The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 11/06/2014 R COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 6, 2014 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 6, 2014, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM,ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Special meeting AUIR/CIE September 26,2014,October 2,2014 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS— 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PL20140000113/CP-2014-: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Ordinance 89-05,as amended,specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to increase the maximum allowable residential density that may be achieved in the urban residential fringe portion of the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Residential Planned Unit Development from 2.5 units per acre utilizing Transfer of Development Rights ("TDRs") to 4 units per acre utilizing TDRs, and to allow the transfer of residential density to the San Marino Residential Planned Unit Development from property more than one (1) mile from the urban boundary and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject 196-acre property is located east of Collier Boulevard approximately 1-1/2 miles north of Rattlesnake-Hammock 1 Road in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP,principal planner] B. PUDZ-PL20140000340: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural(A)zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to allow development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951)and north of Bucks Run Drive in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida, consisting of 10+ acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 1 Agenda Item 9A COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 2014 CYCLE 1 AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Project/Petition: #PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 .n...- ALLIGATOR ALLEY • I-75/COLIJER EAST vO COOMMERCIAL PLAZA N.,TOLL (6.R.84) �� WESTPORT CENTER R.V. PLAZA - Q' COMMERCE O OV- E:).: CENTER _ > 3 2 1 6 CO . FOREST GLEN CEDAR d OF NAPLES — HAMMOCK W J J 0 PROJECT NAPLES HERITAGE LOCATION ----- - GCLF AND COUNTRY CLUB (LT 'T CU.[] HACIENDA LAKES NAPLES NATIONAL (DRI) GOLF CLUB 10 11 12 7 WILLOW RUN (P) HOMES OF ISLANDIA LASIP CONSERVATION AREA NAPLES LAKES IMMAIRST ASSEMBLY DRI COUNTRY 15 MINISTRIES MINISTRIES 14 HACIENDA LAKES I 13 18 CCPC: November 06, 2014 BCC: December 09, 2014 Clerk of Court TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC— 2014 Cycle 1 GMP Transmittal Amendment CCPC November 06, 2014 AGENDA 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 2) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A" text (and/or maps): PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 3) TAB: N.I.M. DOCUMENTS: Night Information Meeting Affidavit & Letter to surrounding Property Owners 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Legal Advertisement 5) TAB: Petition DOCUMENT: Project PL20140000113/ Petition CP-2014-2 Agenda Item 9.A. Co e-r Covi.- Lty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: November 6, 2014 SUBJECT: PETITION CP-2014-2/ PL-2014-0000113, Growth Management Plan Amendment (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) APPLICANTS/OWNERS/AGENTS: Stock Development H & LD Venture, LLC do Keith Gelder do Joe Boff 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 11145 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34110 Naples, Florida 34113 HCN Foundation Habitat for Humanity of Collier Co., Inc. Landstrasse 11 11145 Tamiami Trail East Triesen, Liechtenstein Naples, Florida 34113 Alexis V. Crespo,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Naples, Florida 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is within the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) and comprises approximately 196 acres of the 235-acre PUD. It is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard (CR 84), 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864), north and east of the developed portion of the San Marino PUD, north and west of the proposed Willow Run PUD (now Willow Run Sand & Gravel) and, south of Forest Glen Golf & Country Club PUD, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East (Royal Fakapalm Planning Community). REQUESTED ACTIONS: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the Growth Management Plan to introduce two site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. The first amends the URF Subdistrict provisions themselves, while the second amends the way density transfers are permitted by Density Bonuses' provisions of the FLUE Density Sating System. - 1 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. Properties located within the URF may only receive TDR density transfers from the RFMUD Sending Lands located within one (1) mile of the URF boundary. Stated differently, TDR credits may be transferred from any RFMUD Sending Lands to any RFMUD Receiving Lands and Urban area receiving lands except that TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond 1 mile of the URF boundary cannot be transferred into the URF. Part of this proposed amendment will allow the transfer of TDR credits originating more distant than one (1) mile from the URF boundary for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD, which is located in the URF. Presently, properties located within the URF may receive the above-described TDR transfers at up to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (DU/A) via the transfer of one TDR per acre. Stated differently, the maximum residential URF density may be increased from 1.5 DU/A to 2.5 DU/A utilizing TDRs through the Density Rating System. Part of this proposed amendment will allow the transfer of TDR credits at up to 2.5 DU/A for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD (increasing density from 1.5 DU/A to 4 DU/A). Adoption of these amendments will grant new rights exclusive to the San Marino property to utilize two and one-half times more TDRs from distant RFMUD Sending Lands than other development in the URF. (CP-2014-2 Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petition's proposed text changes; staff text alternatives are located under Staff Recommendation at end of this Report.) SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Site: The 196.4-acre subject site is zoned San Marino PUD; that total (235 acres) PUD is approved for 352 multi-family units, golf course, and 103 acres of preserves. Of the 352 approved DUs, 350 DUs are built on 39 acres. The undeveloped 196.4-acre subject site is designated in the PUD as golf course and preserve. The PUD's gross density is 1.5 DU/A (352 DUs/235 acres) and net density is 8.98 DU/A(350 built DUs/39 acres). The subject site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map. This site does not abut the RFMUD to the east. The transitional Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) allows a maximum gross density of 1.5 DU/A, or 2.5 DU/A through use of TDR Credits (1.5 DU/A base density + 1.0 DU/A TDR Credits = 2.5 DU/A maximum). The maximum gross density (1.5 DU/A) approved in San Marino PUD has been used except for 2 DUs (350/352 DUs built). San Marino PUD site (235 acres)- Eligible Density Existing Conditions No. of Acres Density Total No. of DUs 235 Base 1.5 DU/A 353 235 TDRs 1.0 DU/A 235 Total Eligible 2.5 DU/A 588 (approved for 352 DUs) Proposed No. of Acres Density Total No. of DUs 235 Base 1.5 DU/A 353 39 (developed apartment site) TDRs 1.0 DU/A 39 196.4 (undeveloped subject site) TDRs 2.5 DU/A 491 Total Eligible 39 acs. @ 2.5 DU/A\\ 883* 196.4 acs. @ 4.0 DU/A * Likely maximum of 844 DUs, as the 39-acre site is built-out with a 350-unit apartment complex. - 2 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. Surrounding Lands: North: A large portion of bounding lands to the north of the subject site is zoned PUD (Forest Glen of Naples PUD, approved for a variety of commercial uses (100,000 sq. ft. on 10 acres), residential uses (799 residential units), golf course (70 acres), essential services (including fire station site), and 385 acres of preserve and open space. Of the 799 approved DUs, 769 DUs have been built; the golf course and fire station are also built. The PUD's gross density is 1.28 DU/A (799 DUs/625 noncommercial acres) and the net density is 4.52 DU/A (769 built DUs/170 acres. The portion generally west of an FPL ROW is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, which allows agricultural uses, single-family residential at a maximum density of 1 DU per 5 acres [0.2 units per acre], and a variety of institutional and recreational uses subject to the conditional use process; these A-zoned lands are undeveloped. All of these lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map. West: Land to the west of the subject site [across CR 951] is zoned PUD (Naples National Golf Club), approved for residential uses (24 DUs/guest suites), a golf course and 184 acres of preserve/conservation. Of the 24 approved units, 12 have been built, as well as the golf course. The PUD's gross density is 0.075 DU/A(24 DUs/320 acres). The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: A portion of bounding lands to the south of the subject site is zoned San Marino PUD and developed with Aventine at Naples apartments (350 units built out of 352 total approved in the PUD). The portion generally east of an FPL ROW is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for an earth materials extraction operation, and developed as the Willow Run Quarry. The Willow Run property is pending PUD approval for 590 dwelling units (1.06 units per acre), associated recreational uses, and preserves. These lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map. East: Land to the east of the subject site is also zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for an earth materials extraction operation, and developed as the Willow Run Quarry. The Willow Run property is pending PUD approval for 590 dwelling units (1.06 units per acre), associated recreational uses, and preserves; it is partly located in the URF and partly in RFMUD Sending Lands. These Sending Lands do not abut the subject site to the west. The Future Land Use designation is also Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF). In summary, the existing land uses in the area immediately surrounding or directly opposite the subject PUD are predominately rural non-residential in nature to the east, and residential to the west, north and [pending] south. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations - History of the Rural Fringe GMP Amendments: The Governor and Cabinet issued a Final Order on June 22, 1999, pertaining to GMP amendments adopted in 1997 pursuant to the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The Final Order required the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Assessment for the Rural and Conservation Designated lands within the County, and then adopt measures to protect natural resources such as wetlands, wildlife and their habitats, and prevent the premature conversion of unique agricultural lands to other uses. This was to be accomplished while directing incompatible land uses away from these sensitive lands by employing creative land planning techniques. - 3 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. The Final Order allowed the County to conduct this Assessment in phases. Accordingly, the County divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Rural Lands Area. Relevant to this petition, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) was established. The RFMUD represents a transitional area between Golden Gate Estates and the County's urban area, and between the urban area and vast agricultural lands and agricultural operations farther to the east. The RFMUD consists of approximately 73,222 acres and is divided into three distinct designations: Sending Lands (±41,535 acres originally; ± 41,414 acres now), Receiving Lands (± 22,020 acres originally; ± 22,373 acres now), and Neutral Lands (± 9,667 acres originally; ± 9,427 acres now). Allowable uses, density, and preservation standards vary by designation. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The preservation standard for non-NRPA Sending Lands is eighty percent (80%) of the native vegetation on site while the standard for NRPA Sending Lands is ninety percent (90%). Density is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record (created on or before June 22, 1999). Transfer of development rights from Sending Lands may occur at a rate of 1 dwelling unit per five acres (0.2 du/ac.) [later increased to account for each of three types of TDR bonus credits thereby allowing a maximum transfer of 0.8 TDR credits per 5 acres] or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot / parcel of record. Permitted non-residential uses are limited to: agricultural uses, consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act; habitat preservation and conservation uses; passive parks and other passive recreational uses; sporting and recreational camps; limited essential services; and oil extraction and related processing. Receiving Lands are those lands identified as being the most appropriate for development and to which residential units may be received from areas designated as Sending Lands. The preservation standard for Receiving Lands, except for the North Belle Meade Overlay, is forty percent (40%) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total site area to be preserved. The base residential density (non-Rural Village development) is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2 du/ac.) or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record. The maximum density achievable for non-Rural Village development is 1 dwelling unit per acre, through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The minimum and maximum density for Rural Village development within Receiving Lands is 2 and 3 dwelling units per acre, respectively, except that the minimum density for Rural Village development on Receiving Lands within the North Belle Meade Overlay is 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Permitted non-residential uses are primarily the same as those uses permitted in the agricultural zoning district prior to the Final Order (e.g. full range of agricultural uses, community facilities, recreational uses, etc.). Neutral Lands are those lands suitable for semi-rural residential development. Generally, Neutral lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but do not have values approaching those in the Sending Lands. The preservation standard for Neutral Lands is sixty percent (60%) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the total site area to be preserved. The maximum residential density is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2 du/ac.) or legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record. These lands are "neutral" to the TDR program and do not generate or receive residential density. Permitted non-residential uses are primarily the same as the uses permitted in the agricultural zoning district prior to the Final Order (e.g. full range of agricultural uses, community facilities, recreational uses, etc.). The consultant who assisted in development of the RFMUD TDR program found a correlation between the proximity of properties lying east of CR 951 and their land values. The higher transitional/residential densities allowed in the Urban Residential Fringe affected these nearer lands with higher property values while more-distant Sending Lands - which are less dense, - 4 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. further removed from urban services, less acceptable, and so forth - revealed notably lower values. This geographical relationship was recognized and specific limitations established to bolster TDR values for the more proximate lands, and provided special arrangements for the transfer, redemption and use of TDRs. The consultant also directly addressed the TDR program, and predicted the haste which requests to change the program to benefit only a few, or single, landowners would appear. The County was cautioned to keep the TDR program intact [for a substantial period of time]. Changes weaken the program, diminish TDR values and discourage the viability of long-term continuing participation. Applicant's Justifications: (Refer to application "Exhibit P", Amendment Justification Narrative) The justifications asserted in the application for the proposed amendments [with staff assessments]are: 1) The proposed amendment furthers the RFMUD goal to preserve Sending Lands by providing additional opportunities for TDRs to be utilized by Receiving Lands; [Staff Assessment: Not acknowledged » Creating additional demand for TDRs may only accelerate the timing of TDR severances, thus the timing of Sending Lands' protection - but the goal to protect Sending Lands may be met without any need for change. With respect to utilization of TDRs by Receiving Lands, this GMPA will not result in TDRs being used in RFMUD Receiving Lands but does create opportunity for more TDRs to be used in URF receiving lands.] 2) Will further the objectives of the TDR program by increasing demand for TDRs; [Staff Assessment: Acknowledged; However, no net benefits are gained for the TDR program - this amendment will result in increased demand for TDRs in one area (Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from URF)], while simultaneously resulting in decreased demand for them in another (Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF); creating additional demand for TDRs may accelerate the redemption of TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from the URF while decelerating the redemption of TDR credits from Sending Lands within 1 mile of the URF.] 3) Will allow for a compact and contiguous development pattern along a major arterial thoroughfare with available public services and infrastructure; [Staff Assessment: Acknowledged; However, the Urban Residential Fringe is intended for and developed with lower, "transitional" residential densities; A more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the higher, proposed density] 4) Will be compatible with adjacent developments, both existing and proposed; and, [Staff Assessment: Cannot Be Ascertained » Compatibility issues are more specifically addressed in the consideration of rezone requests; However, potential compatibility issues accompany the higher residential density in an area intended for lower, transitional density] 5) Will recognize that sufficient "qualified" Sending Lands are not available to support the development potential in the URF. [Staff Assessment: Acknowledged » Potential development in the URF would ultimately demand approximately twice the number of TDRs available from "qualified" - 5 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. Sending Lands; However, the number of TDRs available from "qualified" Sending Lands is sufficient at this time.] Generally, only some of these justifications support the petition, while others are arguably too generalized, characterize attributes that would be applicable to other properties, or cannot be ascertained. TDR Credits-Supply/Demand and How Proposed to Transfer into San Marino: Of all Sending Lands, only those located within one mile of the Urban designated area qualify to transfer TDR credits into the transitional Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF). 1,804 estimated total TDR credits in [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Area - 721 number of TDR credits from [qualified] Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area already committed to URF use = 1,083 number of potential TDR credits in [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area remaining for URF use Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) lands can make use of the TDR credits available from [qualified]Sending Lands, as follows: 2,177 potential demand for TDR credits in URF - 1,083 estimated potential, available TDR credits in Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF = 1,034 approximate unmet need of TDR credits for URF use Potentially, residential development in the URF needing approximately 1,034 TDR credits may be underdeveloped due to the existing prohibition on transferring TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond one mile of the URF boundary; that is, the potential demand for 1,034 TDR credits created by URF lands may go unmet as there is a potential shortage of 1,034 TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within 1 mile of the URF boundary. The subject GMP amendment would satisfy a portion of that potential unmet need for TDRs. If approved as submitted, all Sending Lands would become eligible to transfer TDRs to the San Marino PUD, not just those within one mile of the URF boundary. This would have two effects: artificially amplifying demand for[unqualified] TDRs generated from Sending Lands greater than 1 mile from the URF, while simultaneously suppressing demand for [qualified] TDRs generated from Sending Lands within 1 mile from the URF. Also, this part of the amendment further increases the (potential) devaluation of TDRs generated from Sending Lands within one mile of the URF by increasing the supply of eligible TDRs - introduced with previously-approved transfers of unqualified TDRs into the URF [Hacienda Lakes, and Naples Reserve]. These two development locations are distinctly different from one another, and both are uniquely different from the San Marino site. They are properties lying in more than one Future Land Use designation. The San Marino site does not straddle two different Land Use Designations and lies entirely within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. This project does not abut the RFMUD to the east. There are three provisions in the FLUE for achieving additional density in the URF beyond the base 1.5 DU/A, and only one applicable to San Marino- 1 DU/A through use of TDRs for a maximum of 2.5 DU/A. The second provision is a unique instance of this cap being "lifted" above 2.5 DU/A for the Hacienda Lakes of Naples PUD. This 2,262-acre project site covers three Future Land Use designations (URF Subdistrict, qualified Sending Lands and unqualified Sending Lands - under unified control - and achieves a 2.8 DU/A maximum density with TDR transfers from both qualified Sending Lands and unqualified Sending Lands within the project. That unique "lift" was determined to have no - 6 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, nor would it affect its surrounding lands. The third provision is specific to the Rockedge PUD for provision of affordable housing. No other development is approved to exceed the maximum 2.5 DU/A density. With the 1964-acre portion of San Marino PUD, the maximum allowable density would be increased by 2.5 DU/A through use of TDRs to 4.0 DU/A. The existing San Marino PUD was approved in 2000 for 352 dwelling units - based on the entire (parent) 235.3 acres - yielding 1.5 DU/ac. As described in the PUD document, 350 units of this residential development was clustered on 39 acres - and now known as "Aventine at Naples", or San Marino Apartments. This part of the San Marino PUD is where its 1.5 DU/A are clustered. All but two units of this approved density have been developed, and only these units derived from base density are still to be utilized from the parent acreage. With the transfer of TDRs to the entire San Marino property, it would have been possible to achieve up to another 235 buildable dwelling units -for a total of 588 DUs. But the developed 39 acre portion of San Marino has changed hands and this number of units cannot be achieved. The remaining 196.4 acres of the property have already generated 1.5 DU/A as part of the entire PUD; therefore, utilizing the existing FLUE provision to increase density by 1 DU/A using TDRs, the subject 196.4 acres can be developed with 196 DUs. The requested density retains this connection to each acre of the 196.4 acres to be developed at up to 4.0 units per acre (1.5 DU/A approved and developed as part of entire PUD x 196.4 acres = 295 DUs; requested 2.5 DU/A to be derived by TDR credits x 196.4 acres = 491 DUs). All future development (491 DUs) will be derived from TDRs severed elsewhere and transferred here. The present request for an additional 491 dwelling units is based exclusively on the undeveloped 196.4-acre portion of the property. The request to receive TDRs is already allowed by the FLUE, but at a rate of 1 DU/A, not 2.5 DU/A. Direct relationships, or nexus, can be established for considering the additional density stipulated upon where this density is originated -from qualified Sending Lands or unqualified Sending Lands. The direct relationship exists between the already allowed 1 DU/A and qualified Sending Lands; the other relationship is between the additional 1.5 DU/A and unqualified Sending Lands. Provided below are summaries of residential (or mixed use) developments along the Collier Blvd. corridor from Davis Blvd. south to Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, as well as the PUDs partially in the transitional URF approved to utilize TDR credits. The first table identifies PUDs located in the one-mile corridor on the west side of CR 951 / Collier Boulevard. These developments lie in the Urban Residential Subdistrict, where a base density of 4 DU/A is allowed and potentially up to 16 DU/A with density bonuses. West Side of Collier Blvd. • Cedar Hammock 799 DU 1.91 DU/A gross density • Naples Heritage Golf& CC 799 DU 1.43 DU/A gross density • Naples National Golf Club 26 DU 0.08 DU/A gross density • Homes of Islandia 28 DU 0.18 DU/A gross density • Naples Lakes CC 731 DU 1.56 DU/A gross density The table above reflects densities in developments on the west side of CR 951 / Collier Boulevard ranging from less than 1 DU/A to 1.91 DU/A. The second table (below) identifies PUDs located in the one-mile corridor on the east side of CR 951 / Collier Boulevard. These developments lie in the Urban Residential Fringe designated area, where lower, transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area allow up to 1.5 DU/A without / 2.5 DU/A with utilizing TDRs. Also included in this table is the Naples Reserve PUD that is located partially in the URF and approved to use TDRs. - 7 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. East Side of Collier Blvd. • Forest Glen of Naples 799 DU 1.28 DU/A gross density • Willow Run [pending] 590 DU 1.06 DU/A gross density • San Marino PUD 352 DU 1.5 DU/A gross density • Hacienda Lakes of Naples (DRI) 1,760 DU 0.82 DU/A gross density* • Naples Reserve 1,154 DU 1.68 DU/A gross density* * = Portion of PUD is within RFMUD; Hacienda Lakes is allowed density in URF at 2.8 DU/A via use of TDRs. The table above reflects densities in developments on the east side of CR 951 / Collier Boulevard ranging from approximately 1 DU/A to 1.68 DU/A. All densities on the west side of CR 951 are less than or equal 1.91 DU/A, and all densities on the east side of CR 951 are less than or equal 1.68 DU/A. One purpose of the URF Subdistrict is to provide an area where transitional densities are intended to demarcate the Urban Designated Area from the Agricultural/Rural Area. The URF Subdistrict has existed since the 1989 GMP adoption - while the RFMUD TDR program was adopted in 2002. It is important to note that the URF's purposes and intents as a transition existed before there was a TDR allowance here. Originally, the URF was devised as a transition from 4 DU/A [in Urban area] to 1 DU/5A [in the Agricultural/Rural designation]. But in 2002, the nature of this transition changed. The URF now provides an even greater transition from 4 DU/A [in Urban area] to 1 DU/40A in RFMUD designated Sending Lands. It is even more important to note that the use of TDRs in the URF is only related to transitional density in that the allowed 2.5 DU/A is still less dense than the base density of 4 DU/A on west side of CR 951; and to be reminded that the San Marino site is not located at the URF/RFMUD Sending Lands boundary. In contrast with the purposes and intents of the URF Subdistrict, the San Marino request imposes higher densities found only in the Urban designated area - and unintended for the URF. This density increase has a measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, and would affect its surrounding lands. If approved, the Urban-density San Marino project begins to fragment the URF's "transitional" nature. Environmental Impacts, including Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Collier County Department of Natural Resources personnel reviewed this petition and provided the following analysis: The majority of the site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Approximately 71 percent of the site (139.50 acres) contains State and Federal jurisdiction wetlands. A listed species survey was conducted by the environmental consultant in February, 2014. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey. Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) scratch and bite trees were observed on the property during the listed species survey. Although recently delisted by the State of Florida, the Florida black bear is still protected under the Florida Black Bear Management Plan. In addition to listed wildlife species, the project site was also surveyed for plants listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Two listed plant species were identified on the property, - 8 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) and hand fern (Ophioglossum palmatum). In accordance with the requirements of the LDC, up to ten individuals of these species may be required to be relocated, into proposed preserves if the preserves do not contain these species and are able to support the species of plants. Correspondence received from the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and cultural resources within Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. The proposed GMP amendment to allow TDRs to be transferred to the San Marino Residential PUD from any lands designated Sending in the RFMUD will have no affect on the requirements of the CCME and will support the intent of the TDR program by directing development away from environmentally sensitive Sending Lands. [Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Surface Water&Environmental Planning Section] Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: The net new trips, while significant on CR 951, do not indicate that they would cause adverse impacts. The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element, and as such, no mitigation would be required within the project's area of significant impacts to accommodate the identified impacts on network capacity. The project's significant impacts are found only on the first link of CR 951. These significant impacts are expected from 183 Southbound trips (6.10% impact), and 104 Northbound Trips (3.47% impact). In this case, only the 104 northbound trips are of interest in reviewing the project for consistency with the Transportation Element, as this is the peak direction of the network. No other subsequent impacts are expected to exceed the 2% (or consequent 3%) threshold(s). [John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager Transportation Planning Section] Public Facilities Impact: The San Marino PUD is within the Collier County Water and Sewer District. Public Utilities staff does not have any preliminary issues with respect to the proposed amendment. Commitments will be reviewed and requested as part of any PUD [or PUD amendment] applications. [Kris Van Lengen, Principal Project Manager Public Utilities Planning & Project Management Dept.] NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Meeting Rm. "A", located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately 15 people other than the application team and County staff attended - and heard the following information: The applicant's agent provided a description of the proposed GMP amendments to the group, including how the transfer of TDRs will be allowed to the undeveloped golf course portion of the San Marino PUD located in the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) from Rural Fringe Mixed Used District Sending Lands. An overview of the PUD application and development plans were also provided. Some of the details given of the planned development include the introduction of a new access point onto CR 951 for its main entry. The conceptual master plan showed how on-site preserve areas - 9 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. buffer the closest residences located in the Forest Glen community; and how the future San Marino residential areas are buffered by adjacent Forest Glen preserve areas. The applicant's agent explained the hearing process for the Transmittal phase of the request and reviewed an anticipated hearing schedule for the Adoption phase of the request along with the companion PUD amendment. Questions were taken from those in attendance [and addressed], covering topics such as if and how signalization would be required and introduced at a new CR 951 intersection with the main entrance [when warranted, along with specific directional traffic controls]; configuration of new lakes and water management facilities, along with the permits required and construction timing [3 large lakes permitted through SFWMD]; types of residences to be offered, price points, floor areas and construction phasing [mix of market rate units phased to meet demand]; whether any commercial development is proposed [it is not]; and, the configuration of walls at project boundaries and along CR 951 [with requested deviations explained]. No one in attendance expressed opposition to the changes. The meeting was completed by 6:05 p.m. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The following findings and conclusions result from the reviews and analyses of this request: • Correlating amendments to the San Marino PUD may be submitted subsequent to, or concurrent with the Adoption phase of this GMPA application. • Staff does not have preliminary Public Utilities issues with respect to the proposed amendment. • The part of the GMP amendment allowing the transfer of TDR derived residential density from more than one (1) mile from the Urban Boundary to the undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD would satisfy a portion of the potential unmet need in the Urban Residential Fringe for TDR credits. • The proposed GMP amendment will have no affect on the requirements of the CCME and will support the intent of the TDR program by directing development away from environmentally sensitive Sending Lands. • The majority of the site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the CCME. Native vegetation preservation may not change from this amendment, while Goals of the RFMUD may be met without any need for change. • This amendment will result in increased demand for TDRs in one area [Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from URF] but decreased demand for them in another [Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF]-while no net benefits are gained for the TDR program. • Impact upon the TDR program could be noteworthy. A number of TDR credits originally intended for use in areas of RFMUD designated Receiving Lands will be redirected to the Urban Residential Fringe - a reallocation of TDR credits. • The number of TDRs available from "qualified" Sending Lands is sufficient at this time. • This GMP amendment increases the potential devaluation of TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within one mile of the URF. - 10 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. • The Urban Residential Fringe is intended for, and developed with, lower "transitional" residential densities, and a more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the proposed higher density. • Potential compatibility issues accompany the higher residential density in an area intended for lower, transitional density. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney and has been approved as to form and legality. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2014-2, as submitted, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Staff does, however recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text provisions allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary, modified to incorporate non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity, etc.; resolving formatting problems introduced by the UPPER CASE underlined legal description proposed by petitioner through the complete replacement with the more suitable version below; and, removing the increase to the maximum allowable residential density that may be achieved. Note: Words underlined are added - as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words cialk4e=r2Ar=uekAhr=abog14 are deleted - as proposed by staff. [Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5(6)b.1., and either "a" Of"b" or"c" below: **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below:,} ors c. _- _-=-_--•_-_> ___- _ = -_ _ _ =_ --_ __ = __ = -- • _=- __-..._- • fThe undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East shall not be subiect to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10 excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 1/2 of the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest IA of Section 11, and in the Northwest %a of the Southwest %4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. - 11 - CP-2014-2/ PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 49] **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11 Township 50 South, Range 26 East, as further described in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. IF the Planning Commission chooses to recommend transmittal of the petition so as to allow use of TDRs from unqualified Sending Lands and to allow increased density, staff recommends the following revisions to the applicant's proposed text (for proper code language, format, clarity, etc., including a replacement property description, AND to require partial use of qualified TDRs: Note: Words underlined are added — as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words eieulate=stfuek=tlifebig14 are deleted — as proposed by staff. [Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5(6)b.1., and either"a" or"b" or"c" below: **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below,T} or, c. Up to 2.5 units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East via the transfer of 2.5 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall be subject to the one mile limitation_set forth above for the first forty percent (40%) of TDRs used (1 DU/A) — 12 — CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. but shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above ftel may 4t:lize for up to sixty_percent (60%) of TDRs j1.5 DU/A) used, which may be derived from arty more-distant lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That •ortion of the San Marino Planned Unit Develo•ment described in Ordinance No. 2000-10 excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 49] **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and ma utilize u. to sixt_.ercent 60% of TDRs from ate€ more-distant lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,to achieve u• to the maximum allowable densit increase. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] - 13 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. PREPARED BY: 40 • • DATE: 40 OCI I CORBY SCH IDT,AICP, PRI CIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT R VIEWED i-✓ DATE:: — 20 ,ir DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: ✓=,r'�' '� � DATE: I,;, MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPR. D BY: /// V / - DATE: NI CASALANGUIDA, •a "7 ISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION PETITION No.: CP-2014-2/PL-20140000113 Staff Report for the November 6, 2014, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the December 9, 2014, BCC Meeting. -�9-- CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2,Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD �J RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THAT MAY BE ACHIEVED IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE PORTION OF THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ("TDRS") TO 4 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TDRS, AND TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM PROPERTY MORE THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT 196-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20140000113/CP-2014-2] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Petitioner, Stock Development, initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and [14-CMP-00934/1124908/1]-18 1 of 2 Rev. 10/15/14 Words underlined are additions; Words stfuelE-thr-augh are deletions *** *** *** *** area break in text bi3 [YU WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184,F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty(30)days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty(180)days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184,F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit"A" [14-CMP-00934/1124908/1]- 18 2 of 2 Rev. 10/15/14 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions *** *** *** *** are a break in text EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT [Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a"Of"b" or"c" below: a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below.-- or c. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East via the transfer of 2.5 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: 2 THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 344.19 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH % OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.87°55'08"E., A DISTANCE OF 100.13 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1032.30 FEET, BEING 100.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SAID WEST LINE; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°04'51'E.,A DISTANCE OF 1234.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°49'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1371.72 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.66 FEET, TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.62 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.00°47'44"W., A DISTANCE OF 2723.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST TO WEST 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°51 '54"W., A DISTANCE OF 2669.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SECTION 11, N.00049'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 342.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°55'08"W., A DISTANCE 1234.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 3 [Page 49] B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation). 2. Density Bonuses Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and the undeveloped 4 portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, as further described in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. 5 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance 17--)) (Signature Applic t) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this .9- day of 41c,ys ao._ 2014 by A\Q j(,I S C re s 0 , who " personall . own to me .r who has produced as identification. Az �, tea} (Signature of N Public) (Notary Seal) &.p;` \D \3nys Printed Name of Notary ,, y QUILLIAN JONES,III . NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA • 1; 'w Coma*EE099159 Expires$11/2015 G:1NIM Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance-NIM Oct2010.Doc • ,yh NEIL BO iI . t INFORMATION EET[t •The public is.invited to attend a neighborhood in* tatrort;rti lied, ich and Yovanovich of Coleman;Yovanvoich.f.ifore'stey,'z:-..1 A.aria Alexis` s(Sg kIGP,,of,'- NAPLES DAILY NEWS • ,..:-.Waldrop Engineering, P.A.on behalf.of_the ,ow er: 4the fo}ow1 g and Published Daily .location: -. . ` '' x Naples,FL 34110 t Tuesday;October;21,•2b14 at 5 3 3, ti Collier County South Regienal libj;-'tmg'Room, A _ r .0 `°d.° Affidavit of Publical: 8 065 Lely Cultural iva Naps a i � . State of Florida The subject property totals 235th ac 'rjd located ontthe,'east side.of,,'Cpter Blvd., approximately 1 1/2 miles.north-9 Filattles rat®H7,..,.ioclt gad iit egtb niter < • Counties of Collier and Lee J Township 50.South, Range 26 East,•G r r C urity,Fonda. Ttie,prpp k�,l$-. C1B 7;: a diately north of the Aventine at Naples parent•comp cx �'he ?9.R$rt�at 01:1, t1 s,• made two (2) concurrent applications Collier County T;iese application include,`T wL M^ . K'd3y Before the undersigned they serve a:' the following: x ,q,F x t r appeared Daniel McDermott,who o: ' ` erg � (1)A Growth Management Plan Ame .erjt t:. .. �to alloaw tlae i 7 rrs4er x Inside Sales Manager of the Naples I able Development Rights(TDRs)fro s S--ending Lairds Iodated more-than I'riil �� newspaper published at Naples, m C from the Urban Boundary,and utilize se T,D,) 3Q achl8ve a die s distributed in Collier and Lee counti per acre per the Urban Residential'Fn :.e flistnci A D - k : attached copy of the advertising,bell (2) A Planned Unit Development/irrt drrient PUDA to Trent-theaag Ma d Planned Unit Development approv pelf*Drdmance 2000 1G pt in Tease-the , PUBLIC NOTICE maximum number of dwelling units 52 to 441,43,to remove t e etar.u er'' uses, to revise the Master Plan to d certain Permitted (Isesf l iefe Standards and Deviationskattd`o` ieTorerrrrre� n in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE , ,Y t "'.@�� `� :3 ��f ` �- fr °2 :. . was published in said newspaper 1 ti "�"" -, -4"( ;* w.. 4,_on September 29,2014. 1,.. ..i.;_, _... °j'� _ 4 l Affiant further says that the said N�` &.- _ , - published at Naples,in said Collier C newspaper has heretofore been contir\ County,Florida;distributed in Collie ' ._ each day and has been entered as sec f. ,, - , office in Naples,in said Collier Count.. M ::...:1,.:." . year next preceding the first publicat - advertisement;and affiant further say _l. r' ` 0-Wsl i promised any person, firm or corpora. . , - j f-E.k: " ,,` , W4 , commission or refund for the purpose �� "� publication ..':: F•, T L i.f ry p idxbe said newspaper. VI/E'vALU XIi3tEfE1liLE h t1� ,GSM" 7 Business and property owners and residents are wetcometoattend,l pr'bs 1rrt,y` �/` �� and discuss the project with the owner representatives°and Mier' <If f (Signature of affiant � you are unable to attend this meefrng,b ; ve�q a inns or,comments a del 3 ir directed to: ' • Waldrop Engineering;PA c/o Alexis Gresp ;A : Y �� z Sw to and s.bs ribed before me 28100 Bonita Grande Dr.,Suite 305,Bonita Springs 1=i.3t Thu 3rd day of I (239)405-7777,ext,2 of c c " ` b 2014 Q7.:•:0'. .ekisc�widrt� ee l . t� i "Please note that Collier county P bflc .2-does n F fi - � No.231123847 . r J29 201' - - T� t(Signature of notary public) • °°'• POLIDORA •'!' i MY COMMISSION#EE 851758 • 9c o EXPIRES:November 28,2014 '�,oF F�`�� Bonded ThN PCMard Insurance Agency I WALDROP ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS /1N �_ :.i t �in,'G*.e, .__� -.,..t,_,,: _-..r_� s.a{,i •, September 26,2014 RE: San Marino GMPA-PL20140000113 PUDA-PL20140000100 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. on behalf of the property owner has made two (2) concurrent applications to Collier County. These applications include: (1) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) to allow the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) from Sending Lands located more than 1 mile from the Urban Boundary, and utilize these TDR to achieve a density of 4.0 units per acre per the Urban Residential Fringe District; AND (2) to amend the San Marino Planned Unit Development approved per Ordinance 2000-10, to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 352 to 843,to remove the golf course uses, to revise the Master Plan, to add certain Permitted Uses, Development Standards and Deviations, and to revise Developer Commitments. The subject property totals 235+/-acres and is located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, east of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) and approximately 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road.The property is immediately north of the Aventine at Naples apartment complex. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this applications and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library,Meeting Room "A",8065 Lely Cultural Parkway,Naples,FL 34113. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at(239)405-7777 ext. 207, or a1exise c \'a1droD no.iIlei?i'!!l_*.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING,P.A. Crnito Alexis V. Crespo,AICP Principal Planner *Please note that Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program. Qll , :O 1 a ' s d a I` Ae" ♦t MI 411101 I Idl o� Z 1 ),Iiirli4 ::::::::.:.:::::,::•:::•::::::::::::::::,::::,,,,,,,,,„:,„::„,,,,,,„„,,::,„,„: . - is • •-- z g >:;w s gird ; Y O '..'1.1.!.::1.7:::1:.::!.,::::.i:!:.:III!.1'!:::::!ii 0 ass vo) rao� N 'w F F- �� C j I'=CC:C::C::7777777: a � ` 1y1 Ill 1 N CC TV=W IOW aI D a. i It j ZI Lo 0 W 1-Z a 'O o i L' I� _ do gg J 3 Iii Is n^ _N._f rl-tfi Cl. iJ g 1 It ` V 1 K Oar kh g gip' ht= �, 0 gij _..... Z •, il 01/. . +,02 1L W W • Q i 1 °08'4g\" gg $f F Q� : p 9 1 �i �� B of `� r ice — s _.11,ar I # _Q g L -- 11 I I o+z p oo , ��, m ' ION �! a 0�° taAZta -f _ i ■ se B D -e'B mot►; m/. i.i ron10r►1 ∎itav 0, ' ,II 0'7 t111111111j j realIt:� iIItttg s%,nm: rmimillill mans . •"s• 1 - 1.4 . ■ _ • /glllllMallllll _' J �IPuunuu •�nnnn *. ►J rr 1:-..:0.10;1.....1 dl ammisiniumbil lin_ , . _ _ _'�/" ttttrt inur•cf♦ f►dO�r�1 rqI :iuunpll't►Nn►t '� f�►l�♦'GJ'.L. N--- ■ttuo b► ►et n� _.�� ♦R ,t.47-2,:•,,,,,0111111110, �i �• �a‘��. '. vim�I 111111/1 .6\111117111111 , 5.4k i ►'..♦�� - ♦• jilit...,, *,, vijiliolijo IlilA►♦/fltf�•;.,.....iv , . i\l,;:. ...tert,,„, :0A47:1._,..9.11 g„ Y= ��., Ibis Club D . c xl,: ,,.! �t`w `'r �` ..IP It 'L•i/YMilYllrfrtt►1 ION tea- 1 ' 11,1 dlrtrarnnrNl o jr-. :ti.. o• ,- ,, ' r/ `��p]III11tlimllll/g111k`�� ,Q w Iy to •C\\ ,1m1fl111711ltll-L � x t i '; i_;: !ill■ ■ _ �j 4auunuunllmmnn►41 U 10 _... ,75 s"T� r-,�i •-'ICJ l`!!�ANT*,: It L�� l g 1.41 S.,--- .ter. -- ----w gmli yyc ��t H 4 1 Yom.. s €^! Y a, - ! �, i�� FI1 - / q, � ��- -n, , vo to �4 r ♦ :? $."�ti 1 i{Ai.F�s� 'q'��s�w �.2'Y�c-�'��.dJ �,� _ s LG''- ��.Y 4 r�k'�"" , ;y r °`� ��,� i.,. r�a �`r� �..�i4a .�1tu��V�,�� .- ; +° it *7 'S. 1�1f. "L+ .ss'�� .4.: 4 r�"� 4}d�3 ...1t-,f-,,,;v4-,,-J,:;:, -.1i.:....,0:!.' t if 1 i ,E�UFS -D 1.1 1 r _ ` IIVVV l j i i I ■ I ■ 3 ` m I = B-nfjeld RD { w Mil ]F3 1 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on November 06, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers, Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THAT MAY BE ACHIEVED IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE PORTION OF THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ("TDRS") TO 4 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TDRS, AND TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM PROPERTY MORE THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT 196-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20140000113/CP-2014-2] ALLIGATOR ALLEY GLDS ,O' \ BOUIEV RARA D� TOLL (S.R.89) 0' CENTER PLAZA \PLAZA WOMMER T CENTER R.V. h? COMMERCE Op • CENTER 3 7, 2 1 6 m rc FORESt GLEN d COAR OF NAPLES HAMMOO( O PROJECT NAPLES HERITAGE LOCATION - GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB 6u MTZ.; HACIENDA LAKES NAPLES NATIONAL (DRI) GOLF CLUB 10 11 12 7 VALLOW RUN (0) HOMES OF ISLANDIA LAW CONSERVATION AREA L 1 NAPLES LAKES FIRST (DRI) COUNTRY CLUB ASSEMBLY HACIENDA LOTS 15 MINISTfiILS 14 13 18 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Planning & Zoning Department, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401, Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Planning&Zoning Department.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to on November 06,2014 will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356, (239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No.231123859 October 17.2014 - i`-'� WALDROP ENGINEERINGii -k. t / ,\1 CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAM)DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS - i � 4' --4 July 28, 2014 Mr. Corby Schmidt,AICP Engineering Services Section Growth Management Division Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: San Marino GMPA PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 Dear Mr. Schmidt: Enclosed please find responses to your insufficiency letter dated May 30, 2014. The following information has been provided to assist in the review and approval: 1. Six(6)copies of the comment response letter; 2. Six(6)copies of the revised GMPA application, including all exhibits with revised labeling; and 3. Three(3)copies of the submittal on CD-ROM. The following is a list of Collier County comments with our responses in bold: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS RELATED TO APPLICATION FORM 1. Page 3. III.B. A specific property is described in "III.A" above, but general location entered here appears to identify a "Planning Community"; correct answer here is to provide a general geographic location for the property. CHECK, CONFIRM & CORRECT: The General Location and Planning Community are a part of the County application form, but are missing from your condensed reformatting. Please review your firm's condensed application form to ensure it accurately mirrors the County form and revise as necessary. RESPONSE: Please refer to the revised GMPA Application form. The Location and Planning Community are listed in the form. 2. Page 5.V.D.1.d. Expand this "Y" with a written response. Response would likely read: "see Exhibit "P" or "refer to Exhibit "P—Amendment Justification Narrative". Provide relevant data and analysis in the exhibit, placing an emphasis on density issues, including the relationship between the original acreage/approved density/developed density and the new acreage/desired density/undeveloped density. RESPONSE: Please refer to the revised Application form and Justification Narrative, attached as Exhibit"P". San Marino GMPA PL20140000113 Page 1of5 As outlined in detail in the Justification Narrative, the Applicant maintains the position that there are several changings conditions since the establishment of the URF Subdistrict in 1989, from both a regulatory and infrastructure standpoint, which eliminate the need for transitional densities between the urban and rural areas. These conditions include the adoption of impact fees,the significant expansion of infrastructure,such as the Collier Blvd.improvements, and the introduction of the RFMUD district. The proposed density is appropriate based upon the property's infill location and the available public infrastructure,as outlined in detail within the application materials.The subject property is also in close proximity to the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict located at Collier Blvd.and Rattlesnake Hammock,which is further indication of the appropriateness of this request. As discussed during a meeting with Staff, the subject property also has site-specific characteristics from both an internal and external standpoint that support the requested density increase via the use of TDRs, and address Staffs concerns regarding a transition between Urban and Rural lands. From an internal standpoint,the density will be clustered toward the Collier Blvd.frontage and the southern portion of the property, thereby locating the proposed residential uses next to existing and proposed development in Aventine at Naples and the Willow Run RPUD. Please refer to the proposed San Marino PUD Master Plan submitted with Application No. P120140000100. The Forest Glen Country Club to the north will be buffered from the proposed development by an expansive, proposed preserve area. It is also important to note that developed net density within the multi-family tract in Forest Glen that abuts the subject property is approximately 12 du/acre. Therefore, the adjacent lands to the north are not developed with low-density uses that would raise compatibility concerns based on the proposal for an additional 1.5 du/acre. From an external standpoint, the GMP's intended transition of densities from Urban to Rural lands is addressed via the adjacent, off-site preserve areas that provide an expansive natural buffer between the subject property and the rural-designated lands to the east.Specifically,the parcels immediately east of the subject property are designated as "Preserve" lands per the pending Willow Run RPUD Master Plan, and are under permanent conservation easement. These intervening preserve lands provide 1,300+ feet of separation between the subject property and the designated Sending Lands boundary,which is sufficient evidence of the spatial transition provided between the subject property and the Rural boundary. This amendment will maintain the eastern edge of urban development intended by the URF Category, and will not result in the expansion of development eastward into the Rural lands that are targeted for preservation by the County. For these reasons the transition between Urban and Rural designated lands is adequately addressed by this petition.The proposed density is appropriate based upon the available public San Marino GMPA PL20140000113 Page 2 of 5 infrastructure, and future development will be incompatible with the surrounding land use pattern. 3. Explain how deriving density from land area/acreage that previously provided density is not being requested—or, how it is justified and consistent with the FLUE. RESPONSE:The base density for the 235-acre San Marino PUD has been utilized(less 2 dwelling units) to support the development of the 350-unit Aventine of Naples apartment complex. The San Marino PUD, as approved per Ordinance 2000-10, does not permit/utilize any bonus density allowed by the GMP. The Applicant controls the 196.4-acre undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD, as defined in the GMPA application. This petition proposes to increase the allowable bonus density derived from the 196.4 acres from 1.0 du/acre, currently allowed by the GMP's bonus density provisions, to a maximum of 2.5 du/acre.The Applicant proposes to acquire this density solely through the use of TDRs,and is not seeking to increase the allowable base density. Since bonus density has not been utilized to support the existing 350-unit development,and the increased bonus density is only generated from those lands under the control of the Applicant, this petition is not deriving density from land area/acreage that previously provided density. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS RELATED TO SPECIFIC EXHBITS 1. All of the exhibits should be labeled in the lower right corner of each Exhibit page for ease of finding and consistency throughout. Show dates on exhibits reflecting their dates of preparation. Show the subject property location on map figures—preferably by outlining its shape and size to scale. Realize that the reviewers of this application will include lay persons, including members of the CCPC and BCC. RESPONSE:Please refer to the revised Exhibits,which have been labeled in the lower right hand corner for ease of review. 2. The County Board has shown some interest in limiting the number of TDRs that may be received from Sending Lands more than one mile away from the Urban boundary. Staff anticipates possibly recommending similar limitations to CP-2014-2 proposed FLUE language... RESPONSE: As discussed during the Applicant's meeting with Staff on June 16th, due to the shortfall in TDRs necessary to meet the potential demand for projects within the urban residential fringe demand and the inability to obtain TDRs for the specific project from within the designated area the Board of County Commissioners did not place any limitations on CP- 2013-1. Based upon this recent Board action, the Applicant respectfully submits that this application does not warrant a limitation on the number of TDRs received from within the 1 mile boundary. 