Commission continues NC Square PUD amendment after hourslong hearing over density, daycare and traffic

The Collier County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday continued consideration of a proposed amendment to the NC Square mixed‑use planned unit development after a multi‑hour public hearing that drew developers, county staff and dozens of residents.

The applicant, HAA Capital LLC, asked the board to amend the growth management plan and the NC Square PUD to reduce allowed commercial space from 44,400 square feet to 36,500 square feet, remove a 12,000‑square‑foot day care, and increase the maximum residential units from 129 to 205 by replacing the previously approved for‑sale townhomes with predominantly rental multifamily housing that would include income‑restricted units.

The applicant’s attorney, Rich Yovanovitch, said the change reflected market conditions and the county’s recent growth‑management amendments that allow affordable housing density bonuses in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. "Market conditions changed significantly with regard to the cost to construct residential units," Yovanovitch said. He told the board the revised plan would reduce the PUD’s PM‑peak trip cap from 467 to 267 two‑way trips, a reduction Yovanovitch and planner Jessica Harrelson said would meaningfully lower traffic impacts compared with what is currently permitted for the site.

Planner Jessica Harrelson described changes to buffers and setbacks intended to respond to neighboring concerns: the western perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to Valencia Trails was increased from 15 feet to 30 feet, residential setbacks adjacent to Valencia Trails and a southern preserve were increased (Harrelson said the Western setback minimum was increased to 100 feet), and the project limits townhomes as a permitted residential type, leaving multifamily as the residential form. Harrelson also described commitments to dark‑sky–compliant lighting, limits on outdoor amplified sound and a minimum initial lease term of eight months for multifamily units before month‑to‑month occupancy is allowed.

County staff recommended approval; the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. Zoning staff summarized that the proposed PUD amendment would reduce the project’s overall traffic compared with the currently approved plan and noted recent countywide changes that make the applicant’s request consistent with current policy.

Several Valencia Trails residents raised concerns about increased density, the change from owner‑occupied townhomes to rental apartments, the scale and height of four‑story buildings near a mostly single‑story community and specific text edits in the revised PUD. Marion Reardon, who said Valencia Trails residents collected signatures opposing the conversion, told the board: "We are asking that you stick to the owner occupied at the 120 or 129 townhomes." Lizette Scott flagged language she said removed wildfire‑resilience and rooftop material requirements from an exhibit and said the revised plan "struck out the requirement that roofs shall be constructed using class A, B, or C fire related materials." Applicant counsel and staff responded that wildfire‑mitigation requirements and updated standard conditions remain in place and that the PUD language had been modernized to match current county practice.

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant detailed questions about monitoring of income restrictions, the child capacity of the previously approved daycare (staff said the approved daycare could accommodate approximately 250 children), vehicular access and whether Valencia Trails could have an interconnection to commercial uses. The applicant said monitoring of income‑restricted units would follow the county’s existing affordable‑housing monitoring program and that the project would reserve a share of units for households at or below specified AMI thresholds (the applicant proposed 15% at up to 80% AMI and 15% at up to 100% AMI of the total units).

After extended discussion, Commissioner McDaniel moved to continue the item to the board’s May 13 meeting to allow the applicant and staff to refine options and provide additional analysis; the motion passed unanimously. No final land‑use approvals were made at Tuesday’s meeting.

Why it matters: the amendment would change the site’s long‑term housing type and the balance of commercial services in a corridor where commissioners and residents have raised recurring concerns about traffic, emergency access and the pace of growth. The applicant and county staff say the change would deliver more rental and income‑restricted units while reducing peak hour traffic compared with the project as currently entitled; residents counter that the character and capacity of the neighborhood would change.

What’s next: the item will return to the board on May 13. The applicant and county staff will provide updated traffic, affordability and design analyses and consider alternatives the commission requested during Tuesday’s discussion.