The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 11/13/2012 Item #17ARecommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, for a project identified as PUDZ -A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD, amending Ordinance Number 2009 -21, the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development, by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 799 to 1,121; by amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 95± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Mirasol RPUD; by revising the development standards; by amending the master plan; and adding deviations and revising developer commitments. The property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,638.6± acres; and by providing an effective date. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is seeking an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow the following major changes: • Add 95± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Mirasol RPUD; thereby increasing the RPUD acreage from 1,543.6 acres to 1,638.6 acres; • Increase the number of dwelling units from 799 to 1,121; • Reduce the number of golf course holes from 36 to 18; • Reduce the development footprint from 809.8 acres to 709.8 acres; • Increase native preserve from 511.9 acres to 537.4 acres (all of which will be provided within the RPUD boundary); • In Exhibit C, amend the Master Plan to demonstrate the additional acreage incorporated in the western portion of the RPUD; the updated conceptual layout for the spine road, residential /golf course areas (R/G) and lakes (L); and the updated location for the golf club complex; • In Exhibit E, modify approved deviation no. 2 for maximum cul -de -sac length from 1,200 linear feet to 1,600 linear feet; PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2920- Page 1 of 8 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. • In Exhibit E, add deviations for increased maximum wall height, reduced golf clubhouse parking, additional model homes, increased signage, internal sidewalks on one (1) side of the private roads where applicable, and other deviations related to clearing and site development permitting; • Exhibit F, Transportation Commitments B.3 has been revised to reflect the current status of the Mirasol Developers Contribution Agreement, and the timing of the proportionate fair share contribution for the CR 951 intersection improvements has been revised in Transportation Commitment B.4.; • Exhibit F, Transportation Commitments B.5 has been added to reflect the maximum number of p.m. peak hour trips that may be generated by the RPUD; • Exhibit F, Environmental Commitments have been revised to reflect the increased on -site native vegetation acreage; • Exhibit F, Utility Commitments F. 1 -3 has been added to include provisions for connection to County water, wastewater and irrigation; • Revised references to erroneous /outdated sections of the LDC throughout the RPUD document. Additionally, the petitioner is seeking several minor changes to Exhibit B. Please refer to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) staff report for additional details on the changes. According to the Petitioner's Agent's description, the following constitutes the project's history: The property was originally rezoned in 2001 from Rural Agricultural with ST Overlay to a Planned Unit Development per Ordinance 2001 -20. In 2009, the Property was rezoned to RPUD to allow for 799 dwelling units, 36 golf course holes, 7801 acres of on -site preserve, and additional off -site preserve, thus repealing Ordinance 2001 -20. Pursuant to the terms of a Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) executed by the Applicant on May 3, 2007, the project was vested for 799 — dwelling units for the purposes of transportation concurrency. Following RPUD zoning approval, the Applicant continued to work with conservation groups, including the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Collier County Audubon Society, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and Florida Wildlife Federation regarding the Property's listed species and native habitat. Following several years of negotiations and diligent efforts by the Applicant and concerned parties, an agreement has been reached to address the environmental impacts of the project. The agreement involves the addition of lands into the overall project that will be set aside as conservation, and a reduction in the development footprint by 100± acres to 709.8 acres, which allows for the creation of a 200± acre preserve in the western portion of the property. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2921- Page 2 of 8 11/13/2012 Item W.A. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): A portion of the total subject property (425.7 acres in Section 22) is designated Urban (Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), the remainder of the property (1,212 acres in Sections 10 & 15) is designated Agricultural /Rural (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands) as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Additional analysis is contained in the CCPC staff report. Based on that analysis, staff concludes the amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Immokalee Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 43.2, Immokalee Road between Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. The project generates 126 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 3.47% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,441 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. The next concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 43.1, Immokalee Road between I -75 and Logan Boulevard. The project generates 84 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 2.21% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,215 trips, and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. Logan Boulevard Impacts: The first link of Logan Boulevard that is impacted by this project is Link 50.0, Logan Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road. The project generates 41 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2922- Page 3 of 8 11/13/2012 Item W.A. of 3.73% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 678 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. Collier Bouleva7 -d Impacts: The Collier Boulevard link that is impacted by this project is Link 30.0, Collier Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road. The project generates 24 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents an impact of 1.84% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,301 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. No subsequent links beyond these segments are significantly impacted by this project. In accordance with Collier County Planning Commission guidance, staff has requested (by way of Stipulation for Approval) that the developer include a trip generation cap of 781 unadjusted, two - way, p.m. peak hour trips. This is included in the PUD document Transportation Commitments of Exhibit F. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental staff has evaluated the application and has detenrrined that the proposed PUD document complies with all applicable GMP and LDC provisions regarding conservation, native vegetation preservation and potential listed species impacts. Review by the EAC is not required for this petition. Locations of preserves have not changed, but increased in size, and no new listed species, as identified in the Environmental Advisory Council Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2009 -32), have been identified on -site. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPQ RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on September 20, 2012. By a unanimous vote (6 to 0) [Commissioners Vonier, Midney, and Klein were absent] recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: 1. In Exhibit A, Eliminate Accessory Use 94, which states: Clubhouse or recreation centers for fesidential „^ residents and their Lruests; 2. Revise Deviation 98 regarding model homes, to allow for a maximum of 40 model homes with monitoring /documentation requirement as follows: PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2923- Page 4 of 8 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. As part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so the maximum of 40 model homes is not exceeded; 3. Exhibit B, revise the multi- family development standards: Side Setback — '/2 Building Height (BH) (both principal and accessory land uses). Building Separation — '/2 Sum of BH; 4. Change notes on the Master Concept Plan (MCP) regarding relocation of uses per LDC and replacing native vegetation; 5. Add commitment for timing of golf course and pro shop /locker room improvements; 6. Revise transportation commitment 91 from $45,000 per acre to require an agreed upon appraised value; 7. Add #6 transportation commitments once language changes are agreed upon by staff and the applicant; 8. Remove the use equestrian trail from the accessory list of uses under ILA in Exhibit A; 9. Change separation for accessory uses on same lot back to previously approved 0 feet or 10 feet; 10. Limit accessory height for multi- family dwelling units to 35' zoned and 45' actual; 11. Add "Per Unit" into the development regulations chart for maximum floor area; 12. Remove reference to Note 7 Flag Lots for townhouse product type; 13. Revise the minimum lots size for the townhouse product type from 3,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet; 14. Label the private spine road as such Road on Master Plan — ensure consistency with Deviation #14 language; 15. Limit multi - family and townhouse buildings to a maximum of 300 feet in length (see note 12 below development regulations chart). No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the petition; no one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore, this petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. Zn LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the existing Mirasol PUD (Ordinance No. 2009 -21). The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2924- Page 5 of 8 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 1. Consider: 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. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of 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. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: 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. 5. is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or. sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. S. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2925- Page 6 of 8 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and In implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.] 06, art. 1I], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2926- Page 7 of 8 11/13/2012 Item W.A. The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This Executive Summary has been reviewed for legal sufficiency and is legally sufficient for Board action. An affirmative vote of four is required for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request subject to the attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC recommendation. PREPARED BY: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: l) Staff Report 2) Back -up information 3) Ordinance 4) Exhibit provided by The Conservancy at CCPC PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD Revised: 10/1/12 BCC Hearing Date November 13, 2012 Packet Page -2927- Page 8 of 8 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.A. 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, for a project identified as PUDZ -A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD, amending Ordinance Number 2009 -21, the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development, by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 799 to 1,121; by amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 95± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Mirasol RPUD; by revising the development standards; by amending the master plan; and adding deviations and revising developer commitments. The property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,638.6± acres; and by providing an effective date. Meeting Date: 11/13/2012 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner, Principal,Engineering & Environmental Ser 9/26/2012 10:49:49 AM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 10/5/2012 9:15:56 AM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 10/10/2012 9:26:' )2 AM Packet Page -2928- Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 10/11/2012 9:13:07 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief /Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 10/24/2012 8:27:04 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 10/24/2012 12:48:51 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 10/25/2012 3:32:56 PM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 10/26/2012 5:03:56 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 11/3/2012 11:18:37 AM Packet Page -2929- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. AGENT 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. *5i Coffler County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES — PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 SUBJECT: PUDZ- A- PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /CONTRACT PURCHASER/AGENT: Owner /Applicant: Agents: IM Collier Joint Venture Alexis Crespo, AICP Richard Yovanovich, Esquire 6080 Cypress Hollow Way Waldrop Engineering Coleman, Yovanovich Koester Naples, FL 34109 28100 Bonita Grande Dr Ste 305 4011 Tamiami Trail N Ste 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Naples, FL 34103 Contract Purchaser: TM Newco, LLC 501 North Cattleman Road, Suite 100 Sarasota, Florida 34232 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to approve several changes to the project. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose /Description of Project." The subject property, consisting of 1,638.6± acres, is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) bordered on the east by the proposed extension of Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on the following page). PUQZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2930- Page 1 of 36 31IX of ion l j rdL.KeL rdrt -L7J1- em 17.A. n Q C� z z O N f a C a Z C F- h LL a SEE SHEET # 2 FOR CONTINUATION L RIG L RIG........... L RIG TERAFINA L (POD) RIG L RIG CONCEPTUAL L CLUB HOUSE COMPLEX L LOCATION RIG L RIG } 22 L L RIG a L RIG L 11/13/2012 Item W.A. NOTE: FOR PLAN LEGEND AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 SFWMD PRESERVE HERITAGE BAY (POD) SIGNAGE (TYP.) I O 0 II T-- J Q U N iu I RIG M 20' TYPED' L.B.E. RAG loo' PROPOSED C.R. 951 EXT. _ R.O.W. DEDICATION O L L t5' TYPE L MAINTENANCE FACILITY I TREE FARM I (POD) POSSIBLE FUTURE L INTERCONNECT OLDE 11 CYPRESS „ : L RIG 15 TYPE 1e >, 'B' L.B.E. Tin 1 L --------I PROPERTY ENGINEERING MIRASOL ao BOUNDARY Y DrVVnDPMENT COI O NSUONTAS PROPERTY 28100 BDNRA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 m BOMTA SPRINGS, K 34135 BOUNDARY P: 239.4o5.7777 F. 2394057899 POSSIBLE 1 EMAIL i9loPwaltlMPeDPJ9nA cam Y << zs FUTURE R ORUIA CSanlicArc OF AU- TZAnON 4630 VVV INTERCONNECT 0° MIRAS OL L L RAG FUTURE R.P.U.D. AMENDMENT L ACTIVITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL 2a I L MASTER PLAN P1 p I EXHIBIT "CT ty IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) 2o' TYPE ENTRY n zs SHEET I OF 3 o N D' L.B.E. SIGNAGE 1°p o (TYP.) FILE NAME: 27600E0602.dwg N ^ UPDATED: 2012 -07 -12 Packet Page -2932- i V 7 'v 9110 LEE COUNTY 'COLLIER. COUNTY'.'.'.',',',',',',', , VACANT OUT PARCEL OWNER: FLAMAX LLC PARKLANDS . - (PUD) (A) VACANT 9 10 TERAFINA (PUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,I SEE SHEET # t FOR CONTINUATION NOTE: FOR PLAN LEGEND AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 Packet Page -2933- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. PROPERTY BOUNDARY (A) VACANT 0 0 0 u LLI J Q U N I 2 i It 11.1 1111 RI ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANB 28100 RONDA GRANDE DRIVE -SLITE 305 RONDA SPRINGS. FL 34135 P: 239-405.7777 F: 239405.7899 EMAIL: Gdo*,2IdropengimermA.mm FLORO).A CERTIFICATEOF,AVTRORIZATION 4., MIRASOL R.P.U.D. AMENDMENT CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "C2" SHEET 2 OF 3 FILE NAME: 27600E0602.dwg UPDATED: 2012 -07 -12 5 2 =3a N O .= N O N O O I (p N � N _N 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS * R/G RESIDENTIAL / GOLF PRESERVE RIGHT -OF -WAY * LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO RELOCATION /CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. SPECIAL NOTES: i) WHERE APPLICABLE ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED. NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY: EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT = 895.6 Ac. �- REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT = 537.4 Ac. PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = 537.4 Ac. ± ACREAGE SUMMARY: SECTION 22 = 425.8 Ac. ± All SECTION 15 = 634.6 Ac. -!- SECTION 10 = 578.2 Ac. -!- TOTAL = 1,638.6 Ac. -L TOTAL AREA OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY = 928.8 Ac. -h TOTAL AREA WITHIN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY = 709.8 Ac. ± ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 26100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 306 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 P: 239405.7777 F: 239405-7699 EMAIL- irAO@ralAropeollin[,n'iRA.mm RL -A C TIFlCATEOf AUTIIORRAITON 996.M MIRASOL R.P.U.D. AMENDMENT Packet Page -2934- CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "C2" SHEET 3 OF 3 FILE NAME: 27600E0602.dA,g UPDATED: 2012 -07 -12 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the Mirasol RPUD, governed by Ordinance Number 2009 -21, to allow the following changes: • Add 95f acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Mirasol RPUD; thereby increasing the RPUD acreage from 1,543.6 acres to 1,638.6 acres • Increase the number of dwelling units from 799 to 1,121; • Reduce the number of golf course holes from 36 to 18; • Reduce the development footprint from 809.8 acres to 709.8 acres; • Increase native preserve from 511.9 acres to 537.4 acres (all of which will be provided within the RPUD boundary); • Amend Exhibit A, Principal Uses to remove the redundant reference to "single family attached dwellings ", which are defined as townhouses by the LDC. Other than this minor change, all principal uses are the same as permitted by the prior zoning approval. • Amend Exhibit A, Accessory Uses to clarify that certain accessory uses will be limited for use by residents and their guests only. Additionally, equestrian uses have been removed from the list of approved accessory uses. Welcome centers have been deleted and model home sales centers have been added to comply with current LDC definitions. • In Exhibit B, Principal Use Development Standards, amend minimum lot width for townhouse dwellings from 35' to 20% • In Exhibit B, Principal Use Development Standards, amend minimum side yard setback for single family detached dwellings from 7.5' to 5', which will only apply to lots equal to or lesser than 70' in width. Lots greater than 70' in width will provide 6' side yard setbacks per Note 11; • In Exhibit B, Principal Use Development Standards, amend minimum side yard setback from multi - family dwellings from 15' to 10'. • In Exhibit B, Accessory Use Development Standards, amend accessory rear yard setbacks for all dwelling types from 10' to 5'; • In Exhibit B, Accessory Use Development Standards, amend the setback between accessory structures on the same lot from 0' or 10' to 0'. • In Exhibit B, Accessory Use Development Standards, amend the setback between principle and accessory structures on the same lot from 0' and 10' to 0' and 5% • In Exhibit C, amend the Master Plan to demonstrate the additional acreage incorporated in the western portion of the RPUD; the updated conceptual layout for the spine road, residential/golf course areas (R/G) and lakes (L); and the updated location for the golf club complex. • In Exhibit E, modify approved deviation no. 2 for maximum cul -de -sac length from 1,200 linear feet to 1,600 linear feet. • In Exhibit E, add deviations for increased maximum wall height, reduced golf clubhouse parking, additional model homes, increased signage, internal sidewalks on one (1) side of the private roads where applicable, and other deviations related to clearing and site development permitting; • Exhibit F, Transportation Commitments B.3 has been revised to reflect the current status of the Mirasol Developers Contribution Agreement, and the timing of the proportionate fair share contribution for the CR 951 intersection improvements has been revised in Transportation Commitment B.4. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2935- Page 2 of 36 11/13/2012 item 17.A. m Exhibit F, Transportation Commitments B.5 has been added to reflect the maximum number of p.m. peak hour trips that may be generated by the RPUD; • Exhibit F, Environmental Commitments have been revised to reflect the increased on -site native vegetation acreage; • Exhibit F, Utility Commitments F. 1 -3 has been added to include provisions for connection to County water, wastewater and irrigation. • Revised references to erroneous /outdated sections of the LDC throughout the RPUD document. According to the Petitioner's Agent's description, the following constitutes the project's history: The property was originally rezoned in 2001 from Rural Agricultural with ST Overlay to a Planned Unit Development per Ordinance 2001 -20. In 2009, the Property was rezoned to RPUD to allow for 799 dwelling units, 36 golf course holes, 780± acres of on -site preserve, and additional off-site preserve, thus repealing Ordinance 2001 -20. Pursuant to the terms of a Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) executed by the Applicant on May 3, 2007, the project was vested for 799 — dwelling units for the purposes of transportation concurrency. Following RPUD zoning approval, the Applicant continued to work with conservation groups, including the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Collier County Audubon Society, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and Florida Wildlife Federation regarding the Property's listed species and native habitat. Following several years of negotiations and diligent efforts by the Applicant and concerned parties, an agreement has been reached to address the environmental impacts of the project. The agreement involves the addition of lands into the overall project that will be set aside as conservation, and a reduction in the development footprint by 100± acres to 709.8± acres, which allows for the creation of a 200± acre preserve in the western portion of the property. The applicant is seeking approval of fifteen deviations. These are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: City of Bonita Springs in Lee County, developed with the Village Walk single - family residential development, with a zoning designation of Mixed Use Planned Development East: The partially developed Heritage Bay DRI /PUD, a mixed use 2,562± acre mixed use project, approved for a density of 1.3 units per acre in Ordinance #2003 -40, a 20 acre undeveloped tract with an Agricultural zoning designation, and two undeveloped Commercial Planned Unit Development zoned projects, Tree Farm PUD and Addie's Corner PUD South: Agriculturally zoned tracts ranging in size from 0.5 to 2.5 acres with frontage along Immokalee Road, Nursery Lane, Woodland Avenue, and Rose Boulevard. There is also one small PUDZ- A- Pt20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2936- Page 3 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. C -3 zoned undeveloped tract, then Immokalee Road (CR 846). On the south side of that road are the developed Laurelwood PUD, a 78 -acre, residential PUD zoned project known as Ibis Cove, developed at a density of 5.96 units per acre in Ordinance #94 -63; and the Richland PUD, a mixed used PUD developed as Pebblebrooke Lakes, which includes commercial and residential components, the residential density was approved at 3.1 units per acre. West: Terafma and the Parklands PUD zoned projects. Terafina (approved at a density of 1.3 units per acre) is partially developed as Riverstone; Parklands (approved at a density of 2.5 units per acre) remains undeveloped. Additionally there are smaller agriculturally zoned tracts that are used for agricultural and residential purposes; then Olde Cypress (approved at a density of 2.1 units per acre), a developed residential project with a zoning designation of PUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2937- Page 4 of 36 l y i ui' cr,t s i i PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2937- Page 4 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Subject property depiction is approximate GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Lane/ Use Element (FLUE): A portion of the total subject property (425.7 acres in Section 22) is designated Urban (Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), the remainder of the property (1,212 acres in Sections 10 & 15) is designated Agricultural/Rural PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, lYirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2938- Page 5 of 35 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands) as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions; recreation and open space; and earth mining and related processing uses. The proposed amendment would increase the amount of property that is within this portion of the existing PUD, from 340.7 acres to 425.8 acres, thus increasing the maximum allowed density on the portion of the PUD located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict (Section 22): Eligible density for property within Section 22 of approved PUD: 340.8 acres x 4 DU /A = 1,363 units (1,363.2) Eligible density for property within Section 22 of proposed PUD amendment: 340.8 acres + 85 acres = 425.8 acres x 4 DU /A = 1,703 units (1,703.2) The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands allows for a base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres; golf courses subject to specific standards; and, earth mining and related processing. The existing portion in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is eligible for a maximum of 242 units: Eligible density for property within Section 10 and 15 of approved PUD: 1,212 acres x 0.2 DU /A (1 DU /5 acs.) = 242 units (242.4) Eligible density for property within Section 10 and 15 of proposed PUD amendment: 1,212 acres + 10 acres = 1222 acres x 0.2 DU /A (1 DU /5 acs.) = 244 units (244.4) The entire PUD, Urban Residential and RFMUD Neutral Lands combined, is eligible for up to 1,947 DUs. The existing PUD provides for 799 DUs. The proposed PUD amendment proposes 1,121 residential DUs to be developed in Sections 15 and 22. The maximum amount of dwelling units allowed in Section 22, located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict, and in Sections 10 and 15, located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, are to be developed within their respective District/Subdistrict if density blending is not utilized. Specific to the Mirasol PUD, Section 5.1(g) of the Density Rating System allows for density blending between the portions of the PUD that straddles between, and only within, Sections 15 and 22. The proposed PUD amendment seeks to utilize the Density Blending provision of the Density Rating System of the FLUE which reads as follows (conditions and limitations are followed by staff, s analysis in bold): Density Blending: This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2939- Page 6 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. which were in existence and under unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met: 1. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Sub - District or Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and either the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands: (a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Sub - District or Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and either the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands; (Condition met. The existing Mirasol PUD straddles between the Urban Residential Sub District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands.) (b) The project in aggregate is a minimum of 80 acres in size; (Condition met Condition 5.1(g) specifically provides for Section 15 only to utilize Density Blending. Therefore, the developable Sections 15 and 22 total 1060.4 acres.) (c) At least 25% of the project is located within the Urban Mixed Use District (Condition met. Condition 5.1(g) specifically provides for Section 15 only to utilize Density Blending. Therefore, the cited minimum applies to the aggregate lands of the Mirasol PUD located in Sections 15 and 22 only. Of these Sections, the project acreage in the Urban Mixed Use District is 425.8 acres, which is 26 percent of the acreage in those two Sections). The entire project is located within the Collier County Sewer and Water District Boundaries and will utilize central water and sewer to serve the project unless interim provisions for sewer and water are authorized by Collier County; (Condition met. The developable Sections 15 and 22 are eligible for Density Blending and are within the Collier County Water and Sewer District boundaries and subject to the "Availability Letter" issued by the Public Utilities Division at the time of SDP.) (d) The project is currently zoned or will be rezoned to a PUD; (Condition met. The subject petition is for the Mirasol PUD.) (e) Density to be shifted to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District from the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to be located on impacted lands, or it is demonstrated that the development on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation and/or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and/or habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat areas; (Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to the Environmental staff.) (f) The entire project shall meet the applicable preservation standards of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. (These preservation requirements shall be calculated upon and apply to the total project area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to the Environmental staff.) PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2940- Page 7 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. (g) Section 15 (Township 48 South, Range 26 East), which straddles the boundary of the Urban Residential Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, is designated Neutral, and is in the approved Mirasol PUD, may utilize this density blending provision, subject to the above criteria. (The Mirasol PUD Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit "C2" depicts development only in Sections 22 and 15, and thus density blending would be utilized for properties located in Section I5.) FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The Mirasol PUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts direct access to Immokalee Road (S.R. 846), an arterial road as identified in the Transportation Element.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (The Mirasol PUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts internal access or loop roads.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (As shown in the Mirasol PUD Conceptual Master Plan, there are several proposed interconnects to the adjoining properties along the east of the project boundary. Native vegetation preserve and open spaces are proposed between the subject project and the adjoining properties to the north and most of the properties to the west thereby precluding interconnections in that area. In addition, most properties to the west are developed with single-family homes. The main access to and from the proposed PUD is from the south, or Immokalee Road) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (Open spaces and different housing types are proposed in the PUD document. Sidewalks are being proposed as part of this petition.) Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed amendment petition of the Mirasol RPUD consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2941- Page 8 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Immokalee Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 43.2, Immokalee Road between Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. The project generates 126 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 3.47% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,441 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. The next concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 43.1, Immokalee Road between I -75 and Logan Boulevard. The project generates 84 (Net New) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 2.21% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,215 trips, and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. Logan Boulevard Impacts: The first link of Logan Boulevard that is impacted by this project is Link 50.0, Logan Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road. The project generates 41 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 3.73% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 678 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. Collier Boulevard Impacts: The Collier Boulevard link that is impacted by this project is Link 30.0, Collier Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road. The project generates 24 (net new) p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents an impact of 1.84% by the project. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,301 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. No subsequent links beyond these segments are significantly impacted by this project. In accordance with Collier County Planning Commission guidance, staff has requested (by way of Stipulation for Approval) that the developer include a trip generation cap of 781 unadjusted, two - way, PM Peak hour trips. This is included in the PUD document Transportation Commitments of Exhibit F. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the application has determined that the proposed PUD document complies with all applicable GMP and LDC provisions regarding conservation, native vegetation preservation and potential listed species impacts. Review by the EAC is not required for this petition. Locations of preserves have not changed, but increased in size, and no new listed species, as identified in the Environmental Advisory Council Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2009 -32), have been identified on -site. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 9 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2942- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall fmding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings "), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. There are no outstanding environmental issues. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. The PUD document contains the mitigation discussed in the Transportation Element section of this staff report. Additionally, staff notes that the petitioner has previously entered into a DCA with the County to provide mitigation addressing consistency with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan over the 5 -year planning period. Furthermore, the petitioner has provided a fair share contribution for construction of the North leg of the CR -951 /Broken Back Road intersection with Irmnokalee Road, which included modification, replacement, or relocation of the at -grade bridge crossing, as well as relocation of a portion of the Cocohatchee Canal. The petitioner has also agreed to dedicate to the County the future rights -of -way necessary to accommodate extension of CR -951 to the Northerly boundary of his project, which meets the Lee County line. Because Transportation impact fees have dropped since then, the owner will be able to vest for additional units for transportation concurrency at time of subdivision plat or site development plan. Fire Review: It is understood that the proposed development referenced in the PUD is conceptual in nature. However, with respect to Deviations #1 and #2 in Exhibit "F" regarding "cul -de- sacs" please note that although there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, as the site development progresses, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2943- Page 10 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Ordinances and local FCO Policy & Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the respective permit. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead -end requirements (including minimum cul -de -sac dimensions), hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. Utilities Review: The applicant has provided the stipulations requested by Utilities Review staff within the PUD document. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses only if other limitations are included. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following: TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "RG" RESIDENTIAL AREAS PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2944- Page 11 of 36 Single Clubhouse/ PERMITTED Single Zero Two Family y Multi- Family Recreation USES Family Lot and Duplex Aid Dwelling Buildings AND Detached Line Townhouse *6 STANDARDS ? 4 6 Principal Structures Minimum Lot 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF per 3,500 SF 9,000 SF n/a Area lot or unit *3 Minimum Lot 50' *7 40' *7 35' per lot -3-512 0' *7 90' n/a Width *4 2t7 or unit *7 Front Yard 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20 *2 25' Setback Side Yard 7-5° 5 -7 0 or 10' 7.5' *7 *8 7.5' *7 *8 1310' *5 5' Setback *2 * 11 *7 Rear Yard 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' 0' Setback *I Setback From 10' *7 10' *7 10' 10' 10' 20' Golf Course Setbacks from 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Preserves Maximum 35' 35' 35' 35' 50'(5 stories 1 50' (2 stories over PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2944- Page 11 of 36 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Zoned Height not to exceed parking not to *10 50') *9 exceed 50') Actual Height 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 75' *10 Floor Area 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF n/a Min. (S.F.) Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 20' *5 15' or .5 BH Between whichever is Principal greater *6 Structures Accessory Single Zero Two Family skb e Multi - Family Clubhouse/ Structures Family Lot and Duplex Family Dwelling Recreation Detached Line Attaebed an Buildings Townhouse *6 Front Yard SPS *7 SPS *7 SPS SPS SPS SPS Setback *2 Side Yard 5' *7 0 or 10' 5' 5' 10' 5' Setback *7 Rear Yard 4-0 5' *7 40 5' *7 40 5' 4-0 5' 4-9 5' 4-0 5' Accessory Setback *1 Setback From 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserves Distance 0' or- 10, 0' Of 10' 0' eF 10' 0' or-10' 0' OF 10' 0' or- 10' Between Accessory Structures on the same lot Distance 0' or 4& 5' 0' or 40' 5' 0' or 40' 5' 0' or 4& 5' 0' or 4-W 5' 0' or 4W 5' Between Accessory and Principal Structures on same lot Maximum SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Zoned Hei--ht v *10 Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS *10 Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a public road right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (f not curbed). PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Miraso! September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2945- Page 12 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. *1 - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section. *2 - Single-family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi family dwellings, as defined in the LDC. which provide fir two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for -guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of23 feet from the edge of sidewalk. *3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total .minimum lot area of 7, 000 square feet. *4 — Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *5- Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages. *6 Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential or preservation boundary. *7- The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths. However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced. *8- Zero foot (0) setback for internal units. *9 Inclusive of under building parking *10 Buildings shall not exceed three stories within 1,250 feet of Immokalee Road. *115' side vard setbacks shall apply to lots egual to or lesser than 70' in width. Lots greater than 70' in width will provide 6' side vard setbacks. BH = Building Height SPS = Same as Principal Structure Notwithstanding the foregoing none of the footnotes shall operate as a deviation from the Land Development Code unless they are listed as deviations on Exhibit E None of the footnotes operate as deviations fiom the Collier County Code ofLaws and Ordinances. As shown in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding land use and zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the north by developed residential uses within the City of Bonita Springs. To the east in Sections 11, 14, and 23 is the developing Heritage Bay PUD/DRI mixed use project. Also to the east, within Section 22 are the undeveloped commercial PUD zoned projects known as the Tree Farm PUD and . Addie's Corner PUD. The Tree Farm PUD is separated from the subject site by a 20 acre undeveloped agriculturally zoned tract. To the west are several residential projects — Parklands PUD/DRI (in Section 9) which is undeveloped; Terafina PUD (in Section 16) that is developing as Riverstone; and Old Cypress PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 13 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2946- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. PUD/DRI (in Section 21 and Section 22) which is largely already developed. In Section 22 east of Olde Cypress are agricultural and residentially used properties along Nursery Lane Rose Boulevard and Woodland Avenue that have a zoning designation of Agricultural. There is also a small C -3 vacant tract fronting on Immokalee Road. To the south is a canal and then Immokalee Road. The applicant is adding 95 acres to the Mirasol project. The acreage being added is located to the southwest of the existing project. The acreage to be added is shown below in the excerpt from the Zoning Map with cross - hatching. 16 21 Most of the area being added will be utilized as preserve area. In any case, preserve areas will separate the developed portions of the project from the uses along Nursery Lane, Woodland Avenue and Rose Boulevard. Preserves will also separate this project from Terafna and Parklands and most of Heritage Bay. The applicant is not proposing increasing building heights from what was previously approved. Side setbacks are proposed to be reduced for single family and multi- family dwelling units; but PUQZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 14 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2947- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. no other changes to the property development regulations are proposed, thus staff believes the property development regulations keep the project compatible with the surrounding uses. However, in recent Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) hearings for other PUD petitions, the CCPC has raised several issues to further address compatibility. The CCPC has asked petitioners to provide a maximum number of units that would be included in any multi- family structure. Also, the CCPC has been requesting petitioners to provide start up and ending dates for clubhouse type amenities. The petitioner's agent has declined to provide this information. Below is an excerpt from the petitioner's agents July 13, 2012 response letter: Staff's comment: Exhibit B: Please consider providing a maximum number of units per building. This has been an issue that has come up in recent CCPC hearings. RESPONSE: So noted The Applicant and their agents will be prepared to address this item at the public hearings Staff's comment: Please consider adding a startup and ending date for the construction of clubhouse. This also has been an issue at recent CCPC hearings. RESPONSE: So noted The Applicant and their agents will be prepared to address this item at the public hearings. In the Parklands PUD and the Bent Creek PUD projects that were recently approve, the following limitation was included to address the number of units within a multi - family building: Maximum of ten (10) units attached in one building. In the Parklands PUD that was recently approved, the following stipulation was included: The developer shall commence construction of the community center; clubhouse on the recreation site (RS) prior to issuance of the building permit for the 250`h dwelling unit and shall complete construction within one year, unless delayed by natural disaster or other calamity beyond the control of the developer. The CCPC has asked on other projects that clubhouses be specifically shown on Master Concept Plans. While the site plan for this project shows a "Conceptual Club House Complex Location," the applicant's agent has indicated that flexibility is desired to allow clubhouses or recreation centers to be located in areas other than that "Conceptual Club House Complex Location," as shown below in an excerpt from the petitioner's agents July 13, 2012 response letter: Staffs comment: B.4: Why is this use not a subset of B.8? It seems that is the likely place to list this use. RESPONSE. Due to the size and scope of the project, the Applicant is requesting the flexibility to locate satellite clubhouses and recreational centers throughout the community, as well as within the Golf Clubhouse Complex shown on the master plan. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2948- Page 15 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Staff has concerns about "satellite clubhouses" that could be constructed to 75 feet in actual height without knowing where they will be located in relationship to residential uses. Footnote #6 does set forth a minimum setback of 25 feet from any residential boundary. During the last amendment for this petition, the CCPC (March 19, 2009 in petition PUDZ -A- 2007 -AR- 12046) included a stipulation in the recommendation that required the clubhouse location to be shown on the Master Plan. As part of the CCPC hearing process, staff recommends that additional limitations for size and massing or some other information relative to satellite clubhouses, the construction dates for the clubhouse and number of units per multi - family buildings, be provided. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking fifteen deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD rezoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest .... Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires cul -de -sacs and local streets to have a minimum sixty (60) right -of -way width and two (2) ten foot (10') wide travel lanes, to allow a minimum right -of -way width of 40' for private local streets and 50' for private spine roads. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and remains appropriate for the RPUD for a number of reasons. The majority of roads within the proposed development are intended as private, rather than public roads. Therefore, the maintenance responsibility will fall upon the development and the homeowners association. Additionally, the reduced rights -of -way are appropriately designed to accommodate necessary infrastructure requirements, including standard width travel lanes and utility easements. Reduced right-of-way widths are proven to serve traffic calming purposes by reducing vehicle speeds and increasing public safety. Lastly, the reduced rights -of -way will support the clustered development program by allowing_for increased useable open space,for the enjoyment offuture residents and preservation purposes. Please note the spine road refers to the main entry roadway shown on the PUD master plan, which does not provide direct access to proposed residential units. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2949- Page 16 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. However, zoning staff reiterates the comments provided by the fire reviewer: .... there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, as the site development progresses, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy & Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the respective permit. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead -end requirements (including minimum cul -de -sac dimensions), hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. The petitioner has not sought relief (nor can he) from any fire code requirements as part of this zoning action, thus it is understood that compliance as requested above would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, findiniz that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 92 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow cul -de -sacs in excess of 1,000' in length. For any cul -de -sac exceeding 1,600 feet in length, the roadway must include at approximately 1,600 feet intervals design features which provide for the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design features shall be allowed. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and is warranted due to the irregular configuration of the development tracts, which are expressly designed to minimize environmental impacts. The Applicant is requesting an increase to the maximum length of cul -de -sacs requiring design features due to the reduced development footprint and efforts to maximize the preservation of wetlands internal to the development. Cul -de- sacs will be designed with standard travel lanes and turning radii per the LDC requirements. Therefore, public health, safety and welfare will be upheld upon approval of this deviation, in addition to the noted environmental benefit. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. However, zoning staff reiterates the comments provided by the fire reviewer: .... there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, as the site development progresses, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy & Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the respective permit. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2950- Page 17 of 36 11/13/2012 Item W.A. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead -end requirements (including minimum cul -de -sac dimensions), hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. The petitioner has not sought relief (nor can he) from any fire code requirements as part of this zoning action, thus it is understood that compliance as requested above would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.133.51 the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes _to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 93 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.Q. Street System Requirements, which requires that street name markers shall be approved by the County Manager or designee for private streets or in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However, breakaway posts shall be used. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and will not impact public health, safety or welfare. The deviation will permit the developer to create a more customized streetscape, reflective of the community character and architectural standards. The street markers will be sized and located in order to meet the intent of U. S. D. O. T. F. H. W.A standards, and will be reviewed at the time of construction plan approval. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and d welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10 02.133.5.h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 44 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.R. Street Requirements, which requires that street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of public roadway markings shall be provided by the developer as required by the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived for private roadways. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device standards. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2951- Page 18 of 36 11/13/2012 Item W.A. This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and will not impact public health, safety or welfare. The deviation will permit the developer to create a more customized streetscape, reflective of the community character and architectural standards. Moreover, the streets will be privately maintained and will be the responsibility of the developer and homeowners association. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10-02.13. A 3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safetv and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 1 parking space per 200 square feet of office /lobby /pro shop/health club /clubhouse /lounge /snack bar /dining /meeting room associated with golf courses. The requested deviation is to allow for 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office/lobby /pro shop/health club /clubhouse /lounge /snack bar /dining /meeting room associated with the proposed golf course. Parking spaces for golf course holes, exterior recreation uses, and maintenance buildings will be provided per the LDC. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed golf course and amenity facility will be private and exclusively for the use of the development's residents. Due to the pedestrian amenities, such as sidewalks and trails, as well as anticipated golf cart usage, patrons of the clubhouse will utilize alternative modes of transportation as intended by the LDC's requirements. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the private golf course developments throughout the County, and will encourage multi -modal movement throughout the community. This deviation language was recently approved as part of the Talis Park (fka Tuscany Reserve) PUD per Ordinance 2012 -11. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, but notes for the record that this deviation was actually initially approved for the Talis Park PUD in 2004. Ordinance 2012 -11 was a strike thru/underline ordinance that did not specifically address that issue. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10.02.133.5h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is ",justified as meeting public purposes to a decree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2952- Page 19 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.04.A, which limits the developer to 100 acres of residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake excavations within the PUD. The requested deviation is to allow the developer to clear up to 300 acres of residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake excavations within the PUD or project where the excavation is taking place. This is not a deviation from the Collier County Excavation Ordinance. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation allows for construction flexibility of the stormwater management features internal to the development, and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Development of the golf course component will result in significant excess fill due to the number of proposed lakes. Approval of this deviation will allow the developer sufficient area on -site to store the fill, thereby reducing unsightly stockpiles. Furthermore, it is understood that any site clearing will require approval from the SFWMD and Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting -public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum wall height of 8' throughout the development. Where abutting an existing or future public roadway, a 20' tall wall, berm, or combination wall/berm is permitted. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow _for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along Immokalee Road, a 6 -lane divided arterial roadway, as well as the future CR 951 extension, which is also an arterial roadway. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. A similar deviation, to allow an 18 foot high berm, wall or combination along Immokalee Road was approved from the Bent Creek Preserve PUD, whose location is shown on the Zoning Map as Summit Lakes. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. finding, that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2953- Page 20 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public., pMoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of six (6) model homes per development tract, not to exceed 60 model homes within the overall RPUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The RPUD proposes a variety ofproduct types to accommodate various demographics and income levels. Due to the size of the project, the phased nature of the development, and the variety of dwelling types proposed, the Applicant is seeking an additional model home allowance to ensure the community is properly marketed to prospective buyers. The proposed deviation provides the County with the necessary safeguards to ensure an excess of model homes are not constructed. 774erefore, public health, safety and welfare will not be negatively impacted upon approval of this deviation. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the size of the project, staff agrees that some allowance can be made to allow additional model units. Hacienda Lakes PUD, which was approved for over 1,700 residential units on 2,262 acres received deviation approval to allow up to 60 model homes. Bent Creek Preserve with 450 units on 138 acres received deviation approval to allow a maximum of 15 model homes. With the project's proposed 1,120 units, allowing a maximum of 60 seems a bit excessive. To keep the ratio similar to what was approved in Hacienda Lakes and Bent Creek Preserve PUD, staff believes that 40 model units should be the maximum allowance, as shown below: Name of project No. Residential Units No. Model U n its Ratio Hacienda Lakes 1,700± 60 0.035 Bent Creek Preserve 450 15 0.033 Mirasol 1,121 (proposed) 60 (requested) 0.053 Additionally, staff suggests that the developer be required to provide documentation at each development order stating how many models are in operation to ensure the total of 40 is not exceeded. For Bent Creek Preserve PUD, the following developer comrnitment was included: Related to Deviation 91, as a part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so that the maximum of fifteen model homes is not exceeded. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2954- Page 21 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulations that the maximum number of models shall be limited to 40; and, 2) that the developer provide the number of existing model home /units as part of the application material for every building permit finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting- public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Due to the property's substantial setback from Immokalee Road, as well as the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking all increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. What is proposed is the temporary banner standards for commercially zoned properties, which is more similar to the application proposed. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.2, which permits one (1) real estate pole sign per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of two (2) real estate pole signs per street frontage setback a minimum of 5' from the property line along Immokalee Road only. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The subject property is set back approximately 100 feet from Immokalee Road, a six (6) lane arterial roadway. Due to the setback and the high travel speeds along the road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable number of real estate pole signs and reduction to the setback in order to ensure visibility of this new community. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2955- Page 22 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community " and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting; public pumoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on- premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow for on- premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow for the development of appropriate directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the large -scale master planned developments throughout Collier County. The proposed community will be master planned with a unified, cohesive signage theme. The reduced setback will allow for flexibility of signage placement, while ensuring public health, safety and welfare is protected. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the commtmity " and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 square feet (s.f.) per sign. The requested deviation is to allow for two (2) a ound signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.£ per sign Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The subject property will be accessed via two (2) arterial roadways (Immokalee Road and the future CR 951 extension), which demonstrate relatively high travel speeds. Additionally, the property has a significant street setback due to the location of the Cocohatchee Canal along the property 's frontage. Due to the setback and the property's locational along these arterials, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry signage height and area to ensure visibility of the community. This deviation request is similar to previous requests approved for PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2956- Page 23 of 36 11/13/2012 Item W.A. large master planned communities within Collier County. The required setback from rights - of -way for entry signs will meet LDC standards, thereby ensuring public, health, safety and welfare is protected. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare_ of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) ground sign at the property corners fronting on existing and proposed public roadways that provide access to the project, in addition to two (2) ground signs at each project entrance. The proposed ground signs at property corners, commonly referred to as "boundary markers ", will be permitted at a maximum height of 10' and sign area of 32 s.f. per sign. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The Applicant is seeking additional boundary marker signage to increase the community's visibility and better delineate the property from surrounding master planned communities. Due to the size and scope of the project, and the distance between the entrance and property corners, the additional signage will not negatively impact viewsheds from surrounding roadways. The sign area and required setback from rights -of -way will meet LDC standards, thereby ensuring public, health, safety and welfare is protected. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safes and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is " iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, which requires sidewalks on both sides of roadways internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow for an 8' wide sidewalk on one side of the spine road internal to the development, and 5' wide sidewalks on one side of all other private, local roadways internal to the development that service residential units on one (1) side of the roadway, and /or terminate in a cul -de -sac up to a maximum length of 2,500 linear feet. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2957- Page 24 of 36 11/13/2012 Item W.A. For the purposes of this deviation, the spine road is limited to that portion of the main entry road shown on the PUD master plan that does not provide direct access to dwelling units, and does not provide direct access to residential neighborhoods on both sides of the roadway. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The deviation is proposed to allow ,for a more clustered development pattern that maximizes useable open space in consideration of the reduced development footprint, while ensuring appropriate pedestrian connections within and outside the project. In addition to the sidewalks, the community will include nature trails and other forms of pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure to ensure connectivity. The private, local roadways internal to the development will have relatively low vehicular travel speeds; therefore, the deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the reduced internal right -of -way width requested per Deviation #1 will decrease the distance residents must travel to reach internal sidewalks on those roadways where sidewalks are provided on one (1) side. This deviation has previously been approved for numerous projects throughout the County. including Saturnia Lakes (FY-4 Rigas PUD), The Parklands PUDIDN,, and most recently for Marsilea Villas (Ordinance 2011 -03) and Talis Park PUD (FKA Tuscany Reserve) approved per Ordinance 2012 -11. As proposed, the sidewalks will provide adequate circulation throughout the community, and to sidewalk connections along Immokalee Road. Please note the spine road refers the main entry roadway shown on the PUD master plan, which does not provide direct access to proposed residential units. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the limitations noted by the applicant. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recominends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.133.5.E the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public pMoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 10.02.04.0 which limits the developer to one (1) Site Development Plan submittal for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant submits the response to the first staff review comments. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of three (3) Site Development Plan submittals for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant submits the response to the staff review comments. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Miraso( September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2958- Page 25 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The proposed deviation allows the developer the ability to permit and construct multiple facilities simultaneously within the PUD, and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the limitations noted by the applicant, i.e., no more than three concurrent reviews. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public immoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal_armlication of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff s responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non - italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 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. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses as limited by the property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. In addition, as Iimited above, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2959- Page 26 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain platting and /or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Analysis and Deviation Discussion sections of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible both internally and externally if staff's additional stipulations shown below are included in any approval recommendation. 1. Additional limitations for size and massing or some other information relative to satellite clubhouses, the construction dates for the clubhouse and number of units per multi - family buildings, be provided; and 2. Deviation #8 is approved subject to the following limitations: (1) The maximum number of models shall be limited to 40; and (2) The PUD document shall be revised to include the following information: As part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so the maximum of 40 model homes is not exceeded. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 27 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2960- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application ofsuch regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of fifteen deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported with the limitations shown in the Recommendation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5.11, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The comprehensive Planning Staff has provided an in -depth analysis of the GMP FLUE and FLUM provisions; zoning analysis provides an in -depth review of the proposed amendment. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element based upon the review provided by the reviewers responsible for that task. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2961- Page 28 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. An excerpt from the map prepared by the Collier County GIS /CAD Mapping Section is provided that shows the adjacent projects discussed previously. The uses proposed or developing in the Parklands, Heritage Bay, Quail West, Terafina and Olde Cypress PUD zoned projects are similar to Mirasol. Excerpt from current FUU 1viap 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the majority of the site is already zoned PUD. 4. NJhether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing Conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 29 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123112 Packet Page -2962- j� I ;.'t;:.11 "`i•RKL ?'iC`S yl aSCL 4 \4EiT ,ntiq 4 i f FEnITL :E } -.a a• r , :I.:EEI: w ' t n .r,..,..,......_.._.�._ - �• t4 ',M 'A Cs I E TtiTE � i l _ ILA .-_ • .._ , _ w C;CtIL t= LSE r it i t NE;ITa:1E L•SY CL )E l :�, •'L4.TM R •3' NE � I � E fl. '.1CR { � I , Excerpt from current FUU 1viap 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the majority of the site is already zoned PUD. 4. NJhether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing Conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 29 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123112 Packet Page -2962- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek changes. The rezone and amendment to the existing PUD will allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land in a manner other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing Agricultural zoning and the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed petition, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, along with staffs recommended limitation, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. ffjhether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2963- Page 30 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed changes in this petition are not anticipated to be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive PIan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The PUD zoned subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations except for the lands being added which are not zoned PUD. The petitioner is seeking this rezone and amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone and amendment meets the intent of the PUD district regulations, if staffs stipulations are addressed, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. ffl'hether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the sole determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2964- Page 31 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. the GMP and the LDC. The proposed rezone and amendment are consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16 The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant, IM Collier Joint Venture, in conjunction with his agents, Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and Alexis Crespo, AICP, of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. conducted a duly noticed Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIMI) on Tuesday, June 5, 201.2. Also in attendance was a representative from the contract purchaser and a County staff person. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at St. Monica's Episcopal Church at 7070 Immokalee Road. Approximately 10 other persons attended the meeting. The applicant's agent distributed handouts outlining the project overview, proposed uses, and site development regulations. Rich Yovanovich began the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and an overview of the rezoning process. Mr. Yovanovich outlined the public input opportunities throughout the process, and noted that dates had not been set for the Planning Commission or Board of County Commission hearings. Mr. Yovanovich provided an overview of the project location and history, and pointed out the location of the acreage being added to the PUD. He also explained the handouts. Mr. Yovanovich presented the approved PUD Master Plan and proposed PUD master plan, noting the additional preserve area and reduction to the development footprint. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol Page 32 of 36 September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23112 Packet Page -2965- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Following the Agent's presentation, the meeting was opened up to for questions and comments regarding the proposed amendment. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question /Comment 1: What is the timeframe to start construction? Response: The developer would like to break ground in 2013. Question /Comment 2: Does that include the golf course? Will the golf course be developed in the first phase of construction? Response: Yes. Question /Comment 3: What do the improvements to Broken Back Road entail to provide access to the development? Will the existing bridge remain until the construction of the CR 951 extension occurs? Response: The access shown on the master plan the will be used for temporary construction access. The County is also designing improvements to the Broken Back Rd/CR 951 intersection. All improvements to the roadway will require permitting approval through Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. Question /Comment 4: The existing Broken Back Road is not permitted. Where you aware of that? Response: No, this project is our first involvement with this roadway. Question /Comment 5: What is the outparcel in the northern portion of the development? How is that land zoned? Response: That parcel is not owned by the developer, and is zoned for agricultural purposes. The PUD currently provides for access to this parcel and so does the amendment. Question /Comment 6: Is there a road along the northern perimeter of the development? Response: No, there is no road in that area. Question /Comment 7: Are you under the DRI threshold? Response: Yes, the threshold is 2,000 units. The project is 1,121 units. Even if the density was maximized based on the property acreage development would not exceed the DRI threshold. Question /Comment 8: Will Collier Blvd. be extended to Bonita Beach Road? Response: Collier County has a long -range plan to extend Collier Blvd., but this project has nothing to do with the extension of Collier Blvd. This project does not contribute toward the need for the extension, nor is the developer constructing a portion of Collier Blvd. as a result of this project. Question /Comment 9: Are there any insurance companies connected with the developer? Response: I do not know. That is not a zoning -level issue. There are no commercial uses associated with this project. Question /Comment 10: Will the property to the east be commercial? Response: Yes, there are commercial uses permitted to the east. Question /Comment 11: Do you anticipate any reconfiguration of access to Immokalee Road? PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2966- Page 33 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Response: No, the developer will use the existing bridge. There will be no new /additional points of access to Immokalee Road. Question /Comment 12: When will a plan be presented that shows the location of the golf course? Is it like the original plan? Response: We are still working on the site plans and do not have details to provide yet. It will be similar to the original plan, in that there will be single - family and multi- family uses around the golf course. Question /Comment 13: Where will the clubhouse be located? Response: The clubhouse has been relocated internally to the development as shown on the property PUD master plan. Question /Comment 14: When will the (site) plan be available? Response: The consultant team is working on it right now; we typically do not have that level of detail available during the zoning process. Question /Comment 15: Will there be a public park in the development? Response: No, this will be a private community. All amenities will be private and for the use of the community's residents. The developer will pay a park impact fee to fund community and regional parks. There will be a pathway system provided along the property's Immokalee Road frontage. Question /Comment 16: Will the gate be manned 24 hours per day? Response: That level of detail is not available yet, but I would imagine so. Question /Comment 17: Do you have the percentages of single - family and multi - family units? Response: Not at this time. The plans are geared towards more of a single- family community. Question /Comment 18: Who is the builder? This could have a big impact on employment in Collier County if they use local contractors. Response: Yes, this will have a positive impact on local employment. Taylor Morrison will use local contractors. Question /Comment 19: Will the golf course be an equity course or a public course? Response: The developer has not decided yet, but they are considering a bundled golf concept, where the membership fee is associated with the cost of the homes. Question /Comment 20: What will the price range be? Response: It will be market -rate homes. Question /Comment 21: What will the name of the community be? Response: The developer does not know yet, but it will not be Mirasol. Question /Comment 22: Do you have a website where we can watch the development and progress? Response: Not at this time, but eventually there will be a website. Question /Comment 23: Is the corner of CR 951 and Immokalee zoned for commercial? PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/23/12 Packet Page -2967- Page 34 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Response: These properties are known as the Tree Farm PUD and Addie's Corner PUD. Addie's Corner is zoned for commercial uses. The Tree Farm PUD is zoned for mixed -use. The northern portion of the Tree Farm project is residential or Assisted Living Facilities. These projects are also in the preliminary design stages. Question /Comment 24: Is the project part of the primary panther zone? Response: Yes. Question/Comment 25: Are there any old cypress? Response: The site was logged in the 1930's and the trees are approximately 50 -70 years old. Question /Comment 26: What is the property just above you (to north)? Response: Village Walk in the City of Bonita Springs. Question /Comment 27: Will there be a road going from Village Walk down to Collier County? Response: Yes, the CR 951 extension is on the Collier County long -range plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on August 21, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Conunission forward Petition PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Additional limitations for size and massing or some other information relative to satellite clubhouses, the construction dates for the clubhouse and number of units per multi - family buildings, be provided; and 2. Approve Deviation #S subject to the following limitations: (1) the maximum number of models shall be limited to 40; and (2) The PUD document shall be revised to include the following information: As part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so the maximum of 40 model homes is not exceeded. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Mirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8123/12 Packet Page -2968- Page 35 of 36 PREPARED BY: 44 k- � KA SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPA TM ENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: z��?- y /--,-::> /,/- RAYMO D V. BELL S, ZONING MANAGER DEPART ENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING NICIC' CASALANGUII��,ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 11/13/2012 Item 17.A ?// /C; 2- DATE � - ?-1; DATE J - 7- r z DATE DATE Tentatively scheduled for the November 13, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ- A- PL20120000303, Wtirasol September 20, 2012 CCPC Revised: 8/1/12 Packet Page -2969- Page 36 of 36 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package COVER LETTER Packet Page -2970- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. DA 1 March 15, 2012 REVISED September 7, 2012 Ms. Kay Deselem, AICP Zoning & Land Development Review Department Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Mirasol PUDZ -A PUDZ- PL2012 -0303 Dear Ms. Deselem: Enclosed for your review is the Application for PUD to PUD rezone (PUDZ -A) for the Mirasol RPUD ( "Property "), a 1,638.6 + /- acre project located north of Immokalee Road and west of the future CR 951 Extension in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The majority of the Property is currently zoned Residential Planned Unit Development ( "RPUD ") per Ordinance 09 -21, while the 95 +/ -acres proposed for inclusion in the RPUD boundary are currently zoned Rural Agricultural (A). The Property is designated within the Urban Residential Subdistrict and Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Overlay Neutral Lands per the Collier County Future Land Use Map. The additional lands include 85 +/ -acres of Urban Residential Subdistrict lands, and 10 +/- acres of RFMU Neutral lands. PROJECT HISTORY: The Property was originally rezoned in 2001 from Rural Agricultural with ST Overlay to a Planned Unit Development per Ordinance 2001 -20. In 2009, the Property was rezoned to RPUD to allow for 799 dwelling units, 36 golf course holes, 780 + /- acres of on -site preserve, and additional off -site preserve, thus repealing Ordinance 2001 -20. Pursuant to the terms of a Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) executed by the Applicant on May 3, 2007, the project was vested for 799 - dwelling units for the purposes of transportation concurrency. Following RPUD zoning approval, the Applicant continued to work with conservation groups, including the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Collier County Audubon Society, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and Florida Wildlife Federation regarding the Property's listed species and native habitat. Following several years of negotiations and diligent efforts by the Applicant and concerned parties, an agreement has been reached to address the environmental impacts of the project. The agreement involves the addition of lands into the overall project that will be set aside as conservation, and a reduction in the development footprint by 100 + / -acres to 709.8 + /- acres, which allows for the creation of a 200 + / -acre preserve in the western portion of the property. Mirasol PUDZ -A Cover Letter Pagel of 4 Packet Page -2971- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. REQUEST: IM Collier Joint Venture ( "Applicant ") is requesting approval to rezone the Property from RPUD and Rural Agricultural to a unified RPUD, to allow for the addition of 95 +/ -acres into the project boundary, development of a total of 1,121 residential units (representing an increase of 322 units), and associated revisions to the PUD document approved per Ordinance 09 -21. Through the RPUD process the Applicant is seeking a maximum density of 0.68 du /acre. As noted above, the Property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict and RFMU Neutral Lands. 85 acres of the additional lands are designated Urban Residential, and permitted up to 4 units per acre per the Density Rating System, resulting in 340 units. However, only 320 units of the allowable density are being requested, in accordance with the above referenced settlement agreement. The remaining 10 acres are designated within the Neutral Lands, and allowed up to 1 unit per 5 acres per the density blending provisions of the GMP. Therefore, an additional 322 units of density are proposed based upon the increased RPUD acreage. The Applicant is proposing minor changes to the Schedule of Uses, Development Standards, and PUD Commitments approved per Ordinance 09 -21. Additional deviations are requested to allow for increased design flexibility within this unique, master- planned community. Please refer to the revised PUD document enclosed for Staff's review, which has been prepared in strike - through /underline format per direction obtained at the pre- application meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL: As noted above, the previously approved development footprint is proposed for reduction via this application. Therefore, approval of this request will result in a net environmental benefit when compared to the existing approval. As such, the enclosed environmental data prepared by Turrell, Hall and Associates relates only to the lands being added to the RPUD boundary. A total of 895.6 + / -acres within the overall 1,638.6 -acre project are considered native habitat, of which 537.4 + / -acres are proposed for preservation. Therefore, the proposed PUDZ -A will meet the LDC and GMP requirements for the preservation of 60% of the on -site native habitat, as outlined in the enclosed Evaluation Criteria. Please note the LDC has been amended since the RPUD was originally adopted, and now allows created preserves to count for up to ten (10) percent of required preserves for eligible properties. The property is eligible per the criteria outlined in LDC Sec. 3.05.07 H. Le. Accordingly, 5.1 +/- acres of the created on -site, wetland preserve detailed in the enclosed environmental supplement will be allowed to count towards the minimum native vegetation requirement. Therefore, a total of 537.4 acres of on -site native vegetation will be provided by the project. INFRASTRUCTURE: The subject property will be accessed from Immokalee Road as approved per Ordinance 09 -21. Future connection to the CR 951 extension is also proposed. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., all roadways impacted by the project will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum Level of Service through project build -out. Mirasol PUDZ -A Cover Letter Page 2 of 4 Packet Page -2972- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. As set forth by the Mirasol PUD Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA), dated May 3, 2007, the Developer was responsible for a total financial commitment of $3,229,588.00; and upon satisfaction, Mirasol would be vested for transportation concurrency. The Developer satisfied the financial commitment by funding improvements to the Immokalee Road - Collier Boulevard intersection, which were completed by March 31, 2009 at a cost of $3,187,912.68 and the remaining balance of $41,645.32 was paid to the County. A letter confirming satisfaction of the financial obligations and project vesting was issued by Collier County on April 23, 2009. Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Utilities (CCU) through existing infrastructure located along Immokalee Road. A statement of availability from CCU is enclosed as part of this application. CONCLUSION: In summary, the Mirasol PUDZ -A application proposes to add 95 acres into the approved RPUD boundary, increase the unit count from 799 units to 1,121 units; reduce the approved development footprint by 100 + /- acres; increase the preserve area; and secure minor modifications to the PUD document. As outlined in the attached application, the RPUD will remain consistent with the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP). Furthennore, the proposed rezoning will serve as an enhancement to the existing RPUD through the provision of additional on -site preservation and a more compact development pattern. This application also represents the property owner's diligent efforts to compromise with local and national conservation groups regarding the project's impacts to natural resources, while balancing private property rights and the intent of the Collier County GMP. Per the Pre - Application Meeting Notes, the following items are enclosed for your review: 1. A check in the amount of $31,302.25 for the PUD Rezone Application Fees; 2. Sixteen (16) copies of the submittal cover letter detailing the purpose of the rezoning request; 3. One (1) copy of the pre - application meeting minutes; 4. Sixteen (l 6) copies of the completed PUD Rezone Application, including Evaluation Criteria; 5. Sixteen (16) copies of the revised PUD Conceptual Site Plan (24 "x36 "); 6. One (1) copy of the revised PUD Conceptual Site Plan (8.5 "x 1 I"); 7. Sixteen (16) copies of the original PUD document approved per Ordinance 09 -21; 8. Sixteen (16) copies of the revised PUD document in strike - through /underline format; 9. Three (3) copies of the Warranty Deeds; 10. One (1) original and one (1) copy of the Owner Affidavit; 11. One (1) original and one (1) of the Covenant of Unified Control; 12. Two (2) copies of the approved Addressing Checklist dated 02/14/12; 13. Two (2) copies of the Protected Species Survey (2 electronic copies provided); 14. Four (4) copies of the Utility Provisions Statement (no sketches requires); 15. Four (4) copies of the Boundary Survey (signed and sealed); 16. Seven (7) copies of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS); Mirasol PUDZ -A Cover Letter Page 3 of 4 Packet Page -2973- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 17. Three (3) copies of the TIS on CD ROM; 18. Five (5) copies of the Aerial (min. scaled 1" = 400') showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend and Project boundary; 19. Sixteen (16) copies of the Justification for Requested Deviations; 20. Three (3) copies of the School Impact Analysis Application; and 21. Three (3) copies of the entire submittal documents on CDROM; Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (239) 405 -7777, ext. 207, or alexisc(a�waldropenineering com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. 't' Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Principal Planner Enclosures cc: Tony Squitieri, Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. Rich Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Dennis Gilkey, Gilkey Organization Don Milarcik, IM Collier Joint Venture Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Banks, P.E., JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Mirasol PUDZ -A Cover Letter Page 4 of 4 Packet Page -2974- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 21. Three (3) copies of the entire submittal documents on CDROM; Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (239) 405 -7777, ext. 207, or alexisc(a waldropengineerina.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Principal Planner Enclosures cc: Tony Squitieri, Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. Rich Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Dennis Gilkey, Gilkey Organization Don Milarcik, IM Collier Joint Venture Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Banks, P.E., JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Mirasol PUDZ -A Cover Letter Page 4 of 4 Packet Page -2975- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package PRE - APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Packet Page -2976- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION Co er County 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net � PL# 2D(2- Qac Date: � Z3[ 12_ Time: _ (U Firm:_\NAL >RQP ENT. ZALEK I S GZES?Q Project Name: I ' `t 9Asot. KFUD Size of Project Site: 1543± acres Applicant Name: jCf_S C1fQSP(7 Phone: _ 40,s— Owner Name: Pho Owner Address: City State ZIP Existing PUD Name and Number I " l I(�ASp t , , y20. n g —Z ( Assigned Planner__ -7 ci 9 fi 3 ;,a Q'3 11 j j f ( r 1r1eenng Httenaees: tattacn sign -in sheet) +" v ill Meeting Notes Z� OT o.t1.b(;_ rL�4 NQ `O C�,y� /y e,�r !�%rs�r /�w�i�y p ,�c,`IrG;, . �Q G ✓w %j r SEE A-MHC-D s H F-4T Fo R ,AVOMO OAt, Lo MME�JTS JUNE 2011 Packet Page -2977- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION Go t& County 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.coliler_goy.net SCHOOL CONCURRENCY- For information regarding the school concurrency application process, please contact the School District of Collier County - Students, Staff Projections, Allocations and Reporting Department at 239 - 377 -0254. PUD RELIJI T', Q>UDL) PUD to PUD REZONE'(PUDZ-A) PUD AMENDMENT (PUDA) APPLICATION ': SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRE ° ST.AID::QUIREII�IENTS., 1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area) Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed Application (download from website for current form 16 PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 ' /2" x 11" copy 1� Revised Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36 "and One 8 1 /�" x 11" coy Original PUD document ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined f(; ✓' Revised PUD document w /amended Title page w /ord #'s, LDC 10.02.13.A.2 © ✓, Deeds /Legal's g y (if boundary of original PUD is amended) 3 List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 ✓' Owner /Affidavit signed & notarized 2 Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing checklist 2 Environmental Impact State e t (EIS) * or exemption justification 2 S ' Digital /electronic cop o y for Planner & Environmental) 2 Historical Survey or waiver request 4 ✓ Utility Provisions Statement m •�' :h s 4 Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 �•� Survey, signed & sealed 4 Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver (with applicable fees) 7 ✓ Copy of Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) on CDROM 3 Aerial photographs (taken within the previous 12 months min. scaled 1 "= 200'), showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend, and project boundary 5 JUNE 2011 Packet Page -2978- CO e� County 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 262 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette) 3 X, Justification/Rationale for the Deviations (must be on a separate sheet within the application material; DO NOT include it in the PUD documents) Q Copies of Official Interpretations and /or Zoning Verifications a School Impact Analysis Application residential components) 2 ✓" 1 set for School District (residential components) ❑ schedule a meeting before the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee by Affal le Htiusmg `ar Ecoziomic Developrneiit C �rd ou cilPxo�ects;' EDC "Fast Track" must submit approved copy of official application 2 ❑Affordable Housing "Expedited" must submit copy of signed Certificate of Agreement. * *If project includes an Affordable Housing component, you are required to schedule a meeting before the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee by contacting the Collier County Housing and Human Services Department at X39 -252 -2273. )!� Check here if there are any Settlement Agreements associated with this property. Indicate type of agreement and agreement number. Agreement # ❑ Deltona ❑ Lely Barefoot Beach ❑ Port of the Islands Interlocal Route package to: The Conservancy, Attn: Nichole Ryan 1450 Merrihue Dr., Naples, FL 34102 If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239 - 690 -3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan ", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. ❑ If located within '/z mile of City of Naples, send copy of submittal package to Robin Singer, Planning Director City of Naples, 295 Riverside Circle, Naples, FL 34102 JUNE 2011 Packet Page -2979- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND, REGULATION CANT County 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliercjov.net PLANNER, CHECK MARK BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEWS: 1/ SCHOOL DISTRICT (residential V'14 components) Amy Taylor PARKS & REC - VICKY AHMAD SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS I N IMMOKALEE WATERISEWER DISTRICT vA DR/EMI - EMER. MGMT - Dan Summers UTILITIES ENGINEERING: PAULO MARTINS 1 CITY OF NAPLES, Robin Singer, N j Planning Director !� BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT Executive Director CONSERVANCY, Nichole Ryan LZ FIRE REVIEW: RICCO LONGO EMS - ARTIE BAY ENGINEERING: JACK MCKENNA TRANS. PATHWAYS: ALISON � BRADFORD COMP PLANNING: (SEE SIGN -IN SHEET FROM PRE -APP MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL: SEE SIGN -IN SHEET FROM PRE -APP MEETING on Fees Application Fee: ❑ $10,000 (PUD Rezone) + $25 per acre (or fraction of thereof) $8,000 (PUD to PUD) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) --- N)dZ, ❑ $6,000 (PUD Amendment) + $25 per acre (or fraction of an acre) ® Fire Code Review - New PUD Rezone $150, PUD to PUD Rezo $125 UD Amendment $125 ® $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review ® $500.00 Pre - application fee (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre - application meeting will be required. ® $925.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting ® $500.00 Legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting (advertising costs are to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). F-1 $2500.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee i-P /"*) =isnotrequired) $1000.00 Listed or Protected Species survey review fee (when an EI Property Owner Notification fees. Property Owner Notifications $I.501Von- certified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail (to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review) Attach a Separate Check for Transportation Fees, (Refer to Exhibit A): $500.00 Methodology Re ew Fee, if required *Additional Fees to be determined at .- 4Dy� Methodology Meeting. Alm �� / /1�T(}�s r r�Ne � s adl u s r Q Fee Total $ JUNE 2011 Packet Page -2980- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION x Co eT County 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.collieroov.net PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REWREMENTS LDC 10.0 ..6.5 F.I. Applicant must conduct at least one Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM) after initial staff review and comment on the application and before the Public Hearing is scheduled with the Planning Commission. Written notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners who are required to receive legal notification from the County pursuant to Section 10.03.05.8.8. Notification shall also be sent to property owners, condominium and civic associations whose members are impacted by the proposed land use change and who have formally requested the County to be notified. A copy of the list of all parties noticed, and the date, time, and location of the meeting, must be furnished to the Land Development Services Department and the Office of the Board of County Commissioners no less than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date of the NIM. The applicant must make arrangements for the location of the meeting. The location must be reasonably convenient to those property owners who are required to receive notice and the facilities must be of sufficient size to accommodate expected attendance. The applicant must place an advertisement of the meeting in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear stating the purpose, location, time of the meeting and legible site location map of the property for which the zoning change is being requested. The display advertisement must be one - fourth page, in type no smaller than 12 point and must be placed within a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least seven (7) days prior to, but no sooner than five (5) days before, the NIM. The Collier County staff planner assigned to the project must attend the NIM and shall serve as the facilitator of the meeting; however, the applicant is expected to make a presentation of how it intends to develop the subject property. The applicant is required to audio or video tape the proceedings of the meeting and provide a copy to the Land Development Services Department. As a result of mandated meetings with the public, any commitments made by the applicant shall be reduced to writing and made a part of the record of the proceedings provided to the Land Development Services Department. These written commitments will be made a part of the staff report of the County's review and approval bodies and made a part of the consideration for inclusion in the conditions of approval. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at its expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. JUNE 2011 Packet Page -2981- NOTES Pke - , 1 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Iru an Packet Page -2982- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. NOTES Packet Page -2983- ftB /13/20i2/M0N 02.25 PM waldrop Engineering LIAY No. 239 405 7899 11/13/2012 Item 1TA. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (229) 252.2400 FAX (239) 2524724 WWW,COLLIERGOY NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239 - 252.5724 or submit in parson to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be Stan _d 6v ddressina personnel prior to ere applic2tlo meetlno. please allow 3 days for orocasslna. Not all items wif( apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each PeWon type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SO (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ Camival /Circus Permit ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ ECP (Excavation Permit) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ PSP (PreAminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject prop Par-i.--} L 0 ,u 5� ION ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantiai Change to SIP) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ TOR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ OTHER es (copy of lengthy descr /ption may be atlachec!) GA_Z_,,� to nj FOLIO (Property 10) NUMBER(s) of above t;aN to, or assocfafe with, legal description if more than one) Please see attached. STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, If already assfgned) No site address. • LOCATION MAP roust be attached showing exact location of projectlsite in relation to nearest public road right - of-way • SURVEY (copy • needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if appfloabie) Wasol RPUD Amendment PROPOSED STREET NAMES (r'fappffosb/a) N/A SIT_ DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for a xistingprojectslsites only) SDP or AR or PL # PUDZ A -2007 AR -12046 Packet Page -2984- IS 4 FEB/TM2,10N 02:25 PM Waldrop Engineering FAX No. 239 408 7899 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION Co *e.r County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239 ) 262-9724 WWW.COLLIERGO ET Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents pf application; indfcate whether proposed or existing) Mirasol Please Check One: © Checklist is to be Faxed back ❑ Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: Alexis Crespo PHONE (239) 405 -7777 FAX 239 -405 -7899 Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and /or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department, FOR STAFF USE ONLY FLN Number (Primary) C �Ic -h i Folio Number Folio Num bar Folio Number Approved by; r"%-tA (-`l , CQ rY1 Date: Z Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Packet Page -2985- �EB/13/2012/109 02:32 Pfd waldrop Engineering FAX No. 239 405 7 1U99 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 0,0178240006 00179200004 00179600001 00178480007 00178000000 00179120002 e1�9lrM1i� 00178280008 00179400007 00179360008 00178760007 — 00178640004 00179640003 00179080003 00179680005 00179520000 00179560007 00178160005 00178560003 00179280007 00178120003 00179320006 00179440009 00178680006 00177920000 00178520001 00178600002 00179880000 0017SS40008 00179480001 00178920009 00178040002 00178360009 00178800006 NnRASOL RPUD Parcel ID Numbers Packet Page -2986- FEa /13/2012/MON 02:32 PM waldrop Engineering FAX No. 2?9 405 7 899 11/13/2012 Item W.A. 00177960002 00179160004 00178400008 00179680209 00179680306 00179200003 00179160004 00178400008 00178320007 00178080004 00178440000 001 R1.760007 00181800006 00187080008 00187000004 00197840002 00187880004 00187160009 00187720009 00187680000 00187760001 00187440004 00187800000 00187640008 00187200008 00187320001 00190040705 00188520004 00187960005 00187040006 00187480006 00188080007 00186960006; 00188160008; 00198280001; 00188320000; 00188240009 Packet Page -2987- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. PUDZ -PUDA Checklist 144 The project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties. (i.e. CON, ST, PUD, RLSA designation, RFMU district, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05- 2.03.08; 4.08.00) land use corrq)liance Comply with specific requirements per SSA stewardship easement. (LDC 4.08.06) SS.A compliance X8. Comply with specific requirements per SRA development document/master plan. (LDC 4.08.07) 5R: corralDliance 231 Submit a current aerial photograph and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay or vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.m) F1JY_CS aerial 150. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). preserves labeled 151 Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off - site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B -D; 3.05.071; 3.05.07.H.1.d -e). preserve calculation 207. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H. l .e. 3 154. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include a113 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1 -4) preserve selection 208. Provide the justification for proposing a created preserve versus retaining existing native vegetation. (LDC 3.05.07.H.l.e.i) 012 Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross - sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) preserve setback 155 Provide the location, maintenance plan, and type of habitat of any proposed off -site preservation/mitigation. (LDC 3.05.07.F.4) r115? Wetland line shall be approved by SFWMD and delineated on the site an. p l (LDC 3.05.071; 10.02.03.B.I j.) wetland line 128. Wetlands within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated Area Lake Trafford /Camp Keais wetland system shall provide an assessment of the value and function of the onsite wetlands (WRAP score). Direct: _I' a--•-' --- -lent shall be directed away from Packet Page -2988- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. high quality wetlands. (LDC 3.05.07.F.3.a) wetland assessment 127. Wetlands within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated Area Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland system being utilized by listed species, serving as wildlife corridors and existing wetland flow ways shall be preserved onsite, even if by doing so exceeds the required preservation acreage. (LDC 3.05.07.F.3.b -c) wetland impacts 211. Wetland preserves within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated Area Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland system shall have a vegetated (existing or planted) upland buffer located landward from the approved jurisdictional line. Provide planting plan and plant list if supplemental planting is required. (LDC 3.05.07.F.3.f) wetland buffer 126. All direct impacts to wetlands within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated Area Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland system shall be mitigated. Provide a mitigation assessment. (LDC 3.05.07.F.3 -4) wetland mitigation 130. RLSA Baseline standards for Wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and the ACSC. If wetland impacts are proposed, provide a map identifying the wetland assessment scores of each wetland on -site. The preservation requirement shall be met first with wetlands with a score of 0.65 or greater (based on SFWMD methods). Provide agency approved wetland score documentation. (LDC 4.08.05.M.1.) RLSA wetland assessment 212. RLSA Baseline standards for Wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and the ACSC. Wetlands being utilized by listed species or serving as wildlife corridors shall be preserved onsite, even if by doing so exceeds the required preservation acreage. (LDC 4.08.08.H.2.) RLSA wetlands 131. RLSA Baseline standards for Wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and the ACSC. Direct impacts to wetlands, shall be mitigated for. Provide a mitigation assessment. The wetland functional score of the mitigation must equal or exceed that of the impacted wetlands. Demonstrate that there's no net loss of wetland functions. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSAs and HSAs. These mitigation requirements must be satisfied prior to site plan approval. (LDC 4.08.08.1-1.8 -9.) RLSA mitigation 9 Prov153 ide a complete and sufficient EIS (and the review fee) identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off -site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling /groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 10.02.02) EIS required C228) Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) 0'229- Include the wildlife habitat management plan as an appendix to the PUD Document (eagle, RCW). (LDC 3.04.00) wildlife plan 181. Golf Course PUD within RFMU or RLSA: Provide an Enviromnental Master Plan and Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) approved by Audubon International. (LDC 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(a).xi.b; 2.03.08.A.3.a.(1)(k); 4.08.06.A.3.h; 4.08.08.F.1) C2_�3)PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Packet Page -2989- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 232 PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.m) unique features Additional Comments: Stipulations for approval (Conditions) �� -+ C0L� v IUWF 65Y POO (66fi /00 , -7'0 qO Lin f n Packet Page -2990- d Z N_~ W W O LU �a p W a Z V W ce m tR d •i d N C O N a »- EL m 4) = Q > W O Ln . v 0 sz. a N J • � -a -a Q � NJ M O� N N Ln Z a Cl LU Z z V � N O N � Q C. Packet Page -2991- 17.A. O N O (v U 0 a a (6 N i 0 N N .3 0) N N Q Q a) d 11/13/2012 Item a `' s IV - s - J m „�� .. L LU o CL ' �n N cam( LL h CL W � p Z v ` (.Y M �C n 7 � C W o L) �� v :0 V J.J -�U W Z W Packet Page -2991- 17.A. O N O (v U 0 a a (6 N i 0 N N .3 0) N N Q Q a) d 1/13/2012 Item W.A. W r V 0 9 0 a a 0 � W s LU � N � z W ao ^1 Z z CL. �N IJ c W 0 4� 0 � � 2 Q L O Q L b a V LU L t/1 � Q � J13 Z G Packet Page -2992- WE Co N O_ a a) qD U O O r N O N N C N a N N N Co Q Q CO O 11/13/2012 Item W.A. DeselemKay Subject: Pre -app PL- 2012 -0303 (ZONING PETITION) Location: Conference Room "C" Start: Thu 2/23/2012 10:00 AM End: Thu 2/23/2012 11:00 AM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: CDS -C Required Attendees: DeselemKay; Alexis Crespo; AhmadVicky; AshtonHeidi; AuclairClaudine; Beardl-aurie; BradfordAlison; BrethauerPaula; BrownAraqueSummer, BurtchinMark; CallisCraig; CascioGeorge; CilekCaroline; CromerAaron; DarcoChristopher, David Ogilvie; FleishmanPaula; HouldsworthJohn; JarrellPeggy; KurtzGerald; LevyMichael; MartinsPaulo; McClammaJoseph; McKennaJack; PattersonAmy; PaulRenald; PodczerwinskyJohn; ReischlFred; ricco longo; SawyerMichael; SterchiBeth; ValeraCarolina; WeeksDavid; WileyRobert; WilliamsSteven; BellowsRay Planner Kay Deselem Meeting Request Received ■ ........... ■ ■ ............................................................................ Project Type: ZONING PETITION Project Description: Amend the Mirasol RPUD, approved per Ordinance No. 09 -21, in order to increase the RPUD acreage, increase preserve areas, and increase the maximum unit count from 799 units to 1,121 units. Existing Application Name: Mirasol RPUD - Ordinance No. 09 -21 Location: Parcel Number: 00181760007; 00181800006; 00187080008; 00187000004; 00187840002; 00187880004; 00187160009; 00187720009; 00187680000; 00187760001; 00187440004; 00187800000; 00187640008; 00187200008; 00187320001; 00190040705; 00188520004; 00187960005; 00187040006; 00187480006; 00188080007; 00186960006; 00188160008; 00188280001; 00188320000; 00188240009 Access Undetermined. Located north of Immokalee Road; 2 miles east of I -75 and west of the future CR 951 extension Naples FL ........................................................... ■.............................■ Under Flor;da Law, e -mail addresses are public. records. if you Go not .hart your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic, mail to this entity. instead. contart S*tis c ii;c b% --i,`phone or in writing. 1 Packet Page -2993- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. DeselemKay From: GMDPortal Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:37 PM ro: BrethauerPaula Subject: Meeting Request Received Paula Brethauer A Portal request has been received for a Meeting. The Hearing Reference Number is: HH2O120000249 To view the full details navigate to the hearings sheet under this reference number to view the details of the request. Folowing is the information privided by the portal user: Reference Number: Project Type: Planned Unit Development Amendment Project Description: Amend the Mirasol RPUD, approved per Ordinance No. 09 -21, in order to increase the RPUD acreage, increase preserve areas, and increase the maximum unit count from 799 units to 1,121 units. Existing Application Name: Mirasol RPUD - Ordinance No. 09 -21 Meeting Type: Pre - Application Meeting Preferred Date: Thursday, February 16th - anytime from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. ' lnavailable Dates: All other dates are unavailable Location: Parcel Number: 00181760007; 00181800006; 00187080008; 00187000004; 00187840002; 00187880004; 00187160009; 00187720009; 00187680000; 00187760001; 00187440004; 00187800000; 00187640008; 00187200008; 00187320001; 00190040705; 00188520004; 00187960005; 00187040006; 00187480006; 00188080007; 00186960006; 00188160008; 00188280001; 00188320000; 00188240009 Access Undetermined. Located north of Immokalee Road; 2 miles east of I -75 and west of the future CR 951 extension Naples FL Full Name: Alexis Crespo Email: alexisc(@waldroneneineerine.com Company Name: Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Representing: IM Collier joint Venture Contact Number: Cell: 239 - 850 -8525 Contact Number: Work: 239 - 405 -7777 x207 Please follow up with the applicant to schedule the meeing date and time. 1 Packet Page -2994- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package APPLICATION W/ EVALUATION CRITERIA Packet Page -2995- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. CO *6.r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ❑ AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) ❑ PUD REZONE (PUDZ) F0 PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ -A) PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) IM Collier Joint Venture ADDRESS 6080 Cypress Hollow Way CITY Naples TELEPHONE # (239) 498 -7840 CELL # (239) 825 -0455 FAX # E -MAIL ADDRESS: DAMilarcik @aol.com NAME OF AGENT Richard Yovanovich (Coleman Yovanovich Koester) STATE FL ZIP 34109 ADDRESS 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300 CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34103 TELEPHONE # (239) 435 -3535 CELL # FAX # (293) 435 -1218 E -MAIL ADDRESS: ryovanovich @cyklawfirm.com NAME OF AGENT Alexis Crespo, AICP (Waldrop Engineering) ADDRESS 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 TELEPHONE # (239) 405 -7777 CELL # (239) 850 -8525 FAX # (239) 405 -7899 EMAIL ADDRESS: alexisc aldropengineering.com BE AWARE THAT COLLIER. COUNTY KAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COA�PLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. February 4, 2011 Packet Page -2996- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION Ca er County ASSOCIATIONS 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.coIliergov.net/Index.asRx?Raqe=774 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Pebblebrooke Lake Master Association c/o Frank Kitchener MAILING ADDRESS 8610 Pebblebrooke Drive CITY Naples STATE FL Zip 34119 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Ibis Cove Homeowners Association c/o Mr. Orlando MAILING ADDRESS 265 Airport Road South CITY Naples STATE FL Zip 34104 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Property Owner Association MAILING ADDRESS 7841.7890 & 7768 Naples Heritage Drive CITY Naples STATE FL Zip 34112 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Olde Cypress Property Owners Association c/o Joe Pavlik MAILING ADDRESS 3045 Oide Cove way CITY Naples STATE FL NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Heritage Bay Property Owners Association MAILING ADDRESS 10490 Smokehouse Bay Drive, #101 CITY Naples Packet Page -2997- Zip 34119 STATE FL Zip 34120 February 4, 2011 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. C: o er County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net 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). C. Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address I % of Ownership Februari7 4, 2011 Packet Page -2998- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. .s. Coo T County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.collieroov.net g. Date subject property acquired ® 2001 -2002 leased ❑ Term of lease N/A yrs. /mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: N/A Date option terminates: N/A , or Anticipated closing date N/A 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. I PROPERTY LOCATION Detailed Ieeal 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 I" 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 /Township /Range 10, 15, 22 / 48 / 26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. #: See Attached Metes & Bounds Description: See Exhibit T" Attached Size of property,. ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 1,638 .Address jgeneraI location of subiect property: North of Immokalee Road and west of the CR 951 Extension PUD District (LDC 2.03.E36 ): 0 Residential F-1 Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial February 4, 2011 Packet Page -3000- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. ge Co Ter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE 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). Section /Township /Range 11 / 48S /_36E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Metes & Bounds Description: Property I.D. #: 00179800005 The North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of Section 11, Township 48S, Range 26E, Collier County, Florida REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant zoning district(s) to the RPUD Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential Original PUD Name: Mirasol Ordinance No.: 09 -21 February 4, 2011 Packet Page -3001- Zoning Land Use N MPD (Lee County) SF Residential (Village Walk Bonita) S PUD MF Residential (Key Royal); SF Residential (Pebblebrooke Lakes) E A; A -ST; MPUD; PUD Vacant; SF Residential (Heritage Bay) W A; C3; PUD SF Resdential; Vacant (Terrafina; Parklands; Olde Cypress) 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). Section /Township /Range 11 / 48S /_36E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Metes & Bounds Description: Property I.D. #: 00179800005 The North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of Section 11, Township 48S, Range 26E, Collier County, Florida REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant zoning district(s) to the RPUD Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential Original PUD Name: Mirasol Ordinance No.: 09 -21 February 4, 2011 Packet Page -3001- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. co *r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION( NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 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 10.02.13.11) 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. See attached narrative 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. See attached narrative 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub- district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses /density, and fully explaining /addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub - district, policy or other provision.) See attached narrative 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. See attached narrative 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. See attached narrative 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. See attached narrative 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. See attached narrative 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. See attached narrative February 4, 2011 Packet Page -3002- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Co ier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net 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. Previous land use petitions on the subject property To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes Q No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please provide copies. NOTICE: This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to suRDly necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning for ca period of sir.. (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re- opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency ". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LDC Section 10.03.05.Q.) February 4. 2011 Packet Page -3003- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EVALUATION CRITERIA PUD REZONE CONSIDERATIONS (LDC SECTION 10.02.13.11) MIRASOL RPUD 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 1,638.6 + / -acre site ( "Property ") is located northwest of the Immokalee Road and Collier BoulevardJCR 951 intersection with frontage on both Immokalee Road and Broken Back Road. The Property extends from Immokalee Road north approximately 3 miles to the Collier County line. This area has undergone extensive urban development and has experienced major additions in terms of community and essential servcies in recent years. A full range of utility infrastructure exists in the area, and is availble to service the RPUD per the attached Letter of Availability from Collier County Utilities. Necessary educational facilities exist in the immediate area, and include: Laurel Oak Elementary, Oakridge Middle School, and Gulf Coast High School. North Naples Fire and Golden Gate Fire have a station within 1.5 miles fo the site and there is also parcel dedicated for public uses within the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact located 0.5 miles east of the Property. Mirasol RPUD is located adjacent to Activity Center #3, which contains approximately 771,000 square feet of commercial uses including a government center parcel. Roadway improvements are planned for both adjacent arterial roads, with participation by the Developers of Mirasol, as evidenced by the Developers Contribution Agreement dated May 7, 2007. The Mirasol project is compatible with the surrounding area throught the internal arrangement of tracts, the placement of required landscape buffers, lakes, and significant open space and preserve areas. This PUDZ -A proposes residential and golf course uses, at a proposed density of 0.68 du/acre, along with 537.4 + /- acres of on -site native preserves. The RPUD is currently approved for 799 dwelling units at 0.52 du/acre. Therefore, only a slight increase to the currently approved density is proposed in observance of the land area proposed for addition to the RPUD boundary. To the south of the Property, south of Immokalee Road, lie the residential communities of Laurel Lakes and Ibis Cove, which are developed at densities of 5.96 du /acre and 5.5 du /acre, respectively. The Pebblebrooke Lakes Community is also located south of Immokalee Road and is developed with 3.1 du /acre, along with activity center commercial uses. To the west of the Property lies Olde Cypress, a residential golf course community developed at 2.1 du /acre, as well as Terafina at 1.3 du /acre, and Parklands at 2.5 du /acre. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page l of 16 Packet Page -3004- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. To the east lies Tree Farm MPUD, which is approved at 7.22 du /acre with activity center commercial uses. Further east of Tree Farm lies the Heritage Bay DRI, a residential golf course community as 1.3 du/acre with activity center commercial. Some scattered residential homes are adjacent to the east and west of the Property along Nursery Lane, Rose Blvd., and Broken Back Road. No changes have occurred in this area since the 2009 RPUD approval that would raise compatibility issues. Therefore, based upon the nature of surrounding uses, the established development pattern along Immokalee Road, and the existing levels of public infrastrcture to service the proposed RPUD, the Property is suitable for the development of a residential community as proposed through this application. 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 subject property is under unified control by IM Collier Joint Venture, LLC as demonstrated by the Statement of Unified Control included in the PUDZ -A application. A Community Development District was formed in 2002 to provide for the continuing operation and maintenance of the proposed project infrastructure, buffers, common area, and structures at no expense to the public. A Master Association will be formed to maintain any areas for the project that are not maintained by the CDD. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy or other provision allows the requested uses /density, and fully explaining /addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy or other provision.) Policy 5.2: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The Mirasol RPUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as follows: Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04 -41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The Mirasol RPUD's compatibility with surrounding land uses was reviewed and approved as part of the original PUD, approved per Ordinance 01 -20, and the subsequent RPUD approval per Ordinance 09 -21. As described above, the surrounding land use pattern is largely comprised of residential and mixed -use developments at urban levels of density and intensity. The proposed changes to the RPUD via this application will not impact the project's compatibility with these established land uses. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 2 of 16 Packet Page -3005- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Policy 5.5: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. The Mirasol RPUD is located within the Urban and Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Neutral Lands boundaries. These areas are designated for expansion of the County owned and operated public facilities. Policy 5.6: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. The Mirasol RPUD is a residential project incorporating Planned Unit Development techniques, such as clustered development patterns, which result in significant habitat protection. This substantial preservation commitment will ensure the conservation of open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Per the attached PUD Master Plan (Exhibit "C"), the Mirasol RPUD will connect to Immokalee Road, and the future extension of Collier Boulevard /CR 951. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The Mirasol RPUD has internal access roads to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby arterial roads. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The Mirasol RPUD proposes gated interconnection to adjoining properties, where appropriate. Per the attached PUD Master Plan, optional interconnections are proposed to the Tree Farm MPUD and the activity center to the southeast of the Property for the use of future residents of the community. Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and t} pes. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 3 of 16 Packet Page -3006- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The Mirasol RPUD proposes a variety of dwelling types, ranging from single family detached to multi - family, which will vary in price in accordance with this policy. Moreover, the proposed recreational components, open space, and requisite sidewalks will ensure the community is walkable. As conditioned per Ordinance 09 -21, a multi- use pathway will be provided along the project's Immokalee Road frontage to further ensure walkability. Policy 7.6: The County shall explore the creation of an urban "greenway " network along existing major canal banks and powerline easements. As proposed, the Mirasol RPUD will substantially enhance the Cocohatchee Canal greenway network via the provision of a 10' multi -use pathway along the Property's Immokalee Road frontage. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT I.A. 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. The Mirasol RPUD has 425.76 + /- acres located within the Urban Mixed Use District. Although not all of the project's density will be located within this district, the density for the urban area is under 3 dwelling units per acre, which is well below the provisions of the above - referenced policy. LB. ].a. Density Rating System Application: Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project. For purposes of calculating the eligible number of dwelling units for a project (gross acreage multiplied by eligible number of dwelling units per acre), the total number of dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the dwelling unit total yields a fr ^action of a unit. 5 or greater. Acreage to be used for calculating density is exclusive of the commercial and industrial portions of a project, except where authorized in a Subdistrict, such as the Orange Blossom Mixed - Use Subdistrict; and, mixed residential and commercial uses as provided for in the C -1 through C -3 zoning districts in the Collier County Land Development Code; and, portions of a project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier- County Land Development Code. The approved density of the Mirasol RPUD is consistent, and well below the permissible density set forth in the GMP. The Property contains 425.76 + / -acres within Section 22, Township 485, Range 26E, which is designated within Urban Residential Subdistrict. Therefore, the portion of the Property within Section 22 yields 1,703 units based upon the base density of 4 du /acre. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 4 of 16 Packet Page -3007- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Approximately 1,212.79 + / -acres of the Property lies within Sections 15 and 10, and are designated as RFMU Neutral Lands on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Density for this portion of the site is a maximum of 1 unit per 5 acres, and yields 242.6 units. Consequently, the total base density is 1,945.6 units, with a gross density of 1.2 units per acre. The Mirasol RPUD is currently approved for 799 units with a gross density of 0.52 du /acre. This PUDZ -A request entails an increase to 1,121 units, for a gross density of 0.68 du /per acre. Therefore, the proposed density is well below the allowable base density permitted per the underlying Urban and RFMU Future Land Use Designations. 5. Density Blending: This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met: 1. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Sub - District or Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and either the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands: (a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Sub- District or Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and either the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands; (b) The project in aggregate is a minimum of 80 acres in size; (c) At least 25% of the project is located within the Urban Mixed Use District. The entire project is located within the Collier County Sewer and Water District Boundaries and will utilize central water and sewer to serve the project unless interim provisions for sewer and water are authorized by Collier County; (d) The project is currently zoned or will be rezoned to a PUD; (e) Density to be shifted to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District from the Urban Residential Sub - District is to be located on impacted lands, or it is demonstrated that the development on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and /or habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas; (f) The entire project shall meet the applicable preservation standards of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. These preservation requirements shall be calculated upon and apply to the total project area. (g) Section 15 (Township 48 South, Range 26 East), which straddles the boundary of the Urban Residential Sub - district and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, is designated Neutral, and is in the approved Mirasol PUD, may utilize this density blending provision, subject to the above criteria. The Mirasol RPUD straddles the RFMU Neutral Lands and the Urban Residential Future Land Use Designations. Via previous approvals, the Mirasol RPUD was specifically authorized to utilize the density blending provisions incorporated into the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. Per the attached warranty deeds the Property, including the 95 acres proposed for inclusion via this PUDZ -A application, was in existence and acquired by IM Collier .Joint Venture prior to June 19, 2002. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 5 of 16 Packet Page -3008- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Per the above criteria, the project qualifies for density blending as follows: a) The project straddles the Urban Residential Subdistrict and RFMU Neutral Lands; b) The project is 1,638.6 + /- acres in size, well in excess of the minimum acreage requirement; c) Approximately 425.76 + /- acres of the project is located in the Urban Mixed Use District, which equates to 26% of the total project area; d) The project is currently zoned RPUD; e) The density located in the RFMU is located on impacted lands that do not contain high quality native vegetation, and the project maximizes connectivity to high quality off -site preserves. f) The entire project has been treated as RFMU Neutral Lands for the purposes of calculating the preservation and native vegetation requirements. Please see the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) evaluation below. g) Per the GMP language excerpt shown above, the Mirasol project has already been approved for the density blending provision per the previous RPUD approval. The proposed addition of 85 acres of urban lands and 10 acres of RFMU Neutral Lands does not impact the density blending's applicability. ILB.LB. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District: The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,600 acres, or 7% of Collier's total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or the semi -rural area, rapidly developing, large -lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. Agricultural land uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District do not represent a significant portion of the Countv's agricultural lands. As of the date of adoption of this Plan Amendment, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District consists of more than 5,550 tax parcels, and includes at least 3,835 separate and distinct property owners. Alternative land use strategies have been developed,for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, to consider these existing conditions. The Mirasol RPUD contains 1,212.79 + /- acres of the 93,600 acres allocated as RFMU within its boundary, which represents approximately 1% of the total designated land area. This project represents the most western locations designated as such within the County. Much of this designated property has historically been utilized for agricultural uses. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural /Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for lame areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Be District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park -like appearance from the major public rights -of -way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and /or encouraged within the District. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 6 of 16 Packet Page -3009- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The Mirasol RPUD employs a balanced development approach with a significant preservation commitment. After more than fifteen years of planning, which included consultation with local conservation groups and permitting through the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the project provides an equitable balance between natural resource protection and the protection of private property rights. The primary goal of the RFMU designation is providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate development. H.B. I.B. Neutral Lands: Available data indicates that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands. Additionally, certain other uses permitted within Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands. Within Neutral Land, the following standards shall apply: 1. Maximum Density: I dwelling unit per S gross acres (0.2 units per acre) There are approximately 1,212.79 + / -acres designated as Neutral Lands within the Mirasol RPUD. Per the above density calculation, there are 242.5 units of density available for use in the project. Therefore, the proposed density complies with the allowable density for RFMU Neutral Lands. 2. Clustering: Clustering of residential development is allowed and encouraged. Where clustered development is employed, it shall be in accordance with the following provisions: a) If within the boundaries of the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, and consistent with the Provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub - elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Neutral Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. As shown on the attached PUD Master Plan, the Mirasol RPUD utilizes the clustering provision by locating the proposed development footprint within lands adjacent to urban areas. These areas will be serviced by Collier County Utilities. Moreover, the PUDZ -A application serves to reduce the overall development footprint by 100 + / -acres in compliance with this provision. b) The maximum lot size is one acre. The RPUD utilizes the clustering technique; therefore lot sizes are well below the one -acre maximum. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or presenvation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 7 of 16 Packet Page -3010- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Per discussion at the pre - application meeting, environmental data has been provided for the additional land proposed for inclusion in the existing Mirasol RPUD. Over the tenure of the project, the Applicant has worked with the requisite governmental agencies and conservation groups to ensure the proposed preserve areas meet the full intent of the above referenced provision. Significant preserve areas are proposed for permanent conservation, which will ensure protection of native vegetation and connectivity to high quality off -site preserve areas. Additionally, a portion of the lands being added to the RPUD in Section 22 will be enhanced to serve as re- created wetlands for wood storks. There is also a proposed wetland corridor westerly of the updated development footprint, which will provide another means of environmental connectivity. Please refer to the enclosed environmental data prepared by Turrell, Hall and Associates for a full description of the listed species habitat and native vegetation on the additional lands proposed for inclusion in the RPUD boundary. d) The minimum project size shall be at least 40 acres. As noted above, the total proposed RPUD boundary is 1,638.6 + /- acres, which is well in excess of the minimum project size. 3. Allowable Uses: b) Single-family residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlav exists. c) Multi family residential structures shall be permitted under the Residential Clustering provisions of this plan, subject to the development of appropriate development standards to ensure that the transitional semi -rural character of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is preserved. Single- family and multi - family uses are approved as part of the Schedule of Uses associated with Ordinance 09 -21. No changes are proposed to the currently approved uses; therefore, compliance with this provision will be maintained upon approval of this PUDZ -A petition. Moreover, clustering has been the primary focus of the project since 2001, when the Board of County Commissioners requested that the proposed second golf course within Section 10 be relocated within the Urban Residential portion of the project, thereby reducing the development footprint. The proposed PUDZ -A furthers the County's intent for clustered development patterns through the provision of a smaller developable area than what is currently approved, as well as an increased commitment to the provision of on -site preserve areas. j) Golf courses or driving ranges, subject to the following standards: (1) Golf courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices o f Audubon International "s Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2) 111 order to prevent the contamination of soil, surface water and ground water by the materials stored and handled by golf course maintenance operations, golf courses shall comply with the Best Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of fnvironrnental Protection, Mav 1995. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 8 of 16 Packet Page -3011- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. (3) To protect ground and surface water quality from fertilizer and pesticide usage, golf courses shall demonstrate the following management practices: (a) The use of slow release nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue analysis to adjust timing and amount of fertilization applications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in IFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Golf Course Maintenance and Water Quality Protection, Mav 1991 (revised 1995) to select pesticides that will have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (4) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall incorporate the following in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shall be designed to use weather station information and moisture- sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soil moisture and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As available, golf courses shall utilize treated effluent reuse water consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element Objective 1.4 and its policies; (c) Native plants shall be used exclusively except for special purpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and building sites. Within these excepted areas, landscaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 50% of the shrubs be freeze- tolerant native Floridian species. At least 75% of the required native trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant species. (5) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shorelines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the littoral zone. A Littoral shelf shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian species. The combined length of vertical and rip- rapped walls shall be limited to 25% of the shoreline. Credits to the site preservation area requirements, on an acre- to- acre basis, shall be given for littoral shelves that exceed these littoral shelf area requirements (6) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District criteria. Site preservation areas are intended to provide habitat functions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standards shall be established within one year. The Mirasol RPUD recognizes the golf course design standards required per this provision. The required golf course design information will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan approval, and will demonstrate compliance with the GMP and LDC. q) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. This PUDZ -A application proposes to increase the currently approved native preserve acreage to 537.4 + /- acres, all of which will be encompassed within the RPUD boundary. Therefore, the project will no longer require off -site preserve to meet the native habitat requirements in the CCME. Additionally, on -site recreational and amenity facilities will be provided for future residents. Therefore, as proposed the Mirasol RPUD will far exceed the County's standards for the provision of parks, open space and recreational uses for new developments. 4. Native vegetation and preservation requirements: Native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy, 6.1.2 Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 9of16 Packet Page -3012- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The Mirasol RPUD will retain native vegetation as per CCME Policy 6.1.2, as explained in further detail below. ILB.2. Buffers Adjacent to Major Public Rights- of -wav: In order to maintain and enhance the rural character within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, within one year of adoption of this amendment, Collier County will adopt land development regulations establishing buffering standards for developments adjacent to existing or proposed arterial and collector public roadways. These standards shall include, but are not limited to: applicability provisions, including establishing a minimum project size below which these requirements shall not apply; the degree to which water features, including water management lakes and canals, may be a part of this buffer; credits for existing native vegetation that is to be retained; and, credits toward any open space and native vegetation preservation requirements. The future extension of CR 951 /Collier Blvd. abuts over one (1) mile of the project's preserve areas; thereby providing an adequate roadway buffer in compliance with the above provision. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOAL 1: THE COUNTY SHALL CONTINUE TO PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION, CONSER VATION, MANAGEMENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF ITS NATURAL RESO URCES. The Mirasol RPUD will continue to comply with this and other goals and provisions within the CCME via compliance with the SFWMD and ACOE criteria for water quality and for the attenuation of 25 -year and 100 -year storm events. Both SFWMD and ACOE permits have been issued for the development program approved per Ordinance 09 -21. Modifications to these permits will be obtained to support the newly proposed PUD master plan. Additionally, the project intends to implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the site to address both source control and treatment of stormwater. Such BMPs may include, but are not limited to: straw bale barriers, silt fences, and stormwater inlet drain protection. The specific design criteria will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan review. GOAL 2: THE COUNTY SHALL PROTECT ITS SURFACE AND ESTUARINE WATER RESOURCES. In accordance with the SFWMD's Basis of Review, Section 5.2.1(a), the project has been designed to meet the 150% water quality requirements by containing the necessary volumes within on -site detention areas prior to discharge. Dry detention basins and wet detention lakes are specified for achieving water quality and for the attenuation of the 25 -year and 100 -year storm events. The project's water management basins have been designed to discharge at or below the permitted allowable discharge rate. Additionally, all manufacturers and EPA guidelines for chemical use in aquatic habitat and landscape areas will be followed to protect against long term or chronic degradation of the downstream watershed. GOAL 3: THE COUNTY SHALL PROTECT THE COUNTY'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES TO ENSURE THE HIGHEST WATER OUALITYPRACTICAL. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 10 of 16 Packet Page -3013- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The property is not within a wellhead protection area, and all groundwater use will be subject to a water use permit from SFWMD. In addition, the project has agreed to implement a water quality monitoring report as part of its SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). GOAL 4: THE COUNTY SHALL CONSERVE, PROTECT, AND APPROPRIATELY MANAGE THE COUNTY'S FRESH WATER RESOURCES. The Mirasol RPUD will promote on -site source control and water conservation features such as native plantings, irrigation controls, moisture sensors, and other landscaping BMPs aimed at minimizing water use on the site. In addition, re -use water will be used wherever available and feasible to do so, in efforts to minimize the use of potable water for irrigation purposes. Lastly, the project will have a SFWMD consumptive use permit, and data collected regarding the water use on -site will be part of the monitoring program requirements. GOAL 5: THE COUNTY SHALL PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE ITS MINERAL AND SOIL RESOURCES. All applicable BMPs will be utilized during on -site construction activities to protect adjacent lands and waters from soil erosion. Silt barriers, hay bales, soil stabilization, plantings, and wind rows are all soil erosion methods that may be used during site development. GOAL 6: THE COUNTY SHALL IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE ITS NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. As described under the applicable policies below, the project's compliance with this goal will not be impacted via this PUDZ -A petition. Policy 6.1.1: For the Countl;'s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural- Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all non- agricultural development except for single family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element. Per this policy, residential development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area that is greater than 20 acres in size will require 25% native vegetation preservation, while golf course development requires 35 %. As described above, the significant preserve areas proposed as part of this application far exceed the requirements of this provision. Policy 6.1.2: For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on site thr o gh the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 1 l of 16 Packet Page -3014- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved. Sections 10 and 15 are within the RFMU Neutral Lands designation. Due to the density blending standards applied per the FLUE, the entire site will be considered under the above referenced RFMU criteria for the purposes of calculating required native vegetation. The newly proposed RPUD boundary is comprised of 1,638.6 + /- acres, of which approximately 895.6 + / -acres are considered existing native habitat. As shown on the PUD master plan, the project provides 537.4 + / -acres of on -site native habitat preservation, which meets the above requirement (60% of 895.6 acres, or 537.4 acres). Furthermore, this acreage does not exceed 45% of the entire site (45% of 1,638.6 acres, or 737.3 acres). e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetlands protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 62. The proposed preserve areas include 36.8 + / -acres of higher quality wetlands within the proposed development footprint. As further described under Objective 6.2 of this analysis, mitigation and enhancement of on -site wetlands will offset the proposed impacts, thereby ensuring compliance with the GMP and LDC. (1) For the pzrrpose of this policy, "native vegetation " is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated on the amount of "native vegetation " that conforms to this definition. Pursuant to this provision, the native vegetation calculation outlined above takes into account the canopy coverage definition. (2) The preservation of native vegetation shall include canopy, under -story and ground cover, emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, which rnav include connection to offsite preserves. The purpose for identifying the largest contiguous area is to provide for a core area that has the greatest potential for wildlife habitat by reducing the interface between the preserve area and development which decreases the conflicts from other land uses. Criteria for determining the dimensional standards of the preserve are to be set out in the Land Development Code. The proposed preserves have been designed to form the largest contiguous areas possible. In addition to contiguous preserves, higher quality/higher functioning wetland areas will be preserved within the development footprint. Site development will be clustered into the southern portions of the Property with access from an arterial roadway. This configuration allows for a larger, more contiguous preserve area in the northern and western portions of the site, which is more insulated from the proposed development area. The internal preserves contain the highest quality wetlands on the site and will provide foraging areas for listed wading bird species and fox squirrel following development of the residential community. Due to the fact that these internal wetland preserve areas provide unique habitat, they have been included in the native preservation calculations for the project. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 12 of 16 Packet Page -3015- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. A portion of the additional land being added to the west of the existing RPUD boundary will provide re- created wetland habitat for the wood stork. (3) Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of this policy shall be set aside as preserve areas. On -site and off -site preserve areas shall be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit further development, consistent with the requirements of this policy. The type of conservation mechanism, including conservation easements, required for a specific development may vary based on preserve area size, type of development approval, and other factors, as set forth in the County's LDC. The project will place conservation easements over the proposed preserve areas. (4) Selection of native vegetation to be retained as preserve areas shall reflect the following criteria in descending order of priority: a. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and protected in order to facilitate the continued use of the site by listed species or the movement of wildlife through the site. This criterion shall be consistent with the requirements of Policy 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of this element. b. Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks. c. Onsite wetlands preserved pursuant to Policy 6.2.5 of this Element; d. Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area, as identified in (4)c. above. e. Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods, and f. All other native habitats. The preserve areas approved per Ordinance 09 -21 have been reviewed and approved by both the SFWMD and ACOE. Higher quality wetland areas will be preserved, and large areas of wetlands will be restored and enhanced as per the proposed preserve management plan. A portion of the additional land being added to the west of the existing RPUD boundary will provide re- created wetland habitat for the wood stork. (5) The uses allowable within preserve areas are limited to: a. Passive recreational uses that do not impact the minimum required vegetation or cause a loss of function to the preserve area. Criteria identifying what constitutes a loss of function shall be set forth in the land development regulations and will address various types of construction that are compatible with the function of the preserve. The land development regulations will also provide criteria to define appropriate passive recreational uses. The criteria will be established to allow for passive recreational uses such as trails or boardwalks that provide for access within the preserves, providing the uses do not reduce the ininimum required vegetation or cause harm to listed species. It is understood that trails or boardwalks within the internal development preserves will require review and approval by the appropriate agencies to ensure minimal impact to native vegetation, and uphold the function of preserve areas. (6) A management plan shall be submitted for all preserve areas identified by specific criteria in the land development regulations to identf� actions that must be taken to ensure that the preserved areas will function as proposed. The plan shall include methods to address control and treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, stormwater management (f applicable), and maintenance of permitted facilities. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 13 of 16 Packet Page -3016- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. A Preserve Management Plan has been coordinated with all relevant state and federal review agencies, in compliance with this provision. (7) Off-site preservation shall be allowed to provide f exibility in the project design. a. Within Receiving and Neutral Lands, off -site preservation shall be allowed for up to 50% of the vegetation retention requirement. 1. Off -site preservation areas shall be allowed at a ratio of 1:1 if such off -site preservation is located within designated Sending Lands or at a ratio of 1.5:1 anywhere else. 2. Like for like preservation shall be required for Tropical Hardwood and Oak Hanunock vegetative communities. As noted above, all required preserve areas are located internal to the RPUD boundary. (9) On -site preservation areas shall also conform to the Open Space requirements as specified in the Future Land Use Element. These preservations shall be part of and counted towards the Open Space requirements. The requirement for useable on -site open space is met by the proposed PUD master plan. (10) Existing native vegetation that is located contiguous to the natural reservation shall be preser ved pursuant to Policy 6.5.2 of this element. Natural reservation is defined as that specif ed in CCME Objective 6.5 of this element; The northern portion of the RPUD is located next to the CREW NRPA. All of the property adjacent to this reservation is being preserved. (11) Should the amount of wetland vegetation exceed the minimum vegetation requirements as specified herein, retention of wetland vegetation having significant habitat or hydrologic value is encouraged. Increased preservation shall be fostered through incentives including, but not limited to: clustered development, reduced development standards such as open space, setbacks, and landscape buffers, to allow for increased areas of preserved wetland vegetation. Significant habitat or hydrologic value is determined by wetland function, not the size of the wetland. The amount of wetland vegetation on the property does not exceed the minimum vegetation requirements. In order to maximize the wetland functions within the site, contiguous preserves have been provided wherever possible. Lower impact uses such as golf course and lakes have been proposed adjacent to preserve to buffer them from residential uses. Policv 6.1.7.