Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
EAC Agenda 07/07/2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA July 7, 2004 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") -Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of May 5, 2004 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-4046 "Summit Place in Naples PUD" Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business A. VI. New Business A. VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2004 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (403-2424). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Item W.A. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JULY 7, 2004 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDZ-2003-AR-4046 Petition Name: Summit Place in Naples Applicant/Developer: Waterways Joint Venture IV Engineering Consultant: RWA Consulting Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. Consulting Ecologists II. LOCATION: The subject PUD is located at 14625 Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Subject Parcel: The existing site is currently being developed with the residential uses permitted under the Hibiscus Village PUD, which encompasses 57.82 acres and is approved for 231 units. This proposal is adding 40.58 acres currently zoned "A" Agricultural to the site and an additional 163 units for a total of 98.4 acres and 394 residential on the site and renaming the PUD, Summit Place. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural and PUD A Wholesale Nursery and the Brittany Bay Apartments S - Agricultural Undeveloped Land EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 E - Agricultural, A Church and PUD Undeveloped Land, a Church, and Vanderbilt Country Club W- Agricultural Undeveloped Land IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "PUD" Planned Unit Development (known as Hibiscus Village PUD) to "PUD" to be known as Summit Place in Naples PUD for a residential development. 1. A maximum of 394 dwelling units at a density of 4 units to the acre. 2. Open space that includes water management areas, landscaping and buffering totaling the minimum required 60 percent open space for the residential PUD. 3. Access point to the project will be provided from Collier Boulevard. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: 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. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development(variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU/A and a maximum of 16 DU/A, subject to the Density Rating System Provision; and recreation and open space uses and community facility uses, such as group care facilities. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires that all new developments are compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Current Planning staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed PUD uses and density may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Greater than twenty-five percent (25 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Selection of preservation areas are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Agency permits will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6,required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Listed species or evidence of listed species has not been identified on-site. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Information provided by the applicant's engineer indicates that this development will result in the placement of fill within the existing area of 100-year floodplain storage. The applicant's agent has requested that the analysis for the 100-year floodplain encroachment be a stipulation to be addressed at the time of SDP construction plans submittal. The applicant is advised that the delay in addressing floodplain encroachment may have substantial impacts on the area and configuration of land available for development activity. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is a partially developed 98 acre parcel located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951), approximately 1 and 1/4 mile south of Immokalee Road (State Road 846). Approximately 47 acres of the property are under construction for residential housing and amenities approved with the Hibiscus Village PUD Ordinance 2000-76. The remaining native habitats on-site include woodland pasture; pine; cabbage palm; mixed wetland hardwoods; cypress; pine-cypress; wetland forested, mixed and wetland scrub. There is a 10.86 acre wetland preserve with upland buffer that has been previously established with the original PUD. Disturbed lands also exist due to historic land clearing and earth-moving activities. According to the Collier County Soils Map, four soil types occur on the subject property: Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum (Unit 2); Oldsmar Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum (Unit 10); Holopaw and Okeelanta Soils, Depressional (Unit 23); and Holopaw Fine Sand (Unit 27). All soil types on-site except for Oldsmar Fine Sand (Unit 10), are listed as hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Nails marking biological indicators of wetland seasonal high water levels were set in the field in January 2001 and November 2002. The nails were set marking the top of water stains on willows and buttresses on wax-myrtle and pop ash trees. One set of nails was located at the north end of the wetland and one set at the south end. The elevations of the nails were subsequently surveyed. The average elevation of the nails was 10.54 feet NGVD. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 Wetlands: Approximately 34.99 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property. Wetland lines were field verified and approved by SFWMD staff on January 15, 2002 and February 4, 2003. Habitat types within the wetlands consist of hydric woodland pasture; mixed wetland hardwoods; cypress; pine-cypress; wetland forested, mixed; wetland scrub and disturbed lands. Of these, approximately 10.86 acres of wetlands will be directly impacted by the proposed project. To compensate for proposed impacts to wetlands, the applicant is proposing to preserve and enhance approximately 24.13 acres of wetlands and 2.87 acres of uplands within a single preserve on-site. The preserve area will be enhanced through removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be determined during permitting through the SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Preservation Requirements: Including pre-development conditions of the original PUD, there are 89.45 acres of viably functioning native vegetation within this project site (vegetated areas with less than 75 percent canopy coverage of exotics). As required by Collier County environmental ordinances, this project is required to retain a minimum of 25 percent or 22.36 acres of viable native vegetation or re-create an allowable amount per Section 3.9.7.1 of the LDC. The master plan and PUD document identify 26.9 acres that meet this requirement. Listed Species: A wildlife survey of the subject property was conducted in April and June of 2002 using field methodology that met Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) guidelines (see Exhibit F in the EIS). The survey was performed to locate and document any listed wildlife and plant species that may occur on the project site. No listed wildlife species or signs of were observed on the property. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of PUDZ-2003-AR-4046 "Summit Place in Naples PUD"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: No additional stipulations. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: // 4- !( W 04 STAN CHRZANOW KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ROBERT WILEY, P.E. DATE ENGINEER SENIOR LAURA A. ROYS DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST lielk`'\, N10, ,-/\_ ROB MEYER, AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEWED BY: / x.4 C3. ,4 faU . 61-- -i6--05/ BARBARA S. BURGES DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 � / / • 06-I -a4 h ILLIAM D. Le'' NZ, J P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR USAN MURRAY, AICP DATE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: /i)7 JOS PH K. SCHMITT DAA 910, MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MINIS TRATOR May 5, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Board Meeting Room E, 3rd Floor Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 A.M. - May 5, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M., in REGULAR SESSION in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Alfred Gal Vice Chairman: William Hughes Ken Humiston Erica Lynne Ed Carlson Mike Bauer (new member) Mike Sorrell Judith Hushon (new member) Joe Gammons Collier County Staff: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney; Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director; Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist Page 1 May 5, 2004 The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council meeting was called to order Wednesday, May 5, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. I. Roll Call. Roll is called and a quorum was established. The following members were present: Ken Humiston, Erica Lynne, Ed Carlson, Mike Bauer, Alfred Gal, William Hughes, Mike Sorrell, Judith Hushon, and Joe Gammons. Judith Hushon: I have degrees in Biology, Biochemistry, and Information and Decision Systems, a Ph.D. I worked for 37 years in the environmental field. I have probably worked on 25 to 30 Superfund sites. I've done a lot of work on acquisitions, sales and acquisitions of properties. I am basically an environmental chemist and a toxicologist. I've been working on a project on southwest Florida water quality and pesticides for the last two years and have come up with some interesting data there, too. Mike Bauer: I'm with the South Florida Water Management District. I am the lead project manager for any number of watershed restoration projects with local governments and outside the Everglades Restoration along the coastal areas. I've practiced law for a couple years, as an Environmental Law Attorney. I have a Ph.D. in Environmental Policy Plans. II. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved with a unanimous vote. III. Approval of April 7, 2004 Meeting Minutes. April 7, 2004 minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. IV. Land Use Petitions. There are no Land Use Petitions. V. Old Business. There was no old business to be addressed. VI. New Business. Page 2 May 5, 2004 Alfred Gal was appointed Chair with a unanimous vote. William Hughes was appointed Vice Chair with a unanimous vote. A. GMP Glitch Amendment Cycle Presentation. Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director distributed a packet of information that he explained with an overview. In June of 1999, the Governor and Cabinet issued the County a final order to amend its growth management plan. The County has gone through a three-year planning process, proposed and adopted amendments both in June of 2002 and October of 2002. The result of the adoption of those amendments and beginning to implement those amendments, they have found that there are number of places in the plan, and that there are either inconsistencies or areas of awkward phraseology, or wording, or in some cases some indication of some policies concerns with regard to exactly how being language be worked out. This is the area in which I will cover in a little more detail. The result of this effort was to prepare what is being called the glitch amendments. Carlton Fields, our legal counsel, is the keeper of the documents. They have worked with staff, as well as with a voting group, through distribution list that they maintain. They have had several meetings on these glitch amendments with various parties. Drafts of these amendments have been e- mailed to a variety of people and have taken comments throughout the last six months. You are viewing the amendments today. The planning commission is scheduled to view the amendments May 20. These amendments will go before the Board of County Commissioners on June 8. It is a transmittal process. Once the County Commission adopts these transmittals on June 8, the Department of Community Affairs will then review these amendments, provide the County with objective recommendations and comments. Upon those recommendations and comments, the staff will then prepare any modifications to the transmittal amendments, and come through the same process again, ultimately leading to the Board of County Commissioners hearing the final adoption of these amendments. I believe at the moment this is scheduled for September 28. There will have to be a Planning Commission meeting and, of course, an EAC meeting on those amendments. The majority of these amendments are in the Future Land Use Element, and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. In the Future Land Use Element, on page 16 of the packet, in the section that talks about neutral land: This is in the North Belle Meade overlay. This requirement was put into place in the future land use element, because during the adoption process of the future Page 3 May 5, 2004 land use element, there was some concern about the available data that the County uses for RCW study for section 24. There was a recommendation that we needed to do a study and evaluate the potential habitat, and determine whether our standards were correct or not. The study actually has been done. We consulted with a biological consultant. We have the actual study report. I have begun to work with the stakeholders group, to look at the planning of the North Belle Meade area at the information from that study. A working group will not only address the RCW issue, but also the flow ways, corridors and wildlife crossings. A Transportation study will also be done, in regards to roadway alignments, either Wilson Boulevard extending north and south and some other corridor to extend East-West and connect with County Road 951. Mike Bauer: Who was in your consultant that performed the study? Bill Lorenz: Gaiza Zavosta. His study is posted on environmental services web site. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: On page 22 of the packet, in policy 1.1.9, which is a new policy, relates to oil extraction and really a processes and uses in Collier County. This is a major issue that has emerged. The federal and state permitting requirements, reviews and oversights, that as agencies have on this type of activity is quite extensive. Therefore rather than have the County habits on regulatory authority over the uses, we have crafted various policies, not only for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, you'll see those policy in the future land development as well. That essentially will allow those processes and to move forward as long as the federal and state permitting requirements are accepted. The nature of that activity, and again is such that there is a tremendous amount of oversight in the federal and state agencies. It seems to me that the language set forth in these policies is acceptable. So far, I have not heard any negative comments. William Hughes: in other words, we are going to waive our rights to review oil development in Collier County? Bill Lorenz: Yes, as long as they furnish the federal and state permits. William Hughes: first of all I'm nervous for a couple of reasons. And the reason is that this is in our home. Not that I'm against oil drilling. I know that we sit on a major United States resource here in south Florida, in it is a critical resource for national security as well as our national welfare. However, it is in our home. And as a result of it being in our home, I think it would behoove the citizens of Collier County at least have the presented in front of the citizenry of Collier County. Page 4 May 5, 2004 Judith Hushon: is in concurrence with William Hughes. I have read this in this is actually a section that I have read lined, because I think it goes too far. Also a lot of the controls that one might want oil and gas expiration in processing are not here. There are no limits and without limits and he would not want to just give it away. You have to choices: you can laminate and say we won't do this. Or you can only do it with all of the alternatives listed. Or you give it away. This is an attempt to give it away, and I'm not sure that's a good thing for Collier County. Bill Lorenz: with regards to the limits, there are many limiting restrictions through the federal and state permitting process. Judith Hushon: there are, but not as strict as you might like if you were go to southern Louisiana, which has a similar high water table, a similar environment to work with. Bill Lorenz: I know there is a representative here for addressing that issue. As we get into the speakers, you may be able to ask you more specific questions. Erica Lynne: so why was this put in? It is a major change. This is a glitch amendment cycle. So why was this changed? Why was this put in year, it was said this was a major change, if this is just for the glitches. Bill Lorenz: I think there were some references the old language that dealt with oil and the exploration processes, therefore there needed to be some changes within that language to make certain consistencies. As we were working through that old language, with the inconsistencies, it emerged into this kind of recommendation. It became easier to deal with, with regards to adopting or allowing the federal and state permitting requirements to adopt. Erica Lynne: This was done basically because it's easier to make the language work? Bill Lorenz: there were inconsistencies with how the staff would evaluate the information with regard to an EIS. Would we be looking at preservation requirements or the whole site, which you can't really identify? Dealing with a variety of different locations, drilling paths, and again the representative for the companies are here to discuss some of those details. It became very in difficult to try to craft, those specific rules and regulations to address what we had already in the plans. Then what would be the County's role? It was reviewed and then felt that, with regards to this particular type of activity that federal and state permitting requirements would be acceptable. Page 5 May 5, 2004 William Hughes: Again, our position is to make government transparent to the people, so that no one feels there are any delusions or devious behavior going on behind-the-scenes. One of the steps of that is to bring these issues before this board, as well as the Board of the County Commissioners for the citizenry of Collier County to see what's going on in their home. Bill Lorenz: at the end of the day, the council has the ability to make some recommendations to the County Commissioners. William Hughes: I am not against the extraction of oil,just bringing out in the open. Judith Hushon: I feel this board is probably qualified to help you review the EIS, should they come out. I think that would be a positive support to you, if you're feeling that your staff is not able to handle those duties. Some of us here are capable of doing that, and providing comment back to you so that you would be able to make reasonable comments back and play a role should you have to. You may not have to. Bill Lorenz: Within the table on page 24, we just had our equal to and less than located in the wrong section, so this is just fixing the table. In (4), with regards to the on-site wetlands, the strike through and some of the other material that you see here, is that when we were trying to balance the vegetation section, in terms of preservation requirements; that's a priority, with regards to the local species priorities and then you have the local wetlands. Obviously, we would like to preserve everything, from a purely environmental perspective. When he began to try to look at a site, and what would be the priority types of habitats, we had to set up some priorities up in the initial plans. There were some inconsistencies or some conflicts that were set up in the language. This language that we have created here is attempting to reduce those conflicts, so that when staff does review a project, we have somewhat of a pecking order that we can go to and minimize some of the conflicts. The changes within policy 6.1.2, in the 80% figure, and you'll see that also in the 90% figure for the total site area; that language has been problematic. We're really looking in preservation of the vegetation on site and not putting a barren site into a preserve status, which would be the case if you had said 80% of the total site area. Within the flue there are certain density blending provisions, which allows the ability to move densities from out of the urban area into the rural area if there are certain circumstances that exist. In policy 6.2.5, the reference to a wrap score, the WRAP, which South Florida Water Management District wetland rapids assessment procedure for determining functionality Page 6 May 5, 2004 of wetlands, has been superseded now by the state Uniform Wetlands Mitigation's Assessment Method. When we were developing the plan, back in the 1999 timeframe for word, the Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment Method was not adopted by the state. So what we have done with it in this is simply recognize that a .65 wrap score is equivalent to a .7 Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score. Therefore we would identify that equivalency within our policies, if an applicant is coming to the County with a wrap method and has been approved by the state, we'll accept it. In policy 7.1.2 (3) there are aimed consistencies within the first and second sentences. The inconsistency deals with basically when we can determine that the technical assistance is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The way the policy is currently set up, is that the second sentence says that it is recognized in that the agency recommendations is on a case-by-case basis and maintains the requirements contained within the protection policies and any changes deemed consistent with the plan, which is fine, except that a conflicts with the first sentence phrase. We have set ourselves up for a conflicts and it is difficult for staff to actually administer that language. We have presented two options to the Board, this was the option of the Board did give his recommendation on. The Board gave us direction to come back them with the language in which case, the net effect of this language is that the County will consider and utilize the recommendation from the federal and state agencies. We will review those recommendations, to ensure the recommendations are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. That review is a consistency review. It is not a scientific and technical review. We will not be second-guessing the agencies recommendations, in regard to their scientific findings. We will just simply make sure that they're recommendations are consistent with other policies in the Growth Management Plan. This fix or glitch will still have to be evaluated by staff on a case-by-case basis. We recognize that not every potential habitat will actually contain listed species. However, we don't want to destroy potential habitats for listed species. We also want to be able to strain the term potential so that it's not a low probability that a listed species may occupy that particular habitat. Judith Hushon: You have that language, which is actually the EPA language in (2) and ii would think that you would need that language in (3), that same language that you have underlined in (2). It doesn't make sense to say that you would have had to have found it there for us to even consider it. I recommend that you take that language in (2) and move it to (3) as well. Bill Lorenz: That is a good thought. We will have to think about it. At the moment, this language is the language that the Board has directed staff to come back with. This Page 7 May 5, 2004 language is also comparable language in the Future Land Use Element that deals with the rural lands stewardship area. William Hughes: We already use the Fish and Wildlife and people in areas where species are listed. We hear their recommendations. So we're extending then to areas of potential habitats? Bill Lorenz: That was one of the thoughts that I had when you made that recommendation, is that obviously when there is wildlife listed species issues that we know of onsite, we're requesting technical assistance. If there is a listed species concern that is not on the property itself, but right over the property boundaries, we will solicit recommendations of technical assistance. In this language here, if we view it from a habitat prospective and look at it in the language that is prepared above that can be anticipated to be occupied by the species. At that point, that could expand the number of incidents when we actually request the technical assistance. Barbara Burgeson: In the past, we have asked for technical assistance on properties where in certain cases where we have not had evidence that listed species were utilizing the property, but there is strong evidence that it is likely that they might be. And the r reason that we requested the technical assistance in some of those cases is because in