CCPC Agenda 03/05/2026COLLIER COUNTY
Planning Commission
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
March 5, 2026
9:00 AM
Joseph Schmitt, Environmental - Chairman
Chuck Schumacher - Vice-Chair
Paul Shea, Environmental - Secretary
Randy Sparrazza
Charles (Chap) Colucci
Michelle L. McLeod
Mike Petscher
Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board
Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an
organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the
chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit
said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended
to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to
the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record
and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto,
and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Addenda to the Agenda
4. Planning Commission Absences
5. Approval of Minutes
5.A. January 15, 2026, CCPC Meeting Minutes (2026-270)
6. BCC Report - Recaps
7. Chairman's Report
Page 1 of 317
8. Consent Agenda
9. Advertised Public Hearing
9.A. PL20250006588 - Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PUDA) - future extension of
Veterans Memorial Boulevard - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, which established the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps by changing the zoning classification from a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
zoning district and Special Treatment Overlay (ST) to a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Imperial Lakes RPUD to allow
development of the previously approved 430 multifamily dwelling units or an alternative of
313 dwelling units including single family, two family, townhouse and multifamily subject to a
trip cap; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 82-81. The subject property is located on the
future extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, north of Imperial Golf Club, west of
Castlewood at Imperial Planned Unit Development, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, consisting of 78.28+ acres; and by providing an effective date. (2026-317)
10. Old Business
11. New Business
12. Public Comments
13. Adjourn
Page 2 of 317
3/5/2026
Item # 5.A
ID# 2026-270
January 15, 2026, CCPC Meeting Minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 01-15-2026 CCPC Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 1 of 18
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
January 15, 2026
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Joe Schmitt
Vice Chairman: Chuck Schumacher
Secretary: Paul Shea
Michael Petscher
Michelle L. McLeod
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I
James Sabo, Planner III
ABSENT:
Randy Sparrazza
Charles "Chap" Colucci
Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative
Page 4 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 2 of 18
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could I please -- if everyone could take their seat, please.
Good morning, and welcome to the January 15th, 2026, our first meeting of the Calendar Year
2026, Collier County Planning Commission.
If -- I'd ask everybody to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea, I'd ask if you'd please take the roll.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt?
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chairman Schumacher?
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here.
Commissioner Sparrazza?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, he's not here.
Commissioner Colucci not here.
Commissioner McLeod?
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher?
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart is not here.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And she has an excused absence as well.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a quorum, excellent.
All right. Ray, are there any addenda to the agenda?
MR. BELLOWS: No changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right.
Okay. Our next scheduled meeting scheduled for February 5th has been canceled. No petitions,
it appears the 19th maybe as well, but we're going to hold that until we get more -- whether staff decides
that it's worth us meeting.
MR. BOSI: Thank you. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
Right now we have zero petitions. We have another week before the advertising deadline would
be due. I don't believe there's anything that's going to break free, but if something does, we can schedule
for the meeting.
So we'll hold tight on the 19th. Next -- as soon as -- I believe Thursday is when the legal
advertising would be due. If we have nothing on there, I'll send out a note to the Planning Commission to
let you know if we're going to hold a meeting on the 19th or if it's been canceled.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, you mean the 15th, don't you? I'm on the wrong month. I'm
sorry.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. The -- are there any projected -- anybody going to be absent for
the -- if we have a meeting on the 19th --
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We should have a quorum.
What about, then, the following one would be March 5th on my calendar?
MR. BOSI: Yeah, correct. March 5th is -- and currently right now we have two petitions, so
that's a solid yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And any projected commissioners going to be absent?
Page 5 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 3 of 18
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. So we should have a quorum.
Okay. Well, approval of minutes. On the agenda are the November 20, 2025, and the
December 4, 2025, CCPC meetings. Any commissioners have changes or amendments to those minutes?
If not --
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- we have a motion. A second, please.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimous.
Ray, BCC report.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On Tuesday, January 16th, the Board of County Commissioners heard,
on the public agenda, the rezone and companion conditional use for Fleet Management expansion. That
was approved 5-0.
And I don't know if you watched, but the Sabal Palm went very long, but it was -- ended up being
continued indefinitely.
Did the applicant want to come back at some point?
MR. BOSI: The Board asked staff to work with the applicant and the landowner to see if there
was an alternative use that could be derived upon that might be acceptable or if there was any
agencies -- environmental agencies or other outside community trusts that may be interested in purchase.
So they've left the applications open, the GMP and the PUD, but the direction that they provided
for us was really a completely different direction than what the current applications are calling for.
So we'll sort those -- we'll sort those out and give you an update when we have a little more
clarity on it.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the current zoning on that is ag.
MR. BOSI: Current zoning's ag. Ag Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Sending.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right.
Nothing from the Chairman.
Nothing on the consent agenda.
***So we'll proceed to the first item on the agenda, and that's PL20240005299. This is Major
Transportation Hub LDCA. So who is presenting that?
MR. BOSI: And this will be Mr. Alex Showalter, one of our newer members within our LDC
amendment team.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, we're breaking them in.
MR. BOSI: Yes. And he spent a couple years with Growth Management, and then he went with
CAT for a couple years, and he's back with Growth Management.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Welcome. Thanks.
MR. SHOWALTER: Good morning, Chair, Planning Commission. For the record, Alexander
Showalter, Planner III.
Today staff is bringing forward an amendment to add two new definitions for transit stop and
major transportation hub. These definitions are necessary to fully implement Florida Statute 166.04151,
which is part of the Live Local framework for affordable housing.
Under this statute, affordable housing developments are eligible for a 15 percent reduction in
parking requirements without a public hearing when located within one-quarter mile of a transit stop or
Page 6 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 4 of 18
one-half mile of a major transportation hub.
Currently, these definitions are not included in our LDC. Their absence creates uncertainty and
limits the County's ability to realize the full intent of the Live Local Act. This amendment closes that gap
by defining these terms and aligning our LDC with state statute.
The amendment also formally identifies the three major transportation hubs as identified by the
Board of County Commissioners, that being the government center transfer station here, CAT
headquarters on Radio Road, and the newly constructed Immokalee transfer station.
By adopting this amendment, the County provides clarity to developers, reduces regulatory
friction, supports the delivery of affordable housing near transit where reduced parking is appropriate and
consistent with state policy.
Staff believes this amendment is narrowly tailored, legally necessary, and supportive of Live
Local housing projects in Collier County.
Be glad for any questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Alex, I think it's pretty straightforward.
Any comments or questions from my fellow commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second, please.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a second. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimous. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's too easy for his first trip.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Let's give him a harder one next time, will you?
MR. BOSI: We'll up the ante next time.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***All right. We'll go to the next item. Two are items. They're
companion items. PL20230012845, and the Companion Item PL20230012017. They're both the South
Naples Toy Storage. I find that to be a unique name, Toy Storage. Is that for men's and boy's toys or --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anyways, that's a very interesting one. The only thing I -- interesting,
this has a date going back to 2023. It's been around that long?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because the one that's just south of this --
MR. BOSI: The Premium Auto Storage --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: -- that was just recently approved in the fall.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Noel, all yours.
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Planning Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, thank you, thank you. Sorry. We have to go through disclosures.
I'm jumping ahead here.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff materials only. I just spoke with Noel briefly just before the
meeting.
Page 7 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 5 of 18
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, and then I spoke with Mike Bosi about this.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. And anyone wishing to speak, please rise to be sworn in.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right, Noel, now we'll proceed. Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, again, Planning Commissioners. For
the record, Noel Davis with the law firm of Davies Duke on behalf of the applicant, 951 Collier
Boulevard Investors, LLC.
This is a proposed GMPA along with a companion PUD rezone for a luxury motor vehicle
storage facility.
I have with me today Todd Kamps, my client representative; Pat Vanasse and Rachael Hansen
with The Neighborhood Company who are my client's land planners; Lee Davidson with Davidson
Engineering is our civil; Schyler Houfek with Tropical Environmental is our ecologist; and Russ Weyer is
our economist.
The subject property is approximately 5.62 acres and is located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard just under two miles south of U.S. 41. The property is currently vacant and zoned agricultural
today. It has a future land-use designation of Urban Mixed District and is within the Urban Coastal
Fringe Subdistrict.
We are directly across from the Silver Lakes RV Resort and Golf Club and the Pelican Lake
Motorcoach Resort. This is our property here outlined in black.
Next to us we have FPL and LCEC substations as well as some traditional self-storage zoned C-5.
There is also a similar facility, as was mentioned by Mr. Chairman, called 951 Vehicle Suites CPUD.
This project is very similar to that. It's also similar to the Lutgert project that's coming out of the ground
now at Airport and Orange Blossom.
The difference, I think, here with this project is my client's seeking an even higher-end customer.
These facilities, these units will be condominiumized. They will be a for-sale product and would allow an
owner to store a high-end recreational vehicle, not just a luxury car or boat.
Everything will be completely enclosed and required to be indoors. There is no outdoor storage
involved.
And the location makes sense from a compatibility perspective. We're also seeing continued
demand in the market for these types of facilities. There are the two high-end RV resorts right across the
street and also more and more demand from residents of Marco Island. Of course, in the wake of Ian and
a need for -- need to have a nice and safe place slightly more away from the coast to store your toys.
We're not requesting any deviations. Your staff is recommending approval.
Because of the time gap as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we did have two neighborhood
information meetings for this. Both were duly noticed. Both had no public attendees.
And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have for me; otherwise, I'll bring up
Mr. Vanasse to go through a bit more of the specifics.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Patrick.
Good morning, Patrick.
MR. VANASSE: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Vanasse, certified planner with The
Neighborhood Company. Pleasure to be here this morning. Noel stole most of my thunder, touched upon
a lot of highlights, so I will keep it brief.
The Chairman did ask a question. This petition has been around for a little while. Just to give
you a little background, the ownership group changed a little bit through the years, and that's why there
was -- caused some delays. The principal leader of the group is still the same, is here with us today. And
they are -- they've regrouped and are ready to move forward with this project.
So jumping right into it, Noel has described the surrounding uses; however, what I'd like to touch
Page 8 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 6 of 18
upon is the subject property in context with the wider area and the broader surrounding uses. As you all
know, Collier County significantly restricts where commercial uses can go. We relegate those uses
typically to activity centers at the intersection of two major arterials. We have a perfect example at the
intersection of 951 and U.S. 41. We have a substantial amount of commercial uses there; however, those
uses are typically more of the retail type of use. And what we're requesting today is a commercial use;
however, it's a low-impact use that requires a little more space, and it's materially different than the
typical commercial retail.
So what we're asking for is infill commercial in an ideal location. It's within the urban area. It
has urban-level services and utilities. It is surrounded by more intense facilities, utilities, and it offers an
ideal transitional use from conservation lands compatible with the immediately surrounding intense
substations. And beyond that, we have typical urban-level residential densities, commercial intensities.
So we want these types of facilities to be located close to existing commercials, close to the
homes, that's where the demand is, but somewhat removed.
And what we have here is ideal location off of a major arterial. Our drive aisle is 600 feet, and
it's tucked away behind these substations. And what it does is it provides some shielding, puts it in an
ideal location, and also allows the facility to have easy access off this major arterial, dedicated road,
looping around the uses, so if someone does come in with a Class A motorcoach, it's easy to maneuver. It
makes sense. It doesn't create conflicts with the regular person going to a commercial center.
So as Noel mentioned, we are asking for two requests today. The first one is a Comp Plan
amendment to amend the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and Future Land Use
Element. Relatively simple. We're asking for one single use, which is for limited mini or self-storage.
More specifically, we are targeting the toy owner, people that have luxury RVs and boats. That is the
target market. And we are also asking to rezone the property from agricultural to CPUD to implement
that subdistrict.
More specifically, if we looked at -- look at the 60,000 square feet of indoor storage use, that
equates to anywhere from 30 to 50 individual units. It all depends what the buyer wants. We can figure
the interior a little different, but the typical unit is 25 feet wide by 50 feet deep, which allows for that
Class A motorcoach.
Also, the doors, compared to some of these other facilities, is a very tall door, at least 14 feet in
height, sometimes 16 feet in height to allow for those large vehicles.
So depending on what the demand is, what the consumer wants, sometimes two of those bays can
be combined for one large unit. So as mentioned, anywhere from 30 to 50 units total. Those will be all
condominiums and sold to individual owners.
The facility will be gated. There will be cameras and security. It will be buffered, and we will
have landscaping.
As mentioned, it is considered a very low-impact commercial use. It generates very few
peak-hour trips. Also, it doesn't generate any kind of odors or noise. All the activity is contained within
the buildings. Everything is indoors. It is also conveniently located along Collier Boulevard in close
proximity to a lot of new developments, in close proximity to high-end RV resorts right across the street.
Some of these owners, when they leave for the winter, want to store their RVs indoors.
Also, just anecdotally -- and also we provided a detailed market study that demonstrates the
demand for this type of facility. But anecdotally, the owner has already been in touch with several
homeowners on Marco Island that are looking for mainland storage. After the hurricanes, we all know
that it's important to have facilities that are resilient and that are high and dry and can store -- store their
toys away from that potential flooding that can occur with a major storm event.
With regards to the specifics of the subdistrict, relatively simple. Subdistrict limits it to one use
that we've mentioned, limits it to 60,000 square feet. It also requests that the project come through as a
PUD, which is the companion petition, and also requires a trip cap, which we have as part of the PUD.
This is an exhibit of the proposed map change. As you can see, subject property's tucked away
behind the FPL power plant, direct access to 951. Also, what I'd like to point out is the shaded area is all
urban designated land, land that is -- that is planned for future development. So this land will get
Page 9 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 7 of 18
developed. We believe that this use is an ideal use for this location and the surrounding uses.
The PUD implements the proposed subdistrict. Again, the PUD is relatively simple, very limited
uses, for mini-storage and self-storage; caps the square footage at 60,000 square feet, consistent with the
subdistrict; provides the peak-hour p.m. net trips on the roadway. And what's important to note is the
traffic generated is considered de minimis, meaning that it has an impact of less than 1 percent on the
adjacent roadway. So there is sufficient capacity. This will not affect the roadway system.
With regards to preserve requirements, we exceed the minimum requirement of .55 of an acre,
and we provide .68 of an acre. And we are generally consistent with Land Development Code
requirements, and we are requesting no deviations at all.
One thing that I'd like to point out that's -- that hasn't made it to your packet, in preparing for the
presentation and reviewing the staff reports, we noticed that there was an accessory use that was left in
there that should have been stricken. That is No. 2. Calls for outdoor storage and display of merchandise
as an accessory use. That is a remnant of the initial application which contained a primary use of outdoor
storage and display. We eliminated that as a primary use. This was just omitted. It should have been
stricken out. So just for the record, we are removing that. It should not be part of the request.
To quickly go over the master plan here, as you can see, nice long drive aisle to get to the units,
600 feet. We are providing buffers around the entire property. Our largest buffer is in the form of the
preserve, which is to the rear. That preserve is going to be at minimum 75 feet deep and is going to
prevent any access to that conservation area to the east.
We're going to have the preserve. We're going to have some water management, the drive aisles,
and then the building. And as mentioned, this is tucked away behind an FPL easement. To the east and
also to the south, we have those FPL easements.
With regards to the other storage facilities that are immediately adjacent to us, we believe
what -- that what is being offered here is complementary. There are synergies that make sense to
collocate the different types of facilities. It's an ideal location. It's away from the residential homes. It's
not in direct sight, but it's very close to them. And what they are targeting are different markets.
So again, as we mentioned, Midgard is for the average homeowner that needs to store furniture,
extra furniture, Christmas decorations. The one to the south is going to be targeting luxury cars, and we
are targeting the owner of an RV/large boat that he needs a larger storage area.
With regards to development standards, very consistent with other facilities throughout Naples
and Collier County that are similar in nature. Our maximum height is 35 feet zoned height; actual height,
40 feet. And as mentioned, no deviations whatsoever, and we will be demonstrating how we're consistent
with the LDC as part of our Site Development Plan permitting.
So with that said, I will wrap things up by saying that we have carefully reviewed the staff
reports. We concur with their findings and conclusions and recommendation for approval. In my
professional planning opinion, we have met all statutory requirements for a small-scale Comp Plan
amendment. We are consistent with the Land Development Code. We are consistent with the Comp
Plan, as amended.
Also, as Noel mentioned, two NIMs were held for this project. We had no one turnout at both of
them. It was duly advertised. Letters were sent out, and we have received no comments, no concerns
from any of the neighbors.
So with that said, I would say we are also complementary to those existing uses and compatible
with them.
And with that said, I would respectfully request a recommendation of approval from the Planning
Commission.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I have just one question. As in the past with these, we did
restrict -- there's no overnight type of facilities in these little condo units. Is this the same for this as well?
MR. VANASSE: At least from the current request. These are going to be condos. They're going
to be sold to individuals. Gated. Right now the intent wasn't to provide limited hours of operation
because it will be limited to just a very small group, and it will be secured and gated.