• The Cor.rnty shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water conservation. Native vegetation and restoration will be encouraged throughout the project site. In addition, detention lakes will demonstrate the required littoral plantings at the time of construction plan approval. Policy 61.8: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or submittal of appropriate environmental data as specified in the Countv's land development regulations, is required, to provide a method to objectively evaluate the impact of a proposed development, site alteration, or project upon the resources and environmental quality of the project area and the community and to insure that Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 14 of 16 Packet Page -3017- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. planning and zoning decisions are made with a complete understanding of the impact of such decisions upon the environment, to encourage projects and developments that will protect, conserve and enhance, but not degrade, the environmental quality and resources of the particular project or development site, the general area and the greater community. The County's land development regulations shall establish the criteria for determining the 0,pe of proposed development requiring an EIS, including the size and nature of the proposed development, the location of the proposed development in relation to existing environmental characteristics, the degree of site alterations, and other pertinent information. Per the pre- application meeting with Staff, the EIS provided in this PUDZ -A submittal will only reflect new data for lands being added to the RPUD boundary. The data provided for the 2009 RPUD approval is sufficient and will not require additional examination as part of this petition. Policy 6.2.2: Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statutes. The location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries are further described by the delineation methodology in Section 373.421 Florida Statutes. Wetland boundaries for the currently approved 1,543 acre RPUD have been delineated and verified by the SFWMD. The jurisdictional lines are indicated on the applicable exhibits in the EIS. It is understood that any wetlands on the acreage being added to the RPUD will be verified by the SFWMD prior to issuance of site development permits. OBJECTIVE 64: The Count), will protect, conserve and appropriately use ecological communities shared with or tangential to State and Federal lands and other local governments. The Mirasol RPUD is proposing to preserve lands that will connect to existing preserve areas to the east and west. CREW Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) and the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary are also located to the east and north of the project. The RPUD does not propose development or other intensive uses within 1,800 feet of the NRPA boundary. On -site native vegetation adjacent to the NRPA has been preserved as part of the approved PUD master plan, and is not proposed for modification as part of this petition. Therefore, the proposed preserve areas within the RPUD will maintain a corridor in perpetuity between the CREW NRPA and other existing preserves to the east and west. Policy 7.1.2: Within areas of Collier Count), excluding the lands contained in the RLSA Overlay, non- agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards... The existing RPUD approved per Ordinance 09 -21 was reviewed in detail for items relating to listed species and their habitats. The only modifications proposed as part of this PUDZ -A petition related to listed species are the increase of on -site preserve areas, and re- creation of certain on -site wetlands to accommodate wood stork foraging, and reduction in the development footprint. As discussed at the pre- application meeting, the enclosed EIS provides listed species infornation for the newly added acreage, as the previously submitted data remains relevant and sufficient for the purposes of staff review. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 15 of 16 Packet Page -3018- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 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 internal proposed uses mirror those uses approved in neighboring communities, such as Olde Cypress and Heritage Bay. Morevoer, the proposed density is below the surrounding approved densities, thereby ensuring external compatibility. This project will provide external buffers to meet or exceed the LDC's buffering requirements. The provision of a common neighorhood design criteria as outined in the PUD Documents will further add to the continuity and internal compatibility of the project. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Mirasol RPUD will provide significant on -site preserve areas as described in detail above. Additionally, landscape buffers, lakes and recreational areas are proposed, which meet the LDC's definition of useable open space. Per the proposed PUD master plan, the project will provide useable open space well in excess of the GMP and LDC requirements. 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 development will assure the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, in accordance with this criterion. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Mirasol RPUD is located in an area of the County specifically intended for expansion, as evidenced by the adjacent activity center and surrounding land use pattern. The appropriate facilities exist or will exist to accommodate the project. The size of the project's assemblage further indicates the appropriateness of the proposed expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. When approved in 2009, this project conformed to all applicable PUD regulations. The proposed modifications to the existing RPUD include the addition of on -site preserve areas, increasing the unit count in accordance with the additional project acreage, and minor revisions /updates to the approved PUD Document based upon the settlement agreement reached with local and national conservation groups. Therefore, there are no major changes to the existing zoning approval, and the project will continue to conform to the PUD regulations as prescribed by the LDC. Mirasol PUDZ -A Evaluation Criteria Page 16 of 16 Packet Page -3019- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package CURRENT /APPROVED PUD DOCUMENT (ORD. 09 -21 ) Packet Page -3020- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. EXHIBIT A FOR MIRASOL RPUD PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 799 residential units and a maximum of 36 golf course holes may be developed within the RPUD. I. Residential /Golf Tracts (RG): A. Principal Uses: 1. Single- family detached dwelling units. 2. Zero lot line dwellings. 3. Single- family attached and townhouse dwellings. 4. Two - family and duplex dwellings. 5. Multiple- family dwellings. 6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the "RG" district. B. Accessory Uses /Structures: 1. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted 2. Guest houses. 3. Common area recreation facilities. 4. Clubhouse or recreation centers for residential uses. 5. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 6. Model homes, welcome centers and sales trailers. 7. Golf course, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters snack bars and golf course maintenance yards. Revision date 4 -30 -09 Packet Page -3021- 1 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 8. Golf CIub Complex as located on the Master Plan: i) Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not limited to, golf, tennis and recreation related sales. ii) Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to serve club members and club guests iii) Pro - shops, golf club, tennis clubs, health spas and equestrian clubs. 9. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation. 10. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 11. Essential services, pursuant to the LDC. 12. Water management facilities and related structures. 13. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or stnictural bank treatments. 14. Community and neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, community centers. 15. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer, builders, and their authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 16. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers berms, fences and walls. 17. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the "RG" district. H. Conservation/Preserve Tract: A. Principal Uses: Revision date 4 -30 -09 2 Packet Page -3022- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 1. Passive recreation uses limited to the following so long as clearing for such uses does not result in the reduction of Preserve acreage below the minimum requirement: i. Boardwalks ii. Environmental uses (wetlands and conservation areas) iii. Pedestrian bridges iv. Equestrian trails V. Pervious nature trails except where American Disabilities Act requires otherwise. vi. Native Wildlife sanctuary vii. Inclement weather shelters, in preserve upland areas only unless constructed as a part of a permitted boardwalk system. The shelters shall be a maximum of 150 square feet each. 2. Environmental research 3. Drainage and water management facilities subject to all required permits. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list or permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals through the process outlined in the LDC. Revision date 4 -30 -09 Packet Page -3023- 3 EXHIBIT B FOR MIRASOL RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFOR "RG" RESIDENTIAL AREAS Revision date 4 -30 -09 4 Packet Page -3024- Single Zero Two Single Multi- Clubhouse/ PERMITTED Family Lot Family and Family Family Recreation USES Detached Line Duplex Attached and Dwelling Buildings AND Townhouse *6 STANDARDS 1 2 3 14 5 6 Principal Structures Minimum Lot 5,000 SF 4,000 3,500 SF per 3,500 SF 9000 SF n/a Area SF lot or unit *3 Minimum Lot 50' *7 40' *7 35' per lot 35' *7 90' n/a Width *4 *7 or unit *7 Front Yard 20' *2 *7 20' *2 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20' *2 25' Setback *2 *7 Side Yard 7.5' *7 0 or 10' 7.5' *7 *8 7.5' *7 *8 15' *5 5' Setback *7 Rear Yard 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' 0' Setback *1 Setback From 10' *7 10' *7 10' 10' 10' 20' Golf Course Setback From 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Preserves Maximum 35` 35' 35' 35' 50' (5 stories 50' (2 stories over Zoned Height not to exceed parking not to *10 50') *9 exceed 50') Actual Height 45` 45' 45' 45' 65' 75' *10 Floor Area 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF n/a Min. (S.F.) Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 20' *5 15' or .5BH Between whichever is Principal greater *6 Structures Revision date 4 -30 -09 4 Packet Page -3024- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public road right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the hack of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (ifnot curbed). *I - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section. *2 - Single - family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi- family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of sidewalk. *3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. *4 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *5 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages. *6 ,Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential or preservation boundary. *7 — The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths. However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced. *S — Zero foot (0') setback for internal units. *9 Inclusive of under building parking *10 Buildings shall not exceed three stories within 1,250 feet of Immokalee Road. BH = Building Height SPS - Same as Principal Structure Revision date 4 -30 -09 Packet Page -3025- Single Zero Lot Two Family Single Family Multifamily Clubhouse /Retreat Accessory Family Line and Duplex Attached and Dwelling ion Buildings *6 Structures Detached Townhouse Front Yard SPS *7 SPS *7 SPS SPS SPS SPS Setback *2 Side Yard 5' *7 0 or 10' 5' 5' 10' 5' Setback *7 Rear Yard 10' *7 10' *7 10' 10' 10' 10' Accessory Setback *1 Setback From 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserves Distance 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' Between Accessory Structures on the same lot Distance 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' Between Accessory and Principal Structures on same lot Maximum SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Zoned Height *10 Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS *10 Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public road right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the hack of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (ifnot curbed). *I - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section. *2 - Single - family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi- family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of sidewalk. *3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. *4 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *5 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages. *6 ,Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential or preservation boundary. *7 — The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths. However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced. *S — Zero foot (0') setback for internal units. *9 Inclusive of under building parking *10 Buildings shall not exceed three stories within 1,250 feet of Immokalee Road. BH = Building Height SPS - Same as Principal Structure Revision date 4 -30 -09 Packet Page -3025- i DENOTES LOT LINE NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT It FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES TO SHOW NOW CERTAIN GEOVETRY OF A CIVEH TRACT WOULD FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A "FLAG LOr DESIGN LAYOUT. 1!5w— EMMMUNNEi 0 50 100 200 SCALE IN FEET 11/13/2012 Item W.A. BUILDING FOOTPRINT 1 PARED FOR: PROJECT NAME I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE MIRASOL PUDA ■■i ■i1 GnKu :e7ArtMeriorionNw.LEJ6L1..dFA36N DRAWING NAME: ::::IAGNOLI `si'i` LOT SCENARIO EXHIBIT 'B2` :: Ono BARBE R & FLAG ■ ■iiii4 ■■■■■ ■t ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■I RUNDAGE, INC. DRAWN BY: RDP ABB PROJECT No.: 7883 Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors RENEWED BY. RDP ACAD FILE NAME: 9814Ex7 DATE: 0 1lnR I .w........ .. .. 1. 1 Packet Page -3026- k V1 0 a h 0 4 ti O z 0 5 W C LOW 11/13/2012 Item W.A. 0 2000 4D00 SCALE IN FEET ZD REVISION DATE 11-04 -06 Sfh PUDA SUSU TTAL CLIENT: moJECT NAVE LM. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT !t ■t!1 C. A-1. d A.rhori —iw. N.. Lb U" d m 3sa DR AVANG - NAME- " "'AGNOLT !..l� ■-■■ ■� LOCATION MAP lotaf�■ MMUZON ARBER & EXHIBIT ::::::R !lawair1JRUNDAGE, INC DRAWN BY: ROP ALSO PRpJEC7 No.; 7883 Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors REVIEWED BY: ROP ACAD FILE NAME: 9418C 664, C. -Mr. 7400 T-ami Yrd N.• Naph% n.• xf a R: wn M-11ui• F.c njn sW-n0i DATE: 05 /08 1 -SC DRA1NNC FILE ND.: 941$ —rJ - — ALE: 1 -1000' c>ara•r. 1 -- . Packet Page -3027- c 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. NOTE: FOR PLAN LEGEND AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 TERAFINA L \ (ruP) D1 L Is• mE 'B -Lu. RIG L R/G L R/s �J 4 _R R/a =Q_ L ,t L L \,t, L L � SL R/6 I 1 /! L :' • p: rl i (_L L L i� L R/6 t\ I L �� MAIMTENANC L FACILTY L R/8 L r I{ - —_ I I TREE FARM I1 (PUDJ II L !1 L if ! 1 MIRASOI is'tYPE I PROPERTY rLr.E R/6 G 1 15'TYPE BOUNDARY 1 I a L t 1 ><1 1 � L % ....a L L j I POSSIBLE FUTURE INTERCONNECT I FUTURE I Acr1Y1TY RA; I CENTER CONCEPTUAL e CLUB ROUSE COMPLEX ,\ LOCATION :40:.. OLDE CYPRESS >s (PUDJ s tl .11 N � b NI i p w « a MIRASOL " PROPERTY •+ BOUNDARY ,. r a xo'ME W LR.L. I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE ENTRY i SIONAOE IM.) ^SFWMD PRESERVE SIYNABE (TYP. ) k h O n QA O O 0 0 S a 3 xW iYR 4 LY.E_ Ion' PRO►0lED 951 EIIT. ILO-111. DEDICATION FUTURE INTERCONNECT �POSS►BLE FUTURE INTERCONNECT HERITAGE BAY (►UD) 6 0 500 1000 SCALE IN FEET DIRT ROAD MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT ■■■ ■ ■F "r5iAo1991Aod—s— Nor -U 1"4-1 En)i6� DRAWING NAME: . ■■■P GNOLI ■■■■■L CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN No is BARBER & ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� EXHIBIT 'C2' wonnouB RAWN BY: R01� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■P RUNDAGE, INC. WC ABB PROJECT No.: 788 Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors REVIEWED BY: ROP I ACAD FILE NAME: 947 Cn114, Cw�q: Lnp Tamumi Tr.il N. WAIN, R•Nt09 FIU(351)397 -3U1 F- 12591sf612R1 DATE: OS 108 DRAWING FILE Na. 947 la. Coaeq: 9990 Cecon„ Rd., srwre IFS . Na..0 Sweµ, FL HI53 Au: 1359) 59f -1511 F_ 12595 599 21 <r e5 C. . _ ....... Packet Page -3028- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. LEE COUNTY ro — f o 11 _ 1Q COLLIER COUNTY . KP )A) I VACANT OUT PARCEL a, OWNER: FlAMAN UC d ' ............ •D. _ O :OP. :QP c :' . '. : ::::.. .I o MIRASOL y .'.'. •'- :I PROPERTY BOUNDARY lZu I: :6P PARKLANDS 1� trig) . . fA) D VACANT :a r: =o: : IA) VACANT 910 . :' :' . -:.: - 10 1 . . �_. 'OP -' OP ! R/6 ! RIG ` - ..... TERAFINA ' (Pug) �- - :-- a Sao 1000 ! SCALE IN FEET Hi ! R/6 ! AL ! R/G NERITABE BAY (PUD) MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET I OF 3 TENT: PROJECT NAME I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT ■ ■ ■i ■/ C<.ufiu.c o(Awghon. ion No.. LB 3664 "EB 3664 DRAWING NAME: ti ■ ■■ ■■ ■■� G RBE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■s. ■ ■■i ■� ABER & •••• ■ ■� ■■■■ ■■B a ■ ■ ■ ■PBRUNDAGE, INC EXHIBIT 'CZ' DRAWN 8Y: ROP AB8 PRp,IECT No.: %88,3 Professional Engineers, Planners & LanC Surveyon REVIEWED By: ROP ABEL FILE NAME: 9881 c n +. C.:...�: •aoo T.m�,.,.; T,.�i y. L••,�.mr: »w0 ca..... nd., s.. N.�, �.l��a n.., pi1911)997-- 1, a DATE: i. - )0) - b— sm FL DS D DRAWNC PILL . No.: .947[3-2 Packet Page -3029- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. LEGEND N Q L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS Ala 0 d 0 * R/G RESIDENTIAL /GOLF 0 NATIVE PRESERVE H 5 a OTHER PRESERVES ----- - - - - -- RIGNT- of -WAY 'k LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO RELOCATION /CHANCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING SPECIAL NOTES: 1) WHERE APPLICABLE ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED. NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY: EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT = 853.2 Ac. -#- REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT (60 %) = 511.9 Aa. -f- PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = 461.6 Ac.-} NATIVE HABITAT PROVIDED (OFF -SITE) = 50.3 Ac. -+- PROJECT NAME I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE _77 MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT ■■■■ ■f C—ifr]dAurh —lion Neu U 3"4 ..a U 3"4 DRAWING NAME: : :�AGNOLI ■ ■aaar, Wa�1. CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ■a�a■� ARBER &- ■. ■ ■ ■fi EXN/SIT 'C2' LEGEND & SPECIAL NOTES 80a�a1"' �^. RUNDAGE, ■ ■■wa ■I INL DRAWN BY: ROP ABS PROJECT No.: 7883 Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors REMEWED BY: RCw - ACAD FILE NAME: 94T8C2 cage, Card: 7p0 T-4-i T-1 N. - Nqb• Fl - 51101 ph.: ❑591 597-311] - Ae: (ll91 ]{b -120] Iae Copu]: ']990 Cow. wi Rd, Suil 10] - Corr. Sp.i . R 340S Pk.; (134y J97.3 � F., (23 4WZ716 DATE: 05 8 S(:�l i• ]'- �rvv]• DRAWING FLE No.: 941,9 3 ..... -..- - Packet Page -3030- EXHIBIT D FOR MIRASOL RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 10 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) PARCELS: 1) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, 2) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, 3) THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, 4) THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 15 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS & EXCEPT THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 22 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE-NORTHWEST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, Revision date 4 -30 -09 Packet Page -3031- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET, THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET, THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET, THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, THE WEST 1/2 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET, THE WEST 3/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET Revision date 4 -30 -09 12 Packet Page -3032- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. EXHIBIT E FOR MIRASOL RPUD DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Appendix B of the LDC, entitled "Typical Street Sections and Right -of -way Design Standards ", which requires cul -de -sacs and local streets less than one thousand feet (1,000') in Iength to have a minimum sixty foot (60') right -of -way width and two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes, to allow a minimum right -of -way width of forty feet (40') for private streets and fifty feet (50') for spine, collector and interconnecting roads. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow that Cul -de -sacs in excess of one thousand feet (1,000') in length. For any cul -de -sac exceeding 1,200 feet in length, the roadway must include at approximately 1,200 feet intervals design features which provide for the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design features shall be allowed. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0l.Q. Street System Requirements, which requires that street name markers shall be approved by the County Manager or designee for private streets or in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However, breakaway posts shall be used. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.R. Street Requirements which requires that street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of public roadway markings shall be provided by the developer as required by the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived for private roadways with 40' widths. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device standards. Revision date 4 -30 -09 13 Packet Page -3033- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT F FOR MIRASOL RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Regulations for development of the Mirasol RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order in which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. RPUD MASTER PLAN 1. Exhibit "C2 ", the RPUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries, shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.13 of the LDC, RPUD amendments may be made from time to time. B. TRANSPORTATION Upon the County's adoption of a CR -951 extension corridor alignment, and within 180 days of the County's request, the Developer, its successors or assigns, shall dedicate to County fee simple right -of -way for the roadway and drainage system at the predetermined amount of $45,000 per acre, for those areas located outside the limits of the residential /Golf Course areas depicted as "R/G" on the PUD master plan. Upon recordation of the deed or other conveyance instrument in the public records of Collier County for the dedication of the right -of -way, the Developer shall become eligible for Transportation Impact fee credits in accordance with the consolidated impact fee Ordinance in effect at the time of recordation of the dedication. If the project is built out or has prepaid transportation Impact Fees to be assessed for the project, then the Developer or its successors or assigns shall be eligible to request cash reimbursement. The Developer shall not be responsible to obtain or modify any permits on behalf of the County related to the extension of CR -95 L 2. The Developer shall construct a 10' multi -use pathway to be located along the Immokalee Road right -of -way on the North side of the Revision date 4 -30 -09 14 Packet Page -3034- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Cocohatchee Canal as a part of the entrance construction. Completion of construction of the pathway shall be completed concurrently with the vehicular connection to the existing bridge over the Cocohatchee Canal. The Developer entered into a Developer Contribution Agreement with Collier County on May 3 d, 2007. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, the project is vested for 799 dwelling units for the purposes of transportation concurrency. 4. The Developer, its successors, or assigns, agree that at the time of any subsequent Development Order approval within this PUD, the Developer, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for their respective fair share of the North leg of the CR -951 /Broken Back Road intersection with Immokalee Road, which includes modification, replacement, or relocation of the at -grade bridge crossing the Cocohatchee Canal. C. ENVIRONMENTAL As a part of the environmental resource permitting process of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) permitting, recommendations from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCQ and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) regarding impacts to protected wildlife species will be incorporated into the permits issued for this project. The developer shall comply with the guidelines set forth within those permits. Habitat management plans shall be provided for protected listed species. 2. The property will be required to preserve 511.9 acres of native habitat. This will be done through a mix of on -site and off -site preservation. 3. Mirasol will provide water quality testing as defined in the Mirasol Water Quality Monitoring Plan which is Exhibit #6 of the Mirasol Environmental Resource Permit # 11- 02031 -P. Any deviation from these testing and monitoring procedures will require prior approval from the District Environmental Compliance Staff. Such request must be made in writing and shall include (1) reason for the change and (2) an outline of the proposed change. The results of the Water Quality Monitoring referenced above shall be submitted to Collier County's Director of Engineering and Environmental Services. If the Petitioner is not in compliance with standards in condition #3 (condition #33 of the SFWMD, ERP referenced above), remediation shall occur at the Petitioners' expense. Revision date 4 -30 -09 15 Packet Page -3035- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 4. The project is proposing impacts to 586 acres of wetlands. The project has identified 515.2 acres of 586.2 acres (88 percent) of the required wetland mitigation acreage. The remaining 71 acres of off -site mitigation shall be identified prior to SDP approval. The 71 acres of off -site wetland mitigation shall be located in the watershed known as Cocohatchee River Canal Basin in Collier County. 5. The minimum preserve acreage shall be maintained. Additional preserve acreage shall be added onsite or offsite to compensate for any clearing needed for private access to out parcels within the preserve. D. EXCAVATION Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a commercial or development excavation pursuant to Section 22 -106 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County Florida. The entire water management pass -thru system will be constructed at one time as per South Florida Water Management permit #1 1- 0203 1 -P, as amended, prior to the residential development under an administratively issued "development" excavation permit as long as no more than 20,000 c.y. of material is removed off -site. As per Section 22 -106 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, a commercial excavation permit will be required for removing more than the approved 20,000 c.y. of material off -site. E. OUTPARCEL IN SECTION 10 A temporary access easement shall be granted to the owner of parcel number 00178760007, at a location specified by IM Collier Joint Venture it's successors and assigns. At such time that the northern portion of the Mirasol RPUD has access to a public road, the developer shall provide reasonable access from the parcel number 00178760007 across the Mirasol RPUD to the public road. Both the temporary and permanent easements shall be granted to the owner of this parcel, at no cost to the County or the owner of this parcel. Revision date 4 -30 -09 16 Packet Page -3036- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package CURRENT /APPROVED PUD MASTER PLAN f I I #"rx I Trr) Packet Page -3037- LEE COUNTY .COWER COUNIV .. .'. .'. E- NP.:�- ii::':':':': NP ::':::'::': _. L / J, IA) F i 1 :� C �f VACANT . �. OUT PARCEL .�. . OWNER: FUMAX LLC f11 .'.'l'_'.'.'. ).'.. . ' .. .'ft `w........ / OP 7 PARKLANDS (PUP) L 3 � . . .. r a IA) L-r..' NP ✓� •'''''''''1 VAUNT 1 vm 3+a _. •--^- k •t�•. OP . C . R/G L R/G v1 TERIIFINA IPUD) L :NPR NR/G R/G �. L L TERAFINA / )PUD) l NO /i—� L - -- - L v< L L L R/G L / 71OP S L I { L L E Ll R/G MIRASOL PROPERTY BOUNDARY IA) VACANT 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. -SFWMD LEGEND PRESERVE L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS R/G RESIDENTIAL / GOLF 0 NATIVE PRESERVE OTHER PRESERVES RIGHT -OF -WAY wwNNNNj R IANR NSE ARCM ARF EDNEEMDAEAMR SRMECI TO — — — RF10G110N /ENNMRE IMOR 10 EDMS+RUEIIBN /FRMIT11N0 L ENTRY SIBNABE SPECIAL NOTES: L R/G ' (M -) L) COHERE APPLICABLE Ai.ONO PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED /RESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL l THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TD MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PUNT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED. 1 W. "' TYPE -W L9.E. . L �� i' L FACLTV RuPR --1 IF, m. NIP i L\ /. r f' i 1 Ro.w.DfwunoN NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY: 31 �� v`- STvPF PoSSIBEE EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT -B53A ASS ��L IV LB2. NTURE REUUIRED NATIVE NA8ITAT I60%) - 311.9 Act 1i 11 ..A 1 INTERCONNECT PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT ION SRE) a 461.6 As.± 7 NATIVE HABITAT PROVIDED (OFF -SITE) =50.3 Ae.2 ®CONCEPTUAL!``, \ ` TREE FARM CLUB HOUSE UD) j IPOSSIBLE lFUTURE COMPLEX LOCATION NTERCONN E CT NP �7L HERITAGE BAY .. (PUD) MIRASOL PROPERTY �I 'R L.A. R/G � IV ME BOUNDARY OIDE CYPRESS 'R ME. IPUDI —� j �! F' 1 L 4 a . L Im �T L (L POSSIBLE MIRASOL— FUTURE • V ME I INTERCONNECT PROPERTY I BOUNDARY : -. I T u.F. L`;,J ACTIVRTY I L R/G CENTER - EXISTING ENTRY .I DIRT ROAD "none St"AGE 951 .,zzlxa G 2W 500 (TYP ) °'" znze scua w FEET - -. - —. 846 R I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE ,,,`.iG�i+rmR 6.. �iRR waEwwssF ro cwwr Fuw •u RE..E MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT R rt�r .,e N"93Rwa T. caws nroe R.e naER CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT C2' packet Page - 3038 - "2 Site- P = Location -- -- 75.E S,� m i I PROJECT LOCATION MAP N HERITAGE BAY SCALE: 1' AX0 IPUD) -SFWMD LEGEND PRESERVE L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS R/G RESIDENTIAL / GOLF 0 NATIVE PRESERVE OTHER PRESERVES RIGHT -OF -WAY wwNNNNj R IANR NSE ARCM ARF EDNEEMDAEAMR SRMECI TO — — — RF10G110N /ENNMRE IMOR 10 EDMS+RUEIIBN /FRMIT11N0 L ENTRY SIBNABE SPECIAL NOTES: L R/G ' (M -) L) COHERE APPLICABLE Ai.ONO PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED /RESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL l THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TD MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PUNT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED. 1 W. "' TYPE -W L9.E. . L �� i' L FACLTV RuPR --1 IF, m. NIP i L\ /. r f' i 1 Ro.w.DfwunoN NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY: 31 �� v`- STvPF PoSSIBEE EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT -B53A ASS ��L IV LB2. NTURE REUUIRED NATIVE NA8ITAT I60%) - 311.9 Act 1i 11 ..A 1 INTERCONNECT PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT ION SRE) a 461.6 As.± 7 NATIVE HABITAT PROVIDED (OFF -SITE) =50.3 Ae.2 ®CONCEPTUAL!``, \ ` TREE FARM CLUB HOUSE UD) j IPOSSIBLE lFUTURE COMPLEX LOCATION NTERCONN E CT NP �7L HERITAGE BAY .. (PUD) MIRASOL PROPERTY �I 'R L.A. R/G � IV ME BOUNDARY OIDE CYPRESS 'R ME. IPUDI —� j �! F' 1 L 4 a . L Im �T L (L POSSIBLE MIRASOL— FUTURE • V ME I INTERCONNECT PROPERTY I BOUNDARY : -. I T u.F. L`;,J ACTIVRTY I L R/G CENTER - EXISTING ENTRY .I DIRT ROAD "none St"AGE 951 .,zzlxa G 2W 500 (TYP ) °'" znze scua w FEET - -. - —. 846 R I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE ,,,`.iG�i+rmR 6.. �iRR waEwwssF ro cwwr Fuw •u RE..E MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT R rt�r .,e N"93Rwa T. caws nroe R.e naER CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT C2' packet Page - 3038 - "2 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package PROPOSED PUD MASTER PLAN Packet Page -3039- TERAFINA (Pop) OLDE CYPRESS (PUP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... .......... ....... ..... ............. I ............ ........... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ...... ......... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . R/ L R/G . . . . R/6 L wL R/G L <�L R/G Q1 R/G L CONCEPTUAL— L . . . CLUB HOUSE COMPLEX LOCATION R/G R/G L R/G L R/G IL' TYPE J ... . . . . ... . . . ... . MAINTENANCE—/ FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TREE FARM (PUP) —POSSIBLE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L INTERCONNECT R/G is-TYPE MIRASOL PROPERTY i . . . . . MIRASOL BOUNDARY - I i PROPERTY BOUNDARY . . . . . . . . -POSSIBLE FUTURE .1 . . / INTERCONNECT L R/G 9 FUTURE / ACTIVITY > L CENTER L 846) 20' TYPE 'D'LB.E. I 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. HERITAGE BAY [POP) I 11CIPTI 1011 11AT-S R'. / GOLF PRESERVE SPECIAL NOTES w1w, NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY. SFWMD PRESERVE ACREAGE SUMMARY-. 1.1- . - .1. 1. = T. 11 HERITAGE BAY IPUDI SIGNAGE fTY".) 20'TYPE WL.R.E. IGG- PROPOSED C.R. 911 EXT. R.O.W. DEDICATION S Tacket Page -3040- lWlAlnniRpn]P ENGINEERING —T MIR.ASOL k.P.U.D. AMENDMENT CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "122 LEE COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY MIRASOL PROPERTY BOUNDARY JA) IMMOXALEE AT. (C.R. .46) VACAN . .... . .... LT BE ROAD EXT. VANDERBI ACH IS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT LOCATION MAP HERITAGE BAY [POP) I 11CIPTI 1011 11AT-S R'. / GOLF PRESERVE SPECIAL NOTES w1w, NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY. SFWMD PRESERVE ACREAGE SUMMARY-. 1.1- . - .1. 1. = T. 11 HERITAGE BAY IPUDI SIGNAGE fTY".) 20'TYPE WL.R.E. IGG- PROPOSED C.R. 911 EXT. R.O.W. DEDICATION S Tacket Page -3040- lWlAlnniRpn]P ENGINEERING —T MIR.ASOL k.P.U.D. AMENDMENT CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "122 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package WARRANTY DEED Packet Page -3041- � :p q r Thig, poduptent Prepared By and Return to: David G. Budd, Esquire BUDD AND BENNETT 3033 Riviera Drive, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34103 (941) 263 -7700 PARCEL ID NUMBER: 00117920000 (multiple) warranty Deed 2852 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. "Co"ll 11 011Iclu IIcous of C011I11 MW, 11 09 /05 /1111 At WWI DIICR 1. IIOCL, cult 0011 15651116.11 uC 111 11.11 I®IIIIG 6.11 DOC -.10 109611.60 RAW 1000 i lint" 3033 lIT1111 011101 WU3 1L 31101 This Indenture, made this 29TH day of AUGUST , 2001 A.D., setwen (a) Paul P. Wisman, Individually, and as Successor Trustee under The North Naples Land Trust Agreement dated June 1, 1989; (b) J.D. Nicewonder (a /k /a J.D. Nicewonder, Jr.; Jay D. Nicewonder; Jay D. Nicewonder, Jr.); and (c) Carolyn Nicewonder, Sherry Nicewonder and Mark D. Nicewonder of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantors, and IMCOLLIER JOINT VENTURE, a Florida General Partnership whose address is: y..,.. c/o Robert G. Claussen ;'240-5- Fiper`;Boulevard, Naples, of the County of Collier, State Co Florida, 3'�11Q, \ Grantee. f �w Mitnesseth that the of--------------- - and other good and a by GRANTEE, the i granted, bargained heirs, successors land, situate, lyin Florida, to wit: /GRANT;gRS. for--and-, in Consideration of the sum TEN DOI,3JkRS ( 5,10 ) DOLLARS, See attached Exh i d , ila. xp _-rnp S4 9. f� assigns forever, `y thi ;nd being in th�'Count,l I , / y. ANTORS in hand paid {acknowledged, has NTEE and GRANTEE'S °ollowing described f Collier, State of • -1 - Subject to ad valorem real — property taxes for the year of closing and subsequent years; zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions, reservations and easements of record, if any. This is not the homestead property of the Grantors, or any of them, all of whom reside outside the State of Florida. Grantor, Paul P. Wisman, as Successor Trustee under The North Naples Land Trust Agreement dated June 1, 1989, has the power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the land owned of record by him as such Successor Trustee. and each Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to that portion of said land which is owned of record by that Grantor, and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Packet Page -3042- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. In witness Nhesrol, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: WITNESS PRINTED NAME: WITNESS PRINTED NAME: j4A/ N /MFiSI rJ5 PAUL P. WISMAN, Individually, and as Successor Trustee under The North Naples Land Trust Agreement dated June 1, 1989 WITNESS .D. NICEWONDER (a /k /a PRINTED E: -- .D. Nicewonder, Jr.; /,K, Jay D. Nicewonder; WITNESS '�!/ -- Jay D. Nicewonder, Jr.,) PRINTED NAME: ,&,( HA XIA&- T - ✓ (,� 4 : rte. .,rte. —Al 1r 16 -- WITNESS MAM D. NICEWONDER PRINTED NAME: SS y /4t I i� WITNESS PRINTED NAME: .4NAN AS.t'! N s *Address for all Grantors: c/o J.D. Nicewonder, 148 Bristol East Road, Bristol, Virginia 24202 -5500. Packet Page -3043- WITNESS ` CAROLYN ICEW NDER PRINTED NAM E• 1 .`r ,t ✓ �. _A..�� WITNESS PRINTED NAME: AAld WITNESS }SsxERRY�NICEWONDER PRINTED ME: WITNESS l��'' PRINTED NAME: An/d /`l grk,n/s ✓ (,� 4 : rte. .,rte. —Al 1r 16 -- WITNESS MAM D. NICEWONDER PRINTED NAME: SS y /4t I i� WITNESS PRINTED NAME: .4NAN AS.t'! N s *Address for all Grantors: c/o J.D. Nicewonder, 148 Bristol East Road, Bristol, Virginia 24202 -5500. Packet Page -3043- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of AUGUST , 2001, by PAUL P. WISMAN, Individually, and as Successor Trustee under The North Naples Land Trust Agreement dated June 1, 1989, who is personally known to me or who produced a drivers license as identification. NOTARY' LIC MY comISSION EXPIRES JAN. 31,2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 29TH day of AUGUST , 2001, by J.D. Nicewonder (a /k /a J.D. Nicewonder, Jr.; Jay D. Nicewonder; Jay D. Nicewonder, Jr.), who is personally known to me or who produced a drivers license as identification. ✓�r�c:y� 1 S LIZ / t NOTARY'? U LIC MY comKissION EXPIRES JAN. 31, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2= day of AUGUST / 2001, by Carolyn` Nicewonder, who is personally known to me ,p.zwho-- produced,., a, drivers license as identification. t . J '4NOTARY'1.4L(.SI1TC MY 00XKIssjUm,, EXPIRES JAN. 31, 2002 'i E �` COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA',-,L--, The foregoing instrument was -acknowledged before me this 29TH day of AUGUST , 2001, by Sherry Nicewonder, who is personally known to me or who produced a drivers license as identification. NOTARY' IC MY CAl41ISSION EXPIRES JAN. 31, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this fig_ day of AUGUST 2001, by Mark D. Nicewonder, who is personally known to me or who produced a drivers license as identification. NOT UBLIC MY col nsioN EXPIRES JAN. 31, 2002 dqb /=f /Mi,c /Nice —n"f - 60" Packet Page -3044- • . EXHIBIT A 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. ALL OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; AND ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; AND THE WEST 1R OF THE NORTHEAST I/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE EAST 1R OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST ;FT4 --OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, 4 THE EAST IR OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, THE EAST 1R OF THE WEST ;V2.OF THE'SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HAT,# OF TM SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER. THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST;C2UARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER,' i THE NORTH 112 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF.-THE NORTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4, { c THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWESY' 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, THE WEST 3/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4. PAGE I OF 2 Packet Page -3045- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EX141817 "A" All that part of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida; Lem and except the following Four (4) parcels: 1) The South '/: of the Northeast'/, of the Northwest 'A 2) The South '/2 of the Southeast ' /4 of the Southeast 'A 3) The: Northeast' /4 of the Southeast 'A or the Southeast 'A 4) The Northwest' /. of the Southeast' /4 of the Southeast' /. t t ' 1 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -3046- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2914066 %rot 4 %i t V, V b RICORDID is OIIICIAL 01/09/2002 at 10:20" Iota: GARLICI STITLIR IT AL IICI DI WARRANTY DEED RICORDS of COLLIRR CODRt, IL DYIGIT 1. BROCI, CLI11 C015 1150000.00 "C 111 10.50 Doc -.70 8050.00 THIS INDENTURE, Made this 7 day of , 2002 BETWEEN: ANDY R. MORGAN, a married man whose post office address is: 172 Hidor*' RoadY =Naples .Florida 34108 the Grantor, AND: IMCOLLIER JOINT VENtURE, a t~londaJoint Venture l whose post office address is f` the Grantee and whose Social Security or Taz Identification No is WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, forfiand iti cjnstdecat on of the sum of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER VALUABLE CON SIDERATIONS,_W d_patd by the Grantee, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys to the Grantee the real property in Collier County, Florida, Tax Assessment Roll # , described as: The West 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. THIS IS NOT the homestead of the Grantor. Grantor's homestead is located at 172 Hickory Road, Naples, Florida 34108. SUBJECT to: real property ad valorem taxes for the year of closing, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interest of record, if any, and restrictions and easements common to the subdivision. Packet Page -3047- ��♦ w ARIA ww AAIA iii 1 Q 11 /13/2012 Item 1 TA. SUBJECT to easement to Florida Power & Light Co. recorded in O. R. Book 1333, page 2053, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. And the said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. I Signed in the presence of /17 C�rma'? Witness f��+d� Andy R. Morga Print name: /l witness �( f , Printed name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this "da , trsonalC rameared before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments ANDY R. +�M©RGAN, a married man, to me (} personally known or O whp pfad4tdet!`�FJt�r-id�a' driv s hce,nsgs)' as, +proof of identification. ev WITNESS my hand and seal its % day of '- '---ft At�'Nll r -- -Notary Public, This instrument prepared by: Thomas R. Brown, Esquire 2660 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 34112 Packet Page -3048- 2002. e of Florida crf"A�� JOAN M BURTON NClrARY PUBUC SfATF: ()F r:.()R'DA coMMMION NO. 1XV26v7ls MYCOMMM!S 1N.rxf'. it _N� 10.2005 TYa Deeareat rrcMnd By and Resara so: 000terasan, Sundhein A hoods, P.A. 310 SN ooann Blvd. Stuart, IM 34994 (561) 287 -0660 2914 11/1 - 3/20 - 1 - 2 Item 17.A. RICOIDID 1�- - - - 0110112002 at 10:22A1 DVIGI? 1, DUCK, C1I11 Cols 100000.00 lie 111 6.00 DOC -.70 700,00 Reta: GARLICK 5717LII 17 AL PICK UP Pond 1D Nis- 00187760001 Warranty Deed Thb Indenture, Made this 14 day of January , 2002 AD. Between Jack K. Flossing and Rail FloaingX his wife also known as Emil A. Fleming of do Comy of Martin , State of Florida , grantors, and Incollier Joint Venture, a Florida Joint Venture wltoes address r: 6025 Carlton Lakes Blvd., Naples, FL 34110 of do county or Collier , suu of Florida , grantee. Wit31e111e6 mat the GRANTORS, for and in aonsidenium of the sum of ----------------- - - - - -- -TEN DOLL11R8 (810)---- ------------- - - - - -- DOLLARS, and saw good sad vAnbk coondwion ao GRANTORS k band paid by GRANTEE, the receipt whereof it hereby acknowledged, have grsa' I brpoed said sold to the said GRANTEE and GRANTEES heirs. successors and coigns forever, the following described land, situate. y ag aad b.iR o me counry of Collier stale of Florida to wit The East half of the East half_. -of tho_North 1/2 of the Last half of the Southwest quarter of the('NorthWant quarter of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range,,26.zast-- Collier- county, Florida. Subject to current of record. cad the grantors do hereby fully warrant the utk to said land, and will defend the same against lawful claims of as persons whomsoever In Witness Whereof, the grantors have hereunto set them hands and seals the day and year first above wmmn. Signed, salad and deity our p ee: �� << (Seat) Pri 3iaae r 6:;: ack w. risuLng ' W P O. Address 5772 SE Nassau Terraee, StsaM 319941 tr ,�- t/ (Sea!) > >rint0d sae: — UCcs Lmil Flessinq Witness P O Address. $771 SE Name Terrace, Stahtrr, fL 319% STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF martin � The forego" insntanarr was ackwwkdgod before me this ► h day of January , 2002 by Jack Q. Flossing and Emil Fleming, his wife who are porsosaay known to me or who have produced their Florida dr r s lie f u uric 7tl) II my COAMOM # Do � Printed E0 EJiPIgE& M'°""TM°N°"'s011 Notary Pub ie Packet Page -3049- Enpires: T -997 trorrryomfry...re, raps twtxsasss F —FLVAM 714 Daeaaaeet Prepared Illy and Neon to: Otsq�!orsion, sundhisin a !foods, P.A. 310 M ocean Blvd. Stuart, trL 34994 1361) 287 -0960 2914 ^ 11/1-3/20-1-2 Item 1 TA. nlcolDlD is -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -• -- 01/09/2002 at 10:22AK DVIGHT 1. I10C1, CLIIK cols 100000.00 LIC PII 6.00 DOC -170 100.00 letu: GARLICK s?ITLIn IT AL PICK UP htw+wpi— .00187760001 Warranty Deed This Indenture, Made this 14 day of January , 2002 AD . Between Jack W. Fleming and lmil Fieminq� his rife also known as EMil A. Fleming of the Clsaty of Martin , sate of Florida , grantors, and Imcollier Joint Venture, a Florida Joint Venture a- - addtsas is: 6025 Carlton Lakes Blvd. , Naples, FL 34110 of me Coauy of Collier , swe of Florida , grantee. Wjmapetb tltst the GRANTORS, for and in conaideraion of tlho sun, or ------------------------ Ta11POLLARS ( 810 )----------------- - - - - -- Oou1.RS• and air pod and valuable consideration to GRANTORS in band paid by GRANTEE, the receipt wbereof is hereby acknowkdaed, have Fsssad, biiii a asd sod to the said GRANTEE and GRANTEES heir. wcceswrs and anipn forever, the fotbwme de3mbed last! situate, ys.d bass in" county or Collier state or Florida to wit: no last half of the Sast halt- ..of- -�- the"- .North 1/2 of the Zast half of the Southwest quarter of the;No:rthMist` quarter of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range ,.26 „Sa'st- ; "Co11iair.County, Florida. Subject to current takes; iatttients- -and restrictions of record. � t i fA. I 1, asd the Factors do hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend ft tame against lawful claims Of all "mm whomsoever In Witness Wbereof, the grantors have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written . Slped, sealed and de iv r n our pro ace: L-- (.et}' /'-`,�/ titer -✓ t % ir_i (Seal) Pri Name r sink x. Fl ng ' X PO Addren $772 SE Name Tern ". Stuart. F' 34994 _(Seal) Printed oast : L{ <<'S I0mi1 Fleming witness P 0, Addren: 3771 SE Name Tern ", Str�art FL 34491 STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Martin 71e lotepoins ; atrytoent wa wAnowkdged before ON this +th day of January , 2002 by Jack W. Fleming and Emil Fleming, his wife Min we personally ksowa to we or who have produced their Florida dr ' a lie s u i uficat X M1'ootMASS"t00ot040t Printed E7mWE& Jtty tf, Zoos 6-dw r"a,rryPoe, I Notary Pub is Packet Page - 3050- Eupues: • -997 t.�.a..,rrt,00y+,ra,...a.r. Icon awaxs•ssss s..ttwo.a Ritz: 2914071 OR; 2960 PG; PkR GAILICK S ?I ?LII 1? AL IICORDID in the OFFICIAL RICOIDS of COLLIII 1 11/13/2012 Item 1 T PICK DP 01/09/2002 at 10:25AK OUGHT 1. BIOCK, CUR RIC PII 6.00 DOC -.70 3500.00 Prepared as to form only by: I Grantor: William B. Roberts, Esq. Lend and Sea investments, 133 Crestview Terrace a Florida general partnership Lake Placid, FL 33852 816 -478 -6351 F1 Bar 0 0373508 i I I Return to: I Grantee: Land and Sea Investments lmcollier Joint Venture, c/o W. B. Roberts a Florida joint venture 321 NE Landings Drive Lee's Summit, HO 64064 ! I t Grantee(s) PEI No(s): I I Property Appraiser's Parcel I lU I:UUl811600014 (STATUTORY FORM - SECIrION 689.02, F.S) Tdi• Indenture, Made this 31st- day of December, :UUI,between land and Sea investments, A Florida general Partnership, whose post of�iiecad3reg�wi.s,: Unit 112, 3615 Boca Sieya Drive, Naples, FL 33852, hereinafter called the G1 arito-r'• ,atiii' lmcui l ier Joint Venture, a Fl or'lda )u tnt venture, whose post office address is ,602'.= Carlton Lakes ldlvd., Naples, FL 34110, hereinatter called the "Grantee ". Witnesseth: That said Granto[c '11•or- and - -in consideratiun ,ot t o sum ut Ten (SIU.UU} Dollar's and other valuable consideration, t,b sd,i.d Granfoi -rtr liariri paid'by said Grantee, the receipt whereof 1s hereby acknowledged; has granted, ";_b,af gained and sold`to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the followlzi de'srti °b ets'�"aWd-,;,:siTxrat�l lying, and being in Collier Count Florida, to wit: Y. } ) THE WEST HALF of the Southwest.'qudrtex of tie Northwi'st' quartet Oti•.Sectiun 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, lying in C'11ier ount'y; Flo'rYUa, to wit, ti and said Grantor does hereby f6lty ~;'warrant the title tr,.';.rid land, ,:and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all p rgons whomsoever. The property described herein and oonvey'L-d� hereby IS NG /r 41'0> PISTk1AU PROPERTY. *'Grantor" and 'grantee" are used foie. slnqula 'r- or- .pl+rra.h,* ag-..context requires. Subject to restrictions, easements and r5esekat onsRCn' ^fecvtd, if any. In Witness whereof, the said Grantor has hereunto set the Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Grantor: Land and Sea Investments, �nsw d general partnership B Y .F� . - - -- Wi 717- 0., n__ Wil iam H. Roberts, a general partner s Name: et Missouri! ] 69 cogstty of Ja Ct[rOn) The foregoing instrument Was i(-knoVledged t:y me th1sjt —) day of -'Ot' Ivy William kt, A,,E art,, „s a general partner of Ldrut and Sid llrvetitme'nt s, a i lor ;J,, on behdl t .%t I!;.! grI'et a! Who Is personally known by ee who did nut tdK (SEAL) Nullify Y is tit d", Ot YY VI:Il NY comissicn Expires: 1 S:7e-,( ) I- �-- Ct>» ->rr• 35r -NCI r -• r% <s S .(+>,....� Packet Page -3051- Jan 07 OZ Oe: *JP r s��nu � + I ***-29141 29141 11 /13/2012 Item 1 TA. RICOIDKD in - - - .- - - - -- 01/09/2002 at 10:29AH DWIGHT 1. (ROCK, CLIRK cols 250000,00 Ric 111 6.00 DOC -.10 1150.00 PREPARED WITHOUT OPINION BY: Retn: GARY J. HAUSLER, ESQ. GARUCK STITLIR IT AL 950 North Collier Blvd., Suite 202 PICK DP Marco Island, Florida 34145 Folio No. 00187080008 WARRANTY DEED This Warranty Deed, made this -27k day of January 2002, PIiYLLIS H. PALMER, Individually and as Trustee of the Phyllis H. Palmer Declaration of'rrust dated May 5, 1994, as to an undivided one -half (1/2) interest, with full power and authority either to protect, conserve and to sell or to lease, or to encumber, otherwise manage and dispose of real property described herein, herein called the Grantor*, to IMCOLLIER JOINT VENTURE, a Florida Joint Venture, whose post office address is 6025 Carleton Lakes Blvd., Naples, FL 34110, hereinafter called the Grantee*: Wltnesseth: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and no /100 Dollars and other good and valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains and sells aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee all that certain land situate in Collier County, State of Florida, vi7: The West one -half (112) of the Northwest one - quarter (1/4) of the Northwest one - quarter (I /4) of Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida t. Subject to easements, restrictions and•reservactoo ofrecord and to taxes for the current year and thereafter. `' "'Grantor" and Granted are Grantor warrants that TOGCTRR:R. with all the moments. AND, Grantors do hereby cc simpk; thu the Grantors haw the title to said land and will land is free of all encumbran fN WITNESS WHEREOF, said same against the taxes accruing to Id and scaled these p d and delivered in out presence Witness M1 Signature l`r YL A , cJ evO e A2 Signature A/ . 44 Witness 02 taint Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER her hamestead. In anywise appertaining. ulty seized of said land in fee said land, and hereby warrant sons whomsoever; and that said a year Gust above written. PHYLLIS H. PALMER, Individually and as Trustee 2)00 Shad Court, Naples,•FL 34102 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ntc this -1 rlk, day of January, 2D02 by P14YLLLS H. PALMER, Individually and as'frustee of the Phyllis H. Palmer Declaration of Trust data] May 5, 1994, who are-penesal}rierewtilto me or has produced �l111161G G pu�SE as identification and who did not take an oath. SEAL My Commission Expires: N ary blic Signature (titRYLA II(AkVN ! �erluuun,u,.•,1 - ijre�pt' 1 \I'I HI1 lV 17 _IYJ'�' Packet Page -3052- PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: Philip J. O'Connell 4260 C tral A 2925327 OR$* _11113/2012 Item 17.A. uelull L 4mau um of am ate, n N /11 /2M2 K Wam MW 1. I '� all i1MN.M IK M If." NC -.11 21M.M was venue bts: St. Petersburg, FL 33711 URIa1 111TI11 R 1L tics It THIS WARRANTY DEED MADE this XkL day of _, 20f)4 between KAREN FLEMING CARTER, a single woman, of c o f Pinellas, State of Florida, hereinafter called the Grantor(s), and IMCOLLIER JOINT VENTURE, a Florida Joint Venture, whose post office address is C/O Garlick, Stetler & Peeples, LLP 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 101, Naples, Florida 34108, of the County of Collier, State of Florida, hereinafter called the Grantee(s), WITNESSETH, that the said Grantor(s), DOLLARS ($10.00), and other good and valuabl, Grantee(s), the receipt whereof is hereby�ackto, le Gmntee(s), her heirs and assigns forevef;F_thc =folio the County of Collier, State of Florids;`'fo wit: for and in consideration of the sum of TEN consideration, to her in hand paid by the said Iged; -has granted, bargained and sold to the said vii k-described land, situate, lying and being in W1/2 of the E '/: of the SW 1 /4- of.,the NW -1°/4' of Range 26 East, Collier County,,Flonw -; IL Grantor wa=ants that ttye !property 1 iA vxdu't ,at Ll And the said Grantor(s) doe against the lawful claims of tutder the Grantor(s) herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and year first above written. fully warrant t s whomsoever ,lion 22, Township 48 South, rbt t>er ! rx, stead. said land, and will defend the same 94 o claim the same by, through and tees hereunto set her hand and seal the day 2 (SEAL) KAREN FLEMI CARTER DEBORAH O'CONNELL CARDER & PHILIP J, O'CONNELL ATTORNEYS Al LAW 2300 WEST BAY DRIVE, LARGO, FL 337741975 4260 CENTRAL AVENUE. ST. PETERSBURG. FL 33711 1 Packet Page -3053- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared KAREN FLEMING CARTER, personally known to me to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the i instrument and she acknowledged before me that they executed the same. SS my hand and official seal in the State and �st aforesaid, thi day of , 20,0 My Commission Expires: MY001AWKINICC9W L 202 a� t 2 i DE8011AH MONNELL CARDER & PHILIP J. O'CONNELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW 23m WEST em DRWE. (ARrO, FL 33770.1975 4260 CENTRAL AVENUE. ST. PETEMRG. FL 33711 Packet Page -3054- 116 emcees prep red by W Reftra w: Vtssson, sna@rai.n 4 Moods, P.A. 31 ON oesan Blvd. statart, n 36096 (561) 267 -0660 F. MM.M'. oojk-7��6000 Warranty Deed 'lib 13"ture, Made 1W5 � day of William 2- Fleming and Norma M. William i. Fleming and Norma M. Agreement dated March 31, 1993 *** 2915331 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. "mm is winu emu of mun emn, n 11/11/2 "2 at It:17M M R 1. Ma, CM CM 31""," Be M 6." I/C -JI 2111." hu: ©ILIA HRNI R u PICK R January , 2002 A.D. Between Flaning, as Trustees of the Fleninq RevOCable Intervivos Trust at do C&A" of Buncombe , Sire of Worth Carolina , grantor, and Isoollier Joint Ventura, a Florida Joint Venture wrw awho k: 6025 Carlton Lakes Blvd., Naples, Florida of do comy of , state of Florida . grantee. WitDIUMOt y dM tie GRANTOR farad w consukrWoo of Pre tan of ------------------------ DOLLKRS ($10) ----------------- - - - - -- DOUARS, ad odor pod ..d vdtasbls caeaidraw b GRANTOR a had paid by GRANTEE, tb recd" wbreof is herby ulawwletlpd, ►n "Bawd bwpi.d ad sold to Pre uid GRANDEE and GRANTEE'S bm arcausars ad .nips (eraser, Pre fww*us dam" bad, ails, iris a.d w.6 i. Pre Catrty of Collier sire of Florida to wit: Mast 1/2 of the last 1/2 of -'th -Soyti "st 1/6 of the Northwest 1/6 of Section 22, Township 16 8outh;. R%ngi6' 7Cast, Collier County, Florida, lass the tast,l /2,`•6f the Mast' i/2-'of the North 1/2 of the Kest 1/2 of the Southve t'1 /6 of the Northwest 1/6 of Section 22, Township is South, Rangi 26- Zest,..._Collier County, Florida. a ,5• Subject to current taxes; easeMrts, and restria'ticns of record. Grantors warrant that the - property to vacant and notit -W' r hamstead. and do /clot don hereby fully wartm the lilt io Laid trod• ad will defcod the scam sloop lawful claims of all persons whomsoewr In Vi+Ht m Wbereef dw pear hr hoc . set m bed Bed Bed the day and ycr fop above wriem. 84001, 9U Md and dd1V=Vd is our p ce: r- Printed Name : By : G (seal) Mr_IfsSa R, {�-�•rlti� <.i Killian =. Flemiaq, rnstee Ki a P.0 Addrmt: 7 Ripbte Rand, Ca.dler, C 29715 Printed Barre: (cci d a Norma M. Fleming, Trqfitoo (sue) Witness P.O Addmu: 7 Rlpabi. Rand, Catreer, NC 29715 STATE OF North Carolina COUMff OF buseembe t TVeocQ The fmVpi s itnrwasel was wkwwWd4Wd bfam ore dW day of January , 2002 by William 11. Fleming, Trustee and Norms M. Fleming, Trustee on behalf of said trust wro rep ■aa.ary keowe w me or who hm pmabad 16dr driver's 1 icense n wanafmam . ��a� GU• Shy Printed Name: Acy an n e l,U• rn l f C Notary Public My Co..iriaa Expims. Packet Page -3055- t-!� twa�wMeoytfq.are, s000 trastxt -sass ran.wat May 01 UZ U4s lar launnu , a,�c "'•"" """" r * *t 2971 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. neum is eniclu Bolus of cocain em., n 15/11/2112 at 11:17AN BIM 1. no, CM Be m 1.0 ooc -.71 .71 OUT OPINION BY: IOU, p)�pARED WITH Quiet IMUI n Al GARY 7. H kUSLBR, F-SQ• lICI O 9p North Collier Blvd., Suite 202 Marco Island, Florida 34145 Folio No. 001870"0" CORRECTIVE WARRANTY DEED tts+ day of 2002, PHYLLIS Trts We"aty Deed, made this _ Trustee the Phyllis . Palme D 1:ration of Trust dated H. PAI.MF.R, 1 and a ne-bal f 1/2 interest. with ft111 power either yadividtal y wet and lug of May 5.1994, as to an undivided oclahal (a to encurnbW, otbecw�es manage to 000arve and to Belt or to lease, to IMCOLLIER JOINT herein. �wbosd Poe ova 0� is 6025 Carkm Lakes Blvd., ypN a Florida Joi tV aratuat Naples, FL 34110, haroitta Wltaeaeth� �e the Grantor, for and m consideration of the stun of Ten and f lodged, Dollars add other good and vdtlabk oar j&raaoM• receipt whereof is herebY hereby grants b�� sells aliens, remises. refs, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee all that certain land situate in Cotliar County, State of Florida, vit: The West one -half (1/2) of the Northwast one- 4ustta (r stand of the Northwest one- quartet orr�n to 22, owns 48 South, a 26 FAsj (1 /4) of Section p ��.,�,��y : vacat?•.- !"„tarltY.lt' v131Zant8 that t118 !"s Subject to easements, tvatricriotsartd:resen'ations of record and to taxes for the current year and lka r - - -- 1 DLSCAIC[10N. THIS CORRECT" DI4ED IS f "Grants- and Grant w» TOOCT fM wish all the eany�rna AMD, GMlas do beraby MOO, wilt aid Qraaleea co that 5*gC d W dw Oreeton b0c"S od tiilM sod Iawlllt ouches the title to aid had and win defaea the ame will h hod is fine of all �obntwetti q�ept taxes aeetuins IN wffm S8 wHiRWY. acid der noss,P ,NSW IN THE LEGAL V ie wf-i -- W-4. wand of Mid lead is fee ht>t1, and Wetly aid that aid whorawerer� ri io alit: !ctuta'at year' w day a yar hit Abere wnttaa �� d.tivesad io oe [ or. � P H. PALirIER, rl S Individually and as Trustee me 2100 Shed Co»rt, Naples, FL 34102 a r si yrl, tr Print Nas�e �� FW Z y p �I LLYER wired before cite this � day of The fsegoing inshvrncnt Was individually and as Trustee of the phYilia�HhesPtiltnec 2002 by PHYLLIS H. P 5, 1 "4, who ace pemnalh, known to me or p � Declaration of T t dated�MMay as identifiestion and who did not take am oath. �l SEAL l; My Commission Bxpires: off, lit Si tttse OGG 41 E> 10 Zoos u►.. a eMx.s o. , t... Packet Page -3056- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 3018913 OR: 3077 PG: 3122 Prepared by and return to: UCOIDID is 0111cIu UCOIDs of COLLIIR COOIITT, IL William F. Brander, Peeples, s, L 07/23/1002 At 03:32H DII68T 1, 110CI, CLBRI Garlick, Stotler &Peeples, LLP 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 101 11C !II 33.00 IADI1I1C 3.00 Naples, Florida 34108 DOC-.70 71 COPIES 7.01 Reta: KISC 1.00 MUCK STITLIR IT AL PICT OP WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this 104, day of .. 200A by and between: Joseph F. Karpinski, Jr., John D. Karpinski, Paul A. Karpinski, Katheryn M. Karpinski, Kristine A. Karpinski, and------S an - Karpinski, whose address is �.jtct,►+ssi -(ee+ C6 �c1!jLLE;V j ("Gran tor') and: Imcollier Joint Venture, a'Florida.Joint Venture, ,,,haying am address of 6025 Carlton Lakes Blvd., Naples, Florida ("Grantee',). WITNESSETH that the°Gtantor, for and in cdnsideration of the sum of Ten and 00 /100 Dollars (510.00), and othelK*k d and valuable consideration, to Grantor in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is fiereby acknowledged, has" granted, bargained and sold to the said Grantee and Grantee's successors.,, and assigns- forever, the following described land situate, lying and being in the County of Co11ier, State'nf`Florida, to wit: An undivided one -half interest in the West one -half of the Northwest '/4 of the Southeast 'V4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida, containing 5 acres, more or less. Grantors warrant said lands are vacant lands and are not their homestead. Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record, if any, and real estate taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2001. And the Grantor does hereby warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anyway appertaining. To HAVE AND To HOLD the same in fee simple forever. Packet Page -3057- OR: 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set their hands and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: Witnesses: Printed Name: Name: STATE OF -1 COUNTY OF The foregoing it 200k .wed F Printed Npme: oseph F. Karpinski, Jr. Address: 4 edg 6re! me this g4.A— day of �, I i, Jr-` whQtls;, personally known to me -w My Commission Expires: Packet Page -3058- JOHN A. KARPINSKI No" puW in ve SM d Now YO* Qu~ in Cayuga Coul 1373-- MyC*TM*WME0fM _ILMI, Witnesses a.vaw� a- •uv��. k p.,,, P riBlne 4 twk Printed Name: knx F *,t rA Printed Name: STATE OF tic.- 1l.,lc COUNTY OF -nova tjkoft OR 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Printed e: John U. Karpinski Address: 81 £ • GC.Ne-Stx Sr. S ICJ%:- 4-r i.t_CS As4 1 S L The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this e- A- day of 20A by John D�- K46tnski ., o; its personally knov�m to me w as:,iciep"WAtion. Y ,r - ^•CPS- wr 1 € a.vaw� a- •uv��. k p.,,, P riBlne (Seal) i _IntNd ` _vly Commission Expires: A. RPINSKI J4PHN�, +rt � d Nwr 11oAc im CdyjP A1 e, d CxmE"r a. (I f F ►dty Ca�nmi56b� E1M I Packet Page -3059- Witnesses tinted Name: ` Printed Name: STATE OF COUNTY OF (SC91) 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. OR, livil rut" 3i4j LCt-k�1AAA04 Printed Name- Atd A. Karp'insoi The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2003. by Paul A. Karpinskia-,w_ho is personally known to me, A Packet Page -3060- ion'' Expires: 14statecowNyork 490mftNp 1 LiME: d by My Vi— OUR Myc % A Packet Page -3060- ion'' Expires: 14statecowNyork 490mftNp 1 LiME: Pri Printed Name: tc S`cc...e�s �JY 13 \SZ STATE OF %.+ COUNTY OF , 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. OR; 3077 PG: 3126 Printed Name: Katheryn M. Karpinski The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me this C4^' day of 20A by Katheryn M. KagPi ski, who is personally known to me. tw (f Print (t) S k `�MY Noto ' W Packet Page -3061- is lissiori Expires: F &0.014* . , , . Witnesses Pn tedName: Ell Printed Name: 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. OR: 3077 PG: 3127 P-rinled Name: Kristina Kaminski STATE OF Massachusetts COUNTY OF Middlesex The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of April , 2001, by Kristina A. Karpinski: who is personally known to me or produced AAAfl h smarts nriver License'` ' " s as�-identification. (Seal) FNotary Public, °tfiniettfiiame ` Mai P. Trinh „My Commission Expires: February 27. 