The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 12/09/2025 Item # 9C (Ordinance - Changing the zoning the classifation of real property from a PUD to an RPUD to be known as Miceli PUD - PL20240012218)12/9/2025 Item # 9.C ID# 2025-4284 Executive Summary This item requires that all participants be sworn in and that Commission members provide ex-parte disclosure. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance to change the zoning classification of real property from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District allowing Mixed-Uses, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Miceli PUD, to allow development of 63 residential units, to correct project acreage, and provide for repeal of Ordinance Number 92-62, the Miceli Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject, 8.63±-acre property, is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East, 200 feet north of Raintree Lane, in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20240012218] 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, and render a decision regarding the petition. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject 8.63± acre site was originally rezoned from Agricultural (A) and C-4 zoning designations to a mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow up to 60 multi-family dwelling units and commercial development in Ordinance 84-71 on October 2, 1984. (See Attachment B-Ordinance 84-71. That PUD was repealed and replaced with another PUD, Ordinance 92-62, which allows 17 multi-family dwelling units and commercial development on June 22, 1992. See Attachment C–Ordinance 92-62. The Applicant proposes changing the PUD to allow the development of 63 residential units at 7.3 dwelling units per acre. The Master Plan, located on page 3 of the attached Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed residential development, vehicular ingress/egress, and landscape buffers. The Master Plan also shows that 5.24± acres will be a residential development area. A minimum of 60% open space will be provided. To the north and west of the subject PUD is Wentworth Estates, a residential PUD. To the north, east, and south of the subject PUD is an undeveloped commercial parcel and commercial development. To the south of the subject PUD is single-family residential development on Raintree Lane. For further information, see Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard Petition PL20240012218, Miceli PUDA, on October 2, 2025, and voted 4-0 to forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. This item is consistent with the Collier County strategic plan objective to implement prudent development through effective planning for transportation, land use, and growth management. FISCAL IMPACT: The Rezone, by itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build-out, will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if the Rezone is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects impact fees before 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 as needed to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Other fees collected before 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 CCPC to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed Rezone, and the subject petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site-specific rezone to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Page 1659 of 9661 12/9/2025 Item # 9.C ID# 2025-4284 Zoning District for a project to be known as the Miceli RPUD. 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 RPUD Rezones: Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in determining 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 RPUD 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) for the purpose of assuring 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 RPUD 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, policies, and future land use map, and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested RPUD 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 RPUD 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, Page 1660 of 9661 12/9/2025 Item # 9.C ID# 2025-4284 art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD 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 on competent, substantial evidence presented in the written materials supplied to it, including, but not limited to, the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing, as these items relate to these criteria. Should this item be denied, Florida Statutes section 125.022(3) requires the County to provide written notice to the applicant citing applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION(S): To approve the proposed ordinance for the Miceli PUD, Petition PL20240012218. PREPARED BY: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report- Miceli 9-12-25 2. Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 080525 (2) 3. Attachment B-Ordinance 84-71 REPEALED 4. Attachment C-Ordinance 92-62 5. Attachment D-GMP Consistency Memorandum Final_9-9-25 6. Attachment E-NIM Documents (3) 7. Attachment F-Application (2) 8. Public Hearing Sign Posting 8-12-25 (1) 9. 10.2.25 CCPC- Ad Request- Published 10. legal ad - agenda ID 25-4284 - Miceli RPUD-PL20240012218 - 12-9-25 BCC Page 1661 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 1 of 15 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2025 SUBJECT: PL20240012218 - MICELI PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (PUDA) ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Property Owner/Applicant: 11140 Tamiami, LLC 4980 Tamiami Trail North, #201 Naples, FL 34103 Agents: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Peninsula Engineering Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending the appropriate Zoning Atlas Map or Maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District allowing Mixed- Uses to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Miceli PUD, to allow development of 63 residential units; to correct project acreage and provide for repeal of Ordinance 92-62, the Miceli Planned Unit Development. Page 1662 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 2 of 15 Page 1663 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 3 of 15 MASTER PLAN Page 1664 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 4 of 15 MASTER PLAN Page 1665 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 5 of 15 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 8.63± acre property is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East, 200 feet north of Raintree Lane, in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject 8.63± acre site was originally rezoned from Agricultural (A) and C-4 zoning designations to a mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow up to 60 multi-family dwelling units and commercial development, as outlined in Ordinance 84-71, on October 2, 1984. (See Attachment B- Ordinance 84-71. That PUD was repealed and replaced with another PUD, Ordinance 92-62, which allows for 17 multi-family dwelling units and commercial development, effective June 22, 1992. See Attachment C–Ordinance 92-62. The Applicant is proposing to amend the PUD to allow the development of 63 residential units at 7.3 dwelling units per acre. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed residential development, vehicular ingress/egress, and landscape buffers. The Master Plan also shows that 5.24± acres will be residential development area. A minimum of 60% open space will be provided. To the north and west of the subject PUD is Wentworth Estates, a residential PUD. To the north, east, and south of the subject PUD is an undeveloped commercial parcel and commercial development. To the south of the subject PUD is single-family residential development on Raintree Lane. For further information, see Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: A lake and developed multi-family residential with a zoning designation of Wentworth Estates PUD with a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre, and a lake with a zoning designation of C-4 East: Tamiami Trail East (US 41), a 6-lane divided arterial roadway, and developed commercial with a zoning designation of C-4 South: Developed single-family residential with a zoning designation of RSF-4, and developed commercial with a zoning designation of C-4 West: A lake and developed single-family and multi-family residential with a zoning designation of Wentworth Estates PUD, with a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre Page 1666 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 6 of 15 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and has found that the subject petition is consistent with the GMP. For further information, please see Attachment D-GMP Consistency Memorandum. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s March 27, 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 SUBJECT SITE Page 1667 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 7 of 15 approved. A petition or application has significant impact if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occurs: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Miceli PUD Amendment development will generate a projected total of +/- 48 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, Tamiami Trail East/US-41. The current PUDs' allowable uses generate a potential +/- 107 PM peak hour trips; therefore, this Amendment will potentially result in a reduction of +/- (59) fewer PM peak hour trips. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2024 Level of Service (LOS) 2024 Remaining Capacity Tamiami Trail East (US- 41)/93.0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to Triangle Blvd. 3,000/EB 30/EB D (2) 248 (2) 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is March 27, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Road link is FDOT jurisdiction. The expected deficiency is by Trip Bank not caused by this development. Expected deficiency in 2030. The project is in the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) with the project impacts mitigated using Policy 5-5 procedures. Finally, the provisions of Florida State Statute 163.3180 are applicable (see bullet points below). Florida Statute 163.3180  Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share.  Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation.  The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining entity.  Applicant must receive credit for the anticipated road impact fees. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, and State Statute 163.3180, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Page 1668 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 8 of 15 Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The proposed changes do not affect any of the GMP environmental requirements. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission’s (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who, in turn, use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Rezone Findings and PUD Findings.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: The Environmental Planning staff reviewed the PUD petition and confirms that the proposed changes comply with all LDC preservation requirements and Ordinance 1992-62, as amended. Because the property lacks native vegetation, no preservation is required for the proposed project. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utility Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are readily available via connections to existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Developer commitments are listed in “Exhibit F” of the MPUD document under the “Utilities” section. (See Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance.) Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed Page 1669 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 9 of 15 development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: As previously stated, the Applicant is proposing to amend the PUD to allow development of 63 residential units at 7.3 dwelling units per acre. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed residential development, vehicular ingress/egress, and landscape buffers. The Master Plan also shows that 5.24± acres will be a residential development area. A minimum of 60% open space will be provided. To the north and west of the subject PUD is Wentworth Estates, a residential PUD. To the north, east, and south of the subject PUD is an undeveloped commercial parcel and commercial development. To the south of the subject PUD is a single-family residential development on Raintree Lane. The proposed residential PUD boundary setbacks are 50 feet from Tamiami Trail East, 10 feet from the northern boundary, 25 feet from the southern boundary, and 40 feet from the western boundary. The maximum zoned height of 35 feet and the actual height of 42 feet are compatible with the surrounding zoned heights of 35 and 50 feet. Along the property line with the single-family Raintree Lane homes, an enhanced 15-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer consisting of taller 14-16-foot-high trees and a 6-foot-high hedge/fence /wall will be provided. A 15-foot-wide Type D landscape buffer consisting of trees 30 feet on center and a double row hedge (if adjacent to a vehicular use area) will be provided along Tamiami Trail East. A 10-foot-wide Type A landscape buffer consisting of trees at 30 feet on center is proposed along all other property lines. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff offers the following analysis: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies, and future land use map, and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP upon adoption of the companion GMPA. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern can be characterized as mostly developed residential and commercial. The property located to the north and south is residential and commercial. The property to the east is commercial. The property to the west is residential. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. Page 1670 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 10 of 15 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to develop the property with residential land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can be deemed consistent with the County’s land-use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD Amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is anticipated that the proposed PUD Amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas inside or outside the PUD. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors, including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and PPL process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of the adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner, as contrasted with the public welfare. Page 1671 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 11 of 15 The development will comply with the GMP upon adoption of the companion GMPA, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed Amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without rezoning the property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed PUD Amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or PPL processes, and as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff have concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: Page 1672 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 12 of 15 LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria:” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The area is suitable for the proposed residential development. The site has access to Tamiami Trail East. Water and wastewater mains are available along Tamiami Trail East. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff have reviewed this petition and provided an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff has found this petition consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with the adjacent uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The 60% open space that has been set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development Page 1673 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 13 of 15 must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and/or site development plans. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including readily available County water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including CCWSD potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking four deviations related to street width, back- up parking onto a street, hammerhead street design, and sidewalks. Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking four deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Deviation #1 Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 N, “Street System Requirements,” which establishes a minimum 60-foot-wide cul-de-sac street, to instead allow a minimum 50-foot-wide cul-de-sac street for the internal right-of-way. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The proposed 50-foot-wide right-of-way is sufficiently wide to accommodate all required roadway improvements. The internal right-of-way will be privately owned and maintained, and the development will be a low-volume/low-intensity community. Sidewalks and utilities may be placed within easements outside of the internal right-of-way, if necessary. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #2 Page 1674 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 14 of 15 Deviation #2 requests relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 F, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which requires parking facilities be designed so that no motor vehicles back onto any street, to instead allow parking facilities within the Miceli RPUD be designed to back onto the internal platted right-of-way. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The irregular shape of the lot creates design constraints. This deviation is only necessary because the development is proposed to be platted. Should this development instead be permitted under a unified SDP, this deviation would not be necessary. This will be a low- volume/low-intensity community, and the approval of this deviation has no negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #3 Deviation #3 requests relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 J, “Dead-End Streets,” which requires cul-de-sacs to be provided at the terminus of dead-end streets, to instead allow a hammerhead design at the terminus of the internal street. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Applicant is requesting a hammerhead stub at the end of the internal, private right-of-way. The PUD will be a low-volume/low-traffic community; therefore, this deviation has no negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare. The purpose of the hammerhead design is to utilize the property’s developable area efficiently, and it will provide better access to proposed townhome units when compared to a cul-de-sac. The hammerhead design allows for adequate vehicular circulation and turning movement. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #4 Deviation #4 requests relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 2, “Sidewalks and Bike Lanes,” which requires 5’ sidewalks on both sides of internal streets, to instead allow a sidewalk along one side of the internal street where the street is not double-loaded with residential dwelling units. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Page 1675 of 9661 PL20240012218, MICELI PUDA September 12, 2025 Page 15 of 15 There are right-of-way design constraints due to the size and configuration of the property. Allowing one sidewalk along one side of the internal, private right-of-way where the street is not double-loaded with home sites will allow efficiency and flexibility with the site design. Approval of this deviation will have no negative impact on pedestrian mobility through the site. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM meeting on June 11, 2025, at the Naples Botanical Garden, located at 4820 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112. Approximately 20 people were in attendance. The residents were concerned about flooding, traffic, preserving existing vegetation, building height, and landscape buffering. For further information, please see Attachment E-NIM Documents. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on September 8, 2025. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommend that the CCPC forward Petition PL20240012218, Miceli PUDA, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B-Ordinance 84-71 See Attachment C–Ordinance 92-62 Attachment D-GMP Consistency Memorandum. Attachment E-NIM Documents Attachment F-Application Page 1676 of 9661 [25-CPS-02620/1962587/1]71 Miceli /PL20240012218 8/5/25 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2025 -_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWING MIXED USES TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MICELI RPUD, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; TO CORRECT PROJECT ACREAGE AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 92-62, THE MICELI PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, 200 FEET NORTH OF RAINTREE LANE, IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 8.63± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20240012218] WHEREAS, on September 1, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 92-62, establishing the Miceli Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, Jessica Harrelson, AICP, of Peninsula Engineering and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing applicant, 11140 Tamiami, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed a from Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District allowing mixed uses to a Residential Planned Unit Page 1677 of 9661 [25-CPS-02620/1962587/1]71 Miceli /PL20240012218 8/5/25 2 of 2 Development (RPUD) for a 8.63± acre project to be known as the Miceli RPUD, to allow development of 63 residential dwelling units in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 92-62, the Miceli Planned Unit Development, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ________________ 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _________________________ By: ___________________________________ , Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi F. Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development and Design Standards Exhibit C: Master Concept Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Deviations Exhibit F: Development Commitments Page 1678 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of the Miceli Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat. MAXIMUM DENSITY: This RPUD shall be limited to a maximum of sixty-three (63) residential dwelling units. The uses are subject to a trip cap identified in Exhibit F of this RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A.PRINCIPAL USES 1.Multi-Family 2.Townhomes 3.Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) of the Hearing Examiner (HEX), as applicable, by the process outlined by the Land Development Code (LDC). B.ACCESSORY USES 1.Model Homes and Sales Center 2.Customary accessory uses and structures that are incidental to the list of permitted principal uses, such as but not limited to, a clubhouse, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses intended for residents and their guests. 1 Page 1679 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in this development standards table. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOMES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A 1,800 SF N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH N/A 20’ N/A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH N/A 90’ N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SF PER UNIT 1,000 SF PER UNIT N/A MINIMUM SETBACKS (EXTERNAL) FRONT YARD- (FROM US 41) 50’ 50’ SPS SIDE YARD- (FROM NORTHERN PUD BOUNDARY) 10’ ¹ 10’ ¹ SPS SIDE YARD- (FROM SOUTHERN PUD BOUNDARY) 25’ 25’ SPS REAR YARD- (FROM WESTERN PUD BOUNDARY) 40’ 40’ SPS MINIMUM SETBACKS (INTERNAL) FRONT YARD N/A 20’ or 10’ ²,⁴ SPS SIDE YARD N/A 0’ or 5’ ³ SPS REAR YARD N/A 10’ 5’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED 35’, limited to two stories 35’, limited to two stories SPS ACTUAL 42’ 42’ SPS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ 10’ SPS – Same as Principal Structure ¹ Where the 30’ County Easement exists along the northern and western property lines, as depicted on Exhibit C “PUD Master Plan”, the 10’ setback shall be measured from the internal easement line. ² Front entry garages shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of any sidewalk. ³ 0’ setback for shared walls and 5’ required for exterior side walls of the units from lot lines. ⁴ Lots with two front yards may reduce the secondary front yard setback to 10’. Notes: Nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in the list of deviations. Setbacks that conflict with utility standards for the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures do not constitute an approved deviation 2 Page 1680 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 EXHIBIT C PUD MASTER PLAN 3 Page 1681 of 9661 PROPERTY BOUNDARY TAMIAM I TRA I L EAST (US 4 1 /SR 9 0 ) ZONING: C-4 LAND USE: WATER MANAGEMENT ZONING: WENTWORTH ESTATES LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: WENTWORTH ESTATES LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: RSF-4 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: C-4 LAND USE: DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL RAINTREE LANE TAM IAM I COUR T NAPOLI LANE 30' COUNTY ESMT (O.R. BOOK 4349, PAGE 2814) 30' COUNTY ESMT(O.R. BOOK 4349, PAGE 2814) ENHANCED 15' TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER, REFERENCE ITEM 6.A OF EXHIBIT F WATER MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AREA SITE INGRESS/EGRESS 1 2 3 10' TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 4 15' UTILITY ESMT (O.R. BOOK 5172, PAGE 1702) 6' FP&L ESMT (O.R. BOOK 644, PAGE 259) TEMP CONSTRUCTION ESMT (O.R. BOOK 5172, PG 1702) (Private-to be modified or released) INGRESS-EGRESS & UTILITY ESMT (O.R. BOOK 5172, PG 1702) (Private- to be modified or relased) 10' TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15' TYPE' D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' UTILTY ESMT (O.R. BOOK 5172, PG 1702) (Private- to be modified or released) 15' TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER • CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING AND ZONING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PENINSULA CLIENT:TITLE:PROJECT: Sheet Number:of File Name: Project Number: Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn by: Designed by: SEC:RGE:TWP:[Save Date: 6/20/2025 9:38:04 AM] [By: JWoodward] [Plot Date: 6/20/2025 9:39:41 AM] [By: Jenna Woodward] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-AJS-002\001-Realty_Gen_Consult\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X01-PUD_Master_Plan\Rev-02\Sheet_Files\P-AJS-002-001-C00-X01-1.dwg]Sheet ID:Florida Engineering C.A #28275 Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 MICELI RPUD EXHIBIT C PUD MASTER PLAN 11140 TAMIAMI LLC JESSICA HARRELSON A. SPAGNOLA AUGUST 2025 1" = 200' P-AJS-002-001 P-AJS-002-001-C00-X01-1.dwg X01 01 02 29 50 26REVISIONS: No: Revision:Date: 1 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 5/9/2025 2 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 6/12/2025 239.403.6700 Pen-Eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34105 SCALE:1" = 200'LEGEND WATER MANAGEMENT INGRESS / EGRESS X DEVIATION 4Page 1682 of 9661 • CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING AND ZONING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PENINSULA CLIENT:TITLE:PROJECT: Sheet Number:of File Name: Project Number: Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn by: Designed by: SEC:RGE:TWP:[Save Date: 6/20/2025 9:39:29 AM] [By: JWoodward] [Plot Date: 6/20/2025 9:39:58 AM] [By: Jenna Woodward] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-AJS-002\001-Realty_Gen_Consult\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X01-PUD_Master_Plan\Rev-02\Sheet_Files\P-AJS-002-001-C00-X01-2.dwg]Sheet ID:Florida Engineering C.A #28275 Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 MICELI RPUD EXHIBIT C PUD MASTER PLAN 11140 TAMIAMI LLC JESSICA HARRELSON A.SPAGNOLA AUGUST 2025 N.T.S. P-AJS-002-001-C00 P-AJS-002-001-C00-X01-2.dwg X01-2 02 02 29 50 26REVISIONS: No: Revision:Date: 1 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 5/9/2025 2 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 6/12/2025 239.403.6700 Pen-Eng.com 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34105 PLANNING NOTES CURRENT ZONING: MICELI PUD PROPOSED ZONING: MICELI RPUD CURRENT LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED FUTURE LAND USE: URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT, COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA MAXIMUM DENSITY: 63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS DEVIATIONS DEVIATION #1 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01 N, "STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS," WHICH ESTABLISHES A MINIMUM 60-FOOT-WIDE CUL-DE-SAC STREET, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A MINIMUM 50-FOOT-WIDE CUL-DE-SAC STREET FOR THE INTERNAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. DEVIATION #2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.02 F, "OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS," WHICH REQUIRES PARKING FACILITIES BE DESIGNED SO THAT NO MOTOR VEHICLES BACK ONTO ANY STREET, TO INSTEAD ALLOW PARKING FACILITIES WITHIN THE MICELI RPUD BE DESIGNED TO BACK ONTO THE INTERNAL PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY. DEVIATION #3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01 J, "DEAD-END STREETS," WHICH REQUIRES CUL-DE-SACS TO BE PROVIDED AT THE TERMINUS OF DEAD-END STREETS, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A HAMMER HEAD DESIGN AT THE TERMINUS OF THE INTERNAL STREET. DEVIATION #4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.02 A.2, "SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES," WHICH REQUIRES 5' SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF INTERNAL STREETS, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A SIDEWALK ALONG ONE SIDE OF THE INTERNAL STREET WHERE THERE ARE NO DWELLING UNITS. 1 MAXIMUM ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT: 35', LIMITED TO TWO-STORIES LAND USE SUMMARY USE ACRES % OF SITE WATER MANAGEMENT LAKES +/-1.95 ACRES 22.6% LANDSCAPE BUFFERS +/-0.83 ACRES 9.6% +/-5.24 ACRES 60.7% +/-0.16 ACRES 1.9% DEVELOPMENT AREA FPL AND UTILITY ESMTS 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT +/-0.45 ACRES 5.2% TOTAL SITE AREA +/-8.63 ACRES 100% USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (8.63 ACRES X 60% = 5.18 AC) *USABLE OPEN SPACE LOCATION WILL BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF SDP PERMITTING 2 PRESERVE: 1. PER COLLIER COUNTY LDC SECTION 3.05.07 B.2, THE MICELI RPUD DOES NOT REQUIRE A PRESERVE. 3 4 5Page 1683 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK "D", ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF UNIT NO. 1, MYRTLE COVE ACRES, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (STATE ROAD NO. 90); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 39°04'00" WEST FOR 247.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 50°56'00” WEST 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF BLOCK "G", ACCORDING TO SAID PLAT OF UNIT NO. 1, MYRTLE COVE ACRES; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 89° 35' 00" WEST 961.97 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 02°48'13" EAST 308.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 35'00" EAST FOR 694.76 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 50°56'00" EAST 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL (STATE ROAD 90); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 39°04'00" EAST 400.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 8.63 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 6 Page 1684 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 N, “Street System Requirements,” which establishes a minimum 60-foot-wide cul-de-sac street, to instead allow a minimum 50-foot-wide cul- de-sac street for the internal right-of-way. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 F, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which requires parking facilities be designed so that no motor vehicles back onto any street, to instead allow parking facilities within the Miceli RPUD be designed to back onto the internal platted right-of-way. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 J, “Dead-End Streets,” which requires cul-de-sacs to be provided at the terminus of dead-end streets, to instead allow a hammerhead design at the terminus of the internal street. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.2, “Sidewalks and Bike Lanes,” which requires 5’ sidewalks on both sides of internal streets, to instead allow a sidewalk along one side of the internal street where there are no dwelling units. 7 Page 1685 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 1.GENERAL 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 approval, the Managing Entity is 11140 Tamiami, 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 their/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 an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B.Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state 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.” (Section 125.022, FS) C.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2.LIGHTING A.Site lighting shall be Dark Skies compliant to protect neighboring residential properties from direct glare and light pollution. 3.TRANSPORTATION A.The maximum total daily trip generation for the RPUD shall not exceed 48 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on Trip Generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 4.ENVIRONMENTAL A.Per Collier County LDC Section 3.05.07 B.2, the Miceli RPUD does not require a preserve. 8 Page 1686 of 9661 Miceli PUDA - PUDA-PL20240012218 August 5, 2025 5.UTILITIES A.At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by the County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. B.At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the water distribution/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow to the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined by the County Manager or designee during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 6.LANDSCAPING A.An enhanced 15’ Type ‘B’ buffer shall be provided along the southern PUD boundary where adjacent to residential development along Raintree Lane, as depicted in Exhibit C. The buffer shall consist of code-required Type ‘B’ plantings, with the required trees being a minimum of 14- 16 feet in height at the time of planting. 9 Page 1687 of 9661 Page 1688 of 9661 Page 1689 of 9661 Page 1690 of 9661 Page 1691 of 9661 Page 1692 of 9661 Page 1693 of 9661 Page 1694 of 9661 Page 1695 of 9661 Page 1696 of 9661 Page 1697 of 9661 Page 1698 of 9661 Page 1699 of 9661 Page 1700 of 9661 Page 1701 of 9661 Page 1702 of 9661 Page 1703 of 9661 Page 1704 of 9661 Page 1705 of 9661 Page 1706 of 9661 Page 1707 of 9661 Page 1708 of 9661 Page 1709 of 9661 Page 1710 of 9661 Page 1711 of 9661 Page 1712 of 9661 Page 1713 of 9661 Page 1714 of 9661 Page 1715 of 9661 Page 1716 of 9661 Page 1717 of 9661 Page 1718 of 9661 Page 1719 of 9661 Page 1720 of 9661 Page 1721 of 9661 Page 1722 of 9661 Page 1723 of 9661 Page 1724 of 9661 Growth Management Community Development Department Zoning Division C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: Nancy Gundlach, PLA, AICP, CSM, Planner III, Zoning Services Section From: Austin Grubb, Planner III, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: August 14, 2025 Subject: Growth Management Plan Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20240012218 PETITION NAME: Miceli Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) REQUEST: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider Amending Ordinance Number 92-62, the Miceli Planned Unit Development to allow conversion of commercial property to residential and construct a total of 63 residential units on ± 8.63 acres. LOCATION: The subject site is 2 parcels being ± 5.8 acres and ± 2.83 acres located at 11140 and 11150 Tamiami Trail East. The site is located within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and the Coastal High Hazard Zone. HISTORY: The property is currently zoned PUD with the front acres designated commercial and the rear ± 5.8 acres approved for 17 residential units. The total acreage is ± 8.63 acres. CONSISTENCY WITH FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: Policy 5.11: Former Policy 3.1.k. of the Future Land Use Element provided for the establishment of a Zoning Reevaluation Program to evaluate properties whose zoning did not conform with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the Future Land Use Element. This Program was implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. Where such properties were determined, through implementation of that Ordinance, to be “improved property”, as defined in that Ordinance, the zoning on said properties shal l be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and those properties have been identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. Finding: The ± 2.83 acre parcel is vacant was developed prior to Ordinance 90-23; however, it is vacant now because the structures have been removed. The property is in conformance with Policy 5.11 Policy 5.4 requires that all applications must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policies 5.5 and 5.7 discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl by utilizing urban areas for development before re-designating new property for urban intensity. Page 1725 of 9661 Miceli Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Consistency Review Memo 8-15-2025 2 Finding: The proposed development is an infill project and has infrastructure available at the site and does not represent urban sprawl. Policy 5.6 requires that new projects will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The proposed PUDA has a conceptual PUD master plan that identifies the location of the proposed development area, detention pond and ingress egress. Finding: The project will be compatible because of the significant buffers from adjacent properties which include detention ponds and the drainage canal. There is a single family neighborhood on the south. A 15’ buffer will be provided between this multi-family development and the single family on Raintree Lane. North – Detention Pond and Duplexes South - Detention Pond East – C-4, Gas Station West - Drainage Canal, Detention Pond Objective 7, and implementing Policies 7.1-7.7, promote smart growth policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adhere to the development character of the County. Finding: As an infill development, it will minimize the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Density: The proposed residential density is gained through the conversion of Commercial Density Bonus. The ± 2.83 acre parcel would be allowed 46 units (2.83 x 16 = 45.6). There are 17 residential units already approved on the 5.8 acre parcel. The total density of 62.5 (63) units may be dispersed throughout. The applicant is asking for the residential density based upon the Density Bonus System contained in the FLUE as follows: 2. Density Bonuses Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. a. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus: If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent By Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. These bonus dwelling units may be distributed over the entire project. The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. Finding: The proposed residential density is consistent with the Density Bonus policies of the FLUE. CONCLUSION: Based upon staff’s analysis, the proposed land use and density and the proposed development master plan is consistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, due to consistency by policy and compliance with Policies 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7, 5.6, 7.1-7.7 and the Density Rating System Section B.2.c. PETITION ON CITYVIEW Page 1726 of 9661 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Memorandum Date: July 24, 2025 To: Nancy Gundlach, Collier County Planning & Zoning Division From: Jessica Harrelson, AICP RE: Miceli PUDA-PL20240012218 NIM Summary A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on June 11, 2025, beginning at 5:30 pm. The meeting was held at the Botanical Garden, located at 4820 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. The following individuals, associated with the project, were in attendance: •Jessica Harrelson, AICP •David Hurst, PE •Brett Rosenblum, PE •Norman Trebilcock, PE, AICP •Rich Yovanovich, Esq •Andrew Saluan •Ray Bellows •Jeremy Sterk (via Zoom) There were approximately ±20 individuals from the public in attendance. Jessica Harrelson began the meeting at 5:30 pm and made PowerPoint presentation, reviewing the details of the meeting. See attached meeting transcripts. Page 1727 of 9661 PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Alright. Hello! Good evening! Go ahead and get the meeting started. Most of you got here before the rain, so thank you for coming out in this weather. I'm Jessica Harrelson. I'm a certified planner with Peninsula Engineering, and I'm here to review the details of the amendment request to the Miceli Planed Unit Development, also called the Miceli PUD. This meeting is required as part of the process, and it's being recorded. I provide an audio and transcripts and the sign‐in sheets back to the county. I have a short presentation that will review the details, and then we'll take questions at the end. Here with me this evening are Rich Yovanovich. He's our land use attorney. We have David Hurst and Brent Rosenblum. They're both licensed engineers with Peninsula Engineering. Norm Trebilcock. He's our traffic consultant. Jeremy Sterk. He's our environmentalist. He is participating on Zoom this evening. And then we also have Ray Bellows back in the corner there. He's with the county, and he's here to just listen in and take notes this evening. So the subject property is located on the south side of us. 41. Approximately 200 feet north of Raintree Lane, and it's 8.6 3 acres in size. The site is currently undeveloped, but was previously used as a commercial landscape nursery. For many, many years. The property was originally rezoned to the Miceli PUD in 1984. And the zoning currently permits 17 residential dwelling units with 2 habitable floors over parking. So, essentially up to 3 stories for residential development. It also permits commercial uses on 2.8 acres, fronting us 41. With a maximum zoned building height of 50 feet. This PUD amendment is seeking to eliminate the commercial uses, and to increase residential density to a maximum of 63 units. Which is consistent with the county's Growth Management plan. For surrounding zoning. Sorry. We have these pink, shaded areas are zoned commercial. They allow for a maximum zone type of 75 feet. We have the Wentworth estates, also known as Treviso Bay, to the north and to the west. This portion of Treviso Bay allows a maximum zoned building height of 45 feet. And directly to the South. We have single‐family, residential. With the maximum Zone Building height of 35 feet. This is a depiction of the Pd master Plan, or we call it a bubble plan. It shows the development areas, conceptual water management. We have a direct access connection to US 41. Building setbacks are 50 feet from us, 41, 10 feet from the Northern Property Line, Uh 40 feet, where this 30‐foot easement encumbers the property, and a 25‐foot building setback from the Southern property line. The requested maximum Zone Building height is 35 feet, which is consistent with surrounding zoning. We will be required to install perimeter landscape buffers. We have a 15 foot type D required along us 41, with trees planted every 30 feet. Along the north is a 10‐foot Type A, a buffer again, with trees planted every 30 feet. And also along the rear side, 10‐foot Type A Page 1728 of 9661 To the south is a 15‐foot Type B Buffer, adjacent to that single‐family, residential. That buffer is required to be 80% opaque and 6 feet in height within a year of planting. It will include a wall, fence, hedge, berm, or combination thereof. And trees will be planted every 25 feet. Just to go over 2 of the developer commitments. The project will utilize dark skies, compliant lighting, which that means, like fixtures will be shielded, and it will prevent light pollution from the site. Traffic trips will be limited to 48, 2 way Pm. Peak hour trips And what is proposed with this PUD amendment generates less traffic than what is currently permitted by the PUD today. As you can see here that more than double. For next steps. So the application is currently in the review process with county staff. Once it's deemed sufficient, it will move on to the hearing process. It will go to the planning commission for a recommendation first, and then we'll move on to the Board of County Commissioners for a final action. If you received a letter from me about this meeting tonight you'll get a letter from the county with the hearing information, the date, time, location, and I'll also post a sign on the property with that information. And that concludes my presentation. So I will take questions. But if you do have a question I'm going to ask that you come up front and use the microphone and state your name for the record again. I have to send the audio and transcripts into the county for the record for the records. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I just shout? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: No, I gotta get you on record. Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER So I'm Susan Pokeney, and we've lived on Rain Tree for 30‐plus years. And I, My question to you is, you said, you said, our neighborhood, our neighborhood Um has a 30 foot height restriction. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: 35. AUDIENCE MEMBER: 35, so is the new neighborhood that also the same restriction. Are you trying to get more height? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Just for everyone. There's another microphone over here that you can use. I'm sorry. Um. Just we don't have to go back and forth. But uh yeah. So you're if you're on Rain Tree. Your maximum zone building height is Page 1729 of 9661 35 feet per the land development code. We're requesting the same 35 feet. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So would that be single story or maybe two stories? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Within 35 feet actually, you could get 3 stories, but likely it would be a 2‐story product. But you could potentially get 3 stories, in 35 feet. Can you use this microphone? Thank you. INAUDIBLE FEEDBACK FROM THE CROWD AUDIENCE MEMBER.: Um. So, are you planning on 3 stories? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: We're at this time just requesting 35 feet. There's not a um, a product type solidified yet. AUDIENCE MEMBER.: So when does that get decided? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: When the developer decides we haven't gone through engineering design and permitting at this point, we're just in the very beginning planning stages of this project. And again right now, today, the site allows residential 2 stories over parking, which is 3 stories and commercial up to 50 feet. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. So the front doesn't matter, because it will be the entryway in the in the water. That becomes the entryway in the water, so there won't be a building. It's really the back behind our neighborhood that it's where the building will be right? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT: Right per our conceptual site plan most of the development will occur in the rear of the property. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Page 1730 of 9661 And I'm just getting this question out of my way along the our back lot of Raintree Lane And there's what 7, 8, 10‐5 houses I don't know. 9 um, there has always been um. It's a big swale. It's bigger than the one on Raintree Lane, and it drains off the back of all of our lots from the Raintree side. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Are you referring to the county's drainage canal? AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, it's not find it on the map. But it's been there for over 30 years. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Okay, so it's the rear of your properties? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. And, and so my concern is, so you build a wall, or you put up some trees. What happens to my drainage ditch? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Okay, I you know what, David, can you come up and help with stormwater management? Thank you. I'm gonna get the engineer up here. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Thank you. Hi, David Hurst with Peninsula Engineering. So if the swale is on your property, it certainly would not be impacted if its on this property. The intent and prior permit that was issued for the property Um assume that we would put a swale on the southern edge to accommodate your flow and convey, continue to convey it where it goes today. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So you are assuming that? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: No, no, that was the original. That's the last permitted plan shows that. And and we certainly wouldn't propose something counter to that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So you are not going to fill in the ditch? Page 1731 of 9661 PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Certainly not it its on your property. AUDIENCE MEMBER: No its not on my property. It would be directly behind my property. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: So if it's on this site then what we would do is maintain that conveyance in some fashion, whether it's a ditch or a series of inlets and pipe. But we would not berm you off. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sure. AUDIENCE MEMBER: And my question pretty much leads off of that. I'm just gonna be a little more specific with it. So our area is extremely vulnerable to coastal flooding, being in the coastal high hazard area. And has flooded several times within the last 3 years alone. I'm sorry just to introduce myself. I'm Kendall. I am the resident of 5203 Raintree Lane. I've been there about 2 years now. So this has escalated significantly with the recent development directly to the east of Raintree, and will continue to get worse with the new development directly to the west of Raintree In section 3 point 0 page 37 of the ENCDP special consideration should be taken while developing areas including in the CHHA as additional increases in density, can accelerate flooding hazards to the adjacent areas, which in this case is rural acres. And more specifically the residences of Raintree Lane. So what? What really is being done to mitigate this. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Um so typical engineering water management design would include a stormwater management lake. It would include perimeter berms that are modeled at specific elevations as mandated by State statute. And and we would. Um not be able to discharge off site. So we control our own flow. We discharge it at the rate that the at this point the county ordinance requires, and. We maintain our water on site via stormwater, collection, system, lake, etc. Um, to attenuate that water and prevent flooding. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Page 1732 of 9661 So are you just planning on? I don't know if you can see that on the back here, because there's a lake behind Treviso Bay that's somewhat less that are you planning on adding more in addition to that. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Uh, consistent with the existing erp, which is an environmental resource permit for the site. There's an acreage of lake that was previously permitted. Um. I can't tell you t'd be exactly the same, but some additional lake and it would be separate from the Treviso Bay system so completely bermed off. It's an isolated system. It basically. We take, I say we. When when we look at a site from an engineering perspective. We would isolate that site from the surrounding area. If there are on site, off site flows that are coming through, than we accommodate that. Via either swale or piping but we don't discharge our water off site except into an approved conveyance, so that would be. You know, either an existing swale that's been designed or evaluated for that capacity or an existing municipal system. Whether it's a canal or road drainage system. AUDIENCE MEMBER: That would be where you're going to discharge. The only place you're going to discharge is the canal that was done in the LASIP period improvements, which that's kind of the whole thing we're getting at. We're in a very vulnerable area. LASIP just went through and made all these improvements for the existing homes. Oh, and now we're gonna build up more in an area. And you know, critical right now, the 16 units 17 units. That's that's reasonable because that's about. You know you're you're working on 2 maybe 3 units per acre there with what you're gonna have left to develop. With 63 units. That's that 3 story building. That's the only way you're going to fit that on that piece of property you got left to develop 5 acres. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT. And we would design the site from a water management perspective so that there would be no net increase in discharge from what's currently allowed in land development code and ordinance. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Into the LASIP canal? That flows down to the big lake that flows out and floods our area. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: I'll tell you that the LASIP canal system was designed to accommodate future development at the discharge raters that the county ordinance states. So this, if this site, which it is, would be consistent with that, then it's consistent with the LASIP design. Page 1733 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER So, if it's not? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well it would be. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Within the design. The design currently doesn't allow our name these 3 streets to drain. They, we flood every year. You know we get. We get the all the way over the road right? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So again, I just need you to use the microphone. I'm sorry I'm not. I have to get all of this on record for the county. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So when when the next meeting is, are these plans gonna be available? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: We're not at the point in engineering design to be able to show you specifics. But what I can tell you is, there's an existing environmental resource permit that for this site through South Florida water management district that describes discharge, location and how we would accommodate the southern boundary and and offsite discharge, which is what we're talking about. Rear left drainage. If there's flooding within the rest of the neighborhood, unfortunately, that's not tied to this site, and so we can only deal with what's in our you know, with within our site boundary AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think, what we've seen with some of the new um commercial expansion PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Can you come? Use the microphone? Sorry. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think, where my husband is going with a lot of the water that we get you know it goes into that field. A lot of that runoff goes to where you're building. That's our main concern. I just don't see where exactly what you're gonna do to really prevent more flooding Page 1734 of 9661 from happening. It's not a lot of room. AUDIENCE MEMEBER: But not only that, but the additional commercial expansion both to the east and the west of rain tree and maple. Specifically that was told to not increase. Flooding has significantly increased flooding for the last year and a half. So we understand that. Like. Whatever permitting might be done to to deal with drainage is acceptable now, or when that standard was made, I think 2018. But it should be reevaluated because we're continuing to flood more and more every year while we see the additional expansion along 41. And in the the subject property director behind Raintree. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Every time a site. So this would be a redesign. Right, and every time a site is designed, all of that criteria should be taken into account, and would be. And so to I, I think, to answer the question that I keep hearing is. Uh. Whether or not the flows from the properties on on Raintree going north would be addressed. The answer is, yes, they would be on this property. AUDIENCE MEMBER: But what happens if we still flood even after the county says, Yeah, it looks like this. Drainage is fine. We sue the county, or did we sue the engineering company for not property creating the drainage because that could be millions of dollars in damage for all of those properties right there. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well, I would say, if you're flooding today, and we improve the situation. I'm not sure how that would AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you improve the situation. Yeah, that would be great, I guess I'd like to see what kind of plans in place. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well, here's what I would. I would tell you that just from. You know, kind of common sense view of this. If you're looking at the site and the site gets rainfall on it. It has a certain volume that it holds right. And then we're taking into account offsite drainage. And so, right now, your properties are using that site for storage. That's part of the calculation that we do. To make sure that we accommodate that. That's part of the water management system design. That help? Page 1735 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Alright. Next question we have is affordable. Housing doesn't necessarily match the surrounding zoning. So in order to be able to to gain the bonus based on at least the East Naples Development Plan in Collier County Zoning that I have been able to tell is the only way you can add that bonus to the 2.8 acre lot that's upfront and then distribute it throughout the rest of the project area. Is that correct? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: No. So this project is not proposing any affordable housing. It's market rate units. And the bonus density up to 16 units an acre is through the conversion of commercial to residential. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So the next question specifically, since you touched on the conversion from commercial to residential right now, East Naples has a very. Oh, what is the word I'm looking for. They don't have a lot of commercial locations. In the East Naples Development Plan, it specifically goes over the fact that te conversion should be going the other way, residential to commercial, in order to be able to bring the 11% up to approximately 50% in the next 4 to 8 years. So why does it make sense to convert an already zoned commercial land space to residential.That area specifically is in need of commercial zoning. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So I believe you're referring to the Us. 41 East overlay, which was implemented in the county's growth management plan, and we are consistent with that plan. AUDIENCE MEMBER: How are you consistent with that if you are rezoning something that there isn't a shortage of? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Well, the county's growth management plan allows for the conversion of commercial for properties that were deemed consistent by policy. So when the county's Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, the county went through a zoning reevaluation program which. Just looked at properties, unimproved properties that for consistency with the growth management plan. And because this property was improved with commercial, it was deemed consistent by policy. And so that's why this property is eligible for that conversion to commercial density bonus. Page 1736 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, I understand that. It's eligible for rezoning but it is not in the best interest of Collier County based on the the East Naples Development Plan. INAUDIBLE FEEDBACK PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: It's in the Corridor Segment and its allows for residential, commercial, and economic development uses. So all 3, all 3 are allowed. AUDIENCE MEMBER: The next question is on the the traffic assessment. So, looking at the the engineering plan, I'm sure this is very preliminary right now. It looked like the traffic assessment only included enough, for I think 62 uses a day for people either entering or exiting. How does that make sense? If there's 63 units. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So we do have 63 units evaluated the traffic impact statement. Norm. I don't know if you want to come up and Talk briefly about your study. TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Sure. Hi! My name is Norman Trebilcock, and we prepared the traffic impact statement for the project. And so the what, what we use is the IT Institute of Transportation Engineers, land use codes. For the uses. And so this, this is what we use in this case. So it's 63 dwelling units. And so then, based on that, your Pm. Peak hour is 48 pm peak hour trips. um And then your Am. Is is 42, and then your daily is 479 uh daily trips, and that's a 2 way trips that you have And so that's um, really just a a preliminary evaluation. We do. We kind of compare that to what the zoning permitted, and that's where we compare and show that we're a pretty significant reduction based on what the PUD allows. And then, when we go to develop, we would do another traffic study based on um evaluating the actual trip impacts based on what's out on the roadway there, too, to kind of has. Just look at that as well. So. Okay, yes, sir. Mhm. AUDIENCE MEMBER: The last question that I have, and this is specifically been visible from our Page 1737 of 9661 property, where at 5203, link sort of right on that end corner right there. When we looked at the I think it was the Earth tech environmental study said that there was no native vegetation land, and that the only life on the entire property brown noles, red‐headed woodpecker Yeah, and vulture. And from our property, we can see at least a dozen bald cypress trees that have been there for probably 60 to 100 years, and you can see it on the original aerial view from the sixties. The fifties or the sixties, which I didn't know there were satellites to take pictures back then. But how do you plan on on dealing with that moving that without just tearing it down. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Um. So let me see if I can get Jeremy. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT: Jeremy Sterk: Can you hear me? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Hey, Jeremy, can you unmute yourself? We're getting questions about the vegetation. Jeremy Sterk: Yeah. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: One second. Jeremy Sterk: Hold on one sec. Apologize. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: I can't hear you. If you wanna maybe chat in. Jeremy Sterk: Yeah. Can you hear me? Jeremy Sterk: I'm not sure why it's not. Jeremy Sterk: Jess, can you hear me? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: I see him on. Page 1738 of 9661 Jeremy Sterk: Can you hear me, Jessica? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Jeremy, if you can hear me, can you call Norm on his cell phone? Jeremy Sterk: Yeah. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Sorry. Just give us a second. We're having technical. So there are the other questions. While we're waiting on that one. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sure, yeah, so specifically on our product. Sorry about that specifically on our property. 5203 Rain Tree Lane. There's a drainage ditch directly behind our house that actually connects directly to a culvert that connects to the Treviso Bay back canal. Part of that property, I believe, is on the subject. Property in the 5.6, or whatever the larger property is. Um! How is that gonna be handled? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well, I I'm sorry um again I'm I'm not aware of a specific pipe, but if there is an offsite flow that is passing through the property that has to be accommodated. So we we're. We would not be able legally nor from an ethical standpoint to shut that off to close that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you have your environmental survey handy by chance? It clearly shows on there kind of how the water flows from. What is called our man made lake hroup there. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: No, but I can share the aerial. INAUDIBLE MULITPLE INDIVIDUALS TALKING WHILE LOOKING OVER AN AERIAL MAP PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Okay, so. Again, not specifically familiar with the network and the piping. If if the if the there's a drainage ditch crossing the connector across the property, and we need to be respected. Page 1739 of 9661 So obviously, we have to do the calculations. So it would definitely be respected and we would not impede flow or cut off flow. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Looking at it, I think it would really cut into what you're building, where it's located. I mean, it's oops sorry. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well, there is the potential that, if that is true, then we would reroute it. But if we rerouted we would have to prove that we're not impeding or impacting the capacity of the existing system. The only thing we can do is keep it the same, and make it better. We can't make it worse. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Okay, we have our environmentalist on speaker phone on a cell. I'm sorry for the technical difficulties. But if you could repeat your question. Into the mic, so that he can hear you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sure. So on the the southwest side of the the property visible from our property at 5203 Rain Tree. We can see at least half a dozen to a dozen, protected bald cypress trees that have been there for probably 60 to to a hundred years that were not included on the earth tech survey that said that all native vegetation was completely cleared from the site, also only included brown noles, Woodpeckers and vultures as the only living organisms or the living living animals that were that were seen in the environmental study. How would that be dealt with. Because from my understanding, those cypress trees, if they're moved, they need to be moved, and then replanted somewhere else very carefully. Um. Yeah, that's that's the question. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Did you get that, Jeremy? So he's asking, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT: yeah, yeah, sorry about the technical difficulties. Um. Yeah, so what you're really referring to is native vegetation, and how the county classifies native vegetation. So that doesn't necessarily mean that there's you know no native trees like bald cypress on the property. The County's definitions of native vegetation deals with like percent cover. And this site happens to have a lot of exotics particularly Brazilian pepper, interleaf vacation and stuff. So From the county's Page 1740 of 9661 perspective There is no native vegetation. That needs to be calculated and factored into their preserve criteria. Um. You know. Depending on the Development Plan and and the buffers. I mean, every attempt will be made to preserve trees where we can, but a lot of it depends on the elevations of the site needs to be brought up to. But what you're really referring to is native vegetation, and how it's calculated. As far as the species survey. I mean, we have what we're really looking for listed species. So we don't. We don't log every single thing that's sitting on the site in terms of Bugs and bunnies. It's. You know, we're looking for federally and state listed species. Um, you know, and‐ and this being a small info parcel, the likelihood of that is very small doesn't mean that, you know. You don't periodically see You know, a listed waiting bird, or‐ or bald eagle lands on property, or something like that. But. What we're tasked to do is‐ is analyze. The habitat look at the data. And then you know, um. Kind of catalog what we do see when we're out there in terms of listed species. And in this case we we didn't document any. But anytime we're in the field on that site. If we see something we would certainly document it. And you know we have to coordinate with the State and Federal wildlife agencies To ensure and and convince them that we're not Not only harming listed species habitat, but, you know a potential take or something like that. AUDIENCE MEMBER Okay. So it sounds like that. If the density of potentially like protected vegetation isn't high enough, then it's okay to knock it down. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT: Yes, I mean the in‐ in Clear County. If‐ if you're taking like as a homeowner, for instance, if you're taking down a tree, a native tree. Yes, you need a tree removal permit. When this property is permitted for development, like a Site Development plan, part of that permit for the Site Development Plan will include a current plan that does essentially take the place of that native clearing. Native tree clearing permit that you would get, say, as an individual homeowner. You know they will. They will likely preserve any native trees they can in their perimeter buffer stuff like that, and then there will certainly be a requirement for at least a certain percentage of the the landscaping that's put back to be native. You know, so it may not necessarily be of equivalent size immediately, but there will be a requirement of some native landscaping on the back end. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, thank you. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Page 1741 of 9661 I'm just gonna keep you on, Jeremy for a minute. Any other questions. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Actually, I've got one more. I think you touched on a little bit, which is the the buffer zone. 00:40:57.000 ‐‐> 00:41:02.000 PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So with the the current. I think it's 15 buffer zone. That's. That's basic. That's in the engineering plan. Is, does that mean that the rest of the property is going to get Clear cut. And then we're gonna put up 6 foot hedges that are eventually gonna grow, or, you know, trying to keep the the natural vegetation that's currently in the buffer zone. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Um, so that will be determined when. Oh, that's okay. That'll be determined when the Site Development Plan is done. But we are required to have a 15 foot buffer to the south. And it's required to be 80% opaque and 6 foot in height at time. Within a year of time of planting. Yeah, those specific plans. The plant material will be determined at time of site Development Plan. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So it could still be either the natural vegetation or newly planted. Right? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Yes, that's correct as well. It's not exotic. Yeah, not exotic. Right? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Alright. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just before our next meeting are we gonna be provided? Plans of what is planning to be put on that property as it stands right now. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So no, we're not required to do that at the zoning stage, because, again, we are not sure if we're doing townhomes, if we're doing multifamily. That will be determined at a later date. So we're just again in the very beginning stages, trying to get the zoning in place. Page 1742 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And you don't know if that's gonna be 6 months or 2 years. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Right? I'm not sure at this time. AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's it. Thank you. All right. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: You're welcome. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Hello. I'm Troy Wilson and I live at the end of Maple Lane. and um could you put the overlay back up, please. So I just wanted to sort of rephrase the question Um about the um wetlands designation that's on the corner of your property on the southwest corner. Right now you can see where the where the canal does a 90 degree turn right there, and there's a culvert under the corner that goes onto your property onto your property, a canal a ditch a wide ditch. Well, it's got a wetland designation, because these people could only use half of their property when they built the house at the end of Rain Tree Lane. And then. Now they're clearing this property right now putting 13 houses, and they have one designation on the corner of their property: Or they would have 14 houses on that property. So my question to you is. That's not gonna change right? That that canal is going to remain behind between your property behind these houses. You're not gonna change the Wetlands designation when you put your retention pond in the front right. It was good for these people. You know, make up to it on their property. That's gonna remain the same for your property. Correct. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So wetlands can be impacted. They need to be mitigated for. Are there any other questions? Sure come on up. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, let me get this straight. Is this, PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Can you please use the microphone? Thank you, sir. Page 1743 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Oh, hello! My name is Jam Goodell. I'm on the property at 5211 Rain Tree Lane owned it for about 12 years. So this project is not affordable housing. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEP That is correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is it workforce housing? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: No, it's going to be market rate. AUDIENCE MEMBER: If it's not workforce, how. Why does it in the Miceli PUD why does it refer to as workforce housing project PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: When the property was originally rezoned in the early eighties. It did propose 60 affordable housing units. The PUD was amended later in the early nineties to eliminate the affordable housing component of the PUD And that's when the residential density was reduced to 17. homes. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Why did they change it from 60 go back down to 17 PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: From my research. It was because the developer didn't want to do affordable housing on the site any longer. But that was before my time, so I'm not sure. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Had something to do with us, being changed at that time to the coastal. The urban coastal fringe zone and high hazard. That's probably why they reduced the housing. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Page 1744 of 9661 Right, but there the county does have. The county does have an affordable housing density. Bonus. So you could increase the density by providing affordable housing. At the time the original PUD was completed. AUDIENCE MEMBER I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't it true that by using this conversion of the commercial property. Aren't they entitled to more units than they would be if they applied under affordable housing under the bonus system. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: I believe the property is eligible. The commercially zoned portion is eligible under the live Local Act. So you could get quite a bit of density on that commercially zoned parcel by right under the live local Act. With a much higher um height as well. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I mean isn't the. And when you move the lakes. Up to the front there, and put some nice landscaping up with it. The only thing it says is is building, or there is no map showing us how the buildings are laid up to let us know how it affects our property. Right? That's because again, we're in the very beginning stages of planning. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: We're just trying to get the zoning in place, and then the engineering design and permitting will come at a later date. And that's when that foot those footprints, will be finalized. AUDIENCE MEMBER: What's the shortest period of a time that this can be approved. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: We're probably looking at going to hearings in early fall. For final approval. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could it be possible the shortest period of time could be 2 weeks? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: No, we have to go through the entire hearing process, and I still need to have the application deemed sufficient by county staff. Page 1745 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER: So this is just the beginning. Not gonna be any 2 week or anything. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: No, sir. AUDIENCE MEMBER Bonus points. It is discretionary, I mean, they don't automatically get them. It's up to you there at the County to decide PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: The request is consistent with the county's Growth Management plan. So we have to amend the Pud to be consistent with that. AUDIENCE: So it could be less than 63. At your discretion doesn't have to be 63. It could be less, but. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: If that if the developer wanted to request less or build less, he could. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So its up to the developer to decide what how much? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Right again, when engineering design and permitting takes place is when all of that will be finalized. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, another question, probably the last question I have. Has there ever been aproject like this a multifamily project. Please. Anywhere in this high hazard zone, and the urban coastal friend Zone. This close to single family neighborhood, with only 15 foot buffet. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: We? We would have to do some research. I think county staff would have to get involved in Come up with that answer for you. Page 1746 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMEBER: Has there been ever anyone in Collier county anywhere I don't know what the density is overall in the whole county. Has there ever been one place. This close to a single family An old single family, residence. With only a 15 foot buffer zone. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Well, David just brought up a good point. But Treviso Bay, I'm not sure what the overall density is within that PUD, but there is multifamily just north of us in Treviso Bay and they have a 15 foot buffer. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good, that's all I've got. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Hello! Ryan Young and live at 5240 Raintree Lane, this street. just a couple of quick questions mostly related to the drainage. I've seen several projects go through in the past but 1 1 thing I want to know is, and we'll talk about the amount of water on the site, and what the site can hold and you can't put water on other sites. I mean, that's standard. Are we taking to into account permeable services and percolation rates like, based on soil, type, and all that stuff. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Absolutely. So that's all part of the uh governing process through the management district. We evaluate soils, we evaluate existing water, table elevation. Wet season water table, which we establish as a control. And then we include your. Then we evaluate the system, using models to at certain rain events and certain. So Hunt, I'm sure you've heard the term 100 Year foot event. We use a hundred a hundred year flood event to determine finished floor elevation. We use a 25 year flood event to establish minimum road elevations and minimum berm elevations. And that's the standard across the South Florida water management district area. So. Um, all of those things that you mentioned are part of that evaluation. Yeah. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. But for a flood event are you taking about like rainfall, amount or rate of rainfall? Page 1747 of 9661 PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: It's both well, it's a curve. And they're established curves that are so. The 100 day rainfall event that we designed for. Um. We'll be assuming a hundred year.3 days storm with 0 discharge off site. So just imagine you have a wall going like 300 feet around your site. All the way around it. Um! And then you dump 12 inches on it in 3 days. You have to design your system for that. For minimum, you know, for finish floor. For the 25 year for your minimum, berms. That's your containment, which is Standard throughout. Um, that's similar concept. Um, except you're assuming some allowable discharge right rate, which is consistent with the county's ordinance, and they have. The the county ordinance has adopted districts or zones, their drainage discharge rate. That's. You know it varies from place to place, but. Um. I probably I can't remember when it was done, Brett. I don't. You may, you may know. But the original ordinance was done back in like 1990, but most recently was 2017, I believe. Okay. So Brett said 1990 originally 2017 and most recently, and that established Um discharge rates for the various Communities and and base drainage basins within Collier county. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay? Um, yeah. A couple of things we've seen over the years when they build the home at the end of Raintree Lane. Uh! How this got approved I have no idea. The water needs to run down storm swales, and then Actually through that last lot on the. I guess the west side of Rain tree through a wetland area until they approved the building somehow and literally closed off the entire swale with no outflow whatsoever. And and that kind of oversight flooded our entire neighborhood terribly. For for years we were hounding the County for a long, long time to come and make the swale go into the actual drainage. So how? How could something like that be approved, taken into account. What we're talking about now, and all the things that are in place. Like, how can we know that there's not going to be any oversight whatsoever? Not a drop of water from that lot's going to come into our neighborhood like when they're closing off swales that are the only drainage for the street. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: So what you're referring to is. That would be single, family residential. And so that's not regulated by South Florida water management district, and up until relatively recently, it was kind of Um willy‐nilly, how that got addressed.The county does have in the Land development code. A lot drainage plan requirement as does the city of Naples. These Naples. These are relatively new. Page 1748 of 9661 Um. And so what you're describing today. A home builder would need to provide a plan to the county, showing that they weren't doing that. Um. But many years ago that was not the case. What we do on a master plan community, you know, subdivision. Uh Site Development Plan level. As we're evaluating all of those things. So we have an engineered system. And a single family residential lot does not. They have a home builder who's going? You want this house? We'll put it right there.So it's a different scenario. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right still need to be approved by the County? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: The building permit. Yeah we talking about historically. Today, if you submitted a permit for that same house, it would. I would expect it would require a lot drainage plan where they would look at that to make sure that that wasn't happening. AUDIENCE MEMBER: 2015‐2016. Would that fall under today? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: I I don't know. I don't remember the exact timeframe. Yeah, it's possible it it. I don't remember exactly, and I wouldn't wanna lie. AUDIENCE MEMBER: And then the other project that recently got completed was the expansion of the commercial unit at the front, and I I don't know if commercial, and and this type of high density residential, falls under a similar umbrella with drainage, but I imagine they have to go through the same things with the water management district and whatnot. And you know they took a lot that was completely open, just, you know, able to percolate and retain, and, you know, catch water and turned it into nearly a hundred percent permeable surface. And they put some drainage things in place. 2 sewer grates, which by mid rainy season are topped up like they're at the top. Like there's nowhere else for water to go. I I don't know where that's connected to, but I'm fairly certain it just dumps out into a vacant lot right next to it. But uh come mid rainy season the water slides directly off that lot, and right down the street and over the road. So I'm I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Like we've seen flooding get way worse since. Just that one lot, and Uh, I don't know if they were held to the standard of accounting for the infrastructure that exists downstream. Being that our neighborhood. You know that this little development was from the fifties something like that. There's a lot of culverts throughout the neighborhood Page 1749 of 9661 that are like 8 inches and half the collapsed. And, you know, accounting for the infrastructure, I think, would be an important part of the permitting process for hydrology and things of that sort, so Uh that one clearly isn't working out like it's supposed to work because the streets, flood more. And they could easily say, We're retaining all our water in big concrete culverts that have no opportunity to percolate or evaporate, or anything. And obviously a lake different, but that can't necessarily hold all the water. And it's not going to guarantee that every drop of rain is gonna go into that lake. But. I mean, can we guarantee? Can you guarantee that through engineering PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: I can guarantee you from the berm Uh inward. Then it will go to the lake and then discharge through the approved control structure to the legal outfall AUDIENCE MEMBER: and and the approved control structure, according to what I've heard, at least, there's a there's a mechanical weir of some sort down downstream. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: That's part of the LASIP system. What I'm referring to would be the Onsite Water Management System. That would when designing control structures for the site you're taking all that, all the information I just mentioned. Um, you know, flood stages, water control, elevations, all that stuff impervious. And and so you're you're designing your system, and the, to accommodate the storage and the allowable discharge rate. And the control structure is, what does that. Right. And so that's part of the engineering design. It hasn't been done yet. But it doesn't have to be done for me to tell you. Um. That the way it will be designed. Is that it will allow discharge up to a certain point at a controlled rate and it will go to wherever the legal outfall is, which I believe is the LASIP canal. Um, and it will be the tailwater condition, which is what we use to tie into in the model that would be based on the information that we would obtain from the county, or whoever it should be, the county. But let's say it's South Florida water management district. Wherever that information is, for the various stages during storm events, so if we're sizing for a hundred year storm event, we would try and find a hundred year storm event and get that data from the county, or the water management district, and use that as our tail water condition and back up so we are using that. And then again, isolate our system from your system, so we're not contributing to the problem while maintaining your flow. That's that's the overarching design. Page 1750 of 9661 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And but it ends up in the and when you say LASIP System. That's that canal area, stormwater improvement projects. That's the one with the weird at the end? It hasn't worked in years. We asked for that information on the last development nobody ever supplied in. Um. So I'm wondering, are, are, is anybody taking steps to ensure that the downstream is gonna actually flow? And it's not gonna backflow. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: That is a County maintained canal and so if there's a problem with the maintenance of the canal, just call county road and stormwater management. No, they're they're pretty good. They're actually pretty good. I think I'm I can't speak to this specific situation, but they're they're pretty good about maintaining canals. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, we're calling for 5 years to get our swales in our neighborhood 2 inches below the culverts and It's on the list. Yeah. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well, that's that's different than the a master water management systems control structure. AUDIENCE MEMBER: And I had one more I think. Traffic light there. Oh, yeah. What about that? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Well, Norm is coming up, John. I just wanted to note that while I was standing here I looked at the existing plan unit development, the existing zoning. Which you know, allows multi‐family and commercial and a type B. Buffer would be required. So I think that's the answer that you were looking for. Sure. So I looked at the existing zoning which allows multifamily and commercial development a type B buffer, 15 foot type B buffer would be required from that site. So I think that's the answer that you were you were looking for. TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: Okay, um. So for our project, we really just have a driveway connection. Then we'd get that permitted through the FDOT. There wouldn't be a signalization or anything like this for this project. It's too small? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Page 1751 of 9661 There would be a turn Lane, though? TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: Um, they would look at the warrants, for whether it's needed or not, based on the the volume of traffic that we have, that's something that we determine during the actual design phase. AUDIENCE MEMBER: For adding, turn lanes to adjacent communities or properties is probably not something that you'll want to consider, but maybe should be would it be considered just? I know, already, turning out of the neighborhood can be pretty difficult. The Treviso Bay light has helped slightly, because it delays the traffic from coming down. But this community is full of business owners, many of which drive trucks, trailers, all kinds of stuff. You got no turn lanes coming in and out of our neighborhood, which makes it a little sketchy. Um. So it's hard to get out sometimes uh, and, uh, there's not really a good safe way to go directly across the street, either. Um! And with that added flow of traffic just kind of block us in from getting out uh with trucks, trailers, cars, whatever we got. Uh, I think that might be a safety issue. I don't. I don't know if that's been thought of or considered, but I wanted to raise the concern just because. It's already a little dangerous pulling out of our street and pulling int our street. I don't think anybody would want whoever's gonna live on that lot to be rear ending trucks and trailers all the time that are trying to pull out of our neighborhood. TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: Yeah. So this would again our, we would just have a driveway right in right out. You know, we wouldn't be dealing with, let's say, internally, and improvements that are needed by some community that's really not connected to us per se. You know. Um. But the you know, the department will look at that and evaluate whether or not we need what is called warrants. You know the volume is sufficient to put in the term link or not, but it would be just a right in right out, and then. And and the impacts get evaluated. And that happens um at the time of actual site development, where you get into the call, the brass tacks of looking at the warrants for that, whether it's it's met. But, like you said the the signal does help with the gaps and stuff like that, creating help in some way, as far as that goes, you know. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So I still remember my one other thing. I know that one of the several points that are required to justify a change in zoning would. be that they're, you know, uh, at least somewhat similar to the adjacent communities as to not change the character of the community. Page 1752 of 9661 And uh, that was a that was something that came up repeatedly with the lot that just cleared uh south of our street, which only has 12 homes going in. So 13, okay, 13. Uh, and you know, that's that's not even necessarily congruent with ours, our zoning is RSF 4. There's only one, I think, one property within our greater part of the neighborhood, excluding the south side of Cypress that actually fits that description. The majority of the properties in our neighborhood are more like with RSF 3. And so you know. We're mildly considering changing the zoning of our neighborhood to RSF 3. Which would put this one step further away from a 64 home multifamily development right next door to something that is completely different in character, and has historically been there a very long time. So um. Is, has that been discussed or considered? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Yes, so what we're proposing is compatible with the existing, with the existing zoning, surrounding, zoning and land uses. Again, we're eliminating 2.8 acres of commercial, which is much more intense than what you're going to see on this site when it's developed with just residential. We have multifamily to the north of us, as well. So what the request is is consistent with the neighborhood. AUDIENCE MEMBER: According to the flow, numbers, and all the formulas in the documents. I get that. But uh. Would you say that that is consistent with what we have in our neighborhood? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Yes, and through perimeter landscape buffers and setbacks and building heights. That's how we address compatibility with our neighbors. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, okay, well, I just want to put that out there. So we're written down somewhere. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Noted. Thank you. Are there any additional questions? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So we talked about the the potential cause for drainage from storm water. Is storm surge from hurricanes also being taken into account, because something that we've seen 3 times over the last 3 years. Page 1753 of 9661 Through Milton, Colleen and Ian is that. That canal that sees drainage, floods. And it does flood slightly into our street. But where the majority of that that water actually goes is on the backside of that lot right there, because that canal overflow or overflows. So is the elevation gonna be significantly higher than the point where that water not going to go anywhere other than if our community, and then over on before we want. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: So floodplain compensation is part of the engineering analysis part of the water management district permitting process. So that's typically. Yeah, part of the evaluation. So it's gonna be taken into account. Yeah, I mean, you talk about specifically storm surge. Those are Acts of God in some cases, but. We definitely look at floodplain compensation. If there's an impact to the historic floodplain. Where the the site is holding water. Historically. And that there's there's a technical way of evaluating that. Not just I walked by, and I saw it with water on it, but. Um, that is part of the water management system, evaluation and design, and so. That does need to be addressed. AUDIENCE MEMBER: If that's the case, whatever reservoir or water management system that built on this lot will be sufficient in order to be able to store the water that we would normally see stored on that land during a hurricane event. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: If during the evaluation it is determined that it is uh part of the floodplain. And that isn't what we call a net importer. Bringing in water off site versus off site. Then that would be part of the evaluation and design. AUDIENCE MEMBER: How is it evaluated on whether or not that area is a floodplain? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Topo. Um calculations. Looking at FEMA maps. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, and if it is, that's your that's the question. How are you gonna compensate when, well, 2 thirds of it's going to be developed. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Page 1754 of 9661 Well, then, again, that's that needs to be evaluated. And if that's two‐thirds of it is the floodplain that's a different animal than if it's technically a 10th of an acre. And and what you're describing is observation, because flow has been obstructed. You know, there, there are different ways to evaluate it, you know, and it's based on historically, topo, rainfall, observation, um and FEMA modeling and know, than then our engineering calculations. So just it. It is part of the evaluation. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. Thank you. The other question that I had, too, because it was mentioned that your new survey has a 15‐foot buffer I was wondering if you could pull on that and show me where that is, because I was not able to find it. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT.: Well, I can tell you, because I've worked on many master plan communities. And these coach homes that we're describing are considered multifamily, and they're across the lake from single family, and they both have to They're both required to have a buffer in the current code. A 10 foot and a 15 foot across the lake, within the same community. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: If you look on the screen, this is Treviso Bay. So the property is actually here. So you can barely see it. But there is a drainage easement that exists. Along the property line, and then there's a 15 foot LBE landscape buffer easement is here AUDIENCE MEMBER: And it runs from the drainage right? So you've got the 45 feet approximately anywhere between 60 and 75 feet. A real buffer, so will we be potentially looking at doing something similar on the south side of that property, as well? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: So there is a 30 foot easement that encumbers the property along the north and along the rear. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, yeah, why is that only on the north and on the rear of the property, rather on the rather than on the south The entire property, because it looks like there's that small area on the north and on the south side of the property that is all 15 foot. Page 1755 of 9661 PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ ENGINEERING DEPT. So the LASIP Canal, that the 30 foot is for maintenance. Um! The landscape buffer is outside of that. What we're describing on the south side here is the required 15 foot buffer. This is intended to be representative of the requirement, but it does not accommodate the swale that we were discussing. But and typically Uh in a site development plan like this, like we would do, you would see if we have a perimeter drainage swale, which is accepting your flow, the landscape buffer would be outside of that. So you would see a swale, and then a landscape buffer. T Now, if there was no swale then it would be the landscape buffer going to the property line, which is typical. What you would have seen in Treviso Bay had there not been that buffer, that uh easement. Right? So it is. It is typical. Um. Well, again, I just want to reiterate this 15 foot buffer that you're seeing at the property line is not representative of what would look like if there is a swale that accommodates your flow on site. So there would be a little bit of additional land. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Are there any additional questions? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Okay, I will conclude the meeting. Um, you all have my contact information. If you think of anything after you leave tonight, um feel free to reach out to me. AUDIENCE MEMBER: You're gonna send us a letter right? PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: The county will send a letter with the hearing date information. AUDIENCE MEMBER The site development plan. How do we see that? PENINSULA ENGINEERING So site development plans don't have to go through the public hearing process. That's something that you would need to monitor with County Staff. PENINSULA ENGINEERING‐ PLANNING DEPT.: Alright! Thank you for coming. Page 1756 of 9661 Miceli Planned Unit Development Amendment Petition No: PL20240012218 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING June 11, 2025 Page 1757 of 9661 Project Team Applicant •11140 Tamiami, LLC Consultant Team Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester •Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Peninsula Engineering •Jessica Harrelson, AICP •David Hurst, PE •Brett Rosenblum, PE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions •Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE Earth Tech Environmental •Jeremy Sterk Page 1758 of 9661 Location Map MICELI PUD: 8.63 ACRES Page 1759 of 9661 Project Overview EXISTING ZONING 2.8 acres of commercial uses 17 dwelling units PUD AMENDMENT Remove commercial development Increase residential dwelling units to a maximum of 63 units Agricultural Commercial (C-4) PUD RSF-4 MICELI PUD: 8.63 ACRES Page 1760 of 9661 Conceptual Site Plan & Commitments •50’ front yard setback (From US 41) •10’ side yard setback- (Northern Property Line) •25’ side yard setback- (Southern Property Line) •40’ rear year setback •35’ maximum zoned building height Page 1761 of 9661 PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 10’ Type A Buffer 15’ Type B Buffer 15’ Type D Buffer Page 1762 of 9661 DEVELOPER COMMITTMENTS •Site Lighting – ‘Dark Skies Compliant’ •Trip Generation – 48, 2-way, PM Peak Hour Trips •Traffic Impacts are less intensive than what is currently allowed in the existing PUD Page 1763 of 9661 Next Steps PUDA - In Review with County Staff Application Deemed Sufficient by Staff Public Hearing Process CCPC/BCC Page 1764 of 9661 Questions / Contact Information •JESSICA HARRELSON, AICP – PENINSULA ENGINEERING Phone: 239.403.6751 Email: jharrelson@pen-eng.com •NANCY GUNDLACH, AICP, PLA, CSM– COLLIER COUNTY ZONING DIVISION Phone: 239.252.2484 Email: Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1765 of 9661 Page 1766 of 9661 Page 1767 of 9661 Page 1768 of 9661 Page 1769 of 9661 1NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME611140 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N # 201NAPLES, FL 34103---011140 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRIAL N # 201NAPLES, FL 34103---0343 TUCKER PINES LLC 11222 TAMIAMI LLC 107 PLEASANT PINES AVE CENTERVILLE, MA 02632---0343 TUCKER PINES LLC 11222 TAMIAMI LLC 107 PLEASANT PINES AVE CENTERVILLE, MA 02632---0525 COTTAGE CLUB LLC 52 SUNSET CLIFFBURLINGTON, VT 05408---09487 NAPOLI LANE LAND TRUST 52 LAWRENCE DRIVE #M601LOWELL, MA 01854---0AKYUZ, KUBRA 5259 MAPLE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---8549AMONS, MICHAEL J DENISE L AMONS 9112 NAPOLI CT # 202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0ANTHONY MICHAEL CIABURRO FAMILY TRUST9487 NAPOLI LN #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0ARCHIE SR, DOUGLAS J 5288 TAMIAIMI TRAIL CTNAPLES, FL 34113---0ARCHIE, DOUGLAS 5288 TAMIAMI CTNAPLES, FL 34113---0ARTHUR, ALLEN M TIARRA ARTHUR 5203 MAPLE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---8549ARTHUR, ALLEN M & TIARRA 5203 MAPLE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---0AUGUSTINO A INGOGLIA REV TRUST9116 NAPOLI CT APT 102NAPLES, FL 34113---7797BACINO, DAVID N & JULIE S 9499 NAPOLI LN #101NAPLES, FL 34113---0BARRY HALEY TRUST 9476 NAPOLI LN #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0BARTLETT FAMILY LIV TRUST 9122 NAPOLI CT #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0BIAS, BRIAN KEITH WETZEL BIAS 9111 NAPOLI CT #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0BISHOP, DAVID R & LAURA H 1091 PATRICIA DRBOLINGBROOK, IL 60490---0BOWEIN, LLOYD L 10021 GULF SHORE DRNAPLES, FL 34108---2023BRODERICK, JOHN A & MARYBETH M 818 WETHERILL LANEWAYNE, PA 19087---0BRUEN, JOYCE A & EDWARD E 180 W OLIVE STELMHURST, IL 60126---3909CAROL K TOBIN DEC OF REV TRUST 9495 NAPOLI LANE #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0CASH AMERICA EAST INC 1600 W 7TH STFT WORTH, TX 76102---0CASTILLO, GERARDO J 5248 RAINTREE LANENAPLES, FL 34113---0CIRILLO, PETER R EVELYN L LEBA 9476 NAPOLI LN #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0CLIFFORD L HIGGS REV TRUST EUGENE N HIGGS MARK A ECK 441 COX SAWMILL RD HENDERSON, MD 21640---1218COOLBAUGH, GEORGE H & JUDY W 9126 NAPOLI CT #201NAPLES, FL 34113---8050CUNNINGHAM, DANIEL & CHARLOTTE 31 79TH STBROOKLYN, NY 11209---0DADIAN, PAUL & SHERI 6 N 265 JAMES CTMEDINAH, IL 60157---0DAUKSAVAGE, KIRK & MARTHA 9476 NAPOLI LN #102NAPLES, FL 34102---0DCDH REALTY TRUST 18 BEAVER DAM RDN EASTON, MA 02356---0DEGASPERIS, RONALD & ROSE 9484 NAPOLI LN #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0DEPEPPE, BARRY & LISA 206 1ST AVEBELMAR, NJ 07719---0DI NAPOLI CONO ASSOC INC 2180 W SR 434 STE 5000LONGWOOD, FL 32779---0DINIZO, RALPH LINDA DINIZO 227 JEFFERSON AVE WESTFIELD, NJ 07090---0DONALD W ORT TRUST 6559 OLD SINGAPORE TRLSAUGATUCK, MI 49453---8410DOUGLAS A CRIMMINS TRUST 1208 ASH STREETWINNETKA, IL 60093---0EAST TRAIL CORPORATE CENTER LLC PO BOX 746 GENEVA, IL 60134---0EAST TRAIL CORPORATE CENTER LLC PO BOX 746 GENEVA, IL 60134---0EDWARDS, JOHN A & DEBORAH E 9107 NAPOLI CT #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0ESQUIVEL III, JOHN KATY KOESTNER ESQUIVEL5250 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---0FAILLA, CHARLENE & VINCENT 14 LINDA CTMONTVILLE, NJ 07045---0FAZIO FAMILY TRUST 425 ADIRONDACK CTMARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---4503FINLEY BOND, MARY ANN 1133 LAFAYETTE RDWAYNE, PA 19087---0FORD FAMILY TRUST 9 MELROSE LNSUFFIELD, CT 06078---0FRIEDMAN, NANCY C 9483 NAPOLI LN #102NAPLES, FL 34113---0FRUITERMAN, MARK L & STACY H 723 WALDENS POND RDALBANY, NY 12203---0GALLANT REVOCABLE TRUST 9491 NAPOLI LANE #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0GARCIA, ANTONIO EVA SANTOYO GARCIA 5235 MAPLE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---8549GONZALEZ, JUANA 5260 FLORIDAN AVENAPLES, FL 34113---8711GRACHUS, GLENN M CASSIDY C WEBER 5211 MAPLE LANENAPLES, FL 34113---0Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA.Petition: PL20240012218 | Buffer: 500' | Date: 5/15/2025 | Site Location: 00439000008 and 00439360308POList_500Page 1770 of 9661 2GRAFFEO, VICTORIA A 9130 NAPOLI CT #102NAPLES, FL 34113---0GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT14575 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34119---0GREGORY WILLIAM MARRA TRUST DIANE JOAN GILBERT TRUST 9114 PRIMA WAY #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0HABITAT FOR HUMANITY COLLIER COUNTY INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113---7753HABITAT FOR HUMANITY COLLIER COUNTY INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113---7753HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113---7753HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113---7753HAFTMANN JR, GERALDGERALD HAFTMANN III436 CONRAD DR SPRINGFIELD, PA 19064---0HAFTMANN JR, GERALD J CHRISTINE HAFTMANN 436 CONRAD DR SPRINGFIELD, PA 19064---0HANEIN CHAGOURY & FULLER FAM REVOCABLE TRUST 105 INTERPROMONTRY RD GREAT FALLS, VA 22066---0HOSPOD, THOMAS F LESLIE CARTWRIGHT 9123 NAPOLI CT #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0HUDELL, JOHN G 5211 RAINTREE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---4628IACONELLI TR, PETER & ROBIN L PETER IACONELLI REV TRUST UTD 2/26/98 117 3RD ST NAPLES, FL 34113---0INGRAUDO, GINO & MARY LYNDA 9498 NAPOLI LN #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0ISON, DAVID C 5227 MAPLE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---0JAMES & DIANE MACIOCE LV TRUST 19224 SHERWOOD GREEN WAYGAITHERSBURG, MD 20879---0JAMES E R/L TRUST TERRI L RUSSELL R/L TRUST 6122 PAW PAW LAKE RD COLOMA, MI 49127---0JAMES T KENYON REV TRUST 9480 NAPOLI LN #102NAPLES, FL 34113---0JENKINS, STEVEN PANAGIOTA PAPPAS JENKINS9490 NAPOLI LN #102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0JODY LOU WIETHOFF R/L TRUST9483 NAPOLI LN #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0KAMINSKI, EUGENE EILEEN DUFF 9498 NAPOLI LANE #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0KLEGIN, MICHELE & TIMOTHY 9491 NAPOLI LN #101NAPLES, FL 34113---0KNICKLE, H NORMAN MARY BOTTELLA KNICKLE6101 WESTERN AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20015---0LACROIX, ROBERT L LARAINE BERGMANN 9116 NAPOLI CT #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0LAURI C GARVEY REVOCABLE TRUST 15 KNOLLWOOD LNAMHERST, NY 14221---0LEE R SARDELLA REV TRUST MARY JO SARDELLA REV TRUST 75 STEEPLEVIEW DRIVE HAMPDEN, MA 01036---0LENNAR HOMES LLC 10481 BEN C PRATT 6 MILE CYPRESS PKWY FT MYERS, FL 33966---0LENTINE, STEPHEN M & JOSEPHINE9118 PRIMA WAY #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0LEONARD, KASEY R & KARA A 5219 RAINTREE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---8547LIFE STORAGE LP PO BOX 71870 6890 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84171---0LINDA D BERTANI REV TRUST JOHN A BERTANI REV TRUST 300 HARPER RD W SOUTHOLD, NY 11971---0LOERA, ARTURO & BRENDA B 7910 BROOKSIDE GLEN DRIVETINLEY PARK, IL 60487---0LUEDTKE, BRENDA C 5227 RAINTREE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---8547MADSEN JR, THOMAS J 4 LAUREL LANECHESTER, NJ 07930---0MAPLE LANE LAND TRUST # 1 1147 TRAQUIL BROOK DRNAPLES, FL 34114---0MAPLE LANE TRUST 5219 MAPLE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---0MAROTTA, ANTHONY J & LINDA A9503 NAPOLI LN #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0MARTIN REVOCABLE TRUST 9119 NAPOLI CT #102NAPLES, FL 34113---0MARTIN, JEFFREY 5055 EXECUTIVE PARK DRELLICOTT CITY, MD 21043---0MARY MYLES TRUST 9122 NAPOLI COURT #102NAPLES, FL 34113---0MCQUADE, MICHAEL F BERNADETTE MCQUADE9511 NAPOLI LN #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0MELANOPHY, MICHAEL J & KELLY 34 DRIFTWAY RDDANBURY, CT 06811---0MELLO, GLENN G & MARGUERITE M 76 PEMBROKE STSEABROOK, NH 03874---0MENARD, JOHN W & TERESE P 19 TORREY RDEAST SANDWICH, MA 02537---0MEURER, PETER LENORE MEURER 9499 NAPOLI LN #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0MICHAEL P SPYRIDAKIS REV TRUST LEE K SPYRIDAKIS REV TRUST 9127 NAPOLI CT #201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0MILLER, JONATHON EDWARD KENDALL ANNE MILLER 5203 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---0MILLER, STEVEN E & ANNE F 13 ATWELL RIDGECAZENOVIA, NY 13035---0MILLER, WILLIAM T LORNA J SAGNESS9465 FOX CREEK LN MASON, OH 45040---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0POList_500Page 1771 of 9661 3MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MILLROSE PROPERTIES FLORIDA LLC 5505 WATERFORD DISTRICT DR 5TH FLOORMIAMI, FL 33126---0MIRANDA, MARIA J 5239 MAPLE LANENAPLES, FL 34113---0MYERS, OSCAR H SUSAN D MYERS 5267 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---8547MYRTLE COVE INC PO BOX 517, ---0NARKE, JOHN J & MARGARET A 9127 NAPOLI CT APT 202NAPLES, FL 34113---0NOBIL, STEVEN M & LAURA A 9476 NAPOLI LN #101NAPLES, FL 34113---0PALAZZOLO, ANTONIO329 CLUBHOUSE DRBLOOMINGDALE, IL 60108---0PARRA, MARIA INES 5291 MAPLE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---8549PASS TR, PAMELA TRUST NUMBER 10 EST 9517 GULF SHORE DR APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34108---2037PATRICIA M PETTIT REV TRUST KENNETH W PETTIT REV TRUST PO BOX 70 COMMERCIAL POINT, OH 43116---0PEGGY O OPPENHEIMER LIV TRUST 9487 NAPOLI LN #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0PERRIN, THOMAS R & CAROLE S 9507 NAPOLI LANE #202NAPLES, FL 34113---7792PETRY, JOSEPH W & LYNN P 13541 OSPREY POINT DRIVEJACKSONVILLE, FL 34224---0PICCIONE, MARIO & FRANCA LIDIA 6540 ROMA TERRACE DRIVE NEADA, MI 49301---0PIVOVAR, NICOLINA 9499 NAPOLI LANE #102NAPLES, FL 34113---0POGANY, RICK O & SUSAN J 5235 RAINTREE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---8547POTEET, DANE A & PATRICIA N 10989 WINDJAMMER CTINDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256---0PUENTES, NINO 3001 KAREN DRIVENAPLES, FL 34112---0QUIGG, JOHN & ROSEMARIE 6 HEWLETT DRIVEEAST WILLISTON, NY 11596---0RAVEN SECURITIES INC PO BOX 23259BELLEVILLE, IL 62223---0REGAS, LAWRENCE A & KRISTINE M 9495 NAPOLI LN #101NAPLES, FL 34113---0RICHARD E EMERSON JR & RHONDA H EMERSON REV TRUST 9130 NAPOLI CT #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0RIMBEY, ROBERT A & KAREN J 9111 NAPOLI COURT #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0ROMERO ROCHA, HORTENCIA 5201 HOLLAND STNAPLES, FL 34113---8757SCHACHNER, THOMAS JOSEPH DIANE C SCHACHNER 317 BLUE RUN ROAD CHESWICK, PA 15024---0SERGIO GIANGRANDE LIV TRUST 25630 AVE CHATEAUXOAK BROOK, IL 60523---0SEVERS, AZELIA M 603 LINCOLN DRMACOMB, IL 61455---0SHANDA, LAWRENCE P & BETH A 9130 NAPOLI CT #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0SHERLOCK, MICHAEL & MARIBETH 17148 ACORN RIDGEEDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347---0SHERREN, HENRY J & SARAH A EDWARD Q SETO ERMINIA CLAUDIO PO BOX 137 COOPERSBURG, PA 18036---0SKLARSKY, FRANK S RUTH D HOFFMANN 20 NORTHSTONE RISE PITTSFORD, NY 14534---0SNOOK, GREGORY I & RUTH ANN19419 PEARL DRHAGERSTOWN, MD 21742---0SPILLANE, JOHN J 9118 PRIMA WAY #201NAPLES, FL 34113---7775STEVE GRAPSAS GTR TRUST 1947 DEWS STREETGLENVIEW, IL 60025---0SUN, AO XIAOFAN SUN QIN MA %SHILING GRAY 6 DEERFIELD DR SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066---0SUNSHINE FORTRESS LLC 7901 4TH ST N #300ST PETERSBURG, FL 33702---0SZYMANSKI, BRIAN A KIMBERLY A SZYMANSKI9502 NAPOLI LN #101 NAPLES, FL 34113---0THORN REVOCABLE TRUST 9491 NAPOLI LN #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0TIITF /DOT /ST OF FL % DNR DOUGLAS BLDG 3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399---3000TISONE, CARL R & KAREN 9998 LITZSINGER RDST LOUIS, MO 63124---0TOBIN, ROBERT T & JOAN G 9111 NAPOLI CT #101NAPLES, FL 34113---0TORTO, JEFFREY B & DEBORAH A 9119 NAPOLI CT # 201NAPLES, FL 34113---0TREJO, ARNOLDO LABRA CINTHYA E GUERRERO HERNANDEZ 5243 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---0TREVENA, JAMES M & LAURA S 9484 NAPOLI LN #201NAPLES, FL 34113---0TREVISO BAY PROPERTY OWNERS MASTER ASSN INC5540 ST RD 64 E STE #202 BRADENTON, FL 34208---0TREVISO BAY PROPERTY OWNERS MASTER ASSOCIATION INC 5540 ST RD 64 E STE #202 BRADENTON, FL 34208---0TRIPLETT, JERRY W 5272 RAINTREE LNNAPLES, FL 34113---8521TSAVARIS, MICHAEL A & MARY C 30 CARLETON AVENUEBRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510---0POList_500Page 1772 of 9661 4TUCKER, DEBRA 5258 FLORIDAN AVENAPLES, FL 34113---8710U S A L INC 11200 TAMIAMI TRL ENAPLES, FL 34113---7754UGIANSKY, ROBERT L11600 QUARTERFIELD RDELLICOTT CITY, MD 21042---0UOOLIGAN NAPLES MANOR RE LLC 11163 TAMIAMI TRAIL ENAPLES, FL 34113---0URCZYK, JEFFEREY & LOIS 3501 SENATE CTVALENCIA, PA 16059---0VACHON, DENNIS J & DOREEN 4350 GAIL BLVDNAPLES, FL 34104---0VAN HOY, VERN E & LAUREN E 9503 NAPOLI LN #101NAPLES, FL 34113---0VANIER, DENNIS P BEVERLY R NYE 9119 NAPOLI CT #202NAPLES, FL 34113---0VISCO FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST 1609 LEWIS O GRAY DRSAUGUS, MA 01906---0VIVINETTO, ANTHONY & LISA144 SAGE LNPORTSMOUTH, NH 03801---0WA REALTY TRUST 20 RAVEN LNGLOUCESTER, MA 01930---0WALLACE, DAVID WANDA PRUSKA WALLACE 5260 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---8521WENTWORTH ESTATES CDD % JP WARD & ASSOCIATES LLC JAMES P WARD 2301 NE 37TH ST FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308---0WENTWORTH ESTATES CDD 2301 NORTHEAST 37TH STFORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308---0WENTWORTH ESTATES CDD 2301 NORTHEAST 37TH STFORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308---0WILLIAM & ANGELA BENNETT REVOCABLE TRUST 5224 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---0WILLIAM BENNETT CARPENTRY INC 5224 RAINTREE LANENAPLES, FL 34113---8521WILLIAMS, RICKIE JOHN PATRICIA LYNNE WILLIAMS 9502 NAPOLI LN #202 NAPLES, FL 34113---0WILSON, TROY MICHAEL LEANDRA J PORTER-WILSON 5151 MAPLE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---8548WISSNER, KENNETH I & CARRIE A 9480 NAPOLI LN #101NAPLES, FL 34113---8119YEOMANS, GLENN & ANNE 17 LANTERN HILL LANEGUILFORD, CT 06437---0YOUNG, RYAN CHRISTOPHER JEANNINE RENEE WINDSOR 5240 RAINTREE LN NAPLES, FL 34113---02015 GALANT PROPERTY TRUST 15 KINGSWOOD RDOAKVILLE L6K 2E2 CANADA2074281 ONTARIO INC 1520 STAVEBANK RDMISSISSAUGA L5G 2V7 CANADABERKY, GUNTHER NYCOLE GRONDIN 85 DOMAINE DU MARAIS CHAMBORD G0W 1G0 CANADADURST, DANIEL JOHN KAREN ANN LOUISE DURST 8 MARYHEATHER CRESCENT FREELTON L0R 1K0 CANADAHAGGSTROM, INGEMAR & FATIMA NASBY ALLE 65TABY 183 55 SWEDENHENRIKSSON ET AL, THOMAS HJORTRONVAGEN 6SODERTALJE 15252 SWEDENHIGGINS, MARTIN NICOL HENRY TINA JANET GRACE LEGGE 15 ROBINSON CT OAKVILLE L6J 7N3 CANADAKOMOROWSKI FLORIDA TRUST 39 LAUREL AVENUEETOBICOKE M9B 4T1 CANADAMALKIEWICZ, STAN & EVA 18 WISHING WELL CTKLEINBURG L0J 1C0 CANADAMOORE, KEITH D & CAROLYN 18 INGLEVIEW DRIVECALEDON L7C 1P3 CANADAZIZZO, EMILY A104 CUMMING CTANCASTER L9G 1V3 CANADACOACH HOMES I AT TREVISO BAY A PHASE CONDOMINIUMPOList_500Page 1773 of 9661 11140 Tamiami, LLC 4980 Tamiami Trail N, #201 Naples FL 34103 239.596.9500 andrew@ajsrealtygroup.com Jessica Harrelson, AICP (see below for additional agent information) Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples FL 34105 239.403.6751 jharrelson@pen-eng.com N/A Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 300 Naplesl FL 34103 239.435.3535 ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Page 1774 of 9661 Miceli MPUD Miceli RPUD Undeveloped Residential Miceli PUD Ordinance 84-71, as amended 29 50 S 26 E N/A See survey and legal 00439000008 and 00439360308 South of Tamiami Trail E, approximately 200' north of Raintree Lane Page 1775 of 9661 Wentworth Estates PUD / C-4 Developed Residential / Water Management RSF-4 / C-4 Developed Residential / Developed Commercial ROW / C-4 Tamiami Trail E / Developed Commercial Wentworth Estates Water Management Treviso Bay Property Owners Master Association, Inc. 5540 ST Rd 64 E, Suite 202 Bradenton FL 34208 Page 1776 of 9661 Page 1777 of 9661 Page 1778 of 9661 Page 1779 of 9661 Page 1780 of 9661 Jessica Harrelson, AICP 3/28/2025 Page 1781 of 9661 Page 1782 of 9661 11140 Tamiami, LLC:100% Eijk de Mol Van Otterloo 95% Andrew Saluan 5% Page 1783 of 9661 11/15/2019 Page 1784 of 9661 Jessica Harrelson, AICP 3/19/2025 Page 1785 of 9661 5020 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., #112 NAPLES, FL 34103 Current Principal Place of Business: Current Mailing Address: 5020 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., #112 NAPLES, FL 34103 US Entity Name:11140 TAMIAMI LLC DOCUMENT# L19000256618 FEI Number: 84-3499722 Certificate of Status Desired: Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: SALUAN, ANDREW J 5020 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., #112 NAPLES, FL 34103 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Authorized Person(s) Detail : I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date FILED Feb 29, 2024 Secretary of State 1872556198CC ANDREW SALUAN MGR 02/29/2024 2024 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT No Title MGR Name SALUAN, ANDREW J Address 5020 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., #112 City-State-Zip: NAPLES FL 34103 Page 1786 of 9661 Page 1787 of 9661 EXHIBIT A Page 1788 of 9661 Page 1789 of 9661 Page 1790 of 9661 Page 1791 of 9661 Page 1792 of 9661 Page 1793 of 9661 Page 1794 of 9661 Tamiami CTMaple LNFloridan AVE Holland STTamiami TRL ECaldwell STEntrance STRaintree LNMapleLNNapoli LN¯P:\Active_Projects\P-DEVO-005\001-US41-Solano-10thSt\Planning\GIS\2024-10-28_Aerial_Location_Map.mxdDate Saved: 2/24/2025 PROJECT:NOTES:EXHIBIT DESC:2600 Golden Gate ParkwayNaples, FL 34105CLIENT:LOCATION:SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2024)AERIAL LOCATION MAPMICELI RPUDUS 41 (E. TAMIAMI TRL) - NAPLES, FLLegendMICELI RPUD: 8.63 ACRES11140 TAMIAMI, LLCPage 1795 of 9661 NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OFBLOCK D UNIT NO.1,MYRTLE COVE ACRES,PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAOWNER:JOHN G HUDELLOWNER:KASEY R LEONARDKARA A LEONARDOWNER:BRENDA C. LUEDTKEOWNER:RICK O. POGANY& SUSAN J. POGANYOWNER:ARNOLD LABRA TREJOCINTHYA E GUERREROHERNANDEZOWNER:PETER IACONELLI &ROBIN L. IACONELLIPETER IACONELLIREV TRUSTOWNER:JERRY TRIPLETTOWNER:OSCAR H. MYERSSUSAN D. MYERSOWNER: U S A L, INC.OWNER:JONATHON EDWARD MILLERKENDALL ANNE MILLEROWNER: TIITF/DOT/ST OF FLORIDAOWNER: DI NAPOLICONDO ASSOC. INC.OWNER: TREVISO BAY PROPERTYOWNERS MASTER ASSOC. INC.OWNER: PAMELA PASS TRUSTOWNER: PETER IACONELLI &ROBIN L. IACONELLIPETER IACONELLI REV TRUSTO.R. BOOK 2605,PAGE 3225VERCELLIPLAT BOOK 48, PAGES 11-14(LAKE, L.M.E. AND D.E.)VERCELLIPLAT BOOK 48, PAGES 11-14OWNER: RAVEN SECURITIES INC.O.R. BOOK 3845, PAGE 3784 NOT PLATTED(FUTURE DEVELOPMENT)VERCELLIPLAT BOOK 48, PAGES 11-14SECTION 30SECTION 2945' L.A.S.I.P. A.E.AND L.A.S.I.P. D.E.45' L.A.S.I.P. A.E.AND L.A.S.I.P. D.E.O.R. BOOK 3661, PAGE 3134PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38O.R. BOOK 1126,PAGE 1279FP&L EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 644,PAGE 259PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS,DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCEEASEMENT TO COLLIER COUNTYO.R. BOOK 4253, PAGE 226315' UTILITY EASEMENT(PIPELINE)O.R. BOOK 1462,PAGE 2293TOP OF BANKEDGE OF WATERTOP OF BANKEDGE OF WATERHEADWALL30" MITEREDENDGUYANCHORPOWERPOLECONC.POWERPOLEWATERMETER18" RCPMITERED END18" RCPMITERED ENDOVERHEADWIRESSANITARYMANHOLEGREASE TRAP18" RCPMITEREDEND18" RCPMITEREDENDLIGHTPOLECONC.WALKTELE.BOX24" RCPMITERED END24" RCPMITERED ENDBILLBOARDPOWERPOLEO.R. B O OK 2384,PAGE 411 N 39°04'00"W 247.15 DEED S 50°56'00"W 300.00 DEEDN 50°56'00"E 300.00 DEEDS 39°04'00"E 400.00 DEED N 89°35'00"W 961.97 DEEDS 89°35'00"E 694.76 DEEDN 02°48'13"E 308.99 DEEDS 50°56'47"W 300.08 MEAS.N 89°35'11"W 962.19 MEAS.N 02°52'02"E 308.48 CALCS 89°38'04"E 694.82 MEAS.N 50°59'18"E 299.79 MEAS.S 39°05'12" E 399.72 M EAS.FOUND IRON PINWITH CAP LB5151FOUND IRON PINWITH CAP ILLEGIBLE20' OFFSETFOUND IRON PINWITH CAP LB5151ASPHALT CONC.WALKD.E.ADDRESS: 11150 TAMIAMI TRAIL EASTL A K EC A N A LC A N A LC A N A L30.0030.0045.045.020.00CORNER FALLSIN CANALC A N A LEDGE OF WATERSANITARYMANHOLECOACH HOMES IAT TREVISO BAY,A CONDOMINIUM10' UTILITY EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 5172,PAGE 1702INGRESS-EGRESS ANDUTILITY EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 5172,PAGE 1702TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONEASEMENTO.R. BOOK 5172,PAGE 1702O.R. BOOK 5696,PAGE 754O.R. BOOK 5696,PAGE 75128.50DEEDN39°04'00" W 164.14 D EED N00°00'43"W34.92 DEEDN39°04'00" W 190.62 DE E D4.02.84.9L3.72.42.53.02.65.24.31.5-2.33.93.63.63.63.63.83.63.54.95.64.23.93.73.73.73.53.93.33.53.84.05.55.55.41.5-1.94.53.84.21.0-0.24.41.1-0.44.20.5-0.50.94.31.00.04.23.70.50.04.40.6-0.33.80.9-0.10.73.64.00.93.91.60.24.21.40.25.45.41.44.11.53.34.53.71.54.03.83.51.51.63.63.81.51.53.53.94.04.71.53.74.01.43.83.81.63.93.71.71.64.23.01.74.61.71.75.45.8-0.40.1-0.3-0.20.0-0.1-0.20.12.54.14.63.94.45.13.44.01.74.91.71.74.31.54.85.81.5TOP