3. The proposed terminology, the "undeveloped portion of" [the] PUD is without meaning. It's intended meaning would change as every consecutive portion of San Marino develops. Provide a San Marino GMPA PL20140000113 Page 3 of 5 legal description specific to the portion that is currently undeveloped, or by another manner serving the same purpose—perhaps the property ID number. RESPONSE: Please refer to revised Exhibit C, Proposed Text Changes. As discussed during our meeting with Staff, the Applicant has inserted the subject property's legal description to define the land area subject to the amendment. 4. Include a response addressing the potential limitations recommended above in Exhibit P (Justification Narrative). RESPONSE:Please see above response. 5. More than one item [an exhibit within an exhibit]is labeled the same. Modify letters, labeling and exhibits to properly reference items made part of the application package. RESPONSE: Please refer to the revised exhibits enclosed. The labeling has been corrected in accordance with the above comment. 6. Prepare and submit an analysis of the impact approval of the proposed amendment will have on the County's Transfer of Development Rights program. Provide, as parts of this TDR analysis, a survey and count of Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict parcels and acreage still eligible to use TDRs; and, a survey and count of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands parcels and acreage with TDRs not yet severed and with TDRs not yet redeemed. RESPONSE: Please refer to the table below, which has been included in the revised Justification Narrative, Exhibit P. Please note this data has been obtained from the Naples Reserve Staff Report, dated September 13, 2013, as updated per information provided by Comprehensive Planning Staff on July 16, 2014. This tabulation does not include demand from Naples Reserve or the pending Willow Run RPUD. Based upon the above information, the request to obtain TDRs from outside the 1 mile boundary is appropriate in consideration of the lack of "qualified" TDRs, and complies with the intent of the TDR Program to permanently protect Sending Lands. It is also important to note that the acquisition of all 793 TDRs is not possible from a practical standpoint due to the unwillingness of certain sellers and other barriers. TDR Availability vs. Demand within 1 Mile of Urban Boundary TDR AVAILABILITY WITHIN 1 MILE BOUNDARY Total TDRs in Qualified Sending Lands 1,804 TDRs Committed for Use in URF 721 Remaining Available TDRs from Qualified Sending Lands=1,083 TDR DEMAND IN URF .:`:.: :::::...... :.. :...':.: ::.:- URF Acreage Eligible for TDR Use 1,876 Remaining Available TDRs from Qualified Sending Lands 1,083 sixWAT nag aB .fi..c...n..�.�+F.2'_'+w�.G dS "2 . . San Marino GMPA Pi20140000113 Page 4 of 5 STORMWATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SUFFICIENCY COMMENTS This application package is adequate and sufficient to enable staff to conduct a formal [substantive] review concerning environmental matters. RESPONSE:So noted. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SUFFICIENCY COMMENTS This application package is both Sufficient for Review, as well as Substantively Complete. RESPONSE:So noted. PUBLIC UTILITIES PLANNING&PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUFFICIENCY COMMENTS This application package is adequate and sufficient to enable staff to conduct a formal [substantive] review concerning public utilities matters. RESPONSE:So noted. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239)405-7777 ext. 207, or alexisc @waldrocen_ineerir r com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Or: •I Alexis V. Crespo,AICP, LEED AP Principal Planner Enclosures cc: Joseph Boff, H & LD Venture, LLC Keith Gelder,Stock Development Richard Yovanovich, Coleman,Yovanovich &Koester, P.A. San Marino GMPA PL20140000113 Page 5 of 5 Table of Contents Application to Amend Growth Management Plan Executed Letter of Authorization & Deed EXHIBITS: Exhibit A Additional Professionals Exhibit B Legal Description Exhibit C Proposed FLUE Text Amendments Exhibit D Surrounding Development Map Exhibit E Aerial Location Map Exhibit F Zoning Map Exhibit G Future Land Use Map Exhibit H Archaeological Probability Exhibit I Environmental Report & FLUCCS Map Exhibit J Public Conservation Lands Map Exhibit K Public Facilities Map Exhibit L Utility Availability Letter Exhibit M Traffic Impact Statement Exhibit N Waste Generation Rates Exhibit 0 Boundary Survey Exhibit P Justification Narrative San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal GMP AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATIONN NUMBER $7.:1-L : (q .t)t I 1 (DATERCE V ED I ; PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE. , 151 i`{ DATE SUFFICIENT This application,with all required supplemental data and information,must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee,and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before if will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application,see Resolution 9.7-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions,please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant Stock Development c/o Keith Gelder Company Stock Development Address 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number(239)592-7344 Fax Number(239)592-7541 B. Name of Agent*Richard Yovanovich. Esq. • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Coleman, Yovanovich& Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 341103 Phone Number (239)435-3535 Fax Number C. Name of Agent*Alexis V. Crespo,AICP • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Address 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 City Bonita Springs State Florida Zip Code 34135 Phone Number (239)405-7777 Fax Number (239)405-7899 D_ Name of Owner(s) of Record H& LD Venture, LLC c/o Joe Boff Address 11145 Tamiami Trail East City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34113 1 E. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Please refer to Exhibit"A" attached. II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,Tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION,list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock HCN Foundation 70% Landstrasse 11 Triesen,Liechtenstein Dr. Markus Kolzoff, Member of the Board Dr. Peter Sprenger, Member of the Board Mr.Tom van der Meer,Member of the Board Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 30% [A Florida Non Profit Corporation) 11145 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34113 Samuel Durso, JM.D., President Michael Mueller,Secretary Stanard Swihart MD,Vice President John W.Cunningham,Treasurer Rev. Lisa Lefkow, E.Vice President Nick Kouoheras, E. Vice President C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,list the name of the general and/or limited partners. 2 Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals,a Corporation,Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below,including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership N/A Date of Contract: N/A F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership,or trust. Name and Address N/A G. Date subject property acquired (X) leased ( ): 4/12/2011 Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy,indicate date of option: N/A and date option terminates: ,or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing,it is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please refer to Exhibit"B" enclosed B. GENERAL LOCATION East of CR 951 8. 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road PLANNING COMMUNITY: Royal Fakapalm D. TAZ 358 E. SIZE IN ACRES 196.4+/-acres F. ZONING Planned Unit Development G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Multi-and Single-Family Residential;Golf Course—See also Justification Narrative attached as Exhibit"P" H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element 3 Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) 29&49 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE_ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to identify language to be deleted;Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Please refer to Exhibit"C" C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM N/A TO D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name &Page #) N/A E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE See Exhibit"D" Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's,existing zoning) with subject property outlined. See Exhibit"E" Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries,source,and date. See Exhibit"F" Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION See Exhibit"G" Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject properly and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL See Exhibit 1" Provide most recent aerial and summary fable of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE:THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. See Exhibit"I" Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish &Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery,bird migratory route,etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. 4 D.GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). 1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so,identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5%of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Yes, Please refer to Exhibit P-Justification Narrative Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial,industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use,and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: See Exhibit"L" Potable Water See Exhibit'1" Sanitary Sewer See Exhibit"M" Arterial &Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS N/A Drainage Collier County does not enforce a Level of Service Standards beyond complying with the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)standards for water quality and off-site discharge of stormwater.The project will designed in accordance with SFWMD standards in effect at the time of Environmental Resource Permit review and approval. See Exhibit"N" Solid Waste See Exhibit"K" Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. See Exhibit"K" Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public 5 facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e.water,sewer,fire protection, police protection,schools and emergency medical services. 3. See Exhibits"K" & "P" Document proposed services and public facilities,identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools,fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Flood Zone"X" Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). _N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence,if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary,if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary,if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport,if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION X $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) N/A $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) X Proof of ownership (copy of deed) X Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner(See attached form) X 1 Original and 5 complete,signed applications with all attachments including maps,at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed,25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 6 San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXECUTED LETTER CAF AUTHORIZATION & DEED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Richard Yovanovich, Esq. and Alexis Crespo, AICP (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Joseph Soff,Managing Member of H& Lb Venture, LLC Date: 'eefc7r rr°1 ,2ot`-4 (Name of Owner(s) of Record) -J I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the fore.•ing ap.•licatior %nd that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. . ir," Sign'•, er,ofi plicant NcSme-Typed or Printed STATE OF ( COUNTY OF { Lee Sworn to and subscribed before me this e..1 day of C40-1.3 , 110-014 by C �r V CO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Not ry Public CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and f ;hl'µY,At�,„ JACQUELYN LAROCnUE ✓ did take an Oath ° '1 _ Notary Public-State of Ftodd2 ;i1,..4911111' My Comm.Ex4ires Oct 12,201e did not take and Oath er rr � gr NOTICE-BE AWARE THAT: commission N EE 831330 Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant In the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 7 I: LETTER Of AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN l hereby authorize Keith Gelder, Stock Development (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Joseph Boil,Managing Member of H& LD Venture, LLC Date: - -J-& --r (Name of Owner(s)of Record) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application,and ti t the application is true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. 2'.i ` (- / /1 // / Signayre of Applican Name-Typed or Printed STATE OF ( P fzi Ate-) COUNTY OF ( F cg,... } Sworn to and subscri ed before me this dl--C day of Fc612U¢` , 1t= -_C f l by . jcQ __-.' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Pubii TM L WILSON 1 CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING. ,, Notary Fabric-State of Florida My Camm..Expires Mar 7,2016 F CommissIOn#r EE 145786 who is personally known to me, �'",4li, ''� Wad Through National Notary Assn. M who has produced as identi and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 7 INSTR 4551887 OR 4674 PG 321 RECORDED 4/21/2011 9:45 AM PAGES 7 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC @.70 $8,750.00 REC $61.00 INDX $1.00 CONS $1,250,000.00 This instrument prepared by: and after recording return to: James D.Barnett,Esquire GrayRobinson,P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard,Suite 1850 Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33301 Parcel I.D.Nos.: 00411440000 00411640004 00410640005 00410840009 (Reserved for Clerk of Court) 00410880001 00410960002 00411200004 00411240006 00411320007 \A) R- GO Nik cp S M -_,i'P ■ ! k 1 THIS SPECIAL W ;Arjal(1)1111. a t:• :d into as of the day of April 2011 by SAN • 't e e _%. :"__ a •. _•neral partnership, Grantor, whose o f fi c e address is 1441 a= : Street, Naples, ;+ 34 1 ' &LD VENTURE, LLC, a Florida limited liability comp.=• .i ..tee, and whose?: F.. ess is 11145 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34113. Where -.. herein,the terms '. '.. r"and"Grantee"shall include, as to each party to this instrument, .I . .. :,•al r- . -:44. .: s and assigns. 1 WI' i'H: GRANTOR, for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents does hereby grant, bargain and sell to Grantee, the following described land situated and being in Collier County, Florida (the "Property"): SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining thereto. THIS CONVEYANCE is subject to: taxes and assessments for the 2009 calendar year and all subsequent years; zoning ordinances, restrictions, prohibitions and.other requirements imposed by governmental authority; conditions, restrictions, reservations, limitations and easements of record,if any,but this reference shall not operate to re-impose same. # 966173 vi OR 4674 PG 322 GRANTOR hereby warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by,through or under Grantor. Grantee,by acceptance and recordation of this Special Warranty Deed,(a)except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Grantee acknowledges that Grantor has made no representations or warranties regarding the Property,(b)Grantee agrees to accept the Property in its AS-IS condition,and(c)Grantee agrees to cause this Special Warranty Deed to be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to pay all recording fees and documentary stamp taxes due in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. Witnesses: SAN MARINO JOINT VENTURE a Florida general partnership TERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VI, P\) -NI,- 'I rida general partnership,as CJ I-. • partner - By: t •o, and San Marino,LLC, rv ; _ny,as general partne y failLwAr eef. . Goodland Golden Gate,LLC, a Florida limited liability company,as general partn- By: y.� ► Name: '� i � 1 ¶& L.n ,/ Title: /i// _ By: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY,INC., a Florida corporation not for profit,as general partner By: Name: Title: # 966173 vi 2 OR 4674 PG 323 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ):SS COUNTY OF U14/6-K ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/,,Z77/ day of April 2011,by Richard Davenport,as Manager of Goodland San Marino,LLC,as general partner of Waterways Joint Venture VI,as general partner of SAN MARINO JONIT VENTURE. He/She is personally known to me or produced drivers license as identificati•.• .• ;� /hint�lfir ' ...Ian 04. _ 4r Notary, : +f Florida at Large 4,0 Notary Public State of • 41 lb . -W Jeffrey Cecil _ t••1 ,:•nNo.Mik Fr My Commission EE03., sion - ir-s: of Expires 09/29/2014 I) Olt Is �� p CAI ?YE..., STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF 6.01-419Z ) ' 0i 1ti The foregoing instrument was : •4P; - • me this /2 day of April 2011,by Richard Davenport, as Manager of Goo+t • o den (bate, LLC, as general partner of Waterways Joint Venture VI, as general partner of SAN MARINO JONIT VENTURE. He/She is personally known to me or produced drivers lice e entification. /w Print or '�1''•' •� f lolida Notary b..! 4� of Florida at Large Notary Public Slake of } " ‘11,•.; W Jefhetl Ced l COmmiSSi I t o. : W My Contmluion EE030933 e,cptre.osi st2nt4 My Commission Expires: # '966173 v1 3 OR 4674 PG 324 GRANTOR hereby warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by,through or under Grantor. Grantee, by acceptance and recordation of this Special Warranty Deed,(a)except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Grantee acknowledges that Grantor has made no representations or warranties regarding the Property,(b)Grantee agrees to accept the Property in its AS-IS condition, and(c)Grantee agrees to cause this Special Warranty Deed to be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to pay all recording fees and documentary stamp taxes due in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. Witnesses: SAN MARINO JOINT VENTURE a Florida general partnership By WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VI, a Florida general partnership,as '0)�R Cpr j. general partner �Q oodland San Marino,LLC, a orida limited liability om any,as general partner I riC 0 ir, 1..-j,,..„ 16� ' : • e &land Golden Gate,LLC, orida limited liability 0 ' company,as general partner By: Name: Title: By: HABITAT FOR HUMMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY,INC., a Florida corporation not for profit,as / general partner litiL. r L 's Ai LQPkav✓ --- if =..,...ea. -7,- Name: • Mue l T. 'p u r.so Title: Pres icier'# # 966173 v1 OR 4674 PG 325 STATE OF FLORIDA ) �te ' ):SS COUNTY 0106 LCD! The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ! .- day of April 2011,by Sam Durso, as President of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., as general partner of SAN MARINO JONIT VENTURE. He/ Js nersonakly known to or or produced drivers license as identification. V-Lbeee-e-- PaWARI'Q—J Print or Stamp Name: REBECCA PARATORE Notary Public,State of Florida at �' pEBSCCAPAR,KfOF1� a J c� t � MYC COMMISSION Commission No. r:••- �IRES:.�y4, 9 My Commission Expires: '114-'1 3 Spaded'Nu Noimy Public Underrnden o\ 1 C° ?, C� nCC 0 PY of -41E Crg-C # 966173 vl OR 4674 PG 326 , Exhibit A Legal Description The Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida;and The Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida;and The Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida;and The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida;and _ The North 1/2 of the North 1/2 .t�. :'•R we •,¢�T., .1 e Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 _ oilier County, Flo: - the West 100 feet for road right-of-way; and The South 1/2 of the No 0 1/r .--.1 - "n,,• 4.1 -,,•: Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 .• is - 1un ili 1 I ess the West 100 feet for road right-of-way;and (-- t_ r The North 1/2 of the South f the Southwest- ;' • ► �1 ,orthwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 2: . Collier County, i i • .7 - the West 100 feet for road right-of-way. 04-, "`S' Being more particularly described as fo CSC Conu encing at the West 1/4 corner of Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida; thence along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11, N 00 degrees 50'48"E,a distance of 344.19 feet,to the Southwest corner of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11;thence leaving the said West line and along the South line of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11,N 87 degrees 55'08" E, a distance of 100.13 feet,to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described;thence N 00 degrees 50'48"E,a distance of 103230 feet, being 100.00 feet Easterly and parallel to the said West line;thence along the North line of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11,N 88 degrees 04'51" E, a distance of 1234.18 feet to the Southwest corner of Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; N 00 degrees 49'48" E, a distance of 1371.72 feet, to the Northwest corner of Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11;N 88 degrees 17'49"E,a distance of 1333.66 feet,to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 11; thence along the North line of Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11,N 88 degrees 17'56" E, a distance of # 966173 v1 *** OR 4674 PG 327 *** 1333.62 feet, to the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the East line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11, S 00 degrees 47'44"W,a distance of 2723.17 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11;thence along the East to West 1/4 line of said Section 11,S 87 degrees 51'54" W,a distance of 2669.89 feet to the Southwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11;thence along the west line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, N 00 degree 49'48" E, a distance of 342.93 feet to the Southeast corner of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11;thence along the South line of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11, S 87 degrees 55'08" W, a distance of 1234.66 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel described herein. n Co 0 11:1 I 966173 vl San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS WALDROP ENGINEERING I 7;:\ CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT"A" LIST OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Name of Land Use Attorney Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Company Coleman,Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 Phone Number (239) 435-3535 Email ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Qualifications: Richard Yovanovich is a shareholder at Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and attended University of South Carolina School of Law earning a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1987. He was an Assistant County Attorney for Collier County from 1990-1994. As an Assistant County Attorney he focused on land development and construction matters. Mr. Yovanovich represents clients in complex matters before courts, arbitration panels and local and state agencies. Mr. Yovanovich has an extraordinary amount of experience in real estate zoning, construction and land-use, including projects ranging from residential and commercial projects to large developments of regional impact. Name of Planning Consultant Alexis Crespo,AICP Company Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Address 28100 Bonita Grande Drive,Suite 305, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone Number(239)405-7777 Email alexisc @waldropengineering.com Qualifications: Alexis Crespo has over nine years of professional planning experience in Southwest Florida, and is certified with the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Alexis has prepared numerous privately initiated rezoning petitions, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Notice of Proposed Changes to Developments of Regional Impact across Southwest Florida and provided expert testimony to support the petitions. Alexis also represents several local governments for the development of Land Development Code amendments, including City of Bonita Springs and Glades County. Alexis is also a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP), with emphasis on sustainable land use practices. Name of Environmental Consultant Shane Johnson Company Passarella and Associates, Inc. Address 13620 Metropolis Ave., Suite 200, Fort Myers, FL 33912 Phone Number(239) 274-0067 Email shanei@passarella.net San Marino GMPA Exhibit A—List of Professional Qualifications Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Qualifications: Ecologist Shane Johnson joined Passarella & Associates in 2004. As a team leader, he supervises project teams and oversees business development, client relations and document preparation, as well as conducting jurisdictional determinations, environmental construction inspections, environmental-impact and ecological assessments, listed species surveys and wetland monitoring. Shane holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Before joining Passarella & Associates, he worked as a shorebird technician with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation where he documented the nesting behavior of the area's bald eagles. Shane holds memberships in the Florida Association of Environmental Professionals, Calusa Herpetological Society and the Society of Wetland Scientists. Name of Transportation Consultant Jim Banks, P.E. Company JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Address 761 21st Street NW, Naples, FL 34120 Phone Number(239)919-2767 Email imbswte @msn.com Qualifications: Jim Banks holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Kentucky, and has been a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida since 1991. Jim has been actively involved in the fields of traffic/transportation engineering and planning since 1987.During the past 25 years, he has developed a comprehensive knowledge within these disciplines and is regarded as an expert within his profession. Mr. Banks has represented a wide range of clientele in both the public and private sectors. Public sector clients include airport authorities& FAA, local and state municipalities,county commissions, public school boards,city councils, planning boards, and city/county attorneys. Private sector clients have been land planners, land use attorneys, right-of-way acquisition attorneys, engineers, surveyors,architects and developers. San Marino GMPA Exhibit A—List of Professional Qualifications Page 2 of 2 San Marino GM PA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT"B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 344.19 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.87°55'08"E., A DISTANCE OF 100.13 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1032.30 FEET, BEING 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B 2/28114 100.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SAID WEST LINE;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°04'51'E.,A DISTANCE OF 1234.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11;THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°49'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1371.72 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.66 FEET,TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.62 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11,S.00°47'44"W., A DISTANCE OF 2723.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11;THENCE ALONG THE EAST TO WEST 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°51 '54"W., A DISTANCE OF 2669.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11;THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, N.00049'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 342.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°55'08"W., A DISTANCE 1234.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. 2 of 2 San Marino GMPA-P12014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT C PROPOSED FLUE TEXT AMENDMENTS GMPA-PL2014-000113 EXHIBIT"C" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENTS [Page 29] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a"or-"b"or"c" below: a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit(transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density, or, b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing (home ownership only)for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below, or c. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East via the transfer of 2.5 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 1 of 4 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. EXHIBIT C 7/28/14 GMPA-PL2014-000113 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 344.19 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.87°55'08"E., A DISTANCE OF 100.13 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1032.30 FEET, BEING 100.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SAID WEST LINE; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°04'51'E., A DISTANCE OF 1234.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°49'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1371.72 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.66 FEET, TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.62 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11: THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.00°47'44"W., A DISTANCE OF 2723.