2009 s 5 � •�`� � Wy fii y.��ff z Packet Page -3062- a . . Witnesses Aa Printed Name: Perm rolido Printed Narne:nb=,-� '3--11 a 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. *** OR: 3077 PG: 3128 *** % Printed Name: Susan K inski STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of LAA.,to 2001, by Susan Kwpiftgl ;.�•i — js., personally known to me, o; pmdeed (Seal) C Packet Page -3063- Expires: JOHN A. KARPINSKI Naftry Pubk in I* ft* 01 NOW Vb* au~ in C&Wp CamV No 1373. my CWaftsion EXPWW M NAClientAIMCOLLIER 0 195\Karpinski Deeds\Waffmi Dced..' ftdoll&yoC Packet Page -3063- Expires: JOHN A. KARPINSKI Naftry Pubk in I* ft* 01 NOW Vb* au~ in C&Wp CamV No 1373. my CWaftsion EXPWW M 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package OWNER AFFIDAVIT Packet Page -3064- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. AFFIDAVIT We /1 IM Collier Joint Venture being first duly sworn, depose and say that well amtare the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing, that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of thin application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Well further authorize Richard Yovanovich, Esq. & Alexis Crespo, AICP to act as our /my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Propert Owner Signature of Property Owner Donald Milarcik, Leqal Representative of IM Collier Joint Venture Typed or Printed Name of Owner (See Attached Covenant of Unified Control) Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Q I 04 24 LL_, by 0X-�OA 1N\ wG1 who is esn no"!n or has produced as identification. State of Florida � � ._� r, , � r-- � � Si n -WUre o, Ncia Public - state of County of Collier- Notary ` ry Florida) Notary Stamp Npta "k` put) if State D; Florida ? .raaqueryt, Ma- fielle Larocclue t v Commission ODSM5E3 �lFOr f� °�F t xr� +ac 0x12 %2012 Packet Page -3065- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package COVENANT OF UNIFED CONTROL Packet Page -3066- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. C CO&T County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 - wvvw. collie rgov.net COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereb} swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Mirasol _ No Site Address, Naples, FL 34119 (Street address and City. State and zip Code) and legn1k, described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the suhlect of ,in application far Residential planned unit development ( R PUD) zoning. We hereby desiL,natc Don Milarcik legal representutivc thereof, us the legal reprgsentatives of the property and <ts such. these Individuals are authorised to lecaily hind all owners of the propert} in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications. plans, surreys, and Studies necessary to obtain zoning approval oil the site_ These representatives till remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until Such time as a new or amended covenant of uni fed control is delivered to Collier County, The undersigned recognize the fiollowinb and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the: project: I . ']'lie property will he developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placid on the development and all commitments agreed to b% the applicant in connection %pith the planned unit development rceoning. , 2. The learn representative identified herein is responsible far compliance o +ith all terms. conditions. safeguards. and stipulations made at the time of approval ol'the master plan. even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in p.urt, artless and until a new or nmendod covenant ofunified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier Count \,, 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a tailure to comply with any requirements. conditions, or sutcguards provided Rw in the planned unit development process will constitute a � iolation elf the band Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into co\cnants and restrictions oNhich run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development acti%ity within the planned unit development must be consistent \a idl those terms and conditions. 5. So lung ,IN this coo cnim is in force. Collier C'ouniN can, upon the discoycry of noncompliance \with the terms. safeguards. and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equilblc relief as neeessary to compel compliance, The Count} will not issue permits. ccnifcatcs, or licenser, to occupy or use arty part ofthe planned unit de%cicopment and the County nta) stop itngoinL' construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with ail term:;. conditions and .il'utiurds of the planned unit dvN clopment a l t? l r Owner _. Uaner J.D. Nicewonder,Managing Member of CCMS Development,LLC' `/ /`! , �� r e V/`C' ' - Printed Nrrrne _._ 11rirned i�tvrn= I`which is Managing Member of Mirasol Development, LLC, which is one of the Partners of IM Collier Joint Venture) STATl 01 144*i`�) V A COL 1' 01 Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed bcforc me this dot of 1 ;✓ 'iJ &Z1)�� ,% j7 .f 4 f" `.�.r__!�� v.ho is persuntliy kntovoi to the or has prodtrcct! � is id ntntication. - .. Notac, Public Ile �� (Name typed, printed or stamped) ,€O11 miry, ?{{:n. j 7! Ic;iT Februat - 4. 1011 C Packet Page -3067- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST (CONTRAST PURCHASER) Packet Page -3068- NAME & ADDRESS TM NEWCO, LLC Notes: DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST CONTRACT PURCHASER PERCENTAGE 100% TAYLOR MORRISON OF FLORIDA, INC. 99.99% Steve Kempton, Vice President 501 Cattleman Rd., Suite 100 Sarasota, FL 34232 G & M NAPLES, LLC 0.001% Dennis Gilkey, Managing Member 50% 9220 Bonita Beach Rd SE Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Donald Milarcik, Managing Member 50% 6080 Cypress Hollow Way Naples, FL 34109 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, is owned 100% by Taylor Morrison, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Taylor Morrison, Inc. is owned 99.888% by Taylor Morrison Communities, Inc. fka Taylor Woodrow Holdings (USA), Inc. and the remainder is owned by Aylesbury (USA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Taylor Morrison Communities, Inc. is owned 100% by Taylor Morrison Holdings, Inc. fka Aylesbury Acquisition Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Taylor Morrison Holdings, Inc. is owned 100% by TMM Holdings Limited Partnership, a British Columbia limited partnership. TMM Holdings Limited Partnership, a British Columbia limited partnership, is owned by investment funds managed by Oak Tree Capital, TPG Capital and JHI Investments. Packet Page -3069- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT &EXHIBITS Packet Page -3070- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT FOR COLLIER COUNTY PUD AMENDMENT JULY 12, 2012 PREPARED BY: t A TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE, STE B NAPLES, FL 34104 (239) 643 -0166 Packet Page -3071- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 MIRASOL COLLIER COUNTY PUD AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I . INTRODUCTION 3 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS (PRE- DEVELOPMENT) 5 2.1 VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS 5 2.2 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY & DRAINAGE PATTERNS 6 2.3 WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS 7 2.3.1 WETLAND SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND HYDROPERIOD 7 2.3.2 JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS 8 2.4 LISTED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES 8 2.5 HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 8 2.6 SOILS 8 3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS (POST- DEVELOPMENT) 12 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 12 3.2 PROJECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS 12 3.2.1 DIRECT, PERMANENT IMPACTS 13 3.2.2 TEMPORARY IMPACTS 13 3.2.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS TO OFF -SITE WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES 13 3.3 PRESERVATION, ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, AND CREATION OF WETLANDS 13 3.4 PROJECT IMPACTS TO LISTED SPECIES 14 3.5 PROJECT IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL RESOURCES 18 4. WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM 19 4.1 ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS OF MITIGATION PROGRAM 19 4.2 GENERAL MITIGATION SPECIFICATIONS 20 5. WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 22 6. MITIGATION / PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 24 7. BASIS OF WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM AS ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS 25 Page 1 of 25 Packet Page -3072- APPENDICES FIGURES: FIGURE I FIGURE 2 FIGURE 2A FIGURE 2B FIGURE 2C FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 6A FIGURE 6B FIGURE 6C FIGURE 7A FIGURE 7B FIGURE 8A FIGURE 8B FIGURE 8C FIGURE 8D FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 APPENDIX A: TABLES 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 LOCATION MAP EXISTING FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS EXISTING FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS (SECTION 22) EXISTING FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS (SECTION 15) EXISTING FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS (SECTION 10) TOPOGRAPHICAL DATA SOILS ADDITIONAL LANDS ADDED TO PUD BOUNDARY OVERALL WETLAND IMPACT AND PRESERVE MAP WETLAND IMPACT AND PRESERVE MAP (SECTION 22) WETLAND IMPACT AND PRESERVE MAP (SECTION 15) WETLAND IMPACT AND PRESERVE MAP (SECTION 10) CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN OVERALL CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA NATIVE VEGETATION MAP NATIVE VEGETATION (< 75% EXOTICS) NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVED NATIVE VEGETATION SECTION I I PARCEL WETLAND FARM FIELD ENHANCEMENT AND CREATION AREAS WOOD STORK FORAGING IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX B: LISTED SPECIES SURVEY EXHIBIT I LISTED SPECIES OBSERVED APPENDIX C: MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLANS APPENDIX D: WRAP SUMMARY TABLES APPENDIX E: LETTER FROM THE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX F: LISTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Page 2 of 25 Packet Page -3073- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12.2012 1. INTRODUCTION The Mirasol project site is located in northern Collier County between Immokalee Road and the County line just west of the Immokalee Road and Collier Blvd. intersection. The PUD project boundary encompasses portions of Sections 10, 15, and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The existing project approvals consist of a maximum of 799 living units, a maximum of 36 holes of golf, clubhouses, and required lakes and infrastructure. The current amendment proposal is to add approximately 95 acres to the PUD boundary and incorporate the 322 residential units associated with those acres into the project proposal. One of the previously proposed golf courses will be eliminated from the project plan and the overall project development footprint will also be reduced in size. Access to the project is via State Road 846 along the southern boundary of the property. The entire project site is approximately 1,638.6 acres and consists of both urban (425.76 acres) and RFMU neutral lands (1,212.79 acres) within the proposed PUD boundary. The majority of the site has been infested to varying degrees by melaleuca. The 1,638.6 acre PUD footprint contains about 281.70 acres of upland habitats and 1,356.85 acres of wetland habitats. Of the 1,638.6 acres, approximately 895.6 acres meet the County definition of native habitat. The remainder of the property is dense melaleuca or Brazilian pepper (See Exhibit 8). The majority of the site has been used in the past as forested cattle pasture and continues to be used so currently. The SFWMD has reviewed the original project and found it consistent with the storm water management and water quality criteria of the State of Florida. No changes to existing water levels or hydroperiod regimes within the preserve areas are proposed. Given that the current proposal is a reduction in project footprint from what was previously proposed, it is not expected that water levels or hydroperiod regimes will change. During times of high water or certain storm events, some water will be routed around the project via a constructed swale prior to out - falling into the Cocohatchee Canal. All internal stormwater will pass through the surface water management system for treatment prior to discharge off of the project. Details of this system can be reviewed in the reports and documentation from the civil engineers. The property straddles the RFMU neutral land and the urban residential land boundary. The Mirasol PUD was specifically authorized to utilize the density blending provisions when the density blending provisions were incorporated into the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. When the density blending provisions were adopted, County Staff advised the Department of Community Affairs and the BCC that Section 15 is eligible for density blending and Section 10 is not eligible for density blending although both sections are designated neutral lands. The density blending provisions in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan specifically allow the blending of density from the urban area to Section 15 in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Based upon the express language in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan the Mirasol PUD qualified for density blending as it satisfied criteria (e)" The project is currently zoned or will be rezoned to a PUD" and (f) "Density to be shifted to the RFMU district from the Urban Residential Sub - District is to be located on impacted lands, or the development on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and /or habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas" of the density blending criteria. Under the currently proposed amendment, the Mirasol PUD still satisfies these criteria. The GMP assigns a ranking to native preserve areas and requires that "areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife...." be given the highest priority for preservation. The entire site has been designated as listed species habitat by FWS for the federally protected Florida Panther, Eastern Indigo Snake, and Wood Stork. The FFWCC has Page 3 of 25 Packet Page -3074- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 also reviewed the project in the past and advised that any relatively open areas (not the thick palmettos or melaleuca areas) would be the preferred habitat for the State protected Big Cypress Fox Squirrel. All agencies previously involved in this project review (SFWMD, FFWCC, ACOE, FWS, & EPA) as well as several environmental groups (including the Florida Wildlife Federation and Audubon of Florida) agreed that the preservation of Section 10 was a priority for the project due to it's connectivity on a regional scale between existing and proposed preserve to the west of the property and CREW lands to the east. Preservation of these contiguous lands in Sections 10 and 15 not only protects habitat known to be utilized by listed species but also maintains connectivity and serves as a corridor between preserve areas to the east and west of the project. In addition to the large preserve in Section 10 and the northern part of Section 15, the currently proposed PUD Master Plan also preserves approximately 200 acres along the western edge of the project. In recent discussions with various Conservation Groups (including the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Florida Audubon, and Florida Wildlife Federation), the preservation of these lands along the western boundary was identified as another priority for them. As a result of the discussions, the project footprint was reduced, the additional lands were included in the preserve, and this western preserve area was established. Some wetland creation and wood stork foraging improvement activities will take place in the southern portion of this western preserve. The PUD also identifies three smaller preserves within the development area. These three preserves are isolated within the development but meet the LDC requirements for density blending in that they preserve the highest quality wetlands within the urban boundary. All of these smaller preserves encompass higher quality wetland areas and preserve listed species foraging functions that have been observed on the property. This document provides information concerning the proposed Mirasol project as it relates to natural resources and environmental issues. It was written to support an application submitted to Collier County for an amendment to the existing PUD zoning designation. Page 4 of 25 Packet Page -3075- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12; 2012 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS (PRE- DEVELOPMENT) 2.1 VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS The existing habitat types (based on DOT FLUCFCS codes) are shown in Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c. Table 1 provides a listing of all the unique FLUCFCS map units present on the property as well as their extent and estimated percentage of exotic infestation. Of the total 1,638.6 acres contained within the Mirasol property boundary, 17.2% classify as uplands (281.70 ac.) and 82.8% classify as wetlands (1,356.86 ac.). The majority of the property has been infested to some degree by noxious exotic vegetation including melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and ear -leaf acacia 411 — Mesic Pine Flatwoods with Melaleuca 265.98 acres 16.2% of site Slash Pine Pinus elliottii C Common Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia C & M Common to Dominant Saw Palmetto Serenoa repens G Common Myrsine Myrsine guianensis M Occasional Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera M Occasional Wiregrass Aristida stricta G Common Rusty Lyonia Lyonia ferruginea G Rare Grapevine Vitus rotundifolia V Occasional Greenbriar Smilax spp. V Occasional 422 — Brazilian Pepper with Slash Pine Canopy, 11.59 acres 0.7% of site Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthifolius M Dominant Slash Pine Pinus elliottii C Occasional Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia M Rare Saw Palmetto Serenoa repens G Rare Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera M Rare Greenbriar Smilax spp. V Occasional 424 — Melaleuca, 706.31 acres 43.1 % of site Slash Pine Pinus elliottii C Occasional to Rare Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia C & M Dominant Myrsine Myrsine guianensis M Rare Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera M Rare Beaked Sedge Rhynchospora spp G Common 621 - Cypress 137.31 acres 8.4% of site Cypress Taxodium distichum C Common Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia C Common Carolina Willow Salix caroliniana M Rare Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinithifolius M Rare Page 5 of 25 Packet Page -3076- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL EWIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 Swamp Fern Blechnum serrulatum G Occasional Yellow Eyed Grass Xyris iridifolia G Occasional Hatpins Eriocaulon spp. G Occasional Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense G Occasional 624 - Cypress/ Pine, 45.78 acres 2.8 % of site Cypress Taxodium distichum C Common Slash Pine Pinus elliottii C Common Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia C Common to Dominant Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera M Occasional Yellow Eyed Grass Xyris iridifolia M Occasional Pipewort Eriocaulon spp. G Occasional Marsh Fleabane Pluchea foetida M Occasional Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans G Occasional Goldenrod Euthamina minor G Occasional 625 — Hvdric Pine Flatwoods, 440.63 acres 26.9 % of site Slash Pine Pinus elliottii C Common Cypress Taxodium distichum C Occasional Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia C, G, M Dominant to Common Swamp Fern Blechnum serrulatum G Occasional Yellow Eyed Grass Xyris iridifolia G Occasional Hatpins Eriocaulon spp. G Occasional Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense G Occasional Pineland Heliotrope Heliotropium polyphyllum G Common 643 — Disturbed Wet Prairie. 4.29 acres 0.3 % of site Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia C Common Yellow Eye Grass Xyris iridifolia G Common Southern Beakrush Rynchospora G Common Wire Grass Aristida stricta G Common C = Canopy M = Midstory G = Groundcover V = Vine E = Epiphyte " - Protected species The remaining 1.6% of the site are disturbed areas such as the faun field, cattle ponds, and commercial area. 2.2 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY & DRAINAGE PATTERNS During the rainy season, water generally flows across this site from the northeast to the southwest direction. The site has become a de -facto flowway due to the surrounding development and flow obstacles (berms, roads, etc.) that have served to concentrate and back up water onto this site. Page 6 of 25 Packet Page -3077- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 However, the project has provided increased conveyance capacity across the site to compensate for the storage lost through the direct impacts proposed. The project site is located in the western portion of a historic drainage pathway from Corkscrew Swamp to the Gordon River. Historic water flow patterns, water depths, and hydroperiods within the basin have been significantly altered by agricultural and residential development. Immokalee Road (SR 846) was constructed in 1958 using fill material from a borrow canal along the north edge of the roadway. The canal (Cocohatchee Canal) intercepts surface sheet flow and ground water from the north and drains the water to the Gulf of Mexico via the Cocohatchee River. The Cocohatchee and Golden Gate Canal system, along with residential and agricultural development, have significantly altered the hydrology of the project site and surrounding area. During the mid 1970s, a significant acreage north of the project was converted to vegetable crop production. Additional development activities were also occurring to the west. This resulted in a system of berms being constructed, which effectively funneled the surface water from thousands of acres (which historically occurred as sheet flow over a broad area of + 15 miles), into a highly restricted flow -way with relatively few outfalls to the Cocohatchee Canal. The water, directed into the project area via the restrictions, routing, agricultural pumping and the berm adjacent to the Cocohatchee Canal, backs up across the project site for extended periods during the summer. Water lines, lichen lines, and adventitious roots on melaleuca trees are visible in most areas. These biological indicators reflect the water levels elevated by the off -site flows from the north. This altered hydrology caused changes to the wetlands within the project site through flooding and degradation of the upland communities. However, the hydroperiod is extremely variable and ground water levels typically drop to more than four feet below grade during the dry season, facilitating the colonization of the area by melaleuca and debilitating the restoration of appropriate native communities. 2.3 WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS Qualified Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. environmental staff inspected the project lands for the purpose of delineating wetlands and other surface waters. The wetland delineation methodologies and criteria set forth by the state (in Chapter 62 -340, FAC, Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual) were followed in determining whether an area classified as a wetland or other surface water and in delineating the limits (boundaries) of potential jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters. Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c depict the wetlands present on the project lands and immediately adjacent areas. 2.3.1 WETLAND SEASONAL HIGH WATER TA13LE AND HYDROPERIOD Seasonal high water elevations were determined utilizing water lines, lichen lines, adventitious rooting, and other hydrological indicators. Three water loggers were installed across the property and monitored in 2005 and 2006 to further assure that the observed hydrological indicators were consistent with actual conditions. In addition, water levels at the SFWMD 951 EXT water gauge were examined to verify these elevations as well as to examine both high and low water levels through the year. 2.3.2 JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS The wetland lines established based on the state methodology differ from those established based on the federal (USACE) methodology within Sections 15 and 22. As a result, the upland and wetland acreages differ between the two agencies. For the purposes of the Collier County submittal, the State wetland jurisdictional lines and associated acreages are utilized. The wetland Page 7 of 25 Packet Page -3078- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 boundaries flagged (marked) by staff ecologists were subsequently survey- located. All of the wetlands now present on the project lands (and delineated with the two methodologies) are assumed to be jurisdictional with both the State and Federal permitting agencies per their delineation guidelines. 2.4 LISTED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES A thorough survey for listed animal and plant species has been conducted on the project lands by Turrell, Hall & Associates biologists. This listed species survey and its results are discussed in Appendix B. The report describes the approximate locations where listed animal species were observed on and near the project lands during the course of the referenced survey. The listed animal species observed on project lands by Turrell, Hall & Associates included snowy egret, tricolored heron, white ibis, wood stork, big cypress fox squirrel, and Florida black bear. Other than the fox squirrels, none of the observed listed animal species reside or nest on the project lands. No listed plant species were found on the project lands. A few listed animal species, in addition to those documented on the project lands, have the potential to occurring in certain habitats present on project lands. These species are further discussed in Appendix B and include; indigo snake, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, roseate spoonbill, and Florida panther. The probability of these animals utilizing suitable habitats in project lands ranges from high to low depending upon the particular species. It is improbable that any of these species currently reside or nest on the project lands. It is highly unlikely that any listed plant species could be present on the project lands. 2.5 HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Phase One Archaeological Assessment was conducted on the property in 2004. There were no archaeological materials or sites found as a result of the assessment. It was the opinion of the surveying archaeologist that the proposed development would have no effect on any cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. These results were submitted to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR) for their review. DHR responded in a letter dated 9/28/04 that they concurred with the findings. A copy of this letter is provided as Appendix E. The Collier County Long Range Planning Department's "Index Map of Historical /Archaeological Probability of Collier County, Florida ", published on 5/5/01 was also reviewed. These maps did not show any historic structures, archaeological sites, or historic districts on the project lands. Given the above, it does not appear that development of the Mirasol property will impact any historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological value. If a suspected archaeological or historical artifact is discovered during the course of site development activities (construction, clearing, etc.), the development activities at the specific site will be immediately halted and the appropriate agency notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the County or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action. 2.6 SOILS Based on the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) "Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida" (NRCS, 1998) there are 7 different soil types (soil map units) present on the project Page 8 of 25 Packet Page -3079- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 lands. Figure 4 provides a soils map for the project area as derived from the NRCS mapping. The following sub - sections provide a brief description of each soil map unit identified on the project lands. Information is provided about the soil's landscape position (i.e. its typical location in the landscape on a county -wide basis), the soil's profile (i.e. textural composition and thickness or depth range of the layers or horizons commonly present in the soil), and the soil's drainage and hydrologic characteristics. In addition, the hydrologic soil group is also identified for each soil. There are 4 groups that are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils are grouped according to the rate of infiltration of water when the soils are thoroughly wet and are subject to precipitation from long- duration storms. The four groups range from A (soils with a high infiltration rate, low runoff potential, and a high rate of water transmission) to D (soils having a slow infiltration rate and very slow rate of water transmission). The soils occurring on project lands are as follows: Holopaw fine sand limestone substratum (Map Unit #2) Landscape position — Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Soil profile — Surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 5 inches thick. The subsurface is white to light gray fine sand to a depth of 57 inches. The subsoil is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam down to about 62 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 62 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months. Water table can recede to more than 40 inches during dry periods. Hydrologic group is B /D. Malabar fine sand (Map Unit #3) Landscape position — Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Soil profile — Surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 2 inches thick. The subsurface is light brownish gray fine sand to a depth of 15 inches. The subsoil is fine sand in the upper layers varying from brownish yellow to very pale brown and the lower layers are grayish brown mottled sandy clay loam down to about 72 inches. Substratum is light gray fine sand with up to 10% shell fragments to a depth of about 80 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is slow or very slow. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months. Water table can recede to more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Hydrologic group is B /D. Oldsmar fine sand limestone substratum (Map Unit #10) Landscape position — Flatwoods. Soil profile — Surface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand and typically about 4 inches thick. The subsurface is fine sand, gray to brownish gray, to a depth of 35 inches. Substratum is black fine sand transitioning to dark gray fine sandy loam to a depth of about 60 inches. Limestone bedrock is generally present at around 60 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is slow. Seasonal high water table (apparent) is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Hydrologic group is B /D. Page 9 of 25 Packet Page -3080- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY ] 2, 2012 Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Map Unit #14) Landscape position — Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways Soil profile — Surface layer to a depth of about 4 inches consