The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 11/10/2025 Item #17C (Ordinance - Amendment to Ordinance Number 2005-53, the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development)11/10/2025 Item # 17.C ID# 2025-3695 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 an amendment to Ordinance Number 2005-53, the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on the west side of Tract B, increase the height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B, and to approve an affordable housing density bonus agreement. Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74± acres out of 41.6± acres. [PL20240013221] 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: Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74+ acres out of 41.6+ acres. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to Ordinance Number 2005-53, the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on a portion of the west side of Tract B, increase the maximum height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC, heard Petition PUDA-PL20240013221, Santa Barbara Landings RPUD (PUDA) on September 18, 2025, and voted 5-0 to forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval with required changes to the PUD as explained below. One public attendee had concerns about building a wall on Tract A, thereby preventing stormwater from running into the neighboring property to the east. It was discussed that the developer of Tract B will build a partial wall, and the remainder will be preserves for Tract B. The agent will demonstrate water management through the ERP process. The Tract B developer has no intention of building the wall for Tract A, as they do not own the Tract A property. Another public attendee requested to eliminate the requirement of the wall and preserve on Tract A. The CCPC made a motion to remove the preserve requirement and to remain as open space, and remove the wall requirement for Tract A. It should be noted that these were only concerns, and the public attendees did not object to the project. These changes were accepted by staff, and this revision was added to the Ordinance. As such, these concerns were resolved, and this petition will be placed on the Summary Agenda. The CCPC also approved the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The CCPC approval was unanimous. As such, this petition will be placed on the Summary Agenda. The required changes and additions to be added to the PUD by the CCPC include: • Section 2.12.B – Add the language: “No wall is required along Tract A • Section 4.5 – Revise the second paragraph to show 1.75 acres of preserve on Tract B and 1.25 acres of open space on Tract A • Section 5.4.A – Add the language “for Tract B” in the first sentence • Section 5.10.A — Changing 3.0 acres to 1.75 acres and changing Exhibit “A” to Exhibit A-1 • Section 5.10 A.1 – Deletion of this sentence • Exhibit A – 1 – Showing sidewalk connections as discussed at the CCPC meeting The changes were accepted by staff, and these revisions were added to the Ordinance. This item advances the Collier County Strategic Plan Objective within Community Development to support comprehensive affordable housing opportunities. Page 5731 of 6525 11/10/2025 Item # 17.C ID# 2025-3695 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 in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-use District as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) The purpose of the Subdistrict is to provide for residential development in areas where public facilities are concentrated The proposed amendment to modify the permitted density from 7 units an acre to 8 by including an affordable housing commitment that is applicable to all of the proposed 84 residential units on tract B, with 71 units reserved for households between 51% - 80% AMI and 13 reserved for households at or below 50% AMI Therefore, it is the determination on Comprehensive Planning staff that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Future Land Use Element (See Attachment B – FLUE Consistency Memo) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s April 18, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, "the County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff findings: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Santa Barbara Landings PUDA development will generate a projected total of +/- 33 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Santa Barbara Boulevard. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak/Hour Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2024 Level of Service (LOS) 2024Remaining Capacity Santa Barbara Boulevard/78.0 Radio Rd to Davis Boulevard 3,100/NB 10/NB C 1,283 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is April 18, 2025. The petitioner provided the Traffic Impact Statement. Page 5732 of 6525 11/10/2025 Item # 17.C ID# 2025-3695 Based on the TIS provided by the applicant and the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 41.6 acres. A minimum of 3 acres (25% of the native vegetation) of preserve is required and shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement: The accompanying Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement is in compliance with LDC 2.06.00 and proposes to provide 100% of the residential units in this phase as affordable housing. Seventy-one units (85%) will be restricted to households at no greater than 80% Area Media Income (AMI) and thirteen units (15%) will be restricted to households at no greater than 50%AMI. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezoning 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 PUD Amendments Ask yourself the following questions. The answers may assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contracts, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD 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 the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) to assure the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? Page 5733 of 6525 11/10/2025 Item # 17.C ID# 2025-3695 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD 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 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 in 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 PUD 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 PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare? The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the Board 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. Page 5734 of 6525 11/10/2025 Item # 17.C ID# 2025-3695 This PUD amendment has been approved as to form and legality, and it requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval, subject to approval of the affordable housing density bonus agreement. The affordable housing density bonus agreement requires a majority vote for Board approval. - HFAC RECOMMENDATION(S): To approve the proposed ordinance for Petition PUDA-PL20240013221, the Santa Barbara Landings PUDA, and the proposed affordable housing density bonus agreement. PREPARED BY: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III, Zoning Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A - Revised Ordinance 09-24-25 2. Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Memo 3. Attachment C - Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement 10-7-25 4. Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials 5. Attachment E - Opposition Letters 6. Attachment F - Hearing Advertising Sign 7. legal ad - agenda ID 25-3695 - Santa Barbara Landings RPUD-PL20240013221 - 11.10.25 BCC Page 5735 of 6525 [25-CPS-02609/1974144/1] 134 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 1 of 2 9/24/25 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-53 THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 291 TO 332 UNITS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 84 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON TRACT B OF THE RPUD, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRACT B, INCREASE THE HEIGHT ON TRACT B AND ADD A DETAILED MASTER PLAN FOR TRACT B; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. TRACT B IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 40, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.74± ACRES OUT OF 41.6± ACRES. [PL20240013221] WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2005-53 which created the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and WHEREAS, the Collier County Hearing Examiner approved insubstantial changes to the RPUD in HEX Decision 2021-01; and WHEREAS, MHP Collier IV, LLC, represented by Patrick Vanasse, AICP of The Neighborhood Company, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the RPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. The PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 2005-53, as amended, is hereby amended in accordance with the revised PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. Page 5736 of 6525 [25-CPS-02609/1974144/1] 134 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 2 of 2 9/24/25 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of __________________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ________________________ By: _____________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - PUD Document with Exhibits Page 5737 of 6525 09/19/2025 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 41.6± Acres Located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 And St. George Group Corporation 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390 Miami, FL 33126 MHP Collier IV, LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 PREPARED BY: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 And D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Insubstantial Change for St. George Group, Corp by: Johnson Engineering. Inc. 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 (HEX Decision 21-01) Amendment for MHP Collier IV, LLC prepared by: The Neighborhood Company 5618 Whispering Willow Way Fort Myers, FL 33908 EXHIBIT “A” Page 5738 of 6525 09/19/2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES i STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA III-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREA IV-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS V-1 Page 5739 of 6525 i 09/19/2025 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A-I EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D TABLE I CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN TRACT B MASTER PLAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LOCATION MAP BOUNDARY SURVEY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III-3 Page 5740 of 6525 ii 09/19/2025 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE This (HEX Decision 21-01) Residential Planned Unit Development is on approximately 41.6± acres of land located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. Approximately 6.3 acres of the property is encumbered with a 100' wide roadway easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard, making the net site approximately 35.3 acres. The name of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. The development of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as established in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies of the land development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Plan and applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The density provided for in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD complies with the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the residential density band, which extends from the Mixed-use activity center located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The density permissible is 4 dwelling units per acre. Up to 3 dwelling units per acre may be added within the density band, bringing the permissible base density to 7 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density may be added subject to the criteria in the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Base density 4.0du/acre Density band 3.0du/acre Affordable Housing Density Bonus 1.0du/acre Maximum permitted density 7.0 8.0du/acre Requested density 7.0 8.0du/acre (291 332 units) At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 84 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 332 dwelling units. All property within the RPUD boundary shall be utilized in calculating the project density. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with the applicable land development regulations as required in Objective 3 of the FLUE, except as may be modified in this RPUD document 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 6. The design of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD protects the function of the existing Page 5741 of 6525 iii 09/19/2025 drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as required in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This project shall be subject to applicable Sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. Page 5742 of 6525 I-1 09/19/2025 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Section I sets forth the location and ownership of the property, and describes the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 41.6 acres more or less, is described as: The west half (W. ½) of the west half (W. ½) of the northwest quarter (N.W. ¼) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, all being situated in Collier County, Florida, less the north 50 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is currently owned by: TRACT A: unit owners of the Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association Inc. and Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association Inc. whose address is 145 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, FL 34104 (HEX Decision 21-01), and TRACT B: St. George Group, Corp, MHP Collier IV, LLC, whose address is 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390, Miami, FL, 33126 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300, Miami, FL 33131. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project is located in Section 04, Township 50, Range 26 and is generally bordered on the north by Radio Road, on the east by Plantation PUD; on the south by Bembridge PUD on the west by Santa Barbara Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is RMF-6. C. According to FEMA/FIRM Map Panel Number 120067 415 D, dated June 3, 1986, the property is located within Zone X. D. Soils on the site generally include Hallandale fine sand and Boca, Rivera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland fine sand depressional. Page 5743 of 6525 I-2 09/19/2025 E. Existing vegetation on the site consists of melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, palmetto prairie, pine flatwoood, cypress, Cabbage Palm and disturbed lands. Wetland areas have been heavily impacted by melaleuca. F. According to the Collier County Drainage Atlas, the site is located in the Lely Canal Basin. The conceptual water management plan is depicted in the Surface Water Management Report, which accompanied the rezone application submittal. 1.5 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance is known and cited as the "Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." Page 5744 of 6525 II-1 09/19/2025 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Section II delineates and generally describes the plan of development and identifies relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD is a mixed-use residential project and will consist of two development parcels and multiple preservation areas. Categories of land uses include those for residential and preserve areas. The Residential areas are designed to accommodate single-family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings. The overall project density is 7 8 dwelling units per acre and the maximum units permitted in the RPUD shall be 291 332 units. B. Exhibit "A" depicts the RPUD Master Plan. Exhibit A-I depicts the Master Plan for Tract B. The RPUD Master Plan includes a table that summarizes land use acreage. The location, size and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan approval. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorize the construction of improvements. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted from this RPUD Document or associated exhibits, the provisions of other sections of the land development codes, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code. Page 5745 of 6525 II-2 09/19/2025 2.4 LAND USES Land uses are generally depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined by the developer at the time of site development plan approval, preliminary subdivision plat approval, or final subdivision plat approval subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Collier County LDC. 2.5 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may utilize land within the rights-of-way within the RPUD for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and unified signage. This utilization is subject to review and administrative approval during the development review process by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations. 2.6 MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE A. Construction offices and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 5 and Chapter 10 of the LDC. B. Model Homes may be permitted in multi-family and townhome buildings may be utilized for wet or dry models, subject to the time frames specified in Chapter 5 of the LDC. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by LDC. 2.8 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30% of the project (12.48± acres) shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.9 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum of three (3) 1.75 acres of native vegetation shall be maintained on the subject site through a combination of preservation of existing native vegetation and revegetation of native vegetation. The areas of retained native vegetation and replanted native vegetation are shown as Preserve areas on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. Page 5746 of 6525 II-3 09/19/2025 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE One or more Property Owner's Association (POA) will provide common area maintenance. The POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in Chapter 2 of the LDC. I. Individual Projects a) Site Planning: Each distinct project within the RPUD will provide an aesthetically appealing, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles. The orientation of buildings and structures will be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. b) Landscaping: Where applicable, plantings along public rights- of way will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. 2.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS A. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the RPUD, excluding preserves. B. The maximum fence, wall or berm height internal to the RPUD shall be eight (8) feet, not including those portions of walls incorporated into project identification signs. The maximum fence height shall be measured relative to the greater of the crown of the adjacent roadway or the adjacent minimum finished floor, as applicable. The eight (8') foot high precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along a portion of the eastern boundary of the PUD, as depicted in Exhibit A-I. No wall is required along Tract A. C. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). Page 5747 of 6525 II-4 09/19/2025 2.13 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL Signage shall be consistent with Section 5.06 of the LDC. 2.14 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS/DEVIATIONS The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with Chapter 10 of the LDC. A. Chapter 6, Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths 1. Existing site constraints prohibit retrofitting of the site with sidewalks meeting standards in Chapter 6 of the LDC. 2. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on only one (1) side of the internal local or private roadway exceeding one thousand (1,000) feet in length serving the project's additional 43-unit component Tract B. 3. The developer of Tract B s hall construct a sidewalk interconnection concurrently with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A. The developer of Tract B shall coordinate with the School District of Collier County to construct a sidewalk interconnection from Tract B to the adjacent school property at time of 1Tract B development permitting. (HEX Decision 21-01) 4. The developer shall make payment-in-lieu of construction of the sidewalk within Santa Barbara Boulevard, due to its programmed improvement in the five-year work program. B. Section 4.06.00, Landscaping, buffering and vegetation retention 1. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). C. Construction Standards Manual, Streets and access improvements 1. Construction Standards Manual, Street Right-of-Way Width Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs shall be forty (40) feet. Drive aisles serving multi-family tracts shall not be required to meet this standard. Page 5748 of 6525 II-5 09/19/2025 2. Construction Standards Manual, Dead-end Streets Cul-de-sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Construction Standards Manual, Intersection Radii Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty-five (25) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five (35) foot radius for intersections at project entrances. D. Section 3.05.07, Preservation Standards 1. A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off- site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A- 1. E. Section 4.05.04, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings 1. A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. To instead allow for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces for Tract B. 2.15 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses that generally serve the entire RPUD or distinct projects there within. B. General Permitted Uses: Page 5749 of 6525 II-6 09/19/2025 1. Essential services as set forth under Chapter 2 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.12 of this document. 7. Signage. Page 5750 of 6525 III-1 09/19/2025 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE Section III establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated Residential "R" on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "R" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate multiple family residential types, recreational uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Acreage is based on a conceptual design. Actual acreage of the development and preserve areas shall be established at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. Areas designated as "R" accommodate internal roadways, open space, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar facilities that are accessory or customary to residential development. B. Areas designated as "R" are intended to provide a maximum of 291 332 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Single-family attached and detached. 2. Duplex and two-family. 3. Multiple-family. 4. Townhomes B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Common indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Sales and leasing facilities. 3. Clubhouse, meeting rooms. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this area. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. Page 5751 of 6525 III-2 09/19/2025 B. Required Parking: Parking within the residential area shall be provided based on the following standards: 1. Recreation Facilities - 2 per court, 1 per 600 square feet of building area, 1 per 200 square feet of pool water area. No additional parking shall be required for outdoor playground facilities. Up to 10 parking spaces per recreational facility may be directly loaded off a private roadway serving the recreational area. 2. Temporary Model Sales Facility - minimum 6 parking spaces per building. Parking for models or temporary sales facilities shall be permitted to back directly onto private roadways serving the units. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. Page 5752 of 6525 III-3 09/19/2025 TABLE I SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Permitted Uses and Standards Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Duplex, Single Family Attached and Townhouse5 Multi-Family Dwellings 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' NA NA Front Yard Setback1 20' /23' 20'/23 20'/23' 20'/23' Side Yard Setback 6' 0' or 6' 0' or 6' 15' Rear Yard Setback2 15' 15' 15' 15' Santa Barbara Blvd. R-0-W Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Accessory Setback2 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Setback3 Accessory Principal 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract A 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract B 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 4 Stories or 50’ Distance Between4 Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 15' Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract A 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract B 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 650 SF (1 bedroom) 950 SF (2 bedroom) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 1Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road or access easement, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). For multiple family buildings served by an unplatted driveway, no setback shall be required; however, adequate stacking shall be provided to accommodate vehicular parking. For Tract B, front entry garage setback shall be a minimum of 23' from private ROW or back edge of sidewalk. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the setback must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance, Chapter 134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. C. For structures with side or rear entry garages, the minimum front yard may be reduced to 12'. 2Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, or open space (non-preserve) may be reduced to 0' feet; however, a reduced building setback shall not reduce the width of any required landscape buffer, as may be applicable. 3For purposes of this Section, accessory structures shall include but not be limited to attached screen enclosures and roofed lanais. 4A minimum building separation of twelve (12) feet between detached structures. Detached garages may be separated by a minimum often (10) feet. 5Attached single family and multi-family structures within Tract B shall not exceed 4 dwelling units per structure. Page 5753 of 6525 IV-1 09/19/2025 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Section IV establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated as Preserve "P" on the RPUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, subject to review and approval by local, state & federal agencies as required, for other than the following: B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding impervious paved trails). 2. Water management facilities. 3. Any other preserve and related use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Building setbacks shall be 20 feet from the RPUD boundary for any permitted structure. B. Maximum zoned height for any structure shall be 20'. 4.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed preserve areas depicted on the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Master Plan are intended to meet the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservation areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval based on jurisdictional agency permit requirements. Page 5754 of 6525 IV-2 09/19/2025 Approximately 6 acres of native vegetation exists on-site at the time of rezoning application. Through retention of existing native vegetation and revegetation of open spaces on-site, the developer shall provide 1.75 acres of preserve on Tract B and 1.25 acres of open space on Tract A. a minimum of 3 acres of on-site native vegetation, which shall consist of a minimum of ±1.5 acres of retained vegetation and ±1.5 acres of replanted and enhanced native vegetation. Page 5755 of 6525 V-1 09/19/2025 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat, Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. These developer commitments will be enforced through provisions agreed to be included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions or similar recorded instrument. Such provisions must be enforceable by lot owners against the developer, its successors and assigns, regardless of turnover or not to any property or homeowners' association. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. Page 5756 of 6525 V-2 09/19/2025 5.4 PUD MONITORING (HEX Decision 21-01) A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments for Tract B until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD Insubstantial Change amendment approval dated January 7, 2021, the Managing Entity for Tract B is St. George Group, Corp MHP Collier IV, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. (HEX Decision 21-01) Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC. 5.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25- year return frequency. A. The project will be permitted with the South Florida Water Management District and copies of the applicable permits will be provided to Collier County prior to issuance of applicable County permits. Page 5757 of 6525 V-3 09/19/2025 B. Existing lakes already constructed as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed to continue to exist in accordance with the cross sections shown on Surface Water Management Plan, Exhibit "B". Any new lakes must meet the requirements of the then current LDC. 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. C. Water and wastewater systems shall be constructed in accordance with State of Florida Laws and Collier County's Codes and Ordinances. D. All construction plans, technical specifications and hydraulic design reports are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division prior to commencement of construction E. Upon completion of construction, all water and wastewater systems within the project shall be tested and must meet minimum County standards and requirements. The system(s), or a portion thereof, that is found to meet the requirements set forth in item #5 below, may then be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. F. If County's utility system does not have access readily available to serve a project within the County's service area, extensions to the County infrastructure may be required. All required extensions shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer, fiscally and otherwise (time and schedule), unless such extension has been previously defined in the County Water and/or Wastewater Master Plan. In such case, the developer may negotiate an upsizing agreement with the County. If it is determined by the County that neither of these two options are feasible, an interim system may be considered. G. Items on the following list shall be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance upon approval from the Board of County Commissioners if they are located within a County right-of-way or County Utility Easement (CUE), are in compliance with the latest revision of the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, and are connected to the County Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Systems: Page 5758 of 6525 V-4 09/19/2025 1. Potable water lines 6” or larger, including water meters and backflow devices that are not on fire lines. 2. Gravity wastewater lines 8" or larger. 3. Wastewater lift stations that are located within a CUE. 4. Force mains 4” or larger. 5. CUE's that are determined to be necessary to access and maintain utility systems and structures. 6. Non-potable irrigation water lines 6" or larger, including the water meter and backflow devices. For potable and reclaimed water distribution systems that will not be conveyed to the County, a master meter shall be required. Such systems shall be owned and maintained by the applicant, his successor or assigns, from the customer side of the master meter and backflow device or the check valve at the property line or County Utility Easement limit. School and park developments are included in the list of types of developments whose internal systems the applicant or assigns shall be responsible to own and maintain. H. Private lift stations shall conform to the same specifications that apply to public lift stations, unless a Deviation from the Ordinance has been granted in advance and writing by the County Wastewater. The lift station Control Package shall include an operable Telemetry Control System, as specified by County Standards. I. H. The developer will pay all impact fees in accordance with the latest revision of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Code of Laws Section 74.303(d). J. I. PUDs and DRIs shall have only one master pump station. K. J. Lift station easement areas shall be designed to 30 feet by 30 feet, or twice the wetwell depth by twice the wetwell depth, whichever is larger. L. K. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of bulk containers service (garbage dumpsters and/or compactors) for all commercial and industrial establishments, unless authorization for alternative means of disposal is approved by the Public Utilities Division. Bulk container service shall be required to all multi-family projects not receiving curbside pickup. Solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of curbside pickup for all units on the annual Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Special Assessment Roll's. All individual units within a deed-restricted area must have an enclosed location other than the residential structure, such as a carport or garage for the storage of individual solid waste containers, or as otherwise permitted in Section 5.03.04 of the LDC. Page 5759 of 6525 V-5 09/19/2025 M. L. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, all provisions and facilities for solid waste collection and disposal shall conform to all portions of Section 5.03.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) of the latest edition of the LDC. M. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by Collier County during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. N. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the water distribution/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by Collier County during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 5.8 TRAFFIC The development of this RPUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County Land Development code (LDC). B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. Page 5760 of 6525 V-6 09/19/2025 D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 74 and Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of the LDC, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a Right-of-way Permit. F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. H. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right- of-way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. K. A. Upon written request by Collier County the property owner shall dedicate, to Collier County without compensation, an area of approximately 721± square feet for road right-of-way purposes, as depicted on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan. Page 5761 of 6525 V-7 09/19/2025 L. A temporary construction access for all site work and vertical construction on Tract B shall be located along Santa Barbara Boulevard as shown on the PUD Master Plan and subject to issuance of the appropriate right-of-way permit. Temporary construction access shall be limited to one year from issuance of development permit (PPL or SDP). To limit the access to construction activities only, signage is required to indicate Construction Only, and barricades are required to block access during non-working hours. Prior to final approval by the County, the temporary access shall be totally removed, and right-of-way shall be restored. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. The maximum total daily trip generation for Tract B shall not exceed 33 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of applications for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL (HEX Decision 21-01) A. A minimum of (3.0 acres) 1.75 acres of the on-site native vegetation shall be retained or revegetated, consistent with Chapter 3 of the LDC as conceptually shown as preserve areas on the Exhibit "A-1", Conceptual RPUD Master Plan. 1. Of the 3.0 acres of preserve, 1.71 shall be existing native vegetation and 1.62 0.4 acres shall be restoration. 5.11 HOUSING A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the owner of Tract B has agreed to construct 71 rental units for residents in or below the low income category (80 percent or less of County median income) and 13 rental units for residents in or below the very low income category (50 percent or less of County median income). These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. A. By way of example, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income Limits are: Page 5762 of 6525 V-8 09/19/2025 The developer or successors and assigns shall require a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units developed within Tract B of the RPUD to be initially sold to individuals or families that use the dwelling unit as their primary residence. The deed to the initial purchaser shall include a restriction that the initial purchaser shall use the unit as their primary residence. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the owner will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units, including rent data for rented units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Owner agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to sell a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units constructed within Tract B of the RPUD to persons employed in Collier County and earning a family income that is up to 140% of the County' s median income. Page 5763 of 6525 Page 5764 of 6525 TRACTBOUNDARYSANTA BARBARA BLVD PUDBOUNDARY8' BUFFER WALLPER PUDPROPOSEDTURNLANEPROPOSED6' SIDEWALKSANTA BARBARALANDINGS (PUD)(TRACT A - NOT SUBJECT TOTHIS AMENDMENT)PLANTATION(PUD)6' SIDEWALK(HEX DECISION 21-01)100'RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENT12' ROWCOMPENSATIONBEMBRIDGE EMS COMPLEX (PUD)EKOS AT SANTABARBARA PHASE I6' CROSS WALK (HEX DECISION 21-01)CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARYSCHOOL ROAD ENTRANCE6' SIDEWALK(HEX DECISION 21-01)R (MF)W/M(0.31 ACRES)D/AD/AD/AD/AR (MF)R (MF)25' PRESERVESETBACK6' BUFFERRESERVATIONGATEDEMERGENCYACCESS ONLY15' TYPE BBUFFERP0.84± ACRESP0.91± ACRES15' SIDE YARD SETBACK15' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE BW/M(0.09 ACRES)W/M(0.15 ACRES)W/M(0.03 ACRES)W/M(0.09 ACRES)AVERAGE 20' (MIN 15')TYPE D BUFFER(HEX DECISION 21-01)122PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKCONNECTIONDATEREVISION#DRAWN 04080SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUDA EXHIBIT A-1 - RPUD MASTER PLAN - TRACT B CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE:5618 WHISPERING WILLOW WAY | FORT MYERS, FL 33908 WWW.THENEIGHBORHOOD.COMPANY DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: DRAWN: DESIGN: 24038.01.01 F.L.01/25 P.V. Z-1 MHP COLLIER IV, LLCLEGENDW/M - WATER MANAGEMENTP - PRESERVE:MF - RESIDENTIAL - MULTI-FAMILYD/A - DRIVE AISLE- PUD BOUNDARY- INTERNAL DRIVE AISLE- ROAD EASEMENT- INGRESS - EGRESS- EXTERNAL ROAD/ROW- DEVIATIONS#Page 5765 of 6525 DATEREVISION#DRAWN CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE:5618 WHISPERING WILLOW WAY | FORT MYERS, FL 33908 WWW.THENEIGHBORHOOD.COMPANY 03060DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: DRAWN: DESIGN: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUDA NOTES 24038.01.01 F.L.01/25 P.V. MHP COLLIER IV, LLC RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES:1. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.2. THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED ATEITHER PRELIMINARY SDP APPROVAL OR PPL APPROVAL.3. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTICVEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGSWITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. IN ORDER TOMEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A TYPE 'B' BUFFER, A 6-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATIONLOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVE WILL BE CONVEYED TO A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ORCONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. THE 6' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERRESERVATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE MASTER PLAN. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESERVE DOESNOT MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER REMOVAL OF EXOTICS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGWITHIN THE PRESERVE, PLANTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE 6' WIDE RESERVATION TO MEET THEBUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE TYPE, SIZE AND NUMBER OF SUCH PLANTINGS, IF NECESSARY, WILL BEDETERMINED AT TIME OF INITIAL SDP OR PLAT AND INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THESDP OR PLAT.SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREAUSEACREAGEMFRESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY3.23PPRESERVE1.75W/MWATER MANAGEMENT 0.40D/ADRIVE AISLE1.35TOTAL6.73 AC.±PRESERVE:1. REQUIRED: 1.75 AC2.PROVIDED: 1.75 ACOPEN SPACE:1. REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (ENTIRE RPUD): 30% OF 41.59 AC OR 12.48 AC2.PROVIDED (TRACT A): 19.96 AC3. PROVIDED (TRACT B): 1.98 ACINTENSITY:1. MAXMIUM UNITS (ENTIRE RPUD): 3322.MAXIMUM UNITS (TRACT B): 84DEVIATIONS:1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-familydwellings, which requires:All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normalrequirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project andintended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may becomputed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet ofthe recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within300 feet of the recreation facilities.To instead allow for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces.2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnectedwithin the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separatepreservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit a-1.Z-2 Page 5766 of 6525 Page 5767 of 6525 Page 5768 of 6525 Page 5769 of 6525 Page 5770 of 6525 Growth Management Community Development Department Zoning Division—Comprehensive Planning Section C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: Tim Finn, Planner III, Zoning From: Parker Klopf, Planner III, Comprehensive Planning Date: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20240013221 PETITION NAME: Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Amendment REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 291 to 332 units to allow development of 84 multifamily dwelling units with affordable housing on Tract B of the RPUD, to remove the requirement to build a wall on the west side of Tract B, increase the height on Tract B and add a detailed master plan for Tract B. LOCATION: Tract B is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Radio Road and Sanat Barbara Boulevard, in Section 40, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.74+ acres out of 41.6+ acres COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located in the Urban residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-use District as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). In 2005, the 41.6-acre property was rezoned from Residential Multi Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) pursuant to Ordinance 05-53 to add 43 mixed residential dwelling units to the 248 existing dwelling units for a total of 291 dwelling units or a density of 7 units an acre. Per the October 31, 2024 PUD Monitoring Report, a total of 248 dwelling units have been constructed in the RPUD, all of which are the existing units located on tract A. This amendment proposes to increase the density to a maximum of 332 units or a density of 8 units an acre over the entirety of the property with no change in density on Tract A. This is b etter stated as an increase in the number of units permitted on tract B from 43 to 84 units. This increase in density is being justified by committing 71 units for households between 51% - 80% Area Median Income (AMI) Page 5771 of 6525 and 13 units for households at or below 30% AMI, see affordable housing density bonus agreement. Based on staff review of the proposed amendment and the accompanying affordable housing agreement it is the determination of Comprehensive Planning Staff that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Future Land Use Plan. Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold]. FLUE Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. As stated above the maximum allowed density within the Urban Residential Area is 4 DU/A, the proposed project has a proposed density of 3 DU/A. Staff have concluded that the requested density is less than allowed by the FLUE making it consistent with the GMP. FLUE Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The proposed development is within the Urban Designated Area of the Future Land Use Map and is serviced by utilities provided by the Collier County. Approval of this project is not urban sprawl and development at the proposed density is a good utilization of the existing infrastructure from a planning perspective. FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The proposed project will consist of a single multi-family structure. The property immediately north of the subject property is designated as tract A and consists of existing multi-family development. To the south is the entrance to an elementary school that includes a County owned Multi-family development. To the west is Santa Barbra Blvd. which is a six-lane divided highway and to the East of the property is residential single family development with a limit of 3-5 units an acre. The conceptual PUD master plan demonstrates appropriate project buffers consistent with that required in the LDC, and the proposed development standards will ensure that the units are setback from the adjacent roadway and nea rby residences to insure the compatibility. Page 5772 of 6525 FLUE Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed- use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Based on staff review of the proposed Master Plan the subject property is interconnecting with tract A which meets the intent of this policy. FLUE Objective 7, and implementing Policies 7.1-7.4 Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed amendment to the PUD does promote smart growth policies by using existing urban designated land, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adding an access point to the adjacent elementary school, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County. CONCLUSION: The proposed density of 8 units is complementary and compatible with surrounding development. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed amendment to the PUD has been deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Page 5773 of 6525 lThis space lot recordi,rgl A(;IIEEMENT AT]TTIORIZING AT.'I'()I{I)ABLE II0TJSING I)ENSI'I'Y BONTJS AND IMPOSIN(; COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL THIS AGREEMENT is made as this day of _,2025 by and between MHP Collier IV, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (together, with its successors and assigns, collectively. the "Developer'), S & C Santa Barbara LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Owner") and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Commission"), collectively, the "Parties". RECITALS A. 'l'he Owner owns a portion of approximately +6.74 acres ofreal property located in the of the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (the "Santa Barbara RPUD"), which real property is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property" or "Tract B"). B. The Developer is the contract purchaser ofthe Property. C.. 'l-he Santa Barbara RPUD permits a maximum of 291 residential units, at a density of 7 units per acre. The gross acreage ofthe Santa Barbara RPUD is a4l .6 acres. D. It is the Developer's intent to construct a multifamily housing development with a maximum of84 residential units (the "Units") on the Property (the "Development"), which would require the Santa Barbara RPUD to be amended to permit the construction of a maximum of 332 residential units at a density of 8 units per gross acre across the Santa Barbara RPUD. lf the Density Bonus (as defined below) is approved, the number of affordable Units constructed by Developer shall be 84, which would represent 25.30% percent ofthe total 332 units approved for the Santa Barbara RPUD. E. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus from the Commission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89. now codified by Ordinance 04-4 l, as Land Development Code (LDC) $ 2.06.00 el seq., which density bonus can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in Page I of26 PROPE,R'TY Page 5774 of 6525 accordarce with the strict lirnitations and applicability ofsaid provisions. F. 'l'he Commission is willing to gmnt a density bonus to the Developer of I unit per acre lcrl thc Santa Batbara RPIJD, inclcasing the dcnsity ofthe ovcrall Sanla Barbara RPUD to $ units per acte, attd authorizing lhc constluction of4l bonus units on tlre Property, ilthe Developer agrces 1() construct affoldable, workforce, antl gap units as spccified in this Agrecmcnt. NOW, THERtrFORE, in consideration of the appl.oval and grant of the Density Bonus of I ttnit per acre requcsted by tlre Developer fbr thc Sarlta Balbara RPUD and the benefiIs confeu ed rhereby ou the Propelty, and fol other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission lrereby covenanl and agrre as fbllows: I Recitals. 'l'he above Recitals arc true and correct and are incorporated herein by referetrce. 2. Developer .Agreements. The Developer lrereby agrees to provide the following Affordable Flousing Units (as defined bclow) for.the Development, in accordance with this Agreement and as specilied in Exhibits A through G attached hereto and incorporated herein. a. All eighty-four (84) of the Units of the Development will be provided I'or those eaming 80% percent or less of the Collier County (Naples-Marco Island Metro Statistical Arca) area median income, as determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and ljrban Development ("AMI") (each, individually, an,,Affoldable llousirg Unit,,and, collectively, the "Affordable Housing Units,,). b. AllAffordable Housing Units will be rentals. c. 'l'he Units will include multi-farnily units with a variety of 1 bedroon,/l bathrooln and 2 bedloornV2 bathlooms rrnits. d. No Affoldablc Housing Unit in the Developrnent shall tre rented to a tenant whose income has not inilially been velified and ceLtified in accordance with this section as an extremely low-income, vcry low-income, or low-inconre household. Such verification and cerlification shall be the responsibility of lhe Developel and shall be submitted to thc Coun$r Manager o[ designee for approval provided, however., that pursuant to Section 2.06.05.8.6. of the Collier County, Florida Land Development Code, Developer. shall be Page 2 of 26 Page 5775 of 6525 e dcemed to havc satisfied thc verification obligations if the Developer. has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualification rcquirements ol' the Flotida Housing Finance Corpoution and provided the County Communiry and Human Services Division with a copy o1'applicable Flolida Housing Finauce Colpolation compliance and program repotts. lenant income verification and certification shall be repeated annually to assure continued eligibility provided, however, that pursuant 10 Section 2,06.05.B.6. olthe Collier County, llorida Land Development Code, Developer shall be deerned in cornpliance with the reporting obligations required helein if the Developel has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualillcalion lequirements ofthe Florida Housing Finance Corpomtion and ptovided the County Community and Human Selvices Division a copy of the aunual Florida Housing Finance Corporation compliance and program repofts. If, upon annual receltitication, a household's income is determined to exceed 120% of AMI, the Property shall not be deerned to be in non-cornpliance with the r.equirements ofthis Agle€meut, so long as the next available unit is rented to an extremely low-income, vely [ow- income, or low-income person ol household, or in conjunction with feder.al l,ow lncome Tax Credil requirements, if applicable. 'l'he fbllowirg provisions shall be applicable to tlre Affor.dable Housing Units: i. Defined terms. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Phasing" shall mean: (a) the phased constructiot'] of buildings or struct[res in separate al]d distinct stages as slrown on a PUD nraster plan, subdivision rnaster plan or site development plan: or.(b) in developments where phascd cor)sh'uction is not depicted on a P[]D mastel plan, subtlivision master plan oI site developrnent plan, the construction of buildings or sll.trctures in a clearly defirred series ofstarls and Ilnislres that arc sepalate and distinct within the development. ii. Median Incorne. Forthe pulposes ofthis Agreemer)t, the mecliarr income t-r1'the alea as defincd by the U.S. Depaftnent of Housing and Ulban Developrncnt (l ItJD) shall be the then currenl median incorne fol the Colliel County (Naples-Marco Island) Metlopolitan Statistical Area, establislred peliodically by IIUD and published in the Page 3 ol 26 Page 5776 of 6525 Federal Register', as adjusted fol household members as shown on the tables attached lrereto as Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted fi.om time to time in accor.dance with any adjustrnenls that arc authorized by llUD or.any successor agency. ln the event that HUD cea.ses to publish an established rnedian income as aforesaid, the Parties heleto shall nrutually agree to anotlrcr reasonable and comparablc method ol conrpu(ing adjustrnents in rnedian incorne. lll Elisibilitv and Ou lification ofRenler Household income eligibility is a three- step process: I) submittal ofan application by a pr.ospective Renter;2) vefificatiotl of farnily housing unit provided under the affoldable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus program prior to being qualified a1 the appropriate levei ol income (extremely Iow-income, very low-income, or low-inconre) in accordance with this Section;3) certification of eligible Renter by the Community and Human Services Division. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifling !.entel.s by accepting applications, verifying income and obtaining income cer.tification for all Affordable Housing Ulits in the subject Development. All applications, forms and other documenaation requiled by this Agreernent shall be provided to Community and llurnan Services Division. lf, upon annual income receftificatiorr, the ilcome of a household residing in an Affordable Housing Unit is determined to be in excess of the applicable limit fol the income category to which such household was initially designated (i.e., extrcmely low-incorne, very low-incorne, or low-incorne) (an .,Over-lncome I'lousehold"), the Property/Developlnent shall not be deerned to be iu violation of this Agreernent, provided that: (i) the next available Unit within rhe Development is leased to a hoLrsehold meeting the income eligibility requirernents ofthe category originally assigned to sLrch Affordable Housing Unit; and (ii) the lease ofthe Over-lncome Household is not rencwed upon expilation or tetmination ofthe then-current tet.tn ofsucl] lease if, at suoh time, the Over-lncorne Household's income continues lo exceed the applicable limit fot its otigiually assigned incorne category; provided, however., that il the Over-lnconte Household would be eligible to quali! for.an Affordable Housing Ullit within another. Pagc 4 o1 26 Page 5777 of 6525 income category for the Developmeut, and an Affor.dable llorsing Unit is available for rent witlrin such category, then (a) the Unit occupied by the Over-lncome Household rnay be re-designsted as an Affordablc Housing Unit within such catcgor.y or (b) the Over-lncorne Household may move to occupy such available Afl'oldable Housing tJnit, and in eithercase tlre Prope y/Development shall not be deemed to be iD violation of this Agreenent. Notwithstanding anything to the contmly, ifthe l)eveloper is required to comply with any tenant eligibjlify and qualification requirernents in cornectiorr with financing (including lederal Low Income Tax Credits) fi orn Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the Propeffy shall be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this Agreemerrt so long as the Propefy is in-compliance with suclr Flor.ida Housing Finance Corporatiou requirements. Further notwitlrstanding anytlring to the contr.ary, and tbr avoidance ofdoubt, Affordable Housing Units ofa particulal incorne category shall be floating units, and shall not be lirrited or fixed to pafticular tjnits in the Development. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible Renter family shall be subject ro review and apptoval in accordance with the nronitoring and enforcement program in LDC $$ 2.06.05 and 2.06.06. respcct ively. (l) Apoliqation. A potential renter slrall apply to the Developer, the property manager of the Development (Ihe "Management Agenf'), or. other. agent (of the Developer or Management Agent) to qualify as an extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income household llcl the purpose of renting and occupying an Affordable Housing Unit pursuarlt. to the aflordable housiug density bonus plogrzrn. The Prelirninary Application lbl an Al,fordable Housing Unit shall be provided to Collier County Community and Human Selvices Division as shown in Exhibit D, attached to this Agl.eement and incorporated by refelence helein. Vcrifica oo No A|brdable lloLtsing Unit in the Development shall be rellted whose household incoms has not been verified and certified in accordance with this Agr?en)ent and LDC $ 2.06.05. (2) Page 5 of 26 Page 5778 of 6525 (3) lncome Vclification. Thc Developet shall obtain writtcn vcrification fronr thc potential occupant(s) (including all household members) to velify all regular sources of income (including all lrousehold members) in the form of the Affordable-Housing Applicant lncome Verification attached as Exhibit E heleto and incorpolated by rcference hercin (the "Applicant Incorne Verification"). 'fhe rnost fccent ycar's lederal income tax ret fll for the potential occupants (including all household membels) nray be Lrsed for the pur-pose of incorne vcrificatior, attached to the Applicant lncome Velification, including an statement to l elease the return, ocoupant verification ofthe return and a signaturc block with the date ofapplication. The Applicant lncome Verification shall be valid for up to olle lrundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy. Upon expiralion ofthe 180-day period, the intbrmation may be ver.bally updated flom the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original Applicant Income Ver.ification. Afler this tirTre, a new Applicant Inoorne Verification must be completed. (4) lncome Certification. Upon leceipt of tlre Plelirninary Application for an Affordable Housing Unit and Applicalt lncome Ver.ification, the Developer shall rcquire thal. an income certification forrn in the form ofthe Affor.dable-Housing Applicant Income Certification attached as Exhibit F hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the "Applicant lncome Ce ification") be executed by the pc{ential occupant (irrchrding the entire household) pri<r to ocrupancy ofthe Affor.dable Ilousing Unit by the occupant. lncome celtification shall assure that the potential occupant lras an appropliate household income which qlalifies the potential occupart as eligible to occupy an affotdable lrousing unit under the affordable housing density bonus progmm. Random inspection oi files containing rcquired documentatiorl to velify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC $ 2.06.00, may be couducted by the Cornnrunity and Human Services Division upon reasonable notice. Page 6 of 26 Page 5779 of 6525 iv. Annual Progress and Monitorirrg Report. The Developer shall provide the Community and Humarr Selvices Division an annual progress and monitoring rcpolt legalding the delivery of Afloldable Housing Urrits througlrout the period of their constrllction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoling report shall, at a minirnunr, provide any information rcasonably lequired to ensute compliance with LDC $ 2.06.00, or subsequent arreodments theleto. 'lhe repoll. shall be filed on or befole Septembcr 30 ofeach year and tlre reporl shall be submitted by the Developer to the Comrnunity and Human Services Division. Failure to complete and submit tl're monitorirg report to the Community and Humal Services Divisiol within sixty (60) days fiorr the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written extension rrot to exceed thirly (30) days is granted prior to expiration ofl the sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such exlension may be granted in a single year. v. Occupancy Restrictions. No Affordable Housing Unit in the Development shall be occupied by the Developer', arly person related to or. affiliated with the Developer. ol by a resident manager. 3. Density Bonus. The Comntission hcreby acknowledges that the Developcr.has met all requiled corclitions to qualify l'or the Density Bonus, in addition to the existing residential density of 7 units pet acre fot the Sarrta Balbara RPUD, and is therefore granted a density bonus of I density bonus units per acre for the Santa Barbara RPUD (he "Density Bonus"), lor a total density (total : density bortus uirits per acle X gloss acreage) of 8 units/ac, pursuant to LDC $ 2.06.00 for the for tlte Santa Barbara RPUD. The Comrnission further agrees that, in the aggregate, a maximum number of332 units rnay be construcled in the Salta Barbara RPUD, altd that the Developer may construct 84 Units on the Property, provided the Developcr is able to secure building permit(s) {'rorr Collier County. 4. Comrnission Agreemcnt. During the tenn of this Agleerrrent, the Cornrnission acting thrcugh llle Clommunity and lluman Services Division ol its sLrccessor(s) covenants and aglees to prepare and nrake available to lhe Developer any genelal information that it possesses regarding income lim itations and lsstfictions which ale applicable to the Affordable Housing Units. Page 7 of26 Page 5780 of 6525 )Violations and Ent'orcemetrt . ll shall be a violation ofthis Agreement and Ll)Cg 2.06.00 to soll. rcnt, or occupy, or attempt to sell, reut, or occupy, any individual Allbr.dable Housing Unit provided tundel the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program except as specifically pcrmitted by the tcrrns of this Agleement; or to knowingly give false ol misleading information with respect to atry intbtntatiorr required or rcquested by the CommLrnity and Human Services Divisiou or by any other persons pursuant to the authority wlrich is delegated to them by LDC $ 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enfol ce the terms ofthis Agreemenl, The method ofenfolcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the Commission or its designee by crirninal entblcemert pursuant to the provisions of'section 125.69, F]orida Statutes, or by civil errforcemcnt as allowed by law. Notwithstanding anything to the conl.rary, Developer may sell, assign, transt'er, or cor'rvey the Affordable Housing Units in co11nectiol1 with a sale ofthe entire Property aDd/or Dcvelopment. ()Corti fOccu In the cvent that the Developer fails to rnaintain the Aftbrdable I IousingIC IJnits in accordance with *ris Agreement or LDC $ 2.06,00, as amended, at tl]e option ofthe commission, bLrilding pcrmits or certificat€s of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otlterwise approved Unit located or to be located upon the Prope'ty until tlre entire project is in full cornpliancc with tlris Agreement and with I-DC $ 2.06.00, asamended. 7. Assigntnent by Cotntnission. The Cornmission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the Property plovided that it giv€s the Dcveloper thirty (30) days advance written lotice tlrereof. The Developer may assign, delegate or otherwise tlansl'el a ll ol parl of its duties, obligations, ol prom ises under th is Agreement 10 any successot itr interest to the Property without the express writlen consent of the Commission, provided that it gives the (iornnrission thirty (-)0) days advance written notice thereof li. Severabiliry. lf any section, phrase, sentence or poltion ofthis Agreenent is for any reason held invalid ot unconstitutional by any court ofcolnpetent j urisd iction, such portion shall be deerned a separate, distincl, and independent provision, and all othel provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Pa ies. 9. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in wlitiug and slrall either be personally delivered ol shall be serrt by mail, postage prepaid, to the Pafiies at the followiug Page 8 o1 26 Page 5781 of 6525 addresses 'Ib the (lomm ission:Collier County Cornmunity and Human Services 3339 E Tamiarni Trail, Buildhrg H, Suite 2l I Naples, FL 341 I2 1o the Developer':MllP Collier IV, LLC 777 Brickell Ave, Suite 1300 Miarni. FL 33131 Attn: Christopher Shear Any Parly rnav clrange the address lo whiclr notices are to be sent by notirying the other Party ofsuch new addless in lhc ntanlter set fotth above. 10. Authoritv to Monitor, The Parties llerc1o acknowledge that the Collier County Comrnunity and l{uman Services Division ot their designee sball have the authority to monitor and enforce the Dcvcloptlr''s obligations heleund€r. i l. Indernnif.v. 'l'he Developer hereby aglees to protect, defend, indernnify and hold Collier.County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless fiom and against any and all third parly claims, penallies, damages, losses and expenses and professiorral fees actually incurrcd, including, without limitation, Ieasonabls attofltey's fees and all costs of litigatiou and judgments arising out of any claim of willful tn isconduct ot gt oss negligcncc arising out of a breach of th is Agreement by the Developer. Tlris Paragraph shalJ in rro way be corrstrued to relieve Collier County ofthe nonnal and usual duties ofa reasonably pruclent rrronitoring age[t. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the folegoing indernnification shall not apply to auy olainrs, penalties, darnages, losses and expenses resulting from the negligence or intentional rn iscondLrct of Collier County, or any ol its officers, ernployees, or agents. l?. Covellants. The Developer and Owner agrce that all ofthe obligations hor€undcr shall corstitutc covenar)ts, restlictions, and conditions which shall run witlr the land and shall be binding upon the Property atrd againsl every persotr then having any ownerslrip interest at any tinre and from time to time until lhis ,Agrcenrent is te|rn inated in accordance with Section I 5 below. However, the Parties agres that if Developer lransl'crs or conveys the PIopefly lo another person or entity, Developer slratl have no fulther obligation heretlnder and atty persm seeking to enforce the tems heleof shall look solely to Develope/s successor in interest for the perfolrnance ofsaid obligations. 1 3. BgsqldflC. I'lris A greement sha ll he recorded at Clountv's expense in the official recolds of Collier. Page 9 ol26 Page 5782 of 6525 County, Flolida. lrl. Entirc Agreement. The Palties hereto agl€e thal this Agreernent constitutes the entire Agreement bctwoet) the Parties hereto and shall inlre to and be binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 15. 'lermination. Each affoldable or gap housing ttnit shall be r€shicted to remain and be mnintained as tltc lcquiled affordable housilg for thilty (30) yeals, as provided il the LDC $ 2.06.04. 16. Mod itlcation. 'fhis A gleemert shall be rnodified or arnended only by the writtefl agfecrncnt ofboth Partics. )-1. Disorintinatiol a. b. c. d e The Developer agtees that neither it nor its agents shall discr.irninate against any owflel/renters or potential owner*enters because of said ownershentel.s' race, color, religiol, sex, natiorral origin, familial status, or handicap. Wheu the Developer adve(ises, rents or rnaintains an Affordable Housing Unit, it must advertis€ rctrt, and maintain the same in a non-discriminatory mannel. and shall rnake available any relevant informatio0 to auy pemon who is intelEsted in renting suclr Affordable Housing Unit. The Developer agrres to be responsible lor payment of any real estate commissions and fees fol which it is liable in tlre purchase and sale or renlal of any Affordable Housing tJnits, ifany, The Affordable Housing Units shall be interrnixed with, and rrot segregated frorn, the markel late dwelling units in the Dcvelopment, ifany. 'l-he square footage, construction and design ofthe Affordable llousing Units shall be the same as market rate dwelling mits ir the Developnlent, if any. All plrysical arnenities in the dwelling ulits, as described in item number seven (7) ofthe Developer Application for. Affordable Housing Density Bonus, tlxhibit G, shall be the same for market rate units, if ar)y, and tlre Affordable Housing Units. For developrnents whcre constnlction takes place in more than one phase, all physical amcuities as descr.ibed in item number seven (7) ofthe Developer Application for Affordable flousing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same in t oth the markct rate units, ifany, and the affordable-wolkfbrce uuits in each phase. Units Page l0 of 26 Page 5783 of 6525 in a subsequent phase may contain different amenities than units in a prcvious phase so long as the arnenities for tnarket mte units. ifany, and affordable, workforce, and gap units are the same within each phase and prnvided that in no event may a market lzte unit or affoldable-workforce unit in any phase conlain plrysical amenitics less than those described in the Developer Application. 18. LrtentionallyOlnitted. 19. lntentionallyOrnitted. 20. Consistelcv. This Agreement and autlrolized development shall be consistent with the Growth Managelnent Plan and land development regulations ofCollier County that are in effect 8t the tilne of developtnent. Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the cxtena that they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable-workfolce housing units and the anroLrnt of aflbrdable-workfor.ce housing density bonus approved for the developrnent. 21. Affordab Housine Densilv nus DeveloDrnent grsernent 'fhis Agreement is a distinct and separate agreernont fiom "development agreements" as defined by Section 163.3 220, Fla. stat., as arnended. 22, Preapplcada!. Developer has executed and submitted to Collier County the Developer Application lbr AttoLdable Housing Density Bonus, a copy of rvhich is attached to tltis Agreement as Exhibit G and ilcorpolatcd by leference herein, 23 C-tterninl Law. l ltis Agteetnent shall be governed by and construed in accordance with lhe laws ofthe State olFlolida. 24. Fulther sLl anccs . The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, ary and alJ documents, certificates, instrume,rts, and agrcements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent ofthe Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any docunrent requcsted by the Developer to exhibit lhat tlris Agreerlrent has tenninated in accordance with the provisions of palagraph l5 above. [STGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] Pagc I I of26 Page 5784 of 6525 lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. WITN SSES AS TO THE DEVELOPER: MHP COLLIER IV, LLC, a Florida limited liability companySisnarure A - Printed Name: Ankca kVr-- Mailing Address: 777 Brickell Ave., Suite 1300 Miami,FL33l3I Si gn t-e Printed Name &on ZW Mailing Address: 777 Brickell nuF, sult" t:oo Miami, FL 33131 By: MHP Collier IV Manager, LLC, a Florida lirnited liability cornpany , its Mana ger By: Printed Name: Christopher Shear Title: President srarn or- Flor',dq CouNl'Y oF arlarilade The foregoing was acknowledged before me by Christopher Shear as President of MHP Collier IV Manager, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Manager of MHP Collier IV, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, by means of physical presence, who S/is personally known to me or ! has produced as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this I I fl day ol n- 2025 \['' ' " ]-A- N otary eu U t i fis I gn-at ti[- l\a,"e.r lluche sN.t"titdli" Pffit"d Nu." My Commission Expires: 7- il' gol L /.ll/ir Nrnurit ,\u l a Notary Publlo St.ta ot Floridr d,nfu *r-"o"'f;'l,l.,I^",liiir,,, axquaa 71211202Q Page 12 of 26 Page 5785 of 6525 Si tc Mailing Address: 6l Naples. Ft- 341 l2 Whitaker Road l)r'irrted Nanre: Mailing Address: 6 92 Whitakcr Road Nl cs Irt, 34 I I S igIlaturc I)rinlcd Narne )Lsm,x+ tnngrt AS 'I'O'I'HE OWNER: S & C Santa Barbara LLC, a Florida lirnited liability cornpany Ilv Plinted Narne:Ae< L?@rr*/J s Titfe: ourvvl. Notary Public Printcd Name My Comnrissiou Expirts 5o\t \3 .t stArEoF l-lc(\o( C]otJN,IY oF{N(gi Co.reu G,\eNlu), u'rn8 was acknowledged befole mc by of S & C Sanla Barbara, LLC,a Florida lirnited\abili ry cot1l pany, by of physical presence, wlro E is persolally known to nr€odt*produced idcutification Witncss my hand and official seal this l?34 6ny "r 3Q\ge^be(_2025 Notary Public Signatule / I ili\ ),ltttkl ':,'!lli r 2t+q ,.ffi},m' CHAMICI( DE\ON SALTER Notary Publlc State of Florlde Comms HH5!719 ErlptresT ll3tTQ29 Page l3 of 26 \\/II'NI]SSI]SI Page 5786 of 6525 ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZI]L, CLERK Bvr , DepLrty Clerk AS '1'O COMMISSION: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Ilv: Burl L. SaLrnders, Chairman Apprcved as to fblrn and legality: rleidi Ashton Mauaging Assislanl County Attorney Prepar ed by: I{cidi Aslrtorr, Esq. Collier County Attorney's Olfice ll299 l amianri 'liail Bast, Suite 800 Naples, FL 341l2 Attachments Iixhibit A - I-egal Description Exhitrit B - Affordable Ilousing Units/Base Monthly Rents !,xhibit C - Incornc and Rent Level [xhibit D - Prcliminary Application for Affordable Housing Unit Exhibit ll - Affordable-Housing Applicant Income Verification Exhibit F - Affordable-Housing Applicanl lucome Cerlification Exhibit G - Deyeloper Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Pagc l4 of26 Page 5787 of 6525 IXIIIBIT A. I,I]GAI, DNSCRIPTION That pofiion ofthe West Halfofthe West Halfofthe Northwest Quartcr ofSection 4, Township 50 SoLrth, Range 26 Eas1, Colliet County, Flolida beirrg nrore particularly described as follows: Begiuning at the Southeast cornel ofthe West Halfofthe West Ha]1'ofthe Northwest Quarler ofSection ,1,'lbwnship 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; tlrence run North 0lo00'26" West, along thc lr,ast lire olthe West Half of the West Half of thc No hwest Quaner of said Sectiol 4, for a distance of 480.72 leet, thence rurr South 76" I 3'5 I " West for a distance of 82.23 feet to a point on a circular curue, concave Northeast, whose radius point bears Norlh 5'44'34'' East, a distance of7J.16 feet therc fiom; therce run Northwesterly along the alc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 73. l6 feet, througlr a ccnttal angle of38o08'34", subtended by a chord of47.8l feeiata bearing o1'North 65'l l'09" West, lbra distanoe of48.70 feet to the end ofsaid curve; thence run Nofih 90"00'00" West fol a distance ol125.77 fcet; thence lLrn south 35'38'35'' West for a distance o122.57 feet to a point on a circular curve, collcavc No hwcst, whose radius point bears Nolth 29"08'l3' West, a distarcc of 65.22 feet thelc fi om; thence t ur Southwesterly, along the arc of said curve to tbe right, hav ing a radius of 65.22 feet, thlough a central angle of 49"30'54", subtended by a chord of 54.63 feet at a bearing of South 85'3 7'14" Wcst, fol a d istance ol 56.36 feet to the end of said culve; thence run North 69"3'l'17" West for a distarrce of 34.93 1'e(jll thcnce South 27'06'45" West fol a distance of 104.54 feet to a point on a circuiar culve, concave Nolthwest, whose radius point beats Nor.th 56"29'42" West, a distance of 52.77 feet there tiorn; thence Ittn Westetly, along the arc ofsaid ctlrve to the right, having a radius of52.77 feet, tlrlough a centml anglc of l0 I ':]2'l 8", subtended by a chord of 8l .75 feet at a bearing of South 84.16'27' West, for a distance of 91.51 leettolheend ofsaid curve; thence run Nolth 48o37'36" West fola distance of88.05 feet; thence run South 88"5'7'22" West for a distdnce of I13.05 feet to a point on tlle West line ofthe Norlhwest Quartcl of said Section 4; thence lun South 01'02'39" East, along the West line ofthe Northwest Quafter of said Section 4, fol a distance of 439.34 feet to the Southwest sorner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4; thence run Not1h 88"49'14' East, along the South line ofthe Norlhwest Quarter ofsaid Section 4, fol a distance of658.08 feet to the point ofbeginning. TOCIIIHER WlTtl a 24 foot wide ingress and egress Easement lying l2 feet each side ofthe centetline ol lhe existing Santa Clara Dlive. attLl l'OCLll-ltlR Wl'l'H those certain non-exclusive easerrents as created and set fofth in that certaiu Wa anty Decd by and between Bluc Bell-Melidian Paftners, Ltd., a I]lorida limited paftncrship and Santa Barbara Ciarden Villas, LLU, a lirnited liability company recorded ApLil 19,2005 in Official Recor.ds Book 3i7?, page -1934. as re-recorded in Official Recolds llook 3920, Pagc 1403, both of the Public Records of Collier Co.rnty, Irlorida. Page I5 of 26 Page 5788 of 6525 IIXHIBIT B NtlMlll|ll OR AI'FORnAnr,n HOllSlNG IINITS/MO|\{ rHl,Y RASF RFN'I'S Of the 312 units proposed for thc Santa Barbara RPUD, thc 84 units to be constructed on the Ploperty will be rcstlicted for rental to households earning 80% pelcent or less ofthe Colliel County (Naples-Marco lsland Metrc Statislical Area) area median income, as determined by lhe Secretary of the L.l.S. Deparlmert of Housing and Ulban Developmelt. Ofsuch 84 units, 13 units will be rented to the incorne categoty of vety Iow income and 7l units will be rented to the income category of low income, as shown orr Exhibit G to this Agreement. Forrentand income levels, please see ExhibitCtolhis Agreer:rent. ( l ) Base lesidentia l density allowed in th is Development - 7 u n its/acre.(2) Cross acreage of Santa Barbafa RPUD - +41.6 acres. (3) Gloss acreage ofthe Developnent - +6.74 acres. (4) Maximutn nunrbel of affoldable housing density borus units allowed irr this Developrnent pursuant lo l-DC Section 2.06.00 - I unit. (5) Gloss tcsidcntial density ofdris Development (including alfordable housing density bonus units)- 8 units/acre. (6) Peroentage ofAt'floldatrle H ousing Units pledged by the Developer (as a percentage oflhe total ruurnbel units in tlle Santa Barbara RPUD) - 25%. Page l6 of26 Page 5789 of 6525 EXHIBIT C INCoME AND RIINT I,EVIII,S FoII TH E VERY LoW. LOW AND MODERATIINCOMtr Pursuant to LDC Section 1.08.02., rrrodelate incorne is 800/o to 120% ofthe median incorne, low incorne is 5096 to ll0% ofthe rnedian income, very low income is less than 50olo ofthe median income, and extremcly lorv incorrrc is lcss than 307o incomc. fiUo rolrtlJ allll026 Efftlhlr {!n021 LOCA IT()N Naples and Coastal ColJiel County 2025lncomo Umits ard R.flt Limlts Florid, Ho{llng Fln|rco Coponllon SHIP and HXRP Pmgrams C,ouit/ (I o) Prr{iltr c H.y ll(0m Unitby llnirr ol P{& h ficlr*trld n{ tM b! lilrllhrol8.drql! h Uih I 1 3 I t 6 I E r 10 0 i I !{5 (li4r. redad r€.^,!at iol 2].9@ !9,100 6!.640 ci,trlo 2r,IO r5rt. 17,1t4 !09,040 tzt}f0 30 n0 5r.r,0 !r.890 1?.,16 tatn !,t.1s ta,!00 90.9S lta,!a 1t0,0,10 3t.650 6i350 98100 !r?ra0 i .16! 13.1{O 41,900 IE lsa t3!,!io tl,{.520 14.650 ,0.4$ t!2,750 r6q!$ r91260 5r.,50 rr,00a 1?00@ r!0,00! 210.60 o,523 1212!2 !!0,lrt ,12jlt lL,t02 zOrJta a53A 59r 9!|S llsl ,JI' 27S i.!45 2,ttt 2,903 ,6r rzta 2.G6 !,odt tr80 t96 riL 2,!63 t,(r 4.135 1.018 Itrat 2,6!a !,9,a 4,613 12&t Ittt al!! 5.090 T,ITTLITY ALLOWANCES ONE T}/R UNIT TWO ts/R UNIT THREE B/R UNIT FOTIR B/R UNIT 71.00 9l .00 128.00 r56.00 YOti MUSI' DEDUC'I' UTILI TIES TO CALCULATE NIT RENTS Page l7 of 26 Page 5790 of 6525 EXIIIt]tT l) PRDLIMINARV CATION trOR AFFORDABLE.HOUSING UNIT L)ate OccLrpancy Desired: _ Date of Application:-*__ Amount of Sec. Deposit:_ Youl Name Race,4.lational 0ri gin: I{acc/Nalional Origin: Handicap: Yes _ No _ Handicap: Yes _ No _ l)resent Address Stlocl Name ol Lardlnld C'ity State Zip Telephone No. How Long at this Address: _ I-andlortl's Acldrcss: Strcct City Statc Zip Telephone No. Ifyou have resided at your present addrcss less thau 3 yeaIs, please state prtvious address: Street C ity State Zip Telephone No. Name ol Previous Landlord Strcct C ity State Zip 'lelephone No APPLICANT: Prcserrt Empkryers Name Atldress and l elephone No._ flow long with lrresent Employer:__ _ Job'l'itle Gross Salary: Hoully $ _-_ Weekly $__ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly g Social Security Number __-_* Bilth Date Plevious IJnployers Name Address and'1'elephone No ilow long with Previous Employer CO-TENANT: Pr ese0t Employers Name _ Address ald l elephone No._ l iow long with Plesent Employer:_ Job l itle Oloss Salary: I'loutly $_ Weekly $_ Every 2 Weeks $_ Monthly $_ Social Secu[ity Number ___ Birth Date Previous Employers Name Addless and Teleplrole No,_ Page l8 of26 Co-l'cnant Name Job Title Page 5791 of 6525 )lorr ltrrrg with Plevious Ernployer Job l itlc l'EIISONAL RIiFEIIIINCIS (Not Relatives) I Namel 2. Namc: Addrpss: Address: How Long Known: I low Long Known:_ NAMIIS OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUPY APAIITMENT I}IRTH DATTI ![x AG F,SOCIAL SE,CT]IUTY 2 Page l9 oi26 n I 3. Page 5792 of 6525 Alllicrnl'' \l'ne; Co-'l'cnaut's Narne: AFFORDABLE HOUSING API'LICANT INCOMT VtrRItrICATION ,IIIE VER]FICATION I]ERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YI]AR'S INCOMO TAX RETURN FOR EACII OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WII,L OCCUPY I-I.tE AI'FORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR CAP UNtT. Social SecLrritv Number' Social Securitu Nurrber Presenf Address tate Zip_Telephone No I hcleby rrakc application fol a single farnily unit at I hetcby declale and reveal all of my sources of inconre. I atn aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report ,ny assets ol fonns of income h'om pensions, slocks. bonds, r'cal prope y rent, sale or ownership is a fiandulent act pulishable by law. Knowingly falsiliirg infotmation on this form is cause for rcfusal ofoccupancy. I undersland thal this information is for the purpose of computing rny annual income to detennine rny qualilication to buy an affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit. I understand that I am not required to sru rendcr my ownclship or tiglrts or clairned ploperty, pensions or capital gains, etc. Street__-_City Aoplicant Arnounl F requency Received ofPay Co-Occupant Amounl Received Frequency of Pay Wages/Salary [Jonusos 'l'ips Cornrnissions Intelest h]come Trust Fund Income [ ]nernployment Workrnan's Compensatiorr WellLle Food Stanrps Sooial Sectirily Social Seculity Disability Supplemental SSI Farnily Assistance Child SLrpport Veterans Benefits Widows Benefits llliion Pensiou Sell-Ernployment Business, $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Page 20 of26 EX1IIBIT N Date: I heleby certily that this will be my perrnanent lesidence and that I have no other assisted lrousing. $_ $__s_ $_$_ $_$_ $__$_ s_$s_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_$__ $_ $ -_,$_ $_ ( $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $,_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $_ $ $_ $__ $_ Page 5793 of 6525 Silent Paflller, etc. Ptivate lrrsurance Pension TOTAL ANNT]AL INCOMtr $_$$$ $_$-- $ $_ $-_ $ I'IIE SAME MTIST BE EXECIJTED FOR EACH OCCIJPANT OF THE HOI.JSEHOI,D WHO CONI'IIIBUI'ED 'IO TIIE ANNUAL HOUSE}IOLD INCOME. FAILURE TO REPORT AI,L SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULl-IN DISQUAI-IF'ICA'IION IIOR.l'ENANCY IN AFFORDABI-8, WORKFORCE, OR CAP HOIJSING UNIT. I)agr: 2l ol'26 Page 5794 of 6525 EXIIIITIT }' ATIIIOII.DABLtr-WORKtrORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTITICATION ,I'HI] CERTIIiICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAI(E T}.IE FORM OF l'HE MOST RECENT YL,AR'S INCOMF, TAX RE'|L]RN F'OR EACH OCCIJPANT WHO HAS FII,ED AND WII,I, OCCTJPY T'HE AFFORDABLE.WORKFORCE UN fI" APPI,I(]ANT: Present Iimployer: Job'l'it!e: Addrrss: Stleet City State Zip hereby authotize the release ol inlormaliort rcquesled (Applicant) on this cefiillcation fotm. Signature ofApplicant S'fA'ffi OF FLORIDA COUNTY OIJ COLLIER 'fhe foregoing was acknowledged before me by by means of ,_ physical presellce ol _online notarization, who is personally known to rne _or has P loduccd as identificalion Witness rny hand and official seal this day of 20 (notaly seal) My Comrnission Expiles: Page 22 of 26 Notary Public Plint Name Page 5795 of 6525 EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION Applicant's Gross Arrrual lncome ol Rate or Pay: $___ Number of l'louls Worked (Weekly): ___. Frequency of Pay: Arnount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Cornpensati on Received: $ Monthly Annually SLrpervisor' S'I'A'III OF' I]LOITIDA COI,,]N'IY OF COLLIER 'l'he foregoing was acknowledged beforc me tly _ o1'physical plesencc or online notarization, who is pelsonally known to me by means ol has ploduced as identificatiol. Wituess my hand and official seal this __ day of 20 (notary seal) Notaly Public Print Narne My Commission Expires: .I'HII CII]RTIFICA'TION IIERE REQUDSTED MAY TAKE'I'HE FORM OF -fHE MOS'| RECENT YI]AII.'S INCOMI'IAX IiB]'URN FOR EACIj OCCUPANI'WHO TIAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY.I'HI'] A FFORDABLE-WORKFORCE UNIT. Page 23 of 26 Page 5796 of 6525 tixHrIIl'G DEVELOPDR APPLICATION F'OR AFT'ORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS Pursuanl to t,DC {i 2.06.01 please cornplete this forrn and submit it with any acconrpanying documentation to Collier. County. All iterns lerlucstcd must be pr.ovided. I . I'lease stato wlrat z.oning distticts arc propos€d by tlre applicant, ifauy, on the property and thc acreage of e;,ch;Landin L6 Acrcs 2. Has an application for. rezoning been requested in conjunction with lhe affordable, workforce and gap housing Density bonus? X Yes _No If yes, state date of application - 02l25n0zs and if the request has been approved, state the Ordinance number. l!!\. 3. Gross density ofthe proposed developrnent, - 8 units per acre Gross acreage olthe pr.oposed developrnent - +6.74ac. {Tract B) Of 4l .6 total gtoss acreage r the Sar)ta Balbara Landin RPUI) 4. Are affotdable-wor.kforce housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an application fol a planued unit development (PUD)? _X_ yes No. Ifyes, please statc lrame and locatir.rn ofthe PUD and any other identi$,ing infor.mation. Santa l-andirrss RPI D - PUDA-PL2 0013221 5. Narne of applicant - MHP Collier lV. LLC Narne of land dcvcloper if not the sarne as Applicanl: \!!\ Please complete tlte following tables as thcy apply to the proposed developrnent6 Page 24 ol 26 Page 5797 of 6525 TABLIl @ Type of Owrrel tlnit Rental Occuoied 0fficiency One Bedroorn _60 Two Bedroom J!