Bonita Springs council hears Seagate request to transmit Ravana Lakes comprehensive-plan amendment to state

At a Bonita Springs City Council meeting, Seagate Development asked the council to transmit a comprehensive-plan amendment that would redesignate roughly 204.5 acres — about 114 acres already inside the city and 90 acres still in unincorporated Lee County — from county Density Reduction Groundwater Resource (DRGR) and wetlands to the city’s Urban Fringe Community District and resource-protection categories. The request includes three annexation petitions and a text amendment to the Urban Fringe Community District.

The council heard a multi-hour presentation Tuesday evening from the applicant’s team, which emphasized lower density, on-site infrastructure capacity, environmental studies and stormwater design. Mike Feagon, community development staff, said the staff report provided analysis but reserved a formal recommendation because “this is a policy decision for city council.” The council did not vote on the transmittal during the portion of the meeting recorded in the transcript.

Why it matters: The transmittal decision would send the amendment to state agencies for review and is the first formal step before a possible future adoption vote and accompanying rezoning and development order. Seagate said bringing the county portion into the city would let Bonita Springs apply its development standards, capture impact fees and expand the city’s tax base; opponents at prior hearings have raised water-resource and precedent concerns. The city’s Local Planning Agency (LPA) previously voted 5-1 to deny the applicant’s request.

Seagate principals and technical team present proposal

Alexis Crespo, vice president of planning at RVI Planning, and Bill Price, chairman of Seagate Development, led the applicant presentation. Price said Seagate acquired the property in 2020 and “we believe this land parcel should be put under the jurisdiction of the city of Bonita Springs.” The applicant described a revised proposal that reduced residential density from earlier versions and increased neighborhood commercial to meet what the team called local demand.

Key proposal details provided by the applicant and their consultants: - Size and proposed density: The site was described as about 204.5 acres total. Seagate said roughly 114 acres are already inside city limits and about 90 acres remain in Lee County. The applicant proposed a maximum density of 1.4 units per acre, yielding 299 dwelling units. - Commercial component: The applicant increased the proposed neighborhood-serving commercial to about 100,000 square feet, including space they illustrated for a grocery store footprint (about 40,000 square feet) and roughly 20,000 square feet of office. - Annexation and entitlements: The package includes three annexation petitions, a future-land-use map amendment and text changes to the Urban Fringe Community District. The applicant said the text amendment would limit density and tie certain development commitments to the planned-development zoning that would follow state review. - Impact fees and taxes: Seagate representatives said impact fees from the proposed development would be “north of $6,000,000” for the city; the applicant’s traffic consultant separately noted approximately $5,000,000 in road-impact fees specific to transportation mitigation.

Infrastructure, hydrology and stormwater claims

Jackie LaRocque, a professional engineer with Atwell, told the council the site has urban-size water and sewer mains (12–16 inches) available along Bonita Beach Road and that Bonita Springs Utilities had confirmed capacity for the proposed commercial and residential uses. LaRocque said the applicant has an approved ERP permit from the South Florida Water Management District and asserted the project’s stormwater design “is already designed to a higher standard” than Lee County’s because the city’s stormwater model incorporates Hurricane Irma peak stages.

David Brown, a hydrogeologist with Rispeck, described historical and current site conditions and the effects of prior mining. Brown said the property has been “highly disturbed” by mining and dredging and that two mine pits occupy approximately 27 acres and 11 acres (about 19% of the site). He described a proposed stormwater approach that routes treated water through the mining pits, distributes storage among multiple ponds, includes monitoring of dissolved oxygen and other water-quality parameters, and uses advanced lake management and master-controlled irrigation to reduce runoff and conserve water.

Environmental and species surveys

Christian Casey, an environmental consultant with Atwell, said the site is “primarily disturbed land, pine flatwoods and low-quality wetlands” and reported that protected-species surveys and acoustic bat surveys did not detect listed species; he stated, “No bonneted bats were utilizing this property.” Casey also said the South Florida Water Management District had reviewed the development footprint and issued an ERP permit.

Traffic and regional transportation context

Yuri Baikau, a traffic engineer with Sierra Transportation Consultants, said the applicant reduced the residential unit count from earlier proposals (from 585 to 388 to the present 299) and added commercial uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Baikau said the applicant’s 2025 traffic analysis used the city’s most recent peak-season counts and concluded nearby Bonita Beach Road would operate within the city’s adopted level-of-service standards. He said the development is projected to trigger a traffic signal at the eastern project entrance and that the developer would be responsible for any mitigations identified in follow-up traffic studies. Baikau also noted FDOT and the county still list a planned I‑75 widening project in FDOT’s work program and that the earliest occupied buildout of homes would occur in years when some I‑75 improvements would likely be under way.

Planning and policy context cited by the applicant

Attorney Neil Montgomery discussed the DRGR designation and cited city policies referenced in the staff report. Montgomery argued the county DRGR designation applicable to the unincorporated portion of the site differs from the city’s DRGR area and said state and regional water-supply planning have changed since the county map was drawn. He urged the council to consider the property’s distinct context, existing infrastructure and technical analyses when weighing whether to transmit the amendment for state review.

What the record shows and next steps

City staff told the council the hearing before the council is the transmittal step, where the council decides whether to transmit the amendment to state agencies for formal review; staff framed its role as providing analysis and noted the ultimate decision is a policy call for council. The transcript does not record a vote on the transmittal item in the excerpt provided; the meeting proceeded to schedule a 10-minute break before public comment on the item.

Other council action recorded earlier in the meeting

The council voted earlier in the meeting to allow Deputy Mayor Purdon to attend remotely. The roll-call vote recorded “Aye” from Council members listed in the transcript and the motion carried.

Council members and the public will have additional opportunities to ask questions and comment in the public-comment period and at subsequent hearings if the council votes to transmit the amendment to state reviewers. If transmitted, the amendment would enter the state review process before any adoption hearing, and the applicant would return with zoning and development-order applications that could include more detailed traffic, environmental and construction sequencing requirements.

(Reporting note: The transcript excerpt reviewed for this article covers the applicant’s presentations and technical testimony and ends before the public-comment period and any council action on transmittal.)