Agenda 07/09/2013 Item #16A22 7/9/2013 16.A.22.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to (1) find that the attached Option 3 ultimate at grade improvement for the
intersection of 951/Broken Back Road and Immokalee Road is consistent with and fulfills a
condition set forth in the Heritage Bay PUD/DRI and accompanying DCA; and (2) direct staff to
negotiate a developer agreement which would implement Option 3, and bring back to the Board
for review and approval this developer agreement,which would create a public/private coordinated
planning and construction concept for these improvements.
OBJECTIVE: To construct the ultimate at grade intersection for 951/Broken Back Road and
Immokalee Road, thereby saving future taxpayer money and inconvenience to the public when
the current proposed interim solution needs to be replaced.
CONSIDERATIONS: The intersection of Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road and Broken
Back Road is identified in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a critical needs intersection. This intersection represents the
crossing of the County's two major regional arterial east/west and north/south facilities. The
extension to the north is ultimately planned to connect to Lee County at Bonita Beach Road. The
intersection has also been planned for an east/west fly over in its ultimate configuration.
The Heritage Bay PUD/DRI and accompanying DCA recognized that the extension of Collier
Boulevard north past Immokalee Road would become a vital addition to the County's roadway
network. On July 29, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the Heritage
Bay PUD and DRI through Ordinance 03-40 and Resolution 03-255 (Development Order 03-01)
which required construction of a two lane access road. The DCA was approved on July 27, 2004.
Section 2.21 D of the current PUD, Conclusions of Law Section 6E2 of the DRI and Section 2D
of the DCA contain the requirement stating the following:
"If the County acquires the needed right-of-way at the intersection of County
Road 951 and Immokalee Road (not owned or controlled by the developer), then the
developer shall construct for a distance of 1/2 mile from said intersection a 2-lane access
road within the 100 foot dedicated ROW. (CR-951 Extension) The developer shall
receive no impact fee credits for the cost of such construction. The developer shall
construct this 2-lane access road to arterial standards within a multilane urban arterial
cross section. "
Heritage Bay could satisfy this commitment by constructing Option2 (Exhibit A). As set forth
below, Option 2 represents an interim solution, much of which will not operate at optimum
levels and need to be ripped out and redone when the ultimate at grade improvement is needed.
At the same time that Heritage Bay was moving forward to satisfy this commitment with
Option2,the County was coordinating intersection improvements with the land owner to the west
(Tree Farm PUD) and the land owner to the north (Mirasol PUD). All of the parties have now
come to the conclusion that working individually and making interim improvements would not
represent the prudent use of private and public funds. In fact, if Heritage Bay completed the
Packet Page-550-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
roadway as described in the commitment and the other developers completed interim bridge
enhancements, approximately half of the Heritage Bay work would be a complete throw away.
Staff and the developers agree that a unified project with participation from the County, and
managed by the County, would provide the ultimate improvement with no reconstruction
required for the at grade intersection(Exhibit B). Staff requested an independent review from the
engineer of record (Exhibit C)that concurred with staff's recommendation.
Heritage Bay has drafted a letter (Exhibit D) supporting the project as long as it would not incur
additional costs. Staff, Heritage Bay's engineer and the County's consultant have reviewed
Heritage Bay's proposed construction plans (Exhibits E & F) and recommend that upon
completion and acceptance of these improvements, that the commitment referenced above be
considered satisfied. The adjacent developers have also acknowledged the value of a unified
project and have submitted letters of no objection and support (Exhibits G & H). Upon approval
of the concept, the County and the adjacent property owners will prepare a developer agreement
that clearly identifies the commitments by all parties (developer, transportation and utilities) for
final Board review and approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: If approved, the County would participate on a proportionate share basis.
The total project cost has been estimated at three to four million dollars with the County's
transportation construction share estimated between $900,000 and $1,200,000. Final costs will
be presented to the Board with a developer agreement for review and approval prior to initiating
construction.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The proposed project is identified in the MPOs
LRTP and is consistent with the goal of developing and operating a safe, efficient and cost
effective transportation system.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney.
Allowing staff the opportunity to negotiate a developer agreement for future Board review and
approval does not bind the Board in any way. Should the Board reject the proposed developer
agreement, Heritage Bay would be free to simply proceed with a portion of Option2.
Accordingly, this item raises no legal issues at this time, and requires majority support for
direction. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board (1) finds that the attached Option 3 ultimate at grade
improvement for the intersection of 951/Broken Back Road and Immokalee Road is consistent
with and fulfills a condition set forth in the Heritage Bay PUD/DRI and accompanying DCA;
and (2) directs staff to negotiate a developer agreement which would implement Option3, and
bring back to the Board for review and approval this developer agreement, which would create a
public/private coordinated planning and construction concept for these improvements.