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST TO WEST 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 11. S.87°51 '54"W., A DISTANCE OF 2669.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, N.00049'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 342.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE 2 of 4 Words underlined are added;words ctruck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. GM PA-P L2014-000113 NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°55'08"W., A DISTANCE 1234.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** [Page 49] B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation). **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. #04-41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. 3 of 4 Words underlined are added;words dough are deleted;italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. G M PA-PL2014-000113 (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System,which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East and the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. as further described in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. 4 of 4 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT D SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT MAP a i 7 - f j f e+.+T, # ., _.., , , , ..„ , { H en„ a Fo e.st:Glen BV o.i jis z scrr kY w� a .i ''• Cedar Hammock Got i Fore- orest Glen Gel .'f"St• . ? &Country Club € &Country Club toe, "fir ` r • tai! weiry a, a� i r,.v L Y a .r+t ��6/ 4:: r A i r - y Pr _i . _ .a ` ‘'I's' SAN MARINO, i ,,,� !,. Na�,o'jr7 a 1 ii . -It' _.....t.iir "'" GoXB Country Club t s . . . , a , I Maples Natlona a �► - .:.- -• �` '� GoXClub � � { ti , �— i i San Marino _ +� j Aparrtments • 1 I -_. -s,-'°. Hacienda a• ■, y, r._ '+� "mot.�...,n � !" -- — :., Now Run - Naples Club ;' Estates 'ir! LI' - i '}, ..J rte. h • � ''. ..4 United ', VAI '.t I, Methodist Church E" i �a i;y ,Dc°' The`'iLords Way } „. ,. i t _ - „,... . , Naples Lakes 3 Country Club 'r* Hacienda..,, 1 i i ,. ,,,,„ , . ,,1 Lakes 1 (( "' t 2 1`` ,JAR .7 _ itp, $ C u {-- r R,attlesriake Hammock Rd , i EXHIBIT D ; 2125/14 , SAN AJARINO SURROUNDING DEL ELOP1IENT MAP ....�� crssaunens of amide Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC ` L ""'" "" """ San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2" Submittal EXHIBIT E AERIAL LOCATION MAP , �. e •1 7 .. , °' ,Y�-' <,sk , x► ;- � t Gien g d 1.'"-- a ^r.g tr 1F cres ' - %s R 'c:Foest Glen Gal - .,�•_- &Couny Club ! °.f!x "g a °aav �r h-.—.� •' -...4,,,p- t , r:YV 4 '` • 3 y,, '3 a, n P.`- r i - .,CedarHammc "_s:x + A #L. 8 Coun Club '` { ri Y. y r::- - - 7-i • i r•e;, a _ a �`r � °� - �� ., , - a . . ._ SAN MARINO f a Yid ,.,0-;:t:4,....! - -.- , 4 ,. . . ,„,,,,,,- " •' - .R �I •� ° y8` . ^ g ..., r" X Y ° b '' '. .v fi X { f t � 'e W x u y r ..s v , . ' i "' 3�,pa§ 6.!�.+yvr'�RI • 4 • D 4 x 1Y f P 1 Maples Heritage Gal A 8 Country Club 7 } , rt. J, T wry �Y1� v t �'J��- x- • • a �* sr. ,,; Pas; . a %; j."": "aets . .�_ , ` ,il ' ; i al+ p B ?x San Marino tti .. 1 �, A artmenis r t' a I '' 4` e + _ r willow Run ^ �� ,,, . 0, At 7 c is a r� we . EXHIBIT E .,�,�.a.. . 2/25 1�"'"' r4./.2.:LA tm SAN M4RLNO ,-1TRL1L iJ 1P 4•! c,is�a,e�,,, ' - Prepared For: H 8 LD Venture. LLC ""'°` """ San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT F ZONING MAP a.Nant x Gna �. e U Ir._ , _ . , ._ ,4.,4;pir.f7,4_,...,„ � d '`.•-'` *,4 �Fore , _ f r Y,' , �� PUD Zoning�• � ...' • ''....4 Zoning.-, i sr�' dHm'' ' F; I i ..t. ry 1,7 ,-. ' i ,f 7 � T' ; .� � � _ \ -SAN MARINO 1 . i u » ♦ ` , mow• 1 t6 ,; 1 .-irk _ - �.r _ 0 9 r .� Ala - �", r ry ,: _ yero Sao ..J PUDZonf a9'e� ? A Zoning Nafitftlikofi Naples National r Golf s coa cyan _ PUD Zoning ty'Q v \ . 0� ' k:i.j.,..':.1( ..4111V441,‘ ;' I,! , 1 '1'1' %, : ,,t,,<_,,b. # ', tl . PUD Zoning 4 t < '4 i ' Naples National 4 • 'g •� _ q, E ! i san Mad MPUD Zoning Golf Club A rtmailts { w 4 , t 44 - i k '. AZoning r `. ► 1. r4a:�.Yt ' ■r, Willow Ran r,. w r `T , " RPUD Zoning a x,40 Napl s Cfob '�i t Est f s r yr .... V MPUD Zoning j CFPUD Zoning 1F1 s e? 1 ' ....11111W.-"• '"" a A Zonin 1 ° MPUD Zoning r. ` , Ae United _ il, i "'i° '^` r' _° -^r �" � Methodist Church " _ PUD Zoning �t yl 'K', "` Y` G\�p pr Theme Lords Way F, 4 �-•+¢.%,, ,. .IIVerrri'.55♦ ' A �k v` Itt.%;".„; t' zt ,,e. -, --.� rimri a 4. �•:d1 C-3 Zoning MPUD Zoning * g t.x - ;�... Country Club - I .; f e., a ., r .. .°`C-5 Zoning r _ iiii t, , �'. r _ r• MPUD Zoning`:� x it '• +� rte' MPUD Zoning_ ., .�; CPUDZoning - _ M Dlon g Rattlesnake Ha_rOek Rd • r . F rO r ry i a +� PUD Zoning „. a; . °„� EXHIBIT F; " . _W. .'... _ PUD zoning. ° 02126'2014. .,. ..„__„.�__�..",... "-._. m i ! ;mot!' -- �wbiir SAN MARINO ZONING MAP x to..rds iutlons �i !� Prepared For: H & LD Venture. LLC San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT G FUTURE LAND USE MAP — 1 i X Urban Residential Urban Residentral' Subdistrict i jil a: ,^ r -'4Fringe Subdistnct, v 4� .-� - �+ _ ','(:',4-1" ,A ricultural/Rurall lndustrie� qt, F ° g��w *�, � •�� Designation ��•• District `♦ /RF-Sending Forestr�len6lv , F•�•� •� C rHammo kGC1f $ � - Fire#Glen Gotl � e counvY clo untry Wub r, �� '�� Ss • Ham moth, 1 r . ' �� • Lam'` p 4,44.-s .)1%.74i. ° ` „ r § 1 MARINA! • Residential Density '!�►•��►• `� �►••• M t ;and a. / � 7 fy. es National _ . Y. , - • .,cNaP Country CM,w w` ••-- ' N*41(e.0:S ..>"‘4 N plesNabonal f _ � • �. If Clvb tl ,. a 9' 9Y1 Wllno ••1.-si..400...*4 4 Urban Residential 3 „' . � • �`' `3 l Subdistrict .: .... M4 .„ , � Agricultural/Rural,,�.3-j►� NaPles cl e' Urban Residential e�a„s Fringe Subdistrict -. *-••:•; Designation • .4'. i,. ,,,x-;>�`•• /RF-Sending b.' Oft rt a •� 4 Conservation • Residential Densfy , Des% abon ;°a Collier Blvd Community Sand s �• • •� . Facility Subdistrict SI , m. • -4-4. --- k r Ut Y` , , •�4 United .y 1 Methodist Church ') ! +1 lb, d • 'x` ,u , wazzzco v.... ., , • ,. • .V meaL•ords Way t - • 5 . ,, . , , , ,,,. ,,_,_, 7,1.i... , • , ,...,.. ,„ ,..... ..„ 0. • ..• e ,.. p 'Na/as Lahes „k aC d ,K�.. �/y} ' k.,f:w ,..: . N try.hrb ' 4_ iy�ll'-r Hac� a l ,fi,- �. q`,t'�.,-,..,,.. ds' , . _ - -,_ + o.: Mixed Use Activity ° -s, Center Su6dlsbict ` -f R attlesnake Ham,,m11, ck Rd �, 4 s Urban Residential j Agricultural/Rural t'�` Urban Residential - • Designation ,, Subdistrict "it � Fri Subdistrict lRF-Sendin• r„ .. .... I, E3/21. i __..- - _ _ u L T Prepared For: T L'R� LAND USE 41/1P f^i LA c 1telnna sA.'� itirAKr\-() ri" n H & LD Venture. LLC San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT H ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a STOP project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. February 25, 2014 u F on a w¢:Master Alexis V. Crespo,ATCP,LEED AP Site Principal Planner Fie l'A I WALDROP r ENGINEERING tAddRt's.. ... .1;11 Direct:E:alexisedwaldropengineerina.cp J C:(239)850-8525 Office:P:(239)405-7777 I F:(239)405-7899 www.waldroctenzimerin2.com In response to your inquiry of February 25,2014,the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and no other cultural resources found in the following parcel: Township 50S Range 26E Section 11 based on the project area submitted with search request. When interpreting the results of this search,please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal,state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review.If your project falls under these laws,you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, S hip Emnan M.Vovsi Historical Data Analyst Florida Master Site File EMVovsi(iz DOS.MyFlorida.cor 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph J 850.245..6439 fax I SiteFile @dos.state.fl.us EXHIBIT H San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"Submittal EXHIBIT I ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, FLUCCS & SUPPORTIVE EXHIBITS SAN MARINO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT February 2014 Prepared For: Stock Development,LLC 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 Naples, Florida 34119 (239)449-5227 Prepared By: Passarella and Associates,Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue,Suite 200 Fort Myers,Florida 33912 (239)274-0067 EXHIBIT I 02/27/2014 Project No.99DCB454 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Vegetation Associations and Land Uses 1 Soils 3 Listed Species 5 References 6 1 LIST OF FIGURES Faye Figure 1. Project Location Map 2 Figure 2. Soils Map 4 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary 1 Table 2. Soils Listed By the NRCS 3 Table 3. Listed Plant Species Observed Within the Project 5 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit A. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map A-1 Exhibit B. Soil Descriptions B-1 Exhibit C. Listed Species Survey Report C-1. iv INTRODUCTION The following information regarding site conditions and environmental considerations has been prepared for the Growth Management Plan Amendment Application for the San Marino(Project). The 196.43k acre San Marino property is located in Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County(Figure 1). The latitude and longitude coordinates for San Marino are 26°08'08"and 81°40'45", respectively. More specifically the property is found on the east side of Collier Boulevard(County Road 951),approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. The existing land use of the site is undeveloped, forested lands. The adjacent land uses or cover types consist of undeveloped, forested land to the east; State Road 951 to the west; Willow Run Quarry to the south; and Forest Glen,a golf and residential development,to the north. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS AND LAND USES Vegetation mapping for the property was originally accomplished using 1996 Collier County unrectified aerial photographs(Scale: 1"=200')and groundtruthing conducted in December 1996, January 1997, and November 1997. Field visits were conducted in March 2013 to update the vegetation mapping using 2012 Collier County unrectified aerial photographs(Scale: 1"=200'). The vegetation associations and land uses were mapped utilizing the Florida Land Use,Cover and Forms Classification System(FLUCFCS)Levels III and IV(Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV was used to denote exotic infestations,disturbances,and hydrological conditions. To identify levels of exotic infestation (i.e., melaleuca(Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolius)),"E"codes were used. AutoCAD Map 3D 2013 software was then used to determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the FLUCFCS map for the Project site(Exhibit A). Table 1 summarizes the acreages of each FLUCFCS classification. Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary FLUCFCS Percent Description Acreage Code of Total 4119 El Pine Flatwoods,Disturbed(0-24%Exotics) 0.28 0.1 4119 E2 Pine Flatwoods,Disturbed(25-49% Exotics) 17.45 8.9 4119 E3 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed(50-75% Exotics) 1.39 0.7 4159 E 1 Pine, Disturbed(0-24%Exotics) 1.50 0.8 4159 E2 Pine, Disturbed(25-49%Exotics) 1.81 0.9 4159 E3 Pine,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 22.91 11.7 4159 E4 Pine,Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 5.90 3.0 4269 El Tropical Hardwoods,Disturbed(0-24%Exotics) 0.46 0.2 1 ' rD/NIELS'EWY - € ® ...----.-.1 11;11111ifilefilliiiiikii eklbk . ypp ALI a RD CORKSCREW RD ALA . 111 F 4 1 � AeN BO NEACH RD 1 ego OL WELL RD e r P� Z t o O GOLDEN GATE BLVD l.t�L�IER CN 2 a et ' ( .. p' . aye 51111,‘Aa v. Cri Gulf CC W N.,i Of —pc.ILLII]ER DA LE Mexico iit •i M-I+ �•.:°.C..EN c l r' cR nrE '-•.,,Y,, :4=. `•ML I Al A_V a lE`i'p Y �^p y - * s ° ,+£ ; %r n I F F LN ;t r JpA �°, •:,r a 79T r,.E St..-At -.s S '..Tr r tCC a � 2 r 5Y�- { _74q . f . ii t i: ',, X ,. " :15T ASi ■ { � •OAP KLEYeAV E�-. '1 , `� I G i� �� • � r i'fl,,s "a,. , , r-- � ¢C %-, #1 �'�• T � f � -,ii , g z `l { ?• �.D . 9L' qYt ' ' i{I a-sp _ EXIT 1:-.- ii � � 10 .5 2 4 "� ) A *r _.+ ' , O 6• i a L N 1? Pv} qua 1rB°^A `" ° " ry y i N]t �cK9eLvo lH` I ' rl . x rAniog 1 c �. G"41 Oil . " 0+$a ? • r IIIL Z` RAOOHO V S I1 mY m ''z 3 o . ,° i� a r , OR -(GL } _i t r y1 ;g "�" ]" 4 , F .. `` 'r . —L? °4' Qt 11:1 '4 O } yMi1O4.k1 ' .r r ' _t,4--,;T;,-,t..J K fi x't. ' �P` :> m aL , ,��6lLp , 1,-,,- P , _: E � K , - f y. `' t'7.`'s Cl,:‘ ,./ T P. 'g , ,. . ER iy +X LL g n fDL 'r "N n C / �iC p y .v �- tjir ~A'?" - - nw_ V1 . .., j-. � ? ;c fi ,.,u .f 7 �� Ark PROJECT 0 S,R ON 7 4412 E ' SEC 11,TWP 50 S,RNG 26 E x II HArc!!1 r .C..- ... i dr 'r b� [`� { y 4R DR 'kY• T4 J-�E _E-_, T -s a ;. SS RATLES NA HA D`. � �V .1,1 - *� a'» L' t -, L L,��5 . ' :111111: _loom: 0 � 44 lir ', .' l't .• sl V -- { T� o- � A r LL Frxss;'saraaNQi L4 '' .' os A "6- a TNAYN QY DATE B Q ' y T.S. 2/27/14 ANL FIGURE I.PROJECT LOCATION MAP S.J.°�pY 2/27/14 l'ASSAR•ELLA sANMARINO m"' Asst)t:[ATES` RNilpU ”A It 2 Table 1. (Continued) FLUCFCS Percent Description Acreage Code of Total 4269 E3 Tropical Hardwoods,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 0.57 0.3 6219 E2 Cypress,Disturbed(25-49%Exotics) 3.15 1.6 6219 E3 Cypress,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 1.92 1.0 6219 E4 Cypress,Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 0.81 0.4 6249 El Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 10.90 5.5 (0-24%Exotics) 6249 E2 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed 38.34 19.5 (25-49%Exotics) 6249 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed 57.24 29.1 (50-75%Exotics) 6249 E4 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed 10.70 5.4 (76-100%Exotics) 6259 E4 Pine,Hydric,Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 16.35 8.3 740 Disturbed Land 0.68 0.3 7401 Disturbed Land,Hydric 0.09 0.0 832 Electrical Power Transmission Lines 2.12 1.1 8334 Well Field 1.77 0.9 8335 Pumping Station 0.09 0.0 Total 196.43 100.0 SOILS The soils for the property,per the Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS)(formerly the Soil Conservation Service),are listed in Table 2 and are shown on Figure 2. A brief description for each soil type is attached as Exhibit B. Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS Mapping Description Unit 4 Chobee,Limestone Substratum and Dania Mucks,Depressional 11 Hallandale Fine Sand 14 Pineda Fine Sand,Limestone Substratum 21 Boca Fine Sand 3 1 I.n ?�' ' ice', 4 _ a. k t ' Qe • _i ,N", t;i, it x a !Ag t t 3+'� y�. ^09''2" f' 1— � 1r i • `� ''� � �'r s,-- .rt ,�" 4.a ,,,,.,, �� 'T' x, ,," ' VYAt **Or y :��y 1 :. td�` ... Y% '�2,. {..s.vt r,4p 11•e 1�x 1 .'rte+-��7,,. '. 2, •.�y�v a � rs ,,Rp{� ./�"av,, L'4 Z4:5;'t4; :e..."4-0V.4 7' • "4---, '.-,. � "�� y � �� '.. ��'". <Y� - :.p � � . �•`��gY+e?'. ': j�f��, ,;y£%' '�, *�,,d 7$�f,�`yi#• ' ;-, t PROJECT q r ' r �[,'sar c i`" �r,� ,r �"' � ^ , R 1 # 1 '} iC`rt#• tok c-i 7, LOCATION I .f 46,..- rr. rt `. r '4.-, , s r� ,� Q ' , , ......-,:t .,,c.: :,-.7.,:,.. ..4.r.,, ..1 1.1,-4 - ,,.,-.4..r...„4 .:44....4:1,..0...,„..„,:f.. 40.7 , .1t4 ,..,,-4 ,,',.;-, a l-- • 4.it.,117' :......,.,:o e 4** ✓ 1 � � .d .e T rr ' ':'147t:77.1,C.,'-*',?7•4,.,;" ' -. . '.., '.Zhj,ij,!*' -,- -14,;*At.:::*":-',,,„,,,,,„,:rj.-Yil;,,-',..T .i.43,1..,....'N,744:4 .ef .,04.:, ,r 1T r y 'f .. , 1 '' yy,� r'' f i 'pa �� h x itt mow ;vap � r t , Al., i t,v 4 'fir, , _ x NOTES: Sol Unit DeDcVpIIon g 4 CHOBEE,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM,AND DANIA MUCKS,DEPRESSIONAL AERIAL PHOTDG RAPHS WERE ACQUIRED 11 HALLANDALE FINE SAND THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LEGEND 14 PINEDA FINE SAND,UMESTONE SUBSTRATUM APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE 27 BOCA FINE SAND DF DECEMBER 2012. SAN MARINO ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED W ._,-.,;:,.; ,<-,,,.. FROM THE FLORN4 GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE, i i SOILS MAPPING WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY d 0 400 800 WE BSITE OCTOBER 2007 AND CREATED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION I Feet SERVICE 1990, i DRAWN RV DATE T.S. 2/26/14 FIGURE 2.SOILS MAP RDVITVTRV DATE PASSARELLA SAN MARINO S.J. 2/26/14 u ASS()(:IATES REV16n DATE L y g. 4 LISTED SPECIES A listed species survey was conducted on the Project by Passarella&Associates,Inc. in February 2014. The survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit C. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey; however, two listed plant species were identified within the Project site. Table 3 provides a summary of the listed plant species identified within the Project. The approximate location of the listed plant species are provided in Exhibit C. Table 3. Listed Plant Species Observed Within the Project Common Name Scientific Name Status FDACS USDA Plants Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis -- CE Hand fern Ophioglossum palmatum E -- FDACS—Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services USDA—U.S.Department of Agriculture CE—Commercially Exploited E—Endangered 5 REFERENCES Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition. Victor W. Carlisle,Ed. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. 6 EXHIBIT A AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP JVNMI*S&MTST rw IC t..�E$ ?fl aew wiiifLLS�xx lxrtxs rarer InTMU-t TI ra Sl.mi<-x srnrw.rvn rr.rw'cs - r ` 1 t _ s�, Y x is�a#t � • a. ti r laraw� F .a .. T- TT <s __ f { � to 1/4 �� r„ t 1 e ivy A yyVy ' 1 4 ''. .t dt 1 h, I \ r+e T wcol I _n � _YM a Y 1-j w:, .,' --7,,-;, .;.„ ,.<!-:,!:::,,,-';.f ,T4.-.40,-,,..:1.-1.4;Vt--1-7r-:,,,-.rt„,.... ..- }tee �� i T . , & u. 'yy ' 1714';'";:---. r g®Sy8BBe81�8886 R 1d 12"'- mt63 m'o�o8 8888'o're v o 1F € 1 g!� Fgl €M r4 of =if x w Au.Acg i _y . Pp Z, OB �� '_:� i-1 #i IH l'- 1111 onp° � A€.4'" _• ai .p, D621 - �g '-vd o yg� gge ° Fi gR -`"g og vg R- Ai '�O g "° $P 6,1 a i$ .s $gig 'F > 31 a g�_ F s- A +DrY :Ps vIADNPii+ 1RA RAxt�T�RxAE !"! !!!!! L ' r b ;r;3x45; 5575 5:15;7: �— L EXHIBIT B SOIL DESCRIPTIONS 4-Chobee, limestone substratum, and Dania These soils are moderately suited to range. The mucks,depressional dominant forage is maidencane.Since the depth of the water table fluctuates throughout the year, a These level, very poorly drained soils are in natural deferment from cattle grazing occurs. cypress swamps and marshes.Individual areas are Although this rest period increases forage elongated and irregular in shape, and they range production,the periods of high water may reduce from 10 to 100 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 1 the grazing value of the site. The Chobee and percent. Dania soils are in the Freshwater Marshes and Ponds range site. Typically,the surface layer of the Chobee soil is black fine sandy loam to a depth of about 6 inches. These soils have severe limitations for all urban The subsurface layer is black fine sandy loam to a and recreational uses because of ponding and the depth of about 13 inches. The subsoil is mottled depth to bedrock. They also have severe sandy clay loam to a depth of about 45 inches.The limitations for septic tank absorption fields upper part of the subsoil 17 is dark gray,and the because of ponding, the depth to bedrock, slow lower part is gray.Limestone bedrock is at a depth percolation, and poor filtration. An effective of about 45 inches. drainage system that keeps the water table at a given depth is expensive and difficult to establish Typically, the surface layer of the Dania soil is and maintain. Also,these soils act as a collecting black muck about 10 inches thick.The substratum basin for the area; therefore, a suitable outlet to is light gray loamy fine sand to a depth of about remove the water is not available.They require an 12 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of adequate amount of fill material to maintain house about 12 inches. foundations and road beds above the high water table. Even when a good drainage system is Mapped areas can consist entirely of the Chobee installed and the proper amount of fill material is soil,entirely of the Dania soil,or any combination added,keeping the area dry is a continual problem of the two soils.The two soils were not separated because of seepage water from the slightly higher in mapping because of similar management needs adjacent sloughs or flatwoods. resulting from the ponding. The Chobee and Dania soils are in capability The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small subclass VIIw. areas of Gator and Hallandale soils in similar landscape positions.These soils make up about 5 to 15 percent of the unit. 11-Hallandale fine sand The permeability in the Chobee soil is moderate, This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on and the available water capacity is moderate.The flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and permeability in the Dania soil is rapid, and the irregular in shape,and they range from 20 to 1,000 available water capacity is very low.Under natural acres in size.The slope is 0 to 2 percent. conditions,these soils are ponded for 6 months or Typically,the surface layer is very dark gray fine more during most years.During the other months, sand about 3 inches thick.The subsurface layer is the water table is within a depth of 12 inches,and grayish brown fine sand to a depth of about 9 it recedes to a depth of 12 to 40 inches during inches.The subsoil is yellowish brown fine sand extended dry periods. to a depth of about 12 inches.Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 12 inches. These soils are not suited to cultivated crops or citrus because of ponding and wetness. They are In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Hallandale used for natural wetlands. The natural vegetation fine sand,Hallandale and similar soils make up 83 consists of cypress,red maple,ferns,maidencane, to 98 percent of the map unit. In the remaining and other wetland plants. areas,the Hallandale soil makes up either a higher B-1 or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The bahiagrass,and clover.Excellent pastures of grass characteristics of Boca and Jupiter soils are similar or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good to those of the Hallandale soil. management.Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small possible yields. areas of Pineda and Riviera,limestone substratum, soils in sloughs. These soils make up about 17 This soil is moderately suited to range. The percent or less of the unit. dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, lopsided indian grass, pineland threeawn, and The permeability of this soil is rapid. The chalky bluestem. Management practices should available water capacity is very low.Under natural include deferred grazing and brush control. This conditions, the seasonal high water table is Hallandale soil is in the South Florida Flatwoods between a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 range site. months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 This soil has severe limitations for most urban inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 uses because of the shallow depth to bedrock and inches during extended dry periods. the wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of the depth to The natural vegetation consists of South Florida bedrock,wetness,and poor filtration.If this soil is slash pine, saw palmetto, creeping bluestem, used as a septic tank absorption field,it should be chalky bluestem,and pineland threeawn. mounded to maintain the system well above the seasonal high water table. For recreational uses, This soiI is poorly suited to cultivated crops this soil has severe limitations because of wetness, because of the wetness and droughtiness. The the sandy texture, and the shallow depth to number of adapted crops is limited unless very bedrock;however,with proper drainage to remove intensive management practices are used. With excess surface water during wet periods,some of good water-control and soil improving measures, these limitations can be overcome. this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops.A water-control system is needed to remove This Hallandale soil is in capability subclass IVw. excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons.Row crops should be rotated with cover 14-Pineda fine sand,limestone substratum crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows.Applications of fertilizer and This nearly level,poorly drained soil is in sloughs lime should be based on the needs of the crops. and poorly defined drainage ways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and With proper water-control measures, the soil is they range from 20 to 300 acres in size.The slope well suited to citrus.A water-control system that is 0 to 2 percent. maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good Typically,the surface layer is dark grayish brown surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface above the seasonal high water table. Planting a layer is light brownish gray fine sand to a depth of good grass cover crop between the trees helps to about 12 inches.The subsoil extends to a depth of protect the soil from blowing when the trees are about 55 inches.The upper part of the subsoil is younger. brownish yellow and very pale brown fine sand, the next part is grayish brown sandy clay loam, With good water-control management,this soil is and the lower part is light brownish gray and dark well suited to pasture. A water-control system is grayish brown fine sandy loam. Limestone needed to remove excess water during the wet bedrock is at a depth of about 55 inches. season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, B-2 In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Pineda fine With good water-control management,this soil is sand, limestone substratum, Pineda and similar well suited to pasture. A water-control system is soils make up 79 to 98 percent of the map unit.In needed to remove excess water during the wet the remaining areas, the Pineda soil makes up season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped bahiagrass,and clover.Excellent pastures of grass areas.The characteristics of Holopaw and Riviera, or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good limestone substratum,soils are similar to those of management.Regular applications of fertilizer and the Pineda soil. controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Boca, Hallandale, and Malabar soils in This soil is well suited to range. The dominant landscape positions similar to those of the Pineda forage consists of blue maidencane, chalky soil.These soils make up about 11 percent of less bluestem, and bluejoint panicum. Management of the unit. practices should include deferred grazing. This soil is in the Slough range site. The permeability of this soil is slow.The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, This soil has severe limitations for most urban the seasonal high water table is within a depth of uses because of the high water table.It has severe 12 inches for 3 to 6 months during most years. limitations for septic tank absorption fields During the other months,the water table is below because of the wetness,slow percolation,and poor a depth of 12 inches,and it recedes to a depth of filtration.Building sites and septic tank absorption more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. fields should be mounded to overcome these During periods of high rainfall,the soil is covered Iimitations. This soil also has severe limitations by shallow,slowly moving water for about 7 days. for recreational development because of wetness and the sandy texture. The problems associated The natural vegetation consists of South Florida with wetness can be corrected by providing slash pine, wax myrtle, chalky bluestem, blue adequate drainage and drainage outlets to control maidencane,and gulf mutely. the high water table. The sandy texture can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or by This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops resurfacing the area. because of the wetness and droughtiness. With good water-control and soil-improving measures, This Pineda soil is in capability subclass I11w. this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops.A water-control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide 21-Boca fine sand water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons.Row crops should be rotated with cover This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on crops. Seedbed preparation should include flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and bedding of the rows.Applications of fertilizer and irregular in shape,and they range from 20 to 350 lime should be based on the needs of the crops. acres in size.The slope is 0 to 2 percent. With proper water-control measures, the soil is Typically,the surface layer is very dark gray fine moderately suited to citrus. A water-control sand about 4 inches thick.The subsurface layer is system that maintains good drainage to an fine sand to a depth of about 26 inches.The upper effective depth is needed.Planting on raised beds part of the subsurface layer is light gray,and the provides good surface and internal drainage and lower part is brown. The subsoil is dark grayish elevates the trees above the seasonal high water brown fine sandy loam to a depth of about 30 table. Planting a good grass cover crop between inches.Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing 30 inches. when the trees are younger. B-3 In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Boca fine above the seasonal high water table. Planting a sand, Boca and similar soils make up 79 to 93 good grass cover crop between the trees helps to percent of the map unit.In the remaining areas,the protect the soil from blowing when the trees are Boca soil makes up either a higher or lower younger. percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Hallandale soils are similar to With proper water management, this soil is well those of the Boca soil. suited to pasture. A water-control system is The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small needed to remove excess water during the wet areas of Pineda and Riviera,limestone substratum, season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, soils in sloughs.These soils make up about 7 to 21 bahiagrass,and clover.Excellent pastures of grass percent of the unit. or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good management.Regular applications of fertilizer and The permeability of this soil is moderate. The controlled grazing are needed for the highest available water capacity is very low.Under natural possible yields. conditions, the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during This soil is moderately suited to range. The most years. During the other months, the water dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, table is below a depth of 18 inches,and it recedes lopsided indian grass, pineland threeawn, and to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended chalky bluestem. Management practices should dry periods. include deferred grazing and brush control. This Boca soil is in the South Florida Flatwood range The natural vegetation consists mostly of South site. Florida slash pine, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, chalky bluestem, and pineland This soil has severe limitations for most urban threeawn. uses because of the depth to bedrock and wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops fields because of the shallow depth to bedrock, because of the wetness and droughtiness. The wetness,and poor filtration.If this soil is used as a number of adapted crops is Iimited unless very septic tank absorption field,it should be mounded intensive management practices are used. With to maintain the system well above the seasonal good water-control and soil improving measures, high water table. For recreational uses, this soil this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable also has severe limitations because of wetness and crops.A water-control system is needed to remove the sandy texture;however,with proper drainage excess water during wet seasons and to provide to remove excess surface water during wet water through subsurface irrigation during dry periods, many of the effects of these limitations seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover can be overcome. crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows.Applications of fertilizer and This Boca soil is in capability subclass I1Iw. Iime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water-control measures, the soil is well suited to citrus.A water-control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees B-4 EXHIBIT C LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT SAN MARINO LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT February 2014 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This report documents the results of a literature review to identify potential listed species that could utilize the San Marino project (Project) and summarizes the results of the listed species survey conducted on the Project site by Passarella&Associates,Inc. (PAI)in February 2014. As part of the literature review, the Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies was referenced for the location of breeding colonies for both listed and non-listed wading birds including; but not limited to,the snowy egret(Egretta thula),tri-colored heron(Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), wood stork (Mycteria americana), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus) (Runde et al. 1991). There was no reference in the atlas to any breeding colonies located on or adjacent to the Project site. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) database for bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests was checked to determine if any eagle nests have been documented on or near the Project site. According to FWCC records,the nearest bald eagle nest (CO-015) is located approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the Project (Appendix A). No bald eagle nests were identified within the Project limits. The bald eagle nest database is current through August 2013. The FWCC database for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) colonies shows the closest historic nesting colony to be approximately 0.5 mile east of the property (Appendix A). No RCW colonies were located within the Project limits. The FWCC database for the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) shows several historic panther telemetry locations within the Project(Appendix A). A listed species survey was conducted on the Project by PAI in February 2014 for wildlife listed by the FWCC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) as an endangered,threatened, or species of special concern (FWCC 2013). These species include; but are not limited to, the Florida panther, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), RCW, gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), and the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi). The Project site was also surveyed by PAI for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the USFWS as endangered,threatened,or commercially exploited(FDACS 2004). The weather during the February 2014 survey period was seasonal, with temperatures in the low to mid-80s, partly cloudy, skies and five to ten mile per hour winds. Three qualified ecologists walked parallel transects at intervals close enough to ensure that sufficient visual coverage was obtained. Direct sightings of listed species, as well as evidence and signs of listed wildlife (i.e., C-1 • burrows, nests, tracks, scrapes, droppings, etc.) were recorded and Global Positioning System (GPS) located. SURVEY RESULTS No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey conducted by PAL Two listed plant species were identified during the survey. The Project contains suitable habitat for listed wading bird species, including the wood stork. However,no listed wading bird species,wading bird nests, or wading bird nesting activities were observed within the Project site during the listed species survey. The FWCC database for bald eagle nests shows no documented bald eagle nests on or adjacent to the property. According to FWCC records, the nearest bald eagle nest (CO-0l5) is located approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the Project. No bald eagles, eagle nests, or nesting activity was observed on the Project site during the listed species survey. The Project contains suitable habitat that could be potentially utilized by the RCW; however, no RCWs or RCW cavity trees were observed within the Project during the listed species survey. The Project contains suitable habitat that could be utilized by the Florida panther. In addition, the FWCC database for Florida panthers shows several historic panther telemetry locations within the Project site. However, no Florida panthers or sign of Florida panther (i.e., tracks, scrapes, scat, etc.)were observed within the Project during the listed species survey. Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) scratch trees and a black bear bite tree were observed within the Project site during the listed species survey. The approximate locations of the black bear scratch trees and bite tree are depicted on Appendix B. The Florida black bear has been delisted by the state but is still protected by the FWCC Management Plan. The listed plant species identified during the listed species survey include butterfly orchids (Encyclia tampensis) and hand fern (Ophioglossum palmatum). The butterfly orchid is listed as a commercially exploited species by the USDA. The hand fern is listed as endangered by the FDACS. The approximate location of the butterfly orchids and hand fern are depicted on Appendix B. C-2 REFERENCES Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004. Florida's Federally Listed Plant Species. Chapter 5B-40,F.A.C. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,Florida. C-3 APPENDIX A DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES N N r�� K I- _N o ''C' Z m 1 LT1 ILS I- U d O N rc ~g L N O Q O , Q Q Q V a - W F Q ~ ¢ 0! Q H N 1- py Zj ,_J aal: .sz Q oury w"o _ 4 4 . . . . ~LL QLLF F0Z WJ (a m u_ u_ LPL i $ .. z. m,z Pi o< * /3� `' • 4 IA R 4E .4, g .i53 um 0 i IE niEB Iffo &'g li i :J� fly • 3• r ---- • � .• 131 • •• •' ~ •• • • • ••• 1 . • • • •:• • •i •• •• • •• • w• )•• •• • • •• • .• •• • _••• 1 g N g N S• • • • •• • ••• • ••. • • • • •• • • • f • • 6• • • • •• • M • • • • • •• ••= y • • S • •• • •• •• 13 .. • • h• •• • ! ! � i•• • ! • ••� • • 2r(n z• • • • �••$ • • •• • !' •• •• • f •• • • •%• •�w• • ! • • • i APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH LISTED SPECIES LOCATION O 8 w� P ,_ g J ti o mms 16. W raR Pi d " �° z z v ti m ' W m m m w y�mmm �; ms2 & o 9. . .. 8 Z a5 �, Y '.'1[. 9' 1 '�^< '`• xp g + z .`1< ' ▪ � �,m,, j3 �,y.,. - gig_ .. �,.. 34.,r< .s ,• kr, w }‘..a. .'.r., „Ii„,124^,‘",:141.41t.7,,;?, aj'. . -- 'N, 7 M T, +t ♦14"x.: ^ar-11-. ,Y T 4'4"VI �a°§ �'IVt 1! < � *t AK $ .a'+ "i vt '1+ aa +E .r Z "�..sx � . R °.� „,, Y� "6.1.4-`r i v.-4•'m-.La, s-1. ;: -+` ,+t, <g'. -4-,I ',,,c44' Art w' , "'e . 4c r L l _ - 'F7h v 4' e 4t1 �t — „ ' Y'{ r°` .rf,'z w < < Sr*. -,5, a �.. m 1 '?� Act' 7� ' 4' 6� W 4, .: .1, 'i tr ' E.„', .)4 , „..=' 4%,,'Atr*, 4 l'A iAt , -. f:Aiit 4.t CA'' "A'?," r7", . **tied( .ki«. '•14ele.'4,• wii.‘ k.',10.:*.4, "Ti, . .,-,z,„,,r*,...5,,n1/4, .`a.. +� .'T0.<i b..i4° .ty ''V4...4 Mr Gf,I. i 1; ,�Ny�`�:_;a �s. s.s II; 4th"t° n.0,-' � "*v ^ ,!M1 h �a . y, `V.. ±^•Via_ ��. 4•� �� Y�ti� i?»� +G{; " �'`m��'�'trx�tf� � � 'i 3 ' , V � +. m.�Vic t- }r „..... �l4V'4v ^4 + '� y4 i.�� rte's V :� 4 C'd i� yf�r{ . .t . !i,-:r - .{tip 4.' , I,`..,r .s�jT,�' ` .,{`, < v `�[ •V,il`` }ter 'r x� �� •i". +r m '�'p� + + Y.1 I i . # � 4i T'4r_ - ff i�}1,14 R LL_ 'tr '.-.'4 h f <' .11� °+. ✓ '.„vie,,,tt,,,,,, 0,, .44 4,..t, t yy c N �,�yy yy g M i .�. f C„ . ,!' '' '' 4'a tab vt F r 'i y�f;y1+�' Ale),t f r �Y t .1-R-1--;,- 1. A ^ iy +' .„) . - <2.4-1-...,'t j r b ar 9 °ul �� } 'ti s Ca s4 �5 is.;„,.`, r' t + � ` {,x#1:xv4., +f VC' ` tTA "s*IT ?4 ty?' t 4 `-1 r a %%fig-51°0A: .4pall �r ot�� kr s 4 w .`4•`_ a R. �' �',-a '` >'HIV_ a s iul�}a /<• �irt�'.�4 ias t1 s :.6 .`.trlra. ft ?d��'.. :.i W a e� rw_ ,, 3 � 't ' ,, , ” °" t'"`�, ti ^i 7 f'. t TT�l ''t xJSS n ,..'466 k „ k r 4 Y 4x7 s ,? 14 m '� ., 1 y ,. ... Y11X 1M 1q Y r .Yi NI` 1 I • }� iii ' }.. 'i ��jjj •I VI: °� F" 4 ,�r 5 q� r}� � �.�y,.� .N� if7�� `�1�, ;� � s,F��. �37r 1 �.•:. Y FI r L xd+a+�t••ncr'tair aax dvx owns ax+.s aum-xa! mrq a<a sdro.mYn.d4++anxwa xnd r.x+x+awo�xasx�ns++smaee4eeenr ENV�90NNENi>l Darn REaaar�Fi� rr[rvoix B P[au wain i.iE La s nwa n -6/n/EOi��E ic.0�Pn J o<e i4� aES 4 L EciE •ion p 3 ap e' ,i Y V ` t fi•i . { { ` -; c,1 mo , 4,$. , ..,,;,,,{ Y A` - A- } ,. .,.., . . _...,..‘ . 4.... ..,,,_.- ._,, ,... ,y •`- .. Ats - , .- -,. _,,,,,.... „„,.: > N .._ s x n I r i { t ( 03 ii'. p s : • t ., i ,.. ., .,).... , ._ > 1 ,, _.,_ up f n • _if n• i •.. -1 r m C'' •- •_ f191 C i Y ' 4.., m a µ ! ■ _ r ,, „` x t. z o d O a •• • • - m o Nm o cm > z£ O , a 9 m m o-, ' A J 7_ Nz t z . O m O V ru i i i,2 i O San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBITJ CONSERVATION LANDS MAP 1 --4.-::.,*.; : ,-..L,i 1 iv,.\ 4 I ,* .. ago----7.7.,:zz,.....11,, ,,,. - s al .01 1 4/ C. w-. --7 Interstateg75� = _r 9 -•` _�a , t!`= a . . ......._cli '� p6 i ,_ f SAN MARINO --Cr'iiiiii . ,, \ i r I z �� f E LA.414A J� } '• _ - .t� ti3 .I 3• 4 , , ' �� a�f� � �-- � 1717 i in st_ 1 s° - yob ... •t +•'r{ _ fir.. �': L'... _ . lkik art. » Y? ( ii s'' rnock-Rd k, 7 f.P .rya",` F " t y 4 -t )y r-4_,.---1-- . ----N M m 1 //'...),\t' ''. -..J7' ,-.17-4A..0' ... : .... ''. ' 41'''',-.1141 .' '..' -.. ' - - era°-,+ � �, •��,� �:= , .� !'"'�"�;.» fi, ' '4.t•c-,101••.!,,r. .. ',.4,1, '.,ti ,.- , . 7 I Cen.w.uan L.ndllablle W! e r � $ : /t... ..W .._. ,�Y� .M. °+ ' EXHIBIT J : SAN MARINO CONSERI ATION& PUBLIC LAND i L•1P �•u��,�.�il I ccsa a A Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT K PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP ..j I1 -.i{r • -- L r . _ s / r. :r.,e,, t , a � r k. • / _ _ _ mss. .117.'1:‘-;::::‘:/' r. /ice' ��` , 1 / 4 "g , ' .7,..,:7 4 +."r ! F. / .p °\ Gold Gate Fire Station 672 $i ` I ��s b. `" .r i .` `�' :. i ,C/,b �,;, ` ,'. 3ezo e.�rr and _..r fe-1-, , •. , ,. ,,--, ., .•,'. 1-:- --iSs1 t r'`_ /. r p' e _ Interstate 75• f ``' . i! o\ / '�SAN MARINO �\_ .---r . . . ,., 1.LAP i4 t. �� , . i 1 ` r� r '� C lusa Park Elementary / , N , _. _ I I F rµ',,, - 16005 f Berbera Blvd! , h r I I - kr ! -'•'w 0. I I , I 1 1 iv..:.�+� I .9c -- - I I . 1 1 R� 16 .r _ ._ e-• f ` / . u� tt=I,. j4 jib \ * •=r / —, - / yi - Rat`tlesnakeaHa;r»ockeRd ` — / lam,♦ y -• -k—C-1 �' P�,.��*:` _M ----.'-' '' , 4ortir4 sue, ♦,? 1 a Fhyslelans Rsg al Mad¢a!C ter' i. ♦ � - �, LdyEi�,enrar � / s + 9 ■ '1 Lal High School Blvd Y - _ _ /_It i / w - ..a - } i Collier ounty SAsrfl1 ^ "'....• \ ,� �'-• ltf76L CCWtunl Pk �'I a'• ; I ^v.' file '..u- .. }y r cj - Lely Ngh so..- Ohoof .&. t1' 8125 Lad Cultural• 1 p ' , b X"p a '� ,= e tt. :.' vN EXHIBIT K • 02/25/2014 r'�` r fie, , , .�., �` , SAN MARINO SERT'ICES & T-I CILITV 11T-1 P „l,, crs��tl�: A Prepared For: Fl & LD Venture, LLC San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT L UTILITY AVAILABILITY LETTER Public Utilities DMs on February 25,2014 Planning & Project Management Alexis Crespo,AICP, LEED AP VIA: E-MAIL Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Drive,#305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Subject: San Marino PUD Parcel#: 00411440000 and related Water and Wastewater Availability Dear Ms. Crespo: Both water and wastewater service are available for the above referenced project from a 36" water main and a 12"force main, both located in the Collier Blvd. (CR 951) right-of-way. Connection points for the system tie-ins to water and wastewater lines may be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by the Planning and Project Management Department, validating that the up/downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. Interconnection with adjacent development must be evaluated. This letter implies no guarantee that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of potable water and sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until the project has received a commitment for service. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at(239) 252-5366. Sincerely, / ) Kris Van Lengen, Principal Planner Planning and Project Management Department cc: Aaron Cromer, Principal Project Manager Matt McLean, Engineering Review EXHIBIT L 02/25/2014 m . amErr z ..10., m:, ,1 East,Suit :•xis 341' �,&1:;�_t' _ .;.r:;nt•.� Tam :�i 7ra3 ,e 303 • ..:,..:s,F��n .2-53:31•239.252-4285•FfiX 23E-252-5373 A WALDROP ENGINEERING , . , CIVIL ENGINEERING &LAID DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS �- .; ,A, „,,,„-.,_-r_ J m (3 "L ' 6f . ett .t , r � U — *c i .., -Vu r G" *3 r _ - > . . r- EXHIBIT L UTILITY DEMAND CALCUATION SHEET The proposed increase in demand for potable water upon approval of this GMPA is 252.4 GPM. The proposed increase in demand for sanitary sewer upon approval of this GMPA is 196.8 GMP CALCULATION OF EXISTING DEMAND PER GMP Potable Consumption Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population=396(1.0 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPO GPM 198 2 154 60,984 42.4 243,936 169.4 Sanitary Sewer Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population=396 (1.0 du/acre X 196.4 acres+ 2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPO —I GPM 198 2 120 47,52.0 33 190,080 132 SUMMARY OF EXISTING DEMAND: Estimated Peak Potable Water Demand= 169.4 GPM Estimated Peak Sanitary Sewer Demand =132 GPM CALCULATION OF PROPOSED DEMAND PER GMPA Potable Consumption Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population=986 (2.5 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 San Marino GMPA Utility Demand Calculation Page 1 of 2 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPD GPM 493 2 154 151,844 105.4 607,376 421.8 Sanitary Sewer Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population=986 (2.5 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD _ GPM _ GPD GPM 493 2 120 118,320 82.2 476,280 328.8 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEMAND Estimated Peak Potable Water Demand =421.8 GPM Estimated Peak Sanitary Sewer Demand=328.8 GPM San Marino GMPA Utility Demand Calculation Page 2 of 2 San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"a Submittal EXHIBIT M TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ` Nil lt1 li %/MD TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. FL-v:1 tfit iti i itt ill ill 41 Iii iti 5i M il fir: For in San Marino RPUD r4 (Collier Boulevard, Collier County, Florida) i. in IA Pil iiii iN Prepared by: . IN 761 2151- STREET NW — iDi ;11 41 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION ND. 27939 i EXHIBIT M Igt It TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 2 Table A-Proposed Land Use 2 Figure 1 - Project Location & E+C Road Classification 2.1 Project Generated Traffic 3 Table B -Total Development-Generated Trips 3 Table C - New Site-Generated Trips 3 Table 1 -Trip Generation Computations 3.1 Existing+Committed Road Network 4 Table 2A-Area of Impact/Road Classification 4.1 Project Traffic Distribution 5 Area of Significant Impact 5 Figure 2A-Project Traffic Distribution 5.1 Table 2A-Area of Impact/Road Classification 5.2 2013 thru 2020 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions 6 Table 2B- 2013 &2020 Link Volumes 6.1 Table 2C - 2020 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 6.2 Appendix 7 1 Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that the proposed development of San Marino RPUD will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways&intersections,within the project's area of influence,currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed 491 dwelling units. As determined,the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for 2020 project build-out conditions and will not create any off-site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Methodology On February 24,2014, a methodology meeting was held with Mr. John Podczerwinsky and Mr. Reed Jarvi of Collier County's Transportation Planning Department. The results of that meeting are provided in the attached Methodology Report Traffic Impact Statement for San Marino RPUD. dated February 24, 2014. As discussed, the project is proposing to construct a directional left-in median opening on C.R. 951. The directional left-in median opening(if approve)will be located between the existing Naples Heritage Access(to the north)and the existing San Marino Apartments access (to the south). At this time,the County will not make a final determination as to whether or not a directional left-in will be approved.If not approved, the site's access will be restricted to right-in/out. A final determination will be made by the County prior to the issuance of zoning and SDP approval. Scope of Project San Marino RPUD is a proposed residential community that will consist of 368 single- family units and 123 multi-family units at completion. Previously, a portion of the property was developed by others as an apartment complex that has 350 dwelling units. The site is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard(C.R. 951)and approximately one and one-half miles north of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Access to San Marino will be provided by one entrance road that intersects C.R. 951. For additional site details, refer to the development plans prepared by Waldrop Engineering. Table A Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use Number a Units Single-Family 368 Dwelling Units Multi-Farnil 123 Dwelling Units Total Build-out 491 Dwelling Units 2 r I 1 1 I I i I I i I t t t t I t t t Wan Ws F9110ft I t I t t t It 1 I , OF t \ Olt t \\ NORTH 1 Nss. �w ~� 11_ L nrk SW Rot Azad aw .r,ae�a. as —_---•_ •_ _..... .._ .. ,.. -- ,�, f f'� 1 ; I I r r I \ \ j \ w -4 \ r.„......,...,....,y \ - \ r \' \ \ \ \ \ , \ \\ * t "r d \l r\ LEGEND \\ 6-LANE DMDED ARTERIAL . ..—..0* \ \ 4-LANE DMDED ARTERIAL \ \ 2-LANE ARTERIAL \ 2.4.mE COLLECTOR/LOCAL \ / \ \ JMBp \ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. \ Sa n Marino Project Location & FIGURE 1 Feb 24, 2014 Roadway Classification 2. 1 • Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by San Marino RPUD was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. That is,historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use codes"Single-Family Detached Housing" (LUC 210)and "Condominium/Townhouse" (LUC 230)were most appropriate in estimating the new trips associated with the proposed project.In addition,trips associated with the previously constructed San Marino Apartments were estimated using ITE's land use code"Apartments" (LUC 220). As determined,the total development traffic will be 504 vph& 621 vph (existing± new) trips during the AM and PM peak hours,respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the total existing+ new trips. Table B provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table 1. Table B Total Development-Generated Trips (Summcaion of Table 1) Daily Weekday AM Peak I lour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) (vph) (vph) 6,580 504 621 As determined, San Marino RPUD will generate 328 vph&411 vph new trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the project's new trips. Table C provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table 1. Table C New Site-Generated Trips (Summation of Table 1) Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) (vph) (vph) 4,252 328 411 3 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS San Marino RPUD Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 210 Single-Family Housing (Proposed Land Use) 368 Units 230 Condo/Townhouse (Proposed Land Use) 123 Units 220 Apartment (Existing Land Use) 350 Units Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon Units) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit, LUC 210 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X)+2.72= 3482 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= T=0.70(X)+9,74= 267 vph 67 /201 vph 25%Enter/75%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.90Ln(X)+0.51= 339 vph 214 / 126 vph 63%Enter/37%Exit= ******* *****************s********************************************way********* LUC 220 Daily Traffic(ADT)= T=6.65(X)= 2,328 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= T=0.49(X)+3.73= 175 vph 35 / 140 vph 20%Enter/80%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= T=0.55(X)+17.65 = 210 vph 137 / 74 vph 65%Enter/35%Exit= LUC 230 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.87Ln(X)+2.46= 770 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.80Ln(X)+0.26= 61 vph 10 / 51 vph 17%Enter/83%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0,82Ln(X)+0.32= 71 vph 48 / 24 vph 67%Enter/33%Exit= Total Trips (Existing+Proposed) Daily Traffic(ADT)= 6,580 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= 504 vph 112 / 391 vph PM Peak Hour(vph)= 621 vph 398 / 223 vph Total Net New Trips Daily Traffic(ADT)= 4,252 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= 328 vph 77 / 251 vph PM Peak Hour(vph)= 411 vph 262 / 149 vph 3. 1 Existing+Committed Road Network Figure 1 and Table 2A provide a detail of the surrounding E +C road network. Table 2A depicts the minimum level of service performance standards and capacity for the roads within the project's are of influence. Collier Boulevard is classified as a six-lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary north/south corridor that extends between Immokalee Road and Marco Island. Within proximity of the site,the posted speed limit of C.R. 951 is 45 MPH. 4 44 = n' 15 .2 w000c1" 0 © 3 0 00 LLI 41.1 c EZZZ >_ >_ Z 2 ›. Z ZZ 0)— ;V) 4., nt e/ N T.- N CD cf NT CO 'St 'St ca a L. v- ,...- co T-- Q3 QD et 01 et 01 41 0 E ,.-: cs '''" 6 e4 c5 ('4 0,) 1.- e4 T- — ' ' & & N N C6 1 t; co 0 o rl 1: 'Cg i:i',' NZ ',.' Z.ft g'7!" 'aN Z1' e` t''`.. O'`'• rt ci C') Cr) el (NI C") cra N ... ., 0 0 ar IX 1zzzzinto 0. z 1... 4, 5 w 1: )5 5 ila 41 0- X 41 N 0t) Le) 1014) 17).JC ...• `.. 6 1--. T- 01 et •-• ,r4 1t c- N N 3... 0, a 13. ..0■0 0 Z A. 0 ,... Ir. 0 Z b IF x 0 to to trl z z WW W WW I. CL 'IC CL 13, 1"." 4.4 , „...... ID C.,) 8 1 L4 g..?, T: C) 4 14? '4? 1, ry ..... CL a... 2 ..., . 0 L.' IE es .') a) 0 N. N.o m co < (\I t•-• 01 el M r e - - N- 4% LU Cki W e a u o LU < 12 43 g 13 CD CD CD CD C) CD C) CO CD CD CO ....I CD an 0 0 = CD C) a C) CS CD CD CD CD C) U) t.; -. 01 u) CO CD cP cv 0) 0) op cn cn CO1'" ,e 1— a, ii u > N C') C') ts, co V, NN t- r- N. > 7"" C.) ....I 11. Lit i.t ., 0 ..: 01111 ill LU 113 W til 111 0 a W LU re . -3 ta.. ti. al ri) c) c) a a a c) a =3 a ca c) c x W w Csi CI (.0 Tt TO CJ e- C OS 11/ 0 rttd: .0 tO O _ GI E to ce W tn g3 = d 0 0 0 0 0 a, 8, — 0. . To ,.›, — ,2 i-- ... Q 2 Co .2 = O c, co 0 w 2 212 0 eV 0 C cm 0. .al. c > -0 Z1 .v e '`'' -e rd -2 to as -0 to co co t "' OcocC mcC a) a) CO 0 05 OS tal. r5 -5 0 te. tra 2 ri c% lii ti 3 % 0 2 1 6 d 4!. CI VD CC V) EC 4) 0 En 25 g g 0 e`' 12_ at 0:k 03 0 0 = E io to > co -a a 2 2 o 5 03 X I.... i-.• re 0 0 03 tO 03 0 a to o co 0 O 3. 03 5 5. co co zli Project Traffic Distribution The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area; location of surrounding businesses and commercial centers. Figure 2A and Table 2A provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis and by volume. The project traffic assignments were agreed to during the February 24,2014 methodology meeting as shown in the attached summary report. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%,2% and 3%criteria(i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2A describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads and intersections that were identified as being within the projects area impact are shown in Table 2A. 5 I I `' I 1 `` -- - e _E. _._-,.* 01 I �`' -"` =► 1 ��..--..-- -..____--... ,«.. Radio Rood----- 14 -0%tb• �- 3i1-7—% U) `° 77s..—. �.- I ""� ,�••". Beck Boulevard , �WYts Boulevard I e 1 I ♦ Shopping Center I• ,A ♦ Iti,�'`a ♦♦ SR Trip Absorption I ♦ 3 I '! `1 •♦ a Davis Souk vard 1 ++♦ -'' a. NORTH C;) MTS. I 1 I --- lI � I I II I 3I a1 al C a 8 I IShopping Center 5X Trip Absorption I I 17%7% „<-- —4 �r ♦-...„ I ♦ \ Kico \ I G ca I°a 0 1 x LEGEND \ / 65% PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT fr JMBg� TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 4 t San Marino PROJECT—GENERATED FIGURER Feb 24, 2014 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 5, 1 Z tc els a 0 0 0 C" 0 0 Wuj 0 00 F a Lii Lu • ZZZ )... ›... Z Z >. Z ZZ CO— (-5 2,, m Zr c") 04 •''' & CO .4 '4.3- tb ..Zr "4- tal , r- t....-. co i.-• (0 CO VC. CC. Nr (,) u? o E - .,,,! • a. __ kii C4 CD C4 0.) c- 1:1 r3 IS = c*) r3 cv cv cv cv c..) cv c.o co (NJ E s — U) .... x a9 0- ce 6 6Izzzzcoto CI. z 1.. .0.. b 0 .. , tto o t'Vo C(0V Co T N CL ?' V Z 4.0 44 x 5 1.1.1 141 W 111 11.1 CI. IL 0- •C't X 15 CO CCI CD V> al ..-- is, (r) 117 to 2 .:. < la ft4 Et o c 0 o 0 E ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca CD CD CD .J to op 4,1 = 4: C) CD C) CD CD CD CD CD 0 CD CO .17 0 CO Ca CO 0 C:1 04 a) CO CO CD a) r— co Cl ‘-' > ("4 co (r) c•-) cn c,) CM C' ,- 1 < 0 -J 0. 0 IA —7 0 O W W W W LI LU 0 0 WW re Q. a_ 2 •C Ca cd 67000000 OD 0 00 c c 0 CU 5 .... co 03 (0 (0 CO NI- (0 4:1` ''St CO 2 P. ce - 09 it 2 C El' cl 12— 0J ,.. to tr, d 41 t- 1 3 FA CD C* if 2 T. .9 E CC 2 I) g 0 — _,1 7-0 1:.> __ 2 12 ..,0 ce 2 ri) ct c). co . - -P. ii e co co o C c ED 03 0 , 0 * co 0 co 0 4` C ,... 6 ri) rf FA to (A .. 0 5 cc2 0 = 0 o , o. z to 72 co to mti 0 0 10 > • "0 0 itl. VI 0 fa -V k... CC ? 0 to 0 CO +04 7 3! = 0 › O re; B 0 i0 0 0 . a_ O. O. CC CC 2013 thru 2020 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2013 thru 2020 project build-out traffic conditions,two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions,peak hour conditions,peak direction,and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction factor as shown on Table 2B was derived from the 2013 Collier County AUIR Reports. The annual growth rate was extracted from the growth trend determined via the 2007 thru 2013 AUIR Reports. Using the annual growth rate. the 2020 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table 2B. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2013 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The 2020 vested trips "+" background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 2B. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2020 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 2C provides a summary of the 2013 thru 2020 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build-out. 6 a a a. U) 0 ;CI 0 C: 01 ""• 0 I- 133. A A CO 1"- CO .0 4: 10 15 01 01 A -13 01 Of s -IC 0, > 01 14 e- 0 as t) Ci3 CL a. CO N- -a a su X t 8 li' a, 0 ir 0 14.30x 2 0 0102 Ct el G 2 U) CD .... w It I . .e te e M s 1 . q o 0 ....di 0 r., (.1 N. 0 St .= C4 =•••., 0 I 1 1 iii —I vs ,, t,-- a .. 44C te 0 5 ct Pc—I z z o Cr 4 0 „:1 CS1 C') Et .._— 0 0 ‘.— — .w.. 0 0 Ct. 0 m As .4. ..*- 0 ('4 06 re r* 5 . 1 . . C) 0 . 8 cs9 •:r t... E 04 CI r- e., Yi 11., 0 CO .,•••' ..)c cr 03 09 a a) — -0 1,-, 2: cc 'a a2 tZ 0 a a '5, a '0 co -v. CI CO It %- an la <a 1... a 73 > 0 ga Ix cozs c a a *). a to Ct. 1 (..) 0 ,... c c.4 0 • 3 ea 0- Q. s.. C .2 2 O 0 0 •- O• 10 AC Q CC t l'.:2 CO. N . Is a 0 vat. Du 0 3 iD 0. -_-' 0) 0 0 <, . 0.. > 0 1- 0 0) z Q O. 9 " " 1- CO Q. in ac U) a. o >■• z >"' z a. w < Cl.. ..., c ..% ..... r.- o) 0 Lli . 0 . ,..., a ... . c, ..v - 0 L•r " 0 C.> ....1 -(4 W 0 0, LI •,.......1 > a. 05 LLI < 0■0 -0 z z c,t 'a) c. x 1.— Z 04 50 a o = 1 cl z 0 o ‹ ri at ,... _ r.... t.... 0 ..)t '' 0 -,- (V CV CO t-- tNt es - .be cv N Ca 3. In 0 (0 01 a a en ce ... 0 ,... . 30 csi 0 trj 0 el i 0 0 0 ES CM CM r3 Ei a; > EL CL .7) CD DJ 0 a: 0 c m Ci 0 fp .... 0 TS 74 > 'V TO .0 tr 3• (I) 6 ca :•-• 0 0 U3 M •t- e0 12 0) co '0 > to 0 O 0 M 0 ›, al ..