Page 10 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 8 of 18
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Okay. My board in front of me is not working. Do we have
any other commissioners? Go ahead, Paul.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just informational. It's in the Coastal High Hazard Area. What do
you have to -- do you have to do anything special for being in there to protect your property?
MR. VANASSE: So the site will go through the Water Management District permitting and
through Site Development Plan. They will have to fill in the site and elevate the site, make sure that it is
way above BFE. And one of the things that we know that the buyers will want is a safe, resilient place.
You know, obviously a lot of people on Marco Island are perfectly aware of the dangers of flooding. And
if they're going to store their vehicle somewhere, they want to know it's safe. It will be marketed that
way. It will be designed that way.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: How much fill are you thinking in terms of elevation addition?
MR. VANASSE: I don't know the answer. Unfortunately, our engineer is not there.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm sure he knows right now.
MR. VANASSE: Yeah. He knows, and that will be part of our SDP and District permitting.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. It's not important for this.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I think the BFE there is probably six or seven feet, at least. And I
don't think -- the ground elevation is probably nothing more than five. So you're going to have some
required.
And I know in order to meet insurance requirements you're going to have to -- and the building
codes, you're going to have to be above BFE, and probably one foot of freeboard above BFE. So I
don't -- but that all will be worked out during the permitting process.
So any other questions? Michelle.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. So, Pat, I think I'm having a hard time understanding what
this project is, because when I read it, I thought when I heard RVs, outdoor space --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Condo.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- I was thinking more of a different kind of storage unit. And
then in reading mini self-storage, I was thinking it was kind of that kind of a project. And then when I
hear Noel say, no, it's high-end condos, individual. And then it had mentioned that there's renderings in
this packet. I didn't see renderings in this packet.
MR. VANASSE: I'll address those one by one.
So with regards to the use itself, Collier County doesn't have a specific use with regards to these
car condos or RV condos. What we have is a general SIC category for warehousing. There are numerous
sub uses within there, and we are limiting our use to mini-storage. That's the closest or equivalent use.
So all the other warehousing uses we're not asking for.
And what we are presenting is that, more specifically, this is going to be geared to the toy storage
facilities. Man caves is another use, a word that's been used. But this one is specially designed for bigger
units, for RVs and for large boats. So it's going to be completely self-contained. It's going to look similar
to other car condos that you've seen, but these are going to be larger units with taller, bigger doors.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Commissioner, for some of the other PUDs that are similar, we have
called out some of the uses like automobiles, RVs, boats, you know, and that's something that you could
request if you deem that needed.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Help me out. How would that guide me, then?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So under the use with the SIC code, it would say for -- we'd have to
work with them as to language that would be appropriate that wouldn't be too limiting, but that would
include, you know, automobiles, boats, RVs, and other recreational equipment, or whatever additional
phrase they would need to --
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, because if this moves forward to the County
Commissioners, too, I want them to understand what kind of a -- because again, it's warehouse,
mini-storage, RV. I think those words do not adequately describe what this project is. And again, RV -- I
don't know, of all the car condos that we've been doing, if it's -- an RV would be considered one of these
luxury car condos.
Page 11 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 9 of 18
MR. DAVIES: If I may, Commissioner McLeod. So the best way I could try to explain this, I
think, is that the code and when it was written, right, predates this use being sort of a trending use now,
right, and particularly, as Patrick explained, with the increased demand and increased fear, frankly, in the
market for the next hurricane and protecting their fancy toys.
So when we come in with an application like this, we are creating our own subdistrict and PUD
that's limiting this use the best we can using the sort of options within -- or the SIC references within your
Land Development Code.
So typically -- and I'd defer to staff as well. But typically, that 4225 SIC code, the mini-storage
and self-storage, you see that word "warehousing" as well. I agree 100 percent with you that that doesn't
perfectly describe what we're trying to do here.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right.
MR. DAVIES: But I think it's the closest box to try to put us in, and then with the PUD, that
language is limited to allow for the RV, car, or boat, essentially.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Why didn't the other car condo projects that have come before us
use these same SIC codes?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. They did. They did, mini storage,
self-storage.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Maybe they just --
MR. BOSI: Mini store -- mini warehousing and self-storage is the larger umbrella. The
specificity that you're seeing within a car condo is specifically for storing of cars and other type -- other
type of storages. But this request is not for cars but for larger recreational vehicles.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Is this the first --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So in other PUDs that you've -- that have been approved, there's another
one that said, "Limited to air-conditioned indoor vehicle storage intended for automobile, recreational
vehicles, swamp buggies, four-wheelers, and boats." But maybe they can proffer some language that
would work for them --
MR. DAVIES: And if that --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- if you deem that needed.
MR. DAVIES: We're fine with that type of language if you -- if the concern is that this turns into
something else, we're fine with additional -- additional language to Ms. Ashton's point about that. There's
no objection to that.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. Again, when I went through this material, I had a
completely different vision of what --
MR. DAVIES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Where the other projects it's clear to me that it's a luxury car
condo project. I just didn't see this at all. And then with that fact that it had, like, outdoor storage space,
which now has been removed, that was a little -- leading me into a different kind of thought process for
this project.
MR. DAVIES: Understood. And we're happy to add the language that Ms. Ashton's suggesting.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. If that's okay.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's okay.
But, you know, given the site and given the proximity to what I would think are not very
nice-looking neighboring properties, it's a substation, and it's a -- was it Lee County maintenance facility?
MR. DAVIES: Yeah, LCEC.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, nobody else is going to go in there and develop this thing.
You know, it's pretty limited for the existing zoning that it's going to be anything but what's being offered
there.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I do have another question. So it's -- am I right there's, like, three
storage facility properties right next to it? I mean, this is going to be like "storage row" or something.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, there's an existing storage facility there now.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right.
Page 12 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 10 of 18
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's been there for years. Just south of it is what we approved four,
five months ago, and now this one, but --
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Does that concern any of you guys that it's, like, one right after
the other?
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: When I first saw this, I called Mike, and I -- because I wanted to get
clarity on these -- between the two. But given the proximity of the LCEC and the other mini-storage and
FP&L, I mean, it's -- I can't see anything else of what I would call -- a use that anybody would go in there
and develop any kind of commercial or residential in there. This seems to be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right, right. It is a suitable space, again. High -- it's a Coastal
High Hazard Area. It's right by the FP&L plant. So yeah, I was just -- there's already three.
MR. DAVIES: Yeah. And so there is one that exists today. There's one that you approved
recently this year. As Patrick mentioned, I do think that -- I mean, I get it, they're all under that broad
category of self-storage. As this use has evolved and as the market has evolved for it, I do think it's fair to
characterize all three of them as complementary.
So the one you see on the screen, Midgard Self Storage, that's the old-school traditional one, as
Patrick mentioned. Extra garage space, right? Your Christmas decorations, your other stuff you don't
want to keep in your garage.
We are similar to the one you previously approved, but the difference -- and I think this is an
important difference -- is you cannot store a $2 million Class A motorcoach at that facility. You can here.
And there's not going to be that many of these units, you heard Patrick say.
So it's 60,000 square feet. Max of 50 units if we chop this up. Probably more like something in
the high 30s. And the target customer is, quite frankly -- and you can see this on the aerial really -- the
folks that, you know, live during the season in their Class A motorcoach right across the street. They go
back up north for the winter. They want a safe, elevated indoor place to keep their winter motorcoach.
Instead of driving it back up north, they leave it there. They come back and get it in the winter. They
drive it across the street and stay for the winter.
So that's the market demand that sort of, you know, is the business thinking behind this proposal.
And I think that's what -- I mean, I recognize that concern with now three right in close proximity, but
when you pair that with the different target markets for each -- and to Mr. Chairman's point, I mean,
we've got, you know, power stations/substations right next to it.
So it's low trips. It's low impact. The target customer is this, you know, higher-end sort of -- this
is going to be a first-class facility, as Patrick mentioned, to make sure that they're comfortable not just, of
course, for our insurance and marketing purposes, but that at the end of the day, a customer is comfortable
purchasing one of these commercial condominium units to keep a very valuable toy inside of it.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you, Noel, for being sensitive to my concerns.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Informational. If -- so they're going to purchase these so that you'll
be set up with some kind of association management like that?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. So you create, like, a commercial condominium, just like a residential
condominium.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: But a lot of times people think of condos as residential. It's a way to effectuate
the division of land, right? So the condominium process can be -- can be land, it can be water, it can be
traditional residential, or it can be a commercial project like this. And the purpose of that is to essentially
be able to convey fee simple interest to our end users. And you sell that. It's like a condo. There's condo
docs. There's a condo association for the common elements of the property that are not the individual
units that each purchaser would store their toys in.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. So the current ownership, basically, will be out of it once
everything's sold, just like a residential HOA?
MR. DAVIES: Correct, but subject to compliance with the zoning, compliance with the
condominium documents that would be, you know, recorded on title and all that.
Page 13 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 11 of 18
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My only other comment is -- I mean, we approve these, and there's
some existing already. If you go west 41 down towards the city, there's a couple of them going in.
There's some across from -- going east on the Trail.
I trust your market analysis is pretty much validated that there's still a need for these. And I
mean, that's a business decision. I don't consider that part of the zoning other than you're required to
submit a marketing analysis. But I trust that you feel that this is certainly going to be developed, and it's
going to be profitable from a standpoint of selling units.
MR. DAVIES: We are. And my client wouldn't be doing it if they hadn't done their due
diligence on the market.
And I recognize, again, the number of these that are coming out of the ground, right? And -- but I
think here and the specifics of our market research on this is such that -- almost all of the ones that you
mentioned are the ones that we're familiar with or the new ones that are coming up, they're a very nice
place to store your luxury car. They're -- as Patrick mentioned, we've got the larger doors. The idea here
is to seamlessly pull in your -- you know, you drive in -- you open the garage, you drive in, you drive all
the way through, and you're done. You get on the plane and you go north.
And so I think the marked distinction with this specific project is that the facility will be
designed, or the units, the commercial condominium units will allow for access of a large, you know,
motorcoach bus. And a lot of these other projects, almost all of them that I can think of, you could put
your Ferrari in there, right? You could put your other -- your wine collection, and a smaller item or a
luxury car or two, but it doesn't have the height, width, and sort of comfort to -- so these are less units,
which means less trips, less traffic, but bigger units to accommodate specifically the high-end recreational
vehicle.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Do we have any registered public speakers?
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no public speakers registered.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
Staff is recommending support of the project. And we did receive an email from Ms. Hansen
earlier this week, so we weren't able to correct it. But, yes, we do agree with the elimination of the
storage. It was a leftover that staff missed and should have had eliminated already. We most certainly
concur with that.
It is in the coastal high -- or Coastal Urban Fringe which limits density to four units an acre. This
is an area we would not want to see or promote residential development. We think this is a use that is
very complementary to the surrounding uses, the substations, as well as the other two self-storage
facilities.
We know it's a -- the intensity associated with the -- these facilities are extremely low. For all
those reasons, staff is supporting.
The one thing I did want to bring up to the Planning Commission, and the concern we would have
is now that PUDs are eligible for Live Local and the number of self-storage facilities that have been
developed, you may want to discuss with the applicant that aspect in terms of what can we -- how can we
be assured that this doesn't turn into a 25-unit-an-acre by-right individual residential development
utilizing Live Local. And that's -- that would be one of the issues that staff would be concerned about, we
would want to discuss with the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Mike, how many units could go there if you put residential
housing there? Are you saying 25?
MR. BOSI: Twenty-five units an acre. No, that means you would -- it's, what, 5.6 acres?
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, how many?
MR. BOSI: So you'd have 130 -- 130 units, roughly.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Because I was thinking this property is going to have to be
Page 14 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 12 of 18
filled high, just like a residential community would be. So why would we not want residents here? But
you just answered the question. If you're going to have 100 -- more than 100 houses there with, average,
two people -- that's a lot of people coming in and out of storms versus this is going to be whatever, like,
30 people driving their car and then leaving. So I just answered my own question --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- that this makes sense versus a residential community.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. So once the -- if you were to recommend approval and the Board
were ultimately to approve it, Mr. Bosi was pointing out that it would qualify for Live Local, which is
done administratively, approval up to about 25 units an acre. There are --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Without having to come back here.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Without having to come before you. So to address this issue, there are
at least two PUDs where the applicant was required to record a restriction in the official land records that
stated that there wouldn't be residential at this location. So if that's something that you want, we can add
that as a condition of approval.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would definitely support it. But you want to see them bring in fill,
and you ought to see the Live Local that's going right next to Henderson Creek. There must be eight foot
of fill coming into that site. And that's going to be a 10-story facility right there on 951 just south of
Walmart, right at Henderson Creek, and that's -- that was a Live Local. That's a -- of course, that never
came to us. It was -- it's being converting to affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's going to need fill, too.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it will. It absolutely will. It's going to need it just for insurance
purposes if you're going to be storing -- they're going to be storing any high-end -- any equipment in
there. But they're going to have fill anyway, because it has to meet the BFE and the building codes.
Go ahead, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Oh. I was just going to say, that was a project that was endorsed by the Board of
County Commissioners. There was actually money that was conveyed because of the affordable housing
commitment that was associated with it.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: What would you suggest we add to this as a condition to give us the
protection we're looking for?
MR. BOSI: I believe the two that Ms. Ashton had referenced, the applicants had volunteered that
information -- or that commitment. There wasn't a requirement. It was discussion. And then there was
concern. To address those concerns, the applicants of those two prior PUDs had volunteered to add that
restriction. So I think that conversation with the applicant would be beneficial to see what the outcome of
that would be.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Davies, do you have any issues with that -- adding that language?
MR. DAVIES: It's your prerogative. I mean, I think it's going to be really hard to find a
developer for residential --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I agree.
MR. DAVIES: -- affordable housing or otherwise, to put a bunch of apartments by substations,
but I'd defer to your discretion about that.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would put it in there, but the reality, I don't see anything else going
in this site, quite honesty.
MR. DAVIES: I think you're protected by what you see on the aerial with the substations that
this isn't going to be residential.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, in reality, you'll have to comply with all the federal and state
permitting requirements anyway --
MR. DAVIES: Of course.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- the 404 permits through the Army Corps. I suspect there are -- I
don't know. You have jurisdictional wetlands there? I'm assuming you're going to go through the 404
process, Section 7 consultation. It is not in the panther area, but I suspect you probably may have to even
Page 15 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 13 of 18
be subject to the PHUs.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've done the studies on that.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So all that will have to go through the state and federal permitting,
yeah.
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So what were the two conditions we were going to --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the condition would be subject to the language -- Heidi, do you
have standard language you think we should add to this?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the first issue was the alteration to the permitted uses that we already
discussed, and then the second one would be that they would record -- it would be a -- under Exhibit F,
that they would record a restriction that would prohibit residential uses. And I can work with Noel on the
language. We'll look at the other PUDs, and it's --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Would that be valid? Because you'd be violating the State Live Local
by putting that.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, the State would have to challenge it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, someone would have to challenge the restriction. If in the
future they decide they want to put residential here, then it would just come back as a -- you know, a PUD
amendment to add resolution -- and remove the restriction.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, it's subject to challenge. I doubt -- it could be challenged, but
I doubt anybody's going to proceed with that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's the best we can do under the circumstances.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Noel, do you have any closing comments?
MR. DAVIES: Nothing further from the application. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I close the public hearing and turn to my colleagues. Any
comments, or do I hear motions? If anybody would like to motion.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I can try it.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll make a motion of approval with the two conditions to use the
alternate description of permitted uses and the agreement to prohibit residential use.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And Heidi will work with the language, with the applicant to
codify that. So with that, that's for both petitions, GMPA and the PUDZ.
Staff?
MR. BOSI: And did that include the removal of the accessory use for outdoor display towards --
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And removal of outdoor storage, okay. Okay. So we have a motion.
Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck seconds.
All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposition; passes unanimous.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Page 16 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 14 of 18
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you.
***All right. And I think we're ready to go to the next petition. These are three petitions,
PL20240012171, Immokalee Sand Mine expansion, that's the conditional use; PL20240012172,
Immokalee Sand Mine expansion variance; and the accompanying excavation permit, 20200002201.
And these all require EAC approval. So it's a -- it's a conditional use, a variance, and an
excavation permit each to be voted on and then an included EAC approval. So I turn to the first -- do we
have any disclosures? Paul.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich and then staff materials.
Chuck.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, conversation with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Bosi.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. If there any persons wishing to speak on this matter, please
rise to be sworn in.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, I turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the
applicant and property owner.
With me today is Jessica Harrelson, Matt DeFrancesco, Norm Trebilcock, and Tim Hall. They're
all our experts regarding this particular petition.
Those of you -- which I think you were all present for the Silver Strand Mine we did a few
months back where we were expanding an existing mine -- sand mine to add additional area to do some
mining. This is basically the same concept.