OF BANKPOWER POLETELE. BOX X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4' METALFENCE5' CHAINLINKFENCEPOWER POLEPOWER POLEPOWER POLESPLICEBOXAIRRELEASEVALVEGGFOUND NAIL ANDDISK LB5151SGV MARKERFOUND IRON PINWITH CAP LB642UGS MARKERSOFLANCE T. MILLER, P.S.M. #LS5627REV. REVISIONTITLE:PROJECT NO.SHEET #: DRAWING NO.:CLIENT:Vertical Scale:Horizontal Scale:Date:Drawn by:Fieldwork by:Fieldbook/Page:[Save Date: 12/18/2024 11:34:00 AM] [Saved By: LMiller] [Plot Date: 5/12/2025 10:19:08 AM] [Plotted By: Lance Miller] [Original Size: 24x36] [Drawing Path: S:\Miceli-PUD\BOUNDARY\S-MICELI-PUD-SU01.dwg]NOVEMBER 20241" = 50'N.T.S.P046, 72-73MRLMTP-AJS-002-002-002S-MICELI-PUD-SU01.dwg1AJS REALTY GROUP1GENERAL NOTES:xBEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF MYRTLE COVEACRES BEING NORTH 89°35'11" WEST.xELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM,1988, (N.A.V.D.)xLINES SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED ARE FORREFERENCE USE ONLY AND WERE NOT SURVEYED.xPROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AE7 PER FLOOD INSURANCERATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL #120067 0603J DATED FEBRUARY 8,2024.LEGEND:A.E. = ACCESS EASEMENTBM = BENCHMARKC/L = CENTERLINEC.U.E. = COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENTD.E. = DRAINAGE EASEMENTEL. & ELEV. = ELEVATIONF.P.L. = FLORIDA POWER & LIGHTO.R. = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOKP.B. = PLAT BOOKPG. = PAGEP.U.E. = PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTR.O.W. = RIGHT-OF-WAYP = PLAT, M = MEASURED, C = CALCULATED, F = FIELD(S.I.P.)SET 5/8" IRON PIN & CAP STAMPED LB-8479(F.I.P.) FOUND IRON PIN & CAP STAMPED AS SHOWN(F.C.M.) FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT(S.N.D.) SET PK NAIL & DISK STAMPED LB-8479(F.N.D.) FOUND PK NAIL & DISK STAMPED(D.H.) DRILL HOLES(PK) = PARKER KYLON NAILMAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEYOF PART OF SECTION 29,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EASTCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY OF PART OFSECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.PREPARED FOR: AJS REALTY GROUPPENINSULA ENGINEERING2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAYNAPLES, FLORIDA 34105PHONE: 239.403.6700 FAX: 239.261.1797EMAIL: INFO@PEN-ENG.COMWEBSITE: WWW.PEN-ENG.COM_____________________________________________LANCE T. MILLERPROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER,#LS5627NOVEMBER 19, 2024DATECERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #LB- 8479NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THEORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OR DIGITAL SEAL OF AFLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER.NO OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY MAY RELY UPONTHIS EXHIBIT.THIS EXHIBIT IS ONLY FOR THE LANDS ASDESCRIBED. IT IS NOT A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE,ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OFENCUMBRANCES.050100SCALE IN FEETSCALE: 1"= 50'LEGAL DESCRIPTIONPARCEL SURVEYED(PARCELS 1 AND 2)ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST , COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK "D", ACCORDING TO THEPLAT OF UNIT NO. 1, MYRTLE COVE ACRES, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLICRECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE WEST RIGHT OFWAY OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (STATE ROAD NO. 90);THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 39°04'00" WEST FOR 247.15 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 50°56'00" WEST 300.00 FEET TOA POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF BLOCK "G", ACCORDING TO SAID PLAT OFUNIT NO,1, MYRTLE COVE ACRES;THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 89° 35' 00" WEST 961.97 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 02°48'13" EAST 308.99 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89° 35'00" EAST FOR 694.76 FEET;THENCE RUN NORTH 50°56'00" EAST 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OFWAY LINE OF SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL (STATE ROAD 90);THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 39°04'00" EAST 400.00 FEET TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXHIBIT "A"LEGAL DESCRIPTIONBEING A PART OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER, FLORIDA:PARCEL NO 1:(O.R. BOOK 5696, PAGE 751)COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK "D" OF UNIT NO. 1, MYRTLE COVE ACRES,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AT PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OFCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE NORTH 39°04'00" WEST FOR 247.15 FEET ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL(STATE ROAD NO. 90) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 50°56'00" WEST 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLYBOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK "G",MYRTLE COVE ACRES UNIT NO.1, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 89°35'00" WEST 28.50 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 39°04'00" WEST 164.14 FEET;THENCE NORTH 00°00'43" WEST 34.92 FEET;THENCE NORTH 39°04'00" WEST 190.62 FEET;THENCE NORTH 50°56'00" EAST 300.00 TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL(STATE ROAD NO.90);THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 39°04'00" EAST 400.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.PARCEL NO 2:(O.R. BOOK 5696, PAGE 754)COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK "D" OF UNIT NO. 1, MYRTLE COVE ACRES,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AT PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OFCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE NORTH 39°04'00" WEST FOR 247.15 FEET ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL(STATE ROAD NO. 90);THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 50°56'00" WEST 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLYBOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK "G",MYRTLE COVE ACRES UNIT NO.1, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 89°35'00" WEST 28.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 89°35'00" WEST 933.47 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 02°48'13" EAST 308.99 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89°35'00" EAST 694.76 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 39°04'00" EAST 190.62 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 00°00'43" EAST 34.92 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 39°04'00" EAST 164.14 TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING.Page 1796 of 9661 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST Name of Applicant(s): Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Address of Subject Property (If available): City: State: Zip: Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System d. Package Treatment Plant e. Septic System Provide Name: (GPD Capacity): Type: Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: B. Sewer-Peak: Provide Name: Average Daily Demands: Average Daily Demands: TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) /24 11140 Tamiami, LLC 29 50 S 26 E See survey and legal description 00439000008 and 00439360308 S. of Tamiami Trail E, approx. 200' north of Raintree Lane 4980 Tamiami Trail N,#201 Naples 34103 239.596.9500 andrew@ajsrealtygroup.com South Collier Wastewater Service Area 16.00 MGD Regional Water Service Area 46 net new DU or 115 Population (Existing PUD permits a total of 17 dwelling units) 20,930 gpd 16,100 gpd 33.8 gpm 11,500 gpd Page 1797 of 9661 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Attach additional pages if necessary. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) /24 N/A - Will be connected to the County Utility Infrastructure. Acknowledged. Page 1798 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 MICELI RPUD PROJECT NARRATIVE, CONSISTENCY & EVALUATION CRITERIA Project Information The subject site consists of two (2) parcels, comprising ±8.63-acres, and is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 200’ north of Raintree Lane, in Section 29, Township 50 South, and Range 26 East. The Miceli PUD (Ord. 92-62) currently permits ±2.8-acres of office and retail commercial land uses and a maximum of seventeen (17) residential dwelling units on the remaining ±5.9 acres. The purpose of this PUD Amendment is to permit a maximum of 63 residential dwelling unit by utilizing the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Density Bonus. This PUD Amendment will repeal and replace Ordinance 92-62. The property is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Urban Mixed-Use District - Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and the Coastal High Hazard Area. The 2.8- commercial tract of the PUD is within the Corridor Segment of the US 41 East Overlay and was also determined to be Consistent by Policy through the implementation of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance (No. 90-23). The Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict limits density to four (4) dwelling units per acre. One (1) dwelling unit per acre is subtracted when located within the Coastal High Hazard Area; therefore, the 5.9-acre residential tract is subject to a maximum density of three (3) dwelling units per acre. The 2.8-acre commercial tract is permitted a maximum density of sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre, via the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Density Bonus. Per the Density Rating System in the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, “If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent By Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. These bonus dwelling units may be distributed over the entire project. The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses.” 5.9-acres @ 3 dwelling units an acre = 17.7 or 18 dwelling units 2.8-acres @ 16 dwelling units an acre = 44.8 or 45 dwelling units __________________________________________________________ Total Allowable Units: 63 allowable units Page 1799 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 Surrounding Land Use/Zoning Table LOCATION FROM PROPERTY ZONING LAND USE North Wentworth Estates PUD (Treviso Bay) / C-4 Residential / Water Management South RSF-4 / C-4 Residential / Commercial East ROW / C-4 Tamiami Trail E (US 41) / Commercial West Wentworth Estates PUD Water Management Zoning Exhibit Page 1800 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 Future Land Use Exhibit Page 1801 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 EVALUATION CRITERIA The following criteria have been addressed by the applicant to evaluate the proposed PUDA application: 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. Response: The Miceli PUD is located within a developed area of Collier County, and surrounding land uses include both commercial and single-family residential. The PUD is proximate to public services and public infrastructure is available to accommodate the project. The site’s location, in a high-traffic volume area, makes the property appropriate for higher-density residential. 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. Response: Evidence of Unified Control has been provided by the Applicant and the Applicant will be responsible for the provision and maintenance of all facilities on-site. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) Response: The proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, including the requested density, as outlined below; specifically refer to the highlighted language. x Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south of the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north of the Subdistrict). The Subdistrict comprises those Urban areas south of US 41, generally east of the City of Naples, and generally west of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands, but excludes Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and comprises approximately 11,354 acres and 10% of the Urban Mixed Use District. The entire Subdistrict is located seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. In order to facilitate hurricane evacuation and to protect the adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation designated area, residential densities within the Subdistrict shall not exceed a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed in the Density Rating System to exceed four (4) units per acre through provision of Affordable Housing and Transfers of Development Rights, and except as allowed by certain FLUE Policies under Objective 5, and Page 1802 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 except as provided in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. New rezones to permit mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited. Rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development x Policy 5.3-FLUE All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. The foregoing notwithstanding, such commercial properties may be approved for the addition of residential uses, in accordance with the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, though an increase in overall intensity may result. A zoning change of such commercial-zoned properties to a residential zoning district is allowed as provided for in the Density Rating System of this Future Land Use Element and as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. d. For property deemed to be consistent with this Element pursuant to one or more of policies 5.9 through 5.13, said property may be combined and developed with other property, whether such other property is deemed consistent via those same policies or is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section. For residential and mixed use developments only, the accumulated density between these properties may be distributed throughout the project, as provided for in the Density Rating System or the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, as applicable. x Policy 5.11-FLUE Former Policy 3.1.k. of the Future Land Use Element provided for the establishment of a Zoning Reevaluation Program to evaluate properties whose zoning did not conform with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the Future Land Use Element. This Program was implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. Where such properties were determined, through implementation of that Ordinance, to be “improved property”, as defined in that Ordinance, the zoning on said properties shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and those properties have been identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. Page 1803 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 x Density Rating System- Density Bonuses-FLUE a. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus: If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be “Consistent By Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is converted to residential zoning. These bonus dwelling units may be distributed over the entire project. The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. Page 1804 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 The US 41 East Overlay / East Naples Community Development Plan (ENCDP) The 2.8-acre commercial tract of the subject PUD is within the US 41 East Overlay-Corridor Segment, per the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Although the Overlay has been established in the GMP, the LDC has not yet been updated to implement the Overlay. The design standards included in this PUD Amendment are comparable and/or consistent with the design standards drafted by Staff for the Zoning Overlay, which will continue to move through the review/approval process upon the termination of Senate Bill 250. Below is a general outline of the history of this Overlay. 2008/2009 The East Trail Study was done with the East Naples Civic Association. February 2017 The BCC directed Staff to engage the East Naples community in a public planning process to identify and incentivize desired land uses and development along the US 41 East corridor. April 2018 Staff presented the US 41 Corridor Study to the BCC. The BCC directed Staff to prepare a community development plan for the East Naples community, that would establish a vision for the area to guide future development and redevelopment. January 2020 Tidale Oliver was contracted by the BCC to prepare the East Naples Community Development Plan (ENCDP). October 2020 The ENCPD was accepted by the Board. 2021 Johnson Engineering was contracted to assist with preparing a zoning overlay (US 41 EZO) that implements the ENCDP. April 2023 US 41 Overlay accepted by the BCC (GMPA) June 2023 Senate Bill 250 was signed by the Governor, which prohibits a county or municipality, impacted by Hurricanes Ian and/or Nicole, from adopting more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations until October 2026. Page 1805 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 d. 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. Response: The PUD document outlines development standards to address compatibility with adjacent land uses, including maximum zoned building heights consistent and comparable with neighboring properties, sufficient setbacks, and the installation of perimeter landscape buffers. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Response: Adequate open space will be provided to serve the development. Refer to the PUD Master Plan. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Response: Existing public facilities are in place to serve the proposed RPUD. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Response: The subject property and surrounding areas can 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. Response: The proposed development conforms to PUD regulations outlined in the LDC. Consistency with the Collier County 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). Response: The Miceli RPUD has been designed to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses through the design of perimeter landscape buffers, setbacks, maximum zoned building heights and the use of ‘dark skies’ lighting. Page 1806 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Response: The Miceli RPUD will provide direct access to Tamiami Trail East (US 41 East). Refer to the PUD Master Plan. Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. Response: The Miceli RPUD will be designed to provide internal circulation of vehicles. Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Response: The site’s point of ingress/egress is US 41. This location served the site’s previous development. Connections to adjoining neighborhoods is not feasible. Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Response: The Miceli RPUD will provide sidewalks and sidewalk connections, promoting walkability. The RPUD will provide useable open space for residents. Transportation Element Policy 5.1 The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an 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; Page 1807 of 9661 MICELI RPUD -PUDA-PL20240012218 March 20, 2025 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB847 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. Response: Refer to the Traffic Impact Statement, prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 6.1 Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. Response: The subject property has been cleared of native vegetation and does not require a preserve. Please refer to the environmental report, prepared by Earth Tech Environmental. Objective 7.1 Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. Response: An LSS has been conducted on the project site in accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The development will comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection, as necessary. Page 1808 of 9661 Page 1809 of 9661 D/>/Wh WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ EW>^͕&>KZ/ϯϰϭϭϯ ^d/KEϮϵ͕dKtE^,/WϱϬ͕ZE'Ϯϲ WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ&Žƌ͗ WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚǇ͗ :ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϮϱ WĞŶŝŶƐƵůĂŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ ϮϲϬϬ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞWŬǁǇ͕ EĂƉůĞƐ͕&>ϯϰϭϬϱ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>> ϭϬϲϬϬ:ŽůĞĂǀĞŶƵĞ ŽŶŝƚĂ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ͕&>ϯϰϭϯϱ Ϯϯϵ͘ϯϬϰ͘ϬϬϯϬ ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ Page 1810 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ d>K&KEdEd^ ϭ͘Ϭ/EdZKhd/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ Ϯ͘ϬWZK:d>Kd/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ ϯ͘Ϭ^W/^^hZszDd,K^ΘDdZ/>^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ ϰ͘Ϭy/^d/E'^/dKE/d/KE^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ ϱ͘ϬZ^h>d^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱ ϲ͘ϬZ&ZE^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳ WWE//^ ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ &Ƶůů^ŝǌĞĚǆŚŝďŝƚƐ ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĞƌŝĂůƐ Page 1811 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ ϭ͘Ϭ/EdZKhd/KE ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů;dͿĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƐĞĂƌĐŚĨŽƌůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐDŝĐĞůŝ Wh;^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇͿƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞĨŝĞůĚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϰ͕ƚŽ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞŽĨůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽĨĐŽŶĐĞƌŶďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ >ĂŶĚhƐĞŽǀĞƌĂŶĚ&ŽƌŵƐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵ;&>h^ͿĂŶĚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ Ϯ͘ϬWZK:d>Kd/KE dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚǁŽ;ϮͿĂĚũŽŝŶŝŶŐƉĂƌĐĞůƐ;&ŽůŝŽηϰϯϵϯϲϬϯϬϴ͕ϰϯϵϯϲϬϯϬϴͿ͘ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇǁĞƐƚŽĨh^ϰϭ͖ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭ͘ϱϬŵŝůĞƐƐŽƵƚŚŽĨZĂƚƚůĞƐŶĂŬĞ ,ĂŵŵŽĐŬZĚ͖͘ĂŶĚĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϯ͘ϬŵŝůĞƐǁĞƐƚŽĨŽůůŝĞƌůǀĚ͘ŝŶŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇ͕&ůŽƌŝĚĂ;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ ĨŽƌ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ DĂƉͿ͘ ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ŽůůŝĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ƉƉƌĂŝƐĞƌ͛Ɛ'/^ĚĂƚĂ͕ƚŚĞĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚĂůƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϴ͘ϲϱĂĐƌĞƐ;^ĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆĨŽƌ ĂŶĞƌŝĂůDĂƉͿ͘ ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůůǇ͕ƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁĂƐĐůĞĂƌĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶϭϵϱϮĂŶĚϭϵϲϮĂŶĚƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ĂůŽŶŐh^ϰϭǁĂƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚǁŝƚŚĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĐĂŶĂůǁĂƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ƌƵŶŶŝŶŐŶŽƌƚŚͲƚŽͲƐŽƵƚŚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ĞƚǁĞĞŶϭϵϲϮĂŶĚϭϵϳϯĂŶ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁĂƐĂĚĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶ ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƉƉĞĂƌƐ ƚŽŚĂǀĞƌĞǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ͘ĞƚǁĞĞŶϭϵϳϯĂŶĚϭϵϴϱƚŚĞ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁĂƐƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĐůĞĂƌĞĚĂŐĂŝŶ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇƵƐĞĚ ĂƐĂŶƵƌƐĞƌǇ͘;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĞƌŝĂůƐͿ ϯ͘Ϭ^W/^^hZszDd,K^ΘDdZ/>^ dŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƐƵƌǀĞǇǁĂƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐĂŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇƐŝŵŝůĂƌƚŽƚŚĂƚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ&ŝƐŚΘ tŝůĚůŝĨĞŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ;&tͿƉƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͞ĐŽůŽŐǇĂŶĚ,ĂďŝƚĂƚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶEĞĞĚƐŽĨ'ŽƉŚĞƌ dŽƌƚŽŝƐĞ;'ŽƉŚĞƌƵƐƉŽůǇƉŚĞŵƵƐͿWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ&ŽƵŶĚŽŶ>ĂŶĚƐ^ůĂƚĞĚĨŽƌ>ĂƌŐĞͲƐĐĂůĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶ &ůŽƌŝĚĂ͘͟ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐŽƌůĂŶĚͲƵƐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƌĞĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚŽŶĂƌĞĐĞŶƚ ĂĞƌŝĂůƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚ;ŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇϮϬϮϰͿƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ>ĂŶĚhƐĞ͕ŽǀĞƌĂŶĚ&ŽƌŵƐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵ ;&>h^Ϳ͘&>h^ŵĂƉƉŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚďĞůŽǁŝŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞƐϯΘϰ͘dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐ&>h^ĐŽĚĞƐ ǁĞƌĞĐƌŽƐƐͲƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚǁŝƚŚĂůŝƐƚŽĨƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƉůĂŶƚĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘dŚĞůŝƐƚƐǁĞƌĞŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚĨƌŽŵƚǁŽ ĂŐĞŶĐǇƉƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗ ͞&ůŽƌŝĚĂ͛ƐŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ͕ dŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐΘ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ ŽĨ^ƉĞĐŝĂů ŽŶĐĞƌŶͲKĨĨŝĐŝĂů >ŝƐƚƐ͕͟ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮ͘ ͞EŽƚĞƐŽŶ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ͛ƐŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚĂŶĚdŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚWůĂŶƚƐ͕͟&ůŽƌŝĚĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ĂŶĚŽŶƐƵŵĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ϮϬϭϬ͘ /ŶƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚ͕ĞĂĐŚ&>h^ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝƐƐĞĂƌĐŚĞĚĨŽƌůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽƌƐŝŐŶƐŽĨůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘dŚŝƐŝƐ ĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨŵĞĂŶĚĞƌŝŶŐƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƚƌĂŶƐĞĐƚƐƐƉĂĐĞĚĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϱͲĨĞĞƚĂƉĂƌƚƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇ ϴϬй ŽǀĞƌĂůů ĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ ĞĂĐŚ ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘ /Ĩ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕ ƚƌĂŶƐĞĐƚŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚǇŝƐŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚƵƐŝŶŐĂŚĂŶĚŚĞůĚ'W^ŝŶƚƌĂĐŬŵŽĚĞ͘^ŝŐŶƐŽƌƐŝŐŚƚŝŶŐƐŽĨĂůůƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĂƌĞ ƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚĂŶǇĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚďƵƌƌŽǁƐ͕ĚĞŶƐ͕ŽƌĐĂǀŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞĨůĂŐŐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚĂŶĚŵĂƌŬĞĚďǇ'W^ƵƐŝŶŐ ĂdƌŝŵďůĞϳyƵŶŝƚ͘ 33 Page 1812 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚƚǇƉĞƐĨŽƵŶĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶǁĂƐƉĂŝĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ ŽƌĂďƐĞŶĐĞŽĨůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐŝŐǇƉƌĞƐƐĨŽǆƐƋƵŝƌƌĞů͕ŐŽƉŚĞƌƚŽƌƚŽŝƐĞ͕ĂŶĚ&ůŽƌŝĚĂďŽŶŶĞƚĞĚďĂƚ ;ĐĂǀŝƚŝĞƐͿ͘ƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇƐŝǆ;ϲͿŵĂŶͲŚŽƵƌƐǁĞƌĞůŽŐŐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƐƵƌǀĞǇ ;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭͿ͘ ϰ͘Ϭy/^d/E'^/dKE/d/KE^ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǀĂĐĂŶƚĂŶĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨŽƚŚĞƌ ŚĂƌĚǁŽŽĚƐǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚĞǆŽƚŝĐĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶĚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚůĂŶĚƐǁŝƚŚĂ ŵĂŶŵĂĚĞďĂƌƌŽǁƉŝƚƚŚĂƚŚŽůĚƐǁĂƚĞƌĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞƌŶďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŽŶĚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚũƵƐƚ ŶŽƌƚŚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘h^ϰϭďŽƌĚĞƌƐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĐĂŶĂů ƌƵŶƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚĞĚ ďǇĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶĂůůƐŝĚĞƐ;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆĨŽƌĂsŝĐŝŶŝƚǇDĂƉͿ͘ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŚĂƐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ͗ EŽƌƚŚ͗h^ϰϭͬŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůͬZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ĂƐƚ͗h^ϰϭͬŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůͬZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ^ŽƵƚŚ͗ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů tĞƐƚ͗ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůͬ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŽŶĚƐ dĂďůĞϮůŝƐƚƐƚŚĞ&>h^ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘dŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶƐ ĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ &>h^ ŵĂƉ ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ ŝŶ ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ ͘ ^ĞĞ &ůŽƌŝĚĂ >ĂŶĚ hƐĞ͕ ŽǀĞƌ ĂŶĚ &ŽƌŵƐ ůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵ;ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕^ƵƌǀĞǇŝŶŐΘDĂƉƉŝŶŐ'ĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐDĂƉƉŝŶŐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ ϭϵϵϵͿĨŽƌĚĞĨŝŶŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ/ŶǀĂƐŝǀĞ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛ;&/^ͿůŝƐƚŽĨŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ/ĂŶĚĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ// ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚŵĂǇďĞĨŽƵŶĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ/ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĂƌĞŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞĞǆŽƚŝĐƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐ ŶĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐďǇĚŝƐƉůĂĐŝŶŐŶĂƚŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͕ĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐŽƌĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂů ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŽƌŚǇďƌŝĚŝǌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŶĂƚŝǀĞƐ͘ĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ//ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĂƌĞŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞĞǆŽƚŝĐƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐŝŶ ĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽƌĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇďƵƚŚĂǀĞŶŽƚǇĞƚĂůƚĞƌĞĚ&ůŽƌŝĚĂƉůĂŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͘ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶ ŵĂƉƉŝŶŐǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝǀĞĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚůŽĐĂůŚĂďŝƚĂƚƐŝƐƚŚĞŝŶǀĂƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐŵĞůĂůĞƵĐĂ͕ ĞĂƌůĞĂĨĂĐĂĐŝĂ͕ƌĂǌŝůŝĂŶƉĞƉƉĞƌ͕ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂŶƉŝŶĞ͕ĂŶĚĐĂĞƐĂƌǁĞĞĚ>ĞǀĞůƐŽĨĞǆŽƚŝĐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǁĞƌĞŵĂƉƉĞĚ ďǇƵƐŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƉŚŽƚŽŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘DŽĚŝĨŝĞƌƐ͕Žƌ͟͞ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŽƌƐ͕ĂƌĞĂƉƉĞŶĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ &>h^ĐŽĚĞƐƚŽŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨĞǆŽƚŝĐƐŝŶƚŚĞĐĂŶŽƉǇĂŶĚͬŽƌƐƵďͲĐĂŶŽƉǇ͘ d>Ϯ͘&>h^KDDhE/d/^EKZZ^WKE/E'Z'^ &>h^K^Z/Wd/KEZ' ϰϯϵͲϰKƚŚĞƌ,ĂƌĚǁŽŽĚƐ;фϳϱйǆŽƚŝĐƐͿϰ͘ϴϲ ϱϬϬKƚŚĞƌ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌϬ͘ϭ ϳϰϬŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ>ĂŶĚƐϯ͘ϲϵ ^ŝƚĞdŽƚĂů͗ϴ͘ϲϱ d>ϭ͘&/>d/D^WEdKEd,^h:dWZKWZdz d^dZd d/D E d/D EK͘ K>K'/^d^ DE ,KhZ^d^< EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϰϭ͗ϬϬƉŵϮ͗ϯϬƉŵϰϲ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ&ŝĞůĚǁŽƌŬ 4 Page 1813 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ ϭсǆŽƚŝĐƐфϮϱйŽĨƚŽƚĂůĐŽǀĞƌ ϮсǆŽƚŝĐƐϮϲͲϱϬйŽĨƚŽƚĂůĐŽǀĞƌ ϯсǆŽƚŝĐƐϱϭͲϳϱйŽĨƚŽƚĂůĐŽǀĞƌ ϰсǆŽƚŝĐƐхϳϱйŽĨƚŽƚĂůĐŽǀĞƌ &>h^^Z/Wd/KE^ ΎсĞǆŽƚŝĐƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ &>h^ϰϯϵͲϰ͕KƚŚĞƌ,ĂƌĚǁŽŽĚƐ;фϳϱйǆŽƚŝĐƐͿ dŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝƐĨŽƵŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂĞƌŝĂůŝŵĂŐĞƐ;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͕ƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐůĞĂƌĞĚƐĞǀĞƌĂůƚŝŵĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚ͘ dŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŚĂƐďĞĞŶůĞĨƚƚŽƌĞĐƌƵŝƚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƐĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚďǇĞǆŽƚŝĐƚƌĞĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐΎ:ĂǀĂƉůƵŵ;^ǇǌǇŐŝƵŵĐƵŵŝŶŝͿ͕ΎĞĂƌůĞĂĨĂĐĂĐŝĂ;ĐĂĐŝĂĂƵƌŝĐƵůŝĨŽƌŵŝƐͿ͕ΎƌĂǌŝůůŝĂŶƉĞƉƉĞƌ ;^ĐŚŝŶƵƐƚĞƌĞďŝŶƚŚŝĨŽůŝĂͿ͕ΎǁŝůĚĚĂƚĞƉĂůŵ;WŚŽĞŶŝǆƌĞĐůŝŶĂƚĂͿ͕ΎĨŝƐŚƚĂŝůƉĂůŵ;ĂƌǇŽƚĂƐƉƉ͘Ϳ͕ΎƌŽǇĂůƉĂůŵ ;ZŽǇƐƚŽŶĞĂƐƉƉ͘Ϳ͘EĂƚŝǀĞƚƌĞĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐůĂƐŚƉŝŶĞ;WŝŶƵƐĞůůŝŽƚƚŝŝͿ͕ůŝǀĞŽĂŬ;YƵĞƌĐƵƐǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂŶĂͿ͕ďĂůĚ ĐǇƉƌĞƐƐ;dĂǆŽĚŝƵŵĚŝƐƚŝĐŚƵŵͿ͕ĂŶĚĐĂďďĂŐĞƉĂůŵ;^ĂďĂůƉĂůŵĞƚƚŽͿĂƌĞĂůƐŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚďƵƚŝŶƐŵĂůůŶƵŵďĞƌƐ͘ DŝĚƐƚŽƌǇ ĂŶĚ ŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽǀĞƌ ŝƐ ƐƉĂƌƐĞ ďƵƚ ΎĂŝƌ ƉŽƚĂƚŽ ;ŝŽƐĐŽƌĞĂ ďƵůďŝĨĞƌĂͿ͕ƐǁŽƌĚĨĞƌŶ;EĞƉŚƌŽůĞƉŝƐ ĞǆĂůƚĂƚĂͿ͕ΎĐĞĂƐĂƌǁĞĞĚ;hƌĞŶĂůŽďĂƚĂͿĂŶĚǁŝůĚĐŽĨĨĞĞ;WƐǇĐŚŽƚƌŝĂŶĞƌǀŽƐĂͿǁĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ͘ &>h^ϱϬϬ͕KƚŚĞƌ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ dŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝƐĨŽƵŶĚŝŶƚǁŽƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĂƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘WŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ ĐĂŶĂůƚŚĂƚƌƵŶƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇƚƌĂǀĞůƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂĐƵůǀĞƌƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ ǁĞƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂŶĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƐƚŽĂƐŵĂůůŵĂŶͲŵĂĚĞǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚǇĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘dŚĞŽƚŚĞƌŵĂŶŵĂĚĞǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚǇŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐĂďĂƌƌŽǁƉŝƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽ ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚĞĚďǇĂƌŝŶŐŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚŝŶŐŵŽƐƚůǇŽĨĞǆŽƚŝĐ ƚƌĞĞƐ͘ &>h^ϳϰϬ͕ŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚůĂŶĚƐ dŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝƐĨŽƵŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶŵŽƐƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƐǁĞůůĂƐ ďƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚĞƌŶĐŽƌŶĞƌ͘ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĐĂŶĂůǁĂƐĚƵŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚ ĂŶĚŚĂƐƐŝŶĐĞďĞĞŶƌĞƌŽƵƚĞĚƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘ĚƌĂŝŶĞĚĚŝƚĐŚǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞĐĂŶĂů ƵƐĞĚƚŽĨůŽǁŝƐƐƚŝůůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ͘ĂŶŽƉǇĂŶĚŵŝĚƐƚŽƌǇĂƌĞƐƉĂƌƐĞĂŶĚŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽǀĞƌĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨ ŐƌĂƐƐĞƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŚĞƌďĂĐĞŽƵƐƉůĂŶƚƐ͘DŽƐƚŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĂƉƉĞĂƌƐƚŽďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚ ŵŽǁĞĚƌĞŐƵůĂƌůǇ͘ ϱ͘ϬZ^h>d^ ůůƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƌĞĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϯĂŶĚĂŶǇƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ ŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĂƌĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇŶŽƚĞĚ͘;^ĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆĨŽƌĂdƌĂŶƐĞĐƚΘZĞƐƵůƚƐŵĂƉͿ͘ d>ϯ͘^W/^K^ZsKEd,^h:dWZKWZdz KDDKEED^/Ed/&/EDK^Zsd/KE^>/^d ^W/^͍^ddh^ /Z^ ůĂĐŬsƵůƚƵƌĞŽƌĂŐǇƉƐĂƚƌĂƚƵƐsEDd EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶDŽĐŬŝŶŐďŝƌĚDŝŵƵƐƉŽůǇŐůŽƚƚŽƐsEDd ƌŽǁŶŶŽůĞŶŽůŝƐƐĂŐƌĞŝsEͲ сůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ 5 Page 1814 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ ďďƌĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶƐ KďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗KďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗^ƚĂƚƵƐ͗ сĂǀŝƚǇEсEĞƐƚсŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůǇǆƉůŽŝƚĞĚ сĂǇĞĚK,сKďƐĞƌǀĞĚ,ŽůĞͬƵƌƌŽǁ&с&ĞĚĞƌĂůůǇŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚ sсŝƌĞĐƚsŝƐƵĂůKdсKďƐĞƌǀĞĚdƌĂĐŬƐ&dс&ĞĚĞƌĂůůǇdŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚ ,sс,ĞĂƌĚsŽĐĂůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿZсZĞŵĂŝŶƐ^^с^ƉĞĐŝĞƐŽĨ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŽŶĐĞƌŶ DdсDĂƌŬĞĚdƌĞĞ ^с^ĐĂƚ^dс^ƚĂƚĞdŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚ DdсWƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌDŝŐƌĂƚŽƌǇŝƌĚdƌĞĂƚǇĐƚ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĚŽĞƐŚĂǀĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƚǇƉĞƐŝŶǁŚŝĐŚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĐŽƵůĚďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚ ĨŽƌĨŽƌĂŐŝŶŐƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͘ƵƌŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŵĂǇďĞƌĂŝƐĞĚďǇƚŚĞ ĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ͗ ŝŐǇƉƌĞƐƐ&Žǆ^ƋƵŝƌƌĞů;^ĐŝƵƌƵƐŶŝŐĞƌĂǀŝĐĞŶŶŝĂͿ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĨĂůůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ&ŝƐŚΘtŝůĚůŝĨĞŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͛Ɛ;&tͿŬŶŽǁŶ ƌĂŶŐĞŽĨŝŐǇƉƌĞƐƐĨŽǆƐƋƵŝƌƌĞů͕ĂŶĚĂůƐŽĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐƐƵŝƚĂďůĞĨŽƌĂŐŝŶŐͬŶĞƐƚŝŶŐŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͘ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ ƐƵƌǀĞǇĂŶĚǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŽƚŚĞƌĨŝĞůĚǁŽƌŬĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͕ŶŽĨŽǆƐƋƵŝƌƌĞůƐŽƌƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŶĞƐƚƐǁĞƌĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ƉƌĞͲ ĐůĞĂƌŝŶŐƐƵƌǀĞǇǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͖ƐŚŽƵůĚĂŶǇŶĞƐƚƐďĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĨĂůůǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ŝŵƉĂĐƚĂƌĞĂ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂϱϳϱͲĨŽŽƚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͕ĂŶ&tƉĞƌŵŝƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŶĞƐƚƚƌĞĞ ŵĂǇďĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ͘ &ůŽƌŝĚĂŽŶŶĞƚĞĚĂƚ;ƵŵŽƉƐĨůŽƌŝĚĂŶĂͿ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĨĂůůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ&ŝƐŚΘtŝůĚůŝĨĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͛Ɛ;h^&t^Ϳ&ůŽƌŝĚĂŽŶŶĞƚĞĚĂƚ ŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘,ĂďŝƚĂƚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐŶŽƚŝĚĞĂůĨŽƌďŽŶŶĞƚĞĚďĂƚƌŽŽƐƚŝŶŐ ĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĚĞŶƐĞĐĂŶŽƉǇĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚŽƌǇƚŚĂƚŵŽƐƚůǇĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĞǆŽƚŝĐƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇĨŝĞůĚǁŽƌŬ͕ŽŶĞĐĂǀŝƚǇŝŶĂƉŝŶĞƚƌĞĞƐŶĂŐǁĂƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͘EŽƐŝŐŶƐŽĨ&ůŽƌŝĚĂŽŶŶĞƚĞĚĂƚ ƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶǁĞƌĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĐĂǀŝƚǇƐƵƌǀĞǇǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ͘ ĂůĚĂŐůĞ;,ĂůŝĂĞĞƚƵƐůĞƵĐŽĐĞƉŚĂůƵƐͿ EŽ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ&ŝƐŚΘtŝůĚůŝĨĞŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ;&tͿͲĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚďĂůĚĞĂŐůĞŶĞƐƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϲϲϬͲĨĞĞƚ ;h^&t^ WƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŽŶĞͿ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ĂŶĚ ŶŽ ŶĞƐƚƐ ǁĞƌĞ ŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘ &ůŽƌŝĚĂWĂŶƚŚĞƌ;&ĞůŝƐĐŽŶĐŽůŽƌĐŽƌǇŝͿ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĨĂůůƐŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞh^&t^WƌŝŵĂƌǇWĂŶƚŚĞƌ,ĂďŝƚĂƚŽŶĞƐ͘dǁĞŶƚǇͲƐŝǆ;ϮϲͿƉĂŶƚŚĞƌ ƚĞůĞŵĞƚƌǇƉŽŝŶƚƐǁĞƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƚǁŽͲŵŝůĞƌĂĚŝƵƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞǇĞĂƌƐŽĨϮϬϮϮͲ ϮϬϮϯ;ƐĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘ůůϮϲƚĞůĞŵĞƚƌǇƉŽŝŶƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƚǁŽͲŵŝůĞƌĂĚŝƵƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁĞƌĞĨƌŽŵ ŽŶĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƉĂŶƚŚĞƌ;&WϮϲϮͿǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůĂƚĞƐƚďĞŝŶŐĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϰƚŚ͕ϮϬϮϯ͘WĂŶƚŚĞƌƵƐĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐƵŶůŝŬĞůǇĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ &ůŽƌŝĚĂůĂĐŬĞĂƌ;hƌƐƵƐĂŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƵƐĨůŽƌŝĚĂŶƵƐͿ dŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĨĂůůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶƚďůĂĐŬďĞĂƌŚĂďŝƚĂƚ;&tͿ͘&ŽƌƚǇͲĨŝǀĞ;ϰϱͿďůĂĐŬďĞĂƌͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚ ĐĂůůƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŽŶĞͲŵŝůĞƌĂĚŝƵƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝŶϮϬϭϲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚϮϬϭϴ;ƐĞĞ ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘&tƐƚŽƉƉĞĚƌĂĚŝŽͲƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐďůĂĐŬďĞĂƌƐŝŶϮϬϭϴ͘ƵĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůĂĐŬ ďĞĂƌƐĂƌĞŶŽƚůŝŬĞůǇƚŽƵƚŝůŝǌĞƚŚĞ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘&tĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ;DWƐͿǁŝůůďĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞĨŽůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌ&ůŽƌŝĚĂďůĂĐŬďĞĂƌ͘ 6 Page 1815 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ ϲ͘ϬZ&ZE^ ƐŚƚŽŶ͕ZĂǇ͘ĂŶĚWĂƚƌŝĐŝĂ^͘͞dŚĞEĂƚƵƌĂů,ŝƐƚŽƌǇĂŶĚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ'ŽƉŚĞƌdŽƌƚŽŝƐĞ͘͟ <ƌŝĞŐĞƌWƵďůŝƐŚŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘DĂůĂďĂƌ͕&ůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ϮϬϬϴ͘ Žǆ͕:ĂŵĞƐ͖/ŶŬůĞǇ͕ŽƵŐůĂƐ͖ĂŶĚ<ĂƵƚǌ͕ZĂŶĚǇ͘͞ĐŽůŽŐǇĂŶĚ,ĂďŝƚĂƚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶEĞĞĚƐŽĨ'ŽƉŚĞƌ dŽƌƚŽŝƐĞ;'ŽƉŚĞƌƵƐƉŽůǇƉŚĞŵƵƐͿWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ&ŽƵŶĚŽŶ>ĂŶĚƐ^ůĂƚĞĚĨŽƌ>ĂƌŐĞͲ^ĐĂůĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶ &ůŽƌŝĚĂ͘͟EŽŶŐĂŵĞtŝůĚůŝĨĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůZĞƉŽƌƚEŽ͘ϰ͘ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϵϴϳ͘ ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨǁƐƉƵďƐ͘ŽƌŐͬĚŽŝͬƐƵƉƉůͬϭϬ͘ϯϵϵϲͬϬϲϮϬϭϱͲ:&tDͲϬϱϱͬƐƵƉƉůͺĨŝůĞͬϬϲϮϬϭϱͲũĨǁŵͲ Ϭϱϱ͘ƐϮ͘ƉĚĨ͍ĐŽĚĞсƵĨǁƐͲƐŝƚĞ ƚůĂƐŽĨ&ůŽƌŝĚĂWůĂŶƚƐ͘/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞĨŽƌ^ǇƐƚĞŵĂƚŝĐŽƚĂŶǇ͘ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ͗&ĞďƌƵĂƌǇϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϰ͘ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ƉůĂŶƚĂƚůĂƐ͘ƵƐĨ͘ĞĚƵͬ ŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƉƉƌĂŝƐĞƌ͘ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĂƉƉƌĂŝƐĞƌ͘ĐŽŵĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ͗&ĞďƌƵĂƌǇϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϰ͘ ͞&ůŽƌŝĚĂ͛ƐŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚĂŶĚdŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ͟ͲKĨĨŝĐŝĂů>ŝƐƚ͘&ůŽƌŝĚĂ&ŝƐŚĂŶĚtŝůĚůŝĨĞŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘hƉĚĂƚĞĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮ͘ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬŵǇĨǁĐ͘ĐŽŵͬŝŵƉĞƌŝůĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐͬ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŵǇĨǁĐ͘ĐŽŵͬŵĞĚŝĂͬϭϵϰϱͬƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚͲĞŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚͲƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘ƉĚĨ &ůŽƌŝĚĂ/ŶǀĂƐŝǀĞ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐŽƵŶĐŝů͘͞ϮϬϭϵ&/^>ŝƐƚŽĨ/ŶǀĂƐŝǀĞWůĂŶƚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘͟ ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨůŽƌŝĚĂŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘ŽƌŐͬƉůĂŶƚůŝƐƚ͘ĐĨŵ &ůŽƌŝĚĂ>ĂŶĚhƐĞ͕ŽǀĞƌĂŶĚ&ŽƌŵƐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ;&>h^Ϳ,ĂŶĚďŽŽŬ͘&ůŽƌŝĚĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϭϵϵϵ͘ ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬŐĞŽƐƉĂƚŝĂůͬĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƉƵďƐͬĨůƵĐĐŵĂŶƵĂůϭϵϵϵ͘ƉĚĨ ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬŐĞŽƐƉĂƚŝĂůͬĚŽĐͺƉƵďƐ͘ƐŚƚŵ tĞĂǀĞƌ͕ZŝĐŚĂƌĚ͘ĂŶĚŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ͕WĂƚƚŝ:͘͞EŽƚĞƐŽŶ&ůŽƌŝĚĂ͛ƐŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚĂŶĚdŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚWůĂŶƚƐ͘͟ ƵƌĞĂƵŽĨŶƚŽŵŽůŽŐǇ͕EĞŵĂƚŽůŽŐǇĂŶĚWůĂŶƚWĂƚŚŽůŽŐǇʹŽƚĂŶǇ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘ŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶEŽ͘ϯϴ͕ϱƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘ϮϬϭϬ͘ ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬĨƌĞƐŚĨƌŽŵĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘Ɛϯ͘ĂŵĂǌŽŶĂǁƐ͘ĐŽŵͬĨůͲĞŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚͲƉůĂŶƚƐ͘ƉĚĨ ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨƌĞƐŚĨƌŽŵĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵͬŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐͲKĨĨŝĐĞƐͬWůĂŶƚͲ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌǇͬƵƌĞĂƵƐͲĂŶĚͲ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͬƵƌĞĂƵͲŽĨͲ ŶƚŽŵŽůŽŐǇͲEĞŵĂƚŽůŽŐǇͲWůĂŶƚͲWĂƚŚŽůŽŐǇͬŽƚĂŶǇͬ&ůŽƌŝĚĂͲƐͲŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚͲWůĂŶƚƐ 7 Page 1816 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ WWE/y &h>>^/y,//d^ 8 Page 1817 of 9661 9Page 1818 of 9661 10Page 1819 of 9661 11Page 1820 of 9661 12Page 1821 of 9661 13Page 1822 of 9661 14Page 1823 of 9661 15Page 1824 of 9661 16Page 1825 of 9661 17Page 1826 of 9661 WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ǁǁǁ͘ĞƚĞĨůŽƌŝĚĂ͘ĐŽŵ WWE/y ,/^dKZ/Z/>^ 18 Page 1827 of 9661 +LVWRULFDO$HULDO3KRWRJUDSK5HSRUW 6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ $XWXPQ%ORVVRPV3DUFHOV 3DUFHO,'VDQG &ROOLHU&RXQW\)ORULGD 3UHSDUHG)RU (DUWK7HFK(QYLURQPHQWDO//& -ROHD$YHQXH %RQLWD6SULQJV)/ 3UHSDUHG%\ (QYLURQPHQWDO'DWD0DQDJHPHQW,QF :HVW%D\'ULYH6XLWH /DUJR)ORULGD 2FWREHU 1 19 Page 1828 of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age 1829 of 9661 Source: Florida Department of Transportation Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 2017 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 3 21 Page 1830 of 9661 Source: Florida Department of Transportation Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 2006 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 4 22 Page 1831 of 9661 Source: Florida Department of Transportation Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 1993 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 5 23 Page 1832 of 9661 Source: Florida Department of Transportation Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 1985 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 6 24 Page 1833 of 9661 Source: Florida Department of Transportation Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 1973 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 7 25 Page 1834 of 9661 Source: University of Florida Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 1962 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 8 26 Page 1835 of 9661 Source: USGS Single Frame Collection Map Scale and Property Boundaries are Approximate Aerial Photo Image 1952 Approximate Site Location Subject Property Autumn Blossoms Parcels Parcel IDs: 00439360308 and 00439000008 Collier County, Florida EDM Job No: 24933 October 9, 2019 9 27 Page 1836 of 9661 Traffic Impact Statement Miceli – Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Collier County, FL 03/27/2025 Prepared for: Prepared by: Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 239-403-6700 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.566.9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Review Fee* – $500.00 Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Small Scale Study – No Fee Note: *The fee will be collected at the time of PUD submittal. Page 1837 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Page 1838 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ............................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................... 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................................................................... 8 Background Traffic .............................................................................................................. 10 Existing and Future Roadway Network .............................................................................. 10 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis ................................................. 11 Access Management ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Improvement Analysis ........................................................................................................ 1 3 Mitigation of Impact ........................................................................................................... 13 Appendices Appendix A: PUD Master Plan ........................................................................................... 14 Appendix B: Methodology Meeting .................................................................................. 16 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ........................................................................ 23 Appendix D: FSUTMS Model Results ................................................................................. 36 Appendix E: FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook 2023 - Excerpt ............ 