* Thlee Betlroom Otlrel Bedroom (Four) _ T()'t'AL 84_ TABLE II Nurnber of Affordsble Housing Units Total Nunrbel of Alfordable- Wolk-force Units in the Developrnent - 84 Affordable Housing Units Rental Owlrer Occupied LOW INCOMO, INCOME CATEGORY 50-80% MI Efficiency lBedroom _5_l 2 Bedroorn 20 - 3 Bcdrootn Othel' TOTAL 1I Proposed [Jse for Deusity Bonus Units - 4l [inits Rental Owncr Occuuied 4l Page 2-5 o1'26 4t-. Page 5798 of 6525 Vf,RY LOW INCOME,INCOMf, CATEGORY 5O'/O OR LESS MI Effic icncy I Bedlor-rm 9 2 Bedloom _4 3 Bedroorr Othcr' {4 Sedroom) TO'I AL I 3 7. Please provide a physical descr.iption olthe Affor.dable Housing Units by type ofunit (very Iow income, low incorne) and by number ofbedrooms. Includc in your description, fbr example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used thtoughout the unit (csrpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatrnents; appliances provided such as washer/dryer, dishwasher', stove, rcfrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans; Bnd any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit "D" if needed. The Developrnent will consist ofa singte, four-story, elevator-served building cornprising 84 high-quality rertal units designed to meet the needs ofextrernely lorv-income, very low-come, and low-incorne farnilies. 'Ihc proposed unit mix is 60 one-bedloom/one-bathroom ard 24 two-bedroom/two-bathlooln. 'lhe Developnent will include essential amenities to enhance lesident experience, including a leasing office, a community clubroom, a covered outdoor termce, and a tot lot. 'fhe Development will be dcvelopcd to meel National Creen Building Standard (NGBS) Bronze cedi{ication and will incorporate Energy Slar I.l upgrzdes. 8, Please supply any other inforrnation which would leasonably be neccled to address tlris requcst for an alftldable, w,rrkfolce, arrd gap housing density bonus for.this developrneut. Attach additional pages if needed. Ptgrc 26 ol'26 Page 5799 of 6525 Collier County Planning Commission Agenda Packet Checklist for PUDs to be submitted by Applicants and Agents Application •Narrative of rezone request •Property Information •Property Ownership and general description of site Disclosure of Interest Affidavit of Unified Control Affidavit of Representation NIM Information (Sign-in sheet, notes, minutes and/or summary, audio or video recording) Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Environmental Data Historical/Archeological Survey or Waiver Utility Letter Deviation Justifications Boundary Survey Amended PUD Ordinance (the last submitted Ordinance with strikethrough – color preferred) Other documents (as needed, on a case-by-case basis) such as relevant prior ordinances, conditional uses, historical documents, any “private or legal” agreements affecting the PUD etc. Write details below. I understand that by submitting the above materials, it is the agent/applicant’s responsibility to ensure all materials are in the same order for all copies of backup materials to provide to the CCPC and the CD must contain the documents in one pdf file (not multiple files) in the same order as the printed materials. It is the agent’s responsibility to ensure no documentation is left out. Signature of Agent Representative Date Printed Name of Signing Agent Representative •Staff Report •Complete Draft Ordinance /Resolution initialed by County Attorney Materials provided by Planner: Please provide the following documents to support your petition request: Materials to be provided by applicant: Page 5800 of 6525 Page 1 of 11 Planning and Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsections 10.02.13 E; and 10.03.06.B; and Ch. 3 G.2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. File a separate application for an insubstantial or minor change to a PUD. Name of Property Owner(s): Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: If Property is under contract to be sold: Name of Property Buyer(s): Name of Applicant if different than buyer: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5801 of 6525 PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 2 of 11 This application is requesting a rezone from:_______________________________________Zoning district(s) to the _______________________________________________Zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property:__________________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No: _____________________________________________________________________________ On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: •If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; •If required to do so at the pre-application meeting, the applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six (6) months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), and •The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Size of Property: ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: Address/General Location of Subject Property: PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Mixed Use Industrial Community Facilities Research and Technology Park Airport Operations Other: ________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION REZONE REQUEST Page 5802 of 6525 Page 3 of 11 Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________________ Complete the following for all registered Home Owner / Civic Association(s) that could be affected by this petition and located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Civic Associations and Communities page on the Board of County Commissioner’s website. Applicant is responsible for and shall confirm the current mailing addresses for each association as registered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE ASSOCIATIONS PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5803 of 6525 Page 4 of 11 Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy, or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy, or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions EVALUATION CRITERIA PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5804 of 6525 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No If yes, please provide copies. This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.05. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment, or change, for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing, and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees, and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5805 of 6525 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST Name of Applicant(s): MHP Collier IV, LLC Address: 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 City: Miami State: FL Zip: 33131 Telephone: (786) 604-2846 Cell: E-Mail Address: Address of Subject Property (If available): Parcel ID 00400246503 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 3411 Section/Township/Range: 4 / 50 / 26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: 4 50 26 THAT PORTION OF THE W1/2 OF THE W1/2 OF THE NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 3920 PG 1399 Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: 00400246503 Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System d.Package Treatment Plant Provide Name: (GPD Capacity): Collier County e.Septic System Type: Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: 84 multi-family units; Peak and Average Daily Demands: Provide Name: Collier County A.Water-Peak: B.Sewer-Peak: 39,690 gpd 86,976 gpd Average Daily Demands: 29,400 gpd Average Daily Demands: 21,000 gpd PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 6 of 11 PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Page 5806 of 6525 Sanitary sewer system will consist of 8" PVC gravity mains connected by a series of manholes to an on-site grinder lift station. The grinder lift station will pump the sewage from the site to the existing 20" PVC force main located within the Santa Barbara Blvd right -of-way (ROW). Acknowledged. Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Attach additional pages if necessary. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 7 of 11 Page 5807 of 6525 Page 5808 of 6525 Page 9 of 11 The following submittal requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please upload the submittal items with cover sheets attached to each section via the GMCD Portal. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted, or processed. View sample PUD document. REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with narrative statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed application with required attachments (download latest version) Pre-application meeting notes Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized Property Ownership Disclosure Form Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control Completed Addressing Checklist (no older than 6 months) Warranty Deed(s) Signed and sealed Boundary Survey (no older than 6 months) Architectural rendering of proposed structures Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. Statement of utility provisions Statement of compliance with Growth Management Plan Environmental data requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. See Chapter 7 A. of the Administrative Code Listed or protected species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Historical and Archaeological Survey or Waiver School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable with residential uses Location of existing public facilities that will serve the PUD Electronic copy of all required documents Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and one (1) 8 ½” x 11” copy *Checklist continues on next page Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G.2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5809 of 6525 PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 10 of 11 Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined Development Commitments (infrastructure and related matters) Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: •Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses •Exhibit B: Development Standards Table for each type of land use •Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code •Exhibit D: Legal Description •Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each •Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas, pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08 A.2.a.(2)(b)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nicole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Anthony Stolts Parks and Recreation Director: Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Stormwater Management: Fire: City of Naples Planning Director: Erica Martin Other: City of Naples Utilities: Other: Fire Pre-Application Meeting: $150.00 (Applied as credit towards fire review fee upon submittal of application if within 9 months of the pre-app meeting date) Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: •Methodology Review: $500.00 (Methodology by Email to Staff) *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting •Minor Study Review: $750.00 •Major Study Review $1,500.00 FEE REQUIREMENTS Page 5810 of 6525 Page 11 of 11 Fire Planning Review Fee: ($300 PUDZ, PUDR) ($150 PUDA) Estimated Legal Advertising fee: •CCPC: $1,125.00 •BCC: $500.00 If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing Examiner hearing date. (Variable) School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: •Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, if required by The Land Development Code, will be invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date Printed Named of Signing Party *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMCD Public Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5811 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 1 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) NARRATIVE STATEMENT AND EVALUATION CRITERIA BACKGROUND & REQUEST Santa Barbara Landings Tract B comprises ±6.74 acres of the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The subject property is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The original Santa Barbara Landings RPUD was approved for residential development via Ordinance 05- 53 and consists of ±41.6 acres over two development tracts. At the time of original rezoning from RFM‐6 to RPUD in 2005, the northerly ±35.3‐acre (Tract A) was developed with 248 multifamily dwelling units, which TRACT B SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE I Page 5812 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 2 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company is now a condominium community known as Granada Lakes Villas. Tract B was approved for mixed residential dwelling units and was limited to a maximum of 43 units based on the overall PUD limit of 291 units. The applicant, MHP Collier IV, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the RPUD to allow additional units on Tract B through the use of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The development will serve as Phase II of the Ekos on Santa Barbara project, with Phase I located directly south of the subject property. The proposed changes to the RPUD are specific to Tract B and will allow for increased density and modified development standards for multi-family development. The changes are numbered 1 through 8 and are described below: • Change #1: Section 2.2 limits the project to an overall density of 7 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 291 units. To date, 248 units have been built on Tract A, leaving a balance of 43 units. This amendment requests an increase in total project density to 8 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 332 units using an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB). The additional 41 units will allow the developer, McDowell Housing Partners, to provide 84 multi-family rental units on Tract B. Of the 84 units, 71 will be reserved for households with incomes between 51% - 80% of the area median income (AMI) and 13 will be reserved for households with incomes at or below 30% AMI. • Change #2: Section 2.12 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls requires that an 8’ precast wall be constructed along the eastern boundary of the PUD. This amendment requests that the requirement be reduced for Tract B as shown on the Master Plan. As depicted in the proposed site plan, the majority of the eastern boundary of Tract B is the ±0.97-acre preserve area. This preserve area, combined with an additional 25’ setback and 6’ landscape buffer reserve, will provide significant buffering for the adjacent Plantation PUD residences. The three single-family homes closest to the eastern boundary of Tract B will be separated from the proposed multi-family development by approximately 160’ of vegetated preserve and landscape buffer. The proposed wall will span the portion of the boundary north of the preserve, a distance of ±120’. • Change #3: Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) dictates a maximum zoned building height of 2 stories or 30’ for all permitted residential types. This amendment requests a separate building height standard for Tract B, specifically to permit a maximum height of 4 stories or 50’ for multi-family dwellings. Increased height will allow the developer to provide an affordable multi-family product within the relatively small footprint of Tract B to maximize preserve and open space, consistent with the Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I development. • Change #4: Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) requires a minimum floor area per unit 750 square feet. This amendment requests a minimum floor area of 650 square feet to accommodate proposed one-bedroom units consistent with affordable housing units and the Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I development. • Change #5: Table I (Development Standards for “R” Residential Areas) limits attached multi-family structures within Tract B to four dwelling units per structure. This amendment proposes to remove this condition to allow for a single building consisting of 84 units. • Change #6: Section 5.11 Housing outlines housing commitments for Tract B, including a requirement for 50% of the units to be owner-occupied. This amendment requests to update these commitments consistent with the proposed Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement, as well as utilizing the most current housing commitment language provided by Collier County. By removing the 50% owner-occupied requirement, the project will be able to provide 100% of the units as affordable. Page 5813 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 3 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company • Change #7: This amendment requests changes to the approved master plan specific to Tract B, including a minor reconfiguration of the preserve areas and the removal of building footprints. The amended master plan for Tract B will still provide a total of ±1.75 acres of preserve. • Change #8: Miscellaneous edits to the PUD ordinance include updating ownership and any language that may be outdated. EVALUATION CRITERIA LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5: a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Santa Barbara Landings is an existing residential PUD and both Tracts A and B currently permit multi-family development. The property is designated Urban Residential in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and is within the Density Band for Mixed Use Activity Center #6 at Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard; this future land use designation permits increased density through an AHDB. The proposed Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase II development is ideally located adjacent to the existing Phase I development, as well as adjacent to Calusa Park Elementary School. The affordable units can support teachers and families at Calusa Park and provide housing in close proximity to work and school. A Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared to outline the project’s impact on area roadway networks. The development on Tract A has existing access points off Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road, and the proposed development on Tract B will feature an additional access point off Santa Barbara Boulevard consistent with the County’s access separation requirements. The RPUD is served by Collier County Public Utilities (refer to the Statement of Utility Provision). Stormwater has been conceptually reviewed and will be finalized at the time of Site Development Plan permitting. Table 1 below summarizes the development pattern surrounding Tract B. Future Land Use District Zoning District Existing Uses NORTH Urban Residential Subdistrict Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Granada Lake Villas SOUTH Urban Residential Subdistrict Bembridge EMS Complex MPUD Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase I and Calusa Park Elementary EAST Urban Residential Subdistrict Plantation RPUD Single-family residences WEST Urban Residential Subdistrict Berkshire Lakes PUD/DRI ROW/multi-family residences Page 5814 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 4 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. A Covenant of Unified Control has been provided by the current owner of Tract B. The applicant, MHP Collier IV, LLC, is the contract purchaser for Tract B. Operation and maintenance responsibility for development on Tract B shall be assumed by MHP Collier IV, LLC or potential assignees. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy, or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy, or other provision.) Santa Barbara Landings RPUD was found consistent with the GMP per Ordinance 05-53. The existing maximum of 291 units and density of 7.0 units per acre was achieved using the density band bonus of 3.0 units/acre. The requested addition of 1 unit/acre is achieved through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus consistent with the Density Rating System of the GMP: To encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to twelve (12) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended), and if the affordable housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for Collier County. All 84 units of the proposed Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase II will be set aside as affordable, with 71 units reserved for households between 51% - 80% AMI and 13 reserved for households at or below 30% AMI. Providing for affordable housing meets the overall goal of the Housing Element of the GMP, which is “to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County”. The project remains consistent with the policies identified in the approval of Ordinance 05-53. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As mentioned previously, multi-family housing is already a permitted use within Tract B of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. There is technically no maximum unit limit specific to Tract B; the existing limit of 43 units is tied to the overall limit for the PUD and the number of units previously developed on Tract A. With respect to compatibility, the site is designed in a way that reduces the impact of increased height and density to the residential neighbors to the north and east, with the building situated in the center of the development area and well buffered by landscaping and preserve area. The only proposed change to buffering and screening requirements is the reduction of the precast wall on the eastern PUD boundary, which has no significant impact on compatibility as the eastern preserve and landscape buffer provides over 150 feet of dense, vegetated buffering from adjacent Page 5815 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 5 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company development . All other existing buffering and screening requirements will be met by the proposed development. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The existing RPUD requires a minimum of 30% open space for the entire PUD. Tract A has an estimated 19.96 acres of open space and Tract B proposes 1.98 acres of open space for a total of 53.7%. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Please refer to the Transportation Impact Statement and Level of Service Analysis included within this application. The development, as proposed, will not have a negative impact upon existing private and public facilities. Payment of impact fees and timing of adequate public facilities certification are mechanisms to ensure the development is appropriately serviced. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property is identified as a residential tract within the existing PUD and is entitled to development of multi-family housing. This request does not exceed the maximum residential density permitted by the Density Rating System of the GMP nor does it represent an expansion of the existing PUD boundary. All county utilities are available to the site and have sufficient capacity to support the development. Per the project TIS, Santa Barbara Boulevard has sufficient capacity and will continue to maintain an acceptable level of service. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment complies with all applicable regulations set forth within the PUD and the Collier County Land Development Code. All modifications to the PUD are for the purpose of providing affordable housing as a public benefit. LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and meets the intent of the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the FLUE as well as the Housing Element of the GMP. See “Consistency with the Growth Management Plan” section below. 2. The existing land use pattern. Santa Barbara Landings is an existing residential PUD and both Tracts A and B currently permit multi-family development. The extension of the Ekos on Santa Barbara project from Phase I to Phase II on the subject property is a logical expansion of high-quality affordable housing. Page 5816 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 6 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. This amendment has no impact on the existing RPUD boundary and therefore does not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Existing boundaries were not illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions. This amendment does not propose any changes to the previously approved PUD boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. There is a well-demonstrated need for affordable housing in Collier County, particularly within the low (51%-80% AMI) and extremely low (30% or less AMI) income categories. The University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies estimates that there is a shortage of available affordable units in Collier County of 4,196 for households up to 30% AMI and 5,877 units for households up to 80% AMI (Shimberg Center for Housing Studies analysis of 2021 American Community Survey). The proposed development, with 100% of the units set aside as affordable, is a unique product in Collier County and requires minor amendments to the existing PUD to be economically feasible. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. Tract B has been identified as permitting residential development since the initial rezone to RPUD and the proposed development will be adequately buffered per the development standards in the RPUD ordinance. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) has been prepared to outline the project’s impact on area roadway networks and concludes that there is sufficient capacity along all surrounding roadways to accommodate 84 units on Tract B. The purposed direct right-in/right-out access will serve the development on Tract B and prevent increased traffic through the existing development on Tract A. An analysis of the proposed access on Santa Barbara Boulevard has been included in the TIS and demonstrates that the proposed access is more compatible with the development on Tract A. Without access on Santa Barbara Boulevard, all of the project traffic would be required to use the existing driveway serving the Granda Lakes Villas community to the north via existing internal roadways, which is occupied by a completely different housing development/end-product. As a result, additional congestion and delays will be created at the existing driveway, which is also currently served by substandard left and right turn lanes. Furthermore, additional conflicts would be created within the existing internal roadways serving the Granda Lakes Villas community, which could degrade the existing neighborhood quality as well as increased risk to pedestrian safety and parking issues. Page 5817 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 7 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change does not create a drainage problem. The development on Tract B will be designed to meet all Collier County and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) stormwater standards. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. This amendment will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed changes are consistent with the zoning and Future Land Use designations that have been in place since the original approval of Santa Barbara Landing RPUD in 2005 and should therefore have no adverse impact on property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. The subject property is surrounded by existing development and the proposed use has always been contemplated on Tract B. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The PUDA is consistent with the LDC and GMP and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing RPUD does not permit the proposed density which would allow 84 units on Tract B, which will help address Collier County’s housing needs. More specifically, this project addresses housing for income levels that are significantly underrepresented in the County’s exiting rental stock. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed density is consistent with the Density Rating System of the GMP and the changes to development standards have been designed in such a way to be compatible with surrounding development. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The site is already appropriately zoned for the proposed residential uses; the PUDA is requested only to provide additional housing through the AHDB program, which is encouraged within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Page 5818 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 8 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The degree of site alteration which would be required to make Tract B usable for any of the range of residential uses under the existing RPUD is typical of and not different from any other similar development in Collier County. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. The proposed project will not decrease the level of service standards for drainage, roadways, utilities, recreation/open space, solid waste, and schools as well as not cause adverse effects on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended.) Santa Barbara Landings is an existing PUD and has been designed to be compatible with adjacent developments. With respect to compatibility, the site is designed in a way that reduces the impact of increased height and density to the residential neighbors to the north and east, with the building situated in the center of the development area and well buffered by landscaping and preserve area, which consists of a minimum of 159 feet of buffer and overall separation from closest abutting residential. The only proposed change to buffering and screening requirements is the reduction of the precast wall on the eastern PUD boundary, which has no significant impact on compatibility as the eastern preserve provides sufficient buffering from adjacent development. All other existing buffering and screening requirements will be met by the proposed development. Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. The subject property is within the Urban Residential Subdistrict and Santa Barbara Landings RPUD was found consistent with the GMP per Ordinance 05-53. The existing maximum of 291 units and density of 7.0 units per acre was achieved using the density band bonus of 3.0 units/acre. The requested addition of 1 unit/acre is achieved through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus consistent with the Density Rating Page 5819 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 9 of 9 Submittal #2 05/25/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company System of the GMP: To encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to twelve (12) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended), and if the affordable housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for Collier County. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. This amendment proposes an additional access point on Santa Barbara Boulevard to serve the development on Tract B. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. Tract B will be developed with internal vehicular drive aisles and circulation. Emergency access is proposed between Tract B and Tract A via Santa Clara Drive. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. As depicted on the Master Plan, a pedestrian crosswalk and access is proposed to connect the proposed Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase II to Phase I across the Calusa Park elementary school entrance road. Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. The development on Tract B will be designed with sidewalks throughout the site and a sidewalk connection to Santa Barbara Boulevard and the school entrance road will be constructed to encourage a walkable community. Page 5820 of 6525 Page 5821 of 6525 Page 5822 of 6525 Page 5823 of 6525 EKOS on Santa Barbara II – Owner Entity MHP Collier IV, LLC a Florida limited liability company Formed: 08/23/2023 EIN: 99-4841841 Manager/Member MHP Collier IV Manager, LLC a Florida limited liability company Formed: 08/22/2023 EIN: 99-4574413 .01% Manager/Member W. Patrick McDowell 2001 Trust a Revocable Trust 80% Sole Trustee & Beneficiary W. Patrick McDowell a Natural Person Manager/Member Shear Holdings, LLC a Florida limited liability company Formed: 9/5/2019 (Effective 8/29/2019) EIN: 84-4844479 20% Sole Member/Manager Christopher L. Shear a Natural Person Investor Member W. Patrick McDowell a Natural Person 99.99% Page 5824 of 6525 Page 5825 of 6525 Page 5826 of 6525 Page 5827 of 6525 Page 5828 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 1 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company DATE: May 14, 2025 TO: Tim Finn, AICP, Planner III Collier County– Planning and Zoning Division FROM: Patrick Vanasse, AICP The Neighborhood Company PROJECT NAME: Santa Barbara Landings PUDA (PL20240013221) SUBJECT: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Summary The Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on May 8, 2025 at approximately 5:30pm. 14 people attended in person and 5 participated via Zoom (see attached sign-in sheet and Zoom attendee list). Applicant and Agent Attendees are as follows: • Patrick Vanasse, AICP, President – The Neighborhood Company • Rachel Hansen, AICP, Planner – The Neighborhood Company • Eduardo Teran, Director of Development – McDowell Housing Partners • Michael Pappas, PE, Director of Engineering – RWA Engineering • Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager – Collier County • Yury Bykau, PE – TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. (via Zoom) MEMORANDUM Page 5829 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 2 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company The following provides a summary of the meeting presentation along with questions, concerns, or issues that were raised at the meeting and the applicant team’s responses. Presentation Summary (Started at approximately 6:15 pm): Mr. Vanasse began the meeting by introducing himself and the project team, as well as noting that the meeting was being recorded over Zoom to meet Collier County requirements. He then started the presentation by explaining the intent of the NIM and an overview of the presentation contents. Mr. Vanasse then turned the presentation over to Eduardo Teran, Director of Development for McDowell Housing Partners (MHP). Mr. Teran gave an overview of MHP’s mission to provide high-quality affordable housing and noted some of the other locations in Florida with current MHP projects, including four existing developments in Collier County. He gave additional details about the meeting’s location, Ekos at Santa Barbara Phase I, and provided photos of the entire complex as well as of interior finishes of an example unit. Mr. Teran presented initial renderings of the proposed development and explained the proposed income restrictions for the project’s 84 units. Rachel Hansen continued the presentation with an overview of the proposed amendment to the Santa Barbara Landings PUD. She explained the land use of the surrounding properties and provided the subject property’s zoning and future land use designation. Ms. Hansen explained the specifics of the requested amendment to increase the permitted units on Tract B of the PUD from 43 to 84 and gave an overview of the other requested changes, including increased height from 3 to 4 stories and changes to development standards. Ms. Hansen emphasized that the proposed changes to Tract B have no impact on the existing development on Tract A (Granada Lakes Villas). From there, Ms. Hansen gave an overview of the current draft Master Plan for Tract B, pointing out the additional access on Santa Barbara Boulevard and the gated emergency-only access between Tract A and B. Additional site design considerations were emphasizes, such as the locations of the preserve areas as buffers to nearby residential, the orientation of the proposed building closer to Santa Barbara Boulevard, and proposed pedestrian access between Tracts A and B as a benefit to children who attend Calusa Elementary School to the south of the proposed project. The presentation concluded with Ms. Hansen outlining the process and timeline for the application review process and future public hearings. The floor was then opened for questions. Zoom participants were required to type their questions in the chat box, which were then addressed individually after the meeting presentation had concluded. Questions Summary: Q: My question is, you basically said that the density it’s zoned for now is seven units per acre. We have 6.74 acres, but you're saying that you're looking for an increase to eight units per acre. My math doesn't seem to make sense, because if you're at eight units per acre, you should be at 64 units? A: Mr. Vanasse: So the reason it's only one unit per acre is because the zoning for Tract B is the same zoning as Tract A. It's one PUD, and the way the county looks at density, it's based on the gross acreage of your entire PUD. So in going in to amend the existing PUD, we told them how many units we wanted for this project, and it came out to an increase of one unit per acre on the gross acreage. Q: Just a clarification; Tract A and B include the apartments to the north, so by you going from 7 to 8 units per acre, they cannot add any more units on their property [Tract A] without going back to council. And they have no association with you, correct? But you’re changing something that they have to live by because you’re adding more units. Because they could probably add another building on their property and still be under that 7 [units per acre]. Page 5830 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 3 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Vanasse: The existing density for the PUD has already been allocated between Tract A and Tract B. So any remaining density is already allocated to Tract B. They could get more density on Tract A – they would have to go through the same zoning amendment process and the way to achieve that density is through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The total bonus that could be requested is 16 units per acre on the gross acreage. Q: The housing here that we’re sitting in, what percentage of it is affordable housing? A: Mr. Teran: 100% of the project is affordable. Q: So the new one is only going to be 30, 40% or 60 to 70%? A: Mr. Teran: I would like to clarify that. Low-income housing ranges up to about 80% of what we call average median income. So, for example, the Collier County average median income is $115,000. For explanation’s sake let’s say that’s $100,000. If we’re serving populations at the 30, 60, and 70% AMI, we’re serving people that make 30, 60, and $70,000 and we cannot serve people who make above that for the specific units that we have committed to Florida Housing and to the County. So when I say that 100% of these are affordable housing, is that they are within those set aside commitments. Ms. Hansen: We actually do have a slide on that. These are the breakdowns by unit as well as the most recent income data from Florida Housing Finance Corporation [see slide 15 of the presentation]. Q: So the buildings in Tract B, the number of them that are affordable, won’t affect any of the numbers in this development here? A: Mr. Teran: They’re complete separate projects and developments. We’re only talking about Tract A and B in that regard because they’re in one Planned Unit Development. Mr. Vanasse: Just to clarify, the reason we’re holding the meeting here is the county wants you to hold the meeting close to where the project is being proposed. They own this project so it made sense, but also, we wanted people to get to experience and see exactly what they built. So that's why it’s held here. Two separate projects, but by being here, you get to see the type of building, the type of quality project they build. Q: On Tract B, when that PUD was created, there was a requirement that there’s a wall between Tract B and the neighborhood to the east. An 8-foot, solid concrete wall. And the way it read, you can’t even start building on Tract B until that wall is in place. Are you aware of that and is that still in your plans or is that going to be a change that you request? A: Mr. Vanasse: Yes, we’re aware. It’s slightly modified, and I’ll let Rachel walk you through the design, but what we’ve done is create a much wider preserve than was originally in that area. We believe the preserve will provide significant buffering and any sound attenuation needed, so we’re requesting to not put in that wall except in the area where there is no preserve. Ms. Hansen: The wall will be in the section where there is no preserve as indicated on the Master Plan. C: I’d like to come back to the Master Plan because it’s not what’s currently in the original PUD and that’s not acceptable. Q: What’s the acreage that Phase I is sitting on? A: Mr. Teran: I will need to get back to you on that but I will get you an answer. Q: What the other gentleman was trying to say is that we were under the understanding that there was supposed to be an 8-foot wall the entire length of the property to Radio Road. Is that no longer in affect? Page 5831 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 4 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company So basically now that 8-foot wall that was going to be built the entire length of Tract A and Tract B is now being changed to about 20 feet? A: Ms. Hansen: We have no control over Tract A and we are making no changes to Tract A, so whatever the requirement is for Tract A would remain in place. We’re only proposing to change that requirement for Tract B. Tract B and Tract A have separate ownership, so we have no control over the continuation of the wall. Q: But you’re the same PUD. So you’re using the PUD for density, but you don’t want to use it to make the obligation of continuing the wall the entire way? A: Mr. Teran: We have responsibility to provide what is in our Tract, so that is why we’re only making changes to Tract B. You mentioned we’re using the whole PUD for density, but that’s because in the County’s eyes, this is seen as a cluster, and we cannot request to increase the density only within Tract B. We need to request a PUD-wide increase in density. We’re happy to provide the revised PUD that’s going through approval, and you can see the list of changes that we’re requesting. Q: I am a property owner next door in Granada Lakes and I’m confused why our private property has to be part of an emergency exit and a pedestrian walkway for people that don’t belong to that community. Also, I am concerned because I like living there, I like that I can walk my dog every morning, and I don’t want it to become like Santa Barbara, like a busy in-and-out of people I don’t know. I just wonder why, if it’s a private road, would you use it as a public entrance? A: Mr. Vanasse: I’ll start with the first question, which is why is there an emergency access depicted on the Master Plan. At one point there was one owner/developer for all of Santa Barbara Landings, including where you are. Over time, the ownership has changed. Ownership can change – the folks that own Tract A could decide to sell – but the zoning stays in place with the land. With that, MHP is looking to purchase Tract B and they are subject to that zoning. The developer that owned it originally went through a zoning process and designed a Master Plan and they showed roads coming all the way down to Tract B. That access is needed in between Tract A and Tract B because of the existing Master Plan; however, we understood that the neighbors to the north may not like additional traffic on their roads, so we are asking for a new access point from Santa Barbara for all the traffic associated with Tract B. However, fire rescue and police want to maintain that emergency access only. If, for whatever reason, the entrance on Santa Barbara is blocked and they needed to get to Tract B, they would drive through Tract A to get there. That’s the reason why the emergency access is maintained. Mr. Teran: In addition to that, if you look at the County’s records, there is what is called an easement that runs through the property that says, if the County requires it, it has to be a loop road. That was a future provision that was required in