We're asking for a conditional use to expand the area of mining by 91 acres. We have some
variance requests regarding landscape buffers similar to the other petition because we really don't have
anybody around us at this point, but we have the commitment to put in landscape buffers should
residential be approved or developed near us. And we have an excavation permit to move forward with
the actual excavation.
Since there's nobody here from the public, and since I know you've all read the materials, unless
there's somebody online -- nobody? I don't want to give this short shrift, but it is very similar to what was
done in the past, and I spoke to you-all, and all the material is actually part of the record. So if it's okay,
I'll just do the general overview, and I have Jessica and others that could take you through the detailed site
plan if you prefer.
What you have on this exhibit is the area in gray is where we're currently authorized to mine and
the area in blue is the proposed expansion area. On the previous exhibit you could see where the property
is located. We're on State Road 82, and to the north is Hendry County.
Your staff is recommending approval. Hendry County is recommending approval or not
objecting based upon the development standards we have already approved in the approval resolution.
The area that was excluded was initially an area that we were asked to exclude while there was a
study going on regarding a potential wildlife corridor. That wildlife corridor decision has been made, and
it's not in the location we were asked to exclude from the original approval. So we're just simply coming
back to add the area we had voluntarily agreed to hold off on until that study had been completed.
There's no additional traffic impacts because we already have traffic on the road. The same
access will be utilized. The same processing area will be utilized. So it is simply a request to expand into
an area that we had voluntarily excluded while there was a study done.
That is -- that is sum and substance the three petitions, three requests. And with that, we're
available to answer any detailed questions you may have regarding this -- these three petitions.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, I do want to note the packet we received, the site plan did not
Page 17 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 15 of 18
load, and we were sent an additional staff report that included the site plan. And I just want to make sure
on the record that we did receive it, and I would hope that that was amended if anybody wanted to access
it by the public as well, because that one plan did not load properly in our document.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's this document right here, correct?
MS. HARRELSON: It was sheet 3 of the initial staff report.
MR. BOSI: Correct. We haven't -- no public has inquired related to asking to see the document.
We had made that available, and we have -- we are going to update the ordinance with it.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I mean, it was just that one insert that didn't load in our
document, and then we all received a new document.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And this includes the two variances?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and the excavation permit itself.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the excavation permit. But if any -- of course, with any -- is
this -- is this all drag-line type, or is there -- if there's any --
MR. YOVANOVICH: If we --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- explosives, that goes through a separate application through the
County.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and that's an administrative process --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Administrative process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that we'll follow should we decide to do blasting.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any questions? Michelle.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Rich, when we had talked about this before this meeting, you
had -- and you said it now that originally there was the wildlife corridor that they thought was going to be
going through this land, and you-all voluntarily excluded it from your development. And I asked you,
well, what'd you get for that when you --
MR. YOVANOVICH: What'd we get?
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't donate anything. We got a pat on the back for basically saying,
"Hey, we'll let you do your study," and -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And I wanted it to be noted for the record that you-all did not get
anything when you voluntarily excluded this from your development area.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And then now that you're getting it back -- the point is you didn't
get anything for it, so it's --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't receive any compensation to not use this area.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we were not compensated. Now we're coming back, and we're saying,
"Since you don't need it, you didn't pay us for it, can we please use our land?"
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Exactly, exactly. And that's what I wanted to be noted for the
record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just, Rich, a question. And maybe Mike's the best guy to answer, but
it's on the county line, and we're just talking about Collier County. What are you hearing from the other
county? Are they totally oblivious to it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. In your packet, there's a letter of support from Hendry County.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I missed it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
Page 18 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 16 of 18
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, does that conclude your presentation?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you want a detailed presentation, that concludes our presentation.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. As is typical with any mining, any type of vehicle cleaning
and prior to going onto county roads, all that's in here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: All that's already in there.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All that's in here preexisting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's already been acknowledged in the conditions of approval. It's all
in your resolution, so it's --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just didn't know if Norm wanted to get up and talk about vehicles.
We could ask him.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, if you guys want to ask any of my experts anything, they're here --
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, Tim's back there, too.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or if you'd rather go home. I've got nowhere to go.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, after Tuesday, your --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a little tired, but I've got nowhere to go.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, any other comments or concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. We have three petitions. I've read them all. And we can vote
each one, so we'll vote on the conditional use. Any -- and this is both as EAC and as the Planning
Commission for the conditional use.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And second. All in favor -- go ahead. Oh, staff, please.
MR. BOSI: And following the brevity of the presentation, staff would -- is recommending
approval of all the petitions, and we would entertain any questions you may have, but didn't mean to
interrupt your approval process.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And any registered public speakers?
MR. SABO: No registered public speakers.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So we'll proceed. We have a motion and a second. All in
favor for the conditional use, please proceed by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes.
***Next one is the variance, and this is acting both as the Planning Commission and as the EAC.
Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck, motion. Second?
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 19 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 17 of 18
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***And this one is -- the third one will be for the excavation permit.
Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chuck. Second?
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Passes unanimous.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that concludes that. So with that --
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: We need that sand for all the fill that is needed.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Right?
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So is this approaching your record, Chuck?
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, no. He's got the record.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yep. Close.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So we have no old business. We have no new business. You will let
us know on the February meeting. I mean, if it's critical and you need to get the petition in, I guess we'll
come in and meet for one. That's --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what we're paid for.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I prefer just to move them along rather than have them stack up.
MR. BOSI: I understand. And we will -- we'll evaluate. We'll let the Planning Commission
know and just leave you with the one thought, though. With February being Valentine's Day, we will
recognize that absence does make the heart grow fonder.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Terri, I stopped myself a couple times from talking. I was
getting that look, you know.
All right. Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye.
We are adjourned.
*******
Page 20 of 317
January 15, 2026
Page 18 of 18
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at
10:00 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_________________________________________
JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on ___________, as presented ___________ or as corrected __________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF VERITEXT
BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C,
COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 21 of 317
3/5/2026
Item # 9.A
ID# 2026-317
PL20250006588 - Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PUDA) - future extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard -
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district and Special Treatment Overlay (ST) to a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Imperial Lakes RPUD to
allow development of the previously approved 430 multifamily dwelling units or an alternative of 313 dwelling units
including single family, two family, townhouse and multifamily subject to a trip cap; providing for repeal of Ordinance
No. 82-81. The subject property is located on the future extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, north of Imperial
Golf Club, west of Castlewood at Imperial Planned Unit Development, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, consisting of 78.28+ acres; and by providing an effective date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Imperial Lakes PUDA - Staff Report with CAO review
2. Att A - Ordinance - 020326
3. Att B - Original PUD Approval
4. Att C - Determination Ltr 02-04-1991
5. Att D - PL20250006588 Application and Backup
6. Att E - NIM Documentation
7. Public Input - Imperial Lakes PUDA
8. Affidavit of Sign Posting 2026-02-10
Page 22 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 1 of 22
February 19, 2026
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2026
SUBJECT: PL20250006588 – IMPERIAL LAKES PUD AMENDMENT (PUDA)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner/Applicant:
N.A. Realty Trust, Inc.
8156 Fiddler’s Creek Pkwy
Naples, FL 34114
Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey
Naples, FL, 34102
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300.
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) and Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) consider changing the zoning classification
from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Special Treatment Overlay (ST) District to the
Imperial Lakes Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow development of the
previously approved 430 multifamily dwelling units or an alternative of 313 dwelling units
including single family, two family, townhouse and multifamily subject to a trip cap and providing
for repeal of Ordinance 82-81 for 78.28+ acres of property located on the future extension of
Veterans Memorial Boulevard, north of Imperial Golf Club, west of Castlewood at Imperial
Planned Unit Development in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property consists of 78.28+ acres located on the future
extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, north of Imperial Golf Club, west of Castlewood at
Imperial PUD in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See
location map on the following page.)
Page 23 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 2 of 22
February 19, 2026
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The property consists of 78.28+ acres of vegetation
and lake area located on the south side of the future extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard,
north of Imperial Golf Club, and west of Aubrey Rogers High School and the Castlewood at
Imperial PUD. To the west and north is the Railhead Scrub Preserve, an environmentally sensitive
land managed by Collier County. Veterans Memorial Boulevard currently terminates
approximately 880 feet east of the site, where it accesses Aubrey Rogers High School. The
extension of the east-west corridor has been planned for over 40 years. A Developer Agreement is
proposed to address the extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, including access to this
development.
The proposed amendment is to allow for residential development with an expanded range of
dwelling unit types as an alternative to the currently allowed 430 multi-family units. The
alternative is to allow up to 313 of a combination of multi-family, single family detached, two
family, and townhouse units, subject to a trip cap not to exceed 290 peak hour two-way trips,
which is +/- 85 net new PM peak hour trips in addition to the currently vested +/-205 PM peak
hour trips for this PUD.
The site was originally rezoned from A-2, Agricultural, and ST, Special Treatment Overlay, to
Imperial Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) by Ordinance Number 82-81 approved on
September 21, 1982 (see Attachment B). The approved PUD allowed for two commercial
excavation lakes and for development of up to 430 multi-family units, which equates to 5.5 units
per acre. See the PUD Master Plan approved for the Imperial Lakes PUD on the following page.
Page 24 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 3 of 22
February 19, 2026
Relief from application of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance (Ordinance 90-23) was granted
through an exemption approval letter issued on February 4, 1991, see Attachment C. This relief
recognized the density of the PUD as allowable due to the property owner’s deed of the north 50
feet of the property to Collier County to provide for half of the planned 100-foot right-of-way for
an east-west arterial road. The deed is recorded in Official Record Book 1051, Page 1686.
The proposed PUD Amendment updates the PUD by repealing Ordinance Number 82-81. Staff
and the petitioner note that the ST (Special Treatment Overlay) areas remain on the official
zoning atlas despite the reference to their rezoning to PUD in the approved Ordinance. This PUD
Amendment action will recognize that the ST Special Treatment Overlays are not applicable to
the property if the amendment is approved.
Approved PUD Master Plan from Ordinance 82-81, see Attachment B
Page 25 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 4 of 22
February 19, 2026
Six deviations from subdivision regulations were granted as part of Ordinance Number 82-81.
The petitioner seeks three deviations. Deviation 1 is to carry forward the relief from the required
minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet to allow 50-foot-wide internal access easements or
rights-of-way. Deviation 2 is a request for relief from the requirement for sidewalks on both
sides of internal streets to allow a bike path on one side and a sidewalk on the other. Deviation 3
is a request for relief from the requirement for preserve areas to be connected on the site to allow
four separate preserve areas. See page 19 of this report for a discussion of the deviations.
Petitioner’s Proposed RPUD Master Plan from Draft Ordinance, see Attachment A
Page 26 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 5 of 22
February 19, 2026
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land
uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property,
zoned Imperial Lakes PUD, which currently allows for 430 multifamily dwelling units (5.5
dwelling units per acre):
North:
To the north are two narrow privately owned strips of land, zoned Industrial (I),
where the east-west Veterans Memorial Boulevard extension is planned, beyond
which is the Collier County Railhead Scrub Preserve, also zoned I.
South: Imperial Golf Club golf course and residences, zoned GC and RMF-16. The
Krehling Industries PUD is also to the southwest.
East: Aubrey Rogers High School zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and Castlewood at
Imperial PUD, approved by Ord. No. 01-16 for 34 units, and built out with 31
single family homes on 21.16 acres (equates to 1.47 units per acre)
West: Collier County Railhead Scrub Preserve zoned Rural Agricultural (A).
Image source: Collier County Property Appraiser
Page 27 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 6 of 22
February 19, 2026
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element
(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban – Urban Mixed-
Use District – Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map. As part
of Resolution No. 97-72, “the density of the PUD has been determined to be vested.” This vesting
is based on the exemption approved pursuant to the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance No. 90-23.
Approval of the exemption precluded the County from applying a down-zoning to the property,
resulting in the PUD zoning remaining in effect and continuing to allow 430 multi-family units.
FLUE Map #9 indicates that the Imperial Lakes PUD received an exemption, or compatibility
exception, during the Zoning Re-Evaluation Program and is deemed consistent pursuant to
Policy 5.12. The Imperial Lakes PUD, approved by Ordinance 82-81, allows a maximum gross
project density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), with the total number of dwelling units not
to exceed 430 (430 units / 78.28 acres = 5.49 DU/A). One of the proposed housing types
maintains a maximum of 430 multi-family dwelling units at a density of 5.49 DU/A.
The petitioner proposes allowing up to 313 dwelling units, developed with a combination of
dwelling types, resulting in a density of 3.99 units per acre. The Urban designated areas, as
identified in the FLUE, will accommodate residential uses, including single-family, multi-family,
and duplex.
The Density Rating System is applicable only to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map
as Urban or Urban Mixed-Use District. Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base
density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement.
This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the
project. For purposes of calculating the eligible number of dwelling units for a project (gross
acreage multiplied by the eligible number of dwelling units per acre), the total number of
dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit
.5 or greater.
If the petitioner develops the site with the proposed maximum of 313 dwelling units, the
resulting density would be 3.99 DU/A (313 units / 78.28 acres = 3.99 < 4 DU/A) and would be
compliant with the base 4 DU/A allowed by the Density Rating System.
Comprehensive Planning staff concludes, based on an analysis of the proposed uses and
densities, that the PUD Amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicants’ October 12,
2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 and 2025 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
Page 28 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 7 of 22
February 19, 2026
projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year
AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A
petition or application has significant impact if the traffic impact statement reveals that
any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point
where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the
applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the
project’s significant impacts on all roadways.”
Staff findings: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Imperial Lakes
PUD Amendment will generate a total of +/- 290 PM peak :hour trips on the adjacent roadway,
Veterans Memorial Boulevard. This represents an increase of +/- 85 net new PM peak hour trips
in addition to the currently vested +/-205 PM peak hour trips for this PUD. The (net) new 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
2025
Level of
Service
(LOS)
2025
Remaining
Capacity
Veterans
Memorial
Blvd/NA (2)
US-41 to
Livingston
Rd
2,000/WB 30/WB N/A N/A N/A N/A
Livingston
Road/51.0
Imperial St
to
Immokalee
Rd
3,000/NB 119/NB B
1,393 C 1,289
Immokalee
Road/42.1
Livingston
Rd to
Airport Rd
3,100/EB 8/EB D 167 F (2) (3)
US-41/98.0 Lee Co.
Line to
Wiggins
Pass
3,100/NB 14/NB C 926 D 716
1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is October 12, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by
the petitioner.
2. Currently, this roadway is not included in the AUIR.
3. Deficiency is due to the Trip Bank, not caused by this development. See State Statutes summary below.
Page 29 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 8 of 22
February 19, 2026
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 a credit for the anticipated road impact fees.
• The applicant calculated their proportionate share, and it does not exceed the impact fees anticipated to be collected.
Based on the TIS provided by the applicant and the 2024 and 2025 AUIR, the subject PUD is
consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. A companion
Developer Agreement is proposed to address the extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard,
including access to this development.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff
found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site is 78.28+ acres; 47.86 acres
of the site meets the LDC definition of native vegetation. A minimum of 11.97 acres (25% of
47.86 acres of native vegetation) of preserve is required and shall be placed under preservation
and dedicated to Collier County.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding whether a finding
is consistent or inconsistent with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. The proposed PUD Amendment is
consistent with the GMP.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition,
including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC
Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD
Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report
(referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s
recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading
“Zoning Services Analysis.”
Stormwater Management: The PUD Amendment is not anticipated to create a stormwater
management problem for the area. The site is currently covered by a South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP); Imperial Lakes # 11-
0064-S. An SFWMD permit modification will be required prior to any proposed change in land
use or development. That process will ensure consistency with all applicable state standards for
stormwater systems. In addition, site development approval (SDP/Plat) will be required from
Collier County, to ensure that local development standards are maintained and that proposed
stormwater system(s) are designed consistent with relevant LDC and County Ordinances for
water quality and water quantity, during both the interim construction phase and final
implementation.
Page 30 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 9 of 22
February 19, 2026
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed the petition to address
environmental concerns. The preserve requirement is 11.97 acres (25% of 47.86 acres of native
vegetation). Ordinance 82-81 required approximately 12.26 acres of preservation for the
property. The petitioner proposes 15.45 acres for preservation per the PUD Master Plan. This
request is to change the configuration of the preserve and location of the preserve. The preserve
will include four separate areas of preservation. Two preservation areas are located centrally,
adjacent to a proposed lake, and two preservation areas will be located along the east boundary
of the subject property. The native vegetation will be placed under preservation and dedicated to
Collier County.
The environmental data indicates that the proposed project is in an area with the potential to host
a variety of protected animal species. The listed species survey revealed twenty-two gopher
tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows were observed onsite. The burrows are in the
northwestern portion of the subject property (Page 42 of 62 of the petitioner’s Environmental
Data included in Attachment D). A gopher tortoise relocation permit will need to be obtained
from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) prior to approval of the first
Site Development Plan (SDP) and/or Plat and Plans (PPL). The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates the presence of Blackbear (Ursus
americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan must be included in the SDP
or PPL review. Lastly, the property contains an active bald eagle’s nest, which will require an
incidental take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and a bald eagle
management plan as part of the SDP/PPL review.
The proposed project is located within the FWS consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops
floridanus). The property contains five observed cavity trees (Page 52 of 62 of the
Environmental Data included in Attachment D). A Bonneted Bat visual survey was conducted
on the subject property; however, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized
for nesting.
Landscape Review: The buffers labeled on the Master Plan are consistent with the LDC.
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 north
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and
wastewater services are or will be available via infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way.
Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available.
Developer commitments are listed in Exhibit F under the “UTILITIES” section of the Draft
Ordinance (Attachment A). 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.
Page 31 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 10 of 22
February 19, 2026
Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses, intensity, and
development standards related to compatibility.
Proposed additional uses and revised dimensional standards are in Exhibit A, Residential Tract
Principal Uses, and Exhibit B, Development Standards of the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A).
The proposed additional residential unit types are less intense than the currently approved
multifamily unit type, contributing to compatibility with the surrounding uses. To promote the
project's compatibility with the abutting single-family neighborhood, staff recommends that unit
types abutting the Castlewood at Imperial PUD be limited to single-family detached, townhouse,
or two-family. This ensures the existing single-family homeowners will be in view of buildings
of a compatible scale, with a maximum building height of 35 feet (zoned height) / 45 feet (actual
height). As an additional compatibility measure, staff recommends adding a developer
commitment that the RPUD shall conform with “Dark Sky” lighting design principles (flat
panel, full cut-off fixtures-backlight, up light and glare [BUG] ration where U-0) to avoid
light trespass onto adjacent property. Site lighting fixtures will have a maximum color
temperature of 3000 K.
Related to development standards, LDC Section 4.07.02.E. governs minimum dimensional
standards for PUDs and provides that …dimensional standards within any tract or increment of
the proposed PUD shall conform to the minimum dimensional and other standards of the zoning
district to which it most closely resembles in type, density, and intensity of use. Where there is
uncertainty, the more restrictive standards shall apply. Analysis of the development standards
proposed for multifamily, single family, and townhouse unit types is provided below.
Dimensional standards for multifamily development
Below is a comparison of the proposed changes in contrast to the currently approved Imperial
Lakes PUD, which only permits multifamily dwellings, and in contrast to the standards of the
zoning district, the proposed multifamily project density of 5.5 units per acre most closely
resembles that of the RMF-6 zoning district. This comparison shows that the minimum unit area
is proposed to be smaller; the minimum yards are proposed to be smaller; and the proposed
maximum height is measured in feet rather than stories, compared to the current approved PUD.
Page 32 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 11 of 22
February 19, 2026
Table 1: Multifamily Standards (Current vs. Proposed vs. RMF-6 Zoning District)
Multifamily
Dimensional Standards
Ord. 82-81
(current Imperial
Lakes PUD)
Proposed
PUD Amendment
RMF-6
Zoning
District
Minimum Floor Area (per unit) 1,000 sq. feet 700 sq. feet 750 sq. feet
Minimum Setbacks
Front (Multi-family structure) 50 feet from back
of curb
20 feet* 30 feet
Front (Accessory structure) 30 feet from back
of curb
20 feet* 30 feet
Side Yard ½ Building height,
not less than 10 feet
10 feet 15 feet
Rear Yard 25 feet 10 feet** 20 feet
Maximum Height
5 stories 60 feet (zoned)
70 feet (actual)
35 feet
Notes:
* Front-facing garages shall provide a minimum of 23 feet from the sidewalk to the garage and
may be reduced to 15 feet for side-entry garages.
** Rear yard may be reduced to 0 feet where abutting open space, water management, or
landscape buffer tract, providing architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design.
Dimensional standards for single-family development
To determine compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding residential
neighborhoods, a comparison is shown below showing the dimensional standards that apply to
the abutting Castlewood at Imperial PUD, which only permits single family dwellings, in
contrast to the standards of the zoning district the proposed single family project density of 4
units per acre most closely resembles, which is the RSF-4 zoning district. This comparison
shows that the minimum lot area and lot width are proposed to be smaller, and the minimum
yards are proposed to be smaller; building heights are proposed to be consistent.
Page 33 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 12 of 22
February 19, 2026
Table 2: Single Family Residential Standards (Castlewood at Imperial PUD vs. Proposed
vs. RSF-4 Zoning District)
Single Family
Dimensional Standards
Castlewood at
Imperial PUD
(Ord. No. 01-16)
Proposed
PUD Amendment
RSF-4
Zoning District
Minimum Lot Area 12,000 sq. feet 5,000 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet
Minimum Lot Width
(Interior)
85 feet 50 feet 70 feet
Minimum Lot Width
(Corner)
95 feet n/a 75 feet
Minimum Lot Width
(Cul-de-Sac)
75 feet
n/a n/a
Minimum Lot Depth n/a 100 feet n/a
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet* 25 feet
Side Yard 7.5 feet 5 feet 7.5 feet
Rear Yard 20 feet 10 feet** 25 feet
Maximum Height
(Principal Structure)
35 feet 35 feet (zoned)
45 feet (actual)
35 feet
Notes:
* Front-facing garages shall provide a minimum of 23 feet from the sidewalk to the garage and
may be reduced to 15 feet for side-entry garages.
** Rear yard may be reduced to 0 feet where abutting open space, water management, or
landscape buffer tract, providing architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design.
Dimensional standards for townhouse development
The County standards that most closely resemble the proposed townhouse development are
found in LDC Section 5.05.07. The table that follows compares County standards for
townhouse development with the proposed standards for the Imperial Lakes RPUD, as found in
the Development Standards Table I in Exhibit B of the draft Ordinance (Attachment A). This
comparison shows that the minimum lot area and lot width are proposed to be smaller, and the
minimum yards are proposed to be generally consistent.
Page 34 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 13 of 22
February 19, 2026
Table 3: Townhouse Standards (Proposed vs. LDC Section 5.05.07)
Notes:
* Front-facing garages shall provide a minimum of 23 feet from the sidewalk to the garage and
may be reduced to 15 feet for side-entry garages.
** Rear yard may be reduced to 0 feet where abutting open space, water management, or
landscape buffer tract, providing architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design.
In summary, the review of dimensional standards:
• Proposed multifamily standards for minimum unit area and minimum yards are proposed to be
smaller than the comparable RMF-6 zoning district.
• Proposed single family standards for minimum lot area, lot width, and minimum yards are
proposed to be smaller than the comparable RSF-4 zoning district.
• Proposed townhouse standards for minimum lot area and lot width are proposed to be smaller
than standards of LDC. Sec. 5.05.07 for townhouse development.
Variations from minimum comparable standards may be approved if the PUD demonstrates
unique or innovative design per LDC Section 4.07.02.E.2. The Master Plan provides for
preservation of native vegetation that exceeds the minimum required preserve area (11.97 acres
of preserve is required per the LDC; Ordinance 82-81 required approximately 12.26 acres of
preserve; the petitioner is proposing 15.45 acres of preserve) which is an example of unique and
innovative design per LDC Section 4.07.02.E.2.f. by providing for the integration and
preservation of natural resources and areas of unusual beauty or importance to the natural
ecosystem. The petitioner requests a deviation to allow the location of preserved land to align
with Special Treatment overlays positioned in the property’s south and east and the location of
an eagle nest along the property’s eastern boundary.
To improve compatibility where the proposed PUD abuts the high school and Castlewood at
Imperial PUD to the east, the Railhead Scrub Preserve to the west, and Imperial Golf Club to the
south, staff recommends increasing the proposed minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet to 20
feet for all unit types (with no option to reduce to 0 feet where abutting open space or a
landscape buffer tract). As an additional compatibility measure, staff recommends adding a
developer commitment that the RPUD shall conform with “Dark Sky” lighting design
principles (flat panel, full cut-off fixtures-backlight, up light and glare [BUG] ration where U-
Townhouse
Development
Standard
Proposed Imperial
Lakes RPUD LDC Sec. 5.05.07
Townhouse
Development
Minimum Lot Area 1,600 sq. feet 2,500 sq. feet
Minimum Lot Width 16 feet 30 feet
Minimum Front Yard 20 feet* 20 feet
Minimum Side Yard 0 feet if attached, 5 feet if
detached
0 feet, otherwise 10 feet or
½ the sum of the heights
of wall facing each other,
whichever is greater
Minimum Rear Yard 10 feet** 10 feet
Maximum Height 35 feet (zoned)
45 feet (actual)
n/a
Page 35 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 14 of 22
February 19, 2026
0) to avoid light trespass onto adjacent property. Site lighting fixtures will have a maximum
color temperature of 3000 K.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS: The petitioner has a pending request to vacate
(VAC-PL20260000213) the 30-foot-wide Roadway Easement over the thirty (30) feet of the south
line of the northeast quarter of Section 15, recorded in Official Records 238, Page 913, which is a
portion of a sixty (60) foot wide roadway easement. The Roadway Easement encumbers the
southern thirty (30) feet of the Property. The request is pending review by various County
Departments, and the Board will make the final decision of the County Commissioners.
PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in
addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” (Zoning Division staff responses are in non-
bold).
a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed
in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
The surrounding area is a mixed development pattern. To the east is Aubrey Rogers High
School, zoned Agricultural (A), and Castlewood at Imperial PUD, approved by Ord. No. 01-16
for 34 units, and built out with 31 single family homes on 21.16 acres (equates to 1.47 units per
acre). To the south is the Imperial Golf Club golf course and residences, zoned GC and RMF-16.
The Krehling Industries PUD is also to the southwest. To the north and west lies the Railhead
Scrub Preserve, an environmentally sensitive area managed by Collier County.
The site is located on the south side of the future extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
The extension of the east-west corridor has been planned for over 40 years. Stormwater
Management review staff found that the PUD Amendment is not anticipated to create a
stormwater management problem for the area. Water and wastewater mains are or will be
available along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. There are adequate water and wastewater
treatment capacities to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or
wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the
responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the
County at the time of utilities acceptance.
b. 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.
Documents submitted with the application, which the County Attorney’s Office reviewed,
demonstrate unified control of the property.
c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the
Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis on conformity with the
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this
Page 36 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 15 of 22
February 19, 2026
staff report on page 6. Staff concludes the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the
GMP.
d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,
and buffering and screening requirements.
The Imperial Lakes PUD is approved to allow 430 multi-family units. As part of Resolution No.
97-72, “the density of the PUD has been determined to be vested.” This vesting is based on the
exemption approved pursuant to the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. Approval of
the exemption precluded the County from applying a down-zoning to the property, resulting in
the PUD zoning remaining in effect and continuing to allow 430 multifamily units. The proposed
amendment is to also allow single family detached, townhouse, and two-family dwelling units as
an alternative to the previously approved multifamily unit type. The alternative is to allow up to
313 of a combination of multifamily, single family detached, two family, and townhouse units,
subject to a trip cap not to exceed 290 peak hour two-way trips.
The previously approved maximum building height was five stories, and the proposed maximum
multifamily building height is 60 feet (zoned) and 70 feet (actual), consistent with the previous
approval.
The surrounding area is developed with single family and multi-family dwellings, making the
proposed additional types of dwelling units consistent with the existing pattern of development
in the area.
To promote the project's compatibility with the abutting single-family neighborhood, staff
recommends that unit types abutting the Castlewood at Imperial PUD be limited to single-family
detached, townhouse, or two-family. This ensures the existing single-family homeowners will be
in view of buildings of compatible scale, with a maximum building height of 35 feet (zoned
height) / 45 feet (actual height). To improve compatibility where the proposed PUD abuts the
high school and Castlewood at Imperial PUD to the east, the Railhead Scrub Preserve to the
west, and Imperial Golf Club to the south, staff recommends increasing the proposed minimum
rear yard setback of 10 feet to 20 feet for all unit types (with no option to reduce to 0 feet
where abutting open space or a landscape buffer tract). As an additional compatibility
measure, staff recommends adding a developer commitment that the RPUD shall conform with
“Dark Sky” lighting design principles (flat panel, full cut-off fixtures-backlight, up light and
glare [BUG] ration where U-0) to avoid light trespass onto adjacent property. Site lighting
fixtures will have a maximum color temperature of 3000 K.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to
serve the development.
Usable open space will be provided as required by the LDC; the PUD Master Plan (Exhibit C of
the draft Ordinance in Attachment A) indicates the minimum 60% open space requirement will
be met with at least 46 acres of open space.
f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the
adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Page 37 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 16 of 22
February 19, 2026
Development will be contingent on the extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard to provide
access to the site. Exhibit F of the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) includes Transportation
commitments that the owner at its cost shall provide left and right turn storage lanes on CR-887
at the project entrance road; the PUD shall be limited to a maximum of 290 p.m. peak hour two-
way trips; and the owner shall pay Collier County their proportionate share for the cost of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Veteran’s Memorial Boulevard and Livingston Road prior to
approval of the first Site Development Plan or Plat for the PUD.
Exhibit F of the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) also includes Utilities commitments that, at the
time of application for PPL and/or SDP approval, 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 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.
Transportation operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or
Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site
access points. Finally, the development must comply with all other applicable concurrency
management regulations when development approvals, including, but not limited to, any plats
and/or site development plans, are sought.
g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The Imperial Lakes PUD is approved and is surrounded by environmentally preserved lands and
developed lands. The approved PUD boundary is not proposed to be modified or expanded.
h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such
modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
Three deviations are requested. See the discussion of deviations on page 19 of this staff report.
REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of
land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County
Commissioners…shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the
proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable.” (Zoning Division staff
responses are in non-bold).
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies, and the Future Land Use Map, and the elements of the GMP.
Consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and other
elements of the GMP is summarized within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on
page 6. Staff concludes the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the GMP.
Page 38 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 17 of 22
February 19, 2026
2. The existing land use pattern.
The surrounding uses are described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff
report. The surrounding area is a mixed development pattern. To the east is Aubrey Rogers High
School, zoned Agricultural (A) and Castlewood at Imperial PUD, approved by Ord. No. 01-16
for 34 units, and built out with 31 single family homes on 21.16 acres (equates to 1.47 units per
acre). To the south is the Imperial Golf Club golf course and residences, zoned GC and RMF-16.
The Krehling Industries PUD is also to the southwest. To the north and west lies the Railhead
Scrub Preserve, an environmentally sensitive area managed by Collier County.
The site is located on the south side of the future extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
The extension of the east-west corridor has been planned for over 40 years. The PUD was
previously approved and is vested for up to 430 dwelling units. The site is within the urban area
and will have urban services available.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts.
This Amendment does not represent the creation of a district. The subject site is already zoned
PUD and allowed to develop with residential uses; this Amendment is to allow additional types
of residential uses on the property.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. This petition does not propose any change
to the PUD's boundaries.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
rezoning necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the
LDC provisions to seek such changes, as the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and
development standards specific to the subject property. Residential uses have been approved for
the subject site since 1982. This PUD Amendment reflects the property owner’s interest in
adjusting the array of residential uses and the conceptual plan to respond to current market
conditions.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in
the neighborhood.
Adding residential unit types to the PUD will not have any adverse impact on living conditions
in the area. The PUD is approved for the construction of up to 430 multi-family dwellings on the
property.
The proposed changes to development standards introduce some reductions in minimum yards.
To promote the project's compatibility with the abutting single-family neighborhood, staff
recommends that unit types abutting the Castlewood at Imperial PUD be limited to single-family
detached, townhouse, or two-family. This ensures the existing single-family homeowners will be
in view of buildings of compatible scale, with a maximum building height of 35 feet (zoned
height) / 45 feet (actual height). To improve compatibility where the proposed PUD abuts the
Page 39 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 18 of 22
February 19, 2026
high school and Castlewood at Imperial PUD to the east, the Railhead Scrub Preserve to the
west, and Imperial Golf Club to the south, staff recommends increasing the proposed minimum
rear yard setback of 10 feet to 20 feet for all unit types (with no option to reduce to 0 feet
where abutting open space or a landscape buffer tract). As an additional compatibility
measure, staff recommends adding a developer commitment that the RPUD shall conform with
“Dark Sky” lighting design principles (flat panel, full cut-off fixtures-backlight, up light and
glare [BUG] ration where U-0) to avoid light trespass onto adjacent property. Site lighting
fixtures will have a maximum color temperature of 3000 K.
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 time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s
development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when
development approvals are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in
the area, provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project
are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD). Water Management and Dry Detention areas are generally
depicted on the conceptual master plan. County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater
management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or PPL.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent
areas.
The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent
areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the
adjacent areas.