-. . . C.2. 0 m O o APPENDIX Support Documents 7 0. ii JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. ik TRAFFICITRANSPOFi"TATIDN ENGSNEERING Sc :PLANNING SERVICES I,1 I .I it it.ir 1113 it it F: I 4flf f F TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT _? 1 1I METHODOLOGY REPORT '1 I¢ ICI For 1 't San Marino R UD if I (Collier Boulevard,Collier County, Florida) -i s 1., f III i t February 24,2014 1 ;.'j 1: l f! :, f lh iti id ql ■w ' i3 i'l RI ±<1 P' it ::, Prepared by: `t JMB it'l ,>,I JMD b TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. If! IIfi 781 21°T STREET NW Iil NAPLES. FLORIDA 341 20 #fE ;:� (239) 9 1 9-2767 0.1j CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27930 GI :I sF t (PROJECT NO. 140214/ 1`' (f-1 ;I 1.it f:f FFi i if RI t! vI 1 TAMES AN KS, P.E. DATE t S FLORID- ES. No. 43860 RI l 'I i( I APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:02-24-2014 Time: 9:30 AM Location: Collier County Government Offices(North Horseshoe Drive) People Attending: Name,Organization,and Telephone Numbers 1)James M. Banks, .TMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239-919-2767 2)Reed Jarvi,Collier County Government, 3)John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Government, 4) Study Prenarer: Preparer's Name and Title:James M.Banks. RE., President Organization: JMB Transportation Enuineering,Inc. Address & Telephone Number: 761 21st Street NW Naples. Florida 34120 (239)-919- 2767 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name &Title: Reed Jarvi,Planning Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name&Title:John Podcz,erwinsky,Project Manager Organization&Telephone Number: Collier County Transportation Planning Department Applicant: Applicant's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: San Marino RPUD Location: East side of C.R.951 and North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road Land Use Type: Single-Family& Multi-Family ITE Code#: LUC 210 &LUC 230 Proposed number of development units: 368 S-F and 123 M-F dwelling-units Other. Description: Zoning: Existing: Vacant Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: Findings of the Preliminary Study: See the attached Study Type: Major Study TIS Study Area: Boundaries: Based upon the County's 2%,2%&3%impact rule. See attached Additional intersections to be analyzed:To be determined Horizon Year(s):2020 Analysis Time Period(s): AM and PM Peak Future Off-Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: I FE Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition(See Table 1) Rednetions in Trip Generation Rates: Pass-by trips:None Internal trips (PUD): Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2020 Der Collier County's 5-year CIE. Methodology&Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: See Attached Site-trip generation: See Table l Trip distribution method: Based it IN_ manual (See Table 2A&Figure 2A) Traffic assignment method:Based upon manual assignment(See Table 2I &Figure 2A) Traffic growth rate: Per Collier County Historical & Current MAR Reports. but not less than 2%or background plus vested trips method,whichever is greater. 14a Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: ' Access location&configuration4 t■..--%A., .--C•\ 11-° 11-c-C-97c'1`.' l' • Traffic control: ,K POO ge.,) S-3 -1"17--4-; Signal system location&progression needs: On-site parking needs: ,K, 1 t\311.-..-Z___ 66mt-tec-Tirolt) n Data Sources: ''.0 %S71-i A-)6 ITE---- k---)I u_ Base maps: ?:: ... G )v6 wr -E,/ Co u Air/ Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: k. Z_0".../14,36 Li r L-t.... -7-ad)L.) 12-e Review process: C71-i f 41161V-1' '''f'E\Ur Requirements: , Miscellaneous: Small Scale Study-No Fee _ Minor Study-$750.00 Major Study-$1500.00 X Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections-$500.00 each To be determined Alf fees will be agreed to during the Metho dology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign-off on the application. SIGN 4001f Al jrall Ai S Is - * ep. er ..,- 'eviewers ,- Applicant .:...,.;.,-,....,, ,.E -.;":.•...,'r 2.52-_,`.3';''-:,':•,-...,1,-Q. c3).*:,.:--;-:' M3 1 NINEBEIMIES2212aSEE=ClaaltaKaan .. \ N.'s I ......., i ......, ...... 0 .............. ....... ...I— .......—.... ......**'... 7 I ......„ —.... ,.... , ........ V.S. 1.............. . 10% 37% to ...._ l-75 Rata* Road • 41---It. 4-0. N ...—.... ..... -- ..... 1114.10, '''''' ire...,.''.*.."''''.....'.. Beck Boulevard 1 "'").,.--..va. Boulevard / I ... • :■-) • • Shopping Center II it e 8%Trip Absorption .1 . e -,b• . . 04 II , LI / ..- I . " Batts aoulevanl "*. .4 ....v.' i NORTH : ---- I 0 1 icr.s.. 1 . 11( ..-,,....=........,,,-J a m (i} t 1 g e pa . ',. a .2 d & . 51 ; I i '.... o ) . =,.M f Shopping Center c.) ' .5.%Trip Absorption 4117% \/\, al .1....= ....•"'"' —4 #0 1 / \ \ Eli \ co 1 Nk. .1 \ \ 11 \ cfr cil _ sz„..... \ \ I LEGEND \\ 65% PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTIRIBIITIO BY PERCENT , .,... I JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. , San Marino PROJECT-GENERATED __......._._._______e....___. 24, 2014 Feb TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 2A fri- TABLE 3. TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS San Marino Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 210 Single-Family Detached Housing 368 Units 230 Residential Condo/Townhouse 123 Units Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon 5.F.1 Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit WC 210 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X)+2.72= 3482 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= T=0.70(X)+9.74= 267 vph 67 / 201 vph 25%Enter/75%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.90Ln(X)+0.51= 339 vph 214 / 126 vph 63% Enter/37%Exit= **********************************************v********************************** WC 230 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.87Ln(X)+2.46= 770 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.8012)00+0.26= 51 vph 10 /51 vph 17% Enter/83%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.8ZLn(X)+0.32 71 vph 48 / 24 vph 67%Enter/33%Exit= *************************************************** ***************************** Total New Daily Traffic(ADT)= 4,252 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= 328 vph 77 / 251 vph PM Peak Hour(vph)= 411 vph 262 / 149 vph Le6L j our JUT M 4- C t Li � oC70Lu w 0 0w CI) U CSC} C EZZZ } >. Z z ?- Z 2Z m_ v} = 0 e e. e o e o �.e e o ge U ° V' CO CV e- CV Cp '1• '0" CO nt 'cf 4 .' N- CO .-- CO CO E9' C*) t*) ti) g - r•' Q r co N O NCB - CV c- U E as Cti o o a o 0 n o a a a o 4'= cr.) C*) CV CV CV N CON Co'') t+) CV: E co, to tl Z ..e - r .-e• Y it S V". 0/ V. .1- o N 41 41 CV 0. . 4 D z ,6 „ Ch CR (.91 C4 z z W W W W W P- .. L .L 2 e e d = C4 -- e o e *? ee a r e r e L O maQCDoQO ° NP- Q i` 1t~ Ag( t it ,it! CV N * CV C) L - tot 0 aC U E OOOCDQ O CD CD 0 CD CD j CND i = . 000O00 CD 0 CI 0 C CO v# (t) C21 CD CC) O Q C11 U) 0) CO CD 01 - w, z ? N M'C'9 M re, re, N CV r t- CV -It EL Y L.QIWWWWWW WO 0 WW Q a. 11tt va C C6 0C] C0Q0 0 O2) 0 ca ca k ,F "--��'`S` (0 U) CD CD CO vt CO 'Ct r CD C Ti W W Na) CO N r `a C as 2 ra ca C`3 i- fr n to d r 'L o H CCI c,, tt 0 ..i tff •@ two re. • is w t CC at a ,� 0 n 21'It .Y N ? - i- O fx O CO O D- m m Cn g 0 E 6 E $ Q C m C? y O m m O to c ea U� ? 4 C a a o c }L- e. = ✓• N m p V m N n t- y b tD 5 a tZ I- C N. P M ►� m co N- "Cl a r d = a c U 0 e cm ca EX• N Q t Y a, > m C/O CD w a 2 a. N e 2, o 2 C- O o as ,J 0 N N N 0 2 ! g '7 q ca o co ea 0 y N - tx = o,Q a N a. N Q 0 F- > r 06 CC CI 5 S? a C H 7 N N N CS g d '° Y a+ ca 0 D m 33 .2 IS > - a m a: s Q o IC @ 6 d u) us a L 0 (q > a to R' O fir- CO • c a - o a O x o N s E il l o U N 5 5S d m oa. � a L C So 00 N 5 o 5 0 ri ci o m a. Y I a. m Q A. - c• °.) N 0 3 40 0 n p C. x ayr c N M O a y N N x Cl) Q 6 01 z to Z NJ z a x` ter c x a a r to cx 'Q a. a• cZ,t` n Z a II61CO Z ill x• o aoa - N a. a. } g. os Ic cy Q o c 1n N +t M G C U ® a ....4 ° aa. m CO o4 at ..J c 1a a c N N L x N N iv CI a 0 a. n Ce -j n a m C) ). c Csi 3 Q o • �" to A rn a)i r N 6 " A ,. „ } 2 A. a. Zr; u) w a' • ci (.3 v = 2 m a a • o 0 • 0. a a cn ei a W al se o a: o m o c.) a ". 13 • KY HI i. l !� I 1 1 I • 3 . �: I _w I g 9• Y I J J• I . ii I. !.S ! I r t I �i °� 1 i s i j t I • . _ I. I �� h i ; 1 I i II. t1 . . I: • E ! E • jJssS S}j • t‹ 1 ' is «< <$� -. re f, 1 Ig -< 'I. flue° • • �< ste< I 11$5�.. it l g I>51T,e ''F r . , } _iw Jl� �1�,.=',.,a2 l ',5 _CI ' 2'I ,�2 i :i ,),1 F.. Ig '&<� :( I _i I ,IJ r V 1 i. ,7-117,-,-,'_'! 1� K I� .I V Jr `it-e� i • i_I 1 1 1 t1 1 I nt �� z i E � . 3e, Isl c-# ' •2j'«E c i5= -.I. i !t , 1.§.4.1.,,,r t7., V£ Vic' -1� J ' dLu t •v .'1 C i VV '- s E 7� '.11 ._. ` ...t v _7 3 rc t"'.F.._.1_.}-. ; - ;h I. ;Z.A..+ !7114.L.•L_.. .:i•-I 1 IeIIIIIi i I im} pin 1 , IIIIIIIIIF )1i II o 40! ® r— ®©®m:©z:188166111 I 1ICI® ZINCE MILMO®0DIMIC:=2:'20111 Gl J-.1G:i:1c, S 1!:"Iii iiii I ] iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiti 111 s . 1 II 111 • I 1 t ilit' rt--1 iii • T"i i il ,..„_:..;ei- .'- es...ti-i-1 1 n 41+A I 1.-'-; •.....th ti !,...1,.,„141,9_1 1 .� °1.nf8 0'�"1$,n:°° r m m a.`��r o o ° c.e&Isle z it_l� p ti:y yy��:X S.$*.mto$.m a I..., _e Nrw �'.Q. $xIO'„. r ' 1 i , � 1 , , I ' , ' , ,n� I III ' 1 5 s fig Fc # ' °... . ] J1 :. aF 3 ,,,,.°° (,•: K 1 ,,a s ^— a 5 ■ I i 1 ', I f I V' i t g , a 1.'7 =l °A � ;r .k ',.t ,1a1 9 S ktr m I £k sE¢ # �,js ,r�1'1 iJ1;I:1 3,x� $ ts!� l 1 .5• 1 5 21-,..Z Z e_ > .IIII � __"(il�Z 1z v lii1ZJ4 a'Cl tG sj ,4%I L .1-=ZYY - t 1 � 1 I I '` 11 s 11111:::: -'a:< - �� .- i� lz -'•-".-�1 ° �Jy'�i�: t s 4. K l�OM *MMES I 13 U'r"4'' Iv •'Gi 'V4�'I i`.1 Is£ 1 ` ` I < - £2- •g '21 Vii Eqi..i. .117i:i.?.-1-•=gger-AMMIF=1:nr" 2 "4 I i — ."lz-” '.'" AIIIIII1°e-mel '''''' 6 I t , 7 I x gFI 3 ,2 1Ess 1 I I R " tY V 1 r t i I i6 = I I i d ''' s�_ • 1 tl _L ,!_. -11 s $ 3 gI$ + :�1 I IE.r�y5 S •, F sf zI •Lr A1111 -1=11 r c f (;•s Al IX;e 1= e r d'. c _ 1.11t�" s 1 }s S_ 7 ( f r;taEIc y�.'�o aiil !f s jE. r, �61f1:_1Tiii�:y, �.i§.�-.-„ti iiyA3 ,_ s r .� 1-_!! '> ..a,L.. __<,3u �1 '<.'..LI,F: 4--FL.G>t>vi=.52- , A1„Egis1<l2s;= z. 2R-3i ., _ _8-J#Nt i J r5�1 y I 1 i lv 1 1 , V I V I 1 ? I 5 rl= i. 1 x 1 = l I J I !K €i i i! - s 5' , .._ E 3 s.is S F 6 K .&2 a=e a •;I1 I 1 y s sr,=j T.3 s N S� I: YIF E:_ _�^. I ' __ Ezal � Gt _ -�_ - iw�n 3.nla'I'z.`;g i ,�- -:`,, gt xn .s216' _ ° 7 -` - Ix - _ i 1 ti I=s Zi` l zip'- � o .E-` ' Ot I� 3 c. c y � -fi qs # . - l.P"�a-3 � •13 i ∎1'-- t 0 I s.e: .di�x.s's- _g a s_. 'ei=s s =i-J i Y C 's a , .,tai= v S'3tt`iE:-.'.31h 0,fls �i'<.= =>`8,,1Lloi__�� 3 - AVM1c>,iaaf 5 >'e_,e=�'�lv413.il_lAg4Zi3 '<_ =--- ' 4 G 2.i it ZILF2 till'g lila1 t E .iii - .lam x �t a a t 1°y1 $4 iii . 1113 8 i i •' • s n.. a s .5 I V a , ' T •1-g 1121-1141.11111 �I ��c� -S�?��3�yIc4� 3 Ik .-I .,c a�'_�-�t.�i§�S"�s.�l?;.�s,�k'.$- 1 I Iii _ SffI �S - t��.ss, a ' 6 i Ji:z I 9 A.J,aF XI4as41 Fsff Ell B al, G'S xiS EI ir z1u ,•d.li I '- , teliY Vii Z •t a33 GK<KI �U Vi4� �v'T�'L` 7 I�O'J`1 a't1 FSy LrG1�J FtE gsi�iY J I � 'g 111,,,:„1, � t� IV `J% t Eel E.t>I�I _ � � Z.�:i � ��IC �I $ -r i i 44.. m`1C r i I ' s °is I ,C1� 4. ., o . r 4 »3 I s 3gi 3 Z ,6„,-, pellutl . s t:J �1,..,-1, lr:.i.._.$I. I IgI I :.1.. st.,'iV 3 J1. s'F i 1 1?v . ,. � _— 1 .z ' 1211.1S,•: .-4 1 it g I I=1 x it a u I — j !y it y 1 i s.. a's'a I g .$ OG$1 x jq€:r �g�l,.jeltPSt vati':�.•1i�,�`��s13' r `a1!, .: HH3 da sEk a.- 1� � . �t� Ens-, 1 *I'--'1''''112311 = E CP' �.�01r II MM 1 "jtr l,. ==�111016E1 �=, � 1� 10 8 011 11111,...1_,..._q_ Oil iJpu'ix • • 1 r c _. . ',Li .. . . . • I I .tom . . • 1 . � ; N i } i : .. ii 1 141e ,.1,1•-• 1 ;111818g, A,=.*11[ ii I . X -1� 83 t !, izvg' -i§ lElfI y1 g I 11== - 1 1 � .i 1 HIIH' HIi ! H ; TII1IIllhIiI 1 1 ' 1 1 1I IIII 1 r ! I 4 z 4 ®_a®13fl63=0®8®QISII� CZIMMI MEMI_ i'''1 �NIMM:1�® BCBM�®® '- -re '-i 4.2,1 iez,1e 3^ 32^ 1S.ay^I.' la _ -2 Sl,. £-I t`y �, 1 Ir..t.'.... 7 e^ -.�.. m� i lu 1 et I i 11 i Y GIs-`8..:F, ',s1t ,°�=4µ^b....•1 FS;,T. '!�FI< =1� { 3.^- �a_ >ax'^`^ -e >i i'^ �a l S.Ft N m M$1^017 A 3;°C„1°!.- 1°} '� 2 4'°<1 I if.'';',',;-47,171'. ^ °a 1 1°1 - 1 i r-v '1"Z1 = `� •-=- $t j"' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 m I , Ii Ali ( iiiiio 11 I l_ H III J 1-.e..a fir.52 ..� _ X '. a i,=$.. _ .'E.;3 ^4 9"` F g' • I 1 � = �> 1 ti :i" _ ;yJ, ( 4 i �z ,, 4 _ 4 _�..j .. �: �> 1 � i I 1 � iI j 1 1 I ' Ei 1 4. 1 III 1 ° i ii _ .'fl L E IF., xp.g.t.a. till!Ppap,t.3, "=<NiI' ,.=£i-IA-- '#g ..�.„i, z-11"'"314 1r''2`1-'3 I° jF oIi lit iert E-i:1ia-wiz Y x> n I�ff i i _. fi - 1 91•1! i 1 ..� 1 1 a = ,,I,„_,,..,,,......,._!.t.1 . j ' 3..1 111 .z..x1 " '.�i- 1 1z sI 1- I.L I mi_ i I }1 c .- s 31 i _I i j f 4 1-,s^ 1.... 3 a _I:,: 1,. z I F 1:®fl--=...^-- _�i !111139*h!-..._+1111- I- : t - 1.1. es u z ! 7:172. i y,.�``I:n s i i 'ais.:^a .1i111:). • �f fc 1°i dui �� `f , r, �, � _ ; Iii ( i:.• �"I.. al -.1.-1,....i..7 31.-2jys: 17:T.:M1I F. .. .:{,11,91-a=W��al o of 1 �. '' I.4?A F4,2 S Nj� ,I«..,•ai>I liI'ilil f ....:i.i+ f.i..,n � i HiN y I {g 11 illl 1.i 1 1.1 I i '_ i g_ 1 I 1 $ • It. I n' 1 �_ 1 i. I I _i I ' -41 V Y° -r I KI p s • j i_ d -z }a s nit L` 1 1 11,;„3 1 'IS' I) I£_ 'e c 14 1 L ,p 4 S! 13E_ nl�. E# 41'1' 2 c tS 1: =I E c1. s 1 &I'� _ 1 I I ie i 111 • E <�< _ 4 c 3L' S ,�f S SIC 1 Iil +� Ia� = i, 7c I= t T D _J .p I F .i :J1 2 3 _ s ^=17.'27:14'4:4r:9 3. 31;.1.•.:I°.� 1 4S 2 E`:. i. €t,ti 3. t 1 a ai. �'I'i 3 e F F.7i is 'f .t .c 99 �:Ial=arcs _ -' l 3V V,..JLT'7�:. -'G v<Y J�`C'��1�.-.-�1_m rJ.Ele- ..e<�,�V ,.i_�� _'Y3��..i:.�s�C.�T L. I I ' 1 k 1 1 - } 1 1 ' yiJ , i I i _12 1I1 11 »Ii I-1 I _ i _ I � iI1 11� i 1 r [ r.. s E1:= g-IE .�e ^ zct e1_a"3£j a 4-:.,1 '`i€'__,z1�i Et°,_ ��a 2, 'i_3I .3 a a a § I _ -,E7; =,'=y Li='=,l ..P..<IS.1�1;57.�i°g 1}S°=1 ^6. E1 i R111a G'v !,73L,�#1 c'-6^-._ TA!,-`t-r'�i IS- ,`:t u E 3 Pp.1171 '' 3 - '$.rf s -SF 1- �cc�_ I sF -icef Iv ."�`i -E .7 ' -3 _...-pp 1E �i ..' ! 1 j� RI 1.:111.3 '' K Y:_ u1 E Iv 2.1+5- alt =LII piAj;l _.-.3,' ' ,`I�1 �18 .Isi 1 :�->=1c<t �� c,r < �i31=i a._1s�F,,? s�s' _c s.x —I I _1_ 1 1 `I .E E l E 3- ,jQ 1 I 1 XI . ..9'd'i s_ „III�z,:a3 t I 1 1 s.. .s, 1 , _ ' I =C'¢.... , _ ii a;-si 1 1 I 1 I i3 1 3 I :1 If •: 2 a r 1 ! IS 13 2 Y JiiyE 2 e,7 S l'2 =i11=3 it °t->! 1 s -. .4-.1:=',2C_zi 1 ,e 1� 4 i :e 1,1.a1 8 t 3 �; -3 1 -21 is ,11!a ,� IE a ei t'5 3 2 's 4∎3 1 "F.1 �y } i d -_ a - 1 1.1 T1s1aiQ�:1in c1 I a ( G 1 � ' 1 e, 11�I 1 1 I ■ I .�.a_1 Z.& '1 Fl . i K II- f{ lJJ i4{ } , # , _ l 1.11 ' 1 ( L a d u c1,,z� 5f-s f� r r.Iaffsf$1713 A 1713 v TI$S .�3,3}1.51 I -1 gl/t.i r-zfc 6 ,lr. u..lulu .1�- I { �I i 1 I `I'' II uI -1-= j1 i iJ. ,JIJ f � I . __ :1gfii=1:51 I . 1 i i i i 1- 1 l , 7.:.-1-.1--,-.-1 K ��) I Im' y i 1•a !< €r,11:1;yl �11 I I 1 1 . , i Vii£'1`1�j'� 'I'1 �c`�: 1 I f5 ( ix ^1h1'11: I . I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 i 1a-1 1 1 i a>I -i c 1'a ai i ..,a d a' i-nt- 1. ei�n'a I 1 a4 ° ` i .- __. .�i =�'I I � zI� I 1 1�t l i m'.Z?b L'2$∎3 2 1-.,..7!:...1-4,,a I , -1 x{n R��7-11:11:47.� � 1 ..1 1t-. .. •• ••••-- ••.. .. . . .... ... ... . , . •....;..... . .... . ...,. .,.. . . • — . . . . Tilt, 5' " 1-5 ft 151 " , i5 ' . 7 :5151 3.-‘ ! I Irl • 1-111i; 1-11` 111.1 1,1 1..1 : : Hi rt.!, 111111 : 11-141111'1 „ ,.-.4.. I 1 I 1•111 , 1 I !. • Hi , 1 , I -: Iii I Ili. H ', 11:Iiii : i.ti ,...i41 ti :11 ,. . ! .1.11111 • i.i71., .1 11 • -il , ! ,. li ill t .1 . .1 , ,. . 1 : : 111 ,11 zi ".. 1. ,.; ' , 1 !. pill ! : 11 :1,1:11 1 ' : ' PI ' 1 .. 111 ti ' 11 ; 111111 IIIHI •11: 11 ' 1.. .111 • ' . 1 --;-:-. , ; . : •i . i . • , : i , ; Ili 111 ,-74 ti..: 1 . 41i111 Z .1.1:1 . .1,,, .1.41.11.;.;. : - .1.1 - .r,T,71-77, •!--:.. .1," I- -!1 I-1p,-I• !-2„,- 1-, f ' r 1 1.I.:'1.1., + % . • :. I , It . 1 ; 1 -; • I , ., I , 1 LH ; 1.1 ili le AI 1 ! , • I •1 1 , 1111 a ! II ILL; 1 . i 111 , il illiii 1 li 111 ii 1 , 111. 111ii li 1 ,- i 1. : Illi • 1 Wili • mak:j..., 111W2 Hi ; • i i . 1 . ; 1 jt_111.' ‘ t 111-. . 1111; i if ; , i II II ILL, ; ; . ; L •; ; ; ..Li . , 1 ; ! ill .1 I 1 4 Ilii 11 lt: 1 1 I 1 1 1 Ll ! I 1 I '. .1 1 I I 1 ! 1 l': 1 5 i . ; I ,.. , . • I 1 • " 1 1 1 I ' 1 i I . 1 1 li 1 1 1 t 70: t 1 tz 1 i I • , . - , , i • • li .1 • 1 li •, 1 . ; • r i 1 •1-,,,1 _ I 1 • ' i • i ! ; ,I 1 .< le, I I I I • ' il I. I • ! I ■ 1 . . t t i . 1 1 I ! I i 1 1 I . I I : • ! 1 ' 3 t 1 I . t 3 . - . t .. : t c . . ' I .1 1 ..!, 1 I, i I 1 • I 1 I 1 1 ' ! • E'-- I 1 I I ' I 1 1 I : 1 1 : i • . 1 t 1 ; I I t 1 , 1 14 ! .i- * [ ' I • a ; . , 1 i i • ; I I, ir 111111i: I i 1 1 . 1 I 1 :! f• - ; 1 . ; i : . . 1 . , ; ; ! •i , I , I : t . , Hi ' 1 ri #,J 111 iii 11 11 .111 . 1 ' i , . 1 I ... , 1 i 1 : 1 .11.:,14-1 a. 1 I •f. 1 .1 ;,.s f,1 1 . "1 • 5 I 1 i 5 I : i •5 .' 4 I 1 : i i r '1;"^al .-.; 1ri t 1 !:,ft1 J. ; ; ; 1 I 114.11;., : I, itg, 1“ 1 1 !1;1 1 1 • , i 1 .. , • , i Iv` 1 i ! Ili HI lip.,--lill Ail ; ; ,42111 1 1 . 1111 : • 11 1111- 1 .; , , I 1 ill / i i i : ! lilli ; 1 , 7 " 51•155555 li -11 1111 I 11111, IIIIIIIIII1 [ili III I 1111-1%1 - 1 I t I.T.isi 11 i... I,,, II_ "..1121 t, ,„- 11,1 , 1_.1 1.1 ' 111E4 -ciii., t1H ■ t . 1 ' -! ? ' i : I 1 11 1liA 11 ki .1! g'i :5's, - t !ril 4 21 ,5 i,,V. 1 1 ill 0._ 1 1 , . , f a i.,..Z. i i '■-• !—. Mil 31.ii :: ,",", I ti "• ,—; 1 ,. I 1 . ! 3 ...:4, -it-." 4? 1 i . ; ; : , 4 •4 i 1-4 rill 1j C : Il 11 ., 1 z.zol ii ! Ili I , ' : Iii. 1 , 1i1 . • 1 ! i f :. I : 1 VI 1 . II , illi-' il -Ii i 1 : 1 1 i HI 1 ,, ili1 [1 i f.if Hi ! iki ■ i: 1 ; 1 . 111 111 1 111 II 1: 11 , i 1 : i111 , 1 iii ! ! 111i i II ' f ! ! Hi H . . 1 ! . • ip , 111 illi ,J 1 ., 111 ILI , , : , ; 1i lifill-ii.; i , ,, , ,, , , 1 , , tir d ..1.1, i , , ii 1 , 1 , • , -, I • 1„•, , I , ; , iritl.tt ' 1 . : I . 101 lit iti . fill :xi .itt.:Ei itiit • t ! ' ilJ ! t . ' : ! ! • , 11 !,' ,.1..., :•:-.:'i l ! Ht.:- Ii I 1 ■ I ! II tilli'. / , ...: 111i.11 %. 11 ! 1-"i ± 1 ',, ' 1zt I.,.1 1.4 11 !:-5, ,- k 1-!:-....1..!._.! 1.1 1.!..11..-1 z..1 ,4_, '..3 I.; ;4.: 11. c.LI );gt, !,.!...A • 1.44...1 L:14.1,4 it;i,171 IL, .,.., f...,...1,,,i ; ;1:1 zwi ,i.0:: 1, 1.-,••,4 ,:i i-,3: 4, 1.,,, 1 :•, :A 1,-„,,,,1 „.: ::, 1,...: .:.:., ,„.„, 1 ■f,.:. ki, ., ,, 4-!1 1-1 1 1 ; 1 1 ,. 1 ii itii 111 : 11 ! t 1 1 1 } ; ) i , : j-I-1-i''4-11 t i i ;' t ; . 1 1 t 11+T T rt. 41 k wz itFl im: 1.`rt r..1 !:;.: - ....; 1-i h.! 174 i.-4 1,21 :;:lti 1; F-T %.!;, -;;J - tr.:: r,4 4-.! -1; 1 ! I 1. I i 1 . .0 z;i_;# ID 1;1, 11,...,1 t.4 ;,. i...., v tz-i i,t, i.. 11 ,r.,! ,,..4 :14: /:,,, i..1) s 1.,,...f.2 1.1..-,, i..1 •;-_I...4 .7;4 zi .44 , ! /,-. 4- 0 ,,r, ,, i 1-, i I 1 „ , 1 „ : , 1 i 1 1-11 "-i ! i. 4.....4_, ± 41,1 ri.1.,_.,,L,.. 4 ....4,1 : 1 ,41...rtH : ! 1 :1 ; :i.i,..,11 ,, 1.,Li ii. i , , 1..., 14 I,-.11,:..., 6.41, .-.,,., :;,:i L.: 4 7; !-:.; rii :1 I 1 14 ::;i7: i'...:..si .f: ',Vi9 ?..- I:1 ii - , 0 . i I lf , , , ii li : i. ,, , f i ,. ! 11. 1 ! .:.f ! ,-1 : , 1 : i : i - : . 1 : :.0 , 1 ! ! ! ri . w,i.-L- 1, ! : --i--14 -14-1 , . -1 it li 1$:1 _,Y I. 1:,• IA ,f I., Id i Li Li ri lzii ki 1 1sI.-1 1-11.2 z_,•-121 I 1;; I, .12: 1;;=' ':1 .1 11 1 i a.1.-11 z:: -_-_:::::, 57. !f..-4 f;:i 42,i 1:. iv f 11; _,-- it,1 1:1 I: r1,11!. ,.1 1-31 ;:i -;:i :!'". ;_': I,: It: In Iti ,q 1 $ ‘;'-!. 1 -HI i ! lifi: i ',; ! ti ; , ; 111 ! ; In i , . i , , ! I I , L1 . i " ' I i ' ' ' --I- , ' ' , 1 , , . . L7-1-1-rilizill , ii 1 : (Fit ? 1 ; ; c1-1-1"---rn • c r ; i F l'e$ i' ,ii g::'?"'"1 1E4 IN 1,-; 1::'-,1 II" t;','-'1:34 --, ir-1 il! ill- itl t•-- -4-1 -4 4-2 ..--•.., `7..;:-.";!, !...it ii.; I:" ,f,... It !!..: 1.-- ! F! ;.1:-. :7-7:-,:ti!..1 II:;.;....! ::::::47.4.1,1 1%; ..,,, 1-1 ..:, 1.1 1 i. '1 1 I—' 171a.L1 I.1 . 1 . ' Li P * L ' 1 I i i 1 I ' ' i 111""4 . 1 l ■ . ! i ; , ,1•1 . i ! I , : HI 1i1 : imr1 ' ; . , ii . 1 . . . •: i 8 I al i.....11 ,...:L.J tj -I 1.; I:.. ir. 1.1 I.:. . I.I 1.1.I. 1.1 1.11=1..11 ..1 _,;: a 1,,,,.i. .1 lei ilt. I.r.s! I..• I...: . t 1 .1 1J. 1.-.:,--!... 14:4•:- 1:=;7.-1J...:1 = . 1 • .1_12l , i, 111 , i liti i . .. 1 : = , ii ,. .. i ! lii 4 ;,.. 11 I 1-:1-.1:-1 -, 1 I 1 ; I t t ' ■ t , t ! 1 I 1 i 1 : ..1 ; : 1 1-1 ,- '.1 t... L., _ t t _ 1...1..1 ...,....t.,..._ _, k ._:,:_._ ;....1 ...1‘1_1 g 41 ,41 ,:-..: r.f !.......„ ..i!LI .413F.; 1 ,'....0 1E1 ::,- r.... 1;4. itiii ..--. f7,, f.,.1 -,E Iti; 1.7, Irly l'. It. 1 ; , ig ITI77.1 ,...7;71= 1.EtF 1W: i....71r, ,...1 ..t!...Z! ^1 ," 11.11 ,1 li 1 % 1 l• 1 ! ..) : ; ! : ti 1I , H 2,...1 ". 1 .4 ' .1—•" '•' ' 1 " 1 " . .— Ii'L-',.--1 ' ' ' 1 : • : 117 i : • I111 Ili 111 111i1+ 11 ' : li ; HI II % ' , 11 ! ,i1 IIIIISI 1 ill III II 1 , ! , I r, , ! fililii / 11 ' 11 l ' i % :4 : , H „ , , 1 „ 1 ,,,-;„ . 1 , , , , , ,„ ,i 11 , 1 . . i. i • tt ' l ' tlt.'! 1 ;01:1 1-0122 td 1 1 I : 11 I LI 1 1.1 1 :7,4.. '_!'■ 1, 24 ' 1 1 IA I 1 I .7,1 1 1 r-0.1 I ,,..., H . it 11 ;24a N 1 52 I ; 1 *1 4(• I I 141 1 ..t, 1414 .7t , { t ..ii 1 4 , ; 1 4.,E 4 ; . , I I, it -I 1--71.2.11. ,..1 3 1. 1 ' 1 ET . 1 ,-1 I ill I--4 il :. , I .1., 'fi V I 11 lil ti 3.i It lf4 1= 1.,,li ' 1=:: iil ''4' ''st.'lzi I 1 '11 i': 11111 :4 ii''':'"'i 1 = ii 51 ell ,4-, i 1.!-.4 .. :7 11 1 37.! 1....1 .1 I:, ife 7 Iv 1,t; }7 11 ».-j •::. itr=1 gi,i:=1 IT'l RI I Ei'.g il 1 . ■ if trl ! ..:1 Ifs, irl '' ';'.‘ 4 i.' 411 1.4 1,1' e.'li 1 .4-''' t 1 liril it litl l; 0 qj II 1-i4 gi 11.i III R-1112 -.-1_4-7 if.1 1Z 11:4 -11"i :.11 If It;.1 PI 4'11 P f- f i li'.: fzv •1 ,,, rii ai Ili Ili isl Oil il ; •,_ -,:i 1:41. ;7.1 ill 1.- 1 .f.t.; It:1 III 1I 1:31 1Z1 '' ",; I :T 1 ki9 1. 1 4. li 1 Iii ;:d 'ett 1 '11 11 iiil 342; 1.7. 174 rti 1113 ,t 1%i 1.7,i i.e,"1.!:0", 1=1, 11 :c. ; 11 1-4 It4.:,;,...E 14.-1 1,1 ii: : f.,. i-,11 .1fti Iii 1 1-. I..f iv! .t. tii.` F.: Z-1. VI k" :4 4'! it 11 :1-■ 141 tf1 ',4, 1 515. t:1 1,1ittq 1,,.E. I. 111 !ilti 'v I:iill 1=1 V :a 41 :a, ;;.:I ii zi iN 13,,_? ;-1 ;.1.:= di tali ■-11 1ild ra 'Z': '.,4 1-.:; :1;_ill.IN 11 ' 1:-F in ;'-i; ;;;-9=11.4 I e. ;1: 13..L.101 -1 I; • l • Ili ; ; ; –, ii ; II 1 : ; ; ; If 1 il 1 1 cri i , . i Ii.-1 ! Ill'il ,. . , if II ill i II Ilri 111 / 1 " Tiolill 1111 , 1 iiil II " L , " 1 il I , 1 t 1 1 t 1 ' 1 i ' I 1- _t_i ....1 "--1 1- 1 '-.! t • 1 .I il 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 11 I t . 1j Itj ij . '. 'r; .1.:. 1-.), 1 ' !..' 1.1 . ?-;1•17-1 ;-'q i-','il.1T, 1r- lift 1 1 i i I . i 141 1 I i i 1- kJ ts Iti 1 i I , i 1 1 ; P :-1 51 , 1=! ill i-il -i RI Fe 1 .T., I, 1 1 ,ti.:.. ti -J.,..,1•fr:,2 -. :..... ,) All 1 s 1'44 !T. 11 1:11 1,11, d I.-: T1,._ 1 rij 1,1 31;1 1 1;4. ii, 4; 1 t-i, ,:-' i r,..,1 ••••17=,, Ili 41.' 13. 4,=.', 11 1;1 ....:: RI IF1.- 1 '; - V 74 ifl =1 il-1 7.C-4 il !ti !'" ,T Ili, 41. 1 45'4 .tr., 17 ...: i7....1 III '7,7 Ili I.T4i .1 j$5 1,74 t4 1..' 1 !._;:l ',AI •=.1 v; i; ; •41 s.,, 141. if, -.4 i, t:-•_-_,_,4 t,4,1..!1, ki..,!?i; 19 TI 61 j, ,'1=-.I",w1-..„,,4.,i iioi,•,Nf"ti,-.p--:'“,,.-:_".'..'.•,-.,',.:!:•.1,.i'/;5,5'7.15:-'•.--'•-:•,.'E„7.4,.,1 1 I 1.-1L;r,.:r:"„:..1 ti,'"11i 7I..t.•1.,L!1,,;.4I14l1L...1,l.-_,,.•-.4.,-.;J.:.1,.:,;..;_,I11ht11C,=-,=i.l 1,i;(. ,i-::':',;F-',?I'l, rLIk1;'r1.•;.„ i 1i:iPl4 i:, ,0,--I'• j I r 1.il...ii'_,:1Ii:Etl-u1 l 1"1,.1`5ii•,ri n-7;i: r 1i1,'t?...I.q I, ",I4"4,I-1I1i-t C,4,-:4i,,7-7.1...,L1! 111,-.1i_„:1 1 l•i:;:..t,L.:..-..‘,'.•. I1'I,A,1,,',,,, ;I;41V-,I., 1;rli-k l-i1„i I,i4;i■„-d--• 1 p rd ,1':-p-,-....' 1i':a,i„,i—,,-,f,-„..t•...,:ff!'i,,L,„-.,:•„-,!,.Lt'.frri!7-4-,-„..,,.1 1 1 I i ,•v1,i,.:7d.".i,:,,-,-,2 1fr••,tY 7._T.I-,,;-!,i,,• ,i1.!:-'Ii.•t,.1,-.•--'‘--.-..1 1.',;,,$1I,1 7..1,:i,,1-•1.. >.1 v a7,_.1 5 l I 1,•iLl1I■!t!r,,.-fft.,-•,.,--7 i I.;:•1t,i--V r4: m i _= 1 1 t l /1 M, i I `....=•;:.; ...,...,F,,,,,,* • .. .. ...... . .... _ .... . .....,.. ., . „ ..... . • • • . .. .. .- .... .. . • . " , s . 1 1 ! ' s ' V.. , „• rf-: i 1 , iii 111.11111 i iill ' IL-1.111i111 • ' .., , . .. , . ii , I . ; Hi 11 1.1.! . 1 , pli.i : i 1 1.• , 1 Heil . .; • 11.c1 lit. l • 1 ; , • , 1 : / T•tf. 11 .1 111 11 1 1• 1 .,111,T 1 1 111 - 11 11 1111 1 * i i - 11A-1111 p 111-I 1 1 , 1 1 '71.-111i 4:11t1 1 i ' ' Sr11 1 111 ' - 1 lilli • I 1 ' 11 l'i•J'f,.' II. FI I , I II I il ill L III-II , • . ! .. 1 ,., 11.1, : ii ,. .i.i ILI, .I.i.I.I • .11,1-1.1 1 II I u. 4 :: 1. 42-..4. ... . 4. . .H.1.1.:.!. ....;,i• • It , 14- ill i LI 1 ill 1 I li Id 1 i ri F • 1 . ! IN il I i i ! I Hi I ! I Hy I till il III 1;t: li , I ! f ; I II I I •11 ! I iil I -li . iii WIWI in i II ; ! 11, 11 ' ; ; tit . . tt , ; ; • ! . ... t, ; I il • til''''' t !! I , . . ; 1 , If : 1 1 .• ' 111 I 1 1 • ' I -4 1 1 1 i i , . 1 ! - I 1 f 1 1 7= , i i 4 . . , : • . ____.4 ' - I 1 ' • 1 i:- 1 ; ! 1 1 1 II11 . ill I 1 1 11Iiii - 1 . I ' : '111 li Hi iliiii 1111 ,. d , ; 1 ,, , , , i , . , 1. - lit ' I '' 1 . . I I 1.. A I . I il I I s ! ' ' I. I ', 1 ! - I i-1 ' I ! I 1; ! . _ . ; 1 ' I iii LI,) t I ---.-a----'.'"T"'"'—'1-1 I 1 1 1 1 i LI 1. . '.1 ! s ; I 1 ; , ---, I , • • i .. . V t I I I I I I I I 1.7i : I : I a . . 1 i 1 j HI 11 : 1111 ' r = 11 '''. . :i I I i i , , . • 1 1 i i 1111 . p I. i g 1. i I ; I 1 >I I' il I 5: Is7 2'.11111 I / ;i'll i'''A ! I I 1 h k i - li :11 1 I 1; --.t1 : 1 Y 1 ;ell-, .,..." 1 ,-; I 1..,5 IS I it 1 i I i I I i i li- . .:;;.44..i• j : L ,,1 -. .,. “:- 1 Iv! I.,il t I • 1 I 1 1 1 •...; ; : r; j 11 5,4 Z.,0 N J ! 1 1 1 ' ; 11-9 ; 1 . 1 `-x 1 -1,, : ; I :••.'- 4.1.! i i 1 I . il ! 1 i 111 -- 11 L. f I ..,.. •-•i , . i LI I 1 . i , : : 3 '-- / / I ' ''.. i '-i---n-/---I / / i ; I ; i i 1 / 11 I :i 111 1111 Ili ' )11iiji' 11111 I ''''' : 1' 111 11 / 1 ; 1 ! H t. .; ,.. • .*:g....• , ; ;;; sa ,, ; , , , it , . 1 , ; : , 1 : I i 1 ;.....i :-,. ..t • .a "."7:::...-1 "-I !;* "...2 sa! ! I ' : i 1 i.i'..1.-.1.. .! ill II ! I . I : ' I I ' ' , 1 I . i „ ill iI.7-.., 2: .5: 1***7.1A Vi.!Lvt31. 11 ' Ilii .t. I''' '.. ' ' ' ' ' l • 1' - - - f.5::: ir.:4a, it i 1 1 ..0: % .,1 1.i:1 ,F.,.. ..'i . 1 I it ; its ii.;; 1,- eiitt kf,iizi ,,..t.,-; 1 , it„,„ ii • I t II :: 1?sii 3.1 1..1,7,1 IA- ; • -1 ,1 — 1 .s..t/ •,;;=+.t.,, t ittill ! i t II ., •; !•74 ;.-2: 1-1 -, 1 ; lim ; til ; ; ; 11.1 , ; ; ; ; , t ; ; ; • Li ; • illi 1- ii *till ■ 1 , 1 Ili 11 • ' 1-,----- • ; ' : 11 1 ; ; lit ir•-.. ; Hi ; IWO il IHIL ! ! _II ! . l ' : ' HI ; Itti, tit. It Iiiiii , iirli ; It ! ! ! ; l• 1, 1 , v; . , :-11- 1-FH--1-1, -rt----it-il l : Friri i ! ,, Iiiiiiii ,-111H Illiwi !. : t711111 , 1Ilif1111 10, 111 111111 : 11111 1 ; l ' ily 111:: W1 11 , 11111 i111 0--1 4 t,. , i . „,._, . . 111 , 1 I . 1 . . . • , , , . : • : , ,., :•1 1,g ••,..; 44 ;•.z..t-,...-LLL ,,-...:_!...;_;1 '''.1 : iiii ' il ' ! II , "• 11 ! 11-4- ' ' ' ---r--,--,T-4—' . • . t•I •-1 • -..! ,.: 1...-1 ::- • : I ; - , ,4+I. '1'47+1'! I . : ! ' . L. ; ,..; ...1 v:1:, -. : 1.-tr-il , ,,--1 !.., : . : .-: r • ! 1.-i 1.; 1,..; ,..; IT ,..„; ril ;zit it,i, 1:.il ti.F.1.1 i„..,....; 1...,4.. 'i,„.11,:-.. 14-••• ill 1,,cit ;„:•-i I ; 40., 1.11 : LI '1 1-=1. --1 -' ' I i 11 i ' 'ti l': '"1 l'" 'll-' 1"3 .1 ''' '"!_i I il 11 711 il Li., ! -D-4-1-•:± 1-zi" 113.1F1 IF,F,; ri;i'! ji" lEi 151 r, ,1 ,-, ,74:40,.., ,, „ -,,, , , : 1, . -+,,t. !Ai,: ,1 1,1 1] 1:4 . !..:.,-.. 14a1 1.4- !'' ''.1 1-.' ' ' .7: . : ' ' I ' I5 i: 1..- .-: 1.:•; .;•.- -,,Li i l'. --. - : - , i-, ' i 1 I t , -,. i • . : 1 11 : 1 ' • 11c ; 1.1 ; 111111,..1115111:71, ,i'lle l'';, -t -'": 1 i 1 I ii 1 j I 1 t • 1 ; ; : ; , 1 Li - i 1-1.4. i4 -;..; :,.:i 61 t‘t I-1 -t.t1 [--1 1 1 11 $': :1 ='-'111 r's; i'l it1 I-; 1-i .1 ti,,,,... ' ; - :1‘....1-4 ; 1 i : : 1 ... 1 , ; , (Tr 1 FLLII 1- 1 1 1.1 • ! • ' 1 1 ' ; i '::_i 1:1` Ti 1 . 1 i _ 1..1 1 1 1 1. 1.1 •,-q 1-1 1 1 ITV id ki. i 1 i: zit _-Lri 1 ii I .,. Lir....,,k. ...;..i..., '..- i Ili ,i1; , .,, .,.., ...,,..., ... ,-, - rj :. . j J-1 1 . ■ j ; I ' ' • ; j ; ; ; j ! 1 ; l ' ' l ' i. !.); - ;• /• ' lki ''Il'=-1 / ri-1. 1 ! " .,i- ; ! ti , i ,-i ! iti , ttiii Li. ..1 ,,. t. IA 2. ri ,:ii :;4.1 :7 Vz2 1,, I•j:1 1,', ,•.4 i, ,,.. 1'1 ft • I-1 1 I-I 1-I i j .,,i 11 1:: 1-3. 1 :11 ;- 1:1 ! i 1 i. 1 !.1.1 , L - 1:"..,1 1 1 : 4;: i'il 4••• 1:1 1-` 1' 1-i sl r I 1 1 1 -1 1 1, 1 11 • ' /1 1 • , ', i jt rl_ 1..-1-. , i ;VIII it'';-1 --1-! IL j t a; '• . ', : 1 I H ! ,‘ ; _k_Htn-HI 1 I. i_ Li 1,1 L H L4... LI ...1 i.i ir.1 1., ici 1:1"„.. ., 1_ 1-11: j .4 1 111 i 1.t. I: I-1 r-i il I 1 11 : i- I:: i : ki ii. i : A kiii I=.-2.?,1 .-:n-4--ci 1-7.y,i ii, 1P,', -b-i il ,4: 0 i i 1„,, r_ri 1..,...!, ,..... 1::, Is -11 ir:T. H :717 iti ' ......:-...4 1-' - —4-. -4, ti . 1 I: :.-1 I; V I I I I I. : ' ' ' I-T-1---.7.-.--1-, ! I I I I V LI I a 1.1 I ICI'!il: E-1E4 le1s1 `.f' '.= i',. 11 '11'ils' ' ! ' 1 ; 1 ! I ll lti ill 11 tillt . 11 , - ! , ff , 1 - -' 1-- 11 ' 11 1111 , - i t - , I1 iliti 01 1 , 1 1 111 111 1 . 111 j. 1 1 11 li ti ,. ' l • 1 1 1 1 : 1 - illt 1 , 1 i ! it . 1 1 , 1 ' i II 111 ; I: 1 , !;••, :::. 1 ;. I ' Li 4. itl.E. I i 1 1 • I L,. -. it • I ilt : it ; It I ' t 6; i • t •-ft lit sitms ; t!v. .11 I I-H • ft t 1 i I 1 : i ; ,- - t,,E 11 i I I 1 ' ! !I , 1 i ;..i 1 I 7.':it' ;11 1, . 111.., I/1 ti.i, Iii 1.-1.; •! iti 1.14: i :'11 i 1 ; 1 -i!..• rt i tAt; t - r 1 ; I . .1 , 1 , -„,..• ;,; 1..: , ; . I ,.7.; , , ,..,- ,..-, ,, ;:.:., 1 ,, •!,:•„; ao , , ig 1 '''.,. 4.1 ; Liii ,• : :: 17 $11 ' i Il i l'.':. 11 11 ',7-i . !ft*, VI li Iii, i 11 124 id '1 2,i 1110 1-. ] 114 1-' :173 III 1 ! s..... r , ,,, ,, , q 1..E.: '.-`..`1 ly ..ii i LI .. - ,-, :-, _-_, ,1 V' 11121 3r ....,.- •-r. ;; 4 III . it ri ,.. L ..,t il ; t t•-- - . il !..,-= g '11 .-.. !.;1'' ;Ca.' si''..-.-1 .7{ 114 .I.--- VI ! • ''• t--I; I, 1 1$-". l'E : V'Z' it, ts! 1,;; 0,- ,-;:t I_• + .z-t 13 it.t-i., 0; !ji .. 1r A! - j5.t ht 1 ;1 ;:i -7, li'l .1 1:::;3 ,z.. s.". ill l.. ialt; -, !Tit itt 114 r..', hil 21 14. al '':/ ;•;;;; •f• --.7.:' 12. i f 1,tili 1.11 !E.:. 16;: c_.11111; 1.. =i le p IX 111 !.5 II I i :=-- til 1 [ill ill z ;: ',lit :".ii .i.i. ,±1 1'4 i'l 3 iti ,: ii: IA rf 11 1 II ,. li 1-0 - ti ...'` =: ','"..: .4i. I' .:1'i il i' ■ i'ill ' ! 1 111 1 ' i : 1H l ' i i I i itil ii 1 tl ' 1.H - 11 11 hi it ; HI ; ii ! : __,:' 17.11 !ti 41-6131 :;,,;ft iiiii ; i •:,! 1 I , 1 . t • I. ; I ; 1 tEt ri -1 .--`. li rti if 1 1 ,I., I i • 1 ; I '07i 1,•=1 1°..:ti •I. 1 1 ..,.. .4 .4 14:1 41 Ill Al It l•-: ;, ;; i'il 1 .% . , ; ! ,.. 1 1 ; -, it .,... IY.4 , ,... t, y rtu 1..., ' ' . ' I gi -fi ,.....L A : : i• tf„, , 1..3 ,.: •.: 1.: •-., 17 ;-, - , • 1. 