discussing some of these properties, you can find that the agency's staff are aware of listed species on those properties and maybe the consultant has missed it, so the potential to miss a species if you don't include that is there, it may be small, but its still there. We have not asked in all cases, only in those cases where we have had some historic knowledge of the area. We have a strong reason to believe that it may be appropriate to ask for assistance. Another time that we ask for assistance is Habitat protection as opposed to listed species protection. William Hughes: So essentially, we're expanding our resources to guide us. Barbara Burgeson: In those circumstances we were, yes. Alfred Gal: How did we get bypassed on the Ave Maria Project? Bill Lorenz: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) is set up so that there are 2 components of the stewardship sending area program, one is generation of stewardship credits within the generation of stewardship credits the policy simply requires that the Board of County Commissioners adopt that resolution establishing those credits, so that on the generation of credits side, there is no envisioning of any time of that coming to the Page 8 May 5, 2004 EAC. On the utilization and of those credits within and SRA (stewardship receiving area) which Ave Maria has been identified, the only time the EAC gets involved in a review is if that SRA is contiguous with a conservation land. At that point, the EAC would review that Project. That is written in the policies of the Growth Management Plan. William Hughes: to me that the flaw because of the scale of that site, even in spite of what you have just said, there is an impact overall to the County resources. That is an area that I think should be corrected in this cycle. Ken Humiston: agrees with Mr. Hughes comment. William Hughes: Simply put, if you put that big of a facility in there, there is an effect. Bill Lorenz: again, this can be a point for recommendation. Erica Lynne: It is my understanding is that we worked hard on the eastern lands, the sending and receiving lands, and at that time there were no known plans for that huge eastern lands area. In factor was discussion on this board about whether this would ever even happen. Shortly after it was passed, the Ave Maria Project was announced. Barbara Burgeson: if I could add to that just briefly, I think as I recall, through the discussions as to why the EAC was excluded from reviewing projects that have less than the 1.2 ratio or the assessment factor in that the reason that this was not required to go back in front of the EAC was for listed species type of environmental issues, for wetlands opposed to water management. For natural resource reasons, the discussions can about that it might not be necessary to go to the EAC but as far as water management issues, which have different effect on the overall area, I'm not sure that would be discussed in general. Bill Lorenz: the establishment or the basis or the conceptual framework of the eastern lands was to identify the environmentally sensitive land. That would be all of the descending lands, flow ways, stewardship areas, habitats, and the water resource areas which have environmental benefits that were being utilized or permitted for storm water management activities for the agricultural operations. Those areas were identified in a broad mapping effort and had high resource values. William Hughes: I think some of that is an assumption. I have personally requested any aquifer maps that are here and they don't exist. Page 9 May 5, 2004 Alfred Gal: On page three and four, under the density planning provisions, yet he is the term straddle. Do you mean adjacent or is that something different? Bill Lorenz: It means that part of the property is in the receiving lands and in part of it is also on neutral lands. Alfred Gal: Is that term to find anywhere else? Bill Lorenz: I'm not aware that it is. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney: I don't believe it is. Straddle is a common term. If you look into the dictionary, as you would with statutory construction, it has a coming meaning that if there is a line, something is on both sides of the line. So I don't know that it would need to be. Alfred Gal: Is that different then adjacent? Marjorie Student: yes, it would be different from adjacent, because adjacent would be next to, this would be next to a line, but straddle would mean existing on both sides of that line. Mike Bauer: I have a couple clarifications that I would like addressed. In policy 1.1.9, when we talk about the Big Cypress watershed, what are the boundaries, we are talking about? Bill Lorenz: I believe that is established in the state statute. Brian McKenzie, Collier resources Company: in the regulatory reference to Big Cypress watershed, it's essentially all of Collier County, with the exception of one sliver to the north of Immokalee. One of the concessions, we made in this language was to call in the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory committee for areas outside Big Cypress. The only part of Collier County that is not involved is that little sliver north of Immokalee. Mike Sorrell: on page 22 where it's talking about the oil extraction, on the related processing and allowable use.... What percentage of the County is oil extraction allowed? Brian McKenzie: It's allowed in rural agriculture in, conservation land use designations, the RFMUD, eastern lands, and the RSLA, essentially. In and in I understand there is Page 10 May 5, 2004 over 2000 mi.2 of Collier County. Right now, a back of the envelope estimate is that we have about 75 acres in active production. At the height of the industry here, which started in 1943, it was less than 300 and, I think about 258 acres, at the biggest time that we have ever had. Right now it is about 75 acres. Mike Sorrell: Another question, has Collier resources given up the right to drill oil there? Brian McKenzie: speaking generally, that is tied up in usual legalities, or the federal government agrees to something and then doesn't. They have a deal to concede all of the oil and gas minerals in the Big Cypress Preserve, in exchange for a value. So far that value is not forthcoming. William Hughes: How far can you drill? Brian McKenzie: It always depends on the angle of the direction, but at most probably about 2500 feet, at least 1500 feet; it's a relatively small area. William Hughes: How deep is the resource itself? Brian McKenzie: about 11,000 feet. Judith Hushon: questioned whether casing was put down the entire depth. Brian McKenzie: the concerns and Florida is not necessarily the leakage downward, it's a leakage upward. The deeper you go, the brinier it gets. The casing programs here, the main casings ran to about 3000 feet, and that's three concentric cases, the smallest one being about 71/4, it's about halfway between that and 30 inches. Mr. McKenzie did not want to commit to any numbers. Those are about a quarter inch steel, and between that you put the pumps down, and you pump concrete up to the top, so that at the end of it when you get to the rubble zone, a free-flowing river very deep 1000 feet deep, you have about 28 inches of steel and concrete on the outside of the shaft and the annulus of the well. It is very well protected. Those rules have been effect since the early seventies. We haven't had any problems with the new wells. William Hughes: any high-pressure gas pockets? Brian McKenzie: none have been discovered. The oil here is about 130 million years old. That by oil standards is very, very young. We have never discovered downward pressure. Page 11 May 5, 2004 Public Speaker, Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society: prepared a proposal for the EAC and distributed it. We very strongly support the BCC directed changes on CCME policy 7.1.2 subparagraph three. Mr. Cornell would also like to support Ms. Hushon's suggestion on the additional language. The distributed proposal is a suggestion for a glitch amendment in the Future Land Use Element, on page 69. Mr. Cornell went on to describe the proposal. This proposal is attached to the end of the minutes. This proposal has been forwarded to additional staff, was discussed at length. It was suggested that if Mr. Cornell would like this considered by the county staff, with this already forwarded to the staff, there is a May 20, 2004 meeting scheduled for the Planning Commission, the staff would then have some degree of ability to evaluate this analysis before the Planning Commission meeting. Public Speaker, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida: We are very pleased that the Board of County Commissioners has directed staff to move forward in the way that they have done. We believe that the modifications to 7.1.2 (3) will really go a long way in clarifying that the County does have the ability to look at the letters of technical assistance and recommendations from the agencies and to see if those are consistent with the growth plan and then go from there. We believe that this is a necessary glitch clarification, but it's also just a first step. We are very hopeful that the stakeholders group, which has started to meet and will be meeting from now until the December 3 workshop, is going to come up with some ways at the county can become more involved in protecting are listed species. So this is a good first step, and we do support it. Also, what Brad had mentioned, and in Collier Audubon's proposal for trying to get rural villages to potentially work better or to actually happen, I think that his idea has some merit, that it needs to be explored some more. Potentially reducing some of the open- space requirements might be a good way to do this. What we want to make sure of it is that smart growth is used in the rural fringe areas, and we need villages out there. We don't need additional urban sprawl. If we can find a way to do that without harming any other resource values out there, we are deftly supportive of that. The Conservancy has not gone as far as to support the bonus TDR's. We are not onboard with that. We do want to work with the community and everyone to try to make sure that the fringe programs work. Public Speaker, Douglas Fee, North Bay Civic Association: I would like to echo Nicole Ryan's comments. I think she put it very well. The North Bay Civic has been very involved in this process. It's probably been going on for at least a year or a couple years. We support the change that has been proposed by staff, eliminating the second sentence in the 7.1.2 (3). There is a stakeholders group that has been meeting. I believe there is Page 12 May 5, 2004 been three or four meetings, and I believe there are three more. That has involved a great deal of effort on the part of staff, as well as those that are participating. I think it is a broadly based group of individuals, respecting each others' opinions. There was a white paper that was produced, and I just want to read real quick two points. It says here, "completely expand the county's role to where the county would consider all technical assistance recommendations, public input on that and its own staff's expertise, to formulate recommendations that would implement the broader stated purpose of the listed species policies. This may require the county to develop and adopt specific standards, for most or all listed species that may be encountered, and evaluating development proposals." The second bullet points states, "modify the county's current role, except the recommendations, only a certain criteria are met, for example, the county could adopt criteria to allow the county to reject agency recommendation. If the recommendation result in a take every species or habitat, or the county could adopt criteria that would identify when it would be appropriate to relocate specific individual animals or mitigate destroyed habitats." I think that's important, as Nicole said, this is one step, were going to try to change the Growth Management Plan. We are going to have a stakeholders group. We have been committed to this process, and hopefully this will go on for quite some time, because we can develop these policies for the individual species. Public Speaker, Bruce Anderson, representing private property owners: I would like to say that I share the County Audubon Society's and Conservancy's concerns about making the TDR program a success, and rural villages a success. Right now, I think things are stalled, and I don't mean to throw cold water on the County Audubon Society's proposal about the 70% open-space greenbelt, but I agree with that as well. One of the changes that you have before you, and the copy that I have is on page 11, deals with changing some of the language. In regards to the TDR bank that is a possibility in the plan. The TDR registered at the county maintains, so far has only 25 TDR's listed by property owners being offered for sale to the program. So it is obviously somewhat stalled. The TDR bank would allow someone for instance, who wants to purchase 100 TDR's to go to the county and pay $25,000 a TDR for a total of 2 1/2-million dollars, which the county can then use that money to supplement Conservation Collier (Land Advisory Committee) and use that money to buy sending lands that are designated for purchase under the Conservation Collier program, and make that program even more of a success. I would ask you to recommend that the county establish a TDR bank to help make the preservation of sending lands through the TDR program and success. I'm trying to display a page now, that I believe has formatting errors that has to do with golf courses on receiving lands, and the requirement to acquire TDR's for those. My proposal there is to make sure that that the same standard applies to all golf courses in receiving lands. I think we can do away with paragraph A and renumber B or re-letter B, by striking out Page 13 May 5, 2004 that phrase. This is on my page 8. The last thing that I wanted to talk to you about was about policies 7.1.2, the projected habitats, this policies specifically excludes lands that are in the rural land stewardship area in recognition of the fact that this area has its own wildlife habitat protection measures, so does the rural fringe area have its own wildlife habitat protection measures, by designating lands as receiving lands, where development. is encouraged, sending lands, where development is discouraged, and neutral lands, where development is also discouraged but to a lesser extent than if they were designated sending lands. I would like to read to you what the Growth Management Plan states about receiving lands and rural fringe. Mr. Anderson and went on to read the information listed above, and asked the EAC to consider excluding receiving lands within the rural fringe from the operation of that extra layer of county regulation, and just leave them subject to state and federal regulations which may or may not come into play, if there is any habitat left on the receiving lands. Receiving lands now already required to preserve 25% of existing native vegetation on site not to exceed 25% of the total site. Public Speaker, Brian McKenzie, Collier Resources: wanted to go back to the gas and oil amendments in the CCME,just to clarify a few things into answer some questions they may have. Primarily, this appears to make the Growth Management Plan consistent with the Land Development Code. This language that you see is identical to what you see and be Land Development Code, and adopted as a result of the last couple of processes, with Land Development Code revisions. The end result of all of this is maintenance of the status quo. The county is not giving up anything here. As far as land use goes, we still have the conditional use review procedure. In the reason for trying to memorialize this status quo is that from since the inception of the Growth Management Plan, every revision it seems like we go through a rules revision. Oil and gas is left out simply because most people went over there and secondarily, it's a very different kind of operation than classic surfaced development is. That is the purpose of this, everything else stays the same. It simply maintains the status quo, and makes it consistent with the Land Development Code. As far as transnational oil and gas regulations, I am certainly an expert on Louisiana or Texas or Oklahoma or California, but I do look at them periodically in acting to you that historically Florida is one heck of a hard place to get in oil and gas permit compared to Louisiana, Texas or any of the others. Those other states are moving their regulations more towards what Florida has; it's getting more stringent every where. Williams Hughes: motion to delete policy 1.1.9 Page 14 May 5, 2004 Judith Hushon: seconds the motion. Marjorie Student: would like a clarification on what the motion is. It was moved to delete policy 1.1.9. Williams Hughes: motion to approve document with the deletion of policy 1.1.9. Judith Hushon: asked Williams Hughes to include in his motion the addition of this statement, "including the species that can be anticipated to be occupying existing listed lands." Williams Hughes: agrees with the addition, and will include that addition in his motion, and after further discussion, again amended his motion to also include the language stated, including the second part and as far as 1.1.9, the EAC would have involvement in review of oil applications. Judith Hushon: agrees with the amendments and intense seconds this amended motion Barbara Burgeson: further clarified if the motion. The way that this language is in place right now, it would say that in the future a conditional use would come through, there would be no environmental review attached that. It would be all other related site development plan review. The way that we review them right now, we do include environmental reviews, but this would exclude that. I believe that with the Mission at land, this would keep the process the same as what it is now, but I would have to take a look at the current code. I don't know if deleting all of this language is appropriate, because I'm not sure if there is Citations in here for state and federal permitting that we might not want to keep. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney: I have a suggestion on rather than try to craft a specific language to direct a concept to staff so that they can look at it and then craft some language that expresses your desires. Williams Hughes: withdraws his motion Judith Hushon: concurs Williams Hughes: motion that policy 1.1.9 includes reviews by the EAC, as well as include the language requested by Judith Hushon. Judith Hushon went on to clarify the language desired. In policies 7.1.2 to incorporate the new language in section 3 that was Page 15 May 5, 2004 in section 2, following the word orders. The new line being "is capable of supporting wildlife that can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species." Mr. Hughes explained that this would state, "With the EAC's ability to add recommendations." Barbara Burgeson: asked a clarifying question about the motion at hand. With the above listed suggestions, would Collier County staff also have their environmental review? Judith Hushon and Williams Hughes both agreed to this. Judith Hushon seconds the motion The motion passed unanimously. At 11:10 a.m. in five-minute break was taken. The meeting was called back to order and 11:20 a.m. B. Earth Mark Mitigation Bank's presentation. Matt Fisher, Earth Mark Companies, provided a PowerPoint presentation (attached to meeting minutes) and discussed the company at great length. Specific properties were identified and discussed in great detail. This conversation was not available on the audiotape. C. Panther Island Mitigation Bank presentation. Tim Durrem, Panther Island mitigation Bank,provided a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the company at great length. Specific properties were identified and discussed in great detail. This conversation was not available on the audiotape. VII. Council Members Comments. There were no items to address at this time. VIII. Public Comments. There were no further public comments at this time. IX. Adjournment Page 16 May 5, 2004 There being no further business for the good of the County of Collier, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:03 p.m. Environmental Advisory Council Alfred Gal, Chairman Page 17 SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES RPUD A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING SUMN'IIT PLACE IN NAPLES RPUD, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV 14627 COLLIER BOULEVARD,NAPLES,FLORIDA 34120 PREPARED BY: pw- INC. CONSULTING -I_ _ V V 1 .Z 3050 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE SUI TE 270 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 And GOODLETTE COLEMAN&JOHNSON,P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH SUITE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34103 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL "EXHIBIT A" C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits and Tables i Statement of Compliance ii Section I Property Ownership and Description I-1 Section II Project Development Requirements II-1 Section III Residential Development Standards III-1 Section IV Preserve Area IV-1 Section V Development Commitments V-1 Appendix "A" Typical Cross Sections A-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc LIST OF EXHIBITS, TABLES, AND APPENDIX EXHIBIT"A" RPUD MASTER PLAN TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPENDIX"A" TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 98.4 acres of property in Collier County, Florida as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Summit Place In Naples RPUD will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The residential and recreational facilities of the Summit Place In Naples RPUD are consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons. 1. The subject property for development is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as provided for in Objective 1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. 2. The project is proposed to be a residential development located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map from the FLUE, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Density Rating System of the FLUE provides for a base density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed density of the Summit Place In Naples RPUD is 4.0 units per gross acre, which is what is provided for by the FLUE Density Rating System, and is therefore consistent with the FLUE, Policy 5.1. of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 3. The development standards contained in this Document, combined with the requirements of the Land Development Code will insure that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to existing and planned surrounding land uses as required by Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4. The development commitments and standards contained in this Document, as well as the requirements of the Land Development Code will assure compliance with Policy 3.1 of the FLUE. 5. The Summit Place In Naples RPUD is consistent with and furthers Policy 5.5 of the FLUE in that it is using existing land zoned(designated) for urban uses. 6. The Summit Place In Naples RPUD implements Policy 5.6 of the FLUE in that more than 60%of the project will be open space or reserved for conservation purposes. 7. The Master Development Plan, with its extensive natural area, lakes and open space areas, and with its moderate residential density, will insure that the developed project will be an attractive and enjoyable residential development. 8. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. ii C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Suuuoit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Summit Place In Naples RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (FORMERLY COUNTY ROAD 951),NORTH 02°15'04"WEST 669.24 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 89°52'43" WEST 100.09 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAIL) COLLIER BOULEVARD, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89°52'43" WEST 2544.16 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 02°15'24" WEST 2006.94 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, SOUTH 89°55'19"EAST 1322.18 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, SOUTH 02°15'14" EAST 669.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°54'27"EAST 1222.07 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID COLLIER BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 02°15'04" EAST 1339.23 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 98.41 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. I-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summut Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by: Waterways Joint Venture IV (Folio No. 00204640004); Waterways Joint Venture IV (Folio No. 00204600002); Waterways Joint Venture IV (Folio No. 00203640005); Waterways Joint Venture IV (Folio No. 00203640102); Waterways Joint Venture N (Folio No. 00204080004); Waterways Joint Venture N (Folio No. 00204240006); and Waterways Joint Venture N (Folio No. 00204320007). 