Agenda 04/24/2018 Item #11D04/24/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept the US41 Corridor Study as a supplemental planning tool, and direct
staff to begin the implementation of the informational and short term recommendations, and
prepare follow-up items with a more detailed plan for the long term recommendations for future
Board direction.
OBJECTIVE: To review the findings and recommendations contained in the US41 Corridor Study and
provide direction upon the findings and recommendation for future action.
CONSIDERATIONS: During the February 14, 2017, public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to engage the community in a public planning process to determine
the commercial land uses most desired by the community and develop incentives to promote those
desired land uses. Through a series of public meetings, the emphasis was upon identifying the specific
types of businesses currently located on the Corridor and creating a baseline, with emphasis upon traffic
infrastructure (roadways design) influence on commercial market viability and attraction. With
Coordination with the East Naples Foundation, CRA, and other stakeholder’s groups, Staff developed a
public meeting schedule.
The recommendations provided for within the final report were based upon feedback received from over
200 participants at four publicly advertised community meetings, based upon direct feedback to a visual
preference survey and written comments. The Community meetings dates and locations are provided
below:
Public Meeting 1 - October 3, 2017 - East Naples Community Park
Public Meeting 2 - November 7, 2017 - Eagles Lakes Community Park
Public Meeting 3 - January 16, 2018 - Eagles Lakes Community Park
Final Public Meeting - February 21, 2018 - South Regional Library
Based upon the input provided at the above public planning meetings, the Study provides for the
following recommendations:
INFORMATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
#1) Community based branding project -Civic and Business organizations should work together to
establish a theme and identity and then promote the community and its vision.
#2) Desired businesses - The County Growth Management Department should provide information to the
development community about outcomes of the Study and uses that are preferred.
SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
#3) Redevelopment and development standards -
a) New development will meet Collier County’s architectural and signage standards and further refined
redevelopment standards.
b) For gas station or self-storage development, consider separation requirements, location standards or
minimum percentages of retail or office mix as part of these developments to mitigate for proliferation
along this corridor.
11.D
Packet Pg. 343
04/24/2018
#4) Landscaping -Implement a roadside landscaping enhancement strategy.
a) Substitute standards for landscaping in front yards for better “curb appeal” specific to conditions of
U.S. 41 East.
b) Review options for enhanced roadside landscaping in the right-of-way.
LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION
#5) Identify target locations or “nodes” for allowing preferred new types of development and
redevelopment.
a) Confirm or expand the 3 existing Activity Centers: Airport Road; Thomasson/Rattlesnake; Collier
Boulevard.
b) Consider addition of 2 new minor Activity Center opportunities at: St Andrews Square and
Vincentian PUD/Eagle Lakes Park.
#6) Transportation Needs
a) Identify opportunities to use connecting street for bicycles and pedestrians.
b) Coordinate with the Collier MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan to identify locations for new
sidewalks, bikeways, transit and greenways and connections to serve the corridor.
c) Establish design criteria to promote secondary corridors to connect to commercial and mixed use
centers.
d) Coordinate with County Transportation staff & Florida DOT on options for retrofitting
enhancements, start with intersections.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to the acceptance of the US Corridor Study. The
cost associated with any of the suggested recommendations will be accounted for within the fiscal year
budget of the Zoning Division or the General Fund.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Acceptance of the Study as an additional planning tool fulfills
the Growth Management Plan’s policy 4.1 (Future Land Use Element) for “Planning studies may address
specific geographic areas.” If directed, certain recommendations may require amendments to the GMP
for full implementation.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a majority vote
for Board action. -HFAC
RECOMMENDATION: To accept the US41 Corridor Study as a supplemental planning tool, and direct
staff to begin the implementation of the informational and short term recommendations, and prepare
follow-up items with a more detailed plan for the long term recommendations for future Board direction
Prepared by: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. [Linked] 04-03-18 - Summary of Findings and Recommendations Memo (PDF)
11.D
Packet Pg. 344
04/24/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.D
Doc ID: 5175
Item Summary: Recommendation to accept the US41 Corridor Study as a supplemental planning
tool, and direct staff to begin the implementation of the informational and short term recommendations,
and prepare follow-up items with a more detailed plan for the long term recommendations for fut ure
Board direction. (Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division)
Meeting Date: 04/24/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
03/20/2018 4:46 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
03/20/2018 4:46 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 03/26/2018 2:21 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 04/09/2018 8:19 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 04/10/2018 1:41 PM
Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 04/13/2018 1:58 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 04/16/2018 7:51 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/16/2018 8:29 AM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/16/2018 8:43 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/17/2018 2:40 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 04/24/2018 9:00 AM
11.D
Packet Pg. 345
04/24/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape Beautification Master Plan
“Immokalee Road (Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard) Landscape and Irrigation Installation”
to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc. for $1,512,274.87 (Project No. 60208).
OBJECTIVE: To complete five (5) miles of median landscape improvements on Immokalee Road from
Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard as part of the Collier County Landscape Beautification Master
Plan.
CONSIDERATION: At the September 27, 2016, Board of County Commissioners (Board) meeting
(Agenda Item 11D), the Board approved the updated Best Management Practices for the Landscape
Beautification Master Plan project ranking and funding. The arterial roadway on Immokalee Road from
Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard was planned for installation in Fiscal Year 2017; however,
Hurricane Irma caused delays in the plan.
On December 18, 2017, the Procurement Services Division advertised Invitation to Bid No. 18-7276
“Immokalee Road (Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard) Landscape and Irrigation Installation.” The
County’s online bidding system, Bid Sync, released eight thousand ninety-four (8094) notices to vendors.
Ninety (90) vendors viewed the bid documents. The County held a publicly posted pre-bid meeting at the
Procurement Services Division on January 11, 2018. At this meeting, staff presented a thorough review
of the specifications and plans to potential bidders in attendance. As shown by the below chart, the
County received four (4) bids by the January 31, 2018 due date.
Hannula
Landscaping and
Irrigation, Inc.
Green
Construction
Technologies,
Inc.
Superior
Landscaping &
Lawn Service, Inc.
Arazoza
Brothers
Corporation
Base Bid Total $ 1,512,274.87 $ 1,918,064.85 $ 2,297,312.75 $ 2,320,359.95
Staff recommends award to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder, Hannula Landscaping and
Irrigation, Inc. Hannula offered the lowest total base bid excluding alternates. Staff and Goetz + Stropes
Landscape Architects Inc., the project's landscape design consultant, both parties agree that the bid prices
are fair and reasonable. The base bid is approximately 2.4 percent above the project consultant’s
$1,476,142.80 opinion of probable cost. The Procurement Services Division concluded bidding was
competitive and representative of market conditions. The bid tabulation, solicitation, agreement,
Landscape Architect’s letter of recommendation, and the Notice of Recommended Award are attached
hereto.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funding for this installation project is available in the Landscape
Beautification Capital Fund (112) Immokalee Road Project No. 60208 as previously approved by the
Board in the FY18 budget cycle. Additional county costs of approximately $240,000 will be required for
this project to install five (5) Motorola central controllers and irrigation components, five (5) irrigation
pump stations, and five (5) locations requiring permits for Florida Power and Light.
The ongoing maintenance and operation costs post-construction are estimated to be $222,150 annually,
based on historical costs of $44,430 per mile. Future maintenance costs for improved medians will be
budgeted in the Landscape Maintenance fund center within the Unincorpo rated General Fund (111)
MSTU.
11.E
Packet Pg. 346
04/24/2018
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority
vote for Board approval. -SRT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this
Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION: To award Invitation to Bid No. 18-7276 “Immokalee Road (Collier Boulevard
to Wilson Boulevard) Landscape and Irrigation Installation” to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc;
and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Prepared by: Pamela Lulich, PLA, CPM, Landscape Operations Manager, Road Maintenance Division
Presented by: Joe Delate, PLA, Principal Project Manager, Road Maintenance Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 18-7276 - Approved NORA (PDF)
2. Landscape Architect Letter of Recommendation (PDF)
3. 18-7276 - Bid Tabulation (XLS)
4. [Linked] 18-7276 Hannula_Contract_VendSign (PDF)
11.E
Packet Pg. 347
04/24/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.E
Doc ID: 5132
Item Summary: Recommendation to award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape
Beautification Master Plan “Immokalee Road (Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard) Landscape and
Irrigation Installation” to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc. for $1,512,274.87 (Project No.
60208). (Joe Delate, Principal Project Manager, Road Maintenance Division)
Meeting Date: 04/24/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Manager - Landscape Operations – Growth Management Department
Name: Pamela Lulich
03/15/2018 8:11 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department
Name: Thaddeus Cohen
03/15/2018 8:11 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Procurement Services Opal Vann Level 1 Purchasing Gatekeeper Completed 03/15/2018 11:19 AM
Growth Management Operations Support Heather Meyer Additional Reviewer Completed 03/15/2018 1:34 PM
Road Maintenance Joseph Delate Additional Reviewer Completed 03/15/2018 2:04 PM
Procurement Services Ted Coyman Additional Reviewer Completed 03/16/2018 7:53 AM
Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Level 1 Reviewer Completed 03/16/2018 9:20 AM
Procurement Services Adam Northrup Additional Reviewer Completed 03/19/2018 9:20 AM
Road Maintenance Travis Gossard Additional Reviewer Completed 03/19/2018 11:23 AM
Growth Management Operations Support Allison Kearns Additional Reviewer Completed 03/20/2018 4:03 PM
Growth Management Department Gene Shue Additional Reviewer Completed 03/20/2018 4:09 PM
Procurement Services Swainson Hall Additional Reviewer Completed 03/21/2018 11:02 AM
Procurement Services Sandra Herrera Additional Reviewer Completed 03/22/2018 8:20 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 03/26/2018 10:06 AM
Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Skipped 03/26/2018 2:27 PM
County Attorney's Office Scott Teach Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 03/28/2018 10:02 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 03/28/2018 10:24 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/05/2018 3:18 PM
11.E
Packet Pg. 348
04/24/2018
Office of Management and Budget Susan Usher Additional Reviewer Completed 04/14/2018 12:02 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/15/2018 8:50 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 04/24/2018 9:00 AM
11.E
Packet Pg. 349
11.E.1
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: 18-7276 - Approved NORA (5132 : award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape Beautification Master Plan “Immokalee Road
GOETZ+STROPES ELLIN GOETZ
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. FELLOW, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
1020 8TH AVENUE SOUTH #6 NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 T 239.643.0077 GOETZLAND@AOL.COM
EGOETZ@GSNAPLES.COM LA#1152 LC#26000378 WWW.GSNAPLES.COM
February 8, 2018
TO: PAMELA LULICH, PLA, CPM
Landscape Operations Manager
Road Maintenance Division, Collier County
2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples FL 34104
RE: BID NO. 18-7276 HANNULA LANDSCAPING INC.
Immokalee Road (Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd.)
Landscape and Irrigation
I have reviewed and analyzed the bid documents and forms submitted you have
provided for the above referenced Immokalee Road Landscape and Irrigation Project
for Collier County.
As Landscape Architect of Record for the Landscape and Irrigation Plans, I recommend
acceptance of the low responsive bidder, Hannula Landscaping, for the project contract,
pursuant to all pertinent County requirements.
Thank you.
11.E.2
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Landscape Architect Letter of Recommendation (5132 : award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape Beautification Master
2350 Stanford Court ŶNaples, Florida 34112
(239) 434-0333 ŶFax (239) 434-9320
SINCE 1946
Memo
To: Mike Bosi, Collier County Planning and Zoning Director
From: Laura DeJohn, Principal Planner II
Date: 4/3/2018
Re: U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
PProject Description
The limits of this U.S. 41 Corridor Study extend approximately 6.8 miles along U.S. 41 between Palm
Street/Commercial Drive and Price Street. The Study Area is defined as the commercially zoned parcels
that are adjacent to U.S. 41 (see Figure 1 on the following page). Within this corridor, approximately 1.25
miles are within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area from Palm Street/Commercial Drive
to Haldeman Creek.1
The Study Area is generally suburban in nature
with segments that vary in character from the
northern redevelopment area to the southern
area emerging with new residential
communities and shopping centers. There are
few destinations along the corridor for
community attraction or entertainment other
than Sugden Regional Park and Eagle Lakes
Community Park.
The purpose of this Study is to determine the
public’s preferences for future development
types and uses so that those types of
development and uses can be facilitated and
incentivized through Comprehensive Plan
policies and Land Development Code.
1 The U.S. 41 Corridor Study Area defined for this planning effort does encompass some property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) boundary, however the recommendations of this Study are only for lands outside of the CRA
boundary. Any reference to property within the CRA boundary is not intended to alter or vary from the CRA’s Redevelopment Plan that
guides and governs all future development within the CRA.
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 2
FFIGURE 1:
Map by Collier County GIS
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 3
PPublic Involvement Summary
The main objective of the Study was to conduct public input meetings to help the community discern the
best potential outcomes to serve community needs along the corridor.
Initial Stakeholder Outreach was performed in June, July, and August 2017. Stakeholder Outreach included
attendance and presentation of the purpose of the Corridor Study at the East Naples Civic Association
meeting of July 5, 2017, the East Naples Merchant’s Association meeting of August 10, 2017, and the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board Meetings of June 6, 2017
and August 1, 2017. See Attachment 1 for the handout that was provided during Stakeholder Outreach.
In addition to Stakeholder Outreach, three public input meetings were held as described below. These
meetings were noticed through media postings by the East Naples Civic Association, East Naples Merchant’s
Association, and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency.