38 Page 1839 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 4 Project Description The Miceliproject is a proposed development locatedsouth of US 41 (SR 90, Tamiami Trail East),just west of Raintree Lane and approximately 900 feet southeast of Treviso Bay Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The project site is located in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County Florida. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated in Figure 1 – Location Map. Figure 1 – Location Map The site is comprised of two parcels (5.8 acres and 2.85 acres per the Collier County Appraisers website) which are both vacant. The total site area is approximately 8.65 acres and is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Miceli Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) project proposes to develop 63 multifamily dwelling units(du)in several low-rise buildings. The site plan for the development is in Appendix A – PUD Master Plan. The PUD is allowed, per Ordinance 92-062, to develop 17 multifamily du and commercial uses. The commercial uses were included in the Ordinance with no maximum intensity specified. A 1984 Traffic Impact Statement prepared in support of the preliminary Miceli PUD application was based on 21,500 square feet (sf) of commercial uses along with 66 du of multifamily residential. For this report, the allowed uses will consist of 17 multifamily housing du and 21,500 sfof shopping center as the commercial use. The allowed and proposed development programs for the PUD are illustrated in Table 1. Page 1840 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 5 Table 1 ITE – Development Land Use Designations Development Land Use [SIC Code in Brackets] ITE LUC Size (ITE variable) Allowed Uses Residential Multifamily Housing [N/A] 220 – Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 17 dwelling units Commercial Shopping Center (all PUD principal uses possible—typical for a shopping center—as an inline/outparcel use, consistent with Ord 92-062-Sec 3.02) 822 – Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 21,500 square feet Proposed Use Residential Multifamily Housing [N/A] 220 – Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 63 dwelling units Traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated generally based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. In agreement with ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions, the ITE land use designations are illustrated in Table 1. A methodology meeting was held with Collier County Transportation Planning staff on July 25, 2024, via email (refer to Appendix B: Methodology Meeting). The PUDA intensity presented in the July 2024 methodology meeting is significantly reduced with this PUDA application. As coordinated with Collier County staff, no updates to the 2024 methodology are included in this report. For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2030 planning horizon. Connection to the subject project will be from US 41 (Tamiami Trail East), a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) roadway. The project will have a right-in/right-out connection to US 41. Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software), most current version, is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE equations are used for the trip generation calculations. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets and the LUC descriptions are provided in Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations. The trip generation associated with the proposed build-out conditions for the project, is summarized in Table 2A: Proposed PUDA Trip Generation – Average Weekday. Internal Trip Capture The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. Page 1841 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 6 In agreement with ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, the internal trip capture is estimated using the NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 684 (Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments) – NCHRP 8-51 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. One of the ITE premises in estimating the internal capture traffic illustrates that the number of trips from a land use within a mixed-use development to another land use within the same development (an internal trip) is a function of the size of the “receiving” land use and the number of trips it attracts, as well as the size of the “originating” land use and the number of trips it sends. The number of trips between a particular pair of internal land uses is limited to the smaller of these two values (ITE procedure of balancing internal trips in a mixed-use development). As internal capture data for the weekday daily time period is not available, the daily internal capture is calculated as the average of the ITE AM peak hour and PM peak hour internal capture rates. Consistent with the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures recommendations, the overall internal capture rate should be reasonable and should not exceed 20%. Pass-by Trips The pass-by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational turn lane analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, shopping center pass-by rates should not exceed 25% for the peak hour and the daily capture rates to be assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis evaluates pass-by capture associated with the Strip Retail Plaza (LUC 822) as follows: Weekday 15%; AM 25%; PM 25% The results of the proposed PUDA trip generation are illustrated in Table 2A and will be used to establish the project trip cap. Table 2A Proposed PUDA Trip Generation – Average Weekday ITE Land Use Size Daily Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Multifamily Housing (Low- Rise) 63 dwelling units 479 10 32 42 30 18 48 The estimated weekday trip generation associated with the existing allowed PUD for these parcels is illustrated in Table 2B. Page 1842 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 7 Table 2B Existing Allowed PUD Trip Generation – Average Weekday ITE Land Use Size Daily Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Multifamily Housing (Low- Rise) 17 dwelling units 184 7 21 28 18 10 28 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 21,500 square feet 1,137 29 19 48 67 67 134 Total Traffic 1,321 36 40 76 85 77 162 Internal Capture 84 0 0 0 12 12 24 Total External 1,237 36 40 76 73 65 138 Pass-by Traffic 164 7 5 12 16 15 31 Net External 1,073 29 35 64 57 50 107 The estimated weekday trip generation associated with the new net external traffic for these parcels is illustrated in Table 2C. Table 2C Net New Trip Generation – Average Weekday Development Daily Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Proposed PUDA – Total External Traffic 479 10 32 42 30 18 48 Existing Allowed – PUD Net External 1,073 29 35 64 57 50 107 Total New Net External Traffic (594) (19) (3) (22) (27) (32) (59) As illustrated in Table 2C, the new net external traffic for the PUDA is negative and, as such, its traffic impacts are less intensive than what is currently allowed for in the PUD per Ordinance 92-062, and no further review of the project’s impact is required. Conservatively, this report presents the proposed PUDA traffic intensity along with the projected 2030 background traffic for the roadway network in the vicinity of the project. In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in the Collier County 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. Page 1843 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 8 Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the proposed PUDA project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area, Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS) model results and engineering judgement. Refer to Appendix D for the FSUTMS model results. The site-generated trip distribution for the PM peak hour of the adjoining street is shown in Table 3: Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour and is graphically depicted in Figure 2: Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Traffic Distribution for Shopping Center PM Peak Hour Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hour Project Vol. (1) Enter Exit Tamiami Trail 93.0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to Treviso Bay Blvd 65% EB – 20 WB – 12 Tamiami Trail 93.0 Treviso Bay Blvd to Project EB: Enter 100% WB: Enter 35%, Exit 65% EB – 30 WB – 22 Tamiami Trail 93.0 Project to Cypress Lane EB: Exit 100% WB: Enter 35%, Exit 65% EB – 18 WB – 22 Tamiami Trail 93.0 Cypress Lane to Triangle Blvd 35% WB – 10 EB – 6 Note(s): 1) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Peak Direction is taken from the Collier County 2024 AUIR. Page 1844 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 9 Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour Page 1845 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 10 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2024), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2030 Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2024 – 2030) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2024 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Projected Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr) (1) Growth Factor 2030 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor (2) Trip Bank 2030 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank (3) Tamiami Trail 93.0 Project to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 2,370 2.00% 1.1262 2,669 382 2,752 Tamiami Trail 93.0 Project to Triangle Blvd 2,370 2.00% 1.1262 2,669 382 2,752 Note(s): 1) Annual Growth Rate – based on peak hour, peak direction volume (from 2008 through 2024), or 2% minimum. 2) Growth Factor = (1 + Annual Growth Rate)6. 2030 Projected Volume = 2024 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. 3) 2030 Projected Volume = 2024 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2030 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the Collier County 2024 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program and the FDOT Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2024 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5: Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Page 1846 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 11 Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2024 Roadway Condition 2024 Standard LOS 2024 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume 2030 Roadway Conditions 2030 Standard LOS 2030 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Tamiami Trail 93.0 Project to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 6D E 3,000 6D E 3,000 Tamiami Trail 93.0 Project to Triangle Blvd 6D E 3,000 6D E 3,000 Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2030. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project in 2030 future conditions. Table 6 – Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2030, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Page 1847 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 12 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – with Project in the Year 2030 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2030 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Dir, Peak Hr (Project Vol Added) (1) 2030 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Volume w/Project (2) % Vol Capacity Impact by Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Tamiami Trail 93.0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to Treviso Bay Blvd 3,000 EB-20 2,772 0.7% No No Tamiami Trail 93.0 Treviso Bay Blvd to Project 3,000 EB-30 2,782 1.0% No No Tamiami Trail 93.0 Project to Cypress Lane 3,000 EB-18 2,770 0.6% No No Tamiami Trail 93.0 Cypress Lane to Triangle Blvd 3,000 EB-6 2,758 0.2% No No Note(s): 1) Refer to Table 3 from this report. 2) 2030 Projected Volume = 2030 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. As illustrated in the Collier County LDC Chapter 6.02.02-M.2, once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS significance criterion, the development’s impacts are not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. The Tamiami Trail (US 41) roadway segment from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Triangle Boulevard is in a designated Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area (TCEA). The TCEA designation is provided in Policy 5.4 of the Transportation Element – Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The project’s traffic accesses Tamiami Trail East, which is located within the TCEA. In agreement with Policy 5.4 of the Transportation Element, Development located in a TCEA may be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using procedures established in Policy 5-5. The subject project is not requesting an exception from transportation concurrency as the area roadway network meets the Collier County transportation concurrency requirements (refer to Table 6). Access Management US 41 (Tamiami Trail East, FDOT Roadway ID 030100000) is an existing six-lane divided arterial roadway under the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) jurisdiction. It is an Access Class 3 roadway with a 50 mph posted speed limit and design speed. The established spacing standard is 660 feet between driveway connections (measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Future geometric conditions are unchanged. The access to US 41 will be via a right-in / right-out access. US 41 has a context classification of C3C in the vicinity of the project. The project’s existing driveway to US 41 is approximately 380 feet from the driveway of the adjacent parcel to the southeast, which is a non-conforming connection. In addition, the project’s driveway is Page 1848 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 13 approximately 840 feet northwest of the driveway at Treviso Bay Boulevard, which is in conformance with Access Management policy. As illustrated in the FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook, Section 6.2.1, turn lanes may be required for very high operating speeds (such as 55 mph or above) and in rural locations where turns are not expected. With a posted speed of 50 mph and a design speed of 50 mph, the roadway is below the threshold for recommending a right-turn lane based on the very high operating speed criteria. The project is expected to generate 10vph and 30vph eastbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Based on the FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook – Figure 74, a right-turn lane is warranted at the project’s access on US 41 (Refer to Appendix E: FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook 2023 – Excerpt). Based on the FDOT Design Manual (FDM), Section 212, Exhibit 212-1, for a design speed of 50 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 290 feet (which includes a 50-foot taper) plus required queue. It is noted that for C3 Context Classification roadways with design speeds of 50 mph, a total deceleration distance of 240 feet may be used under constrained conditions. A stacking area is not required for this connection as the right-turn lane is expected to operate in a free-flow manner. A detailed evaluation of the proposed site access point will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements and capacity availability, as applicable. Improvement Analysis Based upon the findings of the capacity and level of service analysis of this report, the estimated traffic impact is not significant for the surrounding roadway network at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed development, without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service at future year 2030 build-out conditions. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 48 two-way, PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. A detailed evaluation of the proposed site access point will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements and capacity availability, as applicable. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Page 1849 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 14 Appendix A: PUD Master Plan Page 1850 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 15 Page 1851 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 16 Appendix B: Methodology Meeting Page 1852 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 17 Page 1853 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 18 Page 1854 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 19 Page 1855 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 20 Page 1856 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 21 Page 1857 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 22 Page 1858 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 23 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations Page 1859 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 24 Page 1860 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 25 Page 1861 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 26 Page 1862 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 27 Proposed PUDA Page 1863 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 28 Page 1864 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 29 Approved and Allowed PUD Page 1865 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 30 Page 1866 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 31 Page 1867 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 32 Page 1868 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 33 Page 1869 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 34 Page 1870 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 35 Page 1871 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 36 Appendix D: FSUTMS Model Results Page 1872 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 37 Page 1873 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 38 Appendix E: FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook 2023 - Excerpt Page 1874 of 9661 Miceli PUDA – Traffic Impact Statement – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 39Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a ge |39 Page 1875 of 9661 Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [¥] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name:___________________________________________ Municipality:_________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation:Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning:Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type:SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Miceli PUD Collier County 00439000008 and 00439360308 South of Tamiami Trail E, approximately 200' north of Raintree Ln 200' north of Raintree Lane and Tamiami Trail E 11140 Taimami Trail, LLC Jessica Harrelson, AICP - Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 239.596.9500 jharrelson@pen-eng.com 3/28/2025 Urban Coastal Fringe, CHHA, US 41 East Overlay Urban Coastal Fringe, CHHA, US 41 East Overla Miceli PUD Miceli RPUD 17 63 Page 1876 of 9661 Tamiami CTMaple LNFloridan AVE Holland STTamiami TRL ECaldwell STEntrance STRaintree LNMapleLNNapoli LN¯P:\Active_Projects\P-DEVO-005\001-US41-Solano-10thSt\Planning\GIS\2024-10-28_Aerial_Location_Map.mxdDate Saved: 2/24/2025 PROJECT:NOTES:EXHIBIT DESC:2600 Golden Gate ParkwayNaples, FL 34105CLIENT:LOCATION:SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2024)AERIAL LOCATION MAPMICELI RPUDUS 41 (E. TAMIAMI TRL) - NAPLES, FLLegendMICELI RPUD: 8.63 ACRES11140 TAMIAMI, LLCPage 1877 of 9661 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 1 MICELI RPUD Deviations and Justifications 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 N, “Street System Requirements,” which establishes a minimum 60-foot-wide cul-de-sac street, to instead allow a minimum 50-foot-wide cul-de-sac street for the internal right-of-way. Justification: The proposed 50’ wide right-of-way is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate all required roadway improvements. The internal right-of-way will be privately owned and maintained, and the development will be a low-volume/low-intensity community. Sidewalks and utilities may be placed within easements outside of the internal right-of-way, if necessary. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 F, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which requires parking facilities be designed so that no motor vehicles back onto any street, to instead allow parking facilities within the Miceli RPUD be designed to back onto the internal platted right-of-way. Justification: The irregular shape of the lot creates design constraints. This deviation is only necessary because the development is proposed to be platted. Should this development instead be permitted under a unified SDP, this deviation would not be necessary. This will be a low volume/low-intensity community and the approval of this deviation has no negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 J, “Dead-End Streets,” which requires cul-de-sacs to be provided at the terminus of dead-end streets, to instead allow a hammerhead design at the terminus of the internal street. Justification: The Applicant is requesting a hammerhead stub at the end of the internal, private right- of-way. The PUD will be a low-volume/low-traffic community; therefore, this deviation has no negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare. The purpose of the hammerhead design is to efficiently utilize the property’s developable area, and it will provide better access to proposed townhome units when compared to a cul-de-sac. The hammerhead design allows for adequate vehicular circulation and turning movement. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 2, “Sidewalks and Bike Lanes,” which requires 5’ sidewalks on both sides of internal streets, to instead allow a sidewalk along one side of the internal street where there are no dwelling units. Justification: There are right-of-way design constraints due to the size and configuration of the property. Allowing one sidewalk along one side of the internal, private right-of-way where the street is not double-loaded with dwelling units, will allow efficiency and flexibility with the site design. Ap- proval of this deviation has no negative impacts on pedestrian mobility through the site. Page 1878 of 9661 Georgia AVE Cal ll STHolland STMartin STTamiami TRL ECypress LNPrim a W A Y Floridan AVE Entrance STCarlton STRaintree LNTamiami CTTrevisoBay BLVDNapoli LNWarren STSholtz STNapoli CTMaple LN¯P:\Active_Projects\P-AJS-002\001-Realty_Gen_Consult\Planning\GIS\2024-10-28_ZONING.mxdDate Saved: 12/6/2024 PROJECT:NOTES:EXHIBIT DESC:2600 Golden Gate ParkwayNaples, FL 34105CLIENT:LOCATION:SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2024)ZONING EXHIBITMICELI RPUDUS 41 (E. TAMIAMI TRL) - NAPLES, FLLegendMICELI RPUD: 8.63 ACRESZONINGAC-4PUDRSF-411140 TAMIAMI, LLCPage 1879 of 9661 Tamiami CTMaple LNFloridan AVE Holland STTamiami TRL ECaldwell STEntrance STRaintree LNMapleLNNapoli LN¯P:\Active_Projects\P-AJS-002\001-Realty_Gen_Consult\Planning\GIS\2024-10-28_FLU.mxdDate Saved: 12/9/2024 PROJECT:NOTES:EXHIBIT DESC:2600 Golden Gate ParkwayNaples, FL 34105CLIENT:LOCATION:SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2024)FUTURE LAND USE EXHIBITMICELI RPUDUS 41 (E. TAMIAMI TRL) - NAPLES, FLLegendMICELI RPUD: 8.63 ACRESFuture_Land_Use selectionDESCRITIONUrban Coastal Fringe SubdistrictUrban Residential SubdistrictUS 41 East Overlay11140 TAMIAMI, LLCPage 1880 of 9661 Page 1881 of 9661 Page 1882 of 9661 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M. on October 2, 2025, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWING MIXED USES TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MICELI RPUD, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; TO CORRECT PROJECT ACREAGE AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 92-62, THE MICELI PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, 200 FEET NORTH OF RAINTREE LANE, IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 8.63± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20240012218] Page 1883 of 9661 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinance will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112, one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, prior to October 2, 2025. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar- of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing det ailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Ray Bellows at 252-2463 or email to Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Joseph K. Schmitt, Chairman Page 1884 of 9661 Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller - Crystal K. Kinzel Collier County, Florida 3315 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 102 - Naples, FL 34112-5324 Phone: (239) 252-2646 Publication Confirmation COLLIER COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA The attached copy of advertisement, Miceli PUDA (PL20240012218) 12/09/2025 BCC was published on the publically accessible website https://notices.collierclerk.com as designated by Collier County, Florida on 11/19/2025. THIS IS NOT AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION. Page 1885 of 9661