1.4 DEVELOPER The Summit Place In Naples RPUD is intended to be developed by Waterways Joint Venture N. All references to the"Developer" as may be contained in this RPUD Document shall mean Waterways Joint Venture N, unless, and until the subject property described and depicted in this RPUD Document is conveyed, or assigned. It is the responsibility of Waterways Joint Venture N to notify Collier County, in writing, of the land conveyance, or assignment of the subject property described and depicted in this RPUD Document within six months from the actual conveyance, or assignment. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The development property is located in the east half of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The proposed project site is presently undeveloped, but has been disturbed on portions of the property by clearing and off-road vehicle use. Historically timbering and cattle grazing have occurred on the property. The property's jurisdictional wetlands have been infested with the exotic species Melaleuca. The property is generally without topographic relief, with elevations ranging from 9.02 feet to 13.7 feet above mean sea level. The site contains areas of jurisdictional wetlands that are characterized as transitional wetlands in which the predominant vegetation is a mix of pine and cypress and associated upland and wetland plants,with an mixture of Melaleuca. The water management system consists of approximately 15.74 acres of water management areas that will receive run-off from structures and parking areas. Run-off is collected by catch basins and culvert systems for conveyance to the project's internal lake system. The lakes are interconnected by culverts and/or the preserve areas, with project outfall being at the project's southwest corner. Discharge will be into the wetland preserve in the southwest corner of the project site. Flow will continue overland to eventually be collected into the Islandwalk Water Management System, with ultimate discharge into the I-75 Canal in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 90-10, as amended, which incorporates the Harvey Basin Study. I-2 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Teinporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc i 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Summit Place In Naples RPUD shall be a residential development consisting of attached single-family housing in a townhouse configured, multi-unit building. Each unit is intended to be sold fee simple, including the platted lot upon which the residential unit is located. The amenities proposed to be provided in the project include structures and areas to provide social and recreational space, lakes, natural and landscaped open spaces, and a variety of passive and active recreational opportunities. It is anticipated that the project will have a single clubhouse tract, that will be developed with the actual clubhouse, and outdoor recreational improvements including swimming pools, tennis courts, a playground, and potentially a basketball court and volley ball court. Access to the property will be from Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951). That segment of Collier Boulevard between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road is planned to be improved with a six-lane divided roadway, programmed to commence construction in 2005 (Capital Road Project#65061). Each residential unit will be served with centrally provided potable water, sanitary sewer, electric power, and telephone facilities. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate. Summit Place is also providing access, potable water, sanitary sewer, electric power, and telephone to sixteen single-family housing units in a townhouse configuration in the GGFD Station 73 Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, abutting to the south. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Summit Place In Naples Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance". I-3 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc • SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the Summit Place In Naples RPUD development, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Summit Place In Naples RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, the RPUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these RPUD regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. B. This RPUD Document and attendant RPUD Master Plan is generally tailored to provide specific development standards for the residential product proposed by the developer. C. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. D. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Summit Place In Naples project shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the RPUD site may be developed. E. Unless modified, waived or exempted through the approval of a deviation stated herein, the provisions of the Land Development Code, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD zoning district. F. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the County Land Development Code. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets, sidewalks, pedestrian trails and use of land is illustrated graphically by Exhibit"A", RPUD Master Plan. II-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS TYPE UNITS/FT. ACREAGE± TRACT "R" RESIDENTIAL 394 67 TRACT "RA" RECREATION AREA 0 2 TRACT "P" PRESERVE 0 27 B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of final plat or site development plan approval, subject to the provisions of Subsections 3.2.6.3.5. and 2.7.3.5. respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code, or as otherwise permitted by this RPUD Document. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit "A", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-private) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY A maximum of 394 residential dwelling units may be constructed in the total project area. The gross project area is approximately 98.4 acres. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. 2.5 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to development order issuance for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan, constitutes the required RPUD Development Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. C. The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code,when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order, except in the case in which individual residential units within a multi-unit building will be conveyed in a fee simple manner, including each individual lot. Deviation from Division 3.3 of the Land Development Code 11-2 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and methods for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Additionally, the developer (being the owner and developer of 4 acres to the south), his successors, or assigns will be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the infrastructural improvements and common facilities associated with the residential component of the GGFD Station 73 MPUD to the south. E. Prior to the development of single-family attached units following the development standards set forth in Table II of this Document, in which each unit is on a separate platted lot, the developer shall submit additional pages in the Improvement Plans required by Section 3.2.8. of the Land Development Code, to show typical lots, and typical footprints of the proposed attached single-family residences, including any anticipated accessory structures to the Planning Services Department. The purpose of these additional sheets is to depict the unit/building relationship with project boundaries and lot lines, provision for achieving the minimum space between attached single-family buildings, and to ensure that no one lot is adversely impacted by failing to provide the required side-yard in a uniform manner. It must be understood that no side-yards are required between units, where multiple units, intended for fee simple conveyance, including each individual lot, are contained in a single principal structure. 2.6 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATIONS A. Lake setbacks shall conform with the requirements described in Subsections 3.5.7.1.1., and 3.5.7.1.2. of the Land Development Code. Lakes maybe excavated to the maximum commercial excavation depths set forth in Subsection 3.5.7.3.1. of the Land Development Code. Removal of fill from the Summit Place In Naples RPUD shall be limited to an amount up to ten percent (10%) (to a maximum 20,000 cubic yards), of the total volume excavated unless a commercial excavation permit is received. B. Lake Side Slopes: A maximum four to one slope shall be graded from the existing grade to a breakpoint at least five feet below the control elevation. Below this breakpoint, slopes shall be no steeper than two to one. Deviation from LDC Section 3.5.7.2. to allow lake side slope breakpoint elevation to be five feet below control elevation,rather than 10 feet below the control elevation. 2.7 RIGHTS-OF-WAY A. All platted project streets shall have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way. A deviation from LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.5., for cul-de-sac and local streets, and LDC Appendix B, Typical Street Section, B-4 and B-5 which requires 60 feet, to allow 50 feet. (See Appendix "A", Typical Cross Sections, and Exhibit A, RPUD Master Plan), and shall be private, and shall be classified as local streets. II-3 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc B. Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and signage may be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee, for engineering and safety considerations prior to installation. C. Tangents between reverse curves are not required for any local street design in this RPUD. A deviation from LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.10. 2.8 AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Development Plan, Exhibit "A", as provided for in Subsection 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code, except as limited by PUD Document Section Summit Place in Naples RPUD. 2.9 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS & FACILITIES Easements shall be provided for water management areas, rights-of-way, and utilities. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect of final plat approval. Whenever the developer elects to create land areas and/or recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of residential units or real property within the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, the developer shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners' Association, or Master Condominium Association, whose function shall include provision for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space, subject further to the provisions of Subsection 2.2.20.3.8. of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.10 MODEL, SALES,AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATION FACILITIES A. Models, sales/rental centers and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale and/or rental of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, viewing platforms, gazebos, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Summit Place In Naples RPUD subject to the requirements of Division 2.3, Division 2.4, Division 2.5, and Subsection 2.6.33.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. II-4 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc B. Temporary use permits for sales centers, construction offices, and model homes may be approved subsequent to zoning approval, and may be located in permanent structures on a temporary basis. Temporary use permit applications, and, where applicable, associated site development plan (SDP) application(s) for residential models, and construction offices, may be submitted concurrently with applications for Improvement Plans to depict the location of the model units within a future platted lot. All model units must be located on lots that will be platted through subsequent development order approvals. C. Temporary uses for sales centers may be serviced by temporary well and septic systems. D. A portion of the clubhouse facilities may be used as a permanent sales facility to be utilized to market residential products, including re-sale of residences within the boundaries of this Summit Place In Naples RPUD. 2.11 CLUBHOUSE Construction approvals for the clubhouse and related common recreational facilities may be approved subsequent to zoning approval. SDP application(s) for the clubhouse and related facilities may be submitted concurrently with applications for Improvement Plans to depict the location of the clubhouse and related facilities within a future platted tract. If access, drainage and utilities are available to service the clubhouse facilities, the SDP may be approved before Improvement Plans for the subdivision are approved. The clubhouse and related facilities shall be located on a tract that will be platted through subsequent development order approvals. 2.12 FILL STORAGE Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 3.2.8.3.6. of the Collier County Land Development Code, fill storage is generally permitted as a temporary principal use throughout the Summit Place In Naples RPUD. Fill material generated may be stockpiled within areas designated for residential development. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, a Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit, along with plans showing the locations and cross-sections shall be submitted to Collier County Planning Services Staff for review and approval. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope: 3:1 B. Stockpile maximum height: thirty-five (35) feet C. Fill storage areas shall be screened with a security fence at least six (6) feet in height above ground level. If fill is spread to a height less than five feet over residential development areas that are depicted on an approved SDP, or approved subdivision Improvement Plans,no fencing is required. ""s,^ II-5 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc D. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Division 3.7 of the Land Development Code. E. Fill storage shall not be permitted in Preserve Areas. F. Fill may be stored on site for the maximum length of time of twenty-four (24) months. This period may be extended by the written permission of the Planning Services Director. 2.13 REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING Where the development of land within the Summit Place In Naples RPUD requires a permit from a local, State, or Federal agency with jurisdiction over the property proposed for development, the developer shall obtain such permits prior to final development order approval. 2.14 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Policy 6.4.6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and Subsection 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code; a minimum of 24.4 acres (25% of the native vegetation on site) is required to be retained or replanted. Tract "P", contains approximately 27 acres. For the purposes of this RPUD, the Preserve Tract will fully satisfy the native vegetation requirements of Collier County. Viable,naturally functioning native vegetation areas do not include those areas of vegetation that have seventy-five percent(75%), or greater aerial coverage of exotic species. Refer to Appendix "A", Typical Cross Sections, for details related to separation of structures from native vegetation preserve areas. 2.15 RPUD INTERFACE WITH ZONING TO THE SOUTH The Summit Place In Naples RPUD is bounded on the south by a 9.4 acre property that is intended to be rezoned to Golden Gate Fire Department Station 73 MPUD, to provide for a community facility(Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Station 73), as well as the final 16 dwelling units in the attached single-family townhouse product line being developed in the Summit Place In Naples development. The Summit Place In Naples RPUD will provide the infrastructure, including access, to the residential buildings proposed to be located in the GGFD Station 73 MPUD. Perimeter buffering that would typically be required between different zoning districts will not be provided at the southern boundary of Summit Place In Naples RPUD, and the residential portion of the GGFD Station 73 MPUD. Section 6.12. B of this RPUD Document provides for the necessary deviation to allow this development intent. Should the residential component of the GGFD PUD not be developed, it is acknowledged that the required perimeter buffering will be provided on the Summit Place RPUD property. The Amended and Restated Real Estate Exchange Agreement between Waterways Joint Venture IV and the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District articulates the development commitments for the construction and perpetual maintenance of common facilities between the two adjacent developments. II-6 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc • 2.16 LINKAGE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.3. of the Land Development Code, upon adoption of the RPUD Ordinance and attendant RPUD Master Plan, the provisions of the RPUD Document become a part of the Land Development Code and shall be the standards of development for the RPUD. Thenceforth, development in the area delineated as the Summit Place In Naples RPUD District on the Official Zoning Atlas shall be governed by the adopted development regulations set forth in this RPUD Document, and RPUD Master Plan. 11-7 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc SECTION III RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for areas designated as Tract"R"on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit"A". 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be established at the time of development plan review,but shall not exceed 394 dwelling units. 3.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1) Single-family attached dwellings, including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot associated with the residence. 2) Model Homes (See Section 2.10 of this RPUD Document). 3) Project sales and administrative offices, which may occur in residential or recreational buildings, and/or in temporary buildings (See Section 2.10 of this RPUD Document). B. Accessory Uses: 1) Customary accessory uses and structures including, but not limited to, clubhouses, private garages, tennis facilities, and swimming pools with, or without screened enclosures, and other outdoor recreation facilities. 2) Utility facilities and/or easements (including right-of-way easements). 3) Signage (see Section 6.11 of this Document). 4) Water management facilities/lakes. 5) Storage areas, for the exclusive use of the residents of the RPUD. III-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures, as applicable. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. B. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. III-2 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\L.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Suirurut Place PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT SINGLE- CLUBHOUSE/ STANDARDS FAMILY RECREATION ATTACHED BUILDINGS TOWNHOUSE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 2,250 S.F. 10,000 S.F. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 25 FEET N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F. N/A MIN FRONT YARD 20 FEET N/A MIN SIDE YARD 0 FEET or N/A 6 FEET MIN REAR YARD 15 FEET N/A MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET 25 FEET MIN.DIST. BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 FEET or N/A 'h BH whichever is greater MAX.BLDG.HT. 2 STORIES 2 STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET 35 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT S.P.S. 20 FEET SIDE S.P.S 'h BH REAR (ATTACHED) 5 FEET 10 FEET (DETACHED) 5 FEET 20 FEET PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET 10 FEET MIN.DIST. BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 FEET greater of 15 feet or'/2 BH whichever is greater MAX.BLDG.HT. 2 STORIES 2 STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET 35 FEET S.P.S.: Same as Principal Structures. BH:Building Height III-3 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc Notes: 1) The location of structures proposed adjacent to a lake may have no setback from the lake maintenance easement. 2) No structures are permitted in the required, 20 foot lake maintenance easement. 3) For all residential units in Summit Place In Naples Phase I, garages must be located a minimum of 21 feet from the back of the sidewalk located in the street rights-of-way closest to the garage, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided perpendicular to the sidewalk to avoid vehicles being parked across a portion, or all of the referenced sidewalk. 4) For all residential units not in Summit Place In Naples Phase I, garages must be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk located in the street rights-of-way closest to the garage, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided perpendicular to the sidewalk to avoid vehicles being parked across a portion, or all of the referenced sidewalk. 5) The residential units in the GGFD Station 73 PUD are on the property line between Summit Place and Station 73 and therefore the setback for these structures will be provided from the rear of the sidewalk on the abutting roadway in Summit Place PUD as required by code: Residential structures must be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk located in the street rights-of-way closest to the garage, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided perpendicular to the sidewalk to avoid vehicles being parked across a portion, or all of the referenced sidewalk. III-4 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc SECTION IV RECREATION AREA 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "RA," Recreation Area on Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan. The primary function and purpose of this Tract is to provide for social and recreational areas/spaces as an amenity for the residents of the project. 4.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, State and Federal permits,when required: Principal Uses: 1) Structures intended to provide social and recreational space; 2) Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playground improvements/facilities, and passive and/or active water features; 3) Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the request for such use. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses or structures incidental to recreation areas and, or facilities, including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, storage or shelter with appropriate screening and landscaping. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below 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. Development standards for Tract RA are contained in Table II in this document. There shall be a minimum of 20 feet separation of recreational building(s) from all residential units. B. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. IV-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "P", Preserve Area on Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan. The primary function and purpose of this Tract is to preserve and protect vegetation and naturally functioning habitats, such as wetlands,including upland buffers, in their natural, and/or enhanced state. 5.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, State and Federal permits,when required: Principal Uses: 1) Native preserves. 2) Water management structures. 3) Mitigation areas. 4) Hiking trails, boardwalks, shelters, or other such facilities constructed for the purposes of passage through or enjoyment of the site's natural attributes, subject to approval by permitting agencies. V-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc SECTION VI DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 6.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with site development plans, final p subdivision plans (if required), and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply to this project, even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document The developer, its successors or assignee, shall follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the RPUD, as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successors or assignee in title to the developer are bound by any commitments within this Document. These commitments may be assigned or delegated to a condominium/homeowners' association to be created by the developer. Upon assignment or delegation, the Developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments for that portion of the project turned over to such condominium/homeowner association. 6.3 RPUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract,parcel, or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final, and may be varied at any time at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and all common areas in the project. VI-1 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc 6.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. This RPUD is subject to the Sunset Provisions of Subsection 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. B. An annual RPUD monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.6 of the Land Development Code. 6.