The three public input meetings were conducted in the same manner, with a 30- to 40-minute presentation
describing existing conditions and commercial siting influences, and a 19-item image preference survey. The
image preference survey was organized to obtain input on the preferred outcomes in the following realms:
(1) Desired aesthetic or community character: Participants were asked to indicate preferences for
different corridor features and development forms, including landscaping, green space or vistas,
building massing, building scale and building position along the street.
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 4
(2) Desired development types and uses: Participants were asked to indicate preferences for
different development types and uses, including hotels, shopping centers, mixed use, live-work,
entertainment, multifamily, and live-work.
(3) Regulatory options: Participants were asked to indicate preference for different regulatory
options to influence future development along the corridor through incentives or standards.
(4) Administrative options: Participants were asked to indicate preference for establishing a
redevelopment agency, taxing unit or community branding effort.
Participants also had the opportunity for a Question and Answer period, and forms were available for
attendees to submit written comments. During the three public input meetings, a total of approximately
144 participants attended and performed the image preference survey. A total of 107 written comments
were also received. Meeting summaries, survey results, written comments and sign-in sheets for each of the
three meetings are provided in Attachment 2.
FFindings
SUMMARY OF SURVEY AND WRITTEN COMMENT OUTCOMES
The outcome of the image preference survey revealed the majority of participants support the following:
x 51% support a strip mall with mmore variety of retailers (Banana Republic and Talbots were pictured
in the image).
x 90% support hhotels, and 59% support a rresort style hotel set back from the road with heavy
landscaping.
x 84% support ttwo-story multifamily, with 58% preferring the style of Avalon of Naples at the corner
of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road when “all of the above” responses are included.
x 64% support ffour- to five-story multifamily buildings, with 53% preferring a design with
Mediterranean architecture when “all of the above” responses are included.
x 51% support a mmanicured landscape appearance along the roadway
x 65% support an ooffice complex with a single story orientation and a treed landscape along the
roadway
x 71% support businesses with ttwo-story buildings set back from the roadway, with a treed landscape
buffer and single bay of parking
x 92% support median and roadside llandscaping with shade trees and palms
x 81% support ffour- to five-story mixed use buildings when “all of the above” responses are included.
x 89% support mmore local restaurants when “all of the above” responses are included, and 89%
support mmore sit down restaurants when “all of the above” responses are included
x 79% support ddestination shopping (five-story Mercato was pictured in the image).
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 5
x 72% support ttwo- to three-story “live-work” buildings with workplaces on ground floors and
residences above when “all of the above” responses are included, with 59% supporting a ttraditional
two-story main street style appearance when “all of the above” responses are included.
x 94% agree with iincentives to encourage preferred development types, with 42% preferring impact
fee credits for tear down and re-build situations when “all of the above” responses are included.
x 96% agree with rregulatory updates for development along the corridor, with 48% preferring
updated standards for landscaping, when “all of the above” responses are included.
x 90% agree with administrative changes, with 62% preferring a ccommunity based branding effort to
establish an identity and marketing program, when “all of the above” responses are included.
The outcome of the image preference survey revealed the majority of participants do not support the
following:
x 67% ddo not support self storage facilities, however 31% favored one that is multi-story with
Mediterranean architecture and landscaping (Coconut Point self-storage facility was pictured in the
image).
x 64% ddo not support gas stations, however 30% favored one that is buffered with landscaping
(Racetrac at the corner of Airport Road and North Horseshoe Drive was pictured in the image).
The written comments received during the Public Input Meetings were categorized into subject areas, listed
below in order of the most commented to the least commented subjects:
SSubject of Written Comments
Percent of Respondents
((%)
Preferred Development 41.3
Rebranding 10.3
Traffic 10.0
Bikes & Pedestrians 8.7
NOT Preferred Development 8.0
Incentives 7.7
Design 4.7
Landscaping 3.7
Infrastructure 2.7
Open Space 2.3
Redevelopment 0.7
A final public meeting was held on February 21, 2018 to review the findings and proposed recommended
actions. Attendees also had the opportunity for a Question and Answer period, and forms were available
for attendees to submit written comments. Approximately 44 attendees were present, and nineteen written
comments were collected.
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 6
The comments provided at the final meeting covered a wide range of topics and opinions. The most
commented topics were relatively consistent with the comments received at the three earlier Public Input
Meetings, except that references to undesired uses made up a larger proportion of comments received.
The final meeting comments were primarily regarding: undesired uses, preferred development, bicycle and
pedestrian safety, and rebranding. The presentation, written comments and sign-in sheets for this meeting
are provided in Attachment 3.
The findings from all the public surveys and comments were organized into priorities representing public’s
most commented issues. “Main points” corresponding to each priority topic are provided below to
summarize the general consensus on these topics derived from comments and feedback during the public
meetings.
Some participants were vocal about the development types they that do NOT prefer, such as affordable
housing and storage facilities, however the focus of this study was to identify mechanisms for encouraging
development types that are preferred. Therefore, the priority topics include reference to new and different
businesses desired, rather than reference to precluding certain uses.
Priority Topics Main Points
Community identity East Naples residents support branding the area to make the assets
of the area known and attract more of what the community wants.
New and different businesses
are desired:
Hotel/Resort, Grocery options,
Wholesale Club, Restaurants
Any change must be part of a framework that controls for
appearance, intensity and traffic.
Transportation
The corridor has too much traffic and not enough safe bicycle and
pedestrian features and open space.
Redevelopment Improvement to unsightly, older buildings and vacant commercial
buildings is needed.
Landscaping Enhance the appearance along the roadside.
RRecommendations
Recommended actions were developed to address the priority topics that were voiced by the public. The
recommended actions were derived based on the understanding of the East Trail Corridor conditions and
the following commercial siting constraints:
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 7
x Limited number of four-way intersections compromising the ability of businesses to maximize
visibility and accessibility in the marketplace.
x Small lot sizes limiting ability to design and enhance the appearance of businesses and properties.
x Challenges of the width and speed of a six-lane state highway for businesses to sustain in an
attractive and successful way, and for the public to comfortably travel by car, bicycle or foot.
The recommended actions are consistent with planning concepts for revitalization of commercial strip
corridors endorsed by the American Planning Association, Congress for New Urbanism, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth Program. The Collier County Community Character Plan
(2001) and the Blue Zones Project East Naples Discovery Report (2018) were also used as resources in
the preparation of these recommendations.
The community members’ objective to see the East Trail corridor and their community transform into a
desirable place that is more attractive, vibrant, and less dominated with traffic, requires comprehensive
changes to the physical conditions of the corridor’s transportation infrastructure and built environment.
This can be achieved through multiple steps over many years, including: a community based branding effort
to identify and promote the desired conditions within and outside the community, amendment to the
Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code consistent with the vision for a variety of
destinations with more greenery and less congestion, and infrastructure enhancements to improve the safety
for all users and enhance appearance along the U.S. 41 right-of-way.
Six recommendations are enumerated below to move forward with the desires that the community
expressed. The recommendations can be considered in two increments:
¾“Quick fix” recommendations can be accomplished within one to two years, including revisions and
adjustments to the Land Development Code, and
¾Long term recommendations will require additional impact analysis and potential amendment to the
Growth Management Plan and other major plans, which could take two to four years, or longer
relative to transportation planning.
QUICK FIX RECOMMENDATION #1) CCommunity based branding project
Civic and Business organizations should work together to establish a theme and identity and then promote
the community and its vision.
This recommenda tion reflects the second most commented item, which is the community’s desire to esta blish its
identity, to celebra te its a ttributes, a nd to encoura ge a nd a ttra ct more of the development types a nd uses tha t a re
considered la cking in the a rea . The idea of a community-ba sed bra nding effort to esta blish an identity and ma rketing
progra m wa s the a dministra tive cha nge supported by the most survey participa nts. This is a Quick Fix
recommenda tion beca use it ca n be initia ted by the community lea ders immedia tely.
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 8
TThe bra nding project would be sponsored a nd coordinated by civic groups a s a mechanism for community members
to come together a nd genera te a “bra nd” tha t sets the community a pa rt, helps define the first impressions to others
of wha t the community sta nds for, and helps foster a sense of pride a nd enthusiasm for the future.
QUICK FIX RECOMMENDATION #2) DDesired businesses
The County Growth Management Department should provide information to the development community
about outcomes of the Study and uses that are preferred.
This recommenda tion reflects the first a nd second most commented items, which a re to encoura ge preferred types
of new a nd different businesses to locate in the a rea a nd to esta blish a nd communica te a new “bra nd” to others.
This is a Quick Fix recommenda tion beca use it ca n be implemented by County sta ff immedia tely upon Boa rd
direction.
Ma ny pa rticipa nts in the public meetings identified certa in reta ilers a nd resta ura nts tha t a re desired to loca te in
the a rea . With growth a nd permitting trends indicating a steady increase in the number of households in East
Na ples, there will be a la rger customer ba se tha t commercia l interests na tura lly follow. The County sta ff is often
one of the first points of conta ct for those who seek to develop in the County, therefore the opportunity for County
staff to provide the outcomes of the U.S. 41 Corridor Study and the future bra nding project will help convey the
community’s interests ea rly in the process a nd potentia lly influence some decision ma king a bout design a nd types
of uses a nd orienta tion of those uses by potentia l developers.
QUICK FIX RECOMMENDATION #3) RRedevelopment and development standards
a) New development will meet Collier County’s architectural and signage standards and further refined
redevelopment standards.
b) For gas station or self storage development, consider separation requirements, location standards
or minimum percentages of retail or office mix as part of these developments to mitigate for
proliferation along this corridor.
This recommendation reflects the reality of the conditions of the corridor; a focus on redevelopment a nd
development sta nda rds is necessa ry to a chieve the community members’ objective to tra nsform the corridor to be
more a ttra ctive, vibra nt, a nd less domina ted with tra ffic. Beca use the County is a ctively a ddressing ma ny of these
issues by prepa ring new redevelopment sta nda rds, this is considered a Quick Fix recommenda tion tha t ca n be
a ccomplished through La nd Development Code a mendments.
Redevelopment activities a re increasingly at the forefront of the County’s planning and development process a s
older buildings rea ch the end of their functiona l lives in the esta blished urba n a rea s, while demands for more housing
a nd services continue in these a rea s. The County has a n Impa ct Fee Cha nge of Use Progra m for Existing
Commercia l Development which helps to incentivize the re-use of esta blished buildings. Demolition and
reconstruction projects a re not eligible for this progra m. Some redevelopment regula tions ha ve been a dopted,
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 9
iincluding the Site Pla n with Devia tions process to a llow relief for those redeveloping properties tha t a re too sma ll
or otherwise constra ined a nd una ble to meet some of toda y’s more stringent requirements.
The recommenda tion to further refine redevelopment sta nda rds and apply these a long the corridor is pa rt of a n
ongoing County effort to recognize the development potentia l that ca n be derived from older strip centers tha t a re
underperforming. Redevelopment of shopping centers, la rge pa rking lots and la rge empty storefronts can be
encoura ged by allowing mix of residentia l a nd commercia l uses in a wa y tha t a llows for rela xed pa rking sta nda rds,
resulting in more a rea s for la ndsca ping a nd open spa ces.
As pa rt of the effort to refine redevelopment sta nda rds, the County should revisit separa tion requirements for ga s
sta tions a nd self stora ge fa cilities, a s these uses a re contra ry to revita liz a tion stra tegies a imed to promote more
huma n sca le a nd vibrant environments. These a lterna tive stra tegies should be considered for controlling prolifera tion
of ga s sta tions a nd self stora ge fa cilities:
•Sepa ra tion requirements ma y be increa sed from the currently a dopted 500-foot sepa ra tion requirement
for ga s sta tions to a qua rter-mile (1,320 feet), which is the dista nce a pedestria n will typica lly wa lk
comforta bly within five minutes. This would relieve the sense of prolifera tion by providing a sepa ra tion tha t
is consistent with the ba sic building block of a pedestria n sca le environment. Such a requirement ma y be
a pplied to self-stora ge fa cilities a s well. The LDC would continue to a llow a pplica nts to request wa ivers
through the Boa rd of Zoning Appea ls process.
•In a ddition to sepa ra tion requirements, the loca tion of new ga s sta tions or self stora ge fa cilities ca n be
limited or restricted in Activity Centers to maintain the intention for those nodes to be pedestria n friendly,
huma n sca le live/work/pla y settings. Applica nts could be given the opportunity to seek Boa rd of Zoning
Appea ls a pprova l of such a fa cility in a n Activity Center by demonstra ting the fa cility meets stringent design
criteria , or by incorpora ting a minimum percenta ge, such a s 25% of the fa cility, to be used for community
oriented genera l reta il, persona l service, or genera l or professional office use.
QUICK FIX & LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION #4) LLandscaping
Implement a roadside landscaping enhancement strategy.
a) Substitute standards for landscaping in front yards for better “curb appeal” specific to conditions of
U.S. 41 East.
b) Review options for enhanced roadside landscaping in the right-of-way.
These recommendations reflect the eighth most commented item, which wa s landsca ping. The recommendation to
implement overla y zoning sta nda rds to a ddress la ndsca ping wa s the regula tory idea supported by the most survey
pa rticipa nts. This is both a Quick Fix recommenda tion because sta nda rds ca n be upda ted through La nd
Development Code a mendments, a nd a Long Term recommenda tion beca use enha nced roa dside la ndscaping in
the right-of-wa y requires a t lea st three yea rs to pla n, fund, design, permit, a nd construction.
The commercia l development tha t exists a long U.S. 41 between the a ctivity center nodes is limited in potentia l for
significa nt changes or redevelopment due to tra ffic conditions a nd the constra ined size of the lots. Aesthetic
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 10
iimprovements, such a s roa dside la ndsca ping will help improve the a ttra ctiveness for these businesses to residents
a nd the travelling public.
The landsca ping sta nda rds that a pply to the front ya rds a long the East Tra il a re the sa me a s for a ll of Collier
County, however the conditions along the Ea st Trail a re very unique due to the size and orienta tion of lots. An
Overla y for corridor-specific la ndsca ping sta nda rds ca n be a pplied to this Study Area through La nd Development
Code a mendments. The front ya rd buffer sta nda rds need not be necessa rily more strict or encumbering of the
properties, but they ca n be more responsive to the existing conditions with a ppropria te species, sizes a nd
a rra ngements of la ndsca ping a nd more consistent with the ma nicured a ppea ra nce tha t wa s fa vored by most survey
pa rticipa nts.
The options for enha nced roadwa y la ndsca ping in the right-of-wa y requires la ndsca pe a rchitectura l planning a nd
coordina tion between FDOT a nd County Tra nsporta tion a nd La ndsca pe Architecture sta ff to determine a n
a ppropria te va riety of roa dside la ndsca ping tha t works within the constra ints of the U.S. 41 right-of-wa y. This ha s
been a ccomplished in other communities (see ima ge below of U.S. 41 right-of-wa y la ndsca ping enhancements in
Bonita Springs). Enhancements of this nature require coordina tion on design, permitting, funding a nd ma intenance
to achieve loca l goa ls.
Landscaping enhancements along U.S. 41 in the City of Bonita Springs
LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION #5) Identify ttarget locations or “nodes” for allowing preferred new
types of development and redevelopment.
a) Confirm or expand the 3 existing Activity Centers: Airport Road; Thomasson/Rattlesnake; Collier
Boulevard.
b) Consider addition of 2 new minor Activity Center opportunities at: St Andrews Square and
Vincentian PUD/Eagle Lakes Park.
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 11
c) Apply Redevelopment/Infill incentives and standards for Mixed Use Destinations and Hotels in these
locations.
TThese recommendations reflect the first most commented item, which is to encoura ge preferred types of new a nd
different businesses to loca te in the a rea . These recommenda tions a re long term beca use they require a mendment
to the Growth Ma na gement Pla n, which requires a dditiona l supporting a na lysis a nd ta kes one to two yea rs.
The beginning of a more orga nized development pa ttern for the corridor is the identifica tion of nodes for centers of
a ctivity to concentra te, with incentiviza tion for the desired Mixed Use Destinations with shopping a nd resta ura nts
a nd hotels. These nodes need to be loca ted where the ma rket drives development to occur, a t intersections. The
three existing intersections tha t a re designa ted a s Activity Centers a re #16-Government Complex, #17-
Thoma sson/Ra ttlesna ke Ha mmock, a nd #18-Collier Bouleva rd. These a re a lrea dy built or under development, a nd
should be eva lua ted for expa nsion. One opportunity is the expa nsion of the Government Complex Activity Center
to include Naples Towne Center.Expa nsion a rea s a nd new a ctivity centers a t St.Andrews Square a nd the
Vincentia n PUD should be evalua ted to determine the potential to help fill in ga ps a long the corridor a nd a llow
more opportunities for desired uses.
In a ddition to the a mendments to the Future La nd Use M a p series necessa ry to redefine Activity Centers, text
a mendments to the Growth Ma na gement Pla n would be need to be eva lua ted if the potential for higher densities
or intensities or other cha nges tha t would help encoura ge redevelopment of the older underperforming shopping
centers a nd encoura ge development of a mix of uses for live/work/pla y environments tha t a re able to endure the
trending decline of brick-a nd-morta r reta il a nd provide for a dequa te return on investment. If necessa ry,
corresponding zoning policies a nd sta nda rds would be implemented through further refinement of redevelopment
a nd development sta nda rds in the La nd Development Code.
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 12
LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION #6) TTransportation Needs
a) Identify opportunities to use connecting street for bicycles and pedestrians.
b) Coordinate with the Collier MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan to identify locations for new
sidewalks, bikeways, transit and greenways and connections to serve the corridor.
c) Establish design criteria to promote secondary corridors to connect to commercial and mixed use
centers.
d) Coordinate with County Transportation staff & Florida DOT on options for retrofitting
enhancements, start with intersections.
This set of recommendations reflects the third and fourth most commented items, which were tra ffic a nd bicycle
a nd pedestria n opportunities. While this Study wa s not intended to contemplate changes to the roa dway
infra structure (tra vel la nes, pedestria n fa cilities, or roa dwa y la ndsca ping) these elements contribute to the
experience a long the corridor, a nd must be considered a s part of any long term pla nning for revita liza tion a long the
corridor.
Accomplishing physica l cha nge to the U.S. 41 roa dwa y itself is a ma jor cha llenge. It is a sta te highwa y built for a
significa nt a mount of tra ffic, so any reduction in tra ffic ca pacity would require a lterna tive routes, a nd this is
geogra phically not feasible. Thus, recommenda tions are meant to improve the network of roads tha t connect to
a nd run pa ra llel to U.S. 41, a nd to incrementa lly seek to retrofit enha ncements to improve the experience for
pedestria ns, bicyclists a nd motorists in coopera tion with FDOT.
Connecting streets a re the “feeder” streets tha t connect most residential communities to the U.S. 41 corridor.
Bicycle a nd pedestrian fa cilities should be a dded or enha nced a long these streets to ma ke connections from
residentia l a rea s to loca tions where destina tions or “nodes” a re pla nned a long the corridor. These “nodes” a nd
intersections a long U.S. 41 should be a priority issue when County Tra nsporta tion sta ff coordina tes with Florida
Depa rtment of Tra nsporta tion on retrofitting enhancements and improving safety, especia lly for pedestria ns a nd
bicyclists.
The streets pa ra llel to U.S. 41 should be considered opportunities for developing a sa fer pa th for bicyclists a nd
pedestria ns to move up a nd down the corridor. For much of the 6.8-mile U.S. 41 Study Area , the roa d network
fea tures pa ra llel streets including Ta mia mi La ne, Outer Drive, Florida n Avenue, Tamia mi Court, and 1st Street. These
pa ra llel streets a re a n opportunity for sa fe a nd convenient movement of bicyclists a nd pedestria ns.
Proposed bicycle a nd pedestria n network improvements for the Ea st Naples a rea should be identified by County
Tra nsporta tion sta ff a nd coordina ted with the Collier MPO Bicycle/Pedestria n M a ster Pla n so tha t loca tions for new
sidewa lks, bikewa ys, tra nsit a nd greenwa ys a nd connections ca n be pla nned, funded a nd developed.
Missing links a long the pa ra llel corridors ca n be filled through design sta nda rds tha t promote linka ge to these
seconda ry corridors a s pa rt of new development or redevelopment of commercia l a nd mixed use centers. The
U.S. 41 Corridor Study – Summary of Findings and Recommendations
April 3, 2018
Page 13
ddesign sta nda rds ca n be implemented a s pa rt of the refinement of redevelopment a nd development sta nda rds in
the La nd Development Code.
In summary, the recommendations are re-stated below:
QUICK FIX RECOMMENDATION #1) CCommunity based branding project
Civic and Business organizations should work together to establish a theme and identity and then promote the
community and its vision.
QUICK FIX RECOMMENDATION #2) DDesired businesses.
The County Growth Management Department should provide information to the development community about
outcomes of the Study and uses that are preferred.
QUICK FIX RECOMMENDATION #3) RRedevelopment and development standards
a) New development will meet Collier County’s architectural and signage standards and further refined
redevelopment standards.
b) For gas station or self storage development consider separation requirements, location standards or minimum
percentages retail or office mix as part of these developments to mitigate for proliferation along this corridor.
QUICK FIX & LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION #4) LLandscaping
Implement a roadside landscaping enhancement strategy.
a) Substitute standards for landscaping in front yards for better “curb appeal” specific to conditions of U.S. 41
East.
b) Review options for enhanced roadside landscaping in the right-of-way.
LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION #5) Identify ttarget locations or “nodes” for allowing preferred new types of
development and redevelopment.
a) Confirm or expand the 3 existing Activity Centers: Airport Road; Thomasson/Rattlesnake; Collier
Boulevard.
b) Consider addition of 2 new minor Activity Center opportunities at: St Andrews Square and Vincentian
PUD/Eagle Lakes Park.
c) Apply Redevelopment/Infill incentives and standards for Mixed Use Destinations and Hotels in these
locations.
LONG TERM RECOMMENDATION #3) TTransportation Needs
a) Identify opportunities to use connecting street for bicycles and pedestrians.
b) Coordinate with the Collier MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan to identify locations for new sidewalks,
bikeways, transit and greenways and connections to serve the corridor.
c) Design criteria to promote secondary corridors to connect to commercial and mixed use centers.
d)Coordinate with Transportation staff & Florida DOT on options for retrofitting enhancements, start with
intersections.
AATTACHMENT 1
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH HANDOUT
Study Area
Palm Street/Commercial Drive
Price Street t t
Purpose
The purpose of this Study is to determine the
public’s preferences for future development
types and uses so that those types of development
and uses can be facilitated and incentivized through
Comprehensive Plan policies and Land
Development Code.
Public MeeƟng 1 – October 3rd, 2017 (6:00-8:00 pm)
LocaƟon: East Naples Community Park—3500 Thomasson Drive, Naples, FL 34112
Goal: Public preferences for uses/development type along corridor
Public MeeƟng 2 - November 7th, 2017 (6:00-8:00 pm)
LocaƟon: Eagle Lakes Community Park—11565 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34113
Goal: Public preferences for uses/development type along corridor
Final MeeƟng – December 2017/January 2018
Goal: Present the findings and recommendaƟons for opƟons to incenƟvize preferred
development or businesses along the corridor
Schedule
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
Extent of Corridor: Commercial properties along U.S. 41
from Palm Street/Commercial Drive to Price Street
Length of Corridor: 6.8 Miles
Number of lanes: 6
Posted speed: 45 & 50 mph
Transit available: CAT Intermodal Transfer Station connects
Routes 17, 18, 24, 11, 13 and 14.
Current traffic counts: 32,500—42,000 Average Annual
Daily Traffic
Community Characteristics
PopulaƟon 91,281
Annual Growth through 2022 2.9%
Median Age 52.3
Total Households 41,138
Average Household Size 2.2 persons
Median Household Income $60,143
Housing Units 56,004
Housing Units Vacant 14,866
(36.1%)
Housing Units Occupied 41,378
(73.5%)
Housing Units Owner Occupied 28,638
(69.6%)
Housing Units Renter Occupied 12,500
(30.4%)
Businesses 5,836
Employees 64,938
Company Headquarter
Businesses
8
Company Headquarter
Employees
2,815
ResidenƟal PopulaƟon per
business
15.6
Labor Force age 16 and
over
79,108
Unemployment rate 2.6%
DEVELOPMENT
46%
AESTHETICS
27%
CONNECTIVITY
13%
OTHER
6%
SERVICES
6%
RECREATION
2%
CORRIDOR PRIORITIES
Responses from Individual Questionnaires Priorities identified by the public during the 2009-2010 East Trail Corridor
Study were :
1.Development Types— preferences for types of businesses and com-
munities
2.Aesthetic Types—appearance of roadsides and buildings
3.Traffic—safety and convenience for cars and pedestrians
Examples of Design
Source: Naples Daily News
Examples of Higher Density/
Mixed Use Development
Source: Gulfshore Life
Source: Future Cape Town
Examples of Live/ Work
Along the Corridor
Source: 525 Town Lake
Source: Naples Daily News
Prepared By :
For Collier County
3 mile Trade Area Business and
Employment Profile (2017)
3 mile Trade Area Housing Inventory
(2017)
3 mile Trade Area PopulaƟon and
Housing Summary (2017)
AATTACHMENT 2
PUBLIC INPUT MEETING SUMMARIES, SURVEY RESULTS,
WRITTEN COMMENTS AND SIGN-IN SHEETS
10/3/17 Public Input Meeting Summary Page 1
U.S. 41 Corridor Study
Public Input Meeting #1 Summary
October 3rd, 2017 – East Naples Community Park (6:00pm-8:00pm)
The first of three public input meetings for the U.S. 41 Corridor Study was held on October 3, 2017 at East
Naples Community Park. The meeting began at approximately 6:00 p.m. The Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area Advisory Board met prior to this meeting from approximately 5:00 to
6:00 p.m., allowing for its members and audience to attend the U.S. 41 Corridor Study meeting thereafter.
Because of the transitioning from one meeting to another, there was no ability to perform a sign-in system
for audience members attending this meeting. Based on the number of responses received during the
survey portion of the meeting, approximately 70 audience members participated.
Laura DeJohn, Principal Planner with Johnson Engineering and Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director of
Collier County Growth Management, began the evening with a presentation summarizing the U.S. 41
Corridor Study background and purpose. Laura gave a description of physical characteristics of the corridor,
including existing transportation infrastructure, traffic counts, and lot dimensions. Laura summarized the
proportions of existing uses and future land use and zoning. Mike discussed demographics and real estate
market conditions, followed by an explanation of commercial development patterns. He identified the
potential for growth in the vicinity of the corridor including thousands of new dwelling units and substantial
new commercial development based on approvals in place for the next five to ten years. Mike identified
the trends in Internet shopping and integration of uses to maximize live/work/play opportunities, with an
example being the proposed Mini-Triangle development at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard.
Laura concluded the presentation by explaining options for incentives, regulation changes and administrative
changes that could impact the look and the type of development along the corridor in the future. She
highlighted the meeting schedule for the next public meetings and next steps for the study.
Several questions were raised by the audience. There were concerns raised about how increased
development will be detrimental to traffic and congestion.
The next portion of the meeting was the Image Preference
Survey. Audience members were given the option to respond
to the survey on paper or electronically using cellular devices.
Based on the survey responses, approximately 70 audience
members participated. Audience members were advised that
the results will be tallied with the results of the subsequent
public input meetings and final public meeting to present
findings was to be scheduled for December 2017/January
2018. (*Note this meeting schedule was subsequently altered,
and the presentation of findings was re-scheduled for February
21, 2018.)
Attachments: Image Preference Survey Results
Written Comments
(No sign-in sheets were collected at this meeting.)
QuestionA Corresponding
Pictures B Corresponding
Pictures C Corresponding
Pictures D Corresponding
Pictures E Corresponding
Pictures TotalReceived
1 0 283310Noneoftheabove0 71
2 124373Noneoftheabove0 65
3 8 161413 8Noneoftheabove59
4 5158 5Noneoftheabove0 33
5 4 5 38 19 Noneoftheabove0 66
6 03952Noneoftheabove0 64
7 0 401113 5Noneoftheabove69
8 044108 5Noneoftheabove67
9 044163Noneoftheabove0 63
10 232283Noneoftheabove0 65
11 1 2 14 46 Noneoftheabove0 63
12 246256Noneoftheabove0 61
13 6581Noneoftheabove00 65
14 022555Noneoftheabove64
15 26 5 9 11 Noneoftheabove14 65
16 36 Impactfeedeferrals 22
Increasedheightfor
preferred
developmenttypes
39
Impactfeecreditsfor
teardownand
rebuildsituations
19
Increaseddensityfor
preferred
multifamily,liveͲ
workormixeduse
withresidentialalong
thecorridor
2 Noneoftheabove118
17 42
CorridorOverlay
zoningdistricttoadd
standardsfordesired
(additional)
landscaping
37
CorridorOverlay
zoningdistricttoadd
standardsfor
(enhanced)building
design
22
Moreflexibilityor
relieffromcurrent
standardsfor
redevelopment
3 Noneoftheabove0 104
18 18 PursueaCommunity
RedevelopmentArea
(CRA)designation
3
PursueanMSTUto
fundimprovements
totheroadway
landscaping,lighting,
orsignage
39
Communitybased
brandingeffortto
establishanidentity
andmarketing
program
7 Noneoftheabove0 67
CombinedResponsesfor10Ͳ3Ͳ17ImagePreferenceSurvey
Category Comment
Preferred
Development
Recycleandusethebuildingsthatarealreadyvacant.Thiscorridoristhethroughwaytotheonlyeverglades
intheworldͲbecareful.BoutiqueshopsͲnewspapershopͲbookstore.CoffeeshopͲmaybefifthavenue
cafécouldopenasatelliteshop.GreenmarketͲindoorsͲflowersandfruit,bigboxideasͲ"musiccenter",
guitarstorewherecostcowasgoingtogo.
Preferred
DevelopmentCreatea"downtown"foreastnaplesͲfestivals,gatherings,localperformancegroups,walkaboutpark.
Preferred
DevelopmentLucky'smarketwasanexcellentkindofbusinessanddestination,weneedmorelikethis.
Preferred
DevelopmentBarnesandNobleͲsmallbestsellersonlyͲorderotherbooksdeliverednextdaytoshop.CoffeeShop/café
Preferred
DevelopmentBedBathandBeyond,ChristmasTreeShop,IKEA
Preferred
Development
LovewhatwasdoneonCollierand41ͲGreatJob.Ifwedomorelikethisfurtherdown,let'sgetdifferent
stores,resturantsthataremoreuniquesoitwilldrawinteresttoouruniquearea.BigresturantslikeTexas
Roadhousearesopopularandwefindourselvesdrawnthereforthat.Samew/HobbyLobbyandthelike.
Moretropicalsettingsthatspeaktowherewelive,Let'sconsidernewtheater.
Preferred
Development
PleasebringinmorenonͲchainrestaurants,homegoods,TraderJoes,Costco,WholeFoods.Weneedmore
diningandentertainmentchoices.It’sahiketogonorth,especiallyinseasontraffic.
Preferred
DevelopmentWouldbenicetohavesmallerboutiquesͲsubcottagetypeuses
Preferred
Development
UrbanͲsuburbancontextmakesansweringdifficultaswhatisappropriateforoneisinapppropriateforthe
other.
Preferred
DevelopmentNeedtotakeintoaccountthattheDowntownareamaygrowrapidlyEastasafinancialcenter.
InfrastructureInfrastructurefirst!Wecantsupportmoregrowthwithoutbetterinfrastructure.
TrafficPlanfortraffic.Yearroundresidentsshouldbeabletoaccesstheirowncommunity.
TrafficThinkspeedlimiton41eastbeyondrattlesnakeneedstobeaddressedͲitis50+mphͲnotcondusivefor
patronsofcommercialtoingressandegresshighway.Someforresidential.
TrafficConcernsoftrafficoncorridorfromnewdevelopments
TrafficRoadsmustgrowwithdevelopment
TrafficStoplightsonthecorridoraretoomuch.
Bikes&
Pedestrians
Allnewdevelopmentshouldtakepedestrianandbiketrafficintoconsideration.Bike/walkingtrailssheilded
fromvehicletrafficandlandscapedwithshadetreesisneeded.Walkwayoverortunnelunder41toprovide
eastͲwestgreenwayforthoseofuswhoarewillingwalk/bikeandrecreatewithintheurbanenvironment.
Landscaping/
Bikes&
Pedestrians
Areasonthisareaimpressedmewasthebeautifulboulevardareasontheroadwayandthenatural
landscapinginthemedians.Naturalwalkablepathwaysandbikepathsappealtome.Easyaccessintoand
outofshoppingcenters.
10/3/17 Public Meeting - Written Comments
Page1
Category Comment
10/3/17 Public Meeting - Written Comments
LandscapingLesstreesneedtobeusedforlandscaping.Landscapemaintenanceandimpedingtrafficflowisanissue.
Landscapingnowblocksvisibilityonroadstoturnleft.
LandscapingWeneedlandscapingon951fromrattlesnaketo41
LandscapingLandscaping,mediansaredeveloped,whataboutroadside?Willnew/olddevelopersabidebythese
policies?
LandscapingLandscapingmakesadifference
IncentivesCanwehaveanincentivetorefurbish/reuse
IncentivesExistingbuildingsͲͲͲ>noimpactfees?
IncentivesImpactdeferralfeesforworkforcehousing
IncentivesUseofredevelopmentofcurrent,vacantbuildingsseemsideal.Isthereanincentiveforprosective
developerstousethesebuildings.
IncentivesCanwehavenoimpactfeesforrevampinganexistingbuilding?
RebrandingWouldlovetoseecorridorviewedascommunityfriendly.
RebrandingBrandingareawithanamelikeNaplesͲEvergladesTrail(NET)withsignaturesignage.Abookstorewithcafé.
Rebranding/
Preferred
Development
Rebrandtheeasttrailas"southnaples"usedbyseveralbusinesseslikeCarrabba'sperhapsatRattlesnake
South.NeedaCostco,HomegoodsandTraderJoesandlocalrestaurants.Sellthedescreasingseasonailityof
thetrailmorepermanentthishaskeptcostout.
DesignNoincreasedheight.
DesignKeepittropicalandlightcolored.
DesignCurrentbusinesseskeepbuildingemptyandstillarecollectingrentmakesthearealookundesirableto
otherbusinesses.FreedomsquareͲoldkmart.
DesignWhatlendstocorridorimprovement?VisualImprovement
DesignSeeDPZ'sSprawlRepairManual
OpenSpace TheseideasareallproͲgrowthinacontemporarymannerforSWFlorida.Youcouldgotheotherwayand
claimanenvironmentalsensitiveareawithnoproͲgrowtheffortsatall.BluezoneanduniquetoFlorida.
Page2
11/7/17 Public Input Meeting Summary Page 1
U.S. 41 Corridor Study
Public Input Meeting #2 Summary
November 7, 2017 – Eagle Lakes Community Park (6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.)
The second public input meeting was at Eagle Lakes Park on November 7, 2017. Sign in sheets indicate
approximately 50 meeting attendees were present. The meeting format, presentation, and survey were the
same as the October 3, 2017 public meeting, except that the survey was updated with some options for
participants to select “all of the above” as a response, and a question about take out or sit down restaurants
was added to the survey.
Laura DeJohn, Principal Planner with Johnson Engineering
and Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director of Collier
County Growth Management, summarized the U.S. 41
Corridor Study background and purpose. Laura gave a
description of physical characteristics of the corridor,
including existing transportation infrastructure, traffic
counts, and lot dimensions. Laura summarized the
proportions of existing uses and future land use and zoning.
Mike discussed demographics and real estate market conditions, followed by an explanation of commercial
development patterns. He identified the potential for growth in the vicinity of the corridor including
thousands of new dwelling units and substantial new commercial development based on approvals in place
for the next five to ten years. He distributed a handout of the County’s current permitting activity, which
indicated several new commercial developments in the East Naples vicinity are in the pipeline. Mike identified
the trends in Internet shopping and integration of uses to maximize live/work/play opportunities, with an
example being the proposed Mini-Triangle development at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard.
Laura concluded the presentation by explaining options for incentives, regulation changes and administrative
changes that could impact the look and the type of development along the corridor in the future. She
highlighted the meeting schedule for the next public meetings and next steps for the study. The public
meeting schedule included the addition of a third public input meeting on January 16, 2018 to allow for
more seasonal participants, and the final meeting for presentation of findings and recommendations was set
for February 21, 2018.
Several questions were raised by the audience. There were concerns raised about vehicular traffic and
congestion, and pedestrian safety. Concern was noted about the high traffic congestion levels during peak
months of the year. The concept of re-branding East Naples as “South Naples” was raised by one attendee.
The desires expressed by some attendees for destinations such as sit-down restaurants were discussed
relative to the concern that increased development will be detrimental to traffic and congestion. Mike Bosi
discussed how addition of new destinations along the East Trail could alleviate some time spent in the car
travelling a longer distance to reach at those destinations if they are not developed along the East Trail.
The next portion of the meeting was the Image Preference Survey. Audience members were given the
option to respond to the survey on paper or electronically using cellular devices. Audience members were
advised that the results will be tallied with the results of the other two public input meetings and the final
public meeting to present findings will be February 21, 2018.
Attachments: Image Preference Survey Results, Written Comments, Sign-in Sheets
QuestionA Corresponding
Pictures B Corresponding
Pictures C Corresponding
Pictures D Corresponding
Pictures E Corresponding
Pictures F Corresponding
Pictures TotalReceived
1 0 9 30 11 Noneoftheabove0 50
2 0 102910Noneoftheabove0 49
3 621107 5Noneoftheabove49
4 319710Alloftheabove 10 Noneoftheabove49
5 41196Alloftheabove19 Noneoftheabove49
6 0 0 23 24 Noneoftheabove0 47
7 0206166Noneoftheabove48
8 1299 6 3Noneoftheabove48
9 2357 5Noneoftheabove 0 49
10 213322Noneoftheabove 0 49
11 0 3 18 26 Noneoftheabove0 47
12 191126Alloftheabove10 Noneoftheabove48
13 22814Alloftheabove4 Noneoftheabove0 48
14 265323Noneoftheabove48
15 03296Alloftheabove1 Noneoftheabove39
16 18127Alloftheabove18 Noneoftheabove46
17 4 Impactfeedeferrals 23
Impactfeecreditsfor
teardownand
rebuildsituations
0
Increasedheightfor
preferred
developmenttypes
0
Increaseddensityfor
preferred
developmenttypes
17 Alloftheabove4 Noneoftheabove44
18 23
CorridorOverlay
zoningdistricttoadd
standardsfordesired
(additional)
landscaping
9
CorridorOverlay
zoningdistricttoadd
standardsfor
(enhanced)building
design
7
Moreflexibilityor
relieffromcurrent
standardsfor
redevelopment
6 Alloftheabove1 Noneoftheabove46
19 4
PursueaCommunity
RedevelopmentArea
(CRA)designation6
PursueanMSTUto
fundimprovements
totheroadway
landscaping,lighting,
orsignage
17
Communitybased
brandingeffortto
establishanidentity
andmarketing
program
17 Alloftheabove 2 Noneoftheabove46
CombinedResponsesfor11Ͳ7Ͳ17ImagePreferenceSurvey
Category Comment
Preferred
DevelopmentWeneeda“MercatoCenter”–Somethingniceandupscale
Preferred
DevelopmentNeedaHomeGoodsandaCostco
Preferred
DevelopmentChainrestaurantsareOKonlyiftheyarehigherquality.
Preferred
DevelopmentWeneedaCostco,Sam’sorTraderJoe’s
Preferred
DevelopmentWeneedmorefinerestruantstodrawpeopleintoourarea.
Preferred
DevelopmentMorelocalrestruants,Costco,CarWash,PetiteClothesstore
Preferred
DevelopmentIwouldlovetoseemixedusedevelopmentandrestruaunts.
Preferred
Development
2Wawa'sandRacetracsareenoughgasstations.Hotelsandnicerestrauntsaresorelyneeded.Incentivizeredevelopment
ofthesmall1storymotelstoimprovetheappearanceandrebranding.
Preferred
DevelopmentHomeDepot,Movietheater,ChickFilA,HomeGoods,Sams,Costco,RedLobster,FamousDaves
Preferred
Development
Overalllookofasmalltownwouldbenice.Thiscouldincludenew1and2storybuildings,restruants,andlandscapingby
businesses.
Preferred
DevelopmentHomeDepot,Costco,HomeGoods,ChickFilAcouldbeaddedinanotherareaonthesameroad.
Preferred
DevelopmentBJ's,TargetͲwehaveenoughgasstations,storagefacilitiesandfastfoodrestraunts
Preferred
developmentCostco,Sam'sClub,SitDownͲNiceResturants,DestinationShopping,Target
Preferred
Development
Thedevelopmentofculturalvenueupscalerestruantsandshopping:CommunityTheaters,Museum,Children'svenuesͲ
educationalcommunity
Preferred
DevelopmentPleasebringin:Seasons52Restruant,Pier1store,HomeGoods,CrateandBarrel,Sam's,BJ'sorCostco
Preferred
DevelopmentIndoorGreenMarketplace
Preferred
DevelopmentSatelliteU.S.postoffice,5thAveCafésatelliteshop,NaplesPubIIISatellite
Preferred
DevelopmentWouldliketoseethingslikeTarget,BedBathandBeyond,CostcoandHomeGoods.
Preferred
DevelopmentMorelocalrestaurants.
Preferred
DevelopmentNeedTarget,CostcoandBedBathandBeyond.
Preferred
DevelopmentWecoulduseanicegym.
Preferred
DevelopmentBookstore–maybeaBarnesandNoblesSatelliteshop
Preferred
DevelopmentNewspapershop/coffeeshop
Preferred
DevelopmentNeedgoodsitͲdownrestaurants.
Preferred
DevelopmentBookstoreandTarget
11/7/17 Public Meeting - Written Comments
1
Category Comment
11/7/17 Public Meeting - Written Comments
Preferred
Development MakesureyouspeaktolocaldevelopersandCouncilRealtorsabouttheirthoughtsonwhatcanbesuccessful
Redevelopmen Thecorridorissoshabbythatitisembarrassingtodrivewithguests.Abandonedbuildingsmustberemoved!
NOTPreferred
DevelopmentNomorechainrestruants,pawnshops,gasstationsorcubestorage.
NOTPreferred
DevelopmentThereismuchtalkaboutaffordablehousingforNaples–EastNaplesalreadyhasitsshare.
Rebranding FormourownCity.
Rebranding EastNaplesshouldbebrandedasa"ResortArea"
Rebranding Renameareato“SouthNaples”
Rebranding EastNaples"Village"
Rebranding PerhapsconsiderEastNaples"SouthNaples"
Rebranding Prospectiveslogan–“BestofEverything”
Rebranding RenamethisareaofNaplesto"SouthNaples"andtheperceptionmaychangeforEastNaples,resultinginpositive
Rebranding IstronglyfeelthatEastNapleshasanegativeconnotation.Perhapsitiswithgoodcauseduetothecurrentshapeofthe
corridor.Iamverysupportiveofarenamingorarebrandingeffort.
Rebranding Rebrandingisthemostcriticalthingthatneedstohappen.Needtochangeimageaswellasbuildwhatpeoplewant.A
consistentstylemighthelp(i.e.charming,modernorartsy).
TrafficTrafficͲespeciallyduringseason.It'salready"bad",morepeoplewillmakeit"worse".Possibleother/bettersideroads,
sidewalks,etc.
TrafficMoreroads,differenttraveloptions
TrafficAlwaysconsidertrafficͲaddtrafficlightswherenessecary.Lightskeeppeoplesafe.Insertbikelanes,considerbikepathsͲ
furtherremovedfromtheroads.
Bikes&
Pedestrians Rememberthosebikingandwalking
Bikes&
Pedestrians
NeedtocoordinateHOWwegettotheseplaceswithlessindividualcars.Pedestrian/Bicycleoverpasses2minimum
needed.Improvequalityandfrequencyofbuses.
Bikes&
Pedestrians
IwouldliketoseeagreateremphasisonmakingEastNaplesmoreofawalkable/bikeablecommunity.EastNaplesisin
desperateneedofwidersidewalks(atleast7feet),widerbikelanesorsharedusepaths,lightingandmidblockcrossing.
TherearemanyfolksthatbikeorwalktodowntownNaplesandneedsafewaystodoso.Creatingawalkable/bikeable
communitycanalsodrawretail.
Bikes&
Pedestrians Anydevelopmentmusttakeintoaccountalternativeformsoftransportation(bicycleandpedestrians).
IncentivesAllincentivesareokay,butthemostincentivesshouldbeprovidedtothosethatteardownexistingeyesores.
IncentivesReduceimpactfee’sforcertainidentifieduses.
IncentivesPerpetuatetheimpactfeemoratoriumforchangeofusewhenabuildingistorndown.
IncentivesInvestigateadditionalincentivestoattactbusinessesanddevelopment(i.e.bondsalesfortaxincrementfinancingof
improvements)
IncentivesIncreaseddensityinCoastalHighHazardforrentalcommunity.
OpenSpaceEastNaplescouldbealessͲdevelopedareawhereoutdoorrecreationisemphasized.Noneedtopaveoverparadise.Ifyou
wantNorthNaplesͲmovethere.
OpenSpaceOpenspaceisanadvantageforEastNaples,carefullyplanneddevelopmentisamust.
2
1/16/18 Public Input Meeting Summary Page 1
U.S. 41 Corridor Study
Public Input Meeting # Summary
JJanuary 16, 2018 – Eagle Lakes Community Park (6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.)
The third of three public input meetings was held
on January 16, 2018 at Eagle Lakes Community
Park. This meeting was scheduled as an
additional opportunity to capture input from
seasonal residents. Sign in sheets indicate
approximately 24 meeting attendees were
present. The meeting format, presentation, and
survey were the same as the November 7, 2017
meeting.
Laura DeJohn, Principal Planner with Johnson Engineering and Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director of
Collier County Growth Management, summarized the U.S. 41 Corridor Study background and purpose.
Laura gave a description of physical characteristics of the corridor.
Questions and concerns were raised about traffic and the
nature of the roadway being an inhospitable large roadway
under Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
jurisdiction. Another concern was the safety of pedestrian
and bicycle traffic. Mike explained pedestrian improvement
opportunities based on a recent visit to the corridor from
transportation planning expert Dan Burden. Laura
described how the FDOT has adopted a Complete Streets
program that is more responsive and willing to work with
local jurisdictions on the design of the roadway to match the
community character. This means that FDOT’s polices are
now more adaptable for roadway designs to be slower,
calmer, or more pedestrian friendly in an area where a
community has adopted urban type development or
redevelopment plans. Concern about the concentration of
lower income housing in East Naples was also raised.
Laura proceeded to give a description of physical characteristics of the corridor, including existing
transportation infrastructure, traffic counts, and lot dimensions. She summarized the proportions of existing
uses and future land use and zoning. Mike discussed demographics and real estate market conditions,
followed by an explanation of commercial development patterns. He identified the potential for growth in
the vicinity of the corridor including thousands of new dwelling units and substantial new commercial
development based on approvals in place for the next five to ten years. He referenced the County’s current
permitting activity, which indicated several new commercial developments in the East Naples vicinity are in
the pipeline. Mike identified the trends in Internet shopping and integration of uses to maximize
live/work/play opportunities, with an example being the proposed Mini-Triangle development at the
intersection of U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard.
A meeting attendee brought photos of vacant
commercial units along the corridor to highlight
the issue of underutilized existing commercial
space.
1/16/18 Public Input Meeting Summary Page 2
Laura concluded the presentation by explaining options for incentives, regulation changes and administrative
changes that could impact the look and the type of development along the corridor in the future. She
highlighted the next step for the study is the final meeting for presentation of findings and recommendations
set for February 21, 2018.
The next portion of the meeting was the Image Preference Survey. Audience members were given the
option to respond to the survey on paper or electronically using cellular devices. Audience members were
advised that the results will be tallied with the results of the other two public input meetings and the final
public meeting to present findings will be February 21, 2018.
Attachments: Image Preference Survey Results
Written Comments
Sign-in Sheets
Question A Corresponding
Pictures B Corresponding
Pictures C Corresponding
Pictures D Corresponding
Pictures E Corresponding
Pictures F Corresponding
Pictures Total Received
1 05108None of the above 0 23
2 06152None of the above 0 23
3 741011None of the above 23
4 1834All of the above 7 None of the above 23
5 2063All of the above 12 None of the above 23
6 00914None of the above 0 23
7 012461None of the above 23
8 017132None of the above 23
9 0177 0None of the above 0 24
10 07132None of the above 0 22
11 02812None of the above 0 22
12 2065All of the above 9 None of the above 22
13 0129All of the above 2 None of the above 0 23
14 020192None of the above 23
15 00200All of the above 3 None of the above 23
16 12 0 0 4 All of the above 5 None of the above 21
17 2 Impact fee deferrals 12
Impact fee credits for
tear down and
rebuild situations
1
Increased height for
preferred
development types
0
Increased density for
preferred
development types
5 All of the above 5 None of the above 25
18 9
Corridor Overlay
zoning district to add
standards for desired
(additional)
landscaping
6
Corridor Overlay
zoning district to add
standards for
(enhanced) building
design
2
More flexibility or
relief from current
standards for
redevelopment
5 All of the above 3 None of the above 25
19 4
Pursue a Community
Redevelopment Area
(CRA) designation
4
Pursue an MSTU to
fund improvements
to the roadway
landscaping, lighting,
or signage
4
Community based
branding effort to
establish an identity
and marketing
program
7 All of the above 4 None of the above 23
Note͗ ^ŽŵĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚƐƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŽŶĞĂŶƐǁĞƌĨŽƌ questions 2,9,17,18, and 19.
Combined Responses for 1-16-18 Image Preference Survey
Category Comment
Preferred
Development
Morethananythingwe’d(myfamily)wouldlovetoseeaWholeFoodswherewelive,andIstopgrocery
shoppinginsteadofgoingto3differentlocalstores.Ievenemailedthecompany5yearsagoaskingthemto
buildhere.
Preferred
DevelopmentCostco,Chipotle,BedBath&Beyond
Preferred
DevelopmentWeloveMercato–thisareaneedssomeupscale.
Preferred
DevelopmentNeedmoresitdowneatingestablishments.Upscale.Lessstoragefacilitiesonmaindrag.
Preferred
DevelopmentRestaurants–thenicerthebetter
Preferred
DevelopmentPostofficeneededinthisarea
Preferred
DevelopmentRequest:J.AlexanderRestaurant–myfavorite–andmanyothersfromthemidͲwest
Preferred
Development
Changesshouldbemadetolawsthatdoesnotallowbigtractsoflandthatarepurchasedlongagoshouldhave
tobelookedagainforfeasibilityandifitstillfitswiththecommunity
Preferred
Development
STOP–Idon’twanttobeNorthNapleswithallofthedensity,traffic,lackofwalking,bikingareas,etc.Keep
greenspace(createSIDEWALKS,BIKEPATHS,etc.)MODERATIONisthekey.PleaseListen.
NOTPreferred
DevelopmentNomoreselfͲstoragebuildingsandgasstations.
NOTPreferred
DevelopmentPleasenomorelowincomehousing.
NOTPreferred
Development5gasstations(enough!)
NOTPreferred
Development
5burgerrestaurants(enough!)–moreupscalebusinessneededtoaccommodatetheupscalecommunitiesin
thearea
Open
Space/Bikes&
Pedestrians
Safeandeasierbikingandwalkinginthearea.Openspacesandbikepaths.
Open
Space/Bikes&
Pedestrians
Mustlinkgreenspacetoprovideatransportationcorridorforbikes/pedestrians.Curbcutson41posegreatest
dangerstobikes/pedestrians.Wouldbegoodtohaveservicecorridorsoff41,perhapsbehindcommercial
development,dedicatedtobikesandpedestrians.Also,needtobestrategicallyplacedoverpass/underpassfor
pedestrian/bikecrossings.Slowingtrafficprobablynotanoption.JustprovidesafespacesforEasttraveling
Westpedestrians/bikes.
Bikes&
Pedestrians Bikepathsareimportanttomyfamily
Infrastructure Waterisgoingtobeamajorissueifbuildingkeepsgoingatthisrate
TrafficDon’tcreateasituationwhichwecan’tgetoutofourcommunitiesbecauseoftwomuchtrafficandlackof
trafficlights.Addatrafficlightat41&LelyResortBlvd.
TrafficIloveSouthNaplesbutfindmyselfdrivingtoNorthNaplesallthetimeanditsexhausting
Rebranding EastNaplesisHUGE!CanwebecalledSouthEastNaplesorSouthEastTrailArea?Somethingtouniquely
identifythearea.
1/16/18 Public Meeting - Written Comments
AATTACHMENT 3
FINAL PUBLIC MEETING
PRESENTATION, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND SIGN-IN SHEETS
2/21/2018
1
U.S.41CorridorStudy
JohnsonEngineering,Inc.
PreparedBy:
ForCollierCounty
FindingsandRecommendations
2/21/2018
2
SurveyResultsarecumulativebasedonresponsesreceivedat
PublicInputMeetings:
•October3,2017–70participants
•November7,2017–50participants
•January16,2018–24participants
1.Would youliketoseemorestripmallslikeanyofthesealongthe
corridor?
0%29%51%20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
3
1.Would youliketoseemorestripmallslikeanyofthesealongthe
corridor?
51%
2.Would youliketoseemoreofanythesetypesofhotels/lodging?
1%29%59%10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
90%
2/21/2018
4
2.Would youliketoseemoreofanythesetypesofhotels/lodging?
59%
3.Doyoulikeanyofthesestylesofhotel?
22%31%26%16%11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
89%
2/21/2018
5
3.Doyoulikeanyofthesestylesofhotel?
31%
4.Would anyoftheseresidentialbuildingsbeokayalongthe
corridor?
9%40%17%18%16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Alloftheabove Noneoftheabove
84%
2/21/2018
6
4.Would anyoftheseresidentialbuildingsbeokayalongthecorridor?
40%58%
5.Would anyoftheseresidentialbuildingsbeokayalongthe
corridor?
7%4%46%7%36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Alloftheabove Noneoftheabove
64%
2/21/2018
7
5.Would anyoftheseresidentialbuildingsbeokayalongthecorridor?
46%53%
6.Doyoufeelanyofthesestoragefacilitiesareacceptablealongthe
corridor?
0%2%31%67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
8
6.Doyoufeelanyofthesestoragefacilitiesareacceptablealongthe
corridor?
Noneoftheabove
67%
7.Doyoufindanyoftheseviews
appealing?
0%51%15%25%9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
9
7.Doyoufindanyoftheseviewsappealing?
51%
8.Whichbuildingscaledoyoufindacceptableforthecorridor?
1%65%14%12%7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
10
8.Whichbuildingscaledoyoufindacceptablefor thecorridor?
65%
9.Whichoftheseoptionsdoyoulikeforbuildingplacementalong
theroadway?
1%71%22%6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
11
9.Whichoftheseoptionsdoyoulikefor buildingplacementalong
theroadway?
71%
10.Whichoftheselandscapeconditionsdoyoulike?
3%38%54%5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove92%
2/21/2018
12
10.Whichoftheselandscapeconditionsdoyoulike?
54%
11.Would anygasstationshownherebeacceptablealongthe
corridor?
1%5%30%64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
13
11.Would anygasstationshownherebeacceptablealongthe
corridor?
64%
Noneoftheabove
12.Would youliketoseeanymixedusebuildingslikethisalongthe
corridor?
34%5%33%8%19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Alloftheabove Noneoftheabove
81%
2/21/2018
14
12.Would youliketoseeanymixedusebuildingslikethisalongthe
corridor?
34%33%
75%
13.Would youliketoseemorechainrestaurantsormorelocal
restaurantsalongthecorridor?
6%72%17%5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Noneofthe
above
Allofthe
above
ChainRestaurantsLocalRestaurants
95%
2/21/2018
15
13.Would youliketoseemorechainrestaurantsormorelocal
restaurantsalongthecorridor?
LocalRestaurants
72%89%
14.Would youliketoseemoreretailinanyoftheseforms?
1%7%5%79%7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CornerStore StripMall OutletCenter DestinationShopping
Noneoftheabove
2/21/2018
16
14.Would youliketoseemoreretailinanyoftheseforms?
DestinationShopping
79%
15.Would youliketoseemoredrivethrough,takeout,orsitdown
restaurants?
0%5%79%10%6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
DriveThrough Take Out SitDown
Alloftheabove Noneoftheabove
94%
2/21/2018
17
15.Would youliketoseemoredrivethrough,takeout,orsitdown
restaurants?
SitDown
79%89%
16.Would youliketoseeanyliveͲworkbuildingsalongthecorridor?
42%5%8%17%28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Alloftheabove Noneoftheabove
72%
2/21/2018
18
16.Would youliketoseeanyliveͲworkbuildingsalongthecorridor?
42%59%
17.Doyouagreewithanyoftheseincentivestoencouragepreferred
developmenttypes?
22%30%21%10%12%6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Impactfee
creditsfortear
downandreͲ
buildsituations
Impactfee
deferralsfor
targetindustries
oruses
Increaseddensity
forpreferred
development
types
Increasedheight
forpreferred
development
types
Noneofthe
aboveAlloftheabove
94%
2/21/2018
19
17.Doyouagreewithanyoftheseincentivestoencouragepreferred
developmenttypes?
Impactfee creditsfor tear
downandreͲbuild
situations
30%42%
18.Doyouagreewithanyoftheseregulatoryideasforthecorridor?
CorridorOverlayzoning
districtto
addstandardsfor
(enhanced)building
design
CorridorOverlayzoning
districtto
addstandardsfor
desired
(additional)
landscaping
Alloftheabove
Moreflexibilityorrelief
from
currentstandardsfor
redevelopment
Noneoftheabove
42%30%18%6%4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
96%
2/21/2018
20
18.Doyouagreewithanyoftheseregulatoryideasforthecorridor?
CorridorOverlayzoningdistrictto
addstandardsfor desired
(additional)landscaping
42%48%
19.Doyouagreewithanyoftheseadministrativechangesfor the
corridor?
19%10%44%18%10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PursueanMSTUto
fundimprovementsto
theroadway
landscaping,lighting,
orsignage
PursueaCommunity
RedevelopmentArea
(CRA)designation
Alloftheabove
Communitybased
brandingeffort
toestablishanidentity
and
marketingprogram
Noneoftheabove
90%
2/21/2018
21
19.Doyouagreewithanyoftheseadministrativechangesforthe
corridor?
Communitybasedbrandingeffort
toestablishanidentityand
marketingprogram
44%62%
WrittenComments
October3,2017
•36received
November7,2017
•52received
January16,2018
•20received
2/21/2018
22
SubjectsofWrittenComments
•PreferredDevelopment
•Rebranding
•Traffic
•Bikes&Pedestrians
•NOTPreferredDevelopment
•IncentivesRedevelopment
•Design
•Landscaping
•Infrastructure
•OpenSpace
•Redevelopment
October3,2017
Subjects of
Written
Comments
Preferred
Development
29%
Rebranding
9%
Infrastructure
3%
Traffic
14%Bikes&
Pedestrians
3%
Landscaping
11%
Incentives
14%
OpenSpace
3%
Design
14%
2/21/2018
23
Preferred
Development
50%
Redevelopment
2%
NOT
Preferred
Development
4%
Rebranding
17%
Traffic
6%
Bikes&
Pedestrians
8%
Incentives
9%
OpenSpace
4%November7,2017
Subjects of
Written
Comments
January16,2018
Subjects of
Written
Comments Preferred
Development
45%
NOTPreferred
Development
20%
Rebranding
5%
Infrastructure
5%
Traffic
10%
Bikes&
Pedestrians
15%
2/21/2018
24
FindingsfromSurveysandComments
PriorityTopics MainPoints
Communityidentity
EastNaplesresidentssupportbrandingthe
areatomaketheassetsoftheareaknownand
attractmoreofwhatthecommunitywants.
Newanddifferentbusinessesaredesired:
Hotel/Resort,Groceryoptions,Wholesale
Club,Restaurants
Anychangemustbepartofaframeworkthat
controlsforappearance,intensityandtraffic.
Transportation
Thecorridorhastoomuchtrafficandnot
enoughsafebicycleandpedestrianfeatures
andopenspace.
Redevelopment Improvementtounsightly,olderbuildingsand
vacantcommercialbuildingsisneeded.
Landscaping Enhancetheappearancealongtheroadside.
Findings:ChangesareHappening
Incrementalchangesoccurasmorehousingdevelopsandpopulationincreasestosupportcommercialbusinesses.
2/21/2018
25
Findings:Futurechangescanbeplanned
“Repair”oftheCommercialStrip
1. Identifynodesforcentersofactivityand
moredesireduses– theseshouldbeat
intersectionsandrelatetotransitortrolley
stops.
2. Connectingstreetsshouldbeincorporatedin
plansandprovideforbicyclesand
pedestrians.
3. Establishstandardsandincentivesfor:
•Nodesoractivitycenterswithpossibility
for mixeduse,varietyoflive/work/play
uses,structuredparkingandopenspaces
or“greens”
•Enhancedaestheticsbetweenthenodes
Gulfgate PlazaRedevelopment
Opportunity
CourthouseShadowsRedevelopment
WalmartRenovations
ACTIVITY
CENTER
Bike/Pedestrian
FriendlyIntersection
improvements
2/21/2018
26
ADD
ANNOTATIONS
TOMAP
Future
Multifamily
Vacant
Commercial
Sites
Rattlesnake
HammockRd
NaplesTowne CenterRedevelopment
Opportunity
NewDevelopment
ACTIVITYCENTER
ACTIVITY
CENTER
Redevelopment
Bike/Pedestrian
Friendly
AlternateRoute
Opportunity
ADD
ANNOTATIONS
TOMAP
IslesofCollier
Preserve
NaplesManorTrevisoBay
Bike/Pedestrian
Friendly
AlternateRoute
Opportunity
Bike/Pedestrian
Friendly
AlternateRoute
St.AndrewsSquare
ACTIVITYCENTER
OPPORTUNITY
2/21/2018
27
Bike/Pedestrian
Friendly
AlternateRoute
Opportunity
Bike/Pedestrian
Friendly
AlternateRoute
ACTIVITYCENTER
OPPORTUNITY
VincentianPUDNewDevelopment
Eagle
LakesPark
Lely
Resort
Victoria
Falls
Eagle
Lakes
Park
Bike/Pedestrian
Friendly
AlternateRoute
Opportunity
NewDevelopment
Opportunities
NewDevelopment ACTIVITY
CENTER
ACTIVITYCENTER
OPPORTUNITY
2/21/2018
28
CollierCountyGovernmentComplexActivityCenter
Thomasson/RattlesnakeHammockActivityCenter
St.AndrewsSquareActivityCenter
Vincentian/EagleLakesParkActivityCenter
CollierBlvd/US41ActivityCenter
OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY
CollierCountyGovernmentComplexActivityCenter
Thomasson/RattlesnakeHammockActivityCenter
St.AndrewsSquareActivityCenter
Vincentian/EagleLakesParkActivityCenter
CollierBlvd/US41ActivityCenter
OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY
2/21/2018
29
2/21/2018
30
PlanningfortheFuture
Community
CharacterPlan–
Redevelopmentof
NaplesTowne
Center
2/21/2018
31
CollierCountyPoliciesfor
RedevelopmentandInfill
2/21/2018
32
2/21/2018
33
2/21/2018
34
Shelteredpedestrianpaths
Activepedestrianpromenade
LocalRestaurants
DestinationShopping
Recommendations
#1)Communitybasedbrandingproject
•CivicandBusinessorganizationsworktogether
toestablishathemeandidentityandthen
promotethecommunityanditsvision.
#2)Desiredbusinesses:
•CountyGrowthManagementDepartmentto
provideinformationtodevelopmentcommunity
aboutpreferreduses.
2/21/2018
35
Recommendations
#3) TransportationNeeds
•Identifyopportunitiestouseconnectingstreetforbicyclesand
pedestrians.
•CoordinatewiththeCollierMPOBicycle/PedestrianMaster
Plantoidentifylocationsfor newsidewalks,bikeways,transit
andgreenwaysandconnectionstoservethecorridor.
•Designcriteriatopromotesecondarycorridorstoconnectto
commercialandmixedusecenters.
•CoordinatewithTransportationPlanningandFloridaDOTon
theoptionsfor retrofittingbicycleandpedestrian
enhancements,startingwithintersections.
Recommendations
#4) Redevelopment:EnsureimpactfeecreditsforteardownandreͲbuild
situations.NewdevelopmentwillmeetCollier’sarchitecturalandsignage
standardsandfurtherrefinedredevelopmentstandards.
#5)Identifytargetlocations or“nodes”forallowingpreferrednewtypesof
developmentandredevelopment
•ActivityCenters:Confirmorexpand3existingatAirportRoad;Thomasson/Rattlesnake;
CollierBoulevard;andadditionof2opportunitiesatStAndrewsSquareandVincentian
PUD/EagleLakesPark
•ApplyRedevelopment/InfillstandardsforMixedUseDestinationsandHotelsinthese
focusedlocationsalongthecorridor
•Gasstationorselfstoragedevelopment:Considerseparationrequirements,location
standardsorminimum%retailorofficemixaspartofthesedevelopmentstomitigatefor
proliferationalongthiscorridor.
2/21/2018
36
Recommendations
#6) Landscaping:Roadsidelandscapingenhancementstrategy
•Reviewoptionsforenhancedroadsidelandscapingintherightofway
•Substitutethestandardsfor landscapinginfrontyardsforbetter“curb appeal”
baseduponalandscapeplanspecifictoconditionsofU.S.41East
NextSteps Collectfeedback
fromtonight’s
meeting
April24
BoardofCountyCommissionersMeeting
•PresentFindingsandRecommendationsReport
•AskforBoard’sdirectiontomoveforward
withRecommendations#2through#6
FinalizeFindingsand
RecommendationsReport
2/21/2018
37
YourFeedback
CommentCards
RecommendationsRecap
#1)Communitybasedbrandingproject:CivicandBusinessorganizationsworktogethertoestablishathemeand
identityandthenpromotethecommunityanditsvision.
#2)Desiredbusinesses:CountyGrowthManagementDepartmenttoprovideinformationtodevelopmentcommunity
aboutpreferreduses.
#3)Transportation Needs
•Identifyopportunitiestouseconnectingstreetforbicyclesandpedestrians.
•CoordinatewiththeCollierMPOBicycle/PedestrianMasterPlantoidentifylocationsfornewsidewalks,bikeways,
transitandgreenwaysandconnectionstoservethecorridor.
•Designcriteriatopromotesecondarycorridorstoconnecttocommercialandmixedusecenters.
•CoordinatewithTransportationstaff&FloridaDOTonoptionsforretrofittingenhancements,startwithintersections.
#4)Redevelopment:EnsureimpactfeecreditsforteardownandreͲbuildsituations.Newdevelopmentwillmeet
Collier’sarchitecturalandsignagestandardsandfurtherrefinedredevelopmentstandards.
#5)Identifytargetlocations or“nodes”forallowingpreferrednewtypesofdevelopmentandredevelopment
•ActivityCenters:Confirmorexpand3existingatAirportRoad;Thomasson/Rattlesnake;CollierBoulevard;and
additionof2opportunitiesatStAndrewsSquareandVincentianPUD/EagleLakesPark
•ApplyRedevelopment/InfillincentivesandstandardsforMixedUseDestinationsandHotelsintheselocations
•Gasstationorselfstoragedevelopment:Considerseparationrequirements,locationstandardsorminimum%
retailorofficemixaspartofthesedevelopmentstomitigateforproliferationalongthiscorridor.
#6)Landscaping:Roadsidelandscapingenhancementstrategy
•Reviewoptionsforenhancedroadsidelandscapingintherightofway
•Substitutestandardsforlandscapinginfrontyardsforbetter“curb appeal”specifictoconditionsofU.S.41East
CCategory Comment
Traffic / Redevelopment
Traffic on the East Trail is expanding, more year-round residents, therefore increasing traffic. Where you expect to have bike trails and walking
areas, as time goes on the danger of people being hit by cars increase. I fear ultimately we will end up looking like Miami. Don't need new
developments - need reuse & redevelopment of existing structures only.
NOT Preferred Development /
Rebranding
Nice Job! Heard comments about lack of county's openness to "bans". Can we be more firm then on minimum distances between things like
storage facilities? An extended approval process isn't enough deterrent to keep E. Naples from becoming the "warehouse district". Also, fully
support rebranding "East Naples" to "South Naples". Again, thanks!!
Bike & Peds Possibly elevated walkways "over US 41" to cross over to other side of street and activity centers. Enjoy the information being shared
Rebranding / Preferred
Development
To give an identity - focus on the Naples-Everglades existence. Pursue pedestrian bridges. Bookstore needed - there are 10 in Sarasota only 1 in
Naples. For new housing emphasize families with kids to change the population of local schools to be more economically diverse. With added
landscaping include benches. Identify "South Naples".
NOT Preferred Development/Bike
& Peds
East Naples doesn't need more rental properties, affordable housing, market safe housing & mutli-family housing. It needs more "owned"
properties with a range of values-modest to high-end properties. Bike/pedestrian development along adjacent roads to hwy 41 a fair idea but a)
must connect EW to downtown Naples and b) must account for added traffic along these new bike paths associated with added residential
development.
Rebranding Need to change the poor perception of East Naples by renaming it South Naples. Why is this beautiful building [South Regional Library] we are in
named as such? Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse!
Preferred Development I believe multi-family housing provides a great opportunity for young real-estate investors & families, and provides housing for people working in
consumer & retail business
Preferred Development/Bike &
Peds More workforce housing is needed for young professionals. In addition, a mix of uses we can bike/walk to.
Bike & Peds/Rebranding Report's findings are encouraging. Node development is key for walkability + reduce auto-dependence. Make node development a priority.
Create mechanisms to plan + execute branding efforts. Create many tools to get where you want to go.
Traffic/Bikes & Peds/Preferred
Development
Traffic lights to favor those who're driving the 41, not switching to red as soon as a single car wants to get out of a small mall. More street sign to
identify parks, etc. Open another Costco (if volume of business justify). Not enough biking lane (safe lane). Electronic boards along streets to
enforce/inform (speed, traffic congestion, etc.)
Rebranding / NOT Preferred
Development
County Commissioners are doing nothing to change the image of East Naples. Homeowners have been saying the same thing for years - no more
gas stations, storage facilities, and low-income housing. Where has it got us - nowhere! Commissioners don't care.
Preferred Development/NOT
Preferred Development
It would be nice if the low income housing was dispersed to N Naples instead of E Naples being the dumping ground - we're already full here.
Trader Joes would be nice in the area.
NOT Preferred Development
Thank you for engaging East Naples residents in the project plan. Unfortunately we were shut out of the residential mixed use (market plan)
development. This is undesirable and will undermine the entire plan. No one wants anymore disgusting housing - enough. We are over-saturated -
put in another district. We will fight to stop the housing oversaturation.
Preferred Development/NOT
Preferred Development
No mixed use/no market rate housing. We are oversaturated - from 48 East Naples Condo Association Boards + Presidents. 1)Concert Hall
2)Marriott Resort 3)Recreation Park.
NOT Preferred Development Please stop the low income housing. Get Habitat for Humanity out of our community and neighborhoods. Habitat for Humanity is ruining our
district.
NOT Preferred Development Need middle income housing, not more low income
Preferred Development/NOT
Preferred Development/Open
Space
Please keep as much open space, natural vegetation as possible. Less "strip malls". More larger name store like Costco, Target, Bed Bath &
Beyond are need.
Other / Open Space
For what its worth: Remember that the people who live in low income housing are the workers from your grocery stores, retail, etc. These people
do not need to be abused with ignorance of the populace. Also, please quit filling in the areas that were made for nature because of
development. Contrary to popular belief we need nature to survive.
Bikes & Peds
Build bike paths off the main streets. Build pedestrian and bike overpasses. Other cities do it all the time. One can bike/hike from Pittsburgh, PA
to Washington, DC without encountering car traffic. Provide shuttle service and better handicap service. Handicap service is horrible in Collier
County. Please keep in mind the environmental impact, we need birds to eat mosquitos.
2 -21-2 0 1 8 Pu b l i c Me t i ng - W r i t t en C om me nts
Project Manager: Pam Lulich
Procurement: Adam Northrup 18-7276 - IMMOKALEE ROAD (COLLIER BLVD TO WILSON BLVD)
Collier County Project 112-60018.2
Bid Tabulation
Suppliers Invited: 8094
Viewed: 90
Bids: 4
I. GENERAL PROJECT ITEMS
Item No.Description Est Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
1 .Mobilization 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $36,500.00 $36,500.00 $40,726.71 $40,726.71 $125,000.00 $125,000.00
2 .Maintenance of traffic 1 LS $6,490.00 $6,490.00 $28,500.00 $28,500.00 $43,324.00 $43,324.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00
3 .As-built plans 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00
4 Subtotal Section I, Items 1-3 $42,690.00 $85,000.00 $89,550.71 $212,000.00
II. SITE DEMOLITION, PREPARATION AND DISPOSAL
Item No.Description Est Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
5 .Median Excavation/Grading 308,905 SF $0.11 $33,979.55 $0.60 $185,343.00 $0.48 $148,274.40 $0.30 $92,671.50
6 Subtotal Section II, Item 5 $33,979.55 $185,343.00 $148,274.40 $92,671.50
III. INSTALLED SITE MATERIALS
Item No.Description Est. Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
7 .700 CY $25.43 $17,801.00 $35.00 $24,500.00 $50.00 $35,000.00 $65.00 $45,500.00
8 Tree Sump Drain installation at every tree/palm 328 EA $72.00 $23,616.00 $79.00 $25,912.00 $140.00 $45,920.00 $10.00 $3,280.00
9 .Mulch, Transportation Blend, Colored , (2" Depth) 1,840 CY $49.99 $91,981.60 $43.00 $79,120.00 $60.00 $110,400.00 $70.00 $128,800.00
10 .Concrete Interlocking Pavers (includes 10% overage)4,375 SF $9.10 $39,812.50 $6.75 $29,531.25 $13.00 $56,875.00 $14.30 $62,562.50
11 .6 EA $85.00 $510.00 $95.00 $570.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00
12 .Subtotal Section III, Items 7-11 $173,721.10 $159,633.25 $249,995.00 $246,142.50
IV. PLANT MATERIALS ( Final specifications per plan plant schedule)
Item No.Sym Botanical Name Common NameSpecifications Est Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
TREES / PALMS
13 .Bursera simaruba GUMBO LIMBO 29 Ea $816.00 $23664.00 $498.00 $14442.00 $500.00 $14500.00 $600.00 $17400.00
14 .Caesalpinia granadillo BRIDAL VEIL 22 Ea $459.00 $10098.00 $778.00 $17116.00 $650.00 $14300.00 $1100.00 $24200.00
15 .Chorisia speciosa FLOSS SILK TREE 5 Ea $510.00 $2550.00 $857.00 $4285.00 $750.00 $3750.00 $900.00 $4500.00
16 .Lysiloma latisiliqua WILD TAMARIND 6 Ea $510.00 $3060.00 $498.00 $2988.00 $500.00 $3000.00 $750.00 $4500.00
17 .Myrcianthes fragrans SIMPSON STOPPER TREE 27 Ea $459.00 $12393.00 $498.00 $13446.00 $500.00 $13500.00 $600.00 $16200.00
18 .Phoenix roebelenii PYGMY DATE PALM - DOUBLE 37 Ea $195.00 $7215.00 $280.00 $10360.00 $225.00 $8325.00 $350.00 $12950.00
19 .Pinus elliottii var. densa SLASH PINE, SOUTH FLORIDA 55 Ea $357.00 $19635.00 $437.00 $24035.00 $320.00 $17600.00 $400.00 $22000.00
20 .Quercus virginiana LIVE OAK 65 Ea $714.00 $46410.00 $997.00 $64805.00 $900.00 $58500.00 $1100.00 $71500.00
21 .Quercus virginiana LIVE OAK 14 Ea $1055.00 $14770.00 $1475.00 $20650.00 $1000.00 $14000.00 $1500.00 $21000.00
22 .Sabal palmetto SABAL PALM 366 Ea $136.00 $49776.00 $145.00 $53070.00 $275.00 $100650.00 $250.00 $91500.00
23 .Sabal palmetto SABAL PALM 366 Ea $136.00 $49776.00 $145.00 $53070.00 $275.00 $100650.00 $250.00 $91500.00
24 .Taxiodium distichum BALD CYPRESS 68 Ea $357.00 $24276.00 $510.00 $34680.00 $500.00 $34000.00 $700.00 $47600.00
SHRUBS
25 .Chrysobalanus icaco ‘Horizontal’ HORIZONTAL COCOPLUM 432 Ea $15.30 $6609.60 $14.00 $6048.00 $30.00 $12960.00 $25.00 $10800.00
26 .Liriope muscari `Emerald Goddess`LIRIOPE 7,365 Ea $3.60 $26514.00 $3.50 $25777.50 $7.00 $51555.00 $9.00 $66285.00
27 .Muhlenbergia capillaris MUHLY GRASS 2,810 Ea $3.60 $10116.00 $4.50 $12645.00 $12.00 $33720.00 $10.00 $28100.00
28 .Pennisetum setaceum FOUNTAIN GRASS 1,377 Ea $3.65 $5026.05 $4.50 $6196.50 $11.00 $15147.00 $10.00 $13770.00
29 .Serenoa repens cinerea SILVER SAW PALMETTO 361 Ea $148.00 $53428.00 $130.00 $46930.00 $255.00 $92055.00 $200.00 $72200.00
30 Sophora tomentosa truncata YELLOW NECKLACE POD 489 Ea $30.50 $14914.50 $39.00 $19071.00 $15.00 $7335.00 $50.00 $24450.00
31 .Spartina bakeri var. 'Blue Green'CORDGRASS 211 Ea $4.22 $890.42 $7.50 $1582.50 $14.00 $2954.00 $10.00 $2110.00
32 .Strelitzia reginae ORANGE BIRD OF PARADISE 77 Ea $40.00 $3080.00 $51.00 $3927.00 $75.00 $5775.00 $75.00 $5775.00
33 .Tripsacum floridanum DWARF FAKAHATCHEE GRASS 336 Ea $4.11 $1380.96 $7.50 $2520.00 $12.00 $4032.00 $8.00 $2688.00
34 Zamia floridana COONTIE 317 Ea $16.40 $5198.80 $17.00 $5389.00 $30.00 $9510.00 $50.00 $15850.00
GROUNDCOVERS
35 .Arachis glabrata 'ecoturf'PERENNIAL PEANUT ECOTURF 5,174 Ea $4.10 $21213.40 $4.50 $23283.00 $6.00 $31044.00 $6.00 $31044.00
36 .Bulbine frutescens BULBINE 1,669 Ea $4.10 $6842.90 $4.50 $7510.50 $6.00 $10014.00 $6.00 $10014.00
37 .Carissa macrocarpa 'Emerald Blanket`DWARF CARISSA 373 Ea $9.10 $3394.30 $4.50 $1678.50 $11.00 $4103.00 $10.00 $3730.00
38 .Ernodea littoralis GOLDEN CREEPER 1,728 Ea $4.10 $7084.80 $4.50 $7776.00 $6.00 $10368.00 $6.00 $10368.00
39 .Mimosa strigillosa SENSITIVE PLANT 2,396 Ea $4.10 $9823.60 $3.25 $7787.00 $6.00 $14376.00 $6.00 $14376.00
40 .Paspalum Notatum BAHIA SOD 44,806 SF $0.25 $11201.50 $0.35 $15682.10 $0.44 $19714.64 $0.40 $17922.40
41 .Subtotal Section IV, Items 13-40 $450,341.83 $506,750.60 $707,437.64 $754,332.40
42 .LANDSCAPE Subtotal Sections I thru IV $700,732.48 $936,726.85 $1,195,257.75 $1,305,146.40
Prepared Soil Backfill for trees/palms.
Install break-away sign post sleeves
Green Construction Technologies Superior LandscapingHannula Arazoza Brothers
11/7/2017 1 OF 3
11.E.3
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: 18-7276 - Bid Tabulation (5132 : award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape
Project Manager: Pam Lulich
Procurement: Adam Northrup 18-7276 - IMMOKALEE ROAD (COLLIER BLVD TO WILSON BLVD)
Collier County Project 112-60018.2
Bid Tabulation
Suppliers Invited: 8094
Viewed: 90
Bids: 4
V. WELL/PUMP AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION (See file titled 18-7276 - Standard detail for specifics)
Item No.Sym Description Est Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
43 .WH 5 EA $18,540.00 $92,700.00 $13,300.00 $66,500.00 $15,000.00 $75,000.00 $12,266.40 $61,332.00
44 .IS IRRIGATION WATER SOURCE PUMP STATION DISCHARGE SUMP: 5 EA $1,621.00 $8,105.00 $9,500.00 $47,500.00 $$0.00 $3,720.00 $18,600.00
45 .Subtotal Section V, Items 43-44 $100,805.00 $114,000.00 $75,000.00 $79,932.00
VI. IRRIGATION SYSTEM MATERIALS (See file titled 18-7276 - Standard detail for specifics)
Item No.Sym Description Est Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
46 EX 0 EA $0.00 $0.00 $375.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $0.00
47 RS 5 EA $28.00 $140.00 $175.00 $875.00 $65.00 $325.00 $69.60 $348.00
48 EL 5 EA $1,281.00 $6,405.00 $3,600.00 $18,000.00 $9,600.00 $48,000.00 $8,184.00 $40,920.00
49 AV 10 EA $660.00 $6,600.00 $345.00 $3,450.00 $1,200.00 $12,000.00 $1,530.00 $15,300.00
50 PG 10 EA $110.00 $1,100.00 $225.00 $2,250.00 $460.00 $4,600.00 $276.00 $2,760.00
51 GV 5 EA $644.00 $3,220.00 $395.00 $1,975.00 $780.00 $3,900.00 $762.00 $3,810.00
52 GV 14 EA $828.00 $11,592.00 $800.00 $11,200.00 $980.00 $13,720.00 $986.40 $13,809.60
53 DB 3,134 LF $16.25 $50,927.50 $30.00 $94,020.00 $30.00 $94,020.00 $16.86 $52,839.24
54 DB 1,131 LF $36.50 $41,281.50 $40.00 $45,240.00 $45.00 $50,895.00 $50.70 $57,341.70
55 DB 653 LF $48.50 $31,670.50 $50.00 $32,650.00 $58.00 $37,874.00 $67.80 $44,273.40
56 SL 3,134 LF $16.50 $51,711.00 $2.50 $7,835.00 $4.00 $12,536.00 $4.50 $14,103.00
57 SL 1,311 LF $36.50 $47,851.50 $11.50 $15,076.50 $8.00 $10,488.00 $8.12 $10,645.32
58 SL 653 LF $48.50 $31,670.50 $25.00 $16,325.00 $12.00 $7,836.00 $10.36 $6,765.08
59 ML 7,190 LF $2.16 $15,530.40 $7.50 $53,925.00 $7.00 $50,330.00 $6.18 $44,434.20
60 ML 10,173 LF $3.88 $39,471.24 $9.00 $91,557.00 $9.00 $91,557.00 $8.28 $84,232.44
61 LL 16,700 LF $0.24 $4,008.00 $2.15 $35,905.00 $0.80 $13,360.00 $1.70 $28,390.00
62 LL 6,700 LF $0.29 $1,943.00 $2.25 $15,075.00 $1.10 $7,370.00 $1.74 $11,658.00
63 LL 13,000 LF $0.60 $7,800.00 $2.45 $31,850.00 $2.25 $29,250.00 $1.99 $25,870.00
64 LL 4,200 LF $0.97 $4,074.00 $2.65 $11,130.00 $4.00 $16,800.00 $2.63 $11,046.00
65 W 22,600 LF $0.33 $7,458.00 $0.39 $8,814.00 $0.50 $11,300.00 $0.36 $8,136.00
66 W 22,600 LF $0.33 $7,458.00 $0.29 $6,554.00 $0.50 $11,300.00 $0.36 $8,136.00
67 W 140,100 LF $0.22 $30,822.00 $0.28 $39,228.00 $0.68 $95,268.00 $0.26 $36,426.00
68 W 15,000 LF $0.22 $3,300.00 $0.28 $4,200.00 $0.68 $10,200.00 $0.26 $3,900.00
69 W 20,000 LF $0.22 $4,400.00 $0.28 $5,600.00 $0.68 $13,600.00 $0.26 $5,200.00
70 WC 100 LF $0.60 $60.00 $3.00 $300.00 $3.00 $300.00 $2.06 $206.00
71 WC 21,200 LF $2.95 $62,540.00 $4.50 $95,400.00 $4.50 $95,400.00 $2.06 $43,672.00
72 HDPE 2,235 LF $2.75 $6,146.25 $8.50 $18,997.50 $6.80 $15,198.00 $23.81 $53,215.35
73 HDPE 660 LF $8.00 $5,280.00 $10.50 $6,930.00 $9.60 $6,336.00 $36.96 $24,393.60
74 SV 8 EA $565.00 $4,520.00 $360.00 $2,880.00 $450.00 $3,600.00 $540.00 $4,320.00
75 SV 133 EA $590.00 $78,470.00 $495.00 $65,835.00 $580.00 $77,140.00 $726.00 $96,558.00
76 SV 5 EA $653.00 $3,265.00 $575.00 $2,875.00 $650.00 $3,250.00 $792.00 $3,960.00
77 JB 145 EA $80.00 $11,600.00 $85.00 $12,325.00 $68.00 $9,860.00 $102.00 $14,790.00
78 RPM 84 EA $3.66 $307.44 $10.00 $840.00 $8.00 $672.00 $33.60 $2,822.40
79 SH 438 EA $29.00 $12,702.00 $21.00 $9,198.00 $35.00 $15,330.00 $33.60 $14,716.80
80 SH 2,596 EA $34.00 $88,264.00 $22.00 $57,112.00 $45.00 $116,820.00 $37.80 $98,128.80
81 FB 847 EA $4.36 $3,692.92 $16.00 $13,552.00 $25.00 $21,175.00 $11.46 $9,706.62
82 PB 5 EA $175.00 $875.00 $125.00 $625.00 $65.00 $325.00 $180.00 $900.00
83 BO 10 EA $711.00 $7,110.00 $1,850.00 $18,500.00 $450.00 $4,500.00 $1,800.00 $18,000.00
84 OM 36 EA $14.24 $512.64 $39.00 $1,404.00 $45.00 $1,620.00 $44.40 $1,598.40
85 MC 18 EA $374.00 $6,732.00 $185.00 $3,330.00 $250.00 $4,500.00 $432.00 $7,776.00
86 MC 18 EA $457.00 $8,226.00 $250.00 $4,500.00 $250.00 $4,500.00 $565.20 $10,173.60
87 Subtotal Section VI, Items 46-86 $710,737.39 $867,338.00 $1,027,055.00 $935,281.55
88 IRRIGATION Subtotal Sections V thru VI $811,542.39 $981,338.00 $1,102,055.00 $1,015,213.55
89 TOTAL BASE BID Sections I thru VI $1,512,274.87 $1,918,064.85 $2,297,312.75 $2,320,359.95
VII. ALTERNATE BID ITEMS (LANDSCAPE)
(Plant unit prices to include plant installation, staking, fertilization, pruning, weed removal)
Item No.Sym Botanical Name Common NameSpecifications Est Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost
TREES
90 .Quercus virginiana LIVE OAK ALTERNATE BID 65 EA $949.00 $61,685.00 $1,356.00 $88,140.00 $1,000.00 $65,000.00 $1,500.00 $97,500.00
91 .Arachis glabrata `Ecoturf` (SF)PERENNIAL PEANUTALTERNATE BID 37,850 SF $3.10 $117,335.00 $1.89 $71,536.50 $3.50 $132,475.00 $5.00 $189,250.00
92 .a) Mulch, Collier County Brown or Old Florida Blend Mulch MULCH ALTERNATE BID 1,450 CY $49.87 $72,311.50 $43.00 $62,350.00 $60.00 $87,000.00 $70.00 $101,500.00
93 .Subtotal Section VII, Items 90-92 $251,331.50 $222,026.50 $284,475.00 $388,250.00
IRRIGATION WATER SOURCE:
EXISTING IRRIGATION SLEEVE ENDS, LOCATING & EXCAVATING:
FURNISH AND INSTALL HUNTER MINI CLIK-RAIN SENSOR PER DETAIL.
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER CONNECT ALL LOW VOLTAGE & HIGH VOLTAGE WIRING AND TEST SYSTEM
FURNISH AND INSTALL:
FURNISH AND INSTALL IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: 1" PVC CLASS 200 SDR21 (PANTONE PURPLE)
FURNISH AND INSTALL IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: 3/4" PVC CLASS 200 SDR21 (PANTONE PURPLE)
FURNISH AND INSTALL IRRIGATION MAIN PRESSURE-CHECK POINTS:
FURNISH AND INSTALL 4" GATE VALVE
2" DIRECTIONAL BORE PVC
FURNISH AND INSTALL 3" GATE VALVE
6" DIRECTIONAL BORE PVC
8" DIRECTIONAL BORE HDPE
FURNISH AND INSTALL 2" PVC SCH. 40 SLEEVE 6' BEHIND BACK OF CURB
4" HDPE TO PVC MECHANICAL JOINT COUPLING W/ TRANSITIONAL GASKETS, OR INTERCONNECTING FITTINGS
3" HDPE TO PVC MECHANICAL JOINT COUPLING W/ TRANSITIONAL GASKETS, OR INTERCONNECTING FITTINGS
FURNISH AND INSTALL 1.5" SCH. 40 PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
FURNISH AND INSTALL IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: 1.5" PVC CLASS 200 SDR21 (PANTONE PURPLE)
FURNISH & INSTALL: GREEN REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER (RPM) ON TOP OF CURBING
4" CLASS 160 SDR 11 EXTRA MOLECULAR STRENGTH HDPE
FURNISH AND INSTALL VALVE COMMON AWG 10 GA. WIRE YELLOW-SPARE SOLID COPPER INSULATED
FURNISH AND INSTALL VALVE CONTROL AWG 12 GA. WIRE ACTIVATION RED SOLID COPPER INSULATED
FURNISH AND INSTALL VALVE CONTROL AWG 12 GA. WIRE
FURNISH AND INSTALL VALVE CONTROL AWG 12 GA.
FURNISH AND INSTALL : OMNI MARKERS DURING TRENCHING AND BEFORE BACKFILLING.
3" CLASS 160 SDR 11 EXTRA MOLECULAR STRENGTH HDPE
FURNISH & INSTALL: TORO 220-26-0, 2" 220 SERIES BRASS ELECTRIC AC SOLENOID VALVE
HIGHLINE JUMBO BOX (REMOTE VALVES ONLY) (PANTONE PURPLE)
FURNISH AND INSTALL IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: 2" PVC CLASS 200 SDR21 (PANTONE PURPLE)
FURNISH AND INSTALL VALVE COMMON AWG 10 GA. WIRE WHITE SOLID COPPER INSULATED
FURNISH AND INSTALL 2" SCH. 40 PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
FURNISH & INSTALL: TORO 220-26-0, 1" 220 SERIES BRASS ELECTRIC AC SOLENOID VALVE
FURNISH & INSTALL: TORO 220-26-0, 1.5" 220 SERIES BRASS ELECTRIC AC SOLENOID VALVE
TORO 570Z SERIES SPRAYS 570ZPRX MODEL 570Z-6P-PRX-E WITH PRECISION SERIES SPRAY NOZZLES.
TORO 570Z SERIES SPRAYS 570ZPRX MODEL 570Z-12P-PRX-E WITH PRECISION SERIES SPRAY NOZZLES.
FURNISH & INSTALL: IRRITROL 533 ADJUSTABLE FLOOD BUBBLERS.
FURNISH & INSTALL SPLICE/ PULL/ JUNCTION BOXES (PANTONE PURPLE)
FURNISH & INSTALL: MAIN AND SUBMAIN FLUSH/ BLOW OFF ASSEMBLIES PER PLAN NOTES & DETAILS.
FURNISH AND INSTALL 6" PVC SCH. 40 SLEEVE 6' BEHIND BACK OF CURB
FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" PVC SCH. 40 SLEEVE 6' BEHIND BACK OF CURB
FURNISH AND INSTALL MAINLINE:
FURNISH AND INSTALL MAINLINE:
11/7/2017 2 OF 3
11.E.3
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: 18-7276 - Bid Tabulation (5132 : award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape
Project Manager: Pam Lulich
Procurement: Adam Northrup 18-7276 - IMMOKALEE ROAD (COLLIER BLVD TO WILSON BLVD)
Collier County Project 112-60018.2
Bid Tabulation
Suppliers Invited: 8094
Viewed: 90
Bids: 4
IX. QUALIFICATIONS (As detailed in file titled "Standard Detail")
94 .Do you have five years of demonstrated experience in landscape and irrigation installations (provide documentation)?Yes Yes Yes
95 .Did you include 5 references from government or commecial clients?Yes Yes Yes
96 .Do you have a Intermediate Level MOT certificate with at least 3 years of experience?Yes Yes Yes
97 .Do you have atleast 3 years of experience with Motorola controllers or multi-wire controllers?Yes Yes Yes
Bidders Checklist Yes Yes Yes Yes
Material manufacturers Yes Yes Yes Yes
List of Major Subcontractors Yes Yes Yes Yes
Statement of Experience of Bidder Yes Yes Yes Yes
Trench Safety Act Yes Yes Yes Yes
Immigration Law Afidavit Certification
E-Verify Yes Yes
Substitute W9 Yes
Bid Bond Yes Yes Yes Yes
11/7/2017 3 OF 3
11.E.3
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: 18-7276 - Bid Tabulation (5132 : award ITB No. 18-7276 Collier County Landscape