Prepared By: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division
Attachments: Exhibits "A"through"G"
Packet Page-551-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.16.A.16.A.22.
Item Summary: Recommendation that the Board (1) finds that the attached Option 3
ultimate at grade improvement for the intersection of 951/Broken Back Road and Immokalee
Road is consistent with and fulfills a condition set forth in the Heritage Bay PUD/DRI and
accompanying DCA; and (2) directs staff to negotiate a developer agreement which would
implement Option 3, and bring back to the Board for review and approval this developer
agreement, which would create a public/private coordinated planning and construction
concept for these improvements.
Meeting Date: 7/9/2013
Prepared By
Name: BeardLaurie
Title: Planner,Transportation Planning
7/1/2013 2:22:16 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P&R
Date: 7/1/2013 3:34:03 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 7/1/2013 3:59:27 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 7/1/2013 4:16:02 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 7/1/2013 4:46:51 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Packet Page-552-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
Date: 7/1/2013 5:25:39 PM
Packet Page -553-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
jn� v rr1
it p
x
�= 2-
i ' � cr•
n
3 o F: w rr
•-.\
s
D
I
•
k i •
l:Yl. }.
1 .1'.,4.7., g
•
1 F 5-
0
Ski -�
\ 0
N
.i:
r +e
•
.
minms
3
1 . y�
1
}
3
d. 3 '..
73
r� -
, o
'I.�� CD
4a,
pp 4f
''.11 i.;,:, 1 li, I :
VII
1 iii
if; ,. ....:_.j.14,,,,,,,s1,,,?,■1 ,....' r,.... "E_L.;--. i
I
i
3
a
cD
� ' 'rya ::.
1)1W POND x
��,:� � s �; :19'1.4 ;� Fa�13.7 .; DRY '•.„......,„.,, : . ,,. : „..,..... .. t. :„„, ci.j,,,,..,„-; .1,4•••;,...--,1.- f°.:71,,..;''."'-..,.--"•Ji.,:,..--.1!.`,
porevoa*4-''' __________,,,..„ ,. .',i-". T.''',,, ,1' :. -,•4...- •-.`. ,,=.I ;:,../ ''' .• •—•,; !i i .....„,-...„.„.„,,,,,r,-..„.„
n,
u
;';'`..tir„.„;:I.:-.ill,
ill... d'b
Packet Page-554-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
m
>
cr
W 3S` D 9 r -?
D.
4:A17 pC)
--ir..,,
il1 K a,�� uH' q �
4ili
i
'. -,4,!•,' ,.',-,-,4;-..-:.:-.4zt ,p � I ' 0
t; 82t
k�` d
� 41 f ; ..af 6 7 ,a
.�., r -o +w.,.:..�a3F_.. s'�M` sy'"'�'� .3 iii•
3
-^fir z a .. 4' 4�t •
•- ate. "s '
ti
� 5t � ��'t` '� '.''.;:'-'413'''',..':1!1'.., `�� ---.�rr�„�;:b�X�:.�t., ,.get
!J ��. W4 e. ..;� ,y,•,+e*;_,
r '(dl "S IG '', ' ' ;,^P
c g ¢e a #ii •y am Js+ '” M: °# • C
,app 3 p
S� # x��. �� �§• s't r � gp..s #�" � I,��'� �j,'Q ;4
£ �!h X, ` t '4'41, aq 7.,;t214 li J"i7 n _
t r: ?"
("1"
da a n `:m"' r^
Jti 3K t 1N1�� 9 S� V
VVV
i-
i.-.,ai' i, ,sip :
:;-...;W::„' Iflif".- 1.-. l'. .14.,',i-i;' - . g- rAr..','"T.,-...z 4.-..,.::!..
rJ
l Z� 4
•,.lit,,,,..71-.•-•.. - ,• :,-,.. ,):•••.:,4i1 ''4� � � k
IL,Eiti.,,-...::::i-:,' _..11 ,:ii-..,,,..--i -,-.;',-;41.: '.','....!!...,-.:i,... -i
s .�. z' c .. rte-' ;v„..
Packet Page -555-
,
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
m o X:� �' D -•#1 ,i
` ,,
0 Cr
-
A .
D
�
'
,...,„
_.1
1 ....II. . 1 ; )...
, .„,4, , , ;,,,..
p
I� . ,
` D,...frj
n
ED p
fi
= cn
V)
'• ' 0I . .
CD cio
L- .
' , d; I i i..'i r.-t, , . *
i ? i; {,, 3 0=.