1 . ;....i, ,.2! .,.; ...:., ..,.. ,..,,,, r..i.t.,.., 1, ,-' ii r .. ,-„- ,.., 11 , ,, ,..„ 1 „ ,., ,,,, ,,, ,,;, ,,, ,,,,, 1 „ , , , , : , 1„ ,11 , , , ,.. , .1,,, , , , i1 , ,, , 17:51 17-: 171 1 1 1 . ....-, 11: ;*.- 11-.,,, El if....11 ml :Tr.:: :3•..1 114 ii •E; ;rt Itt i i , ; ; ; i . 1 I . i 1 la it. e..: itzt ici'-.1 r-1. '-', I-1 11 ,"! - t rl ; ; ; t ..4 ,...; i I :71 1 ZIF 4•,f 17; , -41 7: Ir. .:. 1 i • ! • t -, • --• :. ,!-• ...; I I 1 ! i 1 1 : ; , , 1 • • ,....., 1 e 1,..;.:, 1.,,s._,,...,. itit :.tr.:1 ,...; Id 1,1 ; 1111 ! 1,1 _ill . , „ , ; ., ! : .., : , i 1 1 ':54;,,i !#1 iTirtii ill IF:. Id Y 11 if), '..i.:1 'II 111 :II q!, 1 I VI t *, 11 ; , : - ,J 1,.11717,727.: Is) 1!,,, 11 - — --, - . 1 ! , 1 ' , , ,, ; , f- '-;. f-1 1...'z-i 1-- .7.4 1=1 l't. I-1 I-1 '''. , 1 1. 1-.4 ' it i4;411-ti id. -...i '..1.:1 1,1 !=:: vi i, I ;1-'4 IL.. 1 1 ; 1- ti :-.:i 1.11. 4. ; I, , .1-1 .. 4,11-.7.--,_-, 1._ : ..._ .. ',A Et -.1.1. 1d-118/ 11 1 i" 1 '-.1 ,' 1 I I i 1 1 1 " ' ' ;... '.-1 ' T.1-?..'. ' 1,•: f''.1 17-; 1.1 1-1 15.1 r.. 1-4 ,.. t„ 1.-.: ,-, L,__....-- : ' ' :- .1'2:-r; ;.1 11' :,-, IT, 'A i:ti 1;i ;e if! it :E:i ; ! i-3., i..-4 t 1-- 171';1 i."--4;' 1.F.:71 '15 1..? V; !"-i l': :-: ti I ; . . , . . , • , , . . . , .._ _ 1 2 San Marino G M PA-P12014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT N WASTE GENERATION RATES A, WALDROP ENGINEERING --- d % \ CIVIL ENGINEERING& MD DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS _. � _ v t^�'' _-w,-i,z"=`•.,.�.�'.Y�'�„}� ',1?^�'-c�.;��". --'r'�-'>^d'�.i �,�/.-.r. ^._'_`-'_�_n'""wj_^�u`�r'^`-y".�.-..�.�v.aa -.. � . ! ✓ ma vf } r N � t r —7"� � ` �,-„ �?` ,,,- �- .✓ �, . " � � . C 'r ms." .�.-o� ee s6. G 2aVi" y/T : �r ----;- ,!;;-. -- —"' _- EXHIBIT N WASTE GENERATION RATES The proposed increase in demand for solid waste services upon approval of this GMPA is 3,267 lbs. per day. The Solid Waste Demands Estimate below is based upon 4.43 lbs/day/capita @ 2.5 persons per unit. CALCULATION OF EXISTING DEMAND PER GMP Population=495 (1.0 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2.5 persons per unit) Number Persons Per Per Capita Use of Units Unit Consumption Total Demand (lbs./day) Residential 198 2.5 4.43 lbs./day 2,193 lbs./day CALCULATION OF PROPOSED DEMAND PER GMPA Population= 1,233(2.5 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2.5 persons per unit) Number Persons Per Per Capita Use Unit Consumption Total Demand of Units (lbs./day) _ Residential 493 2.5 4.43 lbs./day 5,460 Ibs./day EXHIBIT N 02/26/2014 San Marino GMPA Waste Generation Rates Page 1 of 1 San Marino G M PA-PI2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT 0 BOUNDARY SURVEY II Z + vOIbDV'alN'gJ tlafTgJ -N se_ '-' 1 dI-i Ma a[3J.Ntl'N111O50F dM5MM01'It NOW�3B �}O < N W Q�I i all'ainlue. 01'8 H all'a�fl UB Old H 1 a a> m 1 �- E3� A3A2lf1S AHVONf10g Q »x u �`I y __ ano u om rn O N 6 cc SN01SIA32i $� �,3 yy 9■ ',: 13:1�I6[`re ° E F 5 Is 11/0 3 IP ! 1 , I 1 i °!5131a ;Ei'e39E€„5 6 a 1 - t3 12 a I ! pp ±: �1y- - i ssq!iiiii(3;a `°@Eats E Ier; ° falff i11 01 3 p1 3 AP 4 a i eeensp•� si#5`-6Lpie tl a +ly'e ail jbi I S ! El S 6 ktio;E93 5E5=` c g Ed��1` � 33i 3 5 t1 11 31 ti`gq`ili4F-t^113 S;I! . c@ll3 if!kid 1 g i -4 .E_i:^ de,fl1.A10e 9 R I �E �E go, E� °Ei� °2E9a�: s. r _egli Ed' e ti.q!v: 5 a 3 5 e5 6 a fitsg `13 !,° i iE111 e e _ 1 E. E E°3 aq.p �j a s.E[ i 1!= 1! t ^ i9a$,;F-1C€°231`1E201 E.Atl - n 1: E. Si h011 Sege 1ht? ` W le s F ;i FI 9,ae� ne e' et 1 -ev..1.::E € - 1' gg 6Ee- •a ! r i i ei i` 5l a yi1.1�C![3`fJeg t a 9 a ? E 1 E 91i € 83 f _. 1 64.111i11i _egglsEE N . I - vg 1 1 IIf^@t- If #_ gi 1 - a y a,: i a �1 #I6�1 1 pQ�6 B�+As 1 11 i c y! r. pg3 0.11 C111-1)W e1 61i 1 M:d °r a 6 P° ifli1ih.3 CI 0 Ea q e I a' a °36y E g 6p 6p es 1^ � �Z °g c 1`y ^c�a:gi;i 613 id!?IE S1� H o ii ie iR 4 - U B �^I 8•;;as E [ is € / E z II =- ii g a !g IT''l ;o... ALI O ° o W e 'j Y e I E e a �— h21 c 'e a !I!� 1 of 9 " C.; a 1 1 a g_1 1 1 . la 1 i/A 1111 1 1; g !I dp 1 0 i e g 17.ry I G d 6L�a 17:k II A� �'y� 3. E 1 y 5 1:4EM —``1I fi I e �• 3+p 1 iR t(ss 4i IA' I it O O `—17"'sm 3-304 C p1./1^l .1 10 YY Is iltj g to 11 ' 4 q uO E U W CA 1 I g i1 9 °* 131 1 4E 1i ° 1 l 1 1.g: 10°1�3€ jLQi8E�2° � l6 ppE1;=;{1�r�36F 1'c iiis -1111:111$1ri€��:'d..1ii11&6610/11 I z 12!INS/M14ye1t1EEE•BEIceaflievt 0121.1pa 9 w wh 1. yN 3E1 .1.g g E I- swg1- g� 111 A i1:1I 182 i 1 €nt/P0 S ii0. 131'11 alski Atli 1 1 1 s p `a - I .:, i i I 1-' glib n tiigi . f ; OTI'alrilIJOA 01 V H VIDADIVALVICIDIEIM03 iselsnossia limos se el115/0130111■10113-35 011'aullueA 01 V H A3mins.A.evaNnog m•E VI =.== w■immorommor Z 2 mourr■mt SNOISIA3i1 ''''' gq 1 g g .17-14,1=7. i 'If'-- 11 1101 - 6.4,121 i,ND ,.........,— .---...... • - ....,.... ----. ....... .. .. . I .-..-- Illitirs?K\ALROMMINISMIGIVELIORIM,:". 1 -I sq. 2-----._ t;■ -••■•••-4:1- ave,-, ;•-, -,, Iri..../., ,,-,x,', • 1 Ir 8 g :11 • rx- ...--7 hi tEl .::::'>...11.-:RAUSECI-<-.1.-.:-':. : ..:. ."\:, .:,:kr,.\\• s.1 - - —`4 • - •'111°25 ......-.. ........ ____ --I-- ' El; • • PLE 1 1 i X 11 13 '%-12 • i E) 1. 412E1 dill 11 1 q III I ti 0.1 nt .0 _ f:t, , J ..'-,51 1-:-—-- 4 I I( III •—•-•-• i ICS ull.1742roXIS II i 1 iii s „bs t „, Ell 14 h 14 0, P1 k Kx 41 1 I i 1 — ——-1 •gg r-1 0 l!' 1 tz.1 -4,1 at i E i 50 OE. I _]..:, _ fliE/ 4 41 if; 1 ; • , , 1 -,-,.--— E.331 r3.1 tH 1,1 r er.. 6 I il LI ni ..L. Az :le I t"; 1 • t•••-•'-'="...-•-°°.°lie s.t 1 f . 1 1 ..:: ,.., I 9 il-.-.1-,---Th kg SA bg • i 1 , 1 it•-,: a- i AV', kls. ; *4 Ili 111 t /' I i 4 I A tt Ek ;31.1 oil I i 3 ,...t„i t.E■ -1 t =it 1 - i 11 II I 1 i IL— 0 ; qs / IR; u‘z!, r-at I I gt lit 121i 11 1 i 3 3 D" *;—. IR lilt Sil 81 I "I 1..“.61...1 1 gr• it I 1 40 • 1----1 .ereE......o. Of mrarc, i UK I __-4810101111111.M.1111111111111M■ .........,.- -_ -------;oigi.mmomimm. -mitimaiiitutTmlormalw --\ ; I: /1.s g i 2 i! I ;kat mum betas E 3 8E 1.•:,\)\ ...**°"`Arallk -111. 73 P k . 1.'1', ' i ' I r 1 i t--... , ---.... • i tel il 11 lot i 11, t 1 , 1 i,,,. i took: 0 E 1.3 Ise 1/61/4 ; 44 6 iS z1 t I I, i .-os 4.1' Et ehiAS ii 150 '..% $"4 li !II; e lki Ilig -( liti 1 li MI Shil SiAll 'la?. ;I; Vr Igg 3 3 . I al p.11 1 gro v 1 R: I ,*, 4 1 h g AP 1 ill t ----, otin t * 1.7.1`tg17. ' own ig A linitillM- - ...., ________ —•-•..-!4.7=7-/_-— 1■43_g..,•,-._.-!,-*_--_____ 4q o r=._fa.-•.—_1..,_. - _.7ko=o me.C.-esmr_re,am a-Mi.o..r r.3le..P eL,o;sI:st r7. k— JP.3..0610 il IMMINV-' 1 MO OIVOS IMOD);mamma t k Se W E ?;12 Ili X t San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT P AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE WALDRQP ENGINEERING " CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS " - =vim: ,.i" s ,-��'� i ;r. -' 't� r- i'- - ,. . E. EXHIBIT P AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION The subject property ("Property") comprises 196 acres and is located immediately east of Collier Blvd., 1+1- mile south of Beck Blvd., and 1.5+1- miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in southern Collier County. The Property has direct access to Collier Blvd., and approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on this arterial roadway. The Property is designated in the Urban Fringe Residential (URF) Subdistrict and is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) per Ordinance 00-10. Approximately 39 acres of the overall PUD have been developed with 350 multi-family dwelling units known as the "Aventine at Naples" apartment complex. The remaining undeveloped 196 acres are the subject of this amendment request, and a forthcoming PUD Amendment, to allow for the development of the Property as a stand-alone residential community. The property is currently eligible for a density bonus of one unit per acre through the use of transferable development rights (TDRs). The Applicant is requesting two (2) site-specific text amendments to the Future Land Use Element to allow: 1) an additional density bonus of 1.5 units per acre to allow up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 2.5 units TDRS per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; and 2) to allow the use of TDRS from any lands designated as Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, thereby omitting the requirement to obtain TDRs from lands within one (1) mile of the Urban Boundary. The proposed text amendments apply solely to the 196.4-acre Property as described in the application. As outlined in detail below, the proposed text amendments will further the County's stated objectives regarding the TDR program by directing new development to an urbanized area of the County with adequate public infrastructure, while assisting in the protection of Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands by increasing the demand for their perpetual conservation through the severance of development rights. The unique development pattern surrounding the subject property, specifically the location of Forest Glen's and Willow Run's preservation areas under conservation easement, will ensure that the intended transition between urban and rural areas of the County is achieved through build-out of this property at the requested density. EXHIBIT P PROJECT HISTORY San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 1 of 7 The Property was originally rezoned in 2000 from Agriculture and Rural Agriculture with Special Treatment Overlay ("A-ST") to PUD, allowing.for the development of the 235-acre property with a maximum of 352 dwelling units, a golf course, and preserves. The approval utilized the "base density" of 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the URF Subdistrict. In 2002, approximately 39 acres of the PUD was developed with 350 multi-family dwelling units known as the "Aventine at Naples" apartment complex, effectively utilizing all of the available base density for the entire PUD. The intent at that time for the remaining 196 acres was for development as a golf course and club. Since the rezoning approval market demand for stand- alone golf courses and golf course communities has significantly decreased, along with their financial feasibility. In response to Staff's questions at the pre-application meeting, the golf course was not intended as a private amenity for the 350 apartment homes, and it's removal through this petition and the forthcoming PUD amendment will not impact any rights enjoyed by residents of Aventine at Naples. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN&COMPATIBILITY The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the County as evidenced by the property's proximity to Collier Boulevard a six-lane arterial roadway, and other major thoroughfares such as 1-75 and Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. Additionally, the surrounding development pattern to the north, south and west is also indicative of the urban and suburban character of the area, and includes a diverse mix of multi- family,single-family, golf course, mixed-use development and non-residential uses. Please refer to Table 1 below and Exhibits D, F & G, which provide an inventory of the immediately adjacent Future Land Use Categories,zoning districts, and existing land uses. TABLE 1: INVENTORY OF SURROUNDING LANDS DIRECTION FUTURE LAND USE. ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE North Urban Residential Fringe PUD;Rural Agriculture Multi-Family&Golf Course (Forest Glen Golf&Country Club); Vacant Lands South Urban Residential Fringe PUD;Rural Agriculture Multi-Family (Aventine at Naples); (Pending PUD Approval) Mining(Willow Run) East Urban Residential Fringe Rural Agriculture(Pending Mining(Willow Run) _ PUD Approval) West Urban Residential PUD Multi-Family&Golf Course (Naples Heritage) Densities in the adjacent communities are developed at approximately 1.5 du/acre. These lower densities are largely a result of the internal golf courses that significantly reduce the gross density across the site. As noted above, development of the property as a golf course is no longer financially feasible, and would also serve to underutilize the public services and infrastructure available to service additional density. San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 2 of 7 The requested density of 2.5 du/acre on the 196 acre subject property, or 4.0 du/acre when combined with the existing density on the Aventine at Naples property, is consistent with the approved density of 3.67 du/acre within the Lely Resort PUD/DRI, which is 1.5 miles southwest of the subject property. In addition to this comparable density, the Lely Resort approval allows for 820,000 square feet of commercial uses, which further intensifies the project and development pattern along Collier Blvd. Similarly, Hacienda Lakes is approved at a density of 2.8 du/acre, but also has 587,500 square feet of commercial uses permitted in the development. When the commercial lands are excluded from the density calculation, Hacienda Lakes' density is similar to that proposed through this application (1,760 approved dwelling units/447 acres of Residential Tracts = 3.9 du/acre). It is also important to note that uses immediately north in Forest Glen are multi-family dwellings, at a relatively high net density of approximately 12 du/acre. Additionally, these higher density residential uses are buffered from the subject property by the on-site preserve areas and golf course. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is supported by surrounding development patterns, and will not be inconsistent with the residential character and approved densities/intensities along the Collier Blvd. corridor. Compatibility will be further addressed through performance standards and development regulations provided in the companion PUD application. GMP ANALYSIS &CONSISTENCY The subject property is within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict per the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).This subdistrict is specifically sited on the Future Land Use Map to provide transitional densities between the Urban designated area and the Agricultural/Rural area, and extends 1 mile east of Collier Blvd.,from Davis Blvd. south to US 41. See also Exhibit G. The maximum allowable "base" density within the URF subdistrict is 1.5 units per acre, which may be increased by 1.0 unit per acre via the use of transferable development rights (TDRs) severed from Sending Lands located within one(1) mile of the Urban Boundary. The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict was established in 1989 to provide a transition from the urban area which allowed a density of 4 units per acre to the rural area that allowed a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Since the original adoption of the GMP in 1989 the need for a transition area no longer exists and higher density can easily be accommodated from an infrastructure and environmental standpoint. See Exhibit J demonstrating the predominance of publicly owned conservation lands east of the Collier Blvd. corridor. There is existing utility infrastructure along Collier Boulevard, which is now a 6 lane arterial road and not a two lane road as was the case in 1989. Impact fees have been adopted to address other infrastructure related issues which may result from an increase in density. In addition, the RFMUD concept has been introduced into the GMP which provides for the necessary transition or protections to San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 3 of 7 the environment that was initially provided by the transition in density. Therefore, there no longer is a need to allow for a transitional density between the urban area and rural area. The proposed amendment furthers the RFMUD goal to preserve sending lands by providing additional opportunities for TDRs to be utilized by receiving lands. The stated intent of the TDR Program is two-fold. Its primary purpose is to provide a mechanism for the protection of the County's most valuable environmental land. Additionally, the TDR Program is intended to implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan's objectives of focusing growth and development towards areas where services such as sewer, water and transportation exist or can be readily provided. As outlined above, the proposed site-specific text amendments directly support the intent of the TDR program by increasing the demand for TDR credits, thereby increasing the amount of Sending lands put into permanent conservation, as well as directing new development to an area with existing public infrastructure and services. Per recent amendments, the County agreed that an increase to 1.3 units per acre of bonus density was appropriate for lands that "straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations and meet other Density Blending criteria..." Therefore, the County has decided that higher densities are appropriate on certain properties within the URF where TDRs are utilized to achieve the density bonus, based upon site-specific characteristics. Additionally, Staff has agreed that the potential demand for TDR credits within the URF subdistrict exceeds the TDRs available in "qualified" Sending Lands, or those Sending Lands within the 1 mile Urban Boundary, by more than 1,000 TDR credits. Table 2 below is excerpted data from the staff report for GMPA-PL-2013-0000134, as amended, and excludes Winding Cypress PUD/DRI, Naples Reserve, and the pending Willow Run RPUD as eligible for TDR use. Table 2:TDR Availability vs. Demand within 1 Mile of Urban Boundary TDR.AVAILABILITY WITHIN 1 MILE BOUNDARY : . Total TDRs in Qualified Sending Lands L 1,804 TDRs Committed for Use in URF 721 Remaining Available TDRs from Qualified Sending Lands=1,083 TDR DEMAND IN URF =_ • URF Acreage Eligible for TDR Use 1,876 Remaining Available TDRs from Qualified Sending Lands 1,083 Based upon the above information, the request to obtain TDRs from outside the 1 mile boundary is appropriate in consideration of the lack of "qualified" TDRs, and complies with the intent of the TDR Program to permanently protect Sending Lands. In terms of the request for bonus density of up to 2.5 du/acre through the use of TDRs, the property's boundary does not "straddle" the URF and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Land designations, and is not eligible for the additional 0.3 units of available density bonus. San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 4 of 7 Therefore, under the County's current policies and regulations, the maximum attainable density for the 196-acre subject property is 198 dwelling units through the purchase of 196 TDR units as outlined in Table 3 below. The Applicant respectfully submits that building out the property at 1.0 du/acre will result in an underutilization of the available infrastructure in the area, and is not necessary to achieve the transition from Urban to Rural required in the URF for the reasons outlined above, as well as the location of off-site preserves along the northern and eastern boundaries. Table 3: Density Calculation- Existing MAX. DENSITY DENSITY DU/ACRE ACREAGE ALLOWABLE UTILIZED AVAILABLE DENSITY Existing Base Density 1.5 235* 352 350 2 Existing Bonus Density 1.0 196.4" 196 0 196 EXISTING DENSITY 198 units [1 du/acre] *San Marino PUD acreage **Amendment Acreage less apartment site/developed acreage The Applicant is requesting a text amendment to the URF policy within the Future Land Use Element to allow for the build-out of the 196-acre subject property with a maximum of 493 units, which are calculated in Table 4 below. This calculation outlines the intent to exclude the "Aventine at Naples" portion of the San Marino PUD from the amendment request, as the Applicant does not own this property. Table 4: Density Calculation—Proposed MAX. DENSITY DENSITY DU/ACRE ACREAGE ALLOWABLE DENSITY UTILIZED AVAILABLE Existing Base Density 1.5 235* 352 350 2 Existing Density Bonus 1.0 196.4 196 0 196 Proposed Bonus Density 1.5. 196.4 295 0 295 493 units/ PROPOSED DENSITY [2.5 du/acre] The amendment is justified by the infill nature of the property, and its location along an urbanized 6-lane arterial corridor, which is a desirable location to direct higher densities from a land use standpoint. This application demonstrates that the required infrastructure is available to support the project based upon the additional 1.5 units of bonus density requested. The request will prevent the underutilization of the County's ongoing investment in the public infrastructure along the Collier Blvd. corridor. The amendment will serve to direct new development to an area of the County intended for development, while reducing the pressure to develop eastern San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 5of7 portions targeted for long-term preservation in direct alignment with the stated TDR Program goals. The subject property is uniquely located immediately west and south of preserve lands under conservation easement, which and ensures compatibility with the surrounding development pattern,while accommodating the demand for housing along the Collier Blvd.corridor. ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed site-specific text amendments will have no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. As outlined in the Environmental Report prepared by Passarella &Associates,the site contains wetlands that are largely concentrated in the northeastern portion of the site. The Applicant's intent is to meet the required native preservation requirements via the conservation of these lands, which will provide a natural connection to the off-site wetlands to the east within the Willow Run property, and north within Forest Glen. INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property will be accessed from Collier Blvd, a 6-lane arterial roadway. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., all roadways impacted by the project will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum Level of Service through project build-out. Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Utilities (CCU)through existing infrastructure located along Collier Blvd. A statement of availability from CCU is enclosed as part of this application. Exhibit "K" demonstrates the property's proximity to available public infrastructure including parks, schools, fire, and EMS services. This data reflects that the subject property is an appropriate location for additional density, and proposed text amendments will serve to utilize the County's investment in public infrastructure along the Collier Blvd. corridor. CONCLUSION In summary,the proposed site-specific text amendments are justified as follows: 1) The proposed amendment furthers the RFMUD goal to preserve Sending Lands by providing additional opportunities for TDRs to be utilized by Receiving Lands; 2) Will further the objectives of the TDR Program by increasing demand for TDRs; 3) Will allow for a compact and contiguous development pattern along a major arterial thoroughfare with available public services and infrastructure; San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 6 of 7 4) Will be compatible with adjacent developments, both existing and proposed. 5) Will recognize that sufficient "qualified" Sending Lands are not available to support the development potential in the URF. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this petition. San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 7of7 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co -ier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—ZONING DEPARTMENT;GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 6,2014 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140000340; COLLIER 36 RPUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT & CONTRACT PURCHASER: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Contract Purchaser: Collier 36,LLC Robert J. Mulhere,FAICP DR Horton, Inc. 6524 Paul Mar Drive Hole Montes, Inc. 10541 Ben C Pratt/Six Mile Cypress Pkwy. Lantana, FL 33462 950 Encore Way Fort Myers, FL 33966 Naples,FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A)zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to allow development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units. For details about the project proposal,refer to"Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 10+ acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and north of Bucks Run Drive in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida(See location map on the following page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is an undeveloped, heavily vegetated tract of land with 350± feet of frontage on Collier Boulevard, approximately 1600 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The Master Plan shows no access onto Collier Boulevard but does show one access point onto Tuscany Pointe PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 1 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 MY a. A 4 n Q F ., i l ' o Il 7 m.- � Wa *dr �4 ,. a a I �,4 Nv sb cn.8 is. --.---'7' ________ liss - .. , .... 1 k 11 s 1Q 00 M 4 6 C9 v s ; Z 0 YNq 1 I I 101110 N (L 6 '2i 3) atiYA3lnos M3lrloo a t:7 / �1/IAAI0� 2 1 N M. axrx 1:11.1.011 D a a 4t Z I-- I ° c _ j7' A :: ok F $ a 8 p V I K 5„ I w- s «r. K o a S a i 3 "a' 1 4 I 5 o— a I C i gi _I I i p p s p 6 i 6„ ; 1 !! l' 0 1 t- 11 il 1 . t 0 ig if $ 0 �'I --....— ^ OtlYA 1Q tl3l1'103 ISB'/ID 11110 301 1 . 1— 3i E1a gg Y8 y 31�j 3 g V YOSNVYIIVI u( 3F 1 1 a O I -- IMa r U1 Y .. U007Y110 NVOO, '- DU031noa • 24 Igi 1- Trail. The Master Plan also shows rights-of-way, a 1.6 acre lake, and four residential tracts. The applicant is seeking approval of seven deviations(see deviation discussion for more detail.) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: A plant nursery on 14 acres East: Tuscany Pointe RPUD, a 30-acre developing residential community approved for 120 dwelling units South: Tuscany Pointe RPUD, a 30-acre developing residential community approved for 120 dwelling units West: Collier Boulevard then, an undeveloped Mixed Use PUD named Sonoma Oaks, approved for commercial uses along the Collier Boulevard frontage Vtil II I, '• e ► . �� ► f• .. ..,," ..r•••• r±sy 'f�`+ .i , " '."'i�"t�."v"_7'^, , v. ? ••&: ,� p op• a1•hi ]]!! !C'4►"� j ! 1 Yt ,i f Y - 3, i _ To % r4,. •ZAP. , ,wr!:.• _40,:t t •t: j • • e M vt hails ' G 1 r l •1r""a-- . ,fits• E .% r:II Lt.- ‘,...,,,,r,... ..*.t; ;elwiten- .; , ...",on e _:,e. es,„,„ ,.., .. ,........„. •�ti:1 •• :-chi ' ,2~ 4 '-'# r.,,�ti '� 1 3 r 1 I.., ,10 ,1�_ <,, A.. _ •" t.? ; - !x« ;,:7!"1/7217.1147L4 g g., .f'k ;,• Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 2 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential uses, including accessory recreational and open space uses. Development within this Subdistrict is allowed at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions: Eligible density for proposed PUD: 10.15 acres x 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU/A)=40 DU/A The proposed PUD seeks the maximum amount of eligible dwelling units, or 40 DU/A. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document depicts direct access to Tuscany Pointe Trail, which has direct access to Collier Boulevard, an arterial road as identified in the Transportation Element.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document proposes a shared access between Tuscany Pointe RPUD along the south and the subject site onto Collier Boulevard.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document proposes a shared access between the development along the south of the subject site (Tuscany Pointe RPUD) onto Collier Boulevard, but there is no proposed interconnections from the project's internal road onto adjoining properties. However, likely development of individual lots along the south of the property; a water management feature along the east of the site; and enclosed private vehicle storage along the north, makes interconnection to said properties not feasible or appropriate.) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities,common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 3 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 (The PUD proposes a variety of dwelling unit types, and open spaces are provided as required by the LDC. Sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC as no deviations are requested.) Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this amendment within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation& Coastal Management Element(CCME). The project site consists of 8.98 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.35 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08,F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The PUD provides for the 1.35 acre preserve requirement to be fulfilled offsite under 3.05.07 Hi.f.i.d Off-site vegetation retention. See deviation #6 justification and staff recommendation for approval in this report. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets the EAC scope of PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 4 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised. 10/15/14 y.. land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of . Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, a deviation is being requested. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. i1 Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. As noted earlier in the staff report, the area to the north is developed as a plant nursery, with agricultural zoning. To the east and south the area is being developed as a single-family residential project known as Tuscany Pointe. That development has a zoning designation of PUD. To the west is Collier Boulevard then the undeveloped commercial portion of Sonoma Oaks, a PUD zoned project. The PUD document proposes several residential housing types, such as single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family patio, two-family zero lot line, and townhouse units. The proposed density is four units per acre. The Tuscany Pointe PUD allows the same uses at the same density. Staff is of the opinion that the two projects are compatible but does have some concerns if this project were to be developed with the townhouse use as that could place a multi-family structure within 15 feet of the shared boundary of this project and Tuscany Pointe's single-family homes. Should multi-family structures, i.e. townhomes, be developed on the subject tract, staff would want to see massing and orientation addressed to minimize the impacts. For example, staff recommends that no more than four units be included in any building, and the buildings should be oriented such that the smallest building side would abut Tuscany Pointe. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 5 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N,requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet for local private street rights-of-way, to allow for a minimum 42 foot right-of-way width internal to the proposed development. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification is a 42 foot right-of-way will be sufficient for the scale of the proposed development and will provide an adequate cross-section to meet ingress/egress, drainage, and utilities requirements while maintaining public safety. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan,Exhibit C. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: A T-turnaround, sufficient for the turn radius of fire trucks, is provided, without providing a cul-de-sac. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the stipulation that hammer head turn arounds shall comply with CCFCO / Collier County requirements of 25' radius inside, 49' radius outside and 150 ft max length of the dead end. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a ten-foot-wide landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single-family residential, to allow for no landscape buffer between Collier 36 RPUD and Tuscany Pointe RPUD, along the south and east property lines of the subject site, provided the properties have a shared access and are developed by the same developer as one, single-family detached community. The developer shall plant the equivalent number of trees (38), as would have been required if the 10' landscape PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 6 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 buffer were provided, elsewhere on the site, and shall identify the location of such additional trees at time of platting. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification for this deviation is that if Collier 36 and Tuscany Pointe RPUD are developed as part of one continuous development, both with single-family homes, there is no potential incompatibility between the sites; rather, they will be part of one, unified development. Additionally, there will be no net loss in the amount of landscaping, as required trees will be planted elsewhere on-site. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Deviation believing that retention of the trees that would be provided in the buffer is adequate mitigation for the loss of the buffer. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 Sidewalks, Bike Paths, and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street within public and private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site, to allow sidewalks to be constructed on one side of the private street where shown on Exhibit C,Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification is that pedestrian access to all lots can be adequately accommodated with a sidewalk on one side of the street (the side of the street fronting the lots) without loss of connectivity. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved because if this site is developed for Single-Family Detached dwellings, the deviation will only affect three lots as shown on the next page: PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 7 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.04.D.1 Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of a dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line,to allow windows in a contiguous wall. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification is that privacy between units can be maintained while still providing windows along the contiguous wall, given the minimum separation between structures is ten (10)feet. This deviation is routinely granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for only those areas described above finding, that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 8 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07 HI.f.i.d Off site vegetation retention, which allows on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied off-site for preserves less than one acre in size,to allow for a preserve 1.35 acres in size. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Collier 36 is a relatively small project (10± acres) within the Urban Area, located immediately adjacent to CR 951/Collier Blvd. Based on existing native vegetation, approximately 1.35 acres is required to be preserved Per LDC Section 3.05.07 H.1.f, offsite preserves less than one acre in size can be approved administratively. There are no areas of native vegetation or preserves on adjacent properties. Property to the south (Tuscany Pointe RPUD) was cleared and met the native vegetation retention requirement by donating an off-site parcel, in lieu of an on-site preserve. Property to the north is developed with an agricultural use and does not contain undeveloped/vegetated areas. Land to the north and east is the Vanderbilt Country Club PUD, with the portion adjacent to Collier 36 developed as a utility site for the golf course. There are no opportunities to provide interconnection with other areas of native vegetation. In addition to the fact that an on-site preserve could not connect with other preserves, and therefore would be isolated within a developed area, the small size of the subject site means the preserve area would likewise be relatively small. The site is also almost four times as deep as it is wide, which would result in a very narrow preserve width. On July 16, 2014, a SFWMD site visit was conducted to examine the site for Jurisdictional Wetlands. The site was deemed to be Non-Jurisdictional (UPLAND). In addition, the USACOE concluded that NO PERMIT was required because the site was not Jurisdictional. As such, the site has no wetlands and no Functional Value or Compensation is required. A monetary payment,for the County to acquire suitable property, or a land donation, in an area designated by the County for preservation, is consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10). Such property will contain native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority than those on the land being impacted, c site copse olicy cy 6.1.1. easem10). Off-site preserve areas shall be protected by permanent s (Policy 6.1.1.(3)). Consistent with Policy 6.2.4., the County relies on the wetland jurisdictional determination issued by the applicable agency, and that agency has determined that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site. Given the above, an off-site preserve, located in an area the County has designated as important for habitat preservation in a regional context, would have significantly more value than a small, isolated on-site preserve. Page 9 of 17 PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Collier County GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1. (13) states, "The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10). Environmental Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation given that the preserve requirement of 1.35 is close to one acre, any onsite preserve would be isolated, and there are no listed species. Further, staff agrees with the applicant's statement that "An off- site preserve, located in an area the County has designated as important for habitat preservation in a regional context,would have significantly more value than a small, isolated on-site preserve." Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a fifteen-foot-wide Alternative B landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single- family residential and commercial, to allow for a ten-foot wide Alternative B landscape buffer along the northern boundary, between Collier 36 RPUD and the agriculturally zoned property, where shown on Exhibit C,Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The required Type B landscaping will be provided within the reduced 10 foot width, so that there will be no loss in buffering and landscaping. The subject site is relatively narrow, almost four times as deep as it is wide, and within Tract L, there is not sufficient width to accommodate the 15' landscape buffer and the 20' lake maintenance easement north of the required water management area. On the eastern portion of the site, there is not sufficient width to accommodate a 15' landscape buffer along with necessary utilities. Additionally, the property to the north is zoned A, Rural Agriculture, which is generally considered to be a "holding" zoning designation in an urban area, pending a timely zoning change, most likely to a residential designation, in which case only a 10' Type A buffer would be required. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: While staff supports this deviation request, staff notes that buffering requirements are determined by the present use not a potential future use. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meetin ublicpurposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUDZ-PL20140000340; COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 10 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the i€ following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires n to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the the Planning Commission $ additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): I. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 11 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking several deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported, some with stipulations, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 12 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 �i. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other applicable policies of the GMP if the companion GMPA is adopted. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary for the contract purchaser. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, and the proposed rezoning is being requested in concert with a request to amend the GMP. 6, Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 13 of 17 November 6, 2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this p etition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate and allows for the interconnection shown on the PUD Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, if the proposed amendment is adopted, which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 14 of 17 November 6, 2014 CCPC Revised. 10/15/14 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this particular zoning petition. There are other sites in Collier County that would allow the proposed uses; however the proposed uses are also appropriate at this location as well. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 15 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on September 3, 2013. Please see attached copy of notes. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on October 15, 2014. At the time of staff report review,there is no legal access to the site. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20140000340 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Deviation #2 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the hammer head turn around complies with CCFCO / Collier County requirements of 25' radius inside, 49' radius outside and 150 ft max length of the dead end. 2. Should multi-family structures, i.e. townhomes, be developed on the subject tract, staff recommends that the owner use massing and orientation to minimize the impacts. For example, staff recommends that no more than four units be included in any building, and the buildings should be oriented such that the smallest building side would abut Tuscany Pointe. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 16 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 PREPARED BY: LIJAVA) /0//q// KAY DR$ELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: 77 IC) • / ' l�N RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: ,-/ 7 -IL CASALANG A,AD ' S TOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Attachment: NIM transcript This petition will has been tentatively scheduled for a January 13, 2015 BCC hearing PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 17 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/14/14 NIM Summary Collier 36 RPUD PUD Rezone(PL-2014-0000340) September 3,2014 St.Agnes Catholic Church, Meeting Room#5 Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of Applicant: George Hermanson, Paula McMichael, Steve Liller,Wayne Everett County Staff: Kay Deselem 2 members of the public attended. Mr. Hermanson started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, the applicant, and County staff. Ms. McMichael explained the NIM process, provided an overview of the project, and also went over the proposed PUD master plan, include location for development, stormwater lake,preserve, and project access. The two members of the public who attended identified themselves as from Vanderbilt County Club. The following questions were asked: At 10 acres and 40 units,these lots would be less than a quarter-acre. Yes, if developed as a single-family homes, the site would not fit 40 lots. Probably more in the range of 34-38 lots,depending on whether an on-site preserve is provided. What is the potential for multifamily high-rise development? The height limitation is 35' or two stories. The request does allow townhouse/attached dwelling units, as does Tuscany Pointe,and it would probably be a similar style of development. When do you expect to go before the CCPC? We would hope by November, and before the BCC by January. Is Hole Montes still doing work for Tuscany Pointe? Page 1 G:\ODES Planning Services\Current\DESELEM\PUD Rezones\Collier 36 RPUD, PUDZ-PL20140000340\NIM Summary 9-3-14.docx Yes. [There was discussion regarding a suggestion to possibly increase buffering from the golf maintenance facility, not because of any concern on the part of Vanderbilt Country Club,but for the benefit of future homeowners in this development, due to noise and odors from the maintenance facility.] Where are the water and sewer lines? Along the northern boundary. They will connect with facilities within Tuscany Pointe. There is a 15' utility easement and a 10' landscape buffer. Will there be a berm in the landscape buffer? Yes,there will be a change in elevation. Do you have a landscape plan? Not at this time,it is not required until time of platting. When will the plat be filed? Not earlier than October. The meeting concluded at approximately 6 PM Page 2 G:\ODES Planning Services\Current\DESELEM\PUD Rezones\Collier 36 RPUD, PUOZ-PL20140000340\NIM Summary 9-3-14.docx MLYM ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS COLLIER 36 RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 40 SINGLE FAMILY AND/OR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND NORTH OF BUCKS RUN DRIVE IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10:ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20140000340] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Monies, Inc. representing Collier 36 LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. [ The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 35, Ip Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural �. (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) zoning district for a 10± acre project to be known as the Collier 36 RPUD to allow up to 40 residential dwelling units in . accordance with the RPUD Documents attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [ { [14-CPS-01338/1125146/1]66 1 of 2 Collier 36 RPUD\PUDZ-PL2 0 1 400 00 3 40 Rev, 10/16/14 Ira SECTION TWO; Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of , 2014. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit C-1 —Roadway Sections&Details Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations Exhibit F—Developer Commitments CP\14-CPS-01338\6 [14-CPS-01338/1125146/1]66 2 of 2 Collier 36 RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000340 Rev. 10/16/14 C'D EXHIBIT A COLLIER 36 RPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL–TRACT R A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings. 2. Single-family attached dwellings. 3. Two-family patio and two-family zero lot line. 4. Townhouse. 5. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses,determined by the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the Land Development Code. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal residential uses permitted in this RPUD, including recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and screen enclosures,and facilities for lawn care and maintenance. 2. Guardhouses,gatehouses,and access control structures. 3. Temporary construction, sales and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, and related uses, subject to the procedures for a temporary use permit provided in the Land Development Code. 2. LAKE—TRACT L Storm water management treatment, conveyance facilities, and structures, such as berms, swales,and outfall structures. 3. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units shall be forty (40). 4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B Table 1 sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan or Subdivision plat. Page 1 of 10 H:12014\2014001\WP\Rezone12nd Resubmitta11I0.14-2014\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10.14-2014).docx I i EXHIBIT B COLLIER 36 RPUD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY TWO-FAMILY PATIO STANDARDS DETACHED ATTACHED& &TWO-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE ZERO LOT LINE PRINCIPAL STRUCTUS'.. MINIMUM . ..._. LOT AREA 5,500 S.F.PER UNIT I,800 4,500 S.F.PER UNIT S.F.PER UNIT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 50 FEET 30 FEET 40 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,200 S.F - —1,200 S.F PER UNIT 1,200 S,F.PER UNIT MIN.FRONT YARD 20 FEET! 20 FEET' 20 FEET' MIN.SIDE YARD 5 FEET 0 OR 5 FEET2 0 OR 5 FEET` MIN.REAR YARD _ 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET MIN.LAKE SETBACK' ... -20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET' MIN.DISTANCE 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET BETWEEN STRUCTURES' MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT- 25 FEET NTE 2 25 FEET NTE 2 25 FEET NTE 2 ZONED STORIES STORIES STORIES MAXIMUM BUILDING 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET HEIGI T-ACTUAL. ACCESSORY,STRUCTURES - MTN.FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS MIN.SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS MIN.REAR YARD 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET MIN.LAKE SETBACK 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET MAX.HEIGHT SYS SPS SPS ZONED&ACTUAL S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures;NTE=Not to Exceed;S.F.=Square Feet General: Except as provided for herein,all criteria set forth in Exhibit B shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines or between structures.Condominium and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Footnotes: Lots fronting on two streets shall provide a front yard setback along the street on which the entrance is located,and a side yard setback along the other street frontage. Front entry garages shall be at least 23 feet from back of sidewalk. Where side entry garages are provided, the driveway shall be designed in such a manner so that a parked vehicle shall not conflict with the sidewalk, however, in no case shall the front setback be less than 10' for the side-entry garage, Porches, entry features, and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15', 2 5' minimum side setbacks for single-family attached,two-family,patio,and zero lot line must be accompanied by another 5' minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10'separation. 'Ten-feet if a 20' Lake Maintenance Easement is provided in a separate tract at time of platting. Building distance may he reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided. Page 2of10 H:\2014\20I4001\WPIRezone\2nd Rcsubmittal110-14.20141Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-14-2014).does ... ,:, – .i., . 1 . cv:. : — 182.. . I. % -7.---'. .. 1 . ..„" In. . 11 1, ,. il / ------4-i . ; 6 V,i5 a • 01,) P-N i.. :4. v.... 's' —114 a 110 i•....... N ....—...444.-..........— ,t ., g %., , ....: , g. ...,...".:.-----,• ...: t! • '!".i..,..,I ac• :&------------ 1 „ 1 .. 1.., ;;'') • . ;:. 1:: I t $ • 1 ri' 1 .„,-------,:. 1:,,,, .1/ _ 4,.....•4, 8 1:. fr-77 de - 1.---.--;•.'...'• i ; ' gg .. . i r..!. li'.- ig ''' i lir gin g! /Vg I -,.... 1. fil, • n r .i.. ! ) 3 g g (gr) < . 1 g :1- Jti 1 [ 1 • i;: '' - '''-:)6 'I p 1 I 1- i . _..-...,?..• 1:1 (91 , ,g /. d t . 1 1 : — , .; , •...4_, ,„,_ „i.s h• f, = . m r.ti –.J h* Z• 0: '''' X -1.) j U.J lit tt < .. -- ■— 11 101;:i--- ,,,,:, I . . . . .. ik a._ D /,-, 0 lz H • _ 1...._....,_-.4.-i_ . .., ' ”. 0 CA. Vs 4t - eg 1Y 0 _ .... ■ 1 I 1 ...1 ,,,,A,-.-- il 1,,, gv g ‹ , . 1. . 4 ,-I 0. 1 N ,i* . I 1 kii.fvo I g: , . ,; ii t 1 tIO , 41 'i 1, 14-4 il I i Ilk i 1 • I--_..:_;.__*? .------„..,: ,I :„./• , ,./e.-- ,gt 0114 t. flt. i Igo .1.• '' j lir 0 1: 05, g 14 R 0 MI . :., ,, [ thA406 ' 1 .,■.) ' . . ,' -.. 0 i P 0 1 '40 it . se . 01 1 Z ; giNwO ,Ig f* Mt -- ',.; t10$ - -. '' .. - i t!. . !I mi4feir 3, _.04 $ #, - `.• • : r r ! --1;,:: •:, : ...• • J.(l,' -f. 1 4:54 le lig lii: f't ; .. : ' : : :V.:!!;: ,:,.... '':' • : 1 , i w, 1 ?., ..- i d' Kt r .' Ilk... .2 1 t'..* 1 : ..g I • 14, . . :i w.t t 14 lii 4 41 4t 14,1 , 11 ,;..5 • %-! l• . . '.;\,, 1 114ifti '444 Y g Vgre• 4i* ,..,,,.. . i. : •;.','.. .1P41 • • .- 7 • • L':------'.. . '' -., .....:::777-777'7 8,, pi g h Ng gi6,1 0. g 4i4 ...„,,..............-■•1 74i •_ w:r7. t ;1.1 ' 7Vill ' A N ff 04T, f-,ii 01 lug lt.t: – ' 1 0 $4 8 r,g b. .p .0 ■_, PI •. .......,.........„ L_....----- - a tY ggillial th:i tO _________ 6 e (F.o (.) ® ® E-...., 1 UT ) Ciwn.rnoi .14T1C0 b i El li 1 i II ...„,.:—.::–...–. I 1 • .. . Page 3 of 10 I1A2014 12014001\WP\Rezon02nd Rcsubmittal\10-14.-2014\Coflier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-14-2014)docx I: I' 1 i i i . i 1:- H g H q �,„,),.. E . tc, 0 .\Y Y M lac B 1 ti Z ,...:<-,,,,,, Er , : N in Cf v In 0 r ” } a W ti F Zr Z ��m - C.3 g •.� WNW r t b C) @ it•. W X `£,\CO '• o yam; W P. W % P a r• 0 g ' v z U i1. °.g w 0. � N 1g Q[�.� i 1.4 C.) i § I1 z N -1T yr`�� ,� a * 3k n:' fix x ^ r t � O In Q �, z %`�`i r% ry N Zsilz 1 Page 4 of 10 1I:\2014\2014001IWP\Rezonc\2nd Resubmitlal\I0-14-2014\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10.14-2014),docx 1 1 i. i W 0 13 ij id O z 1 F i 1t4 7.- E 0 � s In Q '�;� Z N 4 J II {Li Cil ;` ;, it mom"' ,z> ,;, ,` M r+ ;ice ,,� ± 9...0 p CI <�''y /� ill 0 sq T 1+ W_ 1 t, ai ff W o I I "..1 All 1z7 i g d J iie re let 01 2 CL ci- Z 157 .A�< ® o , y 'K` �} ]yam 5 R %</I z 7, P. ,...r ,,,. , ,>,,..,, . ,,,,,,„ ,,..,,,, . e, N 3 t;is Page 5 of 10 i. H:1201412014001\WP\Rezonc\2nd Resubmittal110-14-20141Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-I4-2014):docx 1 I 1 1 I l COLLIER 36 II:-..,' ' 1 SIDEWALK �NJ A 0 50 -- esiesiE5 TUSCANY POINTE COVE SCALE IN Fr 23' MIN. FOR FRONT—ENTRY GARAGE I MAY BE REDUCED FOR SIDE ENTRY I I FL 0. t1NE GARAGE IF VESGPW3)E WILL NOT A a a = I ENCROACH UPON THE SIDEWALK. IN NO CASE SHALL THE FRONT SETBACK OF A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE BE LESS THAN 10'. LOT I LOT eAi LOT LOT 1 crr 1 8 9 .- 10 5' MIN FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 5' ' .D YARD 5' MIN. SIDE YARD SETBAaC MUST BE ACK w SETBACK ONE%DJOI LOOTS TO�' 10' REAR YARD ACK 1 ACCESSORY ACHIEVE MINIMUM 1O SEPARA11ON. (5' MIN. •R STRUCTURE I PROPERTY LINE! ACCESSORY S cYUR ,x. e`-_5.0' -1°1i'` i / ,....., I u5 si IlwltwlwwM� ��'•//�� r � , ...'^`. 50'•`~ 1o. -1 I ACG Y jLB.E.� I " ' TUSCANY POINTE I I I I 1 23' MK FOR FRONT—ENTRY GARAGE 5' MIN. FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED MAY BE REDUCED FOR SIDE ENTRY 5' MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK MUST BE GARAGE IF DESIGNED SO THAT A ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER 5 MIN. PARKED VEHICLE WILL NOT SETBACK ON ADJOINING LOT TO ENCROACH UPON THE SIDEWALK 1 ■ I ACHIEVE MINIMUM 10' SEPARATION. IN NO CASE SHALL THE FRONT SETBACK OF A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE 1 I SIDEWALK BE LESS THAN 10'. I I �.__ ______se. TUSCANY POINTE TRAIL -oF.n ar ranter MAI 9(2 Enure way COLLIER 36 c x rc xm4 om Naples,FL,34110 EXHIBIT 0-3 auw IN I CAD nlr NNE Pnone:(239)251.2000 �� 14001107 HOLE MONTE8 FlonaaCenlrwateof DEVIATION 3 EWERS•RA141115,04006 Autnoiza+ionnlo,n2 TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT ��10/14 as F3 Page 6of10 H:\2014\2014001 1WP1Rezone12nd Resubmival11 0-1 4-201 41Coll ier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10.14-2014)docx Yq 1 P EXHIBIT D COLLIER 36 RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH HALF (N '/z) OF THE NORTH HALF (N '/z)OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/z) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER(SW 1/4) OF SECTION 35,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N %z) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S '/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 'A) OF SECTION 35,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. Page 7 of 10 H:12014120140011WT\Rezonc12nd Resubmitta11I0-14-20141Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-14-2014).docx EXHIBIT E COLLIER 36 RPUD • LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC { Deviation 1. From LDC Section 6.06.01.N, requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet for local private street rights-of-way,to allow for a minimum 42 foot right-of-way width internal to the proposed development. Deviation 2. From LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. Deviation 3. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a ten-foot- wide landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single-family residential, to allow for no landscape buffer between Collier 36 RPUD and Tuscany Pointe RPUD, along the south and east property lines of the subject site, provided the properties have a shared access and are developed by the same developer as one, single-family detached community. The developer shall plant the equivalent number of trees (38), as would have been required if the 10' landscape buffer were provided, elsewhere on the site, and shall identify the location of such additional trees at time of platting. Deviation 4. From LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 Sidewalks, Bike Paths, and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street within public and private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site, to allow sidewalks to be constructed on one side of the private street where shown on Exhibit C,Master Plan. Deviation 5. From LDC Section 4.02.04.111 Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of a dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line, to allow windows in a contiguous wall. Deviation 6. From LDC Section 3.05.07 Hi.f.i.d Off-site vegetation retention, which allows the on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied off- site for preserves less than one acre in size, to allow for a preserve 1.35 acres in size to be satisfied off-site. Deviation 7. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a fifteen- foot-wide Alternative B landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single-family residential and commercial, to allow for a ten-foot wide Alternative B landscape buffer between Collier 36 RPUD and the agriculturally zoned property to the north where shown on Exhibit C,Master Plan. Page 8 of 10 H.12014\20140011WP1Rezone12nd Resubmittal1l0-14-20141Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-14-2014),docx EXHIBIT F COLLIER 36 RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS If a gate is proposed at any/or all development entrance(s),the gate shall be designed so as not to cause vehicles to be backed up onto any adjacent public roadway. To meet this requirement, the minimum throat depth from the nearest interconnecting roadway edge of pavement shall be no less than 100 feet to the key pad/phone box for the proposed gate. 2. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS A. Potable water service shall connect at the entrance from the Tuscany Pointe RPUD. B. A stub-out will be provided by owner to the northern property line from the northern reach of the"T"turnaround at the east end of the development. C. The development shall share a pump station with the Tuscany Pointe RPUD. 3. PLANNING A maximum of 40 dwelling units shall be permitted in the PUD. 4. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD,and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Collier 36, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. Page 9 of 10 H:\2014\2014001\WP\Rezonel2nd Rcsubmittal\10.14-2014\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-14-2014).docx { 5. NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION The subject site contains approximately 8.98 acres of native vegetation, of which 15 percent (1.35 acres) is required to be preserved. The on-site native vegetation preservation will be met off-site in accordance with Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. of the Land Development Code. � g 6. FIRE CODE Hammerhead turnaround shall comply with Collier County Fire Code Official/Collier County requirements of 25' radius inside,49' radius outside,and 150 ft. maximum length of the dead end. Page 10 of 10 H:\2014\2014001\WP\Rezone\2nd Resubmittal\10-14-2014\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(10-14-2014),docx