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.
Adjacent properties are already developed or dedicated as preserve areas. This PUD Amendment
does not constitute a deterrent to development of other properties in accordance with existing
regulations.
Page 40 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 19 of 22
February 19, 2026
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
The proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan's policies, so it
can be deemed aligned with public welfare and not a grant of special privilege.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning.
The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the additional
residential uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood or the County.
The proposed developer commitments help ensure the project is not out of scale with the
community's needs.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
Other sites in the County do accommodate the proposed uses. The petition was reviewed for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff did not do comparisons or evaluations of other
sites in the course of review of this 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 allowable within the PUD would require considerable site alteration, and this
project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to federal, state, and local development
regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building
permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities
and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through
the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
Public facility capacities have been reviewed as part of this petition review process. 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 GMP goals and
objectives regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff
who are responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and
staff have concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments to comply with
the level of service standards.
Page 41 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 20 of 22
February 19, 2026
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County
Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION: Six deviations from subdivision regulations were granted as part
of Ordinance Number 82-81. The petitioner seeks three deviations through this PUD Amendment.
Deviation #1 is to carry forward the relief from the required minimum right-of-way width of 60
feet to allow 50-foot-wide internal access easements or rights-of-way. Deviation #2 is a request
for relief from the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of internal streets to allow a bike path
on one side and a sidewalk on the other. Deviation #3 is a request for relief from the requirement
for preserve areas to be connected on the site to allow four separate preserve areas. See below for
additional discussion of the deviations.
Proposed Deviation #1: (Local Streets) Relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, “Street System
Requirements” and “Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards”.
The LDC establishes a minimum 60-foot right-of-way width for local streets. This deviation
proposes to instead allow for private roads within the site to be located in a 50-foot-wide access
easement or Right-of-Way.
Petitioner’s Justification: Number of lanes, required lane width, and other infrastructure
can be accommodated within the proposed 50-foot access easements or rights of way,
and the reduction in the minimum required width will provide for a more efficient and
compact development project. The reduced right-of-way width will allow for more
flexibility in designing the internal road network due to the presence of three separate
wetland preserves and two existing lakes within the project. This deviation will not have
a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community as the 50 foot
right of way width is sufficient to accommodate all required elements for a local
roadway. The internal roadways will be private and have no impact to the public.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommend APPROVAL, recognizing that
the proposed 50-foot-wide dimension for private roadways minimizes the space
consumed by roads, allowing for the preservation of environmentally sensitive site
features. In compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3, the applicant has demonstrated
that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and
welfare of the community”. In compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the
applicant has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a
degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.”
Proposed Deviation #2: (Sidewalk/Bike Lane) Relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.2,
“Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements”, which requires Sidewalks and bike lanes
must be constructed within public and private rights-of-way or easements, which are internal to
the site on both sides of the local/internal accessway to instead allow the option to construct a
sidewalk on one side and a bike path on the other side of the roadway.
Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation is warranted as the owner wishes to provide the
option for separating cyclists from pedestrians within the community. The applicant has
successfully utilized this in the Fiddler’s Creek development, and it is well used by the
Page 42 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 21 of 22
February 19, 2026
community's residents. The deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the health,
safety, and welfare of the community and will provide a safer opportunity for both
cyclists and pedestrians to move about the Imperial Lakes community without conflicts or
requiring the use of the local streets by cyclists.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommend APPROVAL, recognizing the
proposed design of a sidewalk and a bike lane accommodates pedestrians and cyclists
without compromising safety or convenience. In compliance with LDC section
10.02.13.A.3, the applicant has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without
detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community.” In compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the applicant has demonstrated that the deviation is
“justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application
of such regulations.”
Proposed Deviation #3: (Non-Contiguous Preserves) Relief from LDC Section 3.05.07 A.5.,
“Preservation Standards”, which requires preservation areas shall be interconnected within the
site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors, to allow onsite preserves to
be non-contiguous.
Petitioner’s Justification: The deviation is warranted because the native vegetation areas
are not naturally contiguous on-site. The proposed preserves represent areas of the highest
quality vegetation (wetlands) on-site, and their locations are consistent with the SFWMD
Permit application.
The proposed preserves represent areas of the highest quality vegetation (wetlands) and
buffering around a bald eagle nest tree. Their locations are consistent with the SFWMD
Permit application.
The deviation will not have a detrimental effect on the community's health, safety, and
welfare. The deviation will enhance the opportunity to preserve the highest quality native
vegetation on site as well as an area surrounding a bald eagle nest. There will be no
detrimental impact to the community by granting this deviation.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommend the APPROVAL, recognizing
the applicant has selected the highest quality vegetation found onsite. Most of the
vegetation to be preserved is wetlands, separated by preexisting excavation lakes. The
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME Objective 6.2) and Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC Section 3.05.07.F) mandate the preservation of
existing wetland land areas as a top priority for preserve locations. Although some of the
selected preservation areas are not interconnected, these areas will still provide habitat for
various species and improve water quality onsite (wetlands). Environmental Services
staff support the deviation request to allow the preservation areas not to be contiguous. In
compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3, the applicant has demonstrated that “the
element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.” In compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the applicant has
demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at
least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.”
Page 43 of 317
PUDA-PL20250006588; Imperial Lakes PUDA Page 22 of 22
February 19, 2026
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM was held on October 21,
2025, at the Headquarters Library, Sugden Theatre, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, FL
34109. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:15 p.m. 11 people
attended, and remote participation was available via Zoom.
Attendees from the Castlewood at Imperial neighborhood expressed concerns about buffering,
building height, parking location, and light pollution. An attendee inquired why preserves and
lakes could not be moved to improve the views for homeowners in Castlewood at Imperial. An
attendee noted that wildlife, including deer, will be displaced. The agent responded to questions
about any affordable housing component of the project, explaining that it was originally
proposed but that the developer has removed it from consideration.
See Attachment E for the NIM documentation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project
does require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project does meet the
scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County
Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is within the 330-foot and 660-foot bald
eagle nest protection zones, and it is requesting a deviation to allow the preservation areas to not
be contiguous, as required by LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5. Environmental Services staff recommends
approval of the petition.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff
report on February 9, 2026.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) and Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) forward Petition PUDA- PL20250006588
to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Dwelling Unit types abutting the Castlewood at Imperial PUD shall be limited to single
family detached, townhouse or two family.
2. Rear yard setbacks shall be increased from the proposed 10 feet to 20 feet, and rear
yards shall not be reduced to 0 feet where abutting open space or landscape buffer
tract.
3. The RPUD shall conform with “Dark Sky” lighting design principles (flat panel, full
cut-off fixtures-backlight, up light and glare [BUG] ration where U-0) to avoid light
trespass onto adjacent property. Site lighting fixtures will have a maximum color
temperature of 3000 K.
Attachments:
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Ordinance Number 82-81, Imperial Lakes PUD
C. Zoning Reevaluation Exemption approval letter dated February 4, 1991
D. Application/Backup Materials
E. NIM Documentation
Page 44 of 317
Page 45 of 317
Page 46 of 317
Page 47 of 317
Page 48 of 317
Page 49 of 317
Page 50 of 317
Page 51 of 317
Page 52 of 317
Page 53 of 317
Page 54 of 317
Page 55 of 317
Page 56 of 317
Page 57 of 317
Page 58 of 317
Page 59 of 317
Page 60 of 317
Page 61 of 317
Page 62 of 317
Page 63 of 317
Page 64 of 317
Page 65 of 317
Page 66 of 317
Page 67 of 317
Page 68 of 317
Page 69 of 317
Page 70 of 317
Page 71 of 317
Page 72 of 317
Page 73 of 317
Page 74 of 317
Page 75 of 317
Page 76 of 317
Page 77 of 317
Page 78 of 317
Page 79 of 317
Page 80 of 317
Page 81 of 317
Page 82 of 317
Page 83 of 317
Page 84 of 317
Page 85 of 317
Page 86 of 317
Page 87 of 317
Page 88 of 317
Page 89 of 317
Page 90 of 317
Page 91 of 317
Page 92 of 317
Page 93 of 317
Page 94 of 317
Page 95 of 317
Page 96 of 317
Page 97 of 317
Page 98 of 317
Page 99 of 317
Page 100 of 317
Page 101 of 317
Page 102 of 317
Page 103 of 317
Page 104 of 317
Page 105 of 317
Page 106 of 317
Page 107 of 317
Page 108 of 317
Page 109 of 317
Page 110 of 317
Page 111 of 317
Page 112 of 317
Page 113 of 317
Page 114 of 317
Page 115 of 317
Page 116 of 317
Page 117 of 317
Page 118 of 317
Page 119 of 317
Page 120 of 317
Page 121 of 317
Page 122 of 317
Page 123 of 317
Page 124 of 317
Page 125 of 317
Page 126 of 317
Page 127 of 317
Page 128 of 317
Page 129 of 317
Page 130 of 317
Page 131 of 317
Page 132 of 317
Page 133 of 317
Page 134 of 317
Page 135 of 317
Page 136 of 317
Page 137 of 317
Page 138 of 317
Page 139 of 317
Page 140 of 317
Page 141 of 317
Page 142 of 317
Page 143 of 317
Page 144 of 317
Page 145 of 317
Page 146 of 317
Page 147 of 317
Page 148 of 317
Page 149 of 317
Page 150 of 317
Page 151 of 317
Page 152 of 317
Page 153 of 317
Page 154 of 317
Page 155 of 317
Page 156 of 317
Page 157 of 317
Page 158 of 317
Page 159 of 317
Page 160 of 317
Page 161 of 317
Page 162 of 317
Page 163 of 317
Page 164 of 317
Page 165 of 317
Page 166 of 317
Page 167 of 317
Page 168 of 317
Page 169 of 317
Page 170 of 317
Page 171 of 317
Page 172 of 317
Page 173 of 317
Page 174 of 317
Page 175 of 317
Page 176 of 317
Page 177 of 317
Page 178 of 317
Page 179 of 317
Page 180 of 317
Page 181 of 317
Page 182 of 317
Page 183 of 317
Page 184 of 317
Page 185 of 317
Page 186 of 317
Page 187 of 317
Page 188 of 317
Page 189 of 317
Page 190 of 317
Page 191 of 317
Page 192 of 317
Page 193 of 317
Page 194 of 317
Page 195 of 317
Page 196 of 317
Page 197 of 317
Page 198 of 317
Page 199 of 317
Page 200 of 317
Page 201 of 317
Page 202 of 317
Page 203 of 317
Page 204 of 317
Page 205 of 317
Page 206 of 317
Page 207 of 317
Page 208 of 317
Page 209 of 317
Page 210 of 317
Page 211 of 317
Page 212 of 317
Page 213 of 317
Page 214 of 317
Page 215 of 317
Page 216 of 317
Page 217 of 317
Page 218 of 317
Page 219 of 317
Page 220 of 317
Page 221 of 317
Page 222 of 317
Page 223 of 317
Page 224 of 317
Page 225 of 317
Page 226 of 317
Page 227 of 317
Page 228 of 317
Page 229 of 317
Page 230 of 317
Page 231 of 317
Page 232 of 317
Page 233 of 317
Page 234 of 317
Page 235 of 317
Page 236 of 317
Page 237 of 317
Page 238 of 317
Page 239 of 317
Page 240 of 317
Page 241 of 317
Page 242 of 317
Page 243 of 317
Page 244 of 317
Page 245 of 317
Page 246 of 317
Page 247 of 317
Page 248 of 317
Page 249 of 317
Page 250 of 317
Page 251 of 317
Page 252 of 317
Page 253 of 317
Page 254 of 317
Page 255 of 317
Page 256 of 317
Page 257 of 317
Page 258 of 317
Page 259 of 317
Page 260 of 317
Page 261 of 317
Page 262 of 317
Page 263 of 317
Page 264 of 317
Page 265 of 317
Page 266 of 317
Page 267 of 317
Page 268 of 317
Page 269 of 317
Page 270 of 317
Page 271 of 317
Civil Engineers Land Surveyors Planners Landscape Architects
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, LLC Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375
3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PETITION: PL20250006588 – Imperial Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment A formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Amendment. The Imperial Lakes PUD is an existing 78+/- acre PUD and is vested for 430 conventional multi-family dwelling units. The PUD amendment proposes to add a range of dwelling unit types including single-family detached, two-family attached and townhomes. Appropriate development standards for each dwelling unit type have been added. The PUD will have a maximum of 430 total conventional dwelling units and an allowance for up to 750 dwelling units if affordable housing is provided. The PUD option to develop up to 750 multi-family dwellings if the project exceeds 430 dwelling units, is consistent with the affordable housing density bonus requirements per LDC 2.06.03. A percentage of the units above 430 units must meet the affordable housing density bonus requirement. In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, LLC (GradyMinor) and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing N.A. Realty Trust, Inc. (Applicant) will be held at the location and time shown below.
Headquarters Library, Sugden Theatre, 2385 Orange Blossom Dr, Naples, FL 34109
October 21, 2025, 5:30 pm
(The Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program.) The subject property (Parcel ID: 00153160004) consists of 78± acres and is located approximately 885 feet west of the terminus of Veterans Memorial Blvd., Collier County, Florida.
Scan for Location Map If you have questions, contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239-947-1144, Extension 4249. For project information or to register to participate remotely* visit our website at GradyMinor.com/Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting.
*Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not responsible
for technical issues.
Page 272 of 317
PL20250006588 – Imperial Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) AmendmentParcelIdOwnerLine1OwnerLine2OwnerLine3OwnerLine4OwnerLine5 CountryCityState MailCode SiteStreetAddress143120009 COLLIER CNTYC/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101USANAPLESFL 34112144640054SOUSSI, MOHAMMED IC/O PREMIER DISPS (U K) LTD #16 CLIFFE INDUSTRIAL ESTATESOUTH STREET LEWES EAST ENGLAND SUSSEXBN8 6JL145680259FADEL ET AL, BASHIR1BNU YAHIA ALLAITY STREETANDALUS AREALIBYATRIPOLI145681504SEMINOLE GULF RAILWAY LP4110 CENTERPOINTE DRIVESTE 207USAFORT MYERSFL 33916 1439 WIGGINS PASS RD146120006COLLIER CNTYTRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SUSANAPLESFL 34104151600003SCHOOL DISTRICT-GGGAUBREY ROGERS HIGH% SUPERINTENDENT5775 OSCEOLA TRLUSANAPLESFL 34109 15100 PATRIOT PL152600002COLLIER CNTYC/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101USANAPLESFL 34112 14510 OLD 41152960001CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALSFLORIDA LLCPROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENTPO BOX 2883USAWEST PALM BEACH FL 33402153240005IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB INC1808 IMPERIAL GOLF CRS BLVDUSANAPLESFL 34110 1594 IMPERIAL GOLF CO BLVD153280007CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALSFLORIDA LLCPROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENTPO BOX 2883USAWEST PALM BCH FL 33402 1400 WIGGINS PASS RD153840007MCCABE, PATRICK L13272 WEDGEFIELD DRUSANAPLESFL 34110 13272 WEDGEFIELD DR154240004IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB INC1808 IMPERIAL GOLF CRS BLVDUSANAPLESFL 3411025778041020 CASTLEWOOD AT IMPERIALHOMEOWNER'S ASSN INC745 12TH AVE S STE 103USANAPLESFL 3410225778041046 CASTLEWOOD AT IMPERIALHOMEOWNER'S ASSN INCC/O MOORE PROPERTY MGMT5603 NAPLES BLVDUSANAPLESFL 34109 1747 SUPREME CT25778041224 PIETROPAOLO, TINA M & PANFILO1741 SUPREME CTUSANAPLESFL 34110 1741 SUPREME CT25778041240 WILLIAM D MURLICK LIVING TRUSTSHARON K MURLICK LIVING TRUST 6062 HAMPTON CTUSABRIGHTONMI 48116 1745 SUPREME CT25778041266 G R & P A BLAKE REV TRUST1749 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1749 SUPREME CT25778041282 CHARLOTTE P FRANCEN REV TRUST 1753 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1753 SUPREME CT25778041305 SCARSELLA, JEAN 1757 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1757 SUPREME CT25778041321 EWING, PAUL W=& JULIE 1761 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1761 SUPREME CT25778041347 JUDITH ANN GOTSCHALL REV TRUST 1765 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1765 SUPREME CT25778041363 FIORITO, MARY E 1769 SUPREME COURTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1769 SUPREME CT25778041622 LINDA A HOLMES TRUST 1740 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1740 SUPREME CT25778041648 REICHART, ANGELA C & JAMES J 1766 SUPREME CTUSA NAPLES FL 34110 1766 SUPREME CT59960012040 MEDITERRA COMMUNITY ASSN INC 15735 CORSO MEDITERRA CIRUSA NAPLES FL 3411059960012189 MEDITERRA COMMUNITY ASSN INC 15735 CORSO MEDITERRA CIRUSA NAPLES FL 34110 15164 BROLIO LN59960012529 TREVES, ALEXANDER KGRETCHEN F TREVES% COLEMAN YOVANOVICH & KOESTER 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 300USANAPLESFL 34103 15210 BROLIO WAYIMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION1808 IMPERIAL GOLF CRS BLVDUSANAPLESFL 34110500' RadiusPage 273 of 317
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION MEETING
PETITION: PL20250006588 – Imperial Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
A formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Amendment. The Imperial Lakes PUD is an existing 78+/- acre PUD and is vested for 430 conventional multi-family dwelling units. The PUD amendment proposes to add a range of dwelling unit types including single-family detached, two-family attached and townhomes. Appropriate development standards for each dwelling unit type have been added. The PUD will have a maximum of 430 total conventional dwelling units and an allowance for up to 750 dwelling units if affordable housing is provided. The PUD option to develop up to 750 multi-family dwellings if the project exceeds 430 dwelling units, is consistent with the affordable housing density bonus requirements per LDC 2.06.03. A percentage of the units above 430 units must meet the affordable housing density bonus requirement.
In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, LLC (GradyMinor) and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing N.A. Realty Trust, Inc. (Applicant) will be held at the location and time shown below.
Headquarters Library, Sugden Theatre, 2385 Orange Blossom Dr, Naples, FL 34109October 21, 2025, 5:30 pm
(The Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or
endorse this program.)
The subject property (Parcel ID: 00153160004) consists of 78± acres and is located approximately 885 feet west of the terminus of Veterans Memorial Blvd., Collier County, Florida.
If you have questions, contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239-947-1144, Extension 4249. For project information or to register to participate remotely* visit our website at GradyMinor.com/Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The Collier County Public Library does
not sponsor or endorse this program.
The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting.
*Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is
at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not
responsible for technical issues.
ND-42645941
Page 274 of 317
PETITION:
PL20250006588 –IMPERIAL LAKES PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT
October 21, 2025, Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)
Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found on our website:
GRADYMINOR.COM/PLANNING/
Page 275 of 317
PROJECT TEAM:
•N.A. Realty Trust, Inc. – Applicant
•Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Land Use Attorney – Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
•D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner – Q. Grady Minor and Associates, LLC
•James M. Banks, P.E., Traffic Engineer – JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc.
•Tim Hall, Environmental Consultant - Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
*Please note, all information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority.
2
INTRODUCTION
Page 276 of 317
3
LOCATION MAP
Page 277 of 317
4
ADJACENT LAND
CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND
CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND
AUBREY
ROGERS H.S.
IMPERIAL
GOLF COURSE
Page 278 of 317
FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATION: Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict
ZONING: Imperial Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD)
PROJECT ACREAGE: 78.2+/- acres
PROPOSED REQUEST:
•Add a range of dwelling unit types including single-family detached, two-family attached and townhomes
•Vested for 430 multi-family dwelling units
MAXIMUM DENSITY: A maximum of 430 multi-family residential dwelling units or up to 313 residential dwelling units in any combination of dwelling unit types, not to exceed the trip cap specified in Exhibit F, item 3.C, shall be permitted within the RPUD.
PROJECT INFORMATION
5Page 279 of 317
6
APPROVED PUD
MASTER PLAN
(Ordinance 82-81)
LAKECYPRESS PRESERVECYPRESS PRESERVELAKE CYPRESS PRESERVEVETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD
Page 280 of 317
7
PROPOSED PUD
MASTER PLAN VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD
Page 281 of 317
8
PROPOSED DEVIATIONS
Page 282 of 317
9
PERMITTED USES
APPROVED: (Ordinance 82-81)
PROPOSED:
Page 283 of 317
10
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Page 284 of 317
NEXT STEPS
•File resubmittal
•CCPC and BCC Hearing Notices mailed by Collier County to adjacent property owners within 500
feet of the subject property.
•CCPC and BCC Hearing sign posted by applicant on property advertising hearing dates.
•HEARING DATES:
•CCPC – TBD, 9:00 a.m., Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd floor
BCC Chamber, Naples, FL, 34112
•BCC – TBD, 9:00 a.m., Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd floor
BCC Chamber, Naples, FL, 34112
11Page 285 of 317
Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found online:
WWW.GRADYMINOR.COM/PLANNING
Collier County Growth Management Department (GMD) Public Portal:
https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator
Petition Number: PL20250006588
CONTACTS:
•Q. Grady Minor and Associates, LLC: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician; sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or 239.947.1144, Ext. 4249
•Collier County Staff: Laura DeJohn; Laura.dejohn@collier.gov, (239) 252-2484
PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
12Page 286 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 1 of 24
Wayne Arnold: 00:00 I think the sound's carrying fine in this area, so I apologize. If
you want to move forward, we got plenty of seats right here. So
I'll try to speak up as loud as I can and we'll move on through it.
00:11 So we're here for a project called the Imperial Lakes Planned
Development. And we're in the process of amending that PUD
that was approved many years ago.
00:21 So let me make a few introductions here. Our team consists of
Rich Yovanovich, our counsel, who's here. We have
representatives from Atwell here, who's going to be the civil
engineer. This is Sharon Umpenhour, who's recording the
meeting for us tonight. And Laura DeJohn is the county staff
person in attendance. She'll be monitoring the meeting.
00:43 So the Imperial Lakes Project is shown here on the aerial
photograph. It's on the extension of Veterans Memorial
Boulevard and it's immediately west of the new Aubrey Rogers
High School.
00:57 So this project was originally zoned back in the early 1980s for
430 multifamily housing units. And we filed an amendment a
couple of months ago to increase that density to 750 with an
affordable housing component. And since we filed the
application, we have abandoned the affordable housing
component and the 750 unit request has been withdrawn.
01:22 So our request is to retain the 430 multifamily units or to
develop a combination of multifamily and single family at a
maximum density of 313 units. We were vested back before the
county adopted its more recent comprehensive plan when it
allowed higher densities in this area than it does today. Today
the general cap of development is about four units per acre,
which is the 313 units.
01:50 Just some of the locations that it shows you. Imperial Golf
Course is to our south. Aubrey Rogers High School is to the east.
Conservation Collier owns the two tracks of land immediately
west and north of us.
02:02 And obviously there's a planned expansion and extension of
Veterans Memorial all the way over to US 41 that will go across
the site. And part of the reason the site was vested several
years ago, the owner dedicated an easement for Collier County
so that they could expand that roadway across their property.
Page 287 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 2 of 24
02:21 Again, our request is to amend the existing community. And as I
said, it's already allowed to have 430 multifamily today, but it
didn't make any provisions for there to be anything other than
multifamily. So part of our request is to offer a variety of
housing types that would include single family, two family,
multifamily, and town homes. And we would restrict that
density if it's a combination of dwellings to 313 units.
02:48 This is the existing adopted master plan which features two
lakes and a couple of preserve areas. If you look back at the
area, there was former excavation on site. There was a
commercial excavation that occurred, which created the lakes.
And there's actually an easement that goes west through the
trailing on the south side of this property that's depicted there.
But all of those tracks were meant to be multifamily
development tracks.
03:14 So we've created a newer master plan and it's configured still
with a-
Automated: 03:22 Recording in progress.
Wayne: 03:23 ... with a roadway network that circulates around the site. We
only connect to Veterans Memorial Boulevard. There's no
connection proposed to the east, west, or south. And we've
identified the preserve areas in the P in the crosshatch section.
They're a little different than it was on the original master plan,
but we have updated information that Turrell, Hall has been
working on.
03:44 And there's also, you see a circle to the right side of the exhibit,
there's an eagle nest that's right on the property line of Aubrey
Rogers High School. And that radius where you have a protected
radius extends onto our property. So that's one of the features
of the site.
04:03 We've asked for a couple of deviations here, actually three of
them. And two of them were previously approved back in the
1980s and we're carrying those forward, but with new
references. We've asked for the internal roads to be a minimum
of 50 feet wide rather than 60 feet. And we've also asked for
there to be an alternative to the sidewalk, which would allow us
to put a sidewalk on one side of the local street and a bike path
on the other side of the street, to give the people an option to
either circulate to the amenity center by either bike or pathway.
Page 288 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 3 of 24
04:39 And the other deviation relates to the preserves. Collier County
requires that we have our preserves to be interconnected
through the property, but they don't occur naturally in that
state. So we've asked for those preserves that are not
connected to not be connected by county standard. And so I
think that's pretty straightforward request.
05:03 Again, I have language up here that talks about multifamily
owners on the original approval. And then you can see we've
asked for single family, two family, townhouse, and multifamily
for the revised master plan. We have development standards
that we've proposed. The prior approval for the multifamily
allowed for five story multifamily buildings throughout the site.
We've asked for now the county prefers a guess for actual and
zone height numbers. So we've asked for a zone height of 60
feet with an actual height of 70 feet. That would, again, allow
probably the same five-story buildings that were previously
permitted.
05:43 Just to explain where we are in the process, so we've submitted
our application to the county. They've made comments on our
original submittal. We're in the process of responding to their
comments and we'll be submitting those changes very soon.
And they'll again, Laura might be new or I can't remember if we
even had the conversation about withdrawing the affordable
housing requests, but you'll see that in our response letter.
06:09 So this is a required informational meeting for the county that
we do to let the community that surrounds us know what we're
doing. And if you have some questions or input, we'll be happy
to take those. Our next step will be to continue to work with the
county, and then ultimately we'll go to the planning
commission, and then to the board of county commissioners for
final decision. But no hearing dates have been established for
that at this time.
06:32 So we've got those as to be determined on the screen. And then
we usually like to conclude with some information here that if
you're interested, you can take a photo of this or you can go to
our webpage or you can go to the county's portal and follow
along as we make public submittals. Then those are live on our
website. And on the county's websites, you can follow along
with the changes that occur.
06:56 If you received notice for this meeting tonight, you should
receive the next notice from Collier County when we're
scheduled to go to the planning commission sometime,
probably after the first of the year at this point, I would imagine.
Page 289 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 4 of 24
But that, in a nutshell, is what we're proposing to do, so if
anybody has any questions, comments, we'll open up the floor.
And try to speak up or if you can come forward and use the
microphone, that would probably be best. Yes, sir? Can you
come forward or speak up?
Speaker 3: 07:20 How will you gain access to the property?
Wayne: 07:21 I'm sorry, I couldn't understand what you were saying.
Speaker 3: 07:22 How will you gain access to the property?
Wayne: 07:24 Okay. Access to the property will be with an extension of
Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Go back to an aerial here. So you
can see to the east on the northeast corner is the high school.
And they extended Veterans Memorial to their property line.
And we'll be working out an agreement with staff, how that's
going to occur.
07:46 It could work out so that our timing for development coincides
with their improvement. Because it's in the five-year work plan
for them to go ahead and extend Veterans Memorial, but
otherwise we would have a developer agreement so that we
would probably build it and have some form of reimbursement
with the county. Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 4: 08:03 You're back up to our Castlewood's Lake. Now, what are you
going to do so that your plan and your homes aren't going to be
obstructing, are going to lower our-
Speaker 3: 08:18 Will there be any kind of a buffer between them and us?
Wayne: 08:21 Yes, there is. There's a required buffer. So you can see most of
our eastern property line has a large preserve in the middle. But
your lake is a little farther south and we're required to have a
15-foot wide type B landscape buffer that would be for multi-
family to another use.
08:37 And the type B buffer is it can be a combination of a berm, a
wall, a hedge that has to be planted and become six foot high
and 80% opaque within one year. So that's kind of what the
county requires us to do. We don't know at this point if we are
doing any kind of fence or wall or berm combination, but that's
the type of buffer we're proposing.
Speaker 5: 08:59 How many story units are these?
Page 290 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 5 of 24
Wayne: 09:02 Well, we're defining this, the question was how many stories
are these units? So the existing zoning allows for five stories. It
didn't express a height. So we're having to put this in terms of
numbers of feet. So we're proposing a zoned height of 60 feet
and an actual height of 70 feet, which gets about the same five-
story building that's permitted today.
Speaker 4: 09:23 And where would they be located on the property?
Wayne: 09:26 The designation for multifamily and single family and other
types hasn't been defined, so they could occur throughout. But
keep in mind that the existing plan today... Oops. That plan
allows multifamily to be five stories everywhere that there's a
development track on that side, including to the southeast. So
we think that the plan is very similar and compatible with what
was previously approved.
Speaker 4: 09:55 And what will be the ratio between a multi-story and individual?
Wayne: 10:05 So the question is the ratio between the multifamily and the
single family or other types. We don't know yet. I mean, there's
a chance it could be 100% multifamily, but there's a better
chance that it's going to be a mixture of the two but that's not
been defined yet.
Speaker 5: 10:18 Do you have any pictures, drawings, or whatever of what these
units look like?
Wayne: 10:23 We do not. No, there's been really... This is the stage of zoning,
we, again, it's already been approved for the 430 multifamily
units and we don't identify the architectural style yet. This
gentleman behind you, sir. Yes, sir, in the blue shirt?
Speaker 6: 10:41 Can we get a copy of this presentation?
Wayne: 10:43 You sure can. If you'll get Sharon's card on the back table and
you can email her or call her. And we'll be happy to either mail
you one or email you a copy of it. Or it's available on the
website that I had identified at the end of the presentation.
11:00 Yes, sir. Have another question?
Speaker 3: 11:02 In the event that you did not get this amendment through,
would you resort back to the 313 that you originally was?
Wayne: 11:12 Well, we were originally approved for 430. So our option would
be to either continue on with this and get the option to add
Page 291 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 6 of 24
single family townhouse and two family to the multifamily mix
and then reduce the density. Otherwise, our only option would
be to develop the maximum of 430 units as all multifamily.
Speaker 3: 11:30 And what would be the maximum height of those units?
Wayne: 11:31 Those are already approved to be five stories tall.
Speaker 3: 11:36 Thank you.
Wayne: 11:39 Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 7: 11:39 Is there any kind of price range that you were going to start
these units at?
Wayne: 11:44 No, they're all market rate now that we've withdrawn the
request for affordable housing. So whatever the market bears
when these come out of the ground. At this point, we're starting
the water management district and environmental resource
permitting process. And that's going to take us, I don't know,
gosh, six months at least to get through that process.
12:04 And then go through the other county approvals once they
determine if it's multifamily, they do an administrative site plan
review. If it becomes single family or two family or townhouse,
they have to go through a planning process and that takes many
more months to get through the county. And then you have to
mobilize and actually construct it. So it's probably at least a year
out before anything can even come out of the ground here.
Speaker 8: 12:27 The multi dwelling-
Wayne: 12:28 Yes, sir?
Speaker 8: 12:29 Oh, sorry.
Wayne: 12:30 You can go ahead, ma'am.
Speaker 8: 12:31 Multi dwelling, will that be a mix of ownership and rental? Or
just straight one or the other?
Wayne: 12:38 Well, we didn't define whether or not those units would be
rentals or owner occupied. It's just multifamily as a dwelling unit
type, just as the prior zoning allowed. Yes, sir?
Speaker 3: 12:49 In the event you do get approval for low income housing, can
you give us an idea?
Page 292 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 7 of 24
Speaker 10: 12:57 They're not doing that.
Speaker 3: 12:57 You withdrew it?
Wayne: 12:57 Yeah, we have withdrawn the request for affordable housing.
Speaker 3: 12:59 I'm sorry, I did not hear that.
Wayne: 13:04 Okay. Yes, sir?
Speaker 6: 13:05 Can you go back to your proposed map? Since Castlewood is the
only single family housing development that abuts your
property, why can't you put us or give us a bigger buffer there
so that we're not looking at your stuff?
Speaker 7: 13:22 [inaudible 00:13:29] five-story buildings.
Speaker 4: 13:22 That's not even our property though. That's the high school
abuts.
Speaker 6: 13:22 But this all, there's the high school and the planned commercial.
Wayne: 13:39 Keep in mind, the buffers that we provided are what the code
requires us to provide. And it doesn't mean that you can't
create larger buffers. But at this point, your comment's well
noted and and we can certainly look at that.
Speaker 6: 13:50 I think we're going to demand that because we're going to
attend every meeting. And we're just not in favor without
having some protection.
Wayne: 13:57 Understood.
Speaker 9: 13:57 Keep on applying.
Speaker 7: 13:57 We do make [inaudible 00:14:02].
Wayne: 14:02 Hang on. We're trying to record. We can't have more than one
person talk at a time. What's your comment, ma'am?
Speaker 9: 14:07 I was just saying, that doesn't abut the houses in Castlewood. It
abuts the lake and a golf course of Imperial Golf Course.
Speaker 4: 14:20 But we own the lake.
Speaker 9: 14:23 Yes. The high school abuts the houses.
Page 293 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 8 of 24
Wayne: 14:25 Yeah, you can see that the lake separates you from our property
line.