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy(CO). C. Site-related improvements necessary for safe ingress and aggress to this project, as determined by Collier County Transportation, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordnance 01-13, as amended, and Division 3.15 of the Land Development Code, as it may be amended. E. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. F. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. G. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. VI-2 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK761Su mit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc H. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right-of- way or easement, compensating right-of-way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. I. If, the Collier County Transportation staff determine that, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. J. (OPTIONAL, DEPENDING UPON CIRCUMSTANCES) Adjacent developments have been designed to provide shared access or interconnections with this development. The RPUD Master Plan indicates these locations. The developer, or assigns, shall assure that any such shared access or interconnection is utilized and shall accommodate the perpetual use of such access by incorporating appropriate language into the development covenants or plat. 6.6 WATER MANAGEMENT The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Detailed paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Engineering Review Services for review and approval. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until Planning Services Staff grants approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the approved plans. B. An excavation permit will be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code and South Florida Water Management District Rules. C. The project must obtain a Surface Water Management Permit from the South Florida Water Management District prior to any site development plan approval. 6.7 UTILITIES The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned, and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance number. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities shall be considered to be customers of the County, and shall be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. VI-3 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Surnmit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doe • 6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules, and be subject to review and approval by Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation alone shall not be the sole component of mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. B. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans, and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per, or similar to, Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. All setbacks and buffers shall be provided in accordance with Division 3.9 of the Collier County Land Development Code. C. Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from the edge of the wetland preserves in all places, and averaging twenty-five (25) feet from the landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules, and be subject to review and approval Environmental Review Staff. D. The PUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to "listed species". Where protected species are observed on site, a Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. E. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site,with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. This plan shall include methods and a time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. F. The RPUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code, except as provided for in the lawfully adopted RPUD Ordinance, in effect at the time of final development order approval. G. At the time of the next development order submittal, the petitioner shall provide copies of their SFWMD, Environmental Resource Permit applications. H. In the event the project does not require platting, all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation / preservation tracts or easements dedicated to the �-. project's home owners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. VI-4 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc 6.9 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures may be constructed simultaneously with, or following the construction of the principal structure. A construction operation/management office, and model center, may be constructed after zoning approval but before construction of any principal structures. 6.10 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Division 2.5 of Collier County's Land Development Code in effect at the time of sign permit approvals. 6.11 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS,BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, except in Preserve Areas. All landscaping shall be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape berms may have the following maximum side slopes: 1) Grassed berms 4:1 2) Ground covered berms 3:1 B. No buffer is required along the southerly property boundary of Tract R, associated with Tract R of the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD to the south, and a shared buffer will be provided where the proposed project interfaces with Tract CF in the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD to the south, however the trees that would be required as part of the buffer will be provided as part of the landscaping for the residential unit, with some flexibility for number of trees and spacing based on driveway locations.. Deviation from Section 2.4.7.2. of the LDC related to a requirement to create a perimeter land use buffer between the developing Summit Place subdivision and the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. If the residential units proposed in Tract R of the GGFD Station 73 MPUD are not development then the appropriate landscape buffer shall be provided along the boundary as required by the LDC. C. No tow-of-slope setback is required from the common property/tract boundary of the Residential tract (Tract R) in the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, and the Community Facilities tract(Tract CF) in the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. A wide, bermed, landscaped, land use buffer will be installed between, and unequally bridging that common boundary. Cross-section E-E, on Sheet 5of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this common berming. Deviation from Section 2.4.4.18. of the LDC where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. VI-5 C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc D. No tow of slope setback will be provided along the project frontage on Collier Boulevard. While a five foot (5') flat area will be provided within the project adjacent to the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way, that flat area will be nominally filled due to the continuation of the project's east-sloping portion of it's land use buffer/berm into the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way to interface with the proposed 6-lane roadway's westerly grading. Cross-section D-D, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this berming interface with the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way. Deviation from Section 2.4.4.18. of the LDC where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. E. No tow-of-slope setback is required from the common property/tract boundary of the Residential tract (Tract R) in the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, and the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD. A bermed, landscaped, land use buffer will be installed between, and bridging that common boundary. Cross-section F-F, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this common berming. Deviation from Section 2.4.4.18. of the LDC where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. F. Pedestrian sidewalks, bike paths, water management facilities and structures may be allowed in landscape buffer areas, provided that the landscape buffer area is increased by an equivalent width. G. Landscape plantings associated with the attached single-family residential buildings must comply with LDC Section 2.4.6.6. 6.12 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. 6.13 POLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 of the Land Development Code,provision shall be made for the future use of building space within common areas for the purposes of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place, only if requested by the Supervisor of Elections. An Agreement between the developer and the Supervisor of Elections for the provision of polling places shall be recorded in the official records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. The Agreement shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest to the developer that acquire ownership of such common areas including homeowners' associations. VI-6 II C:\Documents and Settings\ticaudill\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK76\Summit Place-PUD 6-18-04 Clean.doc ,77Z i -p :4o-Ko . ag 11 � Feu �. . -i y Y• i a �y C r C _ 1114 cb _ y=;m?o $ ^ ti to r&•- " i"' ' R nm. sy ti£ 2. g a,. z e _ Z. 74 zV - Oo e 3 'R8. if“ ( i U g8l gib a .' , a _ — p `IN 3 RFU . t• X I_' 'k aRY '_I Ck r/� r. I �a F E' �� -lv rit i® iA H j IJ 21 • A ®N 0 PROPERTY UNE PROPERTY O. H easEq SII ME A° d r' =1=misr 111!11111 1 7 t•mt• ,_� INOZ T lr11.l 8 !1 ....2 t• \`�EMU \ �� ,� JNINOZ 1yHHfiLlf101a`JV __.. 111 \ o n .s.00c \ 1 nos cdo :1212111 /'` MEINIIMM �11�� I ' —� o FSR W @a: _ c0 M ■11110111 l� 2 �o 33 -= 11111ii11 r �i :_� _ 9 I.—co— §go m >a Ian \ .. .a l i i 11 n z § a a1 a r nR u / R Vii` ! ' v CA _ w ^^ z "_ o al iy ,1/ A iga c 04U 2> o z. a a3/74 V 5'➢ --I 0 A z4 o -Ac by i> R a�/ �? A m L aZ g n z A c ��� A' r • gy # _ ACJ '1 __ � gS S - ,' a wm �L4�J _ -- — Qz mo Ao 1 p . + + z sn n o . C :o. , —y 1 1 s 4 Fox- A - FA A ,p O,D. 2 IRP� R 'n — — - ('M'O'a.ODI)— M1V) 1g6 9t4USI%3 _ _g4 — _ / 1 EXHIBIT "A " R SEC PSE RLE QIG.T. mWUT . ., 5 nu-ANC- OR.. WA1Tf?WAYS JOINf VeNTLlf:�IV SUMMt1"p��10E IN N�ti'teS par OR... rmr CONSULTING Engineers,Surveyors&Mappers c;::�wv= k7r L 7 MAS k'PLAN t. V V. . Planners,Project Managers 2` o r .n.v Re "'-••"� (NE(r"CE v 5 PC2CONJr''Ni5 F2GM CPO. 3 IkAN5'F'!,VNNG msomemwwm 0C n soeua. 0CCE3.w (23,31649.150.soo FAX(239)604056 I il 0 1 \ 11 I 1/ a= i of I p.-4 -- I °,R r 1 giII l egthi i �:6R . .. L--,.....4, I - - _ a ii 2g r ill q MI I ,s_. nR £ o § I N g;4 ,g I Ra 1117 11 I I ,91 Ck'' '1;1 '' I IR in g II H SSE - a I —� .d 7 r I1----i---� 3R - O cA til ^$ Y Age I - 3:: I Arn r,. 4 il gN�F O • o I :s'., '— Nig 4R ,E I CA tt CA if , 4 i , 4i $ ti P / ?2 g os 4_ ,3/41 1dY R .11RR N; T •r 1 o- - n -r 1 ^1i ; 1_jai 11 xf. 1 4 IF: .,,_ ma iI aN ,^ 172 i YL T, F. RI,,-, PFM, uxrzK.P a..:^: ;5 .85 T6[ INC. TALE WAT�I?WAY5 JOINT VV NfUI?E IV S�IMMI1"1'1, \ACE IN NAR,e5�l'[j • 02-00,001 MAwv^, TITLECr��`�7r S�CflONS CONSULTIN Engineers,Surveyors&Mapper �•_,• 1 ns«co I.. • •L -X. . Planners,Project Nisi-lagers r✓5 Pr.F.COMMENS5reOMc.7,.=a MAW'P-MINING 341501ionh Yaws.Ormt...270 Napes. .,.,« (239149-1.r.1239)60.7056 n < 0 cc o N 0 NAPLES-IMMOKALEE ROAD C.R. 846 - --- _ NAPLES-IMMOKA E ROAD C.R. 846 LAUREL ® . OAK GULF COAST NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL/ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL WATER TREATMENT FACILITY o or OAK RIDGE te 51 MIDDLE SCHOOL z o 3n - SUMMIT o z r% /// PLACE 1 j'S IN NAPLES oo I PROJECT DISTRICT #1, - I LOCATION! 'NORTH NAPLES ,SUBSTATION ANOERBILT BEACH INROAD EXT VAND R:I T :EACH ROAD EXT. j m & m a r CC W > GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE o DISTRICT STATION 71 < m ZS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD @ o, Zla m 0 - Crli ce V' U 1� 5 m. PINE RIDGE ROAD C.R. 896 ! PINE RIDGE ROAD EXT.C.R. 896) WHITE BOULEVARD �m I GREEN BOULEVARD W I- o rn a DISTRICT g2 .�II o o GOLDEN GATE m ®SUBSTATION n 5 '15eyl 54 1 Ilo ce l.'' 04`0" N. OLD: GATE PARKWA < z o1114 re a cc o < u. 0 w ¢ ®COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT ur az.., 1 .I - SOUTH WATER TREATMENT FACIUTY o I- �i ao ce - S_ COWER COUNTY o AIRPORT \y/ < J _._.RADIO ROAD ' LANDFILL ® _ • Acr 09, 2003 - 10:30:29 P ..2002 sects\ 2-00:0.07 H,bis.;us 'in.age . I. Zc 0C4 Rezoning App6cc,or S,:pport'\,20050X02..dwq Inc:. DATE - APRIL, 2003 CLIENTS U M M IT PLACE IN NAPLES P U D �,RYTA Engineers, N.T.S. CONSULTING Surveyors&Mappers, DRAWN Br: TITLE: PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP ALL V V.LZ Planners,Project Managers A.S. 3050 North Horseshoe Drive,Suite 270 ��=�_K�' �• EXHIBIT E Naples.Florida 34104 D.H.N. Phone:(239)649-1509 >e '8' ?'r OZ-0050.0 1 Fl„HTEP. 1 1 FL= 2 FAX:(239)649-7056 i. c � ZE_ ..„,-,;,--r--,.--.., N'.jmHER: 20050X02 _ I R 26 E li i.a ��. Su Gv. J 0, ;GOK -i = c^--S r it II 'I 'I y I IIIII I! .1 II Q 26 81 1 tl 27 V.,.,. sG co: rT I_,f,---77–'—�(. III it CRYS;A: -1 �I. S. _..)&.‘17.-., LA KF k II / �/ O ACI4EMAK=.R RCA0 PROJECT LOCATION HR:"ANY Cl) Cl) HAY VTC..A ACAD MY / ----- —._— U ;RFC i-•ARM ROAD W - - (OLIO Na. 00204240006 SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES 34 F0440 NO.0020432000735 {� –Imill • g WO.; CRI-..< ( 5 11 i wOIFC ROAu I VANDERBIL T COUNTRY Ci UB ISLAND I _... .. —_ -- WALKWAIL K H---- . GOI Di N BUCKS RUN POND ! MISSION CHURCI+ —_-- --- • -1 L__—_. P'.......• VANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD I GOLDEN GATE GO;DEN GATE fSiA'ES � --'-- ES ATFS I R 26 E I acv., zo�2 ' --.N': purTANc. WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV Engineers, N I q. /'� CONSULTING Surveyors&Mappers, S U M V I T PLACE IN NAPLES P.U.D. L. V V 1 Z Planners,Project Managers A-S- 3050 North Horseshoe Drive,Suite 270 VI C I N I T Y M A P Naples,Florida 34104 _ :!___N. Phone:(239)649-1509 02-0050.01 1 1 20050X01 FAX:(239)649-7056 14-1 • 41,y..�� • c ALOR \V kam\.• OU 1 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC TTFARING FOR: PUD REZONE Petition No.: Planner Assigned: Date Received: Commission District: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF 1. General Information: Name of Applicant(s): Waterways Joint Venture IV,by Waterways Development, Inc. Applicant's Mailing Address: 914 Grand Rapids Boulevard City: Naples State: Florida Zip: 34120-4430 Applicant's Telephone#: (239) 352-6610 Fax#: (239) 352-1460 Applicant's E-Mail Address: radavenport@telocity.com Name of Agent Dwight H. Nadeau Finn: R.W.A., Inc. Agent's Mailing Address: 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 270 City: Naples State: Florida Zip: 34104 Agent's Telephone#: (239) 649-1509 Fax#: (239) 649-7056 Agent's E-Mail Address: dhn@consult-rwa.com COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE-NAPLES,FL 34104 PHONE (239) 403-2400/FAX(239) 643-6968 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) RWA Note: IBN=To Be Noticed Name of Homeowner Association: Property Owner's Association of N. Collier County(TBN) Mailing Address 141 West Avenue City Naples State FL Zip 34108 Name of Homeowner Association: Indigo Lakes Mailing Address 14875 Indigo Lakes Circle City Naples State FL Zip 34119 Name of Master Association: Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Civic Association: Mailing Address City State Zip 1. 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 Richard Yurewitch Folio: 00204640004 14775 Collier Blvd,Naples, FL 34119-9592 100% Richard Yurewitch Folio: 00204600002 14775 Collier Blvd,Naples, FL 34119-9592 100% Richard Yurewitch Folio: 00203640005 14775 Collier Blvd,Naples, FL 34119-9592 100% Richard R.Yurewitch, Sr. Folio: 00203640102 144775 Collier Blvd,Naples, FL 34119-9592 100% Waterways Joint Venture IV Folio: 00204080004 n 914 Grand Rapids Blvd.,Naples, FL 34120 100% Waterways Joint Venture IV Folio: 00204240006 914 Grand Rapids Blvd.,Naples, FL 34120 100% Waterways Joint Venture IV Folio: 00204320007 914 Grand Rapids Blvd.,Naples,FL 34120 100% 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, and Office Percentage of Stock Waterways Joint Venture IV is a joint venture between the following: Bribro Ventures, Inc. 25% Brian Seligman—President 914 Grand Rapids Blvd,Naples,FL 33120 DESN, Inc. 25% Robert B.Miller-President 3350 Bridal Path Lane,Weston,FL 33331 Waterways at Hibiscus,Ltd. 50% Richard Davenport—President of Waterways Development,Inc.(General Partner in Waterways at Hibiscus,Ltd.- 11860 West State Road 84,Suite B-15,Davie,FL 33325 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 n d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. 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 Waterways Joint Venture IV 100% 914 Grand Rapids Boulevard Naples,Florida 34120-4430 Richard Yurewitch : Folio: 00204640004 Date of Contract: 6/11/2002 Richard Yurewitch : Folio: 00204600002 Date of Contract: 6/11/2002 Richard Yurewitch : Folio: 00203640005 Date of Contract: 6/11/2002 Richard R.Yurewitch, Sr.: Folio: 00203640102 Date of Contract: 6/11/2002 f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation,partnership, or trust. it Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired() leased(): Term of lease yrs./mos. Waterways Joint Venture IV Folio: 00204080004 acquired(x) 3/2003 Waterways Joint Venture IV Folio: 00204240006 acquired(x) 11/2001 Waterways Joint Venture IV Folio: 00204320007 acquired(x) 11/2001 If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date 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. 3. Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale)if required to do so at the pre-application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 34 Township: 48 South Range: 26 East Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page#: Property I.D.#: 00204640004 00204600002 00203640005 00203640102 00204080004 00204240006 00204320007 Metes &Bounds Description: COMMENCING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (FORMERLY COUNTY ROAD 951),NORTH 02°15'04"WEST 669.24 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID EAST LINE,NORTH 89°52'43"WEST 100.09 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID COLLIER BOULEVARD, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,NORTH 89°52'43" WEST 2544.16 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 02°15'24"WEST 2006.94 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, SOUTH 89°55'19" EAST 1322.18 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, SOUTH 02°15'14" EAST 669.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°54'27"EAST 1222.07 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID COLLIER BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 02°15'04"EAST 1339.23 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 98.41 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 4. Size of property: 1,672 ft. X 2,563 ft. =Total Sq. Ft. 4,287,175 Acres 98.42 5. Address/general location of subject property: Generally, 14625 Collier Boulevard. The proposed project site is generally located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1/4 mile north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. 6. PUD District(LDC 2.2.20.4): ZI Residential n Community Facilities L Commercial n Industrial 7. Adjacent zoning and land use: Zoning Land use N A, and PUD Wholesale nursery, and Brittany Bay Apartments S A, and Church All undeveloped lands E A, and PUD Undeveloped lands, and Vanderbilt Country Club PUD W A, Agricultural All undeveloped lands Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). YES Section: 34 Township: 48 South Range: 26 East Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page#: Property I.D.#: P rh' Metes &Bounds Description: The North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 less the R/W as recorded on O.R. Book 873, PG. 1957. 8. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the PUD, and A, Agriculture zoning district(s)to the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Undeveloped lands Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: A residential subdivision Original PUD Name: Hibiscus Village PUD Ordinance No.: 2000-76 9. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 and Sec. 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 2.7.3.2.5) 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The proposed RPUD's consistency with the locational criteria set forth on the Future Land Use Map and supporting Future Land Use Element (FLUE), of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and consistency with the applicable Elements related to access, drainage, water, sewer, and other utilities, combined with the development conditions and commitments contained in the proposed RPUD document, gives reasonable assurance that all infrastructure will be developed consistent with County regulations. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, 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. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The documents submitted with this Petition Application provide evidence of unified control. Further, the proposed RPUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. Please refer to the Statement of Compliance located in the Summit Place of Naples RPUD Document. 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. The RPUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. Additionally, most external relationships are automatically regulated by the Land Development Code to ensure harmonious relationships between projects. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this proposed project meets or exceeds the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The timing and sequence of the permitting the proposed development coincides with the programming of the County's proposed capital improvements to meet concurrency requirements. Adequate improvements, utilities and other facilities can be provided. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. Relative to this Petition, development of the subject. property is timely, because supporting infrastructure are available, or will be in place by the time permitting of the proposed improvements is complete. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The development standards in the proposed RPUD document are similar to those standards used for the residential structures and related improvements when compared to County regulations. 10. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. � II 11. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Yes, the Hibiscus Village Minor PUD Amendment (PUDZ-2002-AR-2559 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 8, 2002. 12. Additional Submittal requirements: In addition to this completed application, the following shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the pre-application meeting. a) A copy of the pre-application meeting notes; b) If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide twenty (20) copies (this includes: HUI if affordable housing, Joyce Ernst, if residential and Immokalee/Water Sewer District, if in Immokalee) of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan [and one reduced 81/2" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, depicting the following [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board(EAB), or CCPC]; • all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, • provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), • all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], • required yards, open space and preserve areas, • proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the site), • proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the County, c) An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. d) An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate. e) Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved (per LDC Section 3.9.5.5.4.). f) Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches); g) A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre-application meeting; h) A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located within an area of historical or archaeological probability(as identified at pre-application meeting); i) Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and identified during the pre-application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federal permits. j) An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of this submittal package. k) Boundary Survey,no more than six months old-LDC Section 2.7.3.1.2.(8) Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2 (3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign (s) immediately. PUD REZONE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHI CKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET! REQUIREMENTS # OF NOT COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED_ 1. Completed Application/PUD documents 24* 2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(s) and all 2* Partners if a Corporation 3. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit,Notarized 2* 4. Pre-application notes/minutes 24* 5. Conceptual Site Plans 24* 6. Environmental Impact Statement- (EIS) 4 7. Aerial Photograph - (with habitat areas identified) 5* 8. Completed Utility Provisions Statement (with required 4 attachments and sketches) 9. Traffic Impact Statement- (TIS) 4 10.Historical &Archaeological Survey or Waiver 4 Application 11. Copies of State and/or Federal Permits 4 12. Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s) 4 13.Pre-Application Fee,Application Fee and Data - Conversion Fee Check shall be made payable to Collier County Board of Commissioners 14. An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of the submittal packet. 15. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING: APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: Copy of Affidavit attesting that all property owners, civic associations and property owner associations were notified. Copy of audio/video recording of public meeting. Written account of meeting. 16. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement 4 including all Appendices and Exhibits. 17. Boundary Survey (no more than 6 months old) 5 18. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: * Documents required for Long-Range Planning Review*1 additional copy if for affordable housing As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal packa rstand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing petiti L/I?.(n • gent/Applicant Signature 1 Date ,. ,..... • r PROPOSED CONDITIONS (98-42 Acres) PRESERVE (111— inU o < )1 Q W J D O CO Ct w J 00 /."N In U EXISTING CONDITIONS o (57.82 Acres) Q Iii J D O CD (1(:::73 i w PRESERVE _, J O U Nov 25, 2002 — 10:36:52 P:\2002 Projects\02-0050.07 Hibiscus Village Pncse it Zoning\0003 Rezoning\20050X02 Vicinity Mop.cwg DATE: CLIENT: R-x—y-lANc. NOV., 2002 SCALE: WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV Engineers, N.T.S. CONSULTING Surveyors&Mappers, DRAWN BY: TITLE: SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES P.U.D. Z L V V 1 . Planners,Project Managers A.S. 3050 North Horseshoe Drive,Suite 270 CHECKED CONDITIONS EXHIBIT Naples,Florida 34104 D.H.N. Phone:(239)649-1509 SEC: ?NP: ROE: PROJECT FAX:(236)6497056 02-0050.01 SNHME 1 1 N R20050X01 -,44 265 NUMBER: B : : Summit Place In Naples RPUD, PUDZ-2003-AR-4046 List of Deviations Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.3 to exempt multi-family/townhouse buildings, intended to be sold in a fee simple manner, including each individual lot, from the Site Development Plan (SDP) process. This deviation is appropriate given the duplicative processes the LDC could require for this unique residential product. The purpose of the SDP process and subdivision process is to ensure compliance with the appropriate land development regulations, and consistency with the County's Growth Management Plan. Given this project will be required to pursue a subdivision plat as set forth in Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as stated in Section 2.5.C. of the RPUD document, reviews for compliance with the LDC and consistency with the GMP is assured. 2.5.C. The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order, except in the case in which individual residential units within a multi-unit building will be conveyed in a fee simple manner. Deviation from Division 3.3 of the Land Development Code. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.5.7.2. to allow lake side slope breakpoint elevation to be five feet below control elevation, rather than 10 feet below the control elevation. This deviation is appropriate given that dry season, observed on-site, water elevations indicate the ability to raise the slope breakpoint elevation without creating a health, safety, nor welfare issues. 2.6.B. Lake Side Slopes: A maximum four to one slope shall be graded from the existing grade to a breakpoint at least five feet below the control elevation. Below this breakpoint, slopes shall be no steeper than two to one. Deviation from LDC Section 3.5.7.2. to allow lake side slope breakpoint elevation to be five feet below control elevation, rather than 10 feet below the control elevation. Deviation#3 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.5., for "cul-de-sac and local streets, and LDC Appendix B, Typical Street Section, B-4 and B-5 that requires 60 feet, to allow 50 feet. A 50-foot right-of-way is permitted in this RPUD to provide for flexibility in development design, subject to providing easements for required utilities generally parallel to the right-of-way. This is a reasonable deviation that has been implemented in subdivisions throughout the County, and does not compromise health, safety, and welfare issues related to civil engineering design. 2.7.A. All platted project streets shall have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way. A deviation from LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.5., for cul-de-sac and local streets, and LDC Appendix B, Typical Street Section, B-4 and B-5 which requires 60 feet, to allow 50 feet. (See Appendix "A", Typical Cross Sections, and Exhibit A, RPUD Master Plan), and shall be n private, and shall be classified as local streets. 1 P:\Projects\2002\02-0050.01 Hibiscus Village Phase II Zoning\0004 Rezoning Application Support\Deviations-6-8-04 Clean.doc Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.10 that requires tangents to be provided between reverse curves on all streets. This RPUD will not require tangents between reverse curves in order to provide greater subdivision design flexibility. All internal roads within the RPUD will have low posted speed limits and will have a curvilinear design that has been shown to reduce local traffic speeds. Additionally, the flat terrain found on site does not warrant the need for tangents. This is a reasonable deviation that has been applied throughout the County, and does not comprise a risk to public health, safety and welfare. 2.7.C. Tangents between reverse curves are not required for any local street design in this RPUD. A deviation from LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.10. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 2.4.7.2., wherein landscape buffering would be required between the proposed Summit Place In Naples RPUD (currently developing under the provisions of the Hibiscus Village PUD), and the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. However the trees that would be required as part of the buffer will be provided as part of the landscaping for the residential unit, with some flexibility for number of trees and spacing based on driveway locations. This deviation is justified given the interrelationship between the two adjacent projects. The property ownership is common (Waterways Joint Venture IV), for the Summit Place In Naples RPUD (a.k.a.: Hibiscus Village PUD), and the residential component (Tract R), of the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. Access to the proposed residential units in the GGFD Station 73 MPUD would come from Summit Place Circle platted within the developing Summit Place In Naples Phase I subdivision. Waterways Joint Venture IV, through an agreement with the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, among other commitments, will be providing sanitary sewer conveyance through the Summit Place sanitary sewer system, providing water management attenuation and discharge through the Summit Place storm water management system, as well as to construct and landscape the forty to fifty foot wide berm separating the fire station land use from the residential components of the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD, and the developing residences in the existing Hibiscus Village PUD (a.k.a.: Summit Place In Naples Phase I). Canopy trees (street trees), normally required for the buffer will be installed associated with the residential unit, with flexibility in the number of trees and spacing based on driveway locations. The land use buffering intent of the LDC will be satisfied with the perimeter landscape buffer, and native preserve, on the south boundary of Tract R in the GGFD Station 73 PUD . 6.11.B.No buffer is required along the southerly property boundary of Tract R, associated with Tract R of the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD to the south, and a shared buffer will be provided where the proposed project interfaces with Tract CF in the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD to the south. Deviation from Section 2.4.7.2. of the LDC related to a requirement to create a perimeter land use buffer between the developing Summit Place subdivision and the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. 2 P:\Projects\2002\02-0050.01 Hibiscus Village Phase II Zoning\0004 Rezoning Application Support\Deviations-6-8-04 Clean.doc Deviation # 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 2.4.4.18., where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed beim is greater than two feet in height. A required land use buffer will be unequally shared between the Residential Tract (Tract R) in the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, and the Community Facilities Tract (Tract CF) in the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. A wide, bermed, landscaped, land use buffer will be installed between, and unequally bridging that common boundary. Cross-section E-E, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this common berming. Requiring the tow-of-slope setback would create an non-uniform improvement that would tend to collect storm water and irrigation water that would eventually compromise the integrity of the landscape plantings and the berm itself Additionally, no tow of slope setback will be provided along the project frontage on Collier Boulevard. While a five foot (5') flat area will be provided within the project adjacent to the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way, that flat area will be nominally filled due to the continuation of the project's east-sloping portion of it's land use buffer/berm into the Collier Boulevard Right- Of-Way to interface with the proposed 6-lane roadway's westerly grading. Requiring the tow- of-slope setback would create a non-uniform improvement that would tend to collect storm water and irrigation water that could compromise the future improvements in the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way. The intent of this setback will be met through the five foot (5') flat area provided within the project adjacent to the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way. Cross-section D-D, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this berming interface with the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way. Finally, discussions are underway with the potential developer of the impending Palermo Cove residential development located to the south and west of Summit Place In Naples. The intent of the discussions related to shared berming on common property boundaries. In anticipation of this cooperation, that will be finalized with a formal agreement, a similar deviation where no of tow of slope setback would be required along a small portion of the south boundary of Summit Place In Naples. 6.11.C.No tow-of-slope setback is required from the common property/tract boundary of the Residential tract (Tract R) in the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, and the Community Facilities tract (Tract CF) in the proposed GGFD Station 73 MPUD. A wide, bermed, landscaped, land use buffer will be installed between, and unequally bridging that common boundary. Cross-section E-E, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this common berming. Deviation from Section 2.4.4.18. of the LDC where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. 6.11.D.No tow of slope setback will be provided along the project frontage on Collier Boulevard. While a five foot (5') flat area will be provided within the project adjacent to the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way, that flat area will be nominally filled due to the continuation of the project's east-sloping portion of it's land use buffer/berm into the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way to interface with the proposed 6-lane roadway's westerly grading. Cross- section D-D, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this berming interface with the Collier Boulevard Right-Of-Way. Deviation from Section 2.4.4.18. of the LDC where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the n proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. 3 P:\Projects\2002\02-0050.01 Hibiscus Village Phase II Zoning\0004 Rezoning Application Support\Deviations-6-8-04 Clean.doc 6.11.E.No tow-of-slope setback is required from the common property/tract boundary of the Residential tract (Tract R) in the Summit Place In Naples RPUD, and the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD. A bermed, landscaped, land use buffer will be installed between, and bridging that common boundary. Cross-section F-F, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this common berming. Deviation from Section 2.4.4.18. of the LDC where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. 4 P:\Projects\2002\02-0050.01 Hibiscus Village Phase II Zoning\0004 Rezoning Application Support\Deviations-6-8-04 Clean.doc I C . `b___. Vr'i 0 ,,, 0 _JORM.....—(f)...Ct.4:3,0cra ----- o qF o c z 0 tri D A OPOOpOO:�OZOGi A ! Gb ;t 0'O +,9 npfl bb iy ZO�~O n na it r 1 'IfNggn :o"1",,Ta. ua_ _ n n n 5 0° n° ip a `e g 6 al»s :/i isiuouslw 1�^ pm E 5 F 4, Z C3 g 96'900L M.bt,S1.Z0 N-J p m00" 0 V 09e —I .ag9 _ an96->� — IIP: F \ .zn > I �.r qn P. mE sA,a a 1 I A "s a9 '�ao ��� '�' n N i' ,S;n crg K; Gg I a£ g 5R s; z�s c o I 11 ii 4J n € --21a � ____ _ FSI A U Z� 1 i 8i Ar* i S� iq 3"k a 11 _ o I 1 , 1 x p a n 8 II T. Z 0 I I 1 aT el 1 P 0 n ._-v"v q RX 1 n,--uG �'i u ra 1,0 7 A f T119 0 H1$`�O RT -1 « 8 �'"v �" xrn 1 ' i 1 a::,, ',a, ,, g o y m a a'- Z e �" S I<'afo IM.,I.0.0 N-J L J,IL'699 3,61,51.20 S-3____. 0 o 0 A r. a A ' n p I b,--.are• _.�, p L I F/ y • " 0 0 0 ,1'. g < s8 r I N Ai G b �/m .. 1" b: a A ,1'..,1g:43 � o$ PI IlliAlit I 1.1 . 11I �I #;[� I 1 £ o N -c"."3 I d ` Ij I 0 ts 0 o [ ;1. s cc 99 00 176 wo k 9= I g� 1k Jy • HA YR o�_ N '.1'1 I i — /A a? a ' a kayo I .� SN; o .��— --- v.— _ z.. £ e? *8:8 t '± §_ m —'7::_____,""'"%'7--'— .vvl a ,t L'6fLl_J_3,40,51.L0 5-J �o '1.1\\ _ -----2 ,—_ _. _ - _ v_o3 _ LS6 0V0i•1 AWnoo A,831Nod) a < a' — 776.9—:9t ,�--x —--- aut aavn3lnoe a3moa , M„60,$1.20 61-3- 'z- �'f � �---j� I ,LS'BL9L M J0,912-0-61-91 sr� m O la11 ac JJtcltl'u1n0a v1 dMnrW,' FR yN H ,(uO,IJJa',/�IMu1tl0u]wl) ,t IM G F N% F o p > P1 O > co U O L N7 m (/1 p Sf A n0 O mr y i oTU > u O m mi o �o O m no�A CV; mZ gim S=mmmmm=Om 00 mOmm pm 30 N J Z Z1 oN y vinzy r' O m z — �D ZZ p ZZZi0Z7m-,n1Z �K OZLZ6D Z ~DAT C� m . 0 A lm _0 Oy< �1 O r 000 A00 A D • Z yZ ZP 8m rmmmmm ZA mem AZ p=330 O NF' Z4 2E? 0 Dp nC fl Z NOCZ OZ- m D —I alr FNf y ➢r OImTID2 VDm 3347. <y. Z '`'is Z m2 A r0 my ` +i??, CWm 0 -< G Om � �OSZ OZG� y£p 0 A An A OO<D 33f" O O.' N DpmN Oy OO ;11 mf 02y AAC m SDZ ,0 m A O Ari DN A Za O A Z O m m -i L, mx.04>ZGf0m00r -o --11 pN--33i Z y20 m� N N 0 IC/1 D A -ij VI cNieO y "7=3'''' 00 pGZ7 aIOZ C 4 ' r0 Oe41S.iiX 07 120 m..i ZNO O O80!, m m 00 ,›m m .,C Z C-I y 5' UNy yZ' -I mi cC -'1 y O NDmm m ➢= T �$m2 D 0Z rA N = imZZ VI O 0 Z0 33 3,. <1^m(m1 pm Sf� Z O. 9-'o v ZZ-rm £ mm A AA= O •33 pf> Z oo .. A ➢rI ➢ g g-41 Oy Am O 0 K-1Z or m Z _1 O l <m A 00 Z'UC < �N nm 0J�0 OP m-T� O r=A2 D m2m V N ti • {U -Nni O • fl D m� o 68: D' AZw o F.�nZ o o *0 , o zo ` az' o !r":.' f 8t D -< 00 xA 1y/��A aNc£.c 1n rm om: m �'A NNO Z D N 42 GIZ Di) Z p m 'Om I,, U1m ai ^rf Ni A L oy; 5.,6-, , Z .„0_, >>1 ?7,. zc Z c$Z In -10 ,i7; _'rZir ZA prm� p A ''y pm y o O i0 NO �� D 8 wNxSLJ A FIR 0L'9,A r^m ZCOx a y xQg, <£4Z -01X p O E r,,A 1A1 tD I C rA Ax�D O c3r'1 Nf O 01 Om m Z VI A HE xlm Zn fl ONG ZS 1 Om I; ZN ,.< JmO �0]5-,'' =ODZ A JCy� DA j AOJr Vlm C Ary ',,,373 NOmO In mc- m T ,.010 - 1, O-f1 Cr 8 N C �2 m A� O A NONi m pZ ra 0m NOS m S N f AZm m0 O 2 m D O m0 Z _A D p mz g F-, Ay2 .-< 0m0 , c,1* 330 0 p m3 mN = m 0 JO m A N 020 ' ��AVI 0i SCS Owz '-<' m (nn-, mD N Z p N [� o DSA Zr,' <Nm-' o z �'-1'A'_N m OX o� v� O f A $ �m ^-"' .:411'41,- WrA\ Z -Imp rnA A ZtnZ ;O cA< 33 I �z H O = O £Z p .(> > ZmZ p2 VOi 0Za OTf M g A O ma A .. N 1 0 ZmOp r0 mAV) m• m 0 Z ,,,11c Zm -< o IO E_ X (-), A O ZZC, f m 33=mp D DO 0 ]:N Z 0 r.m p O 241 Nm - Z p ZOV' m O D� Z- D C L7$ 20; r=^OOAO S O�mV ; to m . m'� m ._, O=OO ,p 3300m A Z yap Z 33p_> Dg p ZOS �W Op0-i p Z N m AD 0Z D OO N m -ZiI O In Z tNo In p Z= N A-n 0fm mm r^tDz o n D 0 v� 1.7:1 mll, • I', O.'..f.,.., p x 1330 r00 oN D D Ox >xn -m Ecm 0 _C f1 pD my ZDAO m ��9 4 p00 ON I O• ZK ~ VVO,11 20, ZZON r,1 = 2.pOpm f�Om� 0 O o >-I o ?4,,'E.; Am Or-"O a, Z Oci< f - Nm N .33 rC P -0-0 m 1-P3 F-r�. Z Op Z D y 2 x N O r <ma 9 mO 5> > Oar^ 0 -o O W0 Zp mrd T O A ZNm O Z< < x m A CO J z p O mmm�/a� C m0 9 �I N C 9, S N .p PIm O a N 0 i.. SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES RPUD COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT April 2003 Revised December 2003 Revised May 2004 Prepared For: RWA, Inc. 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 270 Naples, Florida; 34104 (239) 649-1509 Prepared By: Passarella and Associates, Inc. 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 (239) 274-0067 L Project No. 01 RAD707 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 3.8.5.1 Applicant Information 1 3.8.5.2 Development and Site Alteration Information 1 3.8.5.3 Mapping and Support Graphics 2 3.8.5.4 Impact Categories 7 3.8.5.4.1 Bio-physical 7 3.8.5.4.2 Public Facilities and Services 17 3.8.6.1.1 Specifics to Address-General Information 21 References 23 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Project Location Map 3 Figure 2. FLUCFCS and Wetland Map 4 Figure 3. Soils Map 6 Figure 4. Wetland Impact Map 13 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Habitat/FLUCFCS Types and Acreages 2 Table 2. SFWMD/Collier County Wetland Acreages 9 Table 3. Nail Elevations for Wetland Water Level Indicators 11 Table 4. Wetland Impact Summary 12 Table 5. Upland Acreages 14 111 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit A. Resume A-1 Exhibit B. Aerial Photograph with FLUCFCS Overlay B-1 Exhibit C. Soil Descriptions C-1 Exhibit D. Wetland Verification Documentation D-1 Exhibit E. Water Level Nail Location and Topographic Map E-1 Exhibit F. Listed Plant and Wildlife Species Survey F-1 Exhibit G. Correspondence from the Florida Department of State G-1 iv INTRODUCTION This report represents the Collier County Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 98.41+ acre Summit Place in Naples RPUD (AR-4046). This EIS has been prepared in accordance with Division 3.8 of the Collier County Land Development Code (October 30, 1991 as amended October 14, 1992). The EIS has been revised to address the county's environmental planning comments as of August 13, 2003, per Collier County Planning's website. Revisions have also been made to the EIS to reflect recent modifications to the site plan that have been implemented at the request of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 3.8.5.1 APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. Responsible owner(s) agent(s) who wrote the EIS and his/her education and job related environmental experience. Michael A. Myers of Passarella and Associates, Inc. Consulting Ecologists is a sub- consultant to the agent. A copy of Mike's resume is enclosed as Exhibit A. 2. Owner(s) agent(s) name, address. Owners: Waterways Joint Venture IV 914 Grand Rapids Boulevard Naples, FL 34120 Agent: Mr. Dwight Nadeau RWA, Inc. 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 270 Naples, FL 34103 3. Affidavit of proof of authorized agent. Proof of authorized agent is provided in the RPUD documentation prepared by RWA, Inc. 3.8.5.2 DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALTERATION INFORMATION 1. Description of proposed use. The project's proposed use is for a residential development with associated amenities and infrastructure to accommodate a maximum of 392 dwelling units. 1 2. Legal description of site. A legal description and the boundary survey are included as part of the RPUD documentation provided under separate cover. 3. Location and address description. The Summit Place in Naples RPUD parcel is located on the west side of County Road 951 just south of Golden Gate Nursery in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. 3.8.5.3 MAPPING AND SUPPORT GRAPHICS General location map. A project location map is provided as Figure 1. 2. Native habitats and their boundaries shall be identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending at least two hundred(200)feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant is required to go onto adjacent properties. Habitat identification will be consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System and shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the county, otherwise, a scale of at least one inch equal to 400 feet is acceptable. Information obtained by ground-truthing surveys shall have precedence over information presented through photographic evidence. Vegetation mapping of the property was conducted using 1" = 200' scale aerial photographs and groundtruthing conducted in December 1999 and November 2002. The vegetation communities were mapped using Level III and IV of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999). Level IV was used to identify hydrological conditions and disturbance. An aerial photograph with FLUCFCS mapping is enclosed as Exhibit B. A vegetation and wetlands map of the property is provided as Figure 2, and an acreage breakdown of the habitat types is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Habitat/FLUCFCS Types and Acreages FLUCFCS Percent of Code Habitat Acreage Total 190 Open Land-Under Construction 46.97 47.6 213/740 Woodland Pasture & Disturbed Land 7.54 7.7 2 \ TMlµ.SYC V . ... A .GANES011t 01.100 I. \.J N.T.S. . .VERS S • R 26 E $EXIT 111 IMMOKALEE ROAD (SR; 846) I. t. g TREE FARM RD. PROJECT LOCATION1-1 �' SEC 34, T48S, R26E s Flit' WOLF ROAD i 0 \ s O Fl 11` O, B VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXT. a g > E J x CO La a Tr J E , I 0 0 d ti PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 1 . PROJECT LOCATION MAP Consulting Ecologists P. SUMMIT PLACE AT NAPLES RPUD DRAWN BY: CC DATE: 4/1/03 ,, S 3 J:\2001\01RAD707\YEAR 2004 ,URE 2.8408848 AND WETLAND MAP.DWD TAB:FIDUWE 2 MAT 28.2004-8:09AM PL091ED BT:PAUL/ N n D m (2) In ci z o 0 rn 4 E c 'Ei* * (n r c� O O �m < rn; ; K z o z D 3K •D VVz1l m o 0 0 > p B • g 0 • oz 3 � -o0 IQ o00 0 � � � � f� mD I+ 0 0 \V \E \> z oo z A \`� \m \m 0 CO c 4 0 0 0 i— arnv W 4+ W z D 55 m n Z P 1-O \NA. p 2 > 2 o o 4 A Is - 4 — EO Q,E E 4 4 E 6 ECO N 9 6 > 4 4 4 4 D W E E �` —01 n `DE 0 ,C46 - 4 49 4 4 D .OE Iv A V p0. .O E W W 4 E v E E E I+ E v V D;I`O 4 D °- 4 . 4 4 E 4 OI� +I6 + E 0, Os E E E E� C//1 E 4 DV E E E co co v. ( �`, 4 4 4 • 6 W c---, �n0 ED M 1+ .O 4 n CQ - om - CCo0Ca -. V cn W co 06 comOmco O ' E E 4 E E ^ 4.I+ 0 �/ p n oo m n E E E 6 v Q.E E !D O E. 4 4 E 4 �y I 0 O li' -000 -0030 -0 * 0 6 4 4 O n 4 4 mmOO ea• m � m [/ - - - � mWmrm I3: pEDI+ _ � mOTypOp xIE mZZ < Un 47 D i 6 mm00 — ZZ , E01 W 00 (n -n00i • N E cn c••••., n zDco 01 W E E— � V • .•--... \ 0C..4p 3 2 / mn C 1 v E E D OD O N Dp1Z _ 7J. ppWWC 0p -1 pp I n gs OU iv � � w = CCmm � m � Of • O ICl' N E EIrIv (Q�� ocpD � rnn Cl m pC 03 " D E 6 fO mD > � c 3 m = w0 - 0 .0 r n 33 mOmp p D - wp Iv It O me p -i z D .DO p En n C • C7 1 + O c co05 Ca O0 C r Z °° xi > CO cQ ^ Z r • <0 — W A A co A O O N O -, V n r�n` y • 0 O �' Am NNWO N (OAV 3 o o D D n n D D n D n D DDm 0' oono0 onot) U 1 �/� i+ i+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ i+ m o e.). CI) V so _ (y 0 D O O -` W A A (O 4. 001,) 0 -, V V 0 o f7 •O O N O) Co N (p N V O) W V7 V O) D OIv COo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r m W V -COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)- N C K r _ C n I— V) D D n D -0O> WDP1 -< OC 00 II-C 0 C Irl � :D0 m DmZ 3: xn -o rn cn 00 I— Z cnOmn0 -<ZO ZN Z (n D Z N W�p co �D z C O m > z p 0 I cmo z (7 TIS 1:1 T., m rl WNL*Z 0 � rcn D o m � N C)� { - WMO=0NWx4 -ElOJD{ (nm O0D DOD 70 *o• z 0 O � mc� m C OOQO NW —1N> Py0 O W ow -0 SED 0 m m I Nw cc0° >c N0 D OO-0 z 0 K Zm z 0 0 0 0 1 EMN I -u �m co M I 0 _ W i O m o O O 0 xtF. o C > z 0 m v N 0 Table 1. (Continued) FLUCFCS Percent of Code Habitat Acreage Total 2131 Woodland Pasture, Hydric 1.89 1.9 4159 Pine, Disturbed 0.92 0.9 4289 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 2.51 2.6 6179 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Disturbed 0.68 0.7 6219 Cypress, Disturbed 0.17 0.2 6249 Pine-Cypress, Disturbed 4.79 4.9 6309 Wetland Forested, Mixed, Disturbed 9.33 9.5 6319 Wetland Scrub, Disturbed 4.82 4.9 740 Disturbed Land 4.52 4.6 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 3.41 3.5 920 Preserve Areas 10.86 11.0 TOTALS 98.41 100.0 3. Topographic map showing upland, bathymetric contours and existing drainage patterns, if applicable. A topographic map is provided in the RPUD documentation prepared by RWA, Inc. 4. Existing land use of site and surrounding area. The existing land use of the site is a combination of open land currently under development; preserve area; and undeveloped, forested and disturbed lands (Figure 2). The surrounding land uses include Brittany Bay to the north; Golden Gate Nursery to the northeast; CR 951 to the east; undeveloped, forested land to the south and west; and Indigo Lakes to the northwest. (Exhibit B). 5. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations. A soils map for the property is provided as Figure 3. 6. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, outfall and off-site drainage. A surface water management plan for the project has been provided under separate cover. 5 Flmi ��,+ ;r f,: ,' + fi..,,_. t; * ,- yam__ . . ro� joi „yam '.4 • y e^i ' � +L..r iA�:.� 7' alli �- t /11 t"' t'� r ! ,4 {;µ _' I,i _" « .# _., `A ! "*. iii a o` "' �a` ay *a s > a :4 1' { +: '" `.aa t �.y`, (.-did 10,er -• ' '1,1.,:r --vix-k- iI tai "''�: 3 e '" f. ,` t "4 - ; '' :r `,f',t . 1.4 -• 'j. *.`� .5 .1,‘",ij�jP... $ tP**; ' ,V„, 'ri •: ,. ;,.,s, 10 - ,,,, e.' `•. .P . " 1 } iii,,,,r= Osittfi,,`,,,tirfl„:414# �" _',� e 04,„, et7:� 10 :a `,gi �` ' *` � h e�' -,.�3e�,.. y,d o- . , - ,. .., * - .5.-fil — . a. , : T4e?'.i.,'54"4. : .. , "141 t 0 2 r ' 't `y's� 7 ,rte. lF.x ' •A$fis pis ' t ,a h vi r • 0 Ari''«p:v r'f'] t' r *r'.o ie it , , ,..,..,f , G.J3� i1'° t ,k• r�'.t;",1y k��-, A., , ..„..,$ 9�"" . .,, ..,:,,,,,, if'.4,4,-;.,, ., "fir.. „.'o. , . ' ' 12.," '' i ..*1,64,1 (iri '4';^.-le ,,,;-°,4*-', .A Ilk , . ,.� =tp,* r'.', .. A SS' +..,.. � rY y, +: p ;�� � J ,. , ➢4.Y� A 4 "fi f_ ,rte - •_ , . te....tet-'!. • 2 k^V`.,: "f y` , . y�:04.41.:*ity*:*v.,4,, P �a M1' '.4 , / G .xYi s .f „t n. • ✓ d v # f 6 . ..e' f.' �' ,.. ,1:�* i A r vs^`+b n.� .+�'rF i +,w ,} - 't 4 a K4` }�t,iil .1y.�rS, t{•�` ,,C`!„t f , A scg ' �' ,'+r :,-,.044e.j p ' _ ♦ r - J°y w.r+,,'t'Y" �!�"I y a+J+ n` .� Q+'�4' �,' • w L. * ,'..F+^ y'S-i- wd tt '4 ,+ "$, jl�r S ow , - rola?t ',,„�.' -4 ."`"'"'w"i' t"7'A°, ?� - - '- t'""".' �" ' # • _ y - ,eta-, `. rre C'S.r' .r. .y '" 33 '' 4. 4,a *"0 1"., . .n 4t,,-.1r; T$ y y" r[f �t r e� �� 1i, *" - y s ! , { C �� *1*„„Ls J 1} ''tl :H, �,� "-,y_h r .,°- { .,{. y�, ,Y. e •} �P K ,* '�''.t� + ,•«-', te . ' 3 F! Symbol Description Status NOTE' aY 2 HOLOPAW FINE SAND,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM HYDRIC i l' 10 OLDSMAR FINE SAND,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM NONR-HYDRIC SOILS MAP SCANNED FROM NRCS G7 23 HOLOPAW AND OKEELANTA SOILS,DEPRESSIONAL HYDRIC COLLIER COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 27 HOLOPAW FINE SAND HYDRIC i 4. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 3. SOILS MAP 3 Consulting Ecologists g SUMMIT PLACE AT NAPLES RPUD DRAWN BY: CC DATE: 4/2/03 6 7. Development plan including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area. Please refer to the Master Concept Plan provided as part of the RPUD documents 3.8.5.4 IMPACT CATEGORIES 3.8.5.4.1 Bio-physical 1. Air quality a. Changes in level of air pollutants as defined by current regulations. The only anticipated air pollution will be during construction of the project from the exhaust of construction equipment and from dust generated by earth moving activities. b. Number of people that will be affected by air pollution resulting from the project. No persons are anticipated to be affected by air pollution resulting from the project. c. Procedures that will be used to reduce adverse impacts of air pollution. Watering of unvegetated surfaces will be conducted to reduce dust during construction of the project. 2. Water quality a. Changes'in levels and types of water pollution as defined by current regulations. The water management system will be designed to meet SFWMD water quality criteria. b. Inventory of water uses that are restricted or precluded because of pollution levels resulting from this project. No restricted or precluded water uses will exist on this project. c. Person affected by water pollution resulting from the project. No water pollution is anticipated to result from the project. d. Project designs and actions which will reduce adverse impacts of water pollution. 7 Water pollution is minimized by means of a water management system that utilizes SFWMD criteria to maintain state water quality criteria. Refer to the Conceptual Water Management Plan provided under separate cover. 3. Physiography and geology a. A description of the soil types found in the project area. According to the Collier County Soils Map, four soil types are found on the property (Figure 3). The soil types found are as follows; Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2); Oldsmar fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 10); Holopaw and Okeelanta soils, depressional (23); and Holopaw fine sand (Unit 27). A detailed description of these soil types are provided in Exhibit C. b. Aerial extent of proposed topographic modification through excavation, dredging and filling. Please refer to the Master Concept Plan and Conceptual Water Management Plan provided under separate cover as part of the RPUD documentation. c. Removal and or disturbance of natural barriers to storm waves and flooding. Not Applicable. d. Proposed modification to natural drainage patterns. Please refer to item 3.8.5.4.1.3.b. e. Extent of impervious surface and percent of groundwater recharge area to be covered. The 31.47± acres of impervious surface or 32 percent of the groundwater recharge area will be covered. f. Annual drawdown of groundwater level resulting from use. No drawdown of groundwater level will result from the development of the proposed project. g. Increased siltation in natural water bodies resulting from the proposed use. A sediment control plan will be provided at time of site development plan approval. 8 4. Wetlands a. Define number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to the Collier County Growth Management Plan) by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory and groundcover), vegetation abundance (dominant, common and occasional), and their wetland functions. Approximately 34.99 acres of SFWMD/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property (Figure 2). This includes 9.90± acres within a currently designated preserve in the project's southwest corner and the addition of 25.09± acres of new wetlands in the project's northwest corner. The wetland lines, shown on Figure 2, have been reviewed and approved by SFWMD and COE staff(i.e., wetland limits are the same for both agencies). The wetland limits in the field were reviewed by Craig Schmittler on January 15, 2002, and the 25.09± acres of additional wetlands were field reviewed by Cory Peck on February 4, 2003. The wetland limits were reviewed by Robert Tewis of the COE on June 13, 2003. Documentation regarding the wetland verifications is provided as Exhibit D. The jurisdictional wetlands include Woodland Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 2131); Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6179); Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6219); Pine-Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6249); Wetland Forested, Mixed, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309); Wetland Scrub, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6319); Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401); and Wetland Preserve (FLUCFCS Code 920). Table 2 provides a breakdown of the wetland acreages for the site and a description of the wetland FLUCFCS type follows. Table 2. SFWMD/Collier County Wetland Acreages FLUCFCS Habitat Acreage Code 2131 Woodland Pasture, Hydric 1.89 6179 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Disturbed 0.68 6219 Cypress, Disturbed 0.17 6249 Pine-Cypress, Disturbed 4.79 6309 Wetland Forested, Mixed, Disturbed 9.33 6319 Wetland Scrub, Disturbed 4.82 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 3.41 920 Wetland Preserve 9.90 TOTAL 34.99 9 Woodland Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 2131) This wetland habitat totals 1.89+ acres or 1.9 percent of the property. The canopy and sub-canopy strata in this community are mostly open except for scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). The ground cover typically includes swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), bog hemp (Bohemeria cylindrica), frog fruit (Phlya nodiflora), scattered tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum), ceasar weed (Urena lobata), and vines such as muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6179) This habitat type occupies 0.68± acre or 0.7 percent of the property. The canopy vegetation includes bald cypress, cabbage palm (Sabal palm), red maple (Acer rubrum), and scattered slash pine. The sub-canopy is dominated by pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), while secondary species include cabbage palm, wax- myrtle (Myrica cerifear), and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes caesar weed, asiatic pennywort (Centella asiatica), bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), and flatsedge (Cypreus ligubris). Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6219) This wetland habitat type occupies 0.17± acre or 0.2 percent of the property. The canopy in this community is dominated by bald cypress. The sub-canopy contains cypress, scattered Brazilian pepper, wax-myrtle, and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The ground cover includes swamp fern, bog hemp, and frog fruit. Pine-Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6249) This habitat occupies 4.79+ acres or 4.9 percent of the property. The canopy and sub-canopy vegetation in this community include slash pine, bald cypress, and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) (less than 75 percent coverage). Other secondary sub-canopy species include wax-myrtle, Brazilian pepper, and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes swamp fern, fox grape (Vitis labrusca), ceasar weed, and green briar (Smilax sp.). Wetland Forested, Mixed, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309) This disturbed wetland community occupies 9.33± acres or 9.5 percent of the property. Canopy species in this habitat include slash pine, cypress, red maple, cabbage palm, and scattered melaleuca. The sub-canopy includes Brazilian pepper, cabbage palm, buttonbush, and rapanea (Rapanea punctata). The ground cover is dominated by swamp fern, while secondary species include sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), poison ivy, grapevine (Vitis sp.), and little blue maidencane (Amphilcarpum muhlenbergianum). Wetland Scrub, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6319) This disturbed wetland community occupies 4.82+ acres or 4.9 percent of the property. Canopy and sub-canopy species in this habitat are co-dominated by Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) and pop ash, while the secondary species 10 include bald cypress and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes torpedo grass (Panicum repens), swamp fern, sawgrass, poison ivy, grapevine, white-vine (Sarcostemma clausum), and little blue maidencane. Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401) This land use occupies 3.41± acres or 3.5 percent of the property and is the result of historic land clearing and earth-moving activities. The canopy stratum is open except for scattered cabbage palm and bald cypress. The sub-canopy contains Brazilain pepper, wax-myrtle and saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia). The ground cover includes swamp fern, marsh pennywort, torpedo grass, and frog-fruit. Wetland Preserve (FLUCFCS Code 920) This wetland area occupies 9.90+ acres and was established as part of the plan design for Phase I, currently under construction. The vegetation compostion in this classification is very similar to the Wetland Forested, Mixed, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309) to the north. b. Determine present seasonal high water levels and historical high water levels by utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators. Nails marking historic and current biological indicators (i.e., lichen lines, adventitious rooting, buttress on cypress trees, etc.) of wetland seasonal water levels were set in the field. Six nails (i.e., WL 1 through 6) marking current water levels were set towards the north end of the wetland on November 25, 2002 and five nails (i.e., WL 7 through 11) identifying more historic levels were previously set towards the south end of the wetland preserve on January 15, 2001. The elevations of the nails were subsequently surveyed by RWA, Inc. Table 3 summarizes the nail elevations. A map showing the nail locations and topographic cross-sections of the wetlands is included as Exhibit E. Table 3. Nail Elevations for Wetland Water Level Indicators Current or Nail No. Description Nail Elevation Historic (ft NGVD) WL 1 Top of water stain on willow tree 9.71 WL 2 Top of water stain on willow tree 9.79 Current WL 3 Top of water stain on willow tree 9.78 WL 4 Top of water stain on willow tree 9.64 WL 5 Top of water stain on willow tree 9.86 WL 6 Top of water stain on willow tree 9.74 Historic WL 7 Buttress on wax-myrtle 10.98 WL 8 Buttress on pop ash 11.72 11 Table 3. (Continued) Current Nail Elevation or Nail No. Description (ft NGVD) Historic WL 9 Buttress on pop ash 11.60 Historic WL 10 Buttress on pop ash 12.05 WL 11 Buttress on pop ash 11.03 c. Indicate how the project design improves/affects pre-development hydroperiods. The development has been designed not to affect pre-development wetland hydroperiods. Existing surface water flows to the preserved wetlands will be maintained at post-development. d. Indicate proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on functions of wetland areas. Only 10.86± acres of the SFWMD/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands are proposed to be impacted by fill or excavation. The proposed wetland impact map is shown as Figure 4 and impacts are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Wetland Impact Summary FLUCFCS Total Not Impact Type Type Habitat (Acres) Impacted Acres (Acres) Fill Excavation 2131 Woodland Pasture, 1.89 1.00 0.69 0.20 Hydric 6179 Mixed Wetland 0.68 0.12 0.56 -- Hardwoods, Disturbed 6219 Cypress, Disturbed 0.17 -- 0.03 0.14 6249 Pine-Cypress, Disturbed 4.79 3.92 0.86 0.01 6309 Wetland Forested, 9.33 4.44 4.03 0.86 Mixed, Disturbed 6319 Wetland Scrub, 4.82 4.66 0.16 -- Disturbed 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 3.41 0.09 2.19 1.13 920 Wetland Preserve 9.90 9.90 -- -- TOTALS 34.99 24.13 8.52 2.34 12 J.\2001\01840707\TEAR. ,FIGURE 4 WETLAND IMPACT MAP REV 12-18-07.DWG TAB:LAYOUT,MAR 28,2004-8.07An PLOTTED BY PUNE N m 0 on v CI rn XI D mc (Z)>1.- N 17, � II A o Z s / x % E o R F O E C r < O Z -P. --(3*r -. C Z y 0 D Z D D Z Z 0 na 0 n • n O n O D 0 m • n -. c v m X µ F H- 0 EA -o U) 0 r ...Z71 r m m cn xi m nF K 3N o m -I < •nZ D• x >z O m MK q z 0 1- z z m \s \n \n W�M �r� \M O O O W W W P m o A C) - N y O A D 9 A CA p R O 2 E • 4 e E 4 E 6 E ,.,000011tr E E 0040.01 • E E 4 4 4 4 E 4 4 4 4 • 4 E O M I•S•SU * •N N. 4 r ON • .,1E E E E E E E E E E E E 11.... . E E D r E (- 0 �4 4 E E E E E E •r O1 O ;� CN 'Z6 4 v CO E 4 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 D ,0 4 FV0 1+ E N CTE 6 4 6 n . � 4 ......1, E 4 O E 4 E E E E 'I+ E 4 i � ��.0.♦0 E ICImoU, NO E E E n , , •, ��.vAi E 'I se. E EOi- DIv E E E E E / + C O op- E/j � V I E rn E •� •//1 E E E E E E E - ��� oEFE EO E E E �•/ • � , �+ E aETJ) 1•041114111100."-•-•-•• E E E IV�► F. -! ' o CE EHCJ1 0(0 � O 'j /N / c CIT Q` D .p EV C '••• a OD p ` W _rQ CO V ( n n Cr) n N m E E E s/ <' D +-1:-•••• ,D' Oc Iv E EW � D -co Vy H N AWWNN cO o o y o A -- V m O E E 4 4 , " "'� oVI+ E E E l•• +. F �►.•` , 0D 0 E E E reo !.... 1. � • oO lr m n E E Ev !......,...� a - . . OW it �. �Y1 ••m NA CO O A A W O 33 * E E E i e. E E,% • E �+ O �.:• .: .:.• v c---., O ( A A O { fr % O ,OCD ... , 0O , 1 ' ^ ♦♦ Do000• omD Ei�' 00 E �, D � ,D II 1- + I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ < ow Imo,, a •�14 D I J Cn N / 1+ on N O A o o O O * CDj ,O CP N ^'' r n or .- o Co o Cr, o) m �+ D cN J firr/^^1 N CO Cn c CD o o) C0 T —i '/ ( - O Ci II) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 CQ p 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ Z (0 cn �, T� N -, O O O O X 1%11w 1 (b o - iv y m CSI A co on A O H ....._________— D I D • DDD : D D r r n n pop n Z I c' V) I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ R O o �� R Z _ ,-- ------i--- CAD CAD W t ACO W A CO 4, 0 0 H I / co1 CO (0 A Do W V - on Do ° V CO O -, N C,I (0 V on coCD CO D D00000000r — 7 -^� I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ . ---J N -COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)- C K K m 77 -+ I- r- y D z n 0 m 0Z(n fl(n D m 0=i m-i rn -< 0r- 0'I z (7- m COD N <c (7 II c m M c:m --I m(7 DN0 m D ��'Z MZ0 SDN oo (I) Z z 0> K 13 mz ITI 0-n z nm- -a- m NZ(n m Om mr co N 0�'� OCG 0M-,L1 Omm M W 0D w�. 7lm '-'0 X= 0 C �Z �m 0 �D DO D mcg 0 OUI mom 0• oWt -I -,Z opo 0 ,I o m D N(n (O >c (n O Z ` Of(nT DK zz- Z o 0 0 m v �b f z m o O z - o c D m O O V e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts on wetlands. One large preserve will be established on the west side of the property. This preserve will include both uplands and wetlands. f. Indicate how the project design shall compensate for the wetland impacts pursuant to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The project related wetland impacts will be compensated for by enhancing and preserving 24.13± acres of the project wetlands on the west side of the property. Preserved wetlands will be enhanced by the hand removal of exotic plant species. Hand removal will be either (1) felling of exotic trees, hand removal, and herbicide treatment of the stumps; (2) girdling of exotic trees, herbicide treatment of the cambium, and left standing; (3) foliar application of herbicide and left standing; or (4) hand pulling. Re-sprouts and re-seed by exotic vegetation will be controlled using foliar application of an approved herbicide. Control of nuisance vegetation (i.e., cattails) will be by foliar application of an approved herbicide. 5. Upland utilization and species of special status. a. Define number of acres of uplands by vegetative types (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory, and groundcover), vegetation abundance (dominant, common and occasional) and their upland functions. The property has a total of 63.42± acres of uplands. The upland habitats are composed of Open Land —Under Construction (FLUCFCS Code 190); Woodland Pasture & Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 213/740); Pine, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4159); Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4289); Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740); and Upland Preserve (FLUCFCS Code 920). Table 5 provides a breakdown of the upland acreages for the site, while a description of each upland FLUCFCS type follows. Table 5. Upland Acreages FLUCFCS Description Acreage Code 190 Open Land-Under Construction 46.97 213/740 Woodland Pasture & Disturbed Land 7.54 4159 Pine, Disturbed 0.92 4289 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 2.51 740 Disturbed Land 4.52 920 Upland Preserve 0.96 TOTAL 63.42 14 Open Land—Under Construction (FLUCFCS Code 190) This land use occupies 46.97 acres or 47.6 percent of the property. This area has been cleared for the first phase of the residential development. Woodland Pasture & Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 213/740) This upland habitat occupies 7.54± acres of upland or 7.7 percent of the property. The canopy vegetation consists of slash pine and cabbage palm, while the sub- canopy contains myrsine (Rapanae guanensis), Brazilian pepper, and buckthorn (Bumelia sp.). The ground cover includes, but is not limited to, wiregrass (Aristida stricta), scattered saw palmetto, ceasar weed, poison ivy, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), grapevine, ragweed (Ambrosia artemesifolia), and tropical soda apple. Pine, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4159) This upland community occupies 0.92± acre or 0.9 percent of the property and is found on the east and west sides of the single-family tract. The canopy is dominated by slash pine and melaleuca. The sub-canopy contains melaleuca (50 to 75 percent coverage), slash pine and scattered bald cypress. Ground cover species include dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), bald cypress, muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and hairy beggar-ticks (Bidens pilosa). Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4289) This habitat type occupies 2.51± acres or 2.6 percent of the property. The canopy contains cabbage palm. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm, wax-myrtle, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes caesar weed, bahia grass, and flatsedge. Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) This upland land use occupies 4.52± acres or 4.6 percent of the property. These areas have been disturbed by historic land clearing and earth-moving activities. The canopy and sub-canopy are generally open but may include scattered slash pine, bald cypress, or Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes species common to disturbed sites such as ceasar weed, poison ivy, ragweed, and crowfoot grass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium). Upland Preserve (FLUCFCS Code 920) This upland use occupies 0.96± acre or 1.0 percent of the property and was established as part of the design plan for Phase I. The canopy vegetation is dominated by slash pine, while the sub-canopy includes beauty berry (Callicarpa American) and sabal palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), muscadine grape, poison ivy, and greenbriar. b. Indicate proposed percent of defined uplands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on functions of upland areas. 15 Approximately 96.0 percent of the uplands will be impacted by the project. The proposed impacts will be minimized through the enhancement and preservation of 2.80± acres or 4.0 percent of the uplands on-site. Where possible, a minimum 15- foot and average 25-foot upland buffer will be maintained around the wetland preserve. c. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts on uplands. See 5b above. d. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, species of special status that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. on the first phase (i.e., 57.82± acres) of the project on May 31, 2000 and November 6, 2000. A survey was conducted on the balance of the project area (i.e., 40.59± acres) on February 3, 2003. Additional listed species observations were made during vegetation mapping and wetland flagging conducted January 3, 2003. The survey methodology and results are provided in Exhibit F. No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey or during vegetation mapping or wetland flagging. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts on species of special status. No listed wildlife species have been identified on the property. One large wetland area will be preserved and enhanced on the west side of the property. This preserve area will also incorporate upland preserve areas. 6. Marine and estuarine resources a. Provide current State of Florida Classification of the Waters (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-3). Not Applicable. b. Define number of acres of marine and estuarine resources by submerged grass beds, breeding areas and nursery areas and their marine and estuarine functions. Not Applicable. c. Indicate proposed percent of defined marine and estuarine resources to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on functions of marine and estuarine resources. 16 Not Applicable. d. Estimate changes in the dockside landing of commercial fish and shellfish. Not Applicable. e. Estimate changes in the sport fishing effort and catch. Not Applicable. f. Provide past history of any environmental impacts to the area including oil spills. Not Applicable. g. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts on marine and estuarine resources. Not Applicable. 7. Noise a. Describe the changes in decibels and duration of noise generated during and after the project (both day and night) that will exceed Collier County regulations. Changes in decibels and duration of noise will only occur because of typical construction activities. In addition, construction will take place only during the hours set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code. No noise problems are anticipated after project completion. b. Describe steps that will be taken to reduce noise levels during and after the project. See 7a above. c. Project compliance with Federal Aid Highway Program Manual 7-7-3. See 7a above. 3.8.5.4.2 Public Facilities and Services 1. Wastewater management a. Describe existing treatment facilities as to capacity, percent capacity being used, type of treatment and degree of treatment. 