
Page 661 of 3380
Mr. Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
701 Retreat Drive Unit 333
Naples, FL 34110
August25 ,2025
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing in support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with the Collier County
staff, the Collier County Plan Commission, and the Collier County Board of
Commissioners.
I strongly urge the County to approve the amendment. This will allow
Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in
keeping with the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the
facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat Association have
enjoyed over the years.
Yours truly,
�-!{,/�,�
Chester A. Hobert, Jr.
Page 662 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL34104
Timothy.Fioo@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
VP l2.e'�1 0Elv1 COUNCJ L .
M�/ifg..&lf: __ " r/11/tN�t' (l(JMMltc
'2_ q 33 Go Lt=G'I D� b�i VG.
N /J,PI_G51 1-L :Si/ I I D
Page 663 of 3380
..._1ornv .t1 m .. n
__ :..:1ner III
Collier Countv Growth IvlanaQ:emem
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
1\lap1es, i'L 34104
Timothy.Ewl{a)colliercountyJl gQY
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn.
!n_ a residem: m: Bentlev Village and am writing to demonstrate
my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please sh are
my supoort with The Collier County staff. The Collier County
Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strone:lv urn:e The Countv to aoorove the amendment. This ...... ... -. ..... .... will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain
the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and
respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village
residents and The Retreat Association have enioved over the
years.
Respectfuliy.
��-�
l Y t <?XV"\ �, �o \c1 -e YY\ �
�4�-�� � i � S Go\-��, d.-e. lJ/\.-,) f\cc� ·�l\ \ \b
Page 664 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier Co unty Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the
PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff,
The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The
Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Page 665 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@coll1ercountytl.g__o v
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine steward ship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Page 666 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy. Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the
PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff,
The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The
Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
u C>NF>-L l) C Q Ht�'(< l NG-
Page 667 of 3380
Page 668 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Iirnotb¼finn@colUercountyfl.gIDt
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Patricia Smart
Representative for Building 6
625 Bentley Drive, Naples FL 34110
Page 669 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL34104
Timothy. Finn@...colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
1 strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years .
Respectfully,
Page 670 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner III
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy. F inn@colliercountY.fl gQY
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate
my support for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share
my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County
Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This
will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain
the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and
respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village
residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the
years.
---------
Page 671 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill Collier County Growth Management
2800 N Horseshoe Dr
Naples, FL 3410 Timothy. Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL202300115039)
Dear Mr Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and I am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD amendment as proposed. Please share my support with the Collier County staff, The CollierCounty planning commission, and the County Board of commissioners.
I strongly urge the county to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and
respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and the Retreat Asso ciation
have enjoyed over the years.
'7pectfully,r---...__Y7 4u ,:_ � ti) lfy'4 '1 I _,
G. Grig;;r{ Marqui: 'f' //
Building Representative for Building 35
2195 Viewpoint Dr Apt 3513
Naples, Fl 34110
Page 672 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy. Finn@colliercountyfl.g ov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039}
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the
PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff,
The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The
Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Page 673 of 3380
Page 674 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov
RE; PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support
for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The
Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County
Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley
Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with
the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley
Village residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
�7fulj:
Resident Building 27
2725 Golfside Court
Naples, FL. 3411 0
239-910-2899
Page 675 of 3380
iimothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Timothy.Finn@coUiercountytl.gov
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support
for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The
Collier County staff, The Collier County Plan Commission, and The County
Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley
Village to continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with
the fine stewardship and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley
Village residents and The Retreat Associa tion have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Nancy J. Nortz
Resident Representative Building 27
2725 Golfside Court
Naples, FL. 3411 o
239-248-8816
Page 676 of 3380
Timothy Finn
Planner Ill
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate my support for the PUD
Amendment as proposed. Please share my support with The Collier County staff, The
Collier County Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This will allow Bentley Village to
continue to redevelop and maintain the community in keeping with the fine stewardship
and respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village residents and The Retreat
Association have enjoyed over the years.
Respectfully,
Page 677 of 3380
E ftMA
Timothy Finn
Planner III
Collier County Growth Management
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104 Timothv.f inn g,colliercounl\ ll.gQY RE: PUDA (PL20230015039)
Dear Mr. Finn,
I am a resident at Bentley Village and am writing to demonstrate
my su pport for the PUD Amendment as proposed. Please share
my support with The Collier County staff, The Collier County
Plan Commission, and The County Board of Commissioners.
I strongly urge The County to approve the amendment. This
will allow Bentley Village to continue to redevelop and maintain
the community in keeping with the fine stewardship and
respectful reinvestment in the facilities the Bentley Village
residents and The Retreat Association have enjoyed over the
years.
Respectfully,
z�;-;.,n,_, Lf <L-vc, �
Lou ½!NA 7T A l . 1s u ,\ \ d. ' l"\.°\ � � � x---e�eM.._--\-o....--h ve. � t< GS ,d e.,i.... t-COLA.."' c..t \.5 t 3 �i-f -ec.-, J)R..t-1A-AL£�,J°L �4llD
Page 678 of 3380
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) at 9:00 A.M. on October 28, 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 97-71, THE RETREAT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND 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
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE RETREAT MPUD, BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO
INCREASE MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM 740 DWELLING UNITS TO 834 DWELLING
UNITS, ADJUST ACREAGE TO 208.55 ACRES, REPLACE PARCELS B, C AND D ON
THE MASTER PLAN WITH PARCELS B1, B2 AND B3, REVISE TRACT BOUNDARIES
EXCEPT FOR TRACT A, ADD REGULATIONS FOR PARCELS B1, B2 AND B3, REVISE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCELS B1, B2 AND B3, ADD AN ACCESS
POINT FOR SERVICE VEHICLES, AND ADD DEVIATIONS FOR PARCELS B1, B2
AND B3; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (US 41), ¾ OF A MILE
NORTH OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND EXTENDS WEST TO VANDERBILT DRIVE
IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. [PL20230015039]
Page 679 of 3380
A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested
parties are invited to attend and be heard.
All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the
agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes on any item. The selection of any
individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson
for a group or organization may be allotted ten (10) minutes to speak on an item. Written materials int ended to be
considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the
public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record.
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.collier.gov/Calendar-Events-directory 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 court esy and is at the user’s risk. The
County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey
Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willig@collier.gov.
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board 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 680 of 3380
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL,
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
Page 681 of 3380