Speaker 7: 14:29 It's not that big of a lake.
Wayne: 14:32 I'm just telling you the facts that you're separated by a lake. So
yes, have a comment here?
Speaker 10: 14:37 Can you go back to what's approved today?
Wayne: 14:38 Sure.
Speaker 10: 14:45 Okay. So right there is what, without any zoning change, you
could build, correct?
Wayne: 14:50 That's correct.
Speaker 10: 14:51 And 430 units.
Wayne: 14:53 Correct.
Speaker 10: 14:54 When I look at the southern end, which seems to be
Castlewood's, doesn't that have a road? I see Cypress Preserve
and the lake, but what's on the south side of the road?
Wayne: 15:06 There's a drainage easement and a roadway easement.
Speaker 10: 15:09 So would there be any residences?
Wayne: 15:12 No, there are no residences. Well, there could be residences on
our side, but there are no residences on the-
Speaker 10: 15:19 Golf course.
Wayne: 15:20 On the golf course side, obviously.
Speaker 10: 15:21 So if you would, Wayne, go back to the, what's currently
approved. I'm trying to figure out, because we can't read the
very below. Is that development on the south side of the road,
closest to them?
Speaker 4: 15:36 We're actually on the eastern side.
Wayne: 15:39 Their project is located here. There's a drainage easement here.
There's a drainage easement and a roadway easement that runs
across the south boundary. But the homes for Castlewood are
located roughly in here.
Page 294 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 9 of 24
Speaker 10: 15:54 So right now to their property, what would be the setback and
the vegetation on their side currently as it speaks? What's the
distance?
Wayne: 16:07 Well, if we developed it today, we would be required to put in
the type B buffer that we're proposing.
Speaker 10: 16:12 Same thing?
Wayne: 16:13 Same thing.
Speaker 10: 16:14 Okay. Go now to what you're asking for. Okay. First of all, the
roads that you're reducing from 60 feet to 50 feet, one, is that
what development has done recently? Like there are lots of
PUDs that-
Wayne: 16:33 Yes. It's a very common deviation that we ask for. A public
county road is typically 60 feet, and we typically ask for a 50-
foot right of way. This was previously approved actually, if you
look at the document. There's some diagrams in there, and they
allow 50-foot private roadways inside the community today.
Speaker 10: 16:50 Okay. Because Veterans Memorial is not developed in front of
you, you may have some notice requirements. Could we request
that those be put more out at Old 41 and/or Livingston where...
Because if you put them on your property, which I know is
probably the code, but just so more people know that this is... Is
that something that could be done?
Wayne: 17:16 Well, it's subject to whoever owns the property allowing us to
do that. Rich and I are working on another project and some of
the neighbors wanted us to put the notice on their property
closer to Collier Boulevard. And the homeowner's association
told us, "No, thank you. We don't want to talk to you."
17:29 So we had no option but to post them only on our site. So we
can certainly talk to the school district or somebody where at
least they can be put at the end of the road, but I can't
guarantee that that would happen.
Speaker 10: 17:40 I was curious.
Wayne: 17:40 But we'll note that for sure.
Speaker 10: 17:41 Sidewalks on one side of the street, as well as you say bike, is
that another sidewalk? Or is that on the street?
Page 295 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 10 of 24
Wayne: 17:50 It would be a separate bike path off the street is what we're
proposing. So we would have one side would have a sidewalk
and the other side would have some, a bike path to try to
separate pedestrians from bikers that might be wanting to
utilize the site.
18:04 It's something that the developers utilized in Fiddlers Creek and
I think there's another property in Pelican Bay that has kind of a
similar concept. Staff hasn't taken a position on that, so I don't
know if they're going to support that or not but that is our
request. Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 9: 18:23 Because we're a gated community, do you have any specifics
you have to do, whether you have to put up a wall or protect
our property? Or is there anything that you have to do in
compliance?
Wayne: 18:36 No, we have to provide buffers according to code, but it's very
likely we're going to be a gated community as well. But I don't
know what, if we're going to put up a perimeter fence or
anything. I don't know if we would do that or not. Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 8: 18:52 The road that you're showing on the lower right-hand corner,
okay, that would be, Castlewood would be to the right of that?
Wayne: 18:58 Correct.
Speaker 8: 18:59 Would the buildings be... Would that road be on the inside of
the property or the outside of the property? So in other words,
the building would be on the right-hand side?
Wayne: 19:06 Correct.
Speaker 8: 19:06 Then the road?
Wayne: 19:06 This is designed so that buildings could be anywhere in this
[inaudible 00:19:14], on this side of the road or on the inside of
the road in that area. I saw another hand up somewhere. Yes,
sir?
Speaker 3: 19:24 Do you envision that Veterans Memorial is going to be extended
over to 41? I mean, that's going to be very tight access for that
piece of property.
Wayne: 19:32 It is. It's our understanding, talking to Trinity Scott at the
county, that that road is funded and it's going to be built within
the next five years over to 41.
Page 296 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 11 of 24
Speaker 9: 19:41 That's how we hear about it.
Speaker 3: 19:45 Well, I didn't think they were making this progress.
Wayne: 19:48 Any other questions, comments? Yes, sir?
Speaker 10: 19:51 Transportation. At 430 you're vested. So you already meet all of
the traffic patterns or do you have to do any kind of a trip?
Wayne: 20:04 We've had to prepare a new traffic analysis and we'll have a trip
cap established for this project. It'll probably be based on the
313 lower number because theoretically those could all be
single family. But we run the numbers and we don't think
there's any, there's certainly no network issues associated with
what we're proposing.
Speaker 6: 20:24 What do you mean by network issues?
Wayne: 20:28 The county looks at their network of public roads and we have
to analyze our impacts on different segments of that road.
Speaker 10: 20:35 In that document, the county or the, whoever it is, it was Banks.
Wayne: 20:41 Yes.
Speaker 10: 20:42 He talks about a 199 VPH. So with the lowering of the dead
speed, do you see that being an issue or not?
Wayne: 20:50 I don't think so. I mean, we'll have a revised traffic analysis to
accompany this submittal. And we'll see what Mike Sawyer and
the county staff have to say, but we don't expect any issues.
Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 8: 21:03 The lakes that are there now, the problem we have in Imperial
is with sheet flow because all the sheet flow goes south. So
everything will come through where Castlewood is, where the
golf course is, and across that area.
21:22 What are the plans about discussing the sheet flow? Because
we had a problem with Mediterra when they built their wall
disturbing what was the sheet flow coming south. And the
school has a retention basin on the corner of the school. When
you come into school on the left-hand side of the school, they
have a retention basin that affects the properties inside
Imperial Golf Estates because it floods out in that corner.
Wayne: 21:53 Right. Well?
Page 297 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 12 of 24
Nick Walters: 21:55 So as far as corner goes... Nick Walters from Atwell.
Wayne: 21:58 Why don't you come use the microphone, Nick?
Nick Walters: 21:59 We're required... Might even be better over there, I'm not sure.
So we'll be required to take on any offsite flows from the north
to take on that sheet flow that you're talking about. We'll
attenuate and treat it onsite and discharge at the allowable rate
per state and federal requirements.
Speaker 8: 22:17 Where will it go into the two lakes that you have? Or will it?
Nick Walters: 22:20 Yes. And then we're, the site plan shows an expansion of the
lakes. We're going to utilize the existing lakes as much as we
can. But yes, it'll be on the onsite lakes.
Wayne: 22:30 And then discharge offsite.
Nick Walters: 22:31 And then discharging south offsite, yeah.
Speaker 8: 22:34 It's not discharging further west, it's all going to discharge
south? Or is it going to discharge west?
Nick Walters: 22:41 Southwest would be what I'm saying.
Speaker 8: 22:44 So out towards 41?
Nick Walters: 22:46 I'm going to say more south, not towards 41.
Speaker 6: 22:48 It's going to the golf course?
Speaker 9: 22:48 Going down the golf course.
Speaker 8: 22:48 It's going towards the golf course.
Nick Walters: 22:49 It goes around the golf course through a conveyance well.
Speaker 4: 22:54 Through what?
Speaker 3: 22:56 Through a what?
Speaker 4: 22:57 [inaudible 00:22:57]. Saying something already done.
Wayne: 22:57 Yeah, it's already in place for this additional [inaudible
00:23:01].
Speaker 8: 23:00 So all that-
Page 298 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 13 of 24
Speaker 6: 23:01 That whole area floods now.
Speaker 8: 23:02 It floods now.
Nick Walters: 23:04 There's an existing connection. Well, we're going to be able to
maintain that sheet flow and have an allowable discharge. So
we should slow that rate down because now we're going to add
attenuation on site.
Wayne: 23:16 If I can?
Nick Walters: 23:17 Yep.
Wayne: 23:18 One of the other things too, that you have to realize, the site as
it exists is unimproved. But when we actually develop it, we
have to put in additional water management facilities and more
attenuation, which holds water back.
23:30 And then we have a discharge rate that's established by the
county, which is a very low amount of discharge we can actually
put off the site. That's why we're designing this to have more
lake area plus additional dry detention areas to attenuate the
flow of water. Yes, sir?
Speaker 10: 23:46 Veterans Memorial, what are you planning to do? And I know
these are site development plan, but what will be the? Will
there be a right in, right out, light? What do you think is going to
happen at the entrance?
Wayne: 24:00 Honestly, I don't think we know yet whether we have a traffic
signal there. There's no real opposing property across from us
as the Conservation Collier Preserve. So there's no other
development across from us, so I doubt very seriously we have
a traffic signal.
Speaker 8: 24:14 So you think it'll be just a median that you might be able to go
this way because-
Wayne: 24:18 I would imagine we'll be able to make right and lefts out of
there, at least for the foreseeable future. There's no other
development along that corridor that could be developed unless
Mediterra comes back in to add additional units, which I don't
think is on the table. Yes, sir?
Speaker 6: 24:33 Isn't Veterans Parkway going to cross Old 41?
Wayne: 24:37 Yes, sir. It's designed to go all the way up to new 41.
Page 299 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 14 of 24
Speaker 6: 24:39 Right now, Old 41 backs up way past the point where Veterans
will cross Old 41. So what's the plan to fix that?
Wayne: 24:49 I don't know. I don't know what the county's plan is.
Speaker 6: 24:51 Well, you're asking us to pay for this indirectly because we're
the taxpayers.
Wayne: 24:56 Right. And we pay impact fees for all the homes that get built
and we pay a heavy traffic impact fee, which the county utilizes.
Plus this is, I think, an already funded project for the county. So I
don't know that you're going to see any direct cost related to
that improvement.
25:13 But I think that very likely at some point there could be a signal
at Old 41, New 41, but I don't know if that decision's been made
yet. Anything else we haven't touched on? Again, I can put up
the contact information.
Speaker 10: 25:28 Can you go back to what you're proposing?
Wayne: 25:30 Sure.
Speaker 10: 25:34 So this you believe to be the optimum development pattern? Is
it all the way, I mean, it's a narrow piece of land. It's 76 acres.
But you don't see it being any... The reason why I'm pointing out
is the residential is closest to the Castlewood. There's no way to
design it so the preserve would be more in their area equaling...
Don't you all have a preserve?
Speaker 4: 26:06 Right, yeah.
Wayne: 26:07 We typically don't design preserves to be the buffer because the
preserves are meant to be native vegetation, preservation areas
where the highest quality of vegetation exists. And in this case,
that's wetland, and that's the highest priority for protection by
Collier County. So if those are wetlands, we show those as
preserves.
Speaker 10: 26:26 And you have to have the lake dug out. Go back to what you're
proposing. The full length, isn't that a lake, the whole? So it's a
reconfiguring of the lake?
Wayne: 26:37 Yes, we're connecting the two lakes that have been divided in
the middle here. It's a much more efficient design to get filled
for our own site out of that larger lake system, and it gives us
more water management area to store water.
Page 300 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 15 of 24
Speaker 10: 26:49 So the movement of the preserve to the north of that lake
couldn't go down? You deemed that to be the best
environmental area?
Wayne: 26:58 I didn't. But you can see here that we had preserve areas largely
in three areas anyway. One to the east, one to the south, and
one to the north. So our road system still maintains. This one
was very inefficient. It didn't connect. But there, we've created
a pathway around the part of that preserve.
27:19 Because it's all been, remember this was done 40 years ago,
when this thing was created. So there's been a lot more ground
truthing by Turrell, Hall & Associates. So we think our plan
reflects the likely scenario of getting the actual permits we need
to develop that plan.
Speaker 5: 27:38 However, is this lake going to be used for recreational
purposes?
Wayne: 27:44 The lake will not be used for recreational purposes. Typically,
for these water management district lakes, they're restricted for
use to just water management. Occasionally there could be
some limited use of them, but not motorized activities or
anything like that, probably not even kayaking allowed. They
tend to attract alligators, as you know, from your golf course.
Yes, sir?
Speaker 5: 28:06 What is your envisioned timeframe for this whole
development?
Wayne: 28:10 Well, probably won't start for a year from now. Realistically,
that would be the earliest. But beyond that, it's really going to
depend on the market and the market for bringing new homes
to the market.
Speaker 4: 28:23 Yes.
Speaker 5: 28:28 You know, you're talking about some of the units being 50, 60
foot high. Is there any thought about putting single dwelling in
the area, in the buffer zone there where it would be... We'd be
seeing our homes rather than having 50, 60 foot buildings that
looking down on us?
Wayne: 28:55 Well, keep in mind, today it's approved for five story buildings,
and that's what we carried forward, that same development
standard in just a little bit different format, because the county
doesn't use stories to define buildings any longer.
Page 301 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 16 of 24
29:07 But we don't have a breakdown of how many of these might be
multifamily. There could be no multifamily. They could all be
single family. But we made provisions-
Speaker 4: 29:16 But before approval-
Wayne: 29:17 Excuse me, ma'am. Only one at a time, please. That we won't
know that until the developer decides what's best for the
market when he decides to develop the property.
Speaker 4: 29:25 But do we have a say in that by the time that happens?
Wayne: 29:28 You can certainly express your opinions at the public hearings.
Speaker 4: 29:35 Yeah, just told me how to do that.
Wayne: 29:35 Do we have anyone on Zoom that has indicated they want to
speak, Sharon? We have, I think, a few Zoom participants, so I
don't want to disrespect them.
Sharon Umpenhour: 29:43 Just going to tell them to raise their hand if they do.
Wayne: 29:47 If anybody's on Zoom and would like to ask a question or make
a comment, please unmute and go ahead. I don't see anybody
un-muting.
Speaker 10: 30:00 So, in the current ordinance, there's a setback and a rear, at one
point it says one half the building height. So, if you were to put
residential 50, 60, 70 feet, what would be your setback from the
property line in the back?
Wayne: 30:21 So, we established a development table. This is the modern way
that we do it. So, you can follow, for instance, we have
multifamily here. And what we made a provision from HUD
boundary for the buildings to be 15 feet, which is the same as
the buffer width. In reality, that's probably not going to be the
case because we usually have a transition to the landscape
buffer, but that's what we've established as our proposed
minimum.
Speaker 10: 30:49 So, let me understand, you would have 15 feet of the buffer.
Wayne: 30:52 Yep.
Speaker 10: 30:53 How far back from that, additional, would the building begin
and go up to a height of 70 feet? Because remember, I realize
you have the current, it's vested. But the people that live as
Page 302 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 17 of 24
neighbors, while they may have a preserve, it's really that
southern end that somehow... Because I can't imagine it being
very close to the property line, not having some commitment or
consideration to that setback. Just at that-
Wayne: 31:32 I understand your comment, but I mean, I'm just showing you
what we've proposed today. And we'll be continuing to have
dialogue with probably yourself and county staff on that.
Speaker 7: 31:43 Could they possibly move that southern preserve to the right?
Wayne: 31:47 I don't think so.
Speaker 7: 31:48 Bring the road around?
Wayne: 31:49 The preserve reflects where the best quality vegetation exists
today, so that's what we proposed through our environmental
consultant.
Speaker 7: 31:57 If they would move that over, it would give us a much deeper
buffer.
Wayne: 31:59 No, I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 7: 32:02 It's still close but I think it would probably be pretty much the
same.
Wayne: 32:03 But we just can't move preserves. Preserves are where the
vegetation exists today that should be protected, so that's why
they're where they're shown.
Speaker 10: 32:12 Can you compare the approved plan today with what you're
seeking? Where those preserves are and where they are in what
you're seeking? Can you look at the map and show us where the
preserves are? That's what you want.
Wayne: 32:29 This is our proposed plan. We have three distinct preserve
areas, generally where they were previously located.
Speaker 10: 32:35 And where were they in the old one?
Wayne: 32:39 In the old one, they were one to the north, one to the east, and
one to the south.
Speaker 10: 32:43 So, it seems like they're about in the same location.
Wayne: 32:45 Generally, yes.
Page 303 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 18 of 24
Speaker 10: 32:46 So, you deem those to be the most environmentally sensitive?
Wayne: 32:51 Yes.
Speaker 10: 32:52 Or your-
Wayne: 32:52 Our environmental consultant has, yes. Ma'am?
Speaker 13: 32:52 Okay. I have a question about this. So, you're talking about
these preserves that were based on something that happened
40 years ago. Is that what you're saying?
Wayne: 33:10 No, ma'am. The ones shown on the original plan were. We've
updated an environmental assessment for today that the
county's reviewing, and it reflects that the areas we've shown
on this plan are the highest quality vegetation.
Speaker 13: 33:24 That's with you moving the lakes? So, when you've moved the
lakes, that's where the preserve then is now because-
Wayne: 33:32 No, if you'll notice the preserves are always one to the south,
one to the north, and one to the west.
Speaker 13: 33:36 I see that. But that doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 3: 33:41 Go back to the map of what it is today, the picture that you
have. I don't know about the picture that you have.
Speaker 7: 33:41 The aerial.
Speaker 9: 33:52 Can we look at two pictures side by side?
Wayne: 33:54 I cannot. I don't have that on the slide here. I'm not sure, sir,
what you're asking me to show you.
Sharon Umpenhour: 34:01 The aerial.
Speaker 3: 34:02 The picture that you have of the type there, that one. That area
that adjoins Castlewood Lake, I guess, I don't know if you can
call that a preserve, but certainly it's a wooded area.
Wayne: 34:14 Yeah, there's a lot of-
Speaker 3: 34:15 What we're saying is if we could retain some of that, it'd make it
more acceptable to us.
Page 304 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 19 of 24
Wayne: 34:20 No, I understand your comment, and we can certainly look at
that and talk to our consultant about that.
Speaker 3: 34:24 We're trying to avoid 70-foot buildings and no buffer adjacent
to us.
Wayne: 34:31 Understood.
Speaker 3: 34:31 If you can put the 70-foot building somewhere else and not
looking directly at us-
Speaker 4: 34:35 And not affect us.
Wayne: 34:35 Hang on. One at a time.
Speaker 4: 34:36 [inaudible 00:34:38].
Speaker 3: 34:38 ... then we would be more amenable to it.
Speaker 4: 34:38 Right.
Wayne: 34:41 Okay. Understood. Any other comments we haven't touched on
the subject matter tonight?
Speaker 8: 34:46 Just one, that lower right-hand corner where the Supreme
Court is. The building that would be proposed to go on that
yellow line opposed to that yellow line is 70 foot building. The
parking for that building would be on which side?
35:01 The reason I'm asking the question is because of street light
because we have that problem right now with the high school
and the lighting from the high school. So, if the parking is, if the
building is there, then the parking should be on the far side, not
on the side closest to Supreme because otherwise they're going
to be having a lighting problem.
Wayne: 35:22 Okay. I don't think we know that tonight, but I appreciate your
comments and we'll certainly note that.
Speaker 7: 35:26 What are you going to do about the deer?
Wayne: 35:30 Well, they're everywhere.
Speaker 4: 35:34 They're running out of places to be.
Wayne: 35:34 We understand. The county asks us to look at protected species
and the whitetail deer or not. They've got a lot of preservation
Page 305 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 20 of 24
area. They exist in your community. They exist in communities
where Rich used to live, or Sharon lives today. So, I mean, they
can coexist and we certainly accommodate them and they'll
continue to utilize the site if they're using it today.
Speaker 10: 35:58 What is five stories? What's the height of five stories?
Wayne: 36:02 Could be 90 feet. I don't know. I could build 20 foot tall stories.
Speaker 10: 36:08 What would the county approve? Any height?
Wayne: 36:12 Yeah, any five story building could be approved here today.
Speaker 10: 36:14 Hmm.
Wayne: 36:15 Yeah. That's why they like us to express it in feet rather than
stories.
Speaker 6: 36:21 They won't call up 75 because that's the high rise code. If they
go above 75, they have to do all these alternate things to the
buildings to meet the high rise code.
Wayne: 36:33 Anything else? You want me to go back to our contact info so
you can get in touch with us if you have some other questions?
We'll leave that up.
Speaker 3: 36:46 Can we look forward to another meeting where perhaps you
have implemented some of what we've suggested?
Wayne: 36:51 We typically do one of these meetings that's required by the
county and our next public meeting becomes the planning
commission. If you all have a representative that you'd like to
reach out to us, we'd be happy to start some dialogue, but we
probably won't have another noticed meeting like this. Yes,
ma'am?
Speaker 9: 37:13 Okay. So, are you interested in being good neighbors to us?
Wayne: 37:17 Absolutely.
Speaker 9: 37:17 That's my big question.
Wayne: 37:18 Sure. We always are.
Speaker 9: 37:18 Okay.
Wayne: 37:18 I'm happy to help you.
Page 306 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 21 of 24
Speaker 9: 37:20 Then our concerns about keeping, if you're going to do... I don't
think we would have any real problem with any single family
that would be buffering our lake, which is our single family. I
don't think we'd have a problem with that. But if you put up a
50-foot building and it blocks our sun.
Wayne: 37:40 I understand.
Speaker 9: 37:41 And our access to nature.
Speaker 3: 37:44 See, that's what I'm-
Speaker 9: 37:45 That's what our problem is.
Wayne: 37:46 I understand your comments. Just keep in mind, if we weren't
amending this plan, we could go build five-story buildings there
today.
Speaker 7: 37:52 That doesn't make it right.
Wayne: 37:55 It may not be right, but that's what is legally allowed today.
Rich Yovanovich: 37:58 We've been approved at five stories since 1982, which predated
your project. So, I don't think it's fair to-
Speaker 5: 38:08 So, what you're saying is you can do anything you want.
Rich Yovanovich: 38:10 No, what I'm saying is we have the right to go five stories. And
I'm responding to the gentleman with the glasses where he
says, "We'll still fight you." Okay. But we're coming in with a
proposed plan that could reduce the density and also put in
single family.
Speaker 9: 38:25 And I appreciate that.
Rich Yovanovich: 38:26 And I told her, we hear your comments, we may not change
anything, but we hear your comments. But I don't think you're
saying, you're accusing my client of being a bad neighbor when
my client was approved in 1982.
Speaker 9: 38:43 Things have changed since 1982. Building codes have changed.
Rich Yovanovich: 38:57 There have been a few things that have changed.
Wayne: 38:57 Hang on, hang on. Please. Please, please, please.
Page 307 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 22 of 24
Rich Yovanovich: 38:57 I'm just responding to the comment. I don't want to debate it. I
just wanted to clarify that [inaudible 00:38:58].
Speaker 5: 38:57 That is why I'm asking-
Wayne: 38:57 Sir, can you please be more respectful.
Speaker 5: 38:57 I am being respectful.
Speaker 9: 38:57 Why can't we have a single family development closest to us
and move the-
Rich Yovanovich: 39:03 My client will evaluate your comments and he may choose not
to make any changes. I just, we will talk that through with my
client.
Speaker 9: 39:15 I did not accuse you of being a bad neighbor.
Rich Yovanovich: 39:16 I didn't say you did. I didn't say you did.
Speaker 9: 39:19 I would like you to take that into consideration. There's a high
school that it doesn't matter if there's five-story buildings next
to the high school. It's already. And there's another side that's
the preserve that won't ever get built on. Is that a problem to
have the five-story buildings on that side and to protect the
neighborhoods of Imperial?
39:47 I realize you're not Imperial, you're not part of our gated
community. But we have a community there that has been
there maybe after your planned unit development. But you put
in a development that you had no way of even building on
because you didn't have roads. You didn't have a road system.
You didn't have. So if you had built it 40 years ago-
Rich Yovanovich: 40:11 And that's when the county promised my client they would
build the road. We gave the county the road right away, so
we've been waiting for the county to provide the access they
promised us.
Speaker 9: 40:21 For 40 years?
Rich Yovanovich: 40:23 40 years ago.
Speaker 9: 40:24 Okay, I get that.
Rich Yovanovich: 40:25 Okay.
Page 308 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 23 of 24
Speaker 9: 40:25 But our development wouldn't have been put in the way it was
put in had that been the case.
Rich Yovanovich: 40:36 I don't know that. [inaudible 00:40:37].
Speaker 9: 40:37 I know we just didn't read it.
Wayne: 40:41 Well, like Rich said, we'll certainly take all your comments under
advisement and discuss with our client, but we can't make
promises tonight that anything may change. Yes, ma'am. All the
way in the back?
Speaker 15: 40:50 Are you at liberty to share who your client is?
Wayne: 40:52 Yes, the client is listed on the first page.
Speaker 15: 40:54 Okay. I came in later, I apologize.
Wayne: 40:59 It's NA Realty Trust, Inc. Going once?
Speaker 10: 41:05 Somewhere in here, you have the list of housing types.
Wayne: 41:10 Yep.
Speaker 10: 41:11 Is it the next page?
Wayne: 41:12 No, it's not too far away. So on the right side, this is where
we've listed the types of units that we could build.
Speaker 10: 41:23 Got it. At some point, earlier, several years ago, you guys may
have come forward and were asking for senior housing.
Wayne: 41:32 Correct.
Speaker 10: 41:33 But that is not on the-
Wayne: 41:35 That's not on the table. We're not pursuing that today.
Speaker 10: 41:38 Okay. And then there's a term called Live Local. Is that
anything? I know you don't have affordable, you're going down
to 330. But could you qualify for?
Wayne: 41:50 Let Rich clarify me if I'm wrong, but we're not zoned
commercial, therefore we could not come in for Live Local.
Speaker 10: 41:55 Okay. But the affordable housing, going back to that, because
that's what the ad said.
Page 309 of 317
Imperial Lakes PUD Amendment (PL20250006588)
October 21, 2025 NIM Transcript
IMPLSP Imperial Lakes Oct 21, 2025 NIM Page 24 of 24
Wayne: 41:59 Correct.
Speaker 10: 42:01 Some reason as to why, I mean why you abandoned that?
Wayne: 42:07 I think our client just felt that it wasn't a fight he necessarily
wanted and didn't really need. The density seemed to be
adequate to just put in conventional housing.
42:23 Everybody ready to go home? Thanks everybody for coming
out. Appreciate it. And like I said, grab Sharon's card or get in
contact with us. And anybody from Imperial, if you've got a
contact person you'd like us to reach out to. [inaudible
00:42:41].
Automated: 42:43 Recording stopped.
Page 310 of 317
1
LauraDeJohnVEN
From:LauraDeJohnVEN
Sent:Thursday, December 18, 2025 4:51 PM
To:'Jim Reichart'
Cc:Craig Brown; Chris Hall; Louise Jarvis
Subject:RE: RPUD PL20250006588 - Imperial Lakes (PUDA)
Mr. Reichart,
Thank you for your input. I’ll include your email in the backup material for this item as it moves through the public
hearing process at the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
Laura
From: Jim Reichart <jreichart@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 4:03 PM
To: LauraDeJohnVEN <Laura.DeJohn@collier.gov>; Craig Brown <Craig.Brown@collier.gov>; Chris Hall
<Chris.Hall@collier.gov>; Louise Jarvis <Louise.Jarvis@collier.gov>
Subject: RPUD PL20250006588
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
SORRY ABOUT THE EARLIER EMAIL AS IT WAS SENT ACCCIDENTALLY
Dear Ms. DeJohn and Mr. Brown
In this recent PUD modification and reference to your zoning review comment 14. I and all
of Castlewood are very concerned about the proposed layout.
1.This brings their development much closer to Castlewood, the only residential
neighborhood adjacent to their proposed development. We like the original Proposed PUD much
better and its corresponding setbacks
2. It also appears that in the revised PUD Documents (18 RPUD Exhibits A-fv.pdf) They are
attempting to revise all the setbacks in a table. These modifications are not welcomed by the
Castlewood community. Please keep the setbacks per the original PUD.
3. Environmental Review
Comment 2 Bear Activity
The Bear Report is inaccurate as it is over two years old and does not account for the construction of the
High School. In addition, there have been 3 Bear sightings in Castlewood in the last year.
In Addition There is nothing in the wildlife report about cougars. There have been numerous reports on
the golf course of cougar sightings along with sightings in Castlewood.
Deviations
1. In the original PUD the distance from Castlewood had a 60ft access easement then a 50 ft set
back from the road to the property line and then a 50” road ROW then a Building setback of 50 ft
from the road. Or 310 ft from Castlewood property line.
2. There were 3 deviations requested
a. Deviation 1 Relief from street system requirements of a 60 ROW to 50 ROW We do
not recommend this deviation as it will have adverse effects on visibility from Castlewood.
In an area with already difficult traffic flow.
Page 311 of 317
2
b. Deviation 2 Sidewalk, Bike Lane and Pathways Requirements Too many deviations
have been given in the past and this has led to poorly planned areas and pedestrian
transportation
i. There are also requirements for sidewalks and bikeways for access to the high
school
c. Deviation 3 Preservation standards This needs to be enforced as the wild life
continues to be forced into smaller and smaller areas. With the construction of the High
School the wildlife has moved everywhere else. They need to have continuous preserves
for migration.
Thank you for taking this into consideration
Jim Reichart
1766 Supreme Ct
Naples, FL. 34110
312-339-4402
Page 312 of 317
1
LauraDeJohnVEN
From:LauraDeJohnVEN
Sent:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 3:56 PM
To:Jim Reichart
Cc:Chris Hall; Living Waters Canoe; Ron Anderson; Trevor Calhoun
Subject:RE: The other morning at about 3:30am — Nextdoor Bear in the neighborhood
(PL20250006588 - Imperial Lakes (PUDA))
Mr. Reichart,
Security settings do not allow me to access the Nextdoor post you linked in your email.
If you would like information or images to be included as public correspondence for the pending Imperial Lakes PUD
Amendment, please send in the body of an email or as a still image.
Thank you,
Laura
Laura DeJohn
Planner, Sr.
Development Review
Office:(239)252-5587
Laura.DeJohn@collier.gov
My email address has changed. Effective immediately, please update your contact
list to use this new address: Laura.DeJohn@collier.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Reichart <jreichart@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 11:21 AM
To: Chris Hall <Chris.Hall@collier.gov>; LauraDeJohnVEN <Laura.DeJohn@collier.gov>; Living Waters Canoe
<paul@john738.com>; Ron Anderson <randrande63017@gmail.com>; Trevor Calhoun <whitehawk959@gmail.com>
Subject: The other morning at about 3:30am — Nextdoor Bear in the neighborhood
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when
opening attachments or clicking links.
Check out this post on Nextdoor: https://nextdoor.com/p/cx9Hf7-
P7KYL?utm_source=share&extras=NjkxOTA2NzM%3D&share_platform=6&utm_campaign=1766506707362&share_action_id
=19d3a9f0-15da-4439-a26d-e1e1a3c64dc6
Jim Reichart
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Page 313 of 317
1
LauraDeJohnVEN
From:Ailyn Padron
Sent:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 2:31 PM
To:LauraDeJohnVEN; Ray Bellows
Cc:Michael Bosi
Subject:FW: [Spam] Proposed development PL20250006588- Imperial Lakes (PUDA)
Hi Laura and Ray,
Please read below.
Thank you.
Ailyn Padron
Management Analyst I
Zoning
Office:239-252-5187
2800 Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, Florida 34104
Ailyn.Padron@collier.gov
My email address has changed. Effective immediately, please update your contact
list to use this new address: Ailyn.Padron@collier.gov
From: Jim Reichart <jreichart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 2:28 PM
To: Chris Hall <Chris.Hall@collier.gov>; Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@collier.gov>; Amy Patterson
<Amy.Patterson@collier.gov>
Cc: Living Waters Canoe <paul@john738.com>; linhampton@aol.com; Ron Anderson <randrande63017@gmail.com>;
Julie Ewing <eteam6@gmail.com>; Thomas and Norine Petruzelli <petruzelli@me.com>; LauraDeJohnVEN
<Laura.DeJohn@collier.gov>; bill@murlick.com; SMurlick02@gmail.com
Subject: [Spam] Proposed development PL20250006588
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme
caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Preview attachment FullSizeRender.heicPreview attachment FullSizeRender.heic
Page 314 of 317
2
FullSizeRender.heic
1.8 MB
Commissioner Hall and Ms.Patterson
I recently received a letter about a revision to the Imperial Lakes PUD circa 1960. I have difficulty how the applicant can
request a revision to the PUD without providing a layout plan other than a generic layout that does not show what or
where they plan to build. How could the county even entertain this proposal? The new proposed layout will
adversely impact the only residential community that is adjacent to this proposed PUD revision. With the generic layout
that was submitted with the revised PUD it will move their proposed development even closer to Castlewood at
Imperial Golf. I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks Jim
Jim Reichart
1766 Supreme Ct
Naples, FL. 34110
312-339-4402
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Page 315 of 317
Page 316 of 317
Page 317 of 317