'' CD
t.
•
CD 0Q, , r: 3- .
"A -
p ,,,,,,,,,. 0 C
v 4 T =L 1 f�f F:f 'N 5 F 4i. •
�� 3l;s E. " • ~S DRY Iii'_ DRY � i 3 CD
x y
3a , a .• I-
11. r ,44-. :', ,''S i s
S^ r y
Packet Page-556-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
M
CU
X•
o �.
N rTF'
W
'� t f 1,.'
y,Tt i t
3
�' _i , Ago. , , k
• I'
a tb
", 5 tl' ��,� "' l j '
ii
;+ � I. I 9� . � p eir1 s1
� � k ;, .-
14 ; i 1• w '# ~-4 og j t �
ca H
W
H a J _
, c / ti
I.fie_
cC
A - tfi d- t L
A I ' a�,i ^ 3
'"'->$r 4,+�a.>� z,.,,..,., ?78.w a_.wx^-<:.r. �`'�!-...�I
,, , z,' _1 '•;=E�m „parr' - _
0.)
.,
rt
trr.. sac �'_.. `"-
D
. pry `°` 1 E r` ;No-F.'r. rM�.i(``Py +Ak7'� a
.� �.•i /
��$ .��, w ����' � : .x' Sri DRY POND '„
mmis
v s ,s: I ELr-13 7
jj
pew ;
,11,; ,:' T f 1 ice} .' 1_#. ' CD
i'- " �„�, N i:l : LJi �. I '�s 4 f
XX .�'#I 7'. J_ a t_)-.�._ �) A�ei b
mst r _� "4-"-:-11.-","!:;'"- f5•, ,y $ .1* °+ -nth .s. a
' F H 1
t"fir
Packet Page-557-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
ao X
ft
ri. 1,-ir
N
;'1 is Do
1
It i?
l mi+
•
i:-..:?; f I 1
'ark
, riii.
J
r '''''''''''''°'''17''''''" i -
y, a Rf3� ��neo �
. �,
• D O
o 3 _. G�G .
n �' CD CD W
( —I vo C
(DE-o p = ---.
0 -1
* (t) 3
-J
—h cli
'. D
0
o * V) p
Packet Page-558-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
MEMORANDUM CH2IMHILLe
Collier Blvd I Immokalee Rd Intersection -
Brokenback Bridge
PREPARED FOR: Nick Casalanguida 2885 Horseshoe Dr S,
Growth Management Division Naples, FL 34104
COPY TO: Laurie Beard
PREPARED BY: Bill Gramer, P.E.
DATE: June 28,2013 •
PROJECT NUMBER: 457697
Mr. Casalanguida,
We have received the plan revisions made byJR Evans Engineering Associates and concur with the changes
as shown in the exhibits.This configuration will result in minimal impacts to travel and public safety and
have zero throw away cost.Therefore it is our recommendation to approve the changes as shown.
In addition, with regards to Phase II construction, option 2 versus option 3, it is CH2M Hill's recommendation
to proceed with option 3 for the following reasons:
1. Minimum future throw away cost
a. Option 2 will result in approximately 70%throwaway costs in the future
b. Option 2 will require multiple utility relocations.
2. Maintenance of traffic during construction will be safer and more efficient
3. Improves traffic capacity of intersection
4. Improves safety of intersection by eliminating any shifts in alignment
5. Take advantage of current low construction pricing
6. Minimum disruption to motorist as well as commercial and residential developments.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
442dVesvos•N,
Bill Gramer, P.E.
COPYRIGI Packet Page-559-VY CONFIDENTIAL
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
ROETZEL
FOCUSED ON WHAT MATTERS TO YOU
850 Park Shore Drive
Trianon Centre
3rd Floor
• Naples, FL 34103
DIRECT DIAL 239.649.2708
PHONE 239.649.6200 FAX 239.261.3659
banderson @ralaw.com
W W W.RALAW.COM
June 26, 2013
Nick Casalanguida, Administrator VIA: E-mail
Collier County Growth Management Division
Planning & Regulations
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Heritage Bay Executive Summary for Consideration Board of County
Commissioners Meeting on June 25, 2013
Dear Mr. Casalanguida:
My client, Pulte Group ("Pulte") agrees that it would be in the best interest of everyone to
re-design, re-permit and construct the northern portion of the 1/2 mile road of CR 951 extension.
If the completion costs of the northern portion are less than the total estimated cost Pulte would
have paid to construct the originally approved 1/2 mile of road, Pulte would pay the difference to
the County.