Tract A; however, we didn’t want to encumber Tract A with additional traffic. It would be a lose-lose situation for us if we’re using your property as access, which is why we’ve requested the additional access. Just to give a little more color, this will be a closed gate that will have a lock that is only accessible by the fire department or emergency services. However, this [the pedestrian access] will be an open crosswalk, which I understand is a requirement for development standards. There will also be a continuous fence separating both properties in addition to the large preserve area that’s creating some buffer as well. Mr. Vanasse: That access will allow pedestrian connections. We are very cognizant that there is a school here and that children may want to walk to school. This walkway [between Tract B and Calusa Elementary] will be improved with a walkway to be a safe environment for the kids to walk back and forth to school. C: I guess I’m not understanding it clearly or I’m not picturing it, especially the one you said will be open, so people will be able to walk through my community. I don’t want to say that they’re going to be doing bad things, but potentially they could be stealing packages and there’s no accountability because we don’t know who they are. Page 5832 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 5 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Teran: I would like to clarify something for everybody’s peace of mind. Our properties have security cameras and security measures in place in case there are any issues. Currently this is a forested area that people could technically find a way across the fence and go into your property. From our perspective, if it’s not a gated community you can’t prevent people from going in there. However, we actually see this connecting walkway as a potential benefit for families that have children who will have safer access to school. We will have families in our development who will have a direct route to school. But what we want to get across is that, from a vehicular perspective, your impact will be absolutely minimal and limited to emergency services. If there are pedestrians, we can’t really limit them just as much as they could walk down the road and come into your community from the entrance. Q: Has the developer considered a project that would not increase the 7 unit per acre density? [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: The density increase is required to do a project that would be greater than 43 units, and I’m sure Eduardo can correct me if I’m wrong, but from an economic feasibility standpoint, the 84 units is what's required to make this project work. Mr. Teran: Furthermore, we have to get approval from Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which is the entity that regulates affordable housing development or low-income housing development in the state, and we have committed to provide the 84 units to them and we cannot bring that number down. We can increase it, but we cannot bring that number down. So, at this point, we are just proposing to provide our 84 units and cannot provide less. Q: What is the Santa Barbara on your map? It says “Santa Barbara Landings PUD Tract A Not Subject to this Amendment”. What is this exactly referring to? A: Ms. Hansen: That’s referring to the Granada Lakes Villas community. That development is considered Tract A and again, the changes that we’re proposing have no impact on Tract A, but we do have to visually show that Tract A is there. That’s just how the County has asked us to notate it on the proposed Master Plan. Q: Number one, why is this four stories high when the other one is only three stories? Everyone in our community will look up and see a high rise. I don’t think that blends with the community very well. Secondly, my neighbor Carlos is in that area right at the end where your emergency exit is going to be. I don’t think that’s a very good plan, for Carlos to look out his back door and see all that. Why wouldn’t you come up through the school? The fire department is right next door; it’s quicker to get there that way than go all the way around A: Mr. Vanasse: Just so you all are aware, we’ve asked for the access on Santa Barbara. There is no guarantee we’ll get that access. If it was just up to the County transportation people, they would direct all the traffic through existing Tract A. We are requesting that access, so we can avoid that to be good neighbors. But what they're mandating is that we keep that interconnection. Again, it's not a question of is this going to be used on a daily basis? It's a fire and rescue; it's a safety issue. And the idea is that for firefighters and EMT people, the easiest route is going to be right off Santa Barbara. The school is a private road that we cannot access. So, 99% of the time, they would access this over here [on Santa Barbara], but in case this gets blocked for whatever reason, then they would go through Tract A. Mr. Teran: I just want to add to that; we have talked to the school board to see if they would be open to an access there, and we’ve been told there is no opportunity for vehicular access in that area. [Regarding the question on height] we’re working within constraints that we have on the site; one of the larger constraints being our preserve requirements. You know, this is an approximately 6.74-acre property, and we have to provide over acre or an acre and a half of these preserves. Between that and being able to accommodate parking, the way that we were able to achieve that is to make this a four-story four story mid-rise. We are trying to face it against the road so that we are providing as much buffer from most areas within reason. And again, you have a nice, large preserve area that's going to be filled with native vegetation, hopefully providing a little bit more buffer to that regard. Page 5833 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 6 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company Q: Who is going to pay for the fence? A: Mr. Teran: We will pay for the fence. Q: Is there any plan to add another light to stop traffic, which is already very heavy? A: Mr. Vanasse: With regards to traffic, we are mandated to do a traffic study, which we've done. What that traffic study looks at is how many trips are generated from this specific project, but also how much existing background traffic there is on the road. I know for a lot of people, any extra trip on the road, when the roads are already busy, especially in season; for a lot of people, one more [trip] is too many. However, our traffic study says that we are not imposing a significant impact on the roadway. Also, when it comes to any kind of light, we don't control that. An individual developer cannot request a light and put a light just because he desires to do so. You have to go through DOT, Department of Transportation, and you have to go through strict requirements—they call those warrants. You have to meet multiple warrants before you can put in a light. The county does that, and at this point there is not a significant warrant to allow for another light. Q: Are you receiving any state or Federal funding for this project? A: Mr. Teran: Yes, we’re receiving Federal funding. It’s called Community Development Block Grant. This is for Disaster Recovery. And again, that is administered and regulated by Florida Housing Finance Corporation. If you'd like more information on that, I invite you to their website and they provide ample information. If you send me your email I can send you with the more information on that as well. Q: Are you required to keep a certain standard for a certain amount of years and then after that are you free from that? A: Mr. Teran: Yes, we do have restriction requirements. For this project it’s going to be 99 years rental restriction. If we were ever to sell this property, whoever buys it from us needs to maintain those requirements and obviously upkeep of property. Q: So those have to remain rental units for 99 years? There’s no chance they could be sold as apartments like Granada Lakes was sold? A: Mr. Teran: Yes, low-income rental units for 99 years. No, they cannot be sold. After 99 years, maybe. C: We have a flooding issue that involves Granada Lakes and all of the Plantation development. With each community that gets built, this flooding issue gets a little worse. It started with the elementary school and continues with Ekos because the way the water drains, it goes from our lakes in our development at Plantation over to Davis Boulevard. Every year it gets worse and as more things get added onto this corner, water’s not going away. I know he [the engineer] does his job to make this pass code, but we’re the ones that have to live here. It takes months for the water to drain. I’m afraid with this being built, we’re going to be in a flood zone now. A: Mr. Pappas: Santa Barbara Landings was designed in 1986; we pulled the plans from County records to analyze the existing water management system and how it was designed. The way it was designed is that there’s a perimeter water management berm that was designed around the entire project. The entire project has lakes built in, and there’s a lake interconnect with drainage pipes that connect all the lakes together. There’s a discharge here near the preserve and then there’s a control structure that discharges into Santa Barbara. With the perimeter berm being installed here, that essentially isolates the community for water management. [Back and forth discussion about the current state of drainage within the Plantation PUD and Santa Barbara Landings PUD and the perimeter berm system.] Q: Can you explain how the system is supposed to drain? Page 5834 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 7 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Pappas: Again, the perimeter berm should be along the project sides. Santa Barbara Landings drains into the preserve, and a control structure drains into Santa Barbara Boulevard. What we’re going to maintain when we design the system here is to model what’s existing today and incorporating that into what our design is for the community on Tract B. We’ll have a separate water management system that provides water management for the developable area, with a berm around our project that’s going to be even higher because we’re going to have to elevate higher than what’s there today. That will discharge to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Our Tract B developable area will have a separate control structure that will hold and discharge; we have to design to the 25 year/3 day storm event which is approximately 13 inches of rainfall over a three-day period. Mr. Vanasse: We understand the concern for sure. If you guys, as a community, have an engineer you’ve worked with before, put them in contact with Mike because I think it’s always good for them to talk. What we’ve seen in the past is that these communities are built at different times; people see other developments come online and they assume that the problem is caused by new development, but a lot of times existing developments were sheet flowing to their neighbors and when their neighbors start building, the sheet flow no longer happens from those older communities. I think there’s a need for the engineers to talk amongst themselves and see if there are solutions there. Q: Why does the emergency access road have to go so close to Plantation Circle? Take the road more west. A: Mr. Teran: Tract A has dumpsters at that location [near the connection to Tract B]. We are coming to the east of those dumpsters, which is where the recorded easement and access location is located. C: You’re disrupting a whole lot for a couple dumpsters. A: Mr. Vanasse: One thing we want to point out is this property is already zoned and approved with a Master Plan. And I think it's important, just so you guys understand, that you've got a developer trying to design a project as best as they can with given constraints. I think if we pull up the existing Master Plan, what you'll see is a Master Plan that is currently in place, that is currently approved, and if not for the developer asking for the more density, this could be built tomorrow without any zoning action, without any public meetings. Folks, this is the existing Master Plan that is already included as part of the zoning on Tract A and Tract B. Again, like I said, if not for the little modifications that the McDowell Housing group is asking for, this could be built tomorrow without any kind of public hearing process. They would just have to go through a site development plan which is an administrative process. Mr. Teran: And what you see on the Master Plan is the access that we’re proposing to be emergency access only, this would currently be permitted as an entrance to what was the previously designed development [on Tract B] with two interconnections: one near Santa Barbara and one in the back near Plantation. This is what was previously approved, so what we’re trying to do is say that it doesn’t make sense for our existing neighbors to the north or for us to use Santa Barbara Landings as the main traffic thoroughfare. So, we’re requesting this entrance on Santa Barbara Boulevard. C: The developer is seeking a variance and not adhering to the existing Master Plan. [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: That’s correct, we’re seeking to amend the PUD and that’s why we’re going through this process to make changes to the Master Plan. Q: Has the buyer purchased Tract B yet? A: Mr. Teran: We’re currently under contract with the land but we have not procured it yet. Q: Based on the original PUD, that wall that we keep talking about – the entire length of Tract A and B— needs to be in place before anything can be sold off. So in order for you guys to buy that land, the owner of Tract A needs to put that wall in all the way. It’s in the PUD. Why would you change something that somebody else is responsible for? Page 5835 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 8 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Teran: We’re not proposing any changes to the Tract A requirements. I would have to go back to the PUD to read that language that you’re indicating. However, I do want to make it clear that we are not modifying any of the requirements for Tract A. We are strictly focused on modifying the requirements for our development. C: I agree that you can’t make changes to their property. My interpretation was that you legally cannot buy Tract B until the wall is in place. As a community, we could bring a class action lawsuit saying you can’t buy this until somebody else does that wall. A: Mr. Teran: I would have to look at the PUD for the specifics. Mr. Vanasse: This is something we can look into and get back to you on. Q: This [the renderings in the presentation] is something like what’s going to be built – is it going to be exactly like this? A: Mr. Teran: We’re in very preliminary stages of design and this is the current concept we’re proposing. Will the end building look exactly like this? I don’t have an answer to that at this point. The general layout of the building— we will be providing that covered terrace in the back as well as amenities. Q: What height is this building? How is this building going to impact the residents of Plantation Circle in terms of light, in terms of general privacy? Our board president has spent many, many hours on the flooding situation on Plantation Circle because everyone is building something else and no one will talk responsibility for the fact that the flooding situation is now critical. A: Ms. Hansen: To answer your first question about height, the building on Tract B would be limited to four stories or 50 feet of zoned height. Zoned height is measured from base flood elevation to the mid-point of a slanted roof. If you measure from grade it could be plus-or-minus a few feet. Mr. Vanasse: With regards to providing buffering and the distance to adjacent neighbors, this preserve [near Plantation PUD] is over 130 feet in width. That vegetation will remain, so it will provide quite a bit of buffering. We believe the buffering will shield most of what the neighbors can see. The building was specifically designed to be as far away from the neighbors as possible, so there was some thought and consideration put into the design. Q: This is all well and good, this is nice. I like the fact that there’s something there. But again, coming back to this road and the fact that there’s a small 8-foot wall there—this is where I live [near boundary of Plantation PUD]. There’s no preserve there for me. So I’m looking straight at a wall and then your building. Second of all, near this building [Ekos Phase I] is a drain that comes out—it used to be a drain. We can watch it during storms now that these buildings are here and it flows in. Now you’re saying your going to build parking lots over here. I see the back of my house being flooded. A: Mr. Vanasse: I think this gentleman is reiterating the issue of flooding. We hear you. Our engineer is going to look at meeting all the requirements on our site. If you have those discussions with your engineer or if there are maintenance issues, we’re happy to talk to the County and find out if it’s regarding existing drains and if there’s a maintenance solution. Mike will meet or exceed any requirements from the Water Management District and the County. Mr. Teran: Just want to reiterate that we can control what’s on our piece of property but we cannot control what’s on surrounding pieces of property. Having said that, we do believe that we’re designing our stormwater management on our property to keep it contained as required by development standards. Mr. Pappas: Additionally, the discharge from Tract A and B, once Tract B is developed, will be the same. No more allowable discharge than it is today. There was also a perimeter berm designed around the entire school site as well, and I believe this [Ekos Phase I] was inside the school development when it was built. Page 5836 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 9 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company Mr. Vanasse: The other question was about the interconnection and emergency access. I’ll just reiterate that we have the existing road in Tract A and the connection is there in order for us to provide that emergency access. I understand the issue, but it’s been approved in that location for years and years, and that will not change. Ms. Hansen: I do also want to point out that in addition to the wall, there is a required 15-foot landscape buffer, so it won’t just be a wall. There will be a 15-foot wide landscape buffer there, too. Q: What about the requirement for a certain amount of preserve required for the entire PUD? [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: The PUD requires 3 acres of total preserve. We are proposing what was previously approved in the current Master Plan for Tract B. The acreages are slightly different between the two preserves, but we are proposing to provide the same amount of preserve that was previously approved for Tract B. Q: In 2005, both Tract A and Tract B were under unified control, which was the developer who got the zoning for Tract B and converted the apartments to condominiums. My understanding is that in the PUD at the time, Section 5 required the developer to put the commitments from the PUD in the HOA documents. The HOA documents did not contain any information regarding the PUD and the rezoning. So now Tract A and Tract B are now separate ownership interests. By you asking for density bonus based on Tract A’s land, aren’t you required to have Tract A’s approval for that? What if Tract A wanted to go get the same bonus right now? A: Mr. Vanasse: Yes, Tract A could ask for more density. My understanding is that Tract A’s approval is not required. If Tract B were asking to make changes to Tract A, yes, by all means, it would be a requirement to get consent from Tract A. But again, this is completely isolated to Tract B and changes to their development standards. The same would apply to Tract A. If they were willing to go in and make changes, they could ask for more density through the provision of affordable housing. Tract A would not need Tract B’s permission to do so. Q: Are you required to put your PUD developer commitments in your HOA documents? A: Mr. Vanasse: PUD documents are a separate legal entity in themselves, pertaining to zoning. Ownership and the type of ownership, or condo documents and those types of documents are separate legal documents. Both are independent and serve different purposes. When it comes to zoning conditions, they go into the zoning ordinance, and they are recorded through the county. As for condo documents, my understanding is that it is a private matter amongst the owners and is independent from zoning. Q: Are you required to disclose your PUD documents in the HOA documents? A: Mr. Teran: We cannot provide an answer for that at this time, but we can follow up with our land use attorney and get you the correct information. C: You mentioned that there are preserves on Tract A, which falls into the same issue. The PUD documents pursuant to the original PUD were required to be put into the HOA documents and were not put in. Therefore the individual owners of Tract A had no knowledge until recently that this PUD existed except if you listed at your exceptions page of a title document. So Tract A is not in a position to provide preserves for this project to meet PUD requirements. A: Mr. Vanasse: Thank you. My first comment would be shame on that developer. Mr. Teran: We really appreciate your input. We’re here to be good neighbors, which is why we’re here. I do want to do a quick clarification and say that us bringing this project did not create those preserve requirements for Tract A. Those requirements have been there and have not been met for many years. I understand that it was not disclosed to the condo owners, but that is what was originally committed to the county. Having said that, we’ve spoken Page 5837 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 10 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company internally, and we want to work with you guys and figure out a solution for this preserve issue. We don’t have an answer for you today, but we want to have an open dialogue and figure out what the different paths to getting to a solution are. Q: Regarding the emergency exit, if that is not approved would you still develop it going through our neighborhood? A: Mr. Teran: Getting approval of the main entrance [off Santa Barbara] is a large consideration for us and if we don’t get approval, it will cause us to take a second look. It is one of the main considerations of this project. Mr. Vanasse: I want to add that the county keeps track of these meetings, and they consider input from the neighbors. Obviously, you as neighbors voicing that you want to see that access on Santa Barbara, is something they’ll take into consideration in evaluating the project and making a decision. C: You seem to use tract A when it benefits your arguments but ignore any requirements that would be placed on the property owners such as the wall and the maintenance of a currently nonexistent preserve on Tract A. [From Zoom chat.] A: Ms. Hansen: I think we acknowledged those issues. We appreciate the comment, but we’ve covered those issues so far. Q: You mentioned this meeting is being recorded; where will it be accessible and will there be any other ways to voice concerns to the county? A: Mr. Vanasse: You can provide comments to us directly, but from a public hearing process standpoint, we have to go to the Collier County Planning Commission. That’s a public hearing that’s going to be advertised. The public can provide input at that hearing. You can also contact the county – we have a dedicated reviewer for this project and you can provide comments to the reviewer. Once we’re done with this meeting, we’ll provide a summary to county staff that will be uploaded to the county website with all the other documents for this project. All those files can be downloaded and if you have trouble getting access you can call the county and they can help you with access. Last but not least, after this goes to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Then we go to another hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. That will be advertised and open to the public. You can also talk to County Commissioners at any time. Their email addresses are on the county website. Q: Is the pedestrian access a requirement? A: Mr. Vanasse: There are policies in the comp plan that highly recommend connections. Some projects do ask for deviations from providing interconnection. In this case, we provided the interconnection to be consistent with the comp plan, but also we understand that there are kids in Tract A and the idea was to provide safe access to the school. If you don’t think that’s a good idea, we’ll take that into consideration. Q: Is that access going to be gated? Is it any easy way for our children to walk, yes. But they’ve also been walking on the sidewalk [on Santa Barbara Blvd]. Unless it was locked and only for Tract A and Tract B people, it seems like anyone could go through there. A: Mr. Vanasse: Understood, we’ll take that into consideration. Mr. Teran: We cannot prevent people from going through that access, but if there is strong opposition to there being a sidewalk we can take that into consideration. Q: If this were to go through, what is the timeline for completion? Page 5838 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landings PUDA Page 11 of 11 05/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Ft Myers, FL 33908 | 239-398-2016 www.theneighborhood.company A: Mr. Teran: We’re looking to break ground approximately quarter two of next year, so it would be the April to June time range. About a year to break ground and then approximately sixteen to eighteen months of construction. So we would be looking at approximately two and a half years between today and having a finished product Conclusion: Since there were no further questions or comments, Mr. Vanasse adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:00pm. Mr. Vanasse also expressed that people can call and send any further comments to his team. He then reminded everyone of the future public hearings and noted there will be notifications for those hearings. Page 5839 of 6525 Page 5840 of 6525 Name (original name)Email Total duration (minutes)Guest Yury (TR Transportation)85 Yes CONSULTANT TEAM The Neighborhood Co.kg@theneighborhood.company 102 No CONSULTANT TEAM read.ai meeting notes 66 Yes MEETING NOTES David 89 Yes Xiomara Wong 91 Yes John D 99 Yes JenniferK 92 Yes Mario 44 Yes Page 5841 of 6525 Page 1 of 2 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239.398.2016 www.theneighborhood.company April 11, 2025 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PL20240013221) for the following property: Tract B comprises ±6.74 acres of the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The subject property is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Property ID: 00400246503). TRACT B SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE I Page 5842 of 6525 Page 2 of 2 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | 239.398.2016 www.theneighborhood.company The applicant, MHP Collier IV, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD to allow additional units on Tract B through the use of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus, increasing the maximum number of units for Tract B from 43 to 84. The development will serve as Phase II of the Ekos on Santa Barbara project, with Phase I located directly south of the subject property. Of the 84 units, 71 will be reserved for households with incomes between 51% - 80% of the area median income (AMI) and 13 will be reserved for households with incomes at or below 30% AMI. The proposed changes to the RPUD are specific to Tract B and will allow for increased density and modified development standards for multi-family development, including increased height and minor modifications to landscaping. In compliance with Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you with an opportunity to fully understand the proposed amendment. The meeting will be held on May 8, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at the Ekos on Santa Barbara Apartments clubhouse, located at the following address: 4640 Santa Barbara Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of the impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. If you are unable to attend in person, a Zoom option will be available. If you would like to participate via Zoom, please send an email to rh@theneighborhood.company prior to May 7 to request the meeting link. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at pv@theneighborhood.company or 239-398- 2016. Sincerely, Patrick Vanasse, AICP President & Partner Page 5843 of 6525 Page 5844 of 6525 Page 5845 of 6525 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment -PL20240013221 Collier County, FL Neighborhood Information Meeting May 8, 2025 1 Page 5846 of 6525 Intent To inform the public of the multi-family residential apartments proposed and the zoning petition that has been submitted to Collier County (PL20240013221). 2 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required as part of PUDA petition. Page 5847 of 6525 Applicant Team Applicant •McDowell Housing Partners •Christopher Shear, COO Land Use Attorney •Davies Duke •Noel Davies, Esq. Civil Engineer •RWA Engineering •Michael Pappas, PE 3 Ecologist •Earth Tech Environmental •Jeremy Sterk Transportation Engineer •TR Transportation Consultants •Yury Bykau, PE Land Use Planner •The Neighborhood Company •Patrick Vanasse, AICP Page 5848 of 6525 MHP Overview •Mission: Create and preserve high-quality housing communities that provide America’s workforce and seniors with a safe and sustainable place to call home, while implementing high-value resident services and programs to ensure tenant satisfaction. •Expertise: Proven success utilizing intricate financing products and methods. •Commitment: MHP commits to unwaveringly pursue all sources of funding available to complete the development of a new housing community. 4 Page 5849 of 6525 5 Ekos on Santa Barbara Phase 1 Page 5850 of 6525 6 Page 5851 of 6525 7 Page 5852 of 6525 Subject Property 8 TRACT B SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE I Page 5853 of 6525 Subject Property •Tract B of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD (±6.74 acres) •Located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard •Zoned Santa Barbara Landings RPUD •Rezoned from RMF-6 to PUD in 2005 •Approved for 248 dwelling units on Tract A and 43 units on Tract B (7 dwelling units/acre) •Urban Residential Future Land Use designation 9 Page 5854 of 6525 Request •An amendment to the RPUD to allow additional units on Tract B through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus •Tract B increase from 43 to 84 •Proposed changes are specific to Tract B •Density increase from 7 units/acre to 8 units/acre •Request has no impact on approved density for Tract A 10 Page 5855 of 6525 11 Approx. location of Tract A dumpster Property line will be fenced Gated emergency access only Page 5856 of 6525 Site Design Consideration •Preserve location •Orientation toward Santa Barbara Boulevard •Vehicle access limited solely to Santa Barbara – gated emergency access to Santa Clara •Pedestrian access available as a benefit to children walking to Calusa Park Elementary 12 Page 5857 of 6525 Next Steps •Staff Review •Finding of Sufficiency •Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) •Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 13 Page 5858 of 6525 Questions? 14 Patrick Vanasse, AICP (239) 398-2016 / pv@theneighborhood.company Eduardo Teran, Director of Development (786) 604-2797 / eteran@mcdhousing.com Page 5859 of 6525 Affordable Housing •All 84 units will be set aside as affordable (1 and 2 bedrooms) •71 units @ 51-80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) •13 units @ below 30% AMI 15 Page 5860 of 6525 5/27/2025 Item # 11.B ID# 2025-1143 Executive Summary Recommendation to review staff findings of the Board-directed on-site evaluation of parking capacity for various multifamily developments within Collier County, provide direction to staff regarding policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects, and provide direction on adjusting the adopted parking standards through an amendment to the Land Development Code. OBJECTIVE: To provide the Board of County Commissioners with information regarding staff observations of the current parking capacity and demand within various multifamily developments within Collier County in order to evaluate and determine if parking deficiencies exist under the current Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) parking standards or where parking reductions from the LDC parking standards have been granted. CONSIDERATIONS: During the Staff and Commission General Communications portion of their agenda on October 22, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners (Board), directed staff to bring back a study regarding multifamily off- street parking standards in various Florida jurisdictions. The discussion was initiated by Commissioner McDaniel who indicated that the standards in Collier County (County) did not require the necessary amount of parking demanded by the County’ s multifamily complexes. Staff conducted a study by comparing the off-street parking requirements from 12 jurisdictions located throughout the State of Florida, including Lee County, Palm Beach County, and the City of Naples. The study revealed that the parking standards in Collier County are mid-range when compared to the other jurisdictions—neither too restrictive nor too lenient. Additionally, staff noted that the parking deviation process may be requested by petitioners for projects zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and that LDC section 4.05.04 F.3 also allows for up to a 20 percent parking reduction through the APR process. Staff presented these findings to the Board on January 14, 2025. The Board then directed staff to visit multifamily projects throughout the County between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to determine if parking deficiencies exist during that timeframe and to report back to the Board with its observations. Additionally, staff was directed to refrain from approving any Administrative Parking Reduction (APR) applications until further notice from the Board, but that parking deviations may still be requested by petitioners. Staff compiled a list of communities to investigate, with the intent of representing a broad cross-section of multifamily projects located throughout the County, including those designed as apartment buildings, condominiums, and townhouses. Staff used approved Site Development Plans (SDP)/Final Subdivision Plats (PPL) to assist with documenting each development’s site layout, unit count, and types of parking facilities. A total of 12 communities were chosen. Five were approved with an APR and the remaining seven did not have any approved parking reductions. Staff visited the 12 communities between February 11, 2025, and March 4, 2025, when parking demand was believed to be at its highest—during the workweek, on either a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday evening, between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Staff systematically drove around each community, performing informal windshield surveys by observing the various types of parking facilities (e.g., privately-owned driveways/garages, off-street surface parking lots, and on-street parking) and taking notes of the approximate percentage of occupied spaces, both within designated and undesignated guest parking areas, driveway parking, service vehicle parking, handicap parking, or other residential parking. Staff documented, including taking photographs, if any vehicles were unlawfully parked in a street or over a driveway or other parking-related issue. A table compiling all of staff’s findings for each of the 12 communities is provided in Attachment “A.” Staff also noted if there were any past documented parking concerns or complaints. Staff’s observations revealed that adequate parking exists within all 12 communities except for one community (i.e., The Ranch at Orange Blossom). No parking issues were identified at any of the other communities, including those approved with parking reductions. Unlawfully parked vehicles were observed within three other communities (i.e., Meadow Lake Apartments, Summit Place in Naples, and Avion Woods), but this was possibly attributed to a lack of self-enforcement issue rather than a deficiency of available parking, and which may be experienced within any community, including those developed with single-family detached homes. The multi-family portion of the Ranch at Orange Blossom community contains 264 units, all three-bedrooms with a one car garage and driveway. There is no amenity center within this section of the development. The required number of parking spaces per LDC is 528 parking spaces; however, the community provides 604 parking spaces on site per the Page 5861 of 6525 5/27/2025 Item # 11.B ID# 2025-1143 Final Subdivision Plans (Phase 5- PL20210000781 & Phase 2 - PL20200000907). Additional parking over the code requirement is provided via 76 auxiliary spaces in the form of off-street surface parking lots and on-street parking areas, and the remaining 528 spaces are provided via 1-car garages and driveways. Staff's observations of the community, even with additional parking, were as follows: The off-street parking lots were nearly entirely filled. The on-street parking areas were completely filled. While there were many vacant driveways, the development as a whole had 10-12 vehicles unlawfully parked (either parked within the street or over a sidewalk). Photographs of staff observations are attached to this executive summary as Attachment “B.” Staff suspects this community is having a parking problem. Based on observed parking deficiencies within the townhome community of The Ranch at Orange Blossom with some empty driveways, but underprovided publicly accessible parking, staff determined further examination, and focus should be placed on multifamily communities designed as townhome style developments. Staff noted that three of the four townhome communities evaluated provided parking that exceeded the LDC parking standards. The Ranch at Orange Blossom for example was one of the communities with the least additional parking from the LDC requirement, being 14 percent over the parking requirement and Summit Place in Naples being the community with the most additional parking at 58 percent over the required parking. Avion Woods the only development which provided exactly the required parking was the smallest townhome community evaluated containing 26 units, all two-bedrooms. To highlight if the observed parking deficiency within The Ranch at Orange Blossom community would be unique to Collier County’s current parking standards, staff updated the twelve-jurisdiction multifamily parking standards comparison matrix presented to the Board at its January 14, 2025 meeting. Staff updated the last column of the matrix to evaluate the parking requirement for a 264 unit, three-bedroom townhome community (i.e. The Ranch at Orange Blossom). Additionally, it was identified that four of the twelve jurisdictions had separate townhome and multifamily parking calculation requirements. These parking standards were included in the updated Multifamily Parking Space Regulation Comparison Matrix provided as Attachment “C” of this executive summary. The required parking for a townhome project such as The Ranch at Orange Blossom based on each of the twelve evaluated jurisdiction's parking standards ranged from 264 to 594 parking spaces. Collier County’s parking requirement of 528 parking spaces for The Ranch at Orange Blossom was therefore identified as somewhere in the middle range in terms of the amount of parking required relative to the other eleven Florida jurisdictions evaluated. Furthermore, The Ranch at Orange Blossom currently provides 604 parking spaces, exceeding the highest parking requirement of the twelve jurisdictions evaluated of 594 required parking spaces, showing that the parking deficiency observed would most probably be seen in all of the evaluated Florida jurisdictions, not only Collier. Based on the findings of this evaluation, staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects and potential land development code amendments to adjust the current parking requirements. An additional consideration that may factor into the evaluation is that any increase in the multifamily parking requirement may render a large percentage of existing multifamily complexes as ‘non-conforming’ under a newer standard, as well as Ch. 2023-349, Laws of Florida (amending “Senate Bill 250”), which renders more restrictive or burdensome amendments to Collier County’s land development regulations before October 1, 2026, void ab initio. This item is consistent with the Collier County strategic plan objective to preserve and enhance the character of our community. FISCAL IMPACT: If directed, budget allocations have been provided within the appropriate cost centers for the necessary staffing for the Land Development Code Amendment (LDCA) process. Additionally, based on the fact that an increase in the parking requirements for multifamily complexes would render a percentage of existing complexes as non-conforming, a cost will be borne by these complexes to address their parking deficiencies if any modifications/additions are sought for the complexes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address specific parking requirements for multifamily apartment complexes, and any modification to the parking requirements will have no effect on the GMP. Page 5862 of 6525 5/27/2025 Item # 11.B ID# 2025-1143 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board direction. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATIONS: To review the staff’s on-site evaluations of parking capacity and demand within multifamily communities in the County and provide direction for policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects and any recommended adjustment to the County’s standards. PREPARED BY: Josephine Medina, AICP, Planner III– Zoning Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A - Multifamily Parking On-Site Observations 2. Attachment B - The Ranch at Orange Blossom Parking Photographs 3. Attachment C - Multifamily Parking Space Regulation Comparisons Page 5863 of 6525 Page 5864 of 6525 Page 5865 of 6525 Page 5866 of 6525 Page 5867 of 6525 Page 5868 of 6525 Page 5869 of 6525 Page 5870 of 6525 Page 5871 of 6525 Page 5872 of 6525 Page 5873 of 6525 Page 5874 of 6525 Page 5875 of 6525 Page 5876 of 6525 Page 5877 of 6525 Page 5878 of 6525 Page 5879 of 6525 Page 5880 of 6525 Page 5881 of 6525 Page 5882 of 6525 Page 5883 of 6525 Page 5884 of 6525 Page 5885 of 6525 Page 5886 of 6525 Page 5887 of 6525 Page 5888 of 6525 Page 5889 of 6525 Page 5890 of 6525 Page 5891 of 6525 Page 5892 of 6525 Page 5893 of 6525 Page 5894 of 6525 EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA PHASE II Environmental Data for PUDA SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: February 14, 2025 Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 5895 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to satisfy the Environmental Data requirements (LDC Section 3.08.00) for a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) for the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. A lone parcel at the south end of the PUD remains undeveloped. The amendment is to address development of this last parcel (Subject Property). This information is in response to the items in the PUDA Pre-Application Notes as provided by Collier County. PROPERTY LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of a single parcel (Folio: 00400246503) at the south end of the Santa Barbara Landing RPUD. Access to the property is through the existing Granada Lake Villas. According to the survey provided by the engineer, the property is 6.74 acres. See Location Map and Aerial Map in Appendix A. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST See page 3.A.3 of Collier County Pre-App Notes 1. Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide a FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLU CFCS are being considered Native Vegetation. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location, and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. Please provide wetland functionality scores WRAP or UMAM if they have been created and or reviewed by the DEP or SFWMD. Please see FLUCCS Map in Appendix A. FLUCCS 130, Residential High Density This FLUCCS category is the existing residential community (Granada Lake Villas). It consists of buildings, roadways, landscaping, and water management areas. FLUCCS 411-E1, Pine Flatwoods (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the middle preserve in the existing developed portion of the PUD. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). These patches are the only remaining native areas in this preserve. FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community makes up the majority of the undeveloped parcel in the south. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid-story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. Page 5896 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com FLUCCS 411-E4, Pine Flatwoods (>75% Exotics) This community is found in the northernmost preserve area of the PUD, adjacent to Radio Road. Canopy consists of scattered slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid-story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 624-E2, Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the center of the Subject Property surrounded on all sides by Pine flatwoods. This community mostly consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, and cabbage palm, with moderate levels of exotic recruitment including earleaf acacia and brazilian pepper in the canopy and midstory. Groundcover was sparse with scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Lands This community is found in the middle preserve in the existing developed portion of the PUD. Canopy vegetation is absent. Groundcover is largely bahia grass that is actively mowed and maintained. This portion of the preserve will need restoration. FLUCCS 810, Road Right of Way This community is found buffering the roadways to the west and south of the Subject Property. These areas are mechanically mowed and maintained. This community consists of a variety of grasses as ground cover with absent midstory or canopy vegetation. Native vegetation calculations: Original PUD Native Vegetation Requirement: 3.0 Acres Previously Provided Preserve Areas (2): 1.62 acres Areas within the 1.62 acres will need exotic removal and/or restoration Preserve Provided in Currently Undeveloped Parcel: 1.71 2 areas that were previously identified in the original PUD Total Preserve Provided: 3.02 acres See Native Vegetation Preserve Map, Site Plan Map, and Wetland ID Map in Appendix A for the proposed preservation areas, site plan layout, and wetland location. 2. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zone etc.) be sure to include Black Bear and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). See Protected Species Survey in Appendix B and Florida Bonneted Bat Cavity Survey in Appendix C. No listed species were observed on the property. Page 5897 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 3. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.l.d-e). (25% of native vegetation is required for preservation.) Label the Master plan with a note that the preservation is to be addressed off-site and provide the calculation in the packet submitted. 4. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. OBJECTIVE 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements… The project will protect native vegetation by providing at least 3 acres of indigenous preserve as outlined in the original PUD. The location of the preserves was established in the original PUD and the current request is consistent with those sizes and locations. CCME GOAL 7: TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE COUNTY’S FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE. OBJECTIVE 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats… A listed species survey was conducted on the Subject Property in January 2025, with no observations nor signs of listed species utilization was observed on the Subject Property. See Appendix B for the Listed Species Survey. 5. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. A listed species survey was conducted on the Subject Property in January 2025, with no observations nor signs of listed species utilization was observed on the Subject Property. See Appendix B for the Listed Species Survey. 6. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed storm water management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. The project will be permitted through the SFWMD once the PUDA is approved. The specifics of the water management system will be determined at that time. 7. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCME. Page 5898 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com See Comment #1 above. Native vegetation calculations: Original PUD Native Vegetation Requirement: 3.0 Acres Previously Provided Preserve Areas (2): 1.62 acres Areas within the 1.62 acres will need exotic removal and/or restoration Preserve Provided in Currently Undeveloped Parcel: 1.71 2 areas that were previously identified in the original PUD Total Preserve Provided: 3.02 acres See Native Vegetation Preserve Map in Appendix A for the proposed preservation areas. 8. Please indicate if the original PUD had environmental commitments and address how the commitments will be included or excluded as part of the proposed petition. From an environmental perspective, the updated PUD will provide native vegetation preserves in the same locations and sizes as the original PUD. Page 5899 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL-SIZED EXHIBITS Page 5900 of 6525 Page 5901 of 6525 Page 5902 of 6525 Page 5903 of 6525 Page 5904 of 6525 Page 5905 of 6525 Page 5906 of 6525 Page 5907 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY Page 5908 of 6525 EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA II Protected Species Survey NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50, RANGE 26 Prepared For: Prepared By: January 2025 McDowell Housing Partners 777 Brickell Ave, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33131 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 5909 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY METHODS & MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 3 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 5.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 5 6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDICIES Appendix A Full Sized Exhibits Page 5910 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a search for listed species on the property referred to as Ekos on Santa Barbara II (Subject Property) prior to development. The field assessment occurred on January 20, 2025, to evaluate the Subject Property for the potential presence of listed species of concern based on the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) and existing site conditions. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of one (1) parcel (Folio # 00400246503) east of Santa Barbara Blvd. The Subject Property is located just north of an access roadway, a residential community, and a large man-made stormwater pond; just south of Santa Clara Drive and residential housing; in Collier County, Florida. According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the Subject Property totals approximately 6.66 acres. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY METHODS & MATERIALS The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida.” Existing vegetation communities or land-uses on the Subject Property are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2024) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits). The resulting FLUCCS codes were cross-referenced with a list of protected plant and animal species. The lists were obtained from two agency publications: ❖ “Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern-Official Lists,” December 2022. ❖ “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants,” Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2010. In the field, each FLUCCS community is searched for listed species or signs of listed species. This is accomplished using a series of meandering pedestrian transects spaced approximately 25-feet apart to achieve approximately 80% overall coverage, throughout each vegetation community (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits). If necessary, transect integrity is maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. Signs or sightings of all species are recorded, and any associated burrows, dens, or cavities are flagged in the field and marked by GPS using a Trimble R1 GNSS Receiver for sub-meter accuracy. Based on the habitat types found on the Subject Property, particular attention was paid to the presence or absence of listed species such as Big Cypress fox squirrel, gopher tortoise, and Florida bonneted bat (cavities). Approximately three (3) man-hours were logged on the Subject Property during this species survey (see Table 1). TABLE 1. FIELD TIME SPENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATE START TIME END TIME NO. ECOLOGISTS MAN HOURS TASK January 20, 2025 1:30 pm 3:00 pm 2 3 Species Survey Fieldwork Page 5911 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Subject Property is vacant and vegetated. The majority of the Subject Property consists of pine flatwoods with road right of ways bordering the road access on the west and south boundaries of the parcel. There is a wetland in the center of the parcel. Residential communities are located adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the Subject Property. An access road, residential community, man-made retention pond, and Calusa Park Elementary School are located to the south of the Subject Property. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: North: Residential East: Residential South: Roadway / Residential / Man-made retention pond / Calusa Park Elementary West: Santa Barbara Blvd / Countryside Golf Course and Country Club Table 2 lists the FLUCCS communities located on the Subject Property. The community descriptions correspond to the FLUCCS Map (see Appendix A for full sized exhibits). See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. The Florida Invasive Species Council’s (FISC) list of invasive species contains Category I and Category II species that may be found on the Subject Property. Category I species are invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. Category II species are invasive exotics that are increasing in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities. A significant factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion of these species such as melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Caesar weed. Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub-canopy. TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411-E3 Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) 3.61 624-E2 Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) 1.90 810 Road Right of Way 1.15 Site Total: 6.66 E1 = Exotics <25% of total cover E2 = Exotics 26-50% of total cover E3 = Exotics 51-75% of total cover E4 = Exotics >75% of total cover FLUCCS DESCRIPTIONS * = exotic species Page 5912 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the Subject Property. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid- story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 624-E2, Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the center of the Subject Property surrounded on all sides by Pine flatwoods. This community mostly consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, and cabbage palm, with moderate levels of exotic recruitment including earleaf acacia and brazilian pepper in the canopy and midstory. Groundcover was sparse with scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS 810, Road Right of Way This community is found buffering the roadways to the west and south of the Subject Property. These areas are mechanically mowed and maintained. This community consists of a variety of grasses as ground cover with absent midstory or canopy vegetation. 5.0 RESULTS All relevant species observed on the Subject Property are detailed in Table 3 and any protected species observed are specifically noted (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits). TABLE 3. SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVATIONS LISTED SPECIES? STATUS BIRDS Black Vulture Coragyps atratus DV N MBTA Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata DV N MBTA Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis DV N MBTA Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos DV N MBTA REPTILES Brown Anole Anolis sagrei DV N - = listed species Abbreviations Observations: Observations: Status: C = Cavity N = Nest CE = Commercially Exploited DB = Day Bed OH = Observed Hole/Burrow FE = Federally Endangered DV = Direct Visual OT = Observed Tracks FT = Federally Threatened HV = Heard Vocalization(s) R = Remains SSC = Species of Special Concern MT = Marked Tree S = Scat ST = State Threatened MBTA = Protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Subject Property does have community types in which additional protected species could be utilized for foraging purposes. During permitting, the following protected species concerns may be raised by the agencies: Page 5913 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) The Subject Property falls within the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) known range of Big Cypress fox squirrel, and also contains suitable foraging/nesting habitat. During the species survey and various other fieldwork activities, no fox squirrels or potential nests were observed. A pre- clearing survey will be required prior to construction; should any nests be observed and fall within the impact area (including a 575-foot protection buffer), an FWC permit will be required before the nest tree may be impacted Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridana) The Subject Property falls within the United States Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area. No signs of Florida Bonneted Bat utilization were observed on the Subject Property, habitat is not ideal for bonneted bat roosting due to the dense understory that mostly consists of exotic species. During the Protected Species Survey fieldwork, two (2) snags that contained tree cavities were observed. A Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey will be conducted. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) No Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-documented bald eagle nests have been documented within 660-feet (USFWS Protection Zone) of the Subject Property and no nests were observed on the Subject Property. Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) The Subject Property falls outside the USFWS Primary Panther Habitat Zones. Four (4) panther telemetry points were located within a two-mile radius of the Subject Property in 2023. All 4 telemetry points within a two-mile radius of the Subject Property were from one individual panther (FP262) with the latest being May 8, 2023. Panther usage of the Subject Property is unlikely due to the surrounding development and proximity to major roadways. Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) The Subject Property falls within abundant black bear habitat (FWC). Thirty-two (32) black bear-related calls have been documented within a one-mile radius of the Subject Property in 2017 through 2018. FWC stopped radio-tracking black bears in 2018. FWC Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required to be followed for Florida black bear. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) The Subject Property falls within one (1) 18.6 mile core foraging area for a known wood stork colony. Usage of the Subject Property for foraging or roosting by wood storks is unlikely due to the high levels of exotic vegetation and surrounding development. Page 5914 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 6.0 REFERENCES Ashton, Ray E. and Patricia S. “The Natural History and Management for the Gopher Tortoise.” Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. 2008. Cox, James; Inkley, Douglas; and Kautz, Randy. “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-Scale Development in Florida.” Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 4. December 1987. http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/062015-JFWM-055/suppl_file/062015-jfwm- 055.s2.pdf?code=ufws-site Atlas of Florida Plants. Institute for Systematic Botany. Accessed: February 22, 2024. https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/ Collier County Property Appraiser. https://www.collierappraiser.com Accessed: February 22, 2024. “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species”- Official List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Updated December 2022. http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/ https://myfwc.com/media/1945/threatened-endangered-species.pdf Florida Invasive Species Council. “2019 FISC List of Invasive Plant Species.” http://www.floridainvasivespecies.org/plantlist.cfm Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/doc_pubs.shtm Weaver, Richard E. and Anderson, Patti J. “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants.” Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology – Botany Section. Contribution No. 38, 5th Edition. 2010. http://freshfromflorida.s3.amazonaws.com/fl-endangered-plants.pdf http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-Services/Bureau-of- Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-Endangered-Plants Page 5915 of 6525 Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS Page 5916 of 6525 Page 5917 of 6525 Page 5918 of 6525 Page 5919 of 6525 Page 5920 of 6525 Page 5921 of 6525 Page 5922 of 6525 Page 5923 of 6525 Page 5924 of 6525 Page 5925 of 6525 Page 5926 of 6525 Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX C BONETTED BAT CAVITY SURVEY Page 5927 of 6525 EKOS ON SANTA BARBARA II FLORIDA BONNETED BAT TREE CAVITY SURVEY COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: February 2025 McDowell Housing Partners 777 Brickell Ave, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33131 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com Page 5928 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus) ...................................................................................... 4 5.0 SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS .......................................................................................................... 5 6.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 5 7.0 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 6 8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDICES Appendix A Full Sized Exhibits Appendix B Tree Cavity Photographs Page 5929 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a cavity survey on February 8, 2025 for Florida bonneted bat (FBB) (Eumops floridanus) on the property referred to as Ekos on Santa Barbara II (Subject Property) prior to development. Tree cavities/potential roost sites were originally identified by ETE during a Protected Species Survey performed in January 2025. 2.0 LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of one (1) parcel (Folio # 00400246503) east of Santa Barbara Blvd. The Subject Property is located just north of an access roadway, a residential community, and a large man-made stormwater pond; just south of Santa Clara Drive and residential housing; in Collier County, Florida. According to the property boundaries obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser’s GIS data, the Subject Property totals approximately 6.66 acres. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Temperatures during the fieldwork for this survey were in the mid 70’s with partly cloudy skies. The Subject Property is vacant and vegetated. The majority of the Subject Property consists of pine flatwoods with road right of ways bordering the road access on the west and south boundaries of the parcel. There is a wetland in the center of the parcel. Residential communities are located adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the Subject Property. An access road, residential community, man-made retention pond, and Calusa Park Elementary School are located to the south of the Subject Property. (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits) The locations of the listed FLUCCS communities can be seen in Appendix A. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: North: Residential East: Residential South: Roadway / Residential / Man-made retention pond / Calusa Park Elementary West: Santa Barbara Blvd / Countryside Golf Course and Country Club The Florida Invasive Species Council’s (FISC) list of invasive species contains Category I and Category II species that may be found on the Subject Property. Category I species are invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. Category II species are invasive exotics that are increasing in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities. A significant factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion of these species such as melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Caesar weed. Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub-canopy. Page 5930 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411-E3 Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) 3.61 624-E2 Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) 1.90 810 Road Right of Way 1.15 Site Total: 6.66 FLUCCS DESCRIPTIONS * = exotic species+ FLUCCS 411-E3, Pine Flatwoods (51-75% Exotics) This community is found throughout the majority of the Subject Property. Canopy consists mostly of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with lesser amounts of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Both the canopy and mid- story are thick with exotic vegetation recruitment, mainly *earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and *brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The groundcover was sparse with moderate levels of *earleaf acacia recruitment. FLUCCS 624-E2, Cypress Pine Cabbage (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the center of the Subject Property surrounded on all sides by Pine flatwoods. This community mostly consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, and cabbage palm, with moderate levels of exotic recruitment including earleaf acacia and brazilian pepper in the canopy and midstory. Groundcover was sparse with scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS 810, Road Right of Way This community is found buffering the roadways to the west and south of the Subject Property. These areas are mechanically mowed and maintained. This community consists of a variety of grasses as ground cover with absent midstory or canopy vegetation. 4.0 FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus) The Florida bonneted bat was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 1, 2013. The project area falls within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Florida bonneted bat Consultation Area (See Appendix A for full sized exhibits). According to the USFWS Florida Bonneted Bat Guidelines (June 2024), the following cavity characteristics are used to identify potential cavity trees: • Slash pine, longleaf pine, royal palm, cypress (typically in snags, but can be in live trees). • Rounded cavities made by woodpeckers. • Trees >20 feet in height, snags 10ft or taller • Cavity opening ≥1 inch. E1 = <25% Total Exotic Coverage E2 = 26-50% Total Exotic Coverage E3 = 51-75% Total Exotic Coverage E4 = >75% Total Exotic Coverage Page 5931 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 5.0 SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS During the January 2025 Protected Species Survey, each habitat community was searched for potential cavities. This was accomplished using a series of transects throughout each vegetation community. If necessary, transect integrity was maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. If any suspected roost sites/cavities were identified, they were initially evaluated for activity by looking for the presence of guano and noise associated with roost chatter. Each suspected roost location or cavity was flagged, numbered, and recorded utilizing a Trimble GPS for identification. During the cavity peeping activities conducted on February 4, 2025 each flagged tree cavity was inspected using a pole-mounted cavity inspection camera and the contents of each cavity were documented. Photographic documentation can be found in Appendix B. If the size of the cavity opening and interior of the cavity permitted, the cavity was inspected first with the camera pointing down and then with the camera pointing up. The cavity inspection camera measures approximately 1’’ x 1.25.’’ Cavities that were smaller than the inspection camera were not inspected. The telescoping inspection pole extends to approximately 40 feet; any cavities higher than 40 feet were not inspected. 6.0 RESULTS The following section describes the results of the cavity survey within the project area. The cavity survey was conducted on February 8, 2025, and the cavity peeping activities occurred on the same day. Table 2 describes the results of the cavity inspection. No visual/audible indications (presence of guano, noise/chatter, etc.) were observed at the cavity trees (see Appendix B for Tree Cavity Photographs). Nine-teen (19) snag trees with a total of thirty-one (31) cavities were initially identified/flagged (see Appendix A for full sized exhibits). TABLE 2. TREE CAVITY INFORMATION Tree Cavity Number Condition and Species of Tree Height of Cavity (Ft) Inspection Status C1 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 36.5ft Cavity B: 35.5ft Cavity C: 31.5ft All Cavities Vacant C2 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 18.5ft All Cavities Vacant C3 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 35ft Cavity B: 32ft Cavity C: 28.5ft All Cavities Vacant C4 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 25.5ft Cavity B: 20.5ft Cavity C: 20ft Cavity D: 18.7ft Cavity E: 13.2ft All Cavities Vacant C5 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C6 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C7 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C8 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep Page 5932 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com C9 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 23.7ft All Cavities Vacant C10 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep C11 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 25.5ft Cavity B: 24.5ft Cavity C: 22ft Cavity D: 23.5ft All Cavities Vacant C12 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 19ft All Cavities Vacant C13 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 19.5ft All Cavities Vacant C14 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 22ft Cavity B: 20ft All Cavities Vacant C15 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 18ft All Cavities Vacant C16 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 27ft All Cavities Vacant C17 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 26ft All Cavities Vacant C18 Dead slash pine Cavity A: 21ft All Cavities Vacant C19 Dead slash pine >40ft >40ft could not peep 7.0 SUMMARY ETE conducted a search for potential Florida bonneted bat cavities/potential roost sites on the Subject Property on February 8, 2025. Nine-teen (19) snag trees with a total of thirty-one (31) cavities were initially identified during a Protected Species Survey that was conducted in January, 2025. The cavities were inspected in which no apparent signs of Florida bonneted bats or roosting were observed during the cavity survey. The Subject Property has a dense canopy and midstory with moderate to high levels of exotic vegetation. Considering low-quality roosting habitat, and that the Subject Property is bordered by development and roadways, consultation with USFWS will likely not be required for Florida bonneted bat. Page 5933 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 8.0 REFERENCES Collier County Property Appraiser. http://www.collierappraiser.com Florida’s Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Florida Ecological Services Office. June 2024. “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species”- Official List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Updated December 2022. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened-endangered-species.pdf http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/ Florida Invasive Species Council. “2023 FISC List of Invasive Plant Species.” https://www.floridainvasives.org/plant-list/2023-invasive-plant-species/ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011a. Florida bonneted bat biological status review report. March 31, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. https://myfwc.com/media/1962/florida-bonneted-bat-bsr.pdf Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/doc_pubs.shtm Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2012. FNAI - element tracking summary. Tallahassee, Florida. June 20, 2012. http://www.fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm [Accessed: July 10, 2012]. Page 5934 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS Page 5935 of 6525 Page 5936 of 6525 Page 5937 of 6525 Page 5938 of 6525 Page 5939 of 6525 Page 5940 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B TREE CAVITY PHOTOGRAPHS Page 5941 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C1 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 36.5 View facing up View facing down C A B Page 5942 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C1 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 35.5 Cavity #: C Height (ft): 31.5 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up *More cavities >40 ft, did not Peep Page 5943 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C2 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 18.5 View facing up View facing down A Page 5944 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C3 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 35 View facing up View facing down A B C Page 5945 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C3 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 32 Cavity #: C Height (ft):28.5 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 5946 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C4 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 25.5 View facing up View facing down A B C D E Page 5947 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C4 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 20.5 Cavity #: C Height (ft): 20 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 5948 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C4 Cavity #:D Height (ft):18.7 Cavity #: E Height (ft): 13.2 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 5949 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C5 Cavity #: A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A Page 5950 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C6 Cavity #: A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A Page 5951 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C7, C8 Cavity #: A, A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A A C7 C8 Page 5952 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C9 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 23.7 View facing up View facing down A Page 5953 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C10 Cavity #: A Height (ft): >40 could not peep* A Page 5954 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C11 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 25.5 View facing down A B C D View facing up: no photo, open at top Page 5955 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C11 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 24.5 Cavity #: C Height (ft): 22 View facing up View facing down View facing down View facing up Page 5956 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C11 Cavity #:D Height (ft): 23.5 View facing down View facing up Page 5957 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C12 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 19.0 View facing up View facing down A Page 5958 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C13 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 19.5 View facing up View facing down A Page 5959 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C14 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 22 View facing up View facing down B A Page 5960 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C14 Cavity #: B Height (ft): 20 View facing down View facing up Page 5961 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C15 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 18 View facing up View facing down A Page 5962 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C16 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 27 View facing up View facing down A Page 5963 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C17 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 26 View facing up View facing down A Page 5964 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C18 Cavity #: A Height (ft): 21 View facing up View facing down A Page 5965 of 6525 Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Tree #: C19 Cavity #: A Height (ft): Could not peep, too thick of understory, cavities too high Page 5966 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landing PUDA Page 1 of 2 Submittal #3 06/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | PHONE NUMBER www.theneighborhood.company SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi- family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1- bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. To instead allow for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces. Justification: The proposed 84-unit development would require 156 parking spaces per the LDC, as detailed below. Use Units and LDC Ratio Parking Required 1 Bed 60 @ 1.75/unit 105 2 Bed 24 @ 2/unit 48 3 Bed 0 @ 2/unit 0 Office 900 SF @ 1 per 300 SF (*50%) 1.5 Clubhouse 600 SF @ 1 per 200 SF (*50%) 1.5 TOTAL 156 156 parking spaces equates to a space-per-unit ratio of 1.85. The proposed 10% reduction would require 140 parking spaces or a space-per-unit ratio of 1.67. The developer of the proposed project, MHP Collier IV, LLC, has developed many multi-family developments in Florida, with multiple existing projects in Collier County. The space-per-unit ratio of MHP’s Collier County projects ranges from 1.24 to 1.99, with an average of 1.5. To date, no parking deficiencies have been identified in these developments. The requested ratio of 1.67 is higher than the average of 1.5, suggesting that 140 spaces will provide sufficient parking for the development. Additionally, over 70% of the proposed units will be one bedroom, which are anticipated to be single-vehicle households. At their May 27, 2025 hearing, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners concurred with County staff’s findings related to multi-family parking reductions, finding that only one out of twelve multi-family communities surveyed had a parking deficiency. Page 5967 of 6525 Santa Barbara Landing PUDA Page 2 of 2 Submittal #3 06/12/2025 5618 Whispering Willow Way, Fort Myers, FL 33908 | PHONE NUMBER www.theneighborhood.company Per the Executive Summary prepared by County staff (included in this submittal), none of the communities surveyed which had previously been granted Administrative Parking Reductions had parking issues or observed deficiencies, suggesting that reasonable reductions in multi-family parking standards have no negative impact on the communities themselves. 2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A-1. Justification: The original Master Plan (adopted by Ordinance 2005-53, as amended) was approved with two preservation areas, as the approval pre-dated the requirement for contiguous preservations. This deviation seeks to maintain the separate preservation area locations. At ±6.74 acres, Tract B has a relatively constrained developable area and preserve areas were selected, in part, with the desire to provide enhanced buffering from the existing residential communities to the north (Granada Lakes Villas) and east (Plantation PUD). Page 5968 of 6525 © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 TomTom Property : 1 CLIENT: TITLE:FILE NO.:SHEET OFNO.REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEBY COASTAL 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 A CECI GROUP COMPANY Serving Florida Since 1977 THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (CECI) OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO CECI OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES.FLORIDA BUSINESS AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 2464COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: 10/31/2024FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 5295PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPERTHE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDANOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE ANDLICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPERDATE OF SIGNATURE: RICHARD J. EWING, PSMCHECKED: F.B. ACAD NO. PG. DRAWN: DATE: REF. NO. SCALE: SEC.TWP.RNG.ALTA/NSPS SURVEYORS CERTIFICATETHE UNDERSIGNED, BEING A REGISTERED SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CERTIFIES TO THE FOLLOWING:MHP COLLIER IV, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYNELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLPFIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY1. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2021 MINIMUM STANDARDDETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(A), 7(A),7(B)(1), 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, AND 20 OF TABLE A THEREOF.2. THE SURVEY WAS MADE ON THE GROUND ON OCTOBER 31, 2024, AND CORRECTLY SHOWS THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE LOCATION OFUTILITIES OBSERVED OR SHOWN ON RECORD DOCUMENTS AS SERVING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER MATTERS SITUATED ON THE SUBJECTPROPERTY.3. THE LOCATION OF EACH EASEMENT, RIGHT OF WAY, SERVITUDE, AND OTHER MATTER AFFECTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND LISTED IN TITLECOMMITMENT NO. 12025933 , SUPPLIED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 WITH RESPECT TOTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY, HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE SURVEY, TOGETHER WITH APPROPRIATE RECORDING REFERENCES, TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH MATTERSCAN BE LOCATED. THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND DESCRIBED ON THE SURVEY IS THE SAME PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT TITLE COMMITMENT. THE LOCATION OFALL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN ACCORD WITH MINIMUM SETBACK PROVISIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD REFERENCED IN SUCHTITLE COMMITMENT.4. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE SURVEY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X AND AE, ELEVATION 10.5, PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO 12021C0414J FOR COMMUNITY NO. 120067 IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED.5. ANY POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS ARE NOTED ON THE SURVEY.CECI GROUP SERVICES COASTAL AND MARINE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES LAND AND MARINE SURVEY AND MAPPING 24.3192124.319 24.319-ALTAGENERAL NOTES1. = FOUND 3"X3" CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH ALUMINUM DISC (ILLEGIBLE).2. = FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AS NOTED.3. = SET 5/8"IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED CEC LB 2464.4. BEARINGS BASED ON A GRID BEARING OF N88°49'14"E ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4.5. DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD ZONE X, AND FLOOD ZONE AE ELEVATION 10.5 PER F.I.R.M. COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 120067 MAP NO. 12021C 0414J DATED FEBRUARY 08, 2024.6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (N.A.V.D. 88).7. ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.8. THIS SURVEY IS CERTIFIED TO THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY, NOT THE DATE OF SIGNATURE.9. TITLE COMMITMENT NO. 12025933, SUPPLIED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 25, 2024, WAS REVIEWED BY THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOR. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS CORRESPOND WITH SCHEDULE B-II OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED COMMITMENT.SCHEDULE B-II5.ORDINANCES 75-20 (WATER), 75-21 (TREES), AND 75-24 (ZONING), AS RECORDED MAY 8, 1975, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 619, PAGES 1177THROUGH 1381, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.6.RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF COLLIER COUNTY RECORDED MAY 22, 1985, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1136, PAGE 2334. (PLOTTEDHEREON)7.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF COLLIER COUNTY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1985, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1153, PAGE 1378. (DOES NOT AFFECTDESCRIBED PROPERTY)8.RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, EASEMENTS, AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, AUGUST 27, 1986, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK1214, PAGE 1533. (NOT-PLOTTABLE)9.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1986, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1229, PAGE 1786.(DOES NOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)10.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF COUNTYWATER-SEWER DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDARECORDED APRIL 29, 1987, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1264, PAGE 1642. (DOES NOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)11.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1987, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1293, PAGE 311. (DOESNOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)12.MUTUAL AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 27, 1989, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1436, PAGE 14;AS AFFECTED BY THAT CERTAIN PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF MUTUAL AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED JULY14, 1989, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1845, PAGE 1237. (DOES NOT AFFECT DESCRIBED PROPERTY)13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND PROVISIONS OF THAT CERTAIN UTILITY FACILITIES WARRANTY DEED IN FAVOR OF THE BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OFCOUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1993, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1794, PAGE 1010; TOGETHER WITH BILL OF SALERECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 21993, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1794, PAGE 1007.14.EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED APRIL 19, 2005, INOFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3777, PAGE 3934 AND RE-RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 2005, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3920, PAGE 1403.15.RIGHTS OF TENANTS OCCUPYING ALL OR PART OF THE INSURED LAND UNDER UNRECORDED LEASES OR RENTAL AGREEMENTS.(NOT-PLOTTABLE) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01°00'26" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THEWEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR A DISTANCE OF 480.72 FEET, THENCE RUN SOUTH76°13'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 82.23 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARSNORTH 5°44'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THERIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 73.16 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°08'34", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 47.81 FEET AT A BEARINGOF NORTH 65°11'09" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 90°00'00" WEST FOR ADISTANCE OF 125.77 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35°38'35" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 22.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE,CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 29°08'13" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.22 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUNSOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 65.22 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF49°30'54", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 54.63 FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 85°37'14" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.36 FEET TO THE ENDOF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 69°37'17" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27°06'45" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF104.54 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 56°29'42" WEST, ADISTANCE OF 52.77 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUN WESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF52.77 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 101°32'18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 81.75 FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 84°16'27" WEST,FOR A DISTANCE OF 93.51 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 48°37'36" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.05 FEET;THENCE RUN SOUTH 88°57'22" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 113.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01°02'39" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR ADISTANCE OF 439.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN NORTH88°49'14" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR A DISTANCE OF 658.08 FEET TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.TOGETHER WITH A 24-FOOT-WIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT LYING 12 FEET EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTINGSANTA CLARA DRIVE.PHONE: (239)643-2324 FAX: (239)643-1143 www.coastalengineering.com E-Mail: info@cecifl.com N/A MMW RJENOT TO SCALECOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDALYING IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,LOCATION MAPALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPART OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWESTQUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDAMHP COLLIER IV, LLC ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF LANDS LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA G715 26 11/06/24 26E50S4NO SITE ADDRESS PROJECT LOCATIONPage 5969 of 6525 XXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTELOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHU OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUEAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4 S76°13'51"W 82.23'(D)S76°06'59"W 82.17'(S)N90°00'00"W 125.77'(D)N89°52'32"W 125.77'(S)S27°06'45"W 104.54'(D)S27°10'01"W 104.55'(S)N48°37'36"W 88.05'(D)N48°37'24"W 88.04'(S)S88°57'22"W 113.05'(D)S89°08'25"W 113.05'(S)S01°02'39"E 439.34'(D)S01°02'07"E 439.61'(S)N88°49'14"E 658.08'(D)N88°49'14"E 658.08'(S)SANTA BARBARA LANDINGSPARCEL ID 00400200002PLANTATION(PLAT BOOK 80, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82)CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARYPARCEL ID 00399840007POINT OF BEGINNINGSOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALFOF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWESTQUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAC1C2C3L 1L2(VACANT LAND)APPROXIMATELY 293,530 SQUARE FEET,OR 6.74 ACRES OF LANDSOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4N01°00'26"W 480.72'(D) N01°00'29"W 480.72'(S)FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN (ILLEGIBLE)FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN (ILLEGIBLE)FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FOUND 5/8" IRONPIN AND CAP STAMPEDPORTELLA LB 7304FLOOD ZONE XFLOOD ZONE AEELEVATION = 10.5FLOOD ZONE XFLOOD ZONE AEELEVATION = 10.5SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD20' RIGHT OF WAY 99.99'13.06'CORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 1.6' SOUTHOF PROPERTY LINECHAIN LINKFENCE IS 1.4' SOUTHOF PROPERTY CORNERCORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.6' NORTHOF PROPERTY LINECORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.2' EASTOF PROPERTY LINECORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 1.1' WESTAND 0.7' NORTHOF PROPERTY CORNERCORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.8' WESTOF PROPERTY LINECHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.7' WESTOF PROPERTY LINECORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.9' EASTOF PROPERTY CORNERCORNER OF CHAIN LINKFENCE IS 0.5' NORTHOF PROPERTY CORNER100' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 1136, PAGE 2334)ACCESS EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 2970, PAGES 3324-3330)120' 120'303.47'ACCESS EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 2970, PAGES 3324-3330)RIGHT-OF-WAY,DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 4023,PAGES 4072-4073)WEST 1/4 CORNER OFSECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,OLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAWEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4100.00'558.08'APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF SANTA CLARA DRIVE(24' WIDE INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT AS LISTED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION CLIENT: TITLE:FILE NO.:SHEET OFNO.REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATE BY COASTAL 28421 BONITA CROSSINGS BOULEVARD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. COASTAL AND MARINE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES LAND AND MARINE SURVEY AND MAPPING BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE: (239)643-2324 FAX: (239)643-1143 www.coastalengineering.com E-Mail: info@cecifl.com Serving Florida Since 1977 THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (CECI) OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO CECI OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES. CHECKED: F.B. ACAD NO. PG. DRAWN: DATE: REF. NO. SCALE: SEC.TWP.RNG.24.31922MHP COLLIER IV, LLC 1" = 40' G715 26 26E50S 24.319 24.319-ALTA 11/06/24 MMW RJE 4LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTEROF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEINGMORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01°00'26" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THEWEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FORA DISTANCE OF 480.72 FEET, THENCE RUN SOUTH 76°13'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF82.23 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUSPOINT BEARS NORTH 5°44'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET THERE FROM; THENCERUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUSOF 73.16 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°08'34", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF47.81 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 65°11'09" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.70 FEET TOTHE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 90°00'00" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF125.77 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35°38'35" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 22.57 FEET TO APOINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARSNORTH 29°08'13" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.22 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUNSOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF65.22 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49°30'54", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 54.63FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 85°37'14" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.36 FEET TO THEEND OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 69°37'17" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.93FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27°06'45" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 104.54 FEET TO A POINT ON ACIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH56°29'42" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 52.77 FEET THERE FROM; THENCE RUN WESTERLY,ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 52.77 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 101°32'18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 81.75 FEET AT ABEARING OF SOUTH 84°16'27" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 93.51 FEET TO THE END OF SAIDCURVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 48°37'36" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.05 FEET; THENCERUN SOUTH 88°57'22" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 113.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01°02'39"EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR ADISTANCE OF 439.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE RUN NORTH 88°49'14" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4, FOR A DISTANCE OF 658.08 FEET TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.TOGETHER WITH A 24-FOOT-WIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT LYING 12 FEET EACHSIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING SANTA CLARA DRIVE.GENERAL NOTES1. = FOUND 3"X3" CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH ALUMINUM DISC (ILLEGIBLE).2. = FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AS NOTED.3. = SET 5/8"IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED CEC LB 2464.4. BEARINGS BASED ON A GRID BEARING OF N88°49'14"E ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4.5. DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD ZONE X, AND FLOOD ZONE AE ELEVATION 10.5 PER F.I.R.M. COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 120067 MAP NO. 12021C 0414J DATED FEBRUARY 08, 2024.6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (N.A.V.D. 88).7. ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.8. THIS SURVEY IS CERTIFIED TO THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY, NOT THE DATE OF SIGNATURE.LEGEND(S) = SURVEY DATA(D) = DESCRIPTION DATA(TYP.) = TYPICALOHU = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE = SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE = WOOD POWER POLE = CONCRETE POWER POLE = HAND HOLE = LIGHT POLE = ELECTRIC SERVICE = FIBER OPTIC MARKER = TELEPHONE RISER = SCHEDULE BII ITEMSCALE: 1" = 40'402004080CXX - CURVE TABLECURVEC1(D)C2(D)C3(D)RADIUS73.16'65.22'52.77'DELTA38°08'34"49°30'54"101°32'18"LENGTH48.70'56.36'93.51'CHORD47.81'54.63'81.75'BEARINGN65°11'09"WS85°37'14"WS84°16'27"WLXX - LINE TABLELINEL1(D)L2(D)BEARINGS35°38'35"WN69°37'17"WDISTANCE22.57'34.93'C1(S)C2(S)C3(S)48.47'56.40'93.61'47.59'54.66'81.81'N65°25'30"WS85°36'12"WS84°21'49"WL1(S)L2(S)S35°33'11"WN69°38'14"W22.62'34.89'TELALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF LANDS LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAPage 5970 of 6525 [25-CPS-02609/1964280/1] 100 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 1 of 2 8/13/25 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-53 THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 291 TO 332 UNITS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 84 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON TRACT B OF THE RPUD, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRACT B, INCREASE THE HEIGHT ON TRACT B AND ADD A DETAILED MASTER PLAN FOR TRACT B; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. TRACT B IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 40, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.74± ACRES OUT OF 41.6± ACRES. [PL20240013221] WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2005-53 which created the Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and WHEREAS, the Collier County Hearing Examiner approved insubstantial changes to the RPUD in HEX Decision 2021-01; and WHEREAS, MHP Collier IV, LLC, represented by Patrick Vanasse, AICP of The Neighborhood Company, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the RPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. The PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 2005-53, as amended, is hereby amended in accordance with the revised PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. Page 5971 of 6525 [25-CPS-02609/1964280/1] 100 Santa Barbara Landings \ PL20240013221 2 of 2 8/13/25 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of __________________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ________________________ By: _____________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - PUD Document with Exhibits Page 5972 of 6525 07/08/2025 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 41.6± Acres Located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 And St. George Group Corporation 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390 Miami, FL 33126 MHP Collier IV, LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 PREPARED BY: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 And D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Insubstantial Change for St. George Group, Corp by: Johnson Engineering. Inc. 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 (HEX Decision 21-01) Amendment for MHP Collier IV, LLC prepared by: The Neighborhood Company 5618 Whispering Willow Way Fort Myers, FL 33908 EXHIBIT “A” Page 5973 of 6525 07/08/2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES i STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA III-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREA IV-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS V-1 Page 5974 of 6525 i 07/08/2025 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A-I EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D TABLE I CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN TRACT B MASTER PLAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LOCATION MAP BOUNDARY SURVEY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III-3 Page 5975 of 6525 ii 07/08/2025 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE This (HEX Decision 21-01) Residential Planned Unit Development is on approximately 41.6± acres of land located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. Approximately 6.3 acres of the property is encumbered with a 100' wide roadway easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard, making the net site approximately 35.3 acres. The name of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. The development of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as established in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies of the land development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Plan and applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The density provided for in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD complies with the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the residential density band, which extends from the Mixed-use activity center located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The density permissible is 4 dwelling units per acre. Up to 3 dwelling units per acre may be added within the density band, bringing the permissible base density to 7 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density may be added subject to the criteria in the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Base density 4.0du/acre Density band 3.0du/acre Affordable Housing Density Bonus 1.0du/acre Maximum permitted density 7.0 8.0du/acre Requested density 7.0 8.0du/acre (291 332 units) At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 84 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 332 dwelling units. All property within the RPUD boundary shall be utilized in calculating the project density. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with the applicable land development regulations as required in Objective 3 of the FLUE, except as may be modified in this RPUD document 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 6. The design of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD protects the function of the existing Page 5976 of 6525 iii 07/08/2025 drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as required in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This project shall be subject to applicable Sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. Page 5977 of 6525 I-1 07/08/2025 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Section I sets forth the location and ownership of the property, and describes the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 41.6 acres more or less, is described as: The west half (W. ½) of the west half (W. ½) of the northwest quarter (N.W. ¼) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, all being situated in Collier County, Florida, less the north 50 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is currently owned by: TRACT A: unit owners of the Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association Inc. and Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association Inc. whose address is 145 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, FL 34104 (HEX Decision 21-01), and TRACT B: St. George Group, Corp, MHP Collier IV, LLC, whose address is 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390, Miami, FL, 33126 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1300, Miami, FL 33131. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project is located in Section 04, Township 50, Range 26 and is generally bordered on the north by Radio Road, on the east by Plantation PUD; on the south by Bembridge PUD on the west by Santa Barbara Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is RMF-6. C. According to FEMA/FIRM Map Panel Number 120067 415 D, dated June 3, 1986, the property is located within Zone X. D. Soils on the site generally include Hallandale fine sand and Boca, Rivera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland fine sand depressional. Page 5978 of 6525 I-2 07/08/2025 E. Existing vegetation on the site consists of melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, palmetto prairie, pine flatwoood, cypress, Cabbage Palm and disturbed lands. Wetland areas have been heavily impacted by melaleuca. F. According to the Collier County Drainage Atlas, the site is located in the Lely Canal Basin. The conceptual water management plan is depicted in the Surface Water Management Report, which accompanied the rezone application submittal. 1.5 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance is known and cited as the "Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." Page 5979 of 6525 II-1 07/08/2025 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Section II delineates and generally describes the plan of development and identifies relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD is a mixed-use residential project and will consist of two development parcels and multiple preservation areas. Categories of land uses include those for residential and preserve areas. The Residential areas are designed to accommodate single-family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings. The overall project density is 7 8 dwelling units per acre and the maximum units permitted in the RPUD shall be 291 332 units. B. Exhibit "A" depicts the RPUD Master Plan. Exhibit A-I depicts the Master Plan for Tract B. The RPUD Master Plan includes a table that summarizes land use acreage. The location, size and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan approval. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorize the construction of improvements. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted from this RPUD Document or associated exhibits, the provisions of other sections of the land development codes, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code. Page 5980 of 6525 II-2 07/08/2025 2.4 LAND USES Land uses are generally depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined by the developer at the time of site development plan approval, preliminary subdivision plat approval, or final subdivision plat approval subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Collier County LDC. 2.5 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may utilize land within the rights-of-way within the RPUD for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and unified signage. This utilization is subject to review and administrative approval during the development review process by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations. 2.6 MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE A. Construction offices and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 5 and Chapter 10 of the LDC. B. Model Homes may be permitted in multi-family and townhome buildings may be utilized for wet or dry models, subject to the time frames specified in Chapter 5 of the LDC. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by LDC. 2.8 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30% of the project (12.48± acres) shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.9 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum of three (3) acres of native vegetation shall be maintained on the subject site through a combination of preservation of existing native vegetation and revegetation of native vegetation. The areas of retained native vegetation and replanted native vegetation are shown as Preserve areas on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. Page 5981 of 6525 II-3 07/08/2025 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE One or more Property Owner's Association (POA) will provide common area maintenance. The POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in Chapter 2 of the LDC. I. Individual Projects a) Site Planning: Each distinct project within the RPUD will provide an aesthetically appealing, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles. The orientation of buildings and structures will be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. b) Landscaping: Where applicable, plantings along public rights- of way will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. 2.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS A. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the RPUD, excluding preserves. B. The maximum fence, wall or berm height internal to the RPUD shall be eight (8) feet, not including those portions of walls incorporated into project identification signs. The maximum fence height shall be measured relative to the greater of the crown of the adjacent roadway or the adjacent minimum finished floor, as applicable. The eight (8') foot high precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along a portion of the eastern boundary of the PUD (HEX Decision 21-01), as depicted in Exhibits A and A-I. C. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). Page 5982 of 6525 II-4 07/08/2025 2.13 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL Signage shall be consistent with Section 5.06 of the LDC. 2.14 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS/DEVIATIONS The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with Chapter 10 of the LDC. A. Chapter 6, Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths 1. Existing site constraints prohibit retrofitting of the site with sidewalks meeting standards in Chapter 6 of the LDC. 2. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on only one (1) side of the internal local or private roadway exceeding one thousand (1,000) feet in length serving the project's additional 43-unit component Tract B. 3. The developer of Tract B s hall construct a sidewalk interconnection concurrently with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A. The developer of Tract B shall coordinate with the School District of Collier County to construct a sidewalk interconnection from Tract B to the adjacent school property at time of 1Tract B development permitting. (HEX Decision 21-01) 4. The developer shall make payment-in-lieu of construction of the sidewalk within Santa Barbara Boulevard, due to its programmed improvement in the five-year work program. B. Section 4.06.00, Landscaping, buffering and vegetation retention 1. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). C. Construction Standards Manual, Streets and access improvements 1. Construction Standards Manual, Street Right-of-Way Width Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs shall be forty (40) feet. Drive aisles serving multi-family tracts shall not be required to meet this standard. Page 5983 of 6525 II-5 07/08/2025 2. Construction Standards Manual, Dead-end Streets Cul-de-sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Construction Standards Manual, Intersection Radii Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty-five (25) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five (35) foot radius for intersections at project entrances. D. Section 3.05.07, Preservation Standards 1. A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, which requires that preservation areas be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off- site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to instead allow two separate preservation areas for Tract B as depicted on the Master Plan, Exhibit A- 1. E. Section 4.05.04, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings 1. A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space requirements for multi-family dwellings, which requires: All units shall have 1 per unit plus visitor parking computed at 0.5 per efficiency unit, 0.75 per 1-bedroom unit, and 1 per 2-bedroom or larger unit. Office/administrative buildings shall have parking provided at 50 percent of normal requirements. Where small-scale recreation facilities are accessory to a single-family or multifamily project and intended only for the residents of that project, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouses, the recreation facilities may be computed at 50 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation facilities and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities. To instead allow for a 10% reduction in required parking for a total of 140 parking spaces for Tract B. 2.15 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses that generally serve the entire RPUD or distinct projects there within. B. General Permitted Uses: Page 5984 of 6525 II-6 07/08/2025 1. Essential services as set forth under Chapter 2 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.12 of this document. 7. Signage. Page 5985 of 6525 III-1 07/08/2025 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE Section III establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated Residential "R" on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "R" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate multiple family residential types, recreational uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Acreage is based on a conceptual design. Actual acreage of the development and preserve areas shall be established at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. Areas designated as "R" accommodate internal roadways, open space, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar facilities that are accessory or customary to residential development. B. Areas designated as "R" are intended to provide a maximum of 291 332 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Single-family attached and detached. 2. Duplex and two-family. 3. Multiple-family. 4. Townhomes B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Common indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Sales and leasing facilities. 3. Clubhouse, meeting rooms. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this area. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. Page 5986 of 6525 III-2 07/08/2025 B. Required Parking: Parking within the residential area shall be provided based on the following standards: 1. Recreation Facilities - 2 per court, 1 per 600 square feet of building area, 1 per 200 square feet of pool water area. No additional parking shall be required for outdoor playground facilities. Up to 10 parking spaces per recreational facility may be directly loaded off a private roadway serving the recreational area. 2. Temporary Model Sales Facility - minimum 6 parking spaces per building. Parking for models or temporary sales facilities shall be permitted to back directly onto private roadways serving the units. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. Page 5987 of 6525 III-3 07/08/2025 TABLE I SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Permitted Uses and Standards Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Duplex, Single Family Attached and Townhouse5 Multi-Family Dwellings 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' NA NA Front Yard Setback1 20' /23' 20'/23 20'/23' 20'/23' Side Yard Setback 6' 0' or 6' 0' or 6' 15' Rear Yard Setback2 15' 15' 15' 15' Santa Barbara Blvd. R-0-W Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Accessory Setback2 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Setback3 Accessory Principal 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract A 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' Maximum Zoned Building Height Tract B 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 4 Stories or 50’ Distance Between4 Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 15' Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract A 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF Floor Area Min. (SF) Tract B 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 650 SF (1 bedroom) 950 SF (2 bedroom) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 1Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road or access easement, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). For multiple family buildings served by an unplatted driveway, no setback shall be required; however, adequate stacking shall be provided to accommodate vehicular parking. For Tract B, front entry garage setback shall be a minimum of 23' from private ROW or back edge of sidewalk. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the setback must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance, Chapter 134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. C. For structures with side or rear entry garages, the minimum front yard may be reduced to 12'. 2Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, or open space (non-preserve) may be reduced to 0' feet; however, a reduced building setback shall not reduce the width of any required landscape buffer, as may be applicable. 3For purposes of this Section, accessory structures shall include but not be limited to attached screen enclosures and roofed lanais. 4A minimum building separation of twelve (12) feet between detached structures. Detached garages may be separated by a minimum often (10) feet. 5Attached single family and multi-family structures within Tract B shall not exceed 4 dwelling units per structure. Page 5988 of 6525 IV-1 07/08/2025 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Section IV establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated as Preserve "P" on the RPUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, subject to review and approval by local, state & federal agencies as required, for other than the following: B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding impervious paved trails). 2. Water management facilities. 3. Any other preserve and related use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Building setbacks shall be 20 feet from the RPUD boundary for any permitted structure. B. Maximum zoned height for any structure shall be 20'. 4.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed preserve areas depicted on the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Master Plan are intended to meet the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservation areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval based on jurisdictional agency permit requirements. Page 5989 of 6525 IV-2 07/08/2025 Approximately 6 acres of native vegetation exists on-site at the time of rezoning application. Through retention of existing native vegetation and revegetation of open spaces on-site, the developer shall provide a minimum of 3 acres of on-site native vegetation, which shall consist of a minimum of ±1.5 acres of retained vegetation and ±1.5 acres of replanted and enhanced native vegetation. A. Tract B will provide 1.75 acres of the minimum 3 acres of required preserve. Page 5990 of 6525 V-1 07/08/2025 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat, Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. These developer commitments will be enforced through provisions agreed to be included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions or similar recorded instrument. Such provisions must be enforceable by lot owners against the developer, its successors and assigns, regardless of turnover or not to any property or homeowners' association. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. Page 5991 of 6525 V-2 07/08/2025 5.4 PUD MONITORING (HEX Decision 21-01) A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD Insubstantial Change amendment approval dated January 7, 2021, the Managing Entity for Tract B is St. George Group, Corp MHP Collier IV, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. (HEX Decision 21-01) Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC. 5.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25- year return frequency. A. The project will be permitted with the South Florida Water Management District and copies of the applicable permits will be provided to Collier County prior to issuance of applicable County permits. Page 5992 of 6525 V-3 07/08/2025 B. Existing lakes already constructed as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed to continue to exist in accordance with the cross sections shown on Surface Water Management Plan, Exhibit "B". Any new lakes must meet the requirements of the then current LDC. 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. C. Water and wastewater systems shall be constructed in accordance with State of Florida Laws and Collier County's Codes and Ordinances. D. All construction plans, technical specifications and hydraulic design reports are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division prior to commencement of construction E. Upon completion of construction, all water and wastewater systems within the project shall be tested and must meet minimum County standards and requirements. The system(s), or a portion thereof, that is found to meet the requirements set forth in item #5 below, may then be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. F. If County's utility system does not have access readily available to serve a project within the County's service area, extensions to the County infrastructure may be required. All required extensions shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer, fiscally and otherwise (time and schedule), unless such extension has been previously defined in the County Water and/or Wastewater Master Plan. In such case, the developer may negotiate an upsizing agreement with the County. If it is determined by the County that neither of these two options are feasible, an interim system may be considered. G. Items on the following list shall be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance upon approval from the Board of County Commissioners if they are located within a County right-of-way or County Utility Easement (CUE), are in compliance with the latest revision of the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, and are connected to the County Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Systems: Page 5993 of 6525 V-4 07/08/2025 1. Potable water lines 6” or larger, including water meters and backflow devices that are not on fire lines. 2. Gravity wastewater lines 8" or larger. 3. Wastewater lift stations that are located within a CUE. 4. Force mains 4” or larger. 5. CUE's that are determined to be necessary to access and maintain utility systems and structures. 6. Non-potable irrigation water lines 6" or larger, including the water meter and backflow devices. For potable and reclaimed water distribution systems that will not be conveyed to the County, a master meter shall be required. Such systems shall be owned and maintained by the applicant, his successor or assigns, from the customer side of the master meter and backflow device or the check valve at the property line or County Utility Easement limit. School and park developments are included in the list of types of developments whose internal systems the applicant or assigns shall be responsible to own and maintain. H. Private lift stations shall conform to the same specifications that apply to public lift stations, unless a Deviation from the Ordinance has been granted in advance and writing by the County Wastewater. The lift station Control Package shall include an operable Telemetry Control System, as specified by County Standards. I. H. The developer will pay all impact fees in accordance with the latest revision of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Code of Laws Section 74.303(d). J. I. PUDs and DRIs shall have only one master pump station. K. J. Lift station easement areas shall be designed to 30 feet by 30 feet, or twice the wetwell depth by twice the wetwell depth, whichever is larger. L. K. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of bulk containers service (garbage dumpsters and/or compactors) for all commercial and industrial establishments, unless authorization for alternative means of disposal is approved by the Public Utilities Division. Bulk container service shall be required to all multi-family projects not receiving curbside pickup. Solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of curbside pickup for all units on the annual Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Special Assessment Roll's. All individual units within a deed-restricted area must have an enclosed location other than the residential structure, such as a carport or garage for the storage of individual solid waste containers, or as otherwise permitted in Section 5.03.04 of the LDC. Page 5994 of 6525 V-5 07/08/2025 M. L. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, all provisions and facilities for solid waste collection and disposal shall conform to all portions of Section 5.03.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) of the latest edition of the LDC. M. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by Collier County during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. N. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the water distribution/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by Collier County during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 5.8 TRAFFIC The development of this RPUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County Land Development code (LDC). B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. Page 5995 of 6525 V-6 07/08/2025 D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 74 and Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of the LDC, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a Right-of-way Permit. F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. H. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right- of-way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. K. A. Upon written request by Collier County the property owner shall dedicate, to Collier County without compensation, an area of approximately 721± square feet for road right-of-way purposes, as depicted on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan. Page 5996 of 6525 V-7 07/08/2025 L. A temporary construction access for all site work and vertical construction on Tract B shall be located along Santa Barbara Boulevard as shown on the PUD Master Plan and subject to issuance of the appropriate right-of-way permit. Temporary construction access shall be limited to one year from issuance of development permit (PPL or SDP). To limit the access to construction activities only, signage is required to indicate Construction Only, and barricades are required to block access during non-working hours. Prior to final approval by the County, the temporary access shall be totally removed, and right-of-way shall be restored. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. The maximum total daily trip generation for Tract B shall not exceed 33 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of applications for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL (HEX Decision 21-01) A. A minimum of (3.0 acres) of the on-site native vegetation shall be retained or revegetated, consistent with Chapter 3 of the LDC as conceptually shown as preserve areas on the Exhibit "A", Conceptual RPUD Master Plan. 1. Of the 3.0 acres of preserve, 1.71 shall be existing native vegetation and 1.62 acres shall be restoration. 5.11 HOUSING A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the owner of Tract B has agreed to construct 71 rental units for residents in or below the low income category (80 percent or less of County median income) and 13 rental units for residents in or below the extremely low income category (30 percent or less of County median income). These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. B. By way of example, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income Limits are: Page 5997 of 6525 V-8 07/08/2025 The developer or successors and assigns shall require a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units developed within Tract B of the RPUD to be initially sold to individuals or families that use the dwelling unit as their primary residence. The deed to the initial purchaser shall include a restriction that the initial purchaser shall use the unit as their primary residence. (HEX Decision 21-01) B. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report, the owner will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units, including rent data for rented units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Owner agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to sell a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units constructed within Tract B of the RPUD to persons employed in Collier County and earning a family income that is up to 140% of the County' s median income. Page 5998 of 6525 Page 5999 of 6525 TRACTBOUNDARYSANTA BARBARA BLVD PUDBOUNDARY8' BUFFER WALLPER PUDPROPOSEDTURNLANEPROPOSED6' SIDEWALKSANTA BARBARALANDINGS (PUD)(TRACT A - NOT SUBJECT TOTHIS AMENDMENT)PLANTATION(PUD)6' SIDEWALK(HEX DECISION 21-01)100'RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENT12' ROWCOMPENSATIONBEMBRIDGE EMS COMPLEX (PUD)EKOS AT SANTABARBARA PHASE I6' CROSS WALK (HEX DECISION 21-01)CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARYSCHOOL ROAD ENTRANCE6' SIDEWALK(HEX DECISION 21-01)R (MF)W/M(0.31 ACRES)D/AD/AD/AD/AR (MF)R (MF)25' PRESERVESETBACK6' BUFFERRESERVATIONGATEDEMERGENCYACCESS ONLY15' TYPE BBUFFERP0.84± ACRESP0.91± ACRES15' SIDE YARD SETBACK15' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE BW/M(0.09 ACRES)W/M(0.15 ACRES)W/M(0.03 ACRES)W/M(0.09 ACRES)AVERAGE 20' (MIN 15')TYPE D BUFFER(HEX DECISION 21-01)122DATEREVISION#DRAWN 04080SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUDA EXHIBIT A-1 - RPUD MASTER PLAN - TRACT B CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE:5618 WHISPERING WILLOW WAY | FORT MYERS, FL 33908 WWW.THENEIGHBORHOOD.COMPANY DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: DRAWN: DESIGN: 24038.01.01 F.L.01/25 P.V. Z-1 MHP COLLIER IV, LLCLEGENDW/M - WATER MANAGEMENTP - PRESERVE:MF - RESIDENTIAL - MULTI-FAMILYD/A - DRIVE AISLE- PUD BOUNDARY- INTERNAL DRIVE AISLE- ROAD EASEMENT- INGRESS - EGRESS- EXTERNAL ROAD/ROW- DEVIATIONS#Page 6000 of 6525 DATEREVISION#DRAWN CLIENT: PROJECT: TITLE:5618 WHISPERING WILLOW WAY | FORT MYERS, FL 33908 WWW.THENEIGHBORHOOD.COMPANY 03060DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: DRAWN: DESIGN: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUDA NOTES 24038.01.01 F.L.01/25 P.V. MHP COLLIER IV, LLC RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES:1. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.2. THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED ATEITHER PRELIMINARY SDP APPROVAL OR PPL APPROVAL.3. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTICVEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGSWITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. IN ORDER TOMEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A TYPE 'B' BUFFER, A 6-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESERVATIONLOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVE WILL BE CONVEYED TO A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ORCONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. THE 6' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERRESERVATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE MASTER PLAN. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESERVE DOESNOT MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER REMOVAL OF EXOTICS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGWITHIN THE PRESERVE, PLANTINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE 6' WIDE RESERVATION TO MEET THEBUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE TYPE, SIZE AND NUMBER OF SUCH PLANTINGS, IF NECESSARY, WILL BEDETERMINED AT TIME OF INITIAL SDP OR PLAT AND INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THESDP OR PLAT.SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREAUSEACREAGEMFRESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY3.00PPRESERVE1.75W/MWATER MANAGEMENT 0.67D/ADRIVE AISLE1.31TOTAL6.73 AC.±PRESERVE:1. REQUIRED (ENTIRE RPUD): 3.0 ACa. REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION (ENTIRE PUD): 1.71 ACb. REQUIRED RESTORIATION (ENTIRE PUD): 1.62 AC2.PROVIDED (TRACT B): 1.75 ACOPEN SPACE:1. REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (ENTIRE RPUD): 30% OF 41.59 AC OR 12.48 AC2.PROVIDED (TRACT A): 19.96 AC3. PROVIDED (TRACT B): 1.98 ACINTENSITY:1. MAXMIUM UNITS (ENTIRE RPUD): 3322.MAXIMUM UNITS (TRACT B): 84DEVIATIONS:1. DEVIATION 1 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04, TABLE 17, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FORMULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS, WHICH REQUIRES:ALL UNITS SHALL HAVE 1 PER UNIT PLUS VISITOR PARKING COMPUTED AT 0.5 PER EFFICIENCY UNIT, 0.75 PER1-BEDROOM UNIT, AND 1 PER 2-BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT. OFFICE/ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS SHALLHAVE PARKING PROVIDED AT 50 PERCENT OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTS. WHERE SMALL-SCALE RECREATIONFACILITIES ARE ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE-FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AND INTENDED ONLY FOR THERESIDENTS OF THAT PROJECT, EXCLUSIVE OF GOLF COURSES/CLUBHOUSES, THE RECREATION FACILITIES MAYBE COMPUTED AT 50 PERCENT OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE DWELLING UNITSARE NOT WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES AND AT 25 PERCENT OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTSWHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE DWELLING UNITS ARE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES.TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR A 10% REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING FOR A TOTAL OF 140 PARKING SPACES.2. DEVIATION 2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 3.05.07.A.5, WHICH REQUIRES THAT PRESERVATION AREAS BEINTERCONNECTED WITHIN THE SITE AND TO ADJOINING OFF-SITE PRESERVATION AREAS OR WILDLIFECORRIDORS, TO INSTEAD ALLOW TWO SEPARATE PRESERVATION AREAS FOR TRACT B AS DEPICTED ON THEMASTER PLAN, EXHIBIT A-1.Z-2 Page 6001 of 6525 Page 6002 of 6525 Page 6003 of 6525 Page 6004 of 6525 Page 6005 of 6525 Page 1 of 4 HEX NO. 2021-01 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. December 1 , 2020 PETITION. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20190000959 – St. George Group, Corp. requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 05-53, the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, to modify Condition 2.12.B and the PUD master plan to require the wall along Tract B only, to modify Condition 2.14.A.3 to require interconnection of the internal sidewalk concurrent with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02.B, and revisions to PUD Monitoring, Environmental and Housing conditions so that current Land Development Code standards and policies apply, for Tract B of the PUD property consisting of 6.7 ± acres, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd, approximately 2,300 feet south of Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The Petition seeks to modify the wall, sidewalk, and environmental/housing monitoring conditions pertaining to the unimproved tract of a two-tract PUD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petition. 2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with Collier County Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person. 5. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. Page 6006 of 6525 Page 2 of 4 ANALYSIS. The PUD has two-tracts, Tract A and Tract B. Although part of the same PUD, the two tracts have separate owners. Tract A, significantly larger than Tract B, is built out, and on or about 2006 became a condominium community, managed by a condominium association, which is not the original developer. Tract B, the small tract, is undeveloped and unaffiliated with the Tract A condominium association. The owner of Tract B is requesting insubstantial changes to the PUD as to Tract B. The Tract A association submitted written and in-person objections to the County planning staff and at the public hearing. In fact, the association president testified at the hearing via internet/phone, and the association’s lawyer presented the association’s legal position at the hearing. The gist of these objections pertains to the status of the application and applicant, whether the application can be decided by the Hearing Examiner (jurisdiction), and the application’s impact on Tract A. It is not uncommon or illegal for a PUD to have multiple tracts and multiple owners. Nothing in the County codes precludes an owner of part of a PUD to file an application for an insubstantial change, nor does any County code preclude the Hearing Examiner to decide on the application, once County planning staff has determined that the application is complete. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s representative(s), County staff and from the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence showing the application is complete and properly before the Hearing Examiner, and that the requested insubstantial changes to the PUD are only applicable to Tract B, as requested by the applicant and representatives of Tract A. Regarding the substantive requests of the Petition, first, it is appropriate to reflect changes pertaining to names of owners and location of owners’ offices for Tract A and B. This is ministerial. Therefore, this information is changed where appropriate in the attached revised PUD and master plan. Second, the PUD at section 2.12.B requires an 8-foot “precast wall” along the eastern boundary of the PUD “concurrent with development of the residential units in tract B.” Striking this phrase only changes the timing for construction of the wall, not whether the wall is required. The wall will remain a requirement for both Tracts A and B. Third, section 2.14.A.3 of the current PUD requires a sidewalk connecting Tract B with Tract A pool/club area.” As stated above, Tract A is now a condominium community managed by its association separate from Tract B, so disconnecting future development on Tract B to Tract A’s pool/club area is an appropriate insubstantial change. The sidewalk interconnection is more appropriate with the connecting roadways and adjacent school as shown on the master plan. These sidewalk insubstantial changes are in keeping with the PUD and changes that have occurred since the original PUD approval. Fourth, section 5.4.A and B merely refer to the schedule of development section of Chapter 10 of the County’s land development code. Since this is a requirement without it being expressed in the Page 6007 of 6525 Page 3 of 4 PUD, this insubstantial change striking the language from the PUD does not change the applicant’s responsibility to adhere to the land development code. Chapter 10 of the land development code requires PUD monitoring, and the new proposed insubstantial language change clarifies the monitoring responsibility relative to the new ownership and management of Tracts A and B respectively. Fifth, section 5.8 lists traffic conditions for the PUD but does not have a condition addressing temporary ingress and egress during construction of Tract B. The added language protects the health, safety and quit enjoyment of residents in Tract A. Sixth, section 5.10 of the PUD largely reiterates the environmental requirements in the County’s land development code, and it is therefore appropriate to delete these, except the section stipulating the minimum acreage of “on-site native vegetation.” Because the minimum acres (3 acres) would not be part of the land development code, it is appropriate to retain this language. Seventh, 5.11 of the PUD was drafted with the intent to address the affordability of housing in the county. As noted above, Tract A is built out and is now a condominium association community. Also, how the county addresses housing affordability is different today than it was when the PUD was approved. The changes to this section are logical and appropriate to align with current practice. Therefore, based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s representative(s), County staff and from the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2. of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20190000959, filed by Laura DeJohn, AICP of Johnson Engineering representing Armando Bucelo, Jr. of St. George Group, Corp., with respect to the property described as 6.7 ± acres, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd, approximately 2,300 feet south of Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, Ordinance No.05- 33, for the following: An insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 05-53, the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, to modify the text of the RPUD and master plan, more fully detailed in the attached Exhibits A and B and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A – Revised Santa Barbara Landings PUD Document Exhibit B – Master Plan Revisions Page 6008 of 6525 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 05-33, 6.7 ± acres, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd, approximately 2,300 feet south of Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. CONDITIONS. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. The Hearing Examiner retains jurisdictions to correct scrivener errors. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5)F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ireJanuary7, 2021 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 4 Page 6009 of 6525 EXHIBIT “A” Page 6010 of 6525 SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 41.6± Acres Located in Section 04, Township 50 S, Range 26 E Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 And St. George Group, Corporation 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 40I Coral Gables, Florida 33134 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390 Miami, FL 33126 PREPARED BY: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 And D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Insubstantial Change for St. George Group, Corp by: Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 DATE FILED DATE APPROVED BY CPCC DATE APPROVED BY BCC 10-11-2005 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-53 INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE: _____________ EXHIBIT "A" Page 6011 of 6525 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE i STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS II-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA III-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREA IV-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS V-1 Page 6012 of 6525 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT C LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT D BOUNDARY SURVEY TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III-3 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline i Page 6013 of 6525 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC and St. George Group, Corporation intends to create a This Residential Planned Unit Development is on approximately 41.6± acres of land located in Section 04., Township 50 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. Approximately 6.3 acres of the property is encumbered with a 100' wide roadway easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard, making the net site approximately 35.3 acres. The name of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. The development of the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as established in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies of the land development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Plan and applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The density provided for in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD complies with the Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is located within the residential density band, which extends from the Mixed-use activity center located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The density permissible is 4 dwelling units per acre. Up to 3 dwelling units per acre may be added within the density band, bringing the permissible base density to 7 dwelling units per acre. Base density Density band Maximum permitted density Requested density 4.0 du/acre 3.0du/acre 7.0 du/acre 7.0 du/acre (291 units) At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 dwelling units. All property within the RPUD boundary shall be utilized in calculating the project density. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with the applicable land development regulations as required in Objective 3 of the FLUE, except as may be modified in this RPUD document 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline ii Page 6014 of 6525 6. The design of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD protects the function of the existing drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as required in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This project shall be subject to applicable Sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline iii Page 6015 of 6525 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Section I sets forth the location and ownership of the property, and describes the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 41.6 acres more or less, is described as: The west half (W. ½) of the west half (W. ½) of the northwest quarter (N.W. ¼) of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, all being situated in Collier County, Florida, less the north 50 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is currently owned by: TRACT A: unit owners of the Santa Barbara Garden Villas, LLC Landings Property Owner’s Association Inc. and Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association Inc., whose address is 145 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, FL 34104, and TRACT B: St. George Group, Corporation, whose address is: 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 401 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 390, Miami, FL 33126 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project is located in Section 04, Township 50, Range 26 and is generally bordered on the north by Radio Road, on the east by Plantation PUD; on the south by Bembridge PUD on the west by Santa Barbara Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is RMF-6. C. According to FEMA/FIRM Map Panel Number 120067 415 D, dated June 3, 1986, the property is located within Zone X. D. Soils on the site generally include Hallandale fine sand and Boca, Rivera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland fine sand depressional. E. Existing vegetation on the site consists of melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, palmetto prairie, pine flatwoood, cypress, Cabbage Palm and disturbed lands. Wetland areas have been heavily impacted by melaleuca. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline I-1 Page 6016 of 6525 F. According to the Collier County Drainage Atlas, the site is located in the Lely Canal Basin. The conceptual water management plan is depicted in the Surface Water Management Report, which accompanied the rezone application submittal. 1.5 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance is known and cited as the "Santa Barbara Landings Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline I-2 Page 6017 of 6525 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Section II delineates and generally describes the plan of development and identifies relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. Santa Barbara Landings RPUD is a mixed-use residential project and will consist of two development parcels and multiple preservation areas. Categories of land uses include those for residential and preserve areas. The Residential areas are designed to accommodate single-family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings. The overall project density is 7 dwelling units per acre and the maximum units permitted in the RPUD shall be 291 units. B. Exhibit "A" depicts the RPUD Master Plan. The RPUD Master Plan includes a table that summarizes land use acreage. The location, size and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat approval. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorize the construction of improvements. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted from this RPUD Document or associated exhibits, the provisions of other sections of the land development codes, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II- 1 Page 6018 of 6525 2.4 LAND USES Land uses are generally depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined by the developer at the time of site development plan approval, preliminary subdivision plat approval, or final subdivision plat approval subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Collier County LDC. 2.5 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may utilize land within the rights-of-way within the RPUD for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and unified signage. This utilization is subject to review and administrative approval during the development review process by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations. 2.6 MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE A. Construction offices and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 5 and Chapter IO of the LDC. B. Model Homes may be permitted in multi-family and townhome buildings may be utilized for wet or dry models, subject to the time frames specified in Chapter 5 of the LDC. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by LDC. 2.8 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30% of the project (12.48± acres) shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.9 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum of three (3) acres of native vegetation shall be maintained on the subject site through a combination of preservation of existing native vegetation and revegetation of native vegetation. The areas of retained native vegetation and replanted native vegetation are shown as Preserve areas on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit A. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-2 Page 6019 of 6525 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE One or more Property Owner's Association (POA) will provide common area maintenance. The POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in Chapter 2 of the LDC. I. Individual Projects a) Site Planning: Each distinct project within the RPUD will provide an aesthetically appealing, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles. The orientation of buildings and structures will be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. b) Landscaping: Where applicable, plantings along public rights-of way will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. 2.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS A. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the RPUD, excluding preserves. B. The maximum fence, wall or berm height internal to the RPUD shall be eight 8) feet, not including those portions of walls incorporated into project identification signs. The maximum fence height shall be measured relative to the greater of the crown of the adjacent roadway or the adjacent minimum finished floor, as applicable. The eight (8') foot high precast wall shown on the conceptual master plan shall be constructed along the eastern boundary of the PUD concurrent with development of the residential units in tract B. C. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-3 Page 6020 of 6525 2.13 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL Signage shall be consistent with Section 5.06 of the LDC. 2.14 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS / DEVIATIONS 1. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with Chapter 10 of the LDC. A. Chapter 6, Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths 1. Existing site constraints prohibit retrofitting of the site with sidewalks meeting standards in Chapter 6 of the LDC. 2. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on only one (1) side of the internal local or private roadway exceeding one thousand (1,000) feet in length serving the project's additional 43 unit component. 3. An internal sidewalk connection from the southernmost development tract (Tract B) to the existing pool/club area shall be provided at the time of construction within Tract B. The developer of Tract B shall construct a sidewalk interconnection concurrently with the road interconnection from Tract B to Tract A. The developer of Tract B shall coordinate with the School District of Collier County to construct a sidewalk interconnection from Tract B to the adjacent school property at time of Tract B development permitting. 4. The developer shall make payment-in-lieu of construction of the sidewalk within Santa Barbara Boulevard, due to its programmed improvement in the five-year work program. B. Section 4.06.00, Landscaping, buffering and vegetation retention 1. Perimeter Buffers abutting rights-of-way shall be permitted to deviate from the required 20' wide Type D buffer, to permit a Type D buffer an average of 20' in width, with no part of the buffer being less than 15' in width. The minimum area for the combined buffers along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard shall be 66,129 square feet (1.52± acres). C. Construction Standards Manual, Streets and access improvements 1. Construction Standards Manual, Street Right-of-Way Width Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs shall be forty (40) feet. Drive aisles serving multi-family tracts shall not be required to meet this standard. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-4 Page 6021 of 6525 2. Construction Standards Manual, Dead-end Streets Cul-de-sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Construction Standards Manual, Intersection Radii Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty five (25) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five (35) foot radius for intersections at project entrances. 2.15 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses that generally serve the entire RPUD or distinct projects there within. B. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under Chapter 2 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.12 of this document. 7. Signage. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline II-5 Page 6022 of 6525 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE Section III establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated Residential "R" on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "R" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate multiple family residential types, recreational uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Acreage is based on a conceptual design. Actual acreage of the development and preserve areas shall be established at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. Areas designated as "R" accommodate internal roadways, open space, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar facilities that are accessory or customary to residential development. B. Areas designated as "R" are intended to provide a maximum of 291 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Single-family attached and detached. 2. Duplex and two-family. 3. Multiple-family. 4. Townhomes B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Common indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Sales and leasing facilities. 3. Clubhouse, meeting rooms. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this area. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline III-1 Page 6023 of 6525 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. B. Required Parking: Parking within the residential area shall be provided based on the following standards: 1. Recreation Facilities - 2 per court, 1 per 600 square feet of building area, 1 per 200 square feet of pool water area. No additional parking shall be required for outdoor playground facilities. Up to 10 parking spaces per recreational facility may be directly loaded off a private roadway serving the recreational area. 2. Temporary Model Sales Facility - minimum 6 parking spaces per building. Parking for models or temporary sales facilities shall be permitted to back directly onto private roadways serving the units. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline III-2 Page 6024 of 6525 TABLE I SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Permitted Uses and Standards Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Duplex, Single Family Attached and Townhouse5 Multi-Family Dwellings 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' NA NA Front Yard Setback1 20'/23' 20'/23 20'/23' 20'/23' Side Yard Setback 6' 0' or 6' 0' or6' 15' Rear Yard Setback2 15' 15' 15' 15' Santa Barbara Blvd. R-O-W Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Accessory Setback2 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Setback3 Accessory Principal 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' 10' 25' Maximum Zoned Building Height 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' 2 Stories or 30' Distance Between4 Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 15' Floor Area Min. (SF) 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF 750 SF All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 1 Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road or access easement, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). For multiple family buildings served by an unplatted driveway, no setback shall be required; however, adequate stacking shall be provided to accommodate vehicular parking. For tract B, front entry garage setback shall be a minimum of 23' from private row or back edge of sidewalk. C. For structures with side or rear entry garages, the minimum front yard may be reduced to 12'. 2Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, or open space (non-preserve) may be reduced to O' feet; however, a reduced building setback shall not reduce the width of any required landscape buffer, as may be applicable. 3 For purposes of this Section, accessory structures shall include but not be limited to attached screen enclosures and roofed lanais. 4 A minimum building separation of twelve (12) feet between detached structures. Detached garages may be separated by a minimum of ten (10) feet. 5Attached single-family and multi-family structures within Tract B shall not exceed 4 dwelling units per structure. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline III-3 Page 6025 of 6525 SECTION IV PRESERVE "P" AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Section IV establishes permitted uses and development regulations for areas within Santa Barbara Landings RPUD that are designated as Preserve "P" on the RPUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P" on the RPUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES A. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, subject to review and approval by local, state federal agencies as required, for other than the following: B. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding impervious paved trails). 2. Water management facilities. 3. Any other preserve and related use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Building setbacks shall be 20 feet from the RPUD boundary for any permitted structure. B. Maximum zoned height for any structure shall be 20'. 4.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed preserve areas depicted on the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Master Plan are intended to meet the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservation areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval based on jurisdictional agency permit requirements. Approximately 6 acres of native vegetation exists on-site at the time of rezoning application. Through retention of existing native vegetation and revegetation of open 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline IV-1 Page 6026 of 6525 spaces on-site, the developer shall provide a minimum of 3 acres of on-site native vegetation, which shall consist of a minimum of 1.5 acres of retained vegetation and 1.5 acres of replanted and enhanced native vegetation. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline IV-2 Page 6027 of 6525 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat, Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. These developer commitments will be enforced through provisions agreed to be included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions or similar recorded instrument. Such provisions must be enforceable by lot owners against the developer, it successors and assigns, regardless of turnover or not to any property or homeowners' association. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. 5.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/PUD MONITORING REPORT A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time limits pursuant to Chapter 10 of the LDC. B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Chapter 10 of the LDC. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-1 Page 6028 of 6525 A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD Insubstantial Change approval dated__________2020, the Managing Entity for Tract B is St. George Group, Corp. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC. 5.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. A. The project will be permitted with the South Florida Water Management District and copies of the applicable permits will be provided to Collier County prior to issuance of applicable County permits. B. Existing lakes already constructed as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed to continue to exist in accordance with the cross sections shown on Surface Water Management Plan, Exhibit "B". Any new lakes must meet the requirements of the then current LDC. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-2 Page 6029 of 6525 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. C. Water and wastewater systems shall be constructed in accordance with State of Florida Laws and Collier County's Codes and Ordinances. D. All construction plans, technical specifications and hydraulic design reports are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division prior to commencement of construction E. Upon completion of construction, all water and wastewater systems within the project shall be tested and must meet minimum County standards and requirements. The system(s), or a portion thereof, that is found to meet the requirements set forth in item #5 below, may then be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. F. If County's utility system does not have access readily available to serve a project within the County's service area, extensions to the County infrastructure may be required. All required extensions shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer, fiscally and otherwise (time and schedule), unless such extension has been previously defined in the County Water and/or Wastewater Master Plan. In such case, the developer may negotiate an upsizing agreement with the County. If it is determined by the County that neither of these two options are feasible, in interim system may be considered. G. Items on the following list shall be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance upon approval from the Board of County Commissioners if they are located within a County right-of-way or County Utility Easement (CUE), are in compliance with the latest revision of the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, and are connected to the County Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Systems: 1. Potable water lines 6" or larger, including water meters and backflow devices that are not on fire lines. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-3 Page 6030 of 6525 2. Gravity wastewater lines 8" or larger. 3. Wastewater lift stations that are located within a CUE. 4. Force mains 4" or larger. 5. CUE's that are determined to be necessary to access and maintain utility systems and structures. 6. Non-potable irrigation water lines 6" or larger, including the water meter and backflow devices. For potable and reclaimed water distribution systems that will not be conveyed to the County, a master meter shall be required. Such systems shall be owned and maintained by the applicant, his successor or assigns, from the customer side of the master meter and backflow device or the check valve at the property line or County Utility Easement limit. School and park developments are included in the list of types of developments whose internal systems the applicant or assigns shall be responsible to own and maintain. H. Private lift stations shall conform to the same specifications that apply to public lift stations, unless a Deviation from the Ordinance has been granted in advance and writing by the County Wastewater. The lift station Control Package shall include an operable Telemetry Control System, as specified by County Standards. I. The developer will pay all impact fees in accordance with the latest revision of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Code of Laws Section 74.303(d). J. PUD's and DRI's shall have only one master pump station. K. Lift station easement areas shall be designed to 30 feet by 30 feet, or twice the wetwell depth by twice the wetwell depth, whichever is larger. L. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of bulk containers service (garbage dumpsters and/or compactors) for all commercial and industrial establishments, unless authorization for alternative means of disposal is approved by the Public Utilities Division. Bulk container service shall be required to all multi-family projects not receiving curbside pickup. Solid waste disposal shall be required in the form of curbside pickup for all units on the annual Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Special Assessment Roll's. All individual units within a deed-restricted area must have an enclosed location other than the residential structure, such as a carport or garage for the storage of individual solid waste containers, or as otherwise permitted in Section 5.03.04 of the LDC. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-4 Page 6031 of 6525 M. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 118, all provisions and facilities for solid waste collection and disposal shall conform to all portions of Section 5.03.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) of the latest edition of the LDC. 5.8 TRAFFIC The development of this RPUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier county Land Development code (LDC). B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, Code of Laws Chapter 74 and Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of the LDC, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a Right-of-way Permit. F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-5 Page 6032 of 6525 H. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right- of-way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. K. Upon written request by Collier County the property owner shall dedicate, to Collier County without compensation, an area of approximately 721± square feet for road right-of-way purposes, as depicted on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan. L. A temporary construction access for all site work and vertical construction on Tract B shall be located along Santa Barbara Boulevard, as shown on the PUD Master Plan and subject to issuance of the appropriate right-of-way permit. Temporary construction access shall be limited to one year from issuance of development permit (PPL or SDP). To limit the access to construction activities only, signage is required to indicate Construction Only, and barricades are required to block access during non-working hours. Prior to final approval by the County, the temporary access shall be totally removed, and right-of-way shall be restored. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL A. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to Final Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval for all parcels included on that project. All category 1 invasive exotic plants as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Council shall be removed in Preserve areas, and annual removal (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. A.B. A minimum of (3.0 acres) of the on-site native vegetation shall be retained or revegetated, consistent with Chapter 3 of the LDC as conceptually shown as preserve areas on the Exhibit "A", Conceptual RPUD Master Plan. C. Setbacks from preserves shall be as required in the Santa Barbara Landings RPUD, Table I. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-6 Page 6033 of 6525 D. All preserve areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be so dedicated on all plats or recorded as an easement for site plans pursuant to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes, for plats and be dedicated to the project's homeowners' association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibility, and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All documentation necessary to record conservation easements over the preserve areas shall be provided prior to the next SDP approval for this RPUD. E. This RPUD shall comply with the guidelines of the USFWS and FFWCC for impacts to protected species. A habitat management plan for those species shall be submitted to environmental review staff for review and approval prior to site plan approval. F. This RPUD shall be in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, and LDC, except as may be modified herein, at the time of final development order approval. G. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided to environmental staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management and maintenance. A SFWMD jurisdictional determination shall be shown on the site development plan. H. All approved agency permits shall be submitted prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. I. A replanting plan for the re-created preserve areas shall be provided at the time of next development order submittal. Perimeter berms shall be located outside of all upland/wetland preserves. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-7 Page 6034 of 6525 5.11 HOUSING A. The developer or successors and assigns shall pay the sum of $1,000.00 to Collier County from the closing of each of the dwelling units constructed within Tract B" of the RPUD. The payment shall be made within seven (7) days of the closing of the residential unit. AB. The developer or successors and assigns shall require a minimum of fifty percent 50%) of the dwelling units developed within Tract B of the RPUD to be initially sold to individuals or families that use the dwelling unit as their primary residence. The deed to the initial purchaser shall include a restriction that the initial purchaser shall use the unit as their primary residence. C. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to make available for sale a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units at a sales price less than 240,000.00. BD. The developer or successors and assigns agrees to sell a minimum of ten percent 10%) of the total number of dwelling units constructed within Tract B of the RPUD to persons employed in Collier County and earning a family income ranging between 100% and 125 that is up to 140% of the County's median income. 12/10/20 PDI-PL20190000959 – Strike/Underline V-8 Page 6035 of 6525 EXHIBIT “B” Page 6036 of 6525 Page 6037 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Friday, July 18, 2025 10:40 AM To:Timothy Finn Cc:Ray Bellows; Michael Bosi; Jennifer Merino Subject:Santa Barbara Landings RPUD - PL20240013221 - Preserve Issues EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Tim, I am following up on our prior emails and would like a meeƟng to clarify the condiƟons of the current proposed RPUD for Santa Barabara Landings. I have been out of town on a family trip and just returned. The current 6/20/25 Amended RPUD in SecƟon 5.10 Environmental requires 1.62 acres of preserve restora Ɵon, presumably in Tract A since the Tract B site plan does not contain it. As we have previously told you, the original RPUD Amendment with preserve restoraƟon was not conveyed/disclosed to the owners of Tract A pursuant to the condiƟons of SecƟon 5.2 General – 2nd paragraph and thus this condiƟon is in violaƟon of the original RPUD. Further, the condiƟons for the development of Tract B were placed on the developer of Tract B and not on the owners of Tract A, again as a condiƟon of the original RPUD and current RPUD. Further, the current and proposed developer of Tract B do not own Tract A and have no authority on Tract A property. The issue is the Master Plan (Exhibit A) from the RPUD shows the creaƟon of the restored preserves in Tract A and retaining 1.7 acres of naƟve vegetaƟon on Tract B (Exhibit A-1) as a condiƟons of Tract B development (SecƟon 5.10), however, these condiƟons can no longer be achieved by the Tract B developer since they do not own or have any rights to Tract A, and they will not be able to restore any preserves on Tract A. Thus the condi Ɵons of SecƟon 5.10 of the proposed RPUD can’t be met. AddiƟonally, then SecƟon 5.4 PUD Monitoring can’t be met either, since all the condiƟons of the RPUD will not be achieved. I believe the staff needs to re-evaluate the preserve restoraƟon condiƟon of 1.62 acres in Tract A under SecƟon 5.10 as a condiƟon of the RPUD or we can wait for the property to be built and then involve Collier County Code Enforcement to resolve the problem, which might also delay the C/O from being issued for the development. Tim, when can we meet to discuss? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 6038 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Thursday, June 5, 2025 12:36 PM To:Heidi Ashton; Timothy Finn Cc:Ray Bellows; 'Jennifer Merino'; Michael Bosi Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Wall & Preserves Response? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Heidi, These issues where brought up at the 2020 PUD Hearings and were ignored since the Developer wanted an insubstantial change. Tract A HOA just wants to confirm that the Developer of Tract B is the responsible party for the Wall and Preserves per the existing PUD or proposed PUD Amendment. What is Development Review Staff’s position on this? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:45 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net; Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Wall & Preserves Response? All, These issues will be discussed at time of the public hearings. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8773 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:19 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Wall & Preserves Response? Page 6039 of 6525 2 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Tim & Ray, What is the County’s position on the Developer Commitments, Sec 5.2 within the PUD and BOCC Minutes to pay for the Tract A Preserves and Wall within Santa Barabara Landings? Section 5.2 clearly says the Developer will provide for them and NOT the HOA or Owners. Therefore the RPUD needs to be clear about this. Please confirm the County’s position. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:42 AM To: 'Timothy Finn' <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: 'Heidi Ashton' <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Ray Bellows' <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; 'Michael Bosi' <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Response? Tim, I am little confused here. I recall during the PUD approval process that the County requires submission of the proposed HOA documents for review to insure they meet county requirements. If they no longer do, then that is fine. The question still begs – How does the County Development Review process review Developer Commitments and why are they are they required in a PUD Document? Does the County even require a Developer to meet and satisfy the PUD Commitments that are included in every PUD? If so, then why are the Developer Commitments in Section 5.2 of the SBL RPUD being ignored? Regardless of the question about disclosure of Developer Commitments in the HOA documents, it is clear that Section 5.2 states the Developer is responsible for the Developer Commitments and not the HOA or Unit Owners. Also the BOCC approval minutes from 2005 clear state the Developer was installing the wall. In the current proposed Amendment I see no discussion or requirements for the Developer to install the wall and preserves in Tract A and acts as if Tract A HOA is supposed to pay for the wall and preserves. Is the County going to ignore the wall and preserve requirements in Tract A for the development of Tract B? If so, the proposed Amendment should delete those requirements from the RPUD. Please confirm the county’s position on what are the requirements within Tract A for the development of Tract B and does the existing RPUD and proposed Amendment require the Developer to pay for them. I will look forward to your response. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 6040 of 6525 3 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:09 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Response? Hi Frank, In discussion with Ray, we have reviewed the timeline of changes with the PUD, and we uphold the determination of the County Attorney’s office that the County is not involved with the private Declarations of Condominium created by the Developer. Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 9:20 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Response? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Tim and Ray, Just following up. Do we need another meeting to discuss? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 1:01 PM To: 'Timothy Finn' <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Cc: 'Heidi Ashton' <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Ray Bellows' <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Page 6041 of 6525 4 Tim & Ray, Thank you for the County Attorney’s response. I guess Heidi doesn’t want to comment on who is responsible for the requirements of the RPUD. We all know that the HEX decision on the wall as Heidi noted. The questions though remain. First, the RPUD required the Developer to make Commitments and put them in the HOA Docs (Section 5.2 of RPUD), which wasn’t done. Secondly, who is responsible for the Developer Commitments – the developer of Tract B (keep in mind Tract A was existing and the sole purpose of the RPUD was for developing Tract B). So we are back to the beginning. Tract A was never notified of the RPUD Commitments (not in the HOA Docs) and thus do not apply to Tract A and if the County believes otherwise, then the Developer of Tract B is the responsible party for the Commitments pursuant to Section 5.2 of the RPUD and the Minutes of the BOCC meeting approving the original RPUD. Net result, how do you want move forward with Amendment as submitted? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:36 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Frank, See below correspondence from the County Attorney Office. Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:18 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Page 6042 of 6525 5 Ray and Tim, The County is not involved with the private Declarations of Condominium created by the Developer. The current wall commitment is in HEX decision 21-01 copied below: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8773 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Rachel Hansen <rh@theneighborhood.company>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company>; fcproperties@comcast.net; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Ailyn, Please set a Zoom meeting with everyone on this email regarding the above referenced project. Thank you Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Page 6043 of 6525 6 Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 6044 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Friday, May 30, 2025 1:01 PM To:Timothy Finn; 'Jennifer Merino' Cc:Heidi Ashton; Ray Bellows Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Tim & Ray, Thank you for the County Attorney’s response. I guess Heidi doesn’t want to comment on who is responsible for the requirements of the RPUD. We all know that the HEX decision on the wall as Heidi noted. The questions though remain. First, the RPUD required the Developer to make Commitments and put them in the HOA Docs (Section 5.2 of RPUD), which wasn’t done. Secondly, who is responsible for the Developer Commitments – the developer of Tract B (keep in mind Tract A was existing and the sole purpose of the RPUD was for developing Tract B). So we are back to the beginning. Tract A was never notified of the RPUD Commitments (not in the HOA Docs) and thus do not apply to Tract A and if the County believes otherwise, then the Developer of Tract B is the responsible party for the Commitments pursuant to Section 5.2 of the RPUD and the Minutes of the BOCC meeting approving the original RPUD. Net result, how do you want move forward with Amendment as submitted? Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:36 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Cc: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Frank, See below correspondence from the County Attorney Office. Page 6045 of 6525 2 Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:18 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Ray and Tim, The County is not involved with the private Declarations of Condominium created by the Developer. The current wall commitment is in HEX decision 21-01 copied below: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8773 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Rachel Hansen <rh@theneighborhood.company>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company>; fcproperties@comcast.net; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Ailyn, Please set a Zoom meeting with everyone on this email regarding the above referenced project. Thank you Page 6046 of 6525 3 Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Page 6047 of 6525 4 Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 6048 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Friday, May 16, 2025 5:04 PM To:Timothy Finn; Ray Bellows Cc:Jennifer Merino Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Zoom meeting Attachments:BCC Minutes 10_11_2005 - PUD Approval.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Thank you for hosƟng the Zoom meeƟng today to discuss the Santa Barbara Landings PUD. I will look forward to the County AƩorney’s thoughts and will be happy to send them any info I have. I did look up the BOCC Minutes from the October 11, 2005 PUD Approval that Eduardo menƟoned and have aƩached the specific pages. You will note on the 4th page, the applicant’s aƩorney specifically said the Developer (not the AssociaƟon) agreed to build the wall on the eastern boundary, but no comments about the preserves. The discussion mostly dealt with the affordable housing commitment. However, I would envision the same thought regarding the wall would apply to the preserves, especially in the reading of the Developer Commitments in SecƟon 5.2 of the PUD and Master Plan. Thanks again and I look forward to the responses. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 6049 of 6525 October 11, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 11, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN:Fred W. Coyle Frank Halas Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Courts Page 1 Page 6050 of 6525 October 11, 2005 Applause.) Item #8B ORDINANCE 2005-53: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD, ST. GEORGE GROUP, CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL MUL TIPLE- FAMILY -6 (RMF -6) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could leave quietly, we're going to continue. The next item is 8B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Santa Barbara Landing PUD, St. George Group Corporation, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from residential multifamily 6, RMF-6, to residential planned unit development, RPUD, to be as the Santa Barbara Landing PUD for property located at the Southeast Comer of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who are going to give testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn. The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Ex parte disclosure by commISSIoners. Page 147 Page 6051 of 6525 October 11,2005 Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular item, I only had correspondence, and, of course, I discussed this with staff yesterday in my pre-meeting here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings. I met with, not only staff, but Rich Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold, Bill Hoover, A.I. Buccello (phonetic), probably murdered that name, and Alfred Zicoro phonetic). I did. Well, anyways, forgive me sometime, okay. And I have correspondence, and it's all available, for anyone that wishes to see it, in my folder. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's Polish. He's not Italian. He just spells it differently. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Capice? CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have met with the petitioners and their representatives, and Mr. Y ovanovich, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you were there, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. and Mrs. Buccello, and I got a nice note from them, as well. Each one of them signed it. I thank you for that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received two e-mails from Laurie Young and one anonymous letter. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Great. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of thé petitioner. Also here is Wayne Arnold, who is the planner on the project, as well as his firm has done some of the engineering related to the rezone request. And you met Mr. Buccello. Page 148 Page 6052 of 6525 October 11,2005 Today before you you have a request to rezone some RMF-6 property to a residential PUD. The property is located at the comer of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Weare requesting a rezone from the RMF -6 to seven units per acre. The property is located within the activity center, residential density band, which is at Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We have worked with the residents of Plantation, which is our -- which are our neighbors to the east. And in that we -- they had a couple of requests as we went through the process. They requested that we construct a wall along our east boundary for the entire length of the PUD. There currently does not exist a wall in there, and we agreed to construct that wall. They also asked us -- and it's difficult to see, I believe on the visualizer -- to reconfigure -- maybe this will work a little better, Jim. That was the -- Jim's going to put up there the original master plan. They asked us to relocate -- relocate these buildings right here. Do you see that on there? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get to get on the mike, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. They asked us to reconfigure the buildings right here and put them like so to increase the preserve closer to them, which we worked with them, and actually that request came at the planning commission meeting, and we made that change with them at the time. We have -- this is a -- an existing apartment complex that's going to be basically converted to a condominium. I think it's important to understand the price points of the units in this area, and who -- who we are intending to serve with the -- with the project. We have committed that a minimum -- and this is a minimum number -- of 50 percent of the units will be sold for less than 240,000. The reality is, we believe more will be sold for less than Page 149 fi Page 6053 of 6525 October 11, 2005 that amount, but that's the minimum number that we're going to commit to that. We've also agreed that, you know, 10 percent of the units will be set aside for gap housing. Individuals will have to qualify for gap housing, which is between 100 and 125 percent of the median income. And we have also committed that 50 percent of the units have got to be the primary residence. We do not want an investor-purchased community. So we are attempting to make sure that we are serving people who need homes in this price point, that these units will not be snapped up by investors, and we want at least 50 percent of the units, and probably more, will be the primary residences for people who live there. We have also agreed to kind of follow the standard that's been recently established regarding affordable housing, and for the new 43 units that we're requesting, we would -- we would make a contribution to the same Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund of $1,000 per closing paid within seven days of the closing, as -- so I believe we have taken into consideration quite a range of housing that really needs to be addressed in this community. There's only one -- there's only one staff condition, and I think they -- it's an error in what the planning commission said. There's a condition in there that says that we will not have more than four units per acre on tract B. Well, tract B is about six units -- six acres, so we're going to have a -- we're going to have about seven units per acre. What we committed to is we would not have buildings that were greater than four-unit buildings, and that's the commitment. It's not four units per acre, but it's the buildings will be not greater than four units. There were a couple of others things that, you know, we've agreed to do for the benefits of the community overall. There's a comer clip that is needed for improvements to Santa Barbara, and we Page 150 Page 6054 of 6525 October 11, 2005 have agreed to give that to Collier County, and also we were requested to make a cash payment for the sidewalk to be constructed in Santa Barbara Boulevard. The county's going to be improving Santa Barbara Boulevard. And they were -- asked us to make an additional payment above our impact fees for the sidewalk, and we have agreed to do that as well. I think that hits the highlights of the project. I would request that you recommend approval -- or actually not recommend, you get to vote -- that you adopt the requested PUD as I've outlined it and as your staff has outlined it, with that one change to the staff condition, that there be four-unit buildings and not units per acre. And with that, we look forward to moving forward in working with the sheriffs department, the school board, the county, and the hospital to make some housing available to people who really need the housing in this community. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have regarding this particular petition. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Let me first say, I was delighted to meet with these folks and talk about this housing. There's a great difference between affordable housing and gap housing. I'm sure that you might be aware of that. With gap housing, which is above $150,000, it fills the gap of those -- that price range of homes that will -- we keep talking about, but we keep labeling it affordable housing, except the teachers don't qualify for affordable housing, but they will qualify for something like this if investors don't go in and buy it up off of the market. And so I had a very lively conversation with these wonderful people and asked that they be deed restricted so that they're sold to the people, the owner-occupied primary-domiciled residents, and that way then we can be assured that we are going to be filling some of this housing that right now is falling between the -- the gaps. Page 151 Page 6055 of 6525 October 11, 2005 Another thing that I have suggested to staffmembers, Joe, Jim, I mentioned it to these people, but I mentioned it more clearly to the other ones, and that is, we need a clearinghouse. Mr. Bocelli was -- Buccello, I think I'm thinking of the opera star right now, Bocelli, right, Andrea Bocelli? He was saying he'd be happy to do this. He's got investors who would buy five- and 10-unit clumps, and they would love to buy up this price range. He said he would do that, but he has to know how to market this. So I'm going to be working with them closely because this is a direct answer to what I'm working on with my gap housing committee. But we need a clearinghouse. I'm not saying it must be through the county. I don't know if we can even do that. Maybe through the chamber, maybe through the EDC, and we'll get that thing together pretty quickly at our next gap housing meeting so that when houses go on the market and we want them to be purchased by those who need and cannot buy this type of housing because they don't qualify for affordable, I want them to be able to go to one sole source and have all of that housing listed, so I wanted to say that on the record. And as far as I'm concerned, this is exactly what we're trying to -- this is the housing that we're trying to stimulate, and we've got some right here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did I hear a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With -- mentioning that it will be a for-sale product deed restricted to owner-occupied primary-domiciled residence. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't forget the $1,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. And 43 units will pay 1 ;000 for affordable housing into the Affordable Housing Trust. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second? Page 152 Page 6056 of 6525 October 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I'm concerned about that this was RMF-6. And I understand where this gentleman's trying to go and he's trying to address affordable housing, but I'm also concerned about the impact, and I guess this is in a TCMA traffic area. But I'm concerned, as I brought up in the other issue that came before us, again, we look at this as a di minimis traffic, and I'm concerned that if we keep having other PUDs come before us to increase density where we've already established that, I'm wondering where that's going to lead us as far as traffic impact for other citizens here in Collier County. Maybe Norm Feder can address this, or Don Scott. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It will fail the concurrency test whenever we reach that point and no further densities will be allowed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that was something -- Commissioner Halas, I was so glad you brought that up, because that was what my concern was as well, and I quickly called upon Norm to tell me if these 43 units are going to change the composition of that roadway, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't think the 43 units are going to change. My concern is that as each developer decides that he's going to get involved in this -- get involved and wants to increase his density, that we're going to end up with a problem here, I believe, down the road. I just want to get that information out so that I have a better understanding of what's happening here in this whole TCMA area. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. I think Commissioner Coyle kind of touched on that too. This-- approving today still, they're still subj ect to concurrency. This proj ect the other one wasn't de minimis. This one is de minimis on the links, but also we have a lot of improvements programmed for the Page 153 Page 6057 of 6525 October 11, 2005 area, like Santa Barbara, the six-laning from the Parkway down to Davis, Santa Barbara Extension, Davis further on with FDOT. So we have a lot of projects in the area that address the increase in traffic. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is and this will be for Rich or whoever would like to address this. You said that we're going to be addressing gap housing. And did you say that it was 150,000 price -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. I said it's between 100 and 125 percent of the median income. So those people will have to verify that they're making less than 125 percent of the median income. Now, we're committing that 50 percent of the units overall, minimum of 50 percent, will be sold for less than 240. So, you know, you're talking probably very reasonably or moderately priced housing by Naples' standards to serve -- to serve the workforce. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So when you say it's lower -- some of these units are going to be lower than 240,000 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have some that will be under 200-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's your best guess that it may be? Is this where the 150,000 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The affordable -- I think you're using the term affordable. But we're probably going to have -- how many percent? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, just tell me basically is it going to be around 175,000 or-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll probably have 50 percent of our homes that will be less than 200-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is within the reach of the people that we've identified as gap eligible -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because remember, we're not talking about a person, one person, who makes, let's say, $75,000. We're Page 154 Page 6058 of 6525 October 11, 2005 talking about family income, not individual income. We're talking about total family income, no individual income MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. When I said that number, it was, if you've got four workers in the family, it's go to be less than that; two workers, one worker, it's got to be less than that threshold. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one question, and that is, this is including paying the impact fees; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's raise impact fees really fast. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, please don't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your deviations, have we cut those down? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe staff was okay with all of the deviations. The only issue I think was one with the sidewalk, and that's been resolved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That one I'm not concerned about, but I'm more concerned about the street right-of-way, street width. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a -- that's a standard width of right-of-way that you find for private roads within the PUDs that are coming through. These will be private roads, not public roads. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So -- and keep in mind that you're talking about 248 existing units already, so there's kind of more like driveways through that community, and then the additional six acres, we're talking about 50-foot right-of-ways in there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. So the existing, you just want for it to stay the same? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Page 155 Page 6059 of 6525 October 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other one would -- oh, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry if that wasn't very clear. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does -- we have no public speakers. Does staff have a presentation that they feel they need to make? MR. DeRUNTZ: We'll pass. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to pass. Okay. Any other questions by commissioners? No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager? MR. MUDD: Just for some clarification. I just want to make sure that we tie in this median income in this 50 percent and the units less than $240,000 to make sure that we're getting it, exactly what we want to get to, those professionals and their salaries. Now, just for clarification, you know, somebody could come in, say, median income -- and I come up from up north and I come down here, and I say, my median income -- and it could be my retirement pay -- is blankety-blank, and I show it to this particular developer; therefore, I qualify for this unit, but I don't work for anybody, and, see so I'm worried that we don't have that tied quite tight enough yet to make sure that that 50 percent, okay, that gap housing and those units that are going to be less than that $240,000 that are going to be deed restricted are locked in correctly, okay, because there's 50 percent that aren't, okay. So we've got to tie that 50 percent just a little bit tighter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let's clarify that. Ifwe need to clarify, and it's 10 percent gap housing, 50 percent will be sold for less than 240-, but 10 percent is set aside, guaranteed, to people who fit into the gap. It means more. We can obviously provide more, and we're hoping we'll get more because we're setting aside this number of units in those price points, and we're going to work with Collier County, the school board, the sheriffs department, and the hospitals to Page 156 Page 6060 of 6525 October 11, 2005 get the word out that these units are out here, please -- we want to give you first priority, if you will, through advertising, to come and use -- buy these units. Jim, if you've got an idea of what you want me to say as far as on the 10 percent to make sure I don't sell you a unit because you're not working anymore, we want to -- we want to make sure that we don't have you take up one of those units. So do we need to say it's -- MR. MUDD: Cormac, can you give me some specificity on this? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Good afternoon. For the record, Cormac Giblin, housing and grants manager. From my notes in the back of the room, I think I heard 50 percent of the units would be sold for $240,000 or less, 50 percent of the units would be restricted as on owner-occupied units only, and of which all of that, 10 percent must go towards households earning between 100 and 125 percent of median income. The first clarification is, I'd like to know if the 50 percent that sell for less than 240- are the same 50 percent that are going to be restricted to owner-occupied. I think that's the first point that should be clarified. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the intent. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Yeah. MR. GIBLIN: And then to the question at hand then, that other or that 10 percent that are the gap housing units, how do we monitor that? Who do we accept as a workforce housing client or fits that mold? We can certainly share our -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You. MR. GIBLIN: We can certainly share our income qualification forms with the developer, with which he can submit his PUD monitoring reports as part, using those forms, to make sure that everyone who buys one of those units fits the definition that the board is creating. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's the point that we're getting at. Page 157 Page 6061 of 6525 October 11, 2005 We don't have anything that specifically says that you've got to be employed in Collier County to meet those income requirements. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we can add that -- we can add that as a requirement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you legally? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we can. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can -- we can go ahead and require that 10 percent be employed in Collier County. I think that's -- I don't think any body's done that to date. I mean, I don't think anybody's made that absolute -- I mean, even -- I think even your affordable housing guidelines don't require that a person who buys the unit actually works in Collier County. I mean, theoretically they could live in Lee. But we would like to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, does that make you happy? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I just -- I think all of us are concerned that when we provide housing at this reasonable price, that we'll have a lot of snowbirds come down here and take up these units, and I think that's our biggest concern, not so much where they're going to work, but the idea that people can come down here and find out that they've got reasonable housing and they take it away from the people that we really need to address, and that's the people that take care of the infrastructure of Collier County. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree, Commissioner Halas. And we've talked to Commissioner Fiala about getting the word out. But I also can't -- I can't limit myself -- I've got to be able to sell the project, sell the product. We want to get the word out. We believe by getting the word out, there's going to be a lot of demand from the people who need it, Page 158 Page 6062 of 6525 October 11, 2005 but that's also, you know, part of making sure that they come and buy the product. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But people watch this television network, and they're probably on the phone right now to one of their uncles up north and saying, hey, I got a heck of a deal for you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're specifying that 50 percent of them can only be sold to full-time residents -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Primary residents -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of Collier County. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they have to meet the homestead requirements of Collier County before they can even buy that 50 percent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. They have to be domicile. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they've got to stop being snowbirds, at least most of the year. But nevertheless -- MR. YO V ANOVICH: I mean, Commissioner, we're doing -- we're trying to button up every loophole there is out there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've gone further than any other developer has gone. MR. BUCCELLO: May I say a word? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Please state your name for the record. MR. BUCCELLO: A.J. Buccello -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BUCCELLO: -- for the record. My only concern -- 1'd be more than happy to agree, have agreed to every single request made to us. But also, what happens if we try and we cannot meet that 50 percent -- I believe you and I spoke about that, Mr. Chairman -- within a period of 30 days, 45 days, whatever is customary down here, what do I do? Do I come back to you? Page 159 Page 6063 of 6525 October 11, 2005 If I try, Commissioner Fiala, to proceed in the direction that I want to go -- because as most of you know, I'm also a member of the National Housing Development Corporation, which is a largest affordable housing entity in the United States. So I've been involved in affordable housing for many, many years, way before this. What happens if after that we try, we -- school board, government offices, everywhere, Mr. Chairman, and we do not sell that 50 percent, not under the 240-? And just to answer your question, Commissioner, we will be selling quite a lot more for less than 240-. As a matter of fact, without a commitment being made at this time, they'll be less than 190-, probably less than 185-. But the commitment is less than 240-. What happens if -- my only concern is that 50 percent to primary residents. What happens if we did not succeed; may I come back to you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you can come back to us for relief from some of these stipulations. MR. BUCCELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's going to sell them. I think they're going to sell like hot cakes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, they will, yeah. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coming back to us, it might be something that we want to put in the inventory for future employees or something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We think we're going to be able to sell those units, but obviously we want to have the back-up plan. We just CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will probably send you a list of prospective buyers. Page 160 Page 6064 of 6525 October 11, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would like that, but I cannot -- there will be no commissions. MR. MUDD: Especially for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala for approval, I think seconded by Commissioner Coletta, if I remember correctly. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. MR. BUCCELLO: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- would you like to take a break? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We need to take a break. A brief recess was had.) Item #10K APPLICATION BY PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS, INCORPORATED FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. Page 161 Page 6065 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:01 PM To:Timothy Finn; Ailyn Padron Cc:Ray Bellows; Heidi Ashton; 'Rachel Hansen'; 'Pat Vanasse'; 'Jennifer Merino'; eteran@mcdhousing.com Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 - Copy of Santa Barbara Landings Declaration of Protective Covenants & Restrictions Attachments:Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association - Master Association.pdf; Granada Lakes Condo Site Survey.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello All, In case you haven’t found a copy of the recorded Declaration for Santa Barbara Landings, see attached. Also a copy of the Condo Survey from the Declaration of Condominium for Granada Lakes Villas. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54 AM To: Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; Rachel Hansen <rh@theneighborhood.company>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company>; fcproperties@comcast.net; 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Ailyn, Please set a Zoom meeting with everyone on this email regarding the above referenced project. Thank you Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6066 of 6525 2 From: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 6067 of 6525 3 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 6068 of 6525 Page 6069 of 6525 Page 6070 of 6525 Page 6071 of 6525 Page 6072 of 6525 Page 6073 of 6525 Page 6074 of 6525 Page 6075 of 6525 Page 6076 of 6525 Page 6077 of 6525 Page 6078 of 6525 Page 6079 of 6525 Page 6080 of 6525 Page 6081 of 6525 Page 6082 of 6525 Page 6083 of 6525 Page 6084 of 6525 Page 6085 of 6525 Page 6086 of 6525 Page 6087 of 6525 Page 6088 of 6525 Page 6089 of 6525 Page 6090 of 6525 Page 6091 of 6525 Page 6092 of 6525 Page 6093 of 6525 Page 6094 of 6525 Page 6095 of 6525 Page 6096 of 6525 Page 6097 of 6525 Page 6098 of 6525 Page 6099 of 6525 Page 6100 of 6525 Page 6101 of 6525 Page 6102 of 6525 Page 6103 of 6525 Page 6104 of 6525 Page 6105 of 6525 Page 6106 of 6525 Page 6107 of 6525 Page 6108 of 6525 Page 6109 of 6525 Page 6110 of 6525 Page 6111 of 6525 Page 6112 of 6525 Page 6113 of 6525 Page 6114 of 6525 Page 6115 of 6525 Page 6116 of 6525 Page 6117 of 6525 Page 6118 of 6525 Page 6119 of 6525 Page 6120 of 6525 Page 6121 of 6525 Page 6122 of 6525 Page 6123 of 6525 Page 6124 of 6525 Page 6125 of 6525 Page 6126 of 6525 Page 6127 of 6525 Page 6128 of 6525 Page 6129 of 6525 Page 6130 of 6525 Page 6131 of 6525 Page 6132 of 6525 Page 6133 of 6525 Page 6134 of 6525 Page 6135 of 6525 Page 6136 of 6525 Page 6137 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:Ray Bellows Sent:Monday, May 12, 2025 9:32 AM To:Timothy Finn Subject:RE: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 Attachments:Opposition Letter.pdf Hi Tim, The attached correspondence was submitted to me last week during the NIM. I told Mr. Cooper that I would forward it to you. Please coordinate with Ailyn to set up a Zoom Meeting. Respectfully, Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Zoning Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:07 AM To: Ray Bellows <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jennifer Merino <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: Santa Barbara landings RPUD Amendment - PL20240013221 EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Ray, Just following up from our quick meeting at the Santa Barbara Landings Neighborhood Meeting. Please see attached letter regarding some clarifications from my earlier correspondence to Tim Finn. The basics do not change though. When can we get a meeting to discuss the specifics? Please let me know. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Page 6138 of 6525 2 Cell (239) 250-1300 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 6139 of 6525 1 Timothy Finn From:fcproperties@comcast.net Sent:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:35 AM To:Timothy Finn Cc:'Jennifer Merino'; 'Pat Vanasse' Subject:RE: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 - Secondary Question EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Thank you Tim. I will be attending the Neighborhood Meeting, but I suggest you review the info I sent you since it may raise significant questions regarding the application. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 7:50 AM To: fcproperties@comcast.net Cc: 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; Pat Vanasse <pv@theneighborhood.company> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 - Secondary Question Good morning, Please attend next weeks Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 8th to ask questions and voice your concerns with the agent and staff. Please see attached for the date, time, and location. Timothy Finn Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-4312 Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 7:35 AM To: Timothy Finn <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Page 6140 of 6525 2 Cc: 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 - Secondary Question EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Morning Tim, I have a question regarding the whole Density Bonus for Tract B at Santa Barbara Landings. Tract B is requesting the Bonus Density based on the entire property – Tract A and Tract B. Tract B owners do not own or control Tract A, so why are they entitled to Bonus Density on Tract A. What happens if Tract A owners would like to apply for a Bonus Density on just Tract property? Keep in mind again, none of the 2005 Density Increase for Tract B was never inserted / disclosed in the HOA Documents for Tract A. I think we should talk. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 From: fcproperties@comcast.net <fcproperties@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 4:09 PM To: 'Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov' <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: 'Jennifer Merino' <glvmerino@gmail.com>; 'pv@theneighborhood.company' <pv@theneighborhood.company> Subject: Santa Barbara Landings - PUDA PL20240013221 Hello Tim, Please see the attached letter regarding the PUD Amendment for Santa Barbara Landings. We would like to meet with you and or your staff to discuss our concerns as the owner of Tract A. Please let me know when that will be convenient. Thanks. Sincerely, Frank W. Cooper, President FC Properties, Inc. 4158 Lorraine Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Office (239) 643-5053 Cell (239) 250-1300 Page 6141 of 6525 3 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 6142 of 6525 Page 6143 of 6525 Page 6144 of 6525 Page 6145 of 6525 Page 6146 of 6525 Page 6147 of 6525 Page 6148 of 6525 Page 6149 of 6525 Page 6150 of 6525 Page 6151 of 6525 Page 6152 of 6525 Page 6153 of 6525 Page 6154 of 6525 Page 6155 of 6525 Page 6156 of 6525 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 November 10, 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 2005-53 THE SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 291 TO 332 UNITS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 84 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON TRACT B OF THE RPUD, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRACT B, INCREASE THE HEIGHT ON TRACT B AND ADD A DETAILED MASTER PLAN FOR TRACT B; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. TRACT B IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 40, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.74± ACRES OUT OF 41.6± ACRES. [PL20240013221] 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. Page 6157 of 6525 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. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER Page 6158 of 6525