17 The North region is served by the North County Water Reclamation Facility, which is an 8.5 mgd facility that provides advanced secondary treatment through the activated sludge process. The North region is also served by the Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Faciltiy, which is a 1.0 mgd extend aeration process facility. Total treatment capacity in the North region is 9.5 mgd. As of January 1, 1999, the reported average daily flow was 7.249 mgd. This represents 76 percent capacity utilization. A 5.0 mgd expansion of the NCWRF commenced in October 1999. b. If applicable, describe similar features of proposed new treatment facilities. Not Applicable. c. Describe the character and fate of both liquid and solid effluents. Liquid and solid effluents expected to result from the development can be characterized as residential waste. There will not be industrial or commercial generators within the proposed RPUD. 2. Water supply a. Estimate of average daily potable and non potable water demands on the project. The average daily potable water demand is 105,975 gallons per day. The average daily non-potable water demand is 38,841 gallons. b. Source of raw water material. The SFWMD does not allow irrigation wells in the Tamiami Aquifer (80 ft. to 200 ft. below the land surface); therefore, the water table aquifer will be used for the irrigation wells at a depth of approximately 30 to 40 ft. Other water sources will be provided by the existing county system. c. Analysis of on-site treatment systems relative to State and County standards. On-site treatment systems are not proposed. 3. Solid wastes a. Estimate of average daily volume of solid wastes. The estimated average daily weight of solid waste is 1.17 ton per year, per unit or two pounds per day, per person. b. Proposed method of disposal of solid wastes. 18 Solid waste will be collected and transferred to the Collier County landfill by the franchised solid waste collection entity. c. Any plans for recycling or resource recovery. The Summit Place in Naples RPUD will participate in Collier County sponsored recycling programs. 4. Recreation and open spaces a. Acreage and facilities demand resulting from the new use. Per Collier County Capital Improvement Element Ordinance 97-55, the acreage and facilities demand resulting from the construction of 392 residential units, based on 2.5 people per unit, is 2.88± acres of regional park land, 1.18± acres of community park land, and $175,420.00 capital investment for recreational facilities. b. Amount of public park/recreation land donated by the developer. No public park/recreation land will be donated by the developer. c. Management plans for any open water areas if one-half acre or more within the project. Lake littoral zones will comply with a minimum ten percent littoral zone plantings. Control of nuisance vegetation (i.e., cattails) will be by foliar application of an approved herbicide. The lakes will be managed in accordance with SFWMD and Collier County standards. d. Plans for recreational development by the developer on dedicated lands. Not Applicable. e. Amount of public recreation lands removed from inventory by the new use. No public recreation lands will be removed from inventory by the new use. f. Development and/or blockage of access to public beaches and waters. Not Applicable. 19 5. Aesthetic and Cultural Factors a. Provide documentation from the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the project area. Correspondence has been sent to the Department of State regarding historical, archaeological, or cultural resources that may be present on the site. A copy of this correspondence is included as Exhibit G. b. Locate any known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed project design. See response to 5a. c. Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historic/archaeological integrity of the site. See response to 5a. d. Indicate any natural scenic features that might be modified by the project design and explain what actions shall be utilized to preserve aesthetic values. Natural scenic features on the property include some of the wetlands, which will be preserved as a result of the project. e. Provide the basic architectural and landscaping designs. The buildings, signage, landscaping, and visible architectural infrastructure will be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Landscaping and streetscape materials will also be similar in design throughout the subject site. An architectural plan will be submitted concurrent with the first application for Site Development Plan approval demonstrating compliance with these standards. Signage will also meet the architectural standards described above. 6. Monitoring a. Describe the design and procedures of any proposed monitoring during and after site preparation and development. A monitoring plan will be implemented as part of the Collier County RPUD approval and the COE and SFWMD permitting process for the project. Monitoring of wetland preserves will include baseline, time-zero, and annual monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, and wetland water levels. The baseline report will document conditions on the project site as they currently exist. The time-zero report will document the conditions immediately following exotic removal. The 20 annual reports will document conditions following exotic removal and document the extent of success of the project. Sampling stations and methodology of data collection will remain the same for all monitoring events, including baseline, time-zero, and annual. 3.8.6.1 SPECIFICS TO ADDRESS - GENERAL INFORMATION 3.8.6.1.1 Indicate how the proposed project has incorporated the natural, aesthetic and cultural resources and other environmental considerations in the planning and design of the proposed project. The proposed project design has incorporated 24.13± acres (69.0 percent) of the wetlands and 2.80± acres (4.0 percent) of the uplands as preserves within the development plan. At post-development, the uplands and wetlands will be enhanced by the removal of exotics. The wetland will also be buffered from development areas by native upland habitat, where feasible. 3.8.6.1.2 List the environmental impact(s) of the proposed action and the reason(s) that the impact(s) are unavoidable and that the impact(s) represent the minimum impacts possible to the environmental quality of the site and/or the surrounding area, which might be affected by the proposed use. The project proposes to impact 60.62± acres of upland and 10.86± acres of wetlands on-site. The impacts are unavoidable in an effort to meet the growing need for housing in northern Collier County, while trying to minimize urban sprawl into more environmentally sensitive lands in the eastern part of the county. The proposed project represents in-fill development that is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The environmental impacts have been minimized by concentrating the development in the disturbed upland and wetland areas and designing the project around the higher quality wetland habitats. As described above, the project will preserve and enhance 24.13± acres of wetlands and 2.80± acres of uplands on-site. 3.8.6.1.3 Provide substantiated alternatives to the proposed project so that reasons for the choice of a course of action are clear, not arbitrary or capricious. The proposed development for this site is a land use that conforms well to the existing surrounding land uses and anticipated future land uses making it a clear, not arbitrary, cause of action. Building further to the east in more environmentally sensitive habitat is less acceptable alternative from both a natural resource and urban planning standpoint. 3.8.6.1.4 List immediate short-term impacts to the environment. 21 The short-term impacts will include the loss of the majority of upland habitats on the site. 3.8.6.1.5 List any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The loss of upland and wetland habitats will be irreversible and irretrievable. 22 REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001.a. Third Edition. c 23 EXHIBIT A RESUME MICHAEL A. MYERS Vice President,Passarella and Associates,Inc. Environmental consultant and ecological services for private and public development, and road projects. Services include state, federal, and local permitting; agency negotiations; environmental impact assessments; ecological assessments; listed species surveys, permitting and relocation; state and federal wetland jurisdictionals; wetland mitigation design, construction observations and monitoring. Education B.S. Wildlife Biology&Management, 1980 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Experience Ecologist III,Environmental Field Supervisor,Johnson Engineering, Inc., Fort Myers, FL, September 1992 -November 1996. Member of the firm's environmental section. Supervisor for ecological field studies, environmental planning, and regulatory agency coordination. Performed wetland jurisdictional determinations, protected species surveys, regulatory permitting, and wetland mitigation design and monitoring. Continuing Education • FGCU Plant Identification Course(2003) • Master Wildlifer Program (2003) • Gopher Tortoise Management and Mitigation Professional Training Program (2001) • Victor Carlise, Hydric Soils Seminar(2000) • Ted Below, Shorebird Seminar(1998) • Dr. David Hall, Grasses, Sedges and Rushes Plant Identification Workshop (1996) • Dr. David Hall, Sedges and Rushes Plant Identification Workshop(1995) • Dr. David Hall,Plant Identification Workshop(1993) • Native Plant Society Annual Conference(1993) • Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wetland Delineation Workshop(1993) • Dr. Victor Carlisle Hydric Soils Workshop (1993) • Florida Chamber's Environmental Permitting Short Course(1993) Professional Associations Florida Association of Environmental Professionals President of Southwest Florida Chapter(1996 - 1998) State Board of Directors(1996 to 1998) Local Board of Directors(1994 to 1998) Florida Native Plant Society Certifications Certified Wetland Delineator by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Certified to Perform Generic Gopher Tortoise Relocations by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission EXHIBIT B AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH FLUCFCS OVERLAY — 1111. ® O O 1= —: J.02001,01AA0707,YEAB 2003\, :2 PLucrcS AND WETLAND MAP.DWG TAB.00091 B MAY 28 2000-805A PLOTTED BY.PAULI r , ;} .q r r; r 1o"P • w , ‘ �K i t '" _ . . to t t iiltk, C '1/4'1 s' r t a =aMme"' ' F. ( , em - • O •t4 ysi' 4 o n K 0 '[,n, :,, - is • , t • j •,5 b 'L zt `�. . Dm De z .3 A . .F r tet,.. .L k • 4 el.r Y, ttt m , t '� tf. F.Co M CoV COM V. xk f , m 2 O V V m m m m m A A N N -.A m C ,• _L t P O N A A W W N N N -' -• --' (0 r O O O A i O A - V m N W W O 0 C 4'. , a ' so m co CID cm co co 0) -= v O n E e i . o r — F. t t" as N m w 13DnN Tv O vvv * * vcMcm * * o ro s`{ ininmmzmX ZOO o w, cr,t- m -� -i � -im mWm m o m C C D D •n m v D o v v z < MI M m m o o -° W m m -I Z Z Z S6' ‘=. c" IV j+ "' 000 -0mv -' vc000 8'T114-' : oro co r � rr (� Ocncy � 73mm � ` , `"lig W D o r D mzzcmcncZoKma3aiz --**44.14,••• ," " D i� o (0 W o o CO (f) O 7 + 0 '-' H H O m N coU `0 cWi pN n v x vm _im > o ccmv .0 D ro 0 w i+ O o v o v v c m m n Z o " o O O D 0 c co * 2 2 QO 0 -0 I + OD W T n r n zix m 0 ,41 < 0 Z H y v - OD p, o 1 co my Oo vinco0 =i D o o IN, cA o r� m y -u -1 -1 m "' c0 "1 vo N Oc33 C `i i+ i o D o I' ' v W � .,_ v o t +•••• --r 1+ .t m i • Do C v 0 t s VOA C. D c r Z o ry — Iv 00 O W Z t v r o - D ,o M 0 t Nr." D v i+ . . a a, p W A A r0 A O O N O -, V , D W ; �+ s A in co w v br in io au in $` r MP N w •-•p _ I ^ Com+ A N N W (O V OD N (O A m 'Jt ' , ro O DDDDDDDDDDDDDyD as. `r► ■ D p - > o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;_ y.ws – ro n m �+ + 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 8+ It mE, + i+ , m A i 1 _ • w 4'`D o D Nw 1�,, O 1 W A A (0 A O O N O V V D o w /- C J O O co m (0 co t0 N V m (0 r0 V m 0 + • • • V r 1+ O 000000000oeo00 mEii '' 11114 D ") =s t 2x c tilt : O o r $ • } a t so 1,k. .,,,sm CO m m A y N m •y N NNNA (0 r �• 4.4101'.•,4:64_,... t•C.• RRA .i• h ..„ . a .O CD CT (O On i ' • .41.1 ft v7:1v_ vgvZO9v w .•.rrf .. ., 3. p 7° ozz > zcvmm p N :. jj m D m m r m m m to to �` '� '�+.�,' .`•!�r �-F i - a.s 7 - co • 00 ¢ D -< < cD � DZv ' ^+�pR, :' �^•df�• ...+. sjC� * • M� co (—) m < xim0 m— >z Om . t a °� -+' ; 3 ;{ ��r•-a s k2.''' • *IX 47- i. -�' " v m m * w a D O 5 ar+�{� � % , , . �. 4141,1A, t _ . , < m ` 1 "!� A y!r �.' • • 33m CD t . ` d '. �T .y.P t - � r _ ia..sy .�r# m �o y vv 9v "'^t•• a . En m cn i . w ' N , 1114-R A 'd t. [ i Liv W > _COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)- _ -• N r 0644 t F . ._ ate_ — @ r t Al} i h.- ..a, +ai Bo Art '-.IA"* ilk ltc4i#1, ♦. ' .:t ,..fit q Z 'X_' rf. ill Jo.- c -CIAWP mss.: '4- 0 r Doomcn mcn w0m r m z 4 •: a; D c m < O r O n r O ., ..w fTl ���D� mD� cn <c c�Nc r . ,- n -o m- < T m r m c, D o m - ° I� a (/! N r30 m cm m xim Hom cn J�► +. . O �l a.u+mOv ZZZ 2 W ZmN N.' A •° N y a! — + Z90 < NN:Ll om rL r r 0m N70r 1 « t "• `Lr+t4. ,:. ( f • .• .' P1 oo 0,C T7 O D z c -ii D D m ��" .- ., :,., . :r y,r- •l _ C N DDc Nzm cO -0 r" . a r . Imo '" '.� I .. 2 o. z ocw m Am W i .,�1h<7 , - t , , t , tt�.e ) y, ' + �l lD ° p-(z O a>< n 3 0 0 x m0 �;;4 r tk° W, F �^ ' F '�S��. 9a.. �� y bvz� <m ti_ _ow I - ` 1 # .r, ,, - ,# cr c. (7,- T 0 o 302 4 1, ¢'r # _ 'a. 0o0D m v DD -D-1 GSD „�. � "44,14 "z- iw.1.„.. ,w'�� � • LVA` �• . DOm Z rv0 HND mDm g 1p, t .. k e, t R^t --- -.--sem` '.: e • 5� � m W y O 0 Z D p a C Y -t+ w , �., q.`i�,�, oZx * D< ,'' nc Nm rid :, ; a•,.5 t • ria- a i= rr rk, 1' ei,• ,/{ 't i '° rt ,' 1c4 tt �+ �o Z p • o•m o 3 y x S �<y e� .d \ r, • 4 "rt * 1.7." yJ�, {,. ; .'�"4 `• . N O Z w ti ~ t.g �. �� lip, 1. 1 "'��;, '�¢` t + rr' .Y •.r `.Y,: or z ai A •t `#" .. *►'• ,At,*elf; 1�,, .rts,r •t•t41,-.: .3'1�• ` , A .,a w Xo O 0 p t .- ?= •07. ' �jM** 41,,,,,..P- m/. +l �r,'" r t.t e„ $,,,dt'`#A L p �e,� ` - ,� ., .ir_ . 4� 4th I t , EXHIBIT C SOIL DESCRIPTIONS 2-Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should sloughs and broad, poorly defined drainageways. be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed Individual areas are elongated and irregular in preparation should include bedding of the rows. shape, and they range from 20 to 300 acres in Applications of fertilizer and lime should be size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the based on the needs of the crops. surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 5 With proper water-control measures, the soil inches thick. The subsurface layer is fine sand is moderately suited to citrus. A water-control to a depth of about 57 inches. The upper part of system that maintains good drainage to an the subsurface layer is white, and the lower part effective depth is needed. Planting on raised is light gray and dark grayish brown. The beds provides good surface and internal drainage subsoil extends to a depth of about 62 inches. It and elevates the trees above the seasonal high is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. water table. Planting a good grass cover crop Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 62 between the trees helps to protect the soil from inches. blowing when the trees are younger. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as With good water-control management, this Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum, soil is well suited to pasture. A water-control Holopaw and similar soils make up 78 to 97 system is needed to remove excess water during percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the wet season. This soil is well suited to the Holopaw soil makes up either a higher or pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent lower percentage of the mapped areas. The pastures of grass or a grass-clover mixture can characteristics of Malabar, Pineda, and Riviera be grown with good management. Regular soils that have a limestone substratum are applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing similar to those of the Holopaw soil. are needed for the highest possible yields. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small This soil is well suited to range. The areas of Basinger, Boca, and Chobee soils in dominant forage consists of blue maidencane, landscape positions similar to those of the chalky bluestem, and bluejoint panicum. Holopaw soil. These soils make up about 3 to Management practices should include deferred 22 percent of the unit. grazing. The Holopaw soil is in the Slough range The permeability of this soil is moderate to site. moderately slow. The available water capacity This soil has severe limitations for most urban is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal uses because of the high water table. It has high water table is within a depth of 12 inches severe limitations for septic tank absorption for 3 to 6 months during most years. During the fields because of the wetness, poor filtration, and other months, the water table is below a depth of the slow percolation rate. Building sites and 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than septic tank absorption fields should be mounded 40 inches during extended dry periods. During to overcome these limitations. This soil also has periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by severe limitations for recreational development shallow, slowly moving water for about 7 days. because of wetness and the sandy texture. The The natural vegetation consists of scattered problems associated with wetness can be areas of South Florida slash pine, cypress, corrected by providing adequate drainage and cabbage palm, saw palmetto, waxmyrtle, sand drainage outlets to control the high water table. cordgrass, chalky bluestem, and gulf muhly. The sandy texture can be overcome by adding This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops suitable topsoil or by resurfacing the area. because of the wetness and droughtiness. With This Holopaw soil is in capability subclass good water-control and soil-improving IVw. measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water-control system is C-1 10-Oldsmar tine sand, limestone substratum should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on based on the needs of the crops. flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and With proper water-control measures, the soil irregular in shape, and they range from 10 to 300 is well suited to citrus. A water-control system acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. that maintains good drainage to an effective Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish depth is needed. Planting on raised beds brown fine sand about 4 inches thick. The provides good surface and internal drainage and subsurface layer is fine sand to a depth of about elevates the trees above the seasonal high water 35 inches. The upper part of the subsurface layer table. Planting a good grass cover crop between is light gray, and the lower part is light brownish the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing gray. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 60 when the trees are younger inches. The upper part of the subsoil is black With good water-control management, this fine sand, the next part is very dark grayish soil is well suited to pasture. A water-control brown fine sand, and the lower part is dark system is needed to remove excess water during grayish brown fine sandy loam. Limestone the wet season. This soil is well suited to bedrock is at a depth of about 60 inches. pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Oldsmar pastures of grass or a grass-clover mixture can fine sand, limestone substratum, Oldsmar and be grown with good management. Regular similar soils make up 85 to 98 percent of the applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing map unit. In the remaining areas, the Oldsmar are needed for the highest possible yields. soil makes up either a higher or lower This soil is moderately suited to range. The percentage of the mapped areas. The dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, characteristics of Immokalee and Wabasso soils lopsided indiangrass, pineland threeawn, and are similar to those of the Oldsmar soil. chalky bluestem. Management practices should The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small include deferred grazing and brush control. This areas of Malabar, Pineda, and Riviera soils in Oldsmar soil is in the South Florida Flatwoods sloughs. These soils make up about 0 to 15 range site. percent of the map unit. This soil has severe limitations for most urban The permeability of this soil is slow. The uses because of wetness. It has severe available water capacity is low. Under natural limitations for septic tank absorption fields conditions, the seasonal high water table is because of the wetness, slow percolation rate, between a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 and poor filtration. If this soil is used as a septic months during most years. During the other tank absorption field, it should be mounded to months, the water table is below a depth of 18 maintain the system well above the seasonal inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 high water table. For recreational uses, this soil inches during extended dry periods. also has severe limitations because of wetness The natural vegetation consists mostly of and the sandy texture; however, with proper cabbage palm, South Florida slash pine, saw drainage to remove excess surface water during palmetto, waxmyrtle, and chalky bluestem. wet periods, many of the effects of these This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops limitations can be overcome. because of the wetness and droughtiness. The This Oldsmar soil is in capability subclass number of adapted crops is limited unless very IVw. intensive management practices are used. With good water-control and soil improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and 23-Holopaw and Okeelanta soils,depressional vegetable crops. A water-control system is needed to remove excess water during wet These level, very poorly drained soils are in seasons and to provide water through subsurface depressions and marshes. Individual areas are irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should circular or elongated in shape, and they range be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation C-2 from 5 to 200 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 1 fluctuates throughout year, a natural deferment percent. from cattle grazing occurs. This rest period Typically, the Holopaw soil has a surface increases forage production, the periods of high layer of dark gray fine sand about 5 inches thick. water may reduce the grazing value of the site. The subsurface layer is fine sand to a depth of The Holopaw and Okeelanta soils are in the about 52 inches. The upper part of the Freshwater Marshes and Ponds range site. subsurface layer is light gray, and the lower part These soils have severe limitations for all is light brownish gray. The subsoil extends to a urban and recreational uses because of ponding. depth of about 62 inches. The upper part of the An effective drainage system that keeps the subsoil is dark grayish brown fine sand, and the water table below a given depth is needed but is lower part is dark grayish brown fine sandy difficult to establish and maintain. These soils loam. The substratum is gray loamy fine sand to are in landscape positions that act as a collecting a depth of about 80 inches. basin for the area; therefore, a suitable outlet to Typically, the Okeelanta soil has surface soil remove the water is not available in many of black and dark reddish brown muck about 20 locations. They require an adequate amount of inches thick. The substratum extends to a depth fill material to maintain house foundations and of about 80 inches. The upper part of the road beds above the high water table. Muck substratum is dark grayish brown fine sand, and should be removed before adding fill material. the lower part is light brownish gray loamy fine Even when a good drainage system is installed sand. and the proper amount of fill material is added, Mapped areas can consist entirely of the keeping the area dry is a continual problem Holopaw soil, entirely of the Okeelanta soil, or because of seepage water from the slightly any combination of the two soils. The two soils higher adjacent sloughs and flatwoods. were not separated in mapping because of The Holopaw and Okeelanta soils are in similar management needs resulting from the capability subclass VIlw. ponding. The characteristics of Riviera soils are similar to those of the major soils. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small 27-Holopaw fine sand areas of Basinger and Gator soils in similar landscape positions. These soils make up about This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in 10 percent or less of the unit. sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. The permeability in the Holopaw soil is Individual areas are elongated and irregular in moderate to moderately slow, and the available shape, and they range from 10 to 400 acres in water capacity is low. The permeability in the size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Okeelanta soil is slow or very slow, and the Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine available water capacity is high. Under natural sand about 5 inches thick. The subsurface layer conditions, these soils are ponded for 6 months is fine sand to a depth of about 52 inches. The or more each year. During the other months, the upper part of the subsurface layer is light gray, water table is within a depth of 12 inches, and it and the lower part is light brownish gray. The recedes to a depth of 12 to 40 inches during subsoil extends to a depth of about 62 inches. extended dry periods. The upper part of the subsoil is dark grayish These soils are not suited to cultivated crops brown fine sand, and the lower part is dark or citrus because of ponding and wetness. These grayish brown fine sandy loam. The substratum soils are used for natural wetlands. The natural is gray loamy fine sand to a depth of about 80 vegetation consists of St. Johnswort, inches. maidencane, rushes, primrose willow, fireflags, In 90 percent of the areas mapped as pickerelweed, sawgrass, Florida willow, and a Holopaw fine sand, Holopaw and similar soils few cypress trees. make up 87 to 98 percent of the map unit. In the These soils are moderately suited to range. remaining areas, the Holopaw soil makes up The dominant forage consists of maidencane and either a higher or lower percentage of the cutgrass. Since the depth of the water table C-3 mapped areas. The characteristics of Malabar, applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing Pineda, and Riviera soils are similar to those of are needed for the highest possible yields. the Holopaw soil. This soil is well suited to range. The dominant The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small forage consists of blue maidencane, gulf dune areas of Basinger and Oldsmar soils in landscape paspalum, chalky bluestem, and bluejoint positions similar to those of the Holopaw soil. panicum. Management practices should include These soils make up about 13 percent or less of deferred grazing. This Holopaw soil is in the the unit. Slough range site. The permeability of this soil is moderate to This soil has severe limitations for most urban moderately slow. The available water capacity is uses because of the high water table. This soil low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high has severe limitations for septic tank absorption water table is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to fields because of wetness and poor filtration. 6 months during most years. During the other Building sites and septic tank absorption fields months, the water table is below a depth of 12 should be mounded to overcome these inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 limitations. This soil also has severe limitations inches during extended dry periods. During for recreational development because of wetness periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by and the sandy texture. The problems associated shallow, slowly moving water for about 7 days. with wetness can be corrected by providing The natural vegetation consists of scattered adequate drainage and drainage outlets to areas of slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, saw control the high water table. The sandy texture palmetto, waxmyrtle, sand cordgrass, gulf can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or muhly, panicums, chalky bluestem, plumgrass, by resurfacing the area. gulf dune paspalum, and blue maidencane. This Holopaw soil is in capability subclass IVw. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. With good water-control and soil-improving measures, the 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 water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water-control measures, the soil is moderately 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 above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water-control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water-control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular C-4 EXHIBIT D WETLAND VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION O/R,Q)7r 7 So 1 f1 FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT A�NAGEMEN-1 Dtsi 1 Ic_.I . . w b. "yam 4 / [O1 1' l`�7}'}�S _. .. il.F�.,}VIER '')0 1:(, t 1 �� 't•1 t 1..j L a. \?�+ .0:00, (9-11 � _--� FL• 1.�TS , ti .) � �1_ 1 '.,t. ..._.t:1"--19.1` tx( . r, ti�, .,>rr.. .:_z �� s t. \> :nv-txs' r II September 20, 2002 RECEIVED £, Mr. Mike Myers - 0 Passarella and Associates, Inc. 4575 Via Royale, Suite 201 PASSAAELLA AND Ft. Myers, Florida 33919 ASSOCIATES, INC. Subject: Summit Place at Naples (aka Hibiscus Village), additional parcels; Informal Jurisdictional Wetland Inspection; Collier County, S-27 & 34/T-48-S /R-26-E Dear Mr. Myers: . The District offers the following in response to your request for a determination of the jurisdictional wetland boundaries and other surface waters located within the subject property. iiii Craig Schmittler, PWS, Senior Environmental Analyst, of the Natural Resource Management Division, conducted a site inspection on January 15, 2002. The project boundaries shown on the attached aerial identify the approximate limits of the property inspected. Based on the information provided and the results of the site inspection, the jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters, as defined in Chapter 62-340 F.A.C., within the approximate limits of the subject property are shown hatched in red on the attached aerial exhibits. This correspondence is an informal pre-application jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section 373.421(6) and F.A.C. 62-312.040(7). It does not bind the District, its agents or tt employees, nor does it convey any legal rights, expressed or implied. Persons obtaining this informal pre-application jurisdictional determination are not entitled to rely upon it for purposes of compliance with provision of law or District rules. A binding jurisdictional determination may be obtained by submitting an application to the South Florida Water Management District Ft. Myers office for a formal determination pursuant to Chapter 40E-4.042 F.A.C. or by applying for a permit. Mr. Woodruff Summit Place at Naples Page 2 A file has been set up with pre-application materials at the Ft. Myers Service Center office. If you have any further questions please contact Craig Schmittler at (941) 338-2929 ext. 7739. Sincerely, a, t f y (� Karen M. Johnsott" Supervising Professional Ft. Myers Service Center KMJ/cds - Attachment (Memo, Location Map, and Aerials) c: USACOE - Ft. Myers w/memo, location map, and aerial DEP- w/memo, location map bc: B.Robson (memo, location map)/pre-app file TO: File// V FROM: Craig D. Schmittler,PWS, Senior Environmental Analyst,NRM Division 40 1. THROUGH: .Karen Johnson;Supervsing Professional,NRM Division DATE: September 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Summit Place at Naples (aka Hibiscus Village); Informal Wetland Jurisdictional Inspection; Collier County,S-27 & 34/T-48-S/R-26-E A site inspection was conducted on the above referenced property on January 15, 2002. The property inspected included two separate parcels, a ten-acre site south of the previously inspected parcel and a twenty-acre site in the northwest corner of the previously inspected parcel. The entire property is located west of CR 951 and north of Wolf Road. The subject property is relatively undisturbed and is undeveloped. Property to the north has been developed by the Golden Gate Nursery. Adjoining property to the west and south is undeveloped. The jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters, as defined by Chapter 62-340 F.A.C., within the limits of the property inspected are shown hatched in red on the attached aerial exhibit. The entire western '/ of the northern 20-acre parcel is hydric pine/cypress flatwoods and is contiguous to the wetlands identified on the previously inspected parcel. These wetlands are invaded by melaleuca and scattered Brazilian pepper, but show signs of good hydrology. The 10-acre parcel to the south has a small wetland finger that extends up from the property to the south into this site. The wetland is also hydric pine flatwoods with scattered cypress,melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. The upland habitat on site is dominated by slash pine with scattered saw palmetto in the understory. Brazilian pepper and melaleuca are also abundant in the uplands on the property. Groundcover consists of a mixture of Bahia grass,grapevine and numerous incidental upland weeds and pasture grasses. There were no listed species observed during this site inspection. 2 warm .tt o v N.T.S. • R 26 E SR. 846 I 0 ' I � � I O I � ' w J O co 2 PROJECT LOCATION � e1 sva��a SEC 34, T48S, R26E I,0= ACRE I \ � — I VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXT. MEETING L O C A TI'O N F I - J PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. PROJECT AND MEETING LOCATION MAP Consulting Ecologists DRAWN BY: CC DATE: 1/2/02 'e yy ; .�° rs9tlt- yr,,.. #x, AP ', a.. a � `-tiz r 4',` J' l p. .-2 • e all -Nilk, 100.1•4. 4, Ali lif- ..�. no 44-410Ingi 4efe-+ s i - . c . ' .y� . r wr . rw�w+r.�tarc'rrk - ,,.— -.s 'x2 a.t ra:=r ;"ler. s -mss` � Faixar'1'.' a wii • MAPPING APPEARS TO BE A CLOSE APPROXIMATION OF FLAGGED LINES APPROVED IN FIELD ON "we' JANUARY 15, 2002.(4 I • __ c,v.,_ iiivi, , r 1 Pt/Li) CRAIG SCHMITTLER SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DATE 4? -.J O ._ a 2 A COPY OF Pi C JED 1 I ' 2002 L_ P-CSRT IYERS DRAWING No.: ' , PLES - ADDITIONAL PARCELS LLAGE-ADDITIONAL PARCELS) O1RAD7O7 SHEET No.: • ,L WETLAND MAP G//ZAD707 4�0``�� /%�`��, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY k, -\ u, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS a a!�!�?T �' FORT MYERS REGULATORY OFFICE \ 1520 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 4° `��p Stirs so FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33919 RECEIVED Regulatory Division PIPV I 0 2003 NOV 1 4 2003 South Permits Branch/West Permits Section PASSARELLA AND Fort Myers Regulatory Office ASSOCIATES, INC. 200304914 (JD-RMT) Mr. Michael Myers Passarella and Associates, Incorporated 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Dear Mr. Myers: Reference is made to your letter dated 1 October 2003, requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) for a 49.97-acre parcel identified as the "Summit Place Phase II". The parcel is located east of SR 951 in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The delineations shown on the aerial photographs, which were submitted with your correspondence, have been verified and represent the approximate jurisdictional line for purposes of determining the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory authority. The project site contains waters of the United States as indicated on the enclosed Basis of Jurisdiction The jurisdictional areas are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any activities undertaken in these areas may require Department of the Army authorization. State, local or other Federal permits may also be required. Please be advised that this jurisdictional delineation reflects current policy and regulations and is valid for a period no longer than 5 years from the date of this letter. If after the 5-year period, the Corps of Engineers has not specifically revalidated this jurisdictional determination, it shall automatically expire. Any reliance upon jurisdictional correspondence beyond that time frame may lead to incorrect planning and design efforts, as well as possible violations of current Federal laws and/or regulations. You may revalidate or update the jurisdictional guidance as appropriate for your project duration. Any revalidation or updating will then reflect current Federal laws and regulations. 200304914 (JD-RMT) Summit Place Phase II 2 You are hereby advised that you may accept or appeal this jurisdictional delineation. Attached is a combined appeal options and request for appeal form (2 pages) that identifies your rights and options regarding the administrative appeal of this decision. This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of the Corps Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work. Thank you for your cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program. In future correspondences with the Corps of Engineers regarding this property please reference Jurisdictional Number 200304914 - "Summit Place Phase II". If you have any questions regarding this letter or the Corps of Engineers regulations, please contact the undersigned at the letterhead address or telephone 941-334-1975 or via email at Robert.M.Tewis@saj02.usace.army.mil Sincerely, Robert ewis. Biologist, Fort Myers Regulatory Office Enclosures Reading Copy V� r-� �� ,e x �� I UTIFICATIU OF ADMINISTRATIVE.AP.PEAL'OPTIONS.AND PROCES r REQUEST F©R AE'PE L y r � R &*' Applicant: Mr. Michael Myers File Number: 200304914 Date: 11-10-2003 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http://usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter,the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b)modify the permit to address some of your objections, or(c)not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections,the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II-REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT L. REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons ilho or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may process you may contact: also contact: Mr.Ron Silver(telephone 904-232-2502) Mr. Skip Bergmann(telephone 239-334-1975) U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Jacksonville District U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Jacksonville District Regulatory Division Fort Myers Regulatory Office Post Office Box 4970 2301 McGregor Boulevard Suite 300 Jacksonville,Florida 32232-0019 Fort Myers,Florida 33901 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation,and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. Date: Telephone number: Signature of appellant or agent. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Jacksonville District Regulatory Division Basis for Jurisdiction Version: 21 January 2003 Action ID Num::er: 200304914 Applicant: Mr. Michael Myers, Agent Date: 10 November 2003 ❑ A. Property referenced in the file does not include or contain any of the waters of the United States described below. ® B. Property referenced in the file contains waters of the United States based on: ® The presence of wetlands as determined by application of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.' ❑ The wetlands are connected to navigable or interstate waters. The connection can be through a tributary system which can include man-made structures/conveyances such as culverts, ditches, control structures or channelized streams. (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (7) ) ❑ The wetlands are adjacent to waters of the U.S.2 (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) . (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (7) ) ❑ The presence of waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, i.e. , navigable waters of the United States. Includes all land and waters below the ordinary high water mark of the navigable stream or channel.3 (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (1) ) ❑ The presence of waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, including tidal wetlands, i.e. , navigable waters of the United States.l•3 (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (1) ) ❑ The presence of one or more tributaries (stream channels, man-made conveyances such as ditches or channelized streams, lakes, ponds, rivers, etc. ) that eventually drain or flow into navigable or interstate waters. Includes property below the ordinary high water mark of the tributary.3 (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (5) ) ❑ The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands." (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (2) ) ❑ The presence of impoundment (s) of waters of the United States. (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (4) ) ❑ The presence of territorial seas. (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (6) ) ❑ The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes (including abandoned borrow areas) , rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) , mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. (33 CFR 328.3 (a) (3) ) Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) . 2 The term "adjacent" means bordering,7 contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are "adjacent wetlands." 3 The lateral limits of waters of the U.S. are/or have been determined by the high tide line, ordinary high water mark, and/or by the limit of adjacent wetlands. Regulatory Project Manager: Robert Tewis i Ri t 41 .44 ,,.( , ., li S 10 .40074400 N.. NY_ j; v isnotsit_ JD. NO. 200304914 (IP-RMT) U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFIED BY ROBERT M . TEWIS ON JUNE 13, 2003 . ‘,- c--- ./7--- --_-_-- -----.' ///i6-72-3 ROBE1T M . TEWIS DATE COPY / OF DRAWING No.: AT NAPLES , PHASE II 01 RAD707 SHEET No.: WETLAND MAP 1 EXHIBIT E WATER LEVEL NAIL LOCATION AND TROPOGRAHIC MAP -. 0 J:\2001\01505701\YLw 20 „_,:01151T E.owa Tu:LAYS.MAY 25,2004-5:05x1 PwTreo ax:PAL, illid 43 0 1- * m I Cp I1 (7, L2)> O p N a * > rn cn r D -o r c rn -I Ill M 0 rn XI < < m 73 o > m z x -I -< v I- Z o my z < > - c r M - r 0 DD 211v -Ti rn Z 7Cf K� K� D o m Z Dm Dm c) rn r Km K. K' Z m -1 z 3 r ' v ao Z r rn D Z x, F rn r o\ \ \ o o 0 0 w w w Z In < 2 ' A O Z II Z D yDr O In 't '4j '35, '6 IPIF - ,1 ,�A ,1 ,a ,,, �Y `b '4•46 ��'.42 Ci) 'b COlic A * C. o O MI I. Q C C ' 'a 1".11 'a a Oo 4 O o tll R P W _ Co CO D --1 m 73 N r C m < K z --I D F--- r o D n o D m O >- z z -1 > z z > v 'v -4 I-- 0 o Pl N 0 GI D C _ 0 C) K D -1° 73D 0 In X' m m 01x,73 M 0 >1�-r7 WO D< Z r_ cNn. D IDcAO m 0 I A— _ oZr,j 2 xi _oo*> EO D W—Z 1 V Nato O f 0 m V O`3 Z 8 ION 48) EXHIBIT F LISTED PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES SURVEY 4106 A SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES RPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY INTRODUCTION This report outlines the listed species survey conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. for the 98.41± acre Summit Place in Naples, RPUD (project). The purpose of the survey was to review the project area for listed flora and fauna species. The review included a literature search of listed species within the project's geographical area and on-site field surveys conducted on May 31, 2000 and November 6, 2000 on Phase I (i.e., 57.82± acres) of the project and on February 3, 2003 on the balance of the property (i.e., 40.59± acres). The project is located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the parcel is found on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951)just south of the Golden Gate Nursery. The project area is comprised of open land, currently under construction; disturbed land; undeveloped, forested land; and preserved land. The project's surrounding land uses are a combination of roads; undeveloped, forested land; residential developments; and a nursery. The project is bordered to the north by Brittany Bay; to the northeast by the Golden Gate Nursery; to the east by Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951); to the south and west by undeveloped, forested land; and to the northwest by Indigo Lakes. METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on May 31, 2000 and November 6, 2000 and on February 3, 2003 to determine whether the project was being utilized by state or federal listed species. The listed wildlife species survey included, but was not limited to, Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and their commensals such as the Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) and gopher frog (Rana areolata). The listed plant species survey included species typical to forested upland and wetland habitats in this geographical region, as well as listed epiphytes and terrestrial orchids common in Southwest Florida. The survey was conducted by qualified ecologists walking meandering transects through all suitable habitat within the project area. Transects were spaced 15 to 25 feet apart depending on habitat and visibility due to the density of the vegetation. Habitats were inspected for listed plant and wildlife species. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. F-1 The listed species review also included a literature search of available information on listed species in the project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists (FGFWFC 1997); the Lee County Bald Eagle Nest Sites for the 2000-2001 Season (ETAC 2001); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); Status and Distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay (Cox 1987); and the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (HPP) (Logan et al. 1993). SURVEY RESULTS During the listed species field surveys no listed species were observed on-site. The results of the literature search found no recorded occurrences of bald eagle nests or RCW cavity trees within the site's general vicinity (i.e., three mile radius). The site is not located within Florida panther Priority 1 or Priority 2 Habitat according to the HPP. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission data base also recorded no panther or black bear telemetry points within the parcel boundaries. F-2 REFERENCES Collier County Community Development Division. 1999. Bald Eagle Location Maps for Collier County. Cox, Jeffrey A. 1987. Status and Distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay. Florida Orinithological Society, Gainesville, Florida Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1997. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern. Official Lists, Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Logan et al. 1993. Florida Panther, Habitat Preservation Plan, South Florida Population. 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. F-3 �. TwLLNUSY[ •�. .Dw.LSALL 04MD0 NIlYiw N.T.S. MARS • R 26 E EXIT 111 IMMOKALEE ROAD (SR. 846) TREE FARM RD. PROJECT LOCATION SEC 34, T48S, R26E c 8 F WOLF ROAD VOT 13 Qi _ VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXT. ci g > E W -JJ E rcr E- O U ti PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 1 . PROJECT LOCATION MAP Consulting Ecologists SUMMIT PLACE AT NAPLES RPUD DRAWN BY: CC DATE: 4/1/03 F-4 EXHIBIT G CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE I DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STA MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET Office of the Secretary .. -` State Board 0Educa tion . Office of International Relations .? r FM Trusser'd the Internal Improvement That Fuad IIII Dwo.on of Elections K • • N�it!:c'.� in Cru nmisdo., n Divisi of Corporations r. ' -• , .4 Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, Division of Cultural Affairs ti I e �•- Siting Beard iv • Division of Bond Fina lr sqn of Historical Resources `r.{f Department d Revenue mown of library and Information Services Department of Law Enforcement IN Owmun of Licensing Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles arisunofAdministrative Senices FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE t"' °�'�" ""'°' Hi'an'Atha„ II Katherine Harris •'"-•' ' .. 1•- • Secretary of State ..�.-tt-, 1 .. DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ' 9 ` �'�hr' 1 PASS A2ELir , ■ Assoc':=.'E Mr. Michael A. Myers September 21, 2000 Passarella and Associates, Inc. 4575 Via Royale, Suite 201 Fort Myers, FL 33919 [ RE: DHR Project File No. 2000-05663 Cultural Resource Assessment Request USACOE Permit Application Hibiscus Village PUD - Project No. 00MLL512 Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Myers: Our office has received and reviewed the above referenced project in accordance with Section I 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended in 1992, and 36 C.F.R., Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. The State Historic Preservation Officer is to advise and assist federal agencies when identifying historic properties (listed or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places), assessing effects upon them, and considering alternatives to avoid or reduce the project's effect on them. E Our review of the Florida Site File and our records indicates that no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded for, or likely to be present within, the project's area of potential effect. It is therefore the opinion of this office that it is unlikely that historic properties are r located within the proposed project area. 1 If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Ms. Robin Jackson, Historic Sites Specialist at(850)487-7278 or 1-800-847-7278. Your interest in protecting Florida's Ihistoric properties is appreciated. Sincerely, I Dc-u—D----j, , ,ee \-IPO Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director Division of Historical Resources State Historic Preservation Officer IJSM/Jrj 1 R.A.Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee,Florida 32399-02511 • http:/lwww.Aheritage.torn I O Utrettor s Office Ti Archaeological Research l Historic Preservation 1 Flr,funi tl Vluscum' (4511)4riri-14X0 • FAX.48ri-135i !ASID 48%-2299 • FAX.414.22_8 I8+0)4X7-233"S • FAX 9224)4% (Sill) lriri-14X4 fA� u'! ;'=.U" l Ilisueii Pensacola Preservation Board Ti Palen Bear! ReRu•na!Office Ti. St Augustine Regional Office 1 T.imf.i I:.itrrn.tl Office f`4"•11,,IS 9 n.4; • FA X 545-c449 (in'1 774.117; • F.1/ 2-4-11-r, (404)42;-414; • FAX ;12=-31144 I s '^' 277 2:z4:;