Pulte's willingness to do so is expressly contingent upon the Board of County
Commissioners making a formal determination that the road construction and payment in lieu
referenced in the preceding paragraph fulfills the commitment in Heritage Bay PUD Ordinance
03-40, Section 2.21 paragraph D, Resolution No. 03-255 (Development Order 03-01) Heritage
Bay DRI Conclusions of Law Section 6E2, and Section 2D of the Heritage Bay Developer
Contribution Agreement and direct the county manager or his designee to send a letter and
notify the developer that the commitment has been fulfilled.
Sincerely,
e
R. Bruce Anderson
For the Firm
RBA/ca
Cc: Chris Hasty
Josh Evans
Mike Hueniken
Reed Jarvi
7333466_2 111404.0002
ROETZEL&ANDRESS CHICAGO WASHINGTON,D.C. CLEVELAND TOLEDO AKRON COLUMBUS CINCINNATI
A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ORLANDO FORT MYERS NAPLES FORT LAUDERDALE TALLAHASSEE•NEW YORK
Packet Page-560-
8
_
∎ z ,'
i// I c a P,'
W t
■ LLN � s610 F ..
I
1I a o
Z
wL
'1 m
0 Z
Cci 0 ' 1 C Z w
Li j 1, o N Z
� 1 zcc
a o / I, !I F-
z a 1 0
X )
Li
c m � F LU
J° n Z O ' CC
2 W
0 >- 1—
CD _ 11 a Q --
/ Z
LL
CD
_Z • E H
C
J
Q
I
Nc f it'
Z, 8
�
U 5m
w
m m Mw�
/i F'— Zoo°amzN
a Q l7
0
! om Q z o o N N Z o
w io�w a
ow z a LLsLL
— I II n 0� W >2 3
■ w�
�� I ■ JS F-
—
2 W ' c.4 m
I
, �1, w
I zC lD
O c-
41 g.1.3)1
�x7
w o l '
iL
Y f0%; t , ,
,m1 i fi i5.. i
III I: i i
ji 0
i
i1 w
IIiIIlIIP 41
P • ,..1,:).
A , cam 2
0
x
b u:zt c i o z z r t 3.I 9.118.3 m nmcu n 0*%ao 10\.ma3.ar r m w -zi\vv,na r ai at mw\«
2 -9S a ed )1aad %
' ` \ cg� !
! I / 25_, /
§[)!2)
z)gE\)\
mf g \., zo-\(/\
§ �2 ,� Lu !:
%k % . kf�§')�
wr | \) . j \�
[ •� //
I='�k _ K �\`
ik 011
k k w §.y \
kƒ , ,
bl
{\ R
. \ ot
k'k
/
k2
F
§\ m
t.® %®(® §§V §§ >- z w
I.
�x�. � B k � �
F.5 w
§ . !1,,!, 2§K P , 2 cc
§sE J '6 E ` t § §§ / D
i .g - a e $ w w
e§ ® I ® ~ i w
#®' 9 b% 0 z 6
■ q§ �,)
%«.
ti d �C.) p
I m w
Q m
;/ ) q
! /
F-
2 4 i 1 11� g 2
„ �
!
P i
\
\ƒ :
§/
. {\
1
I
./3.V 9I- CI§Z/ L
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
THOMAS S. MONAGHAN
ONE AVE MARIA DRIVE
P.O. BOX 373
ANN ARBOR, MI 48106-0373
734-930-3587
June 18, 2013
Laurie Beard
Trans. Planner— PUD Monitoring
Growth Management Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Dear Ms. Beard,
As the landowner of the Tree Farm PUD property at the
Northwest corner of Immokalee and Broken Back Road, it is our
feeling that a fair and equitable sharing of the costs of a unified
Project is an appropriate solution. The sharing of costs would be
among the Tree Farm PUD, Heritage Bay PUD, Mirasol PUD, and
the County.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Monaghan
Trustee of Tree Farm
Land Trust
Packet Page -563-
7/9/2013 16.A.22.
TaylorMorrison
June 24, 2013
Mr. Nick Casalanguida
County Administrator
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Fort Myers, FL 34104
RE: Heritage Bay PUD/DRI—Transportation Commitment Fulfillment
Dear Mr. Casalanguida:
On behalf of Taylor Morrison Esplanade Naples, LLC, please accept this letter of no
objection regarding the fulfillment of Heritage Bay PUD (Ord. 03-40), Section 2.21.D., as
outlined in Staff's Executive Summary.
Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me directly at
(239) 322-3720 or jasher @taylormorrision.com
Sincerely,
Taylor Morrison Esplanade Naples, LLC
!ifj"11---
John Asher
Land Development Director
taylor
morrjson .
or s I n b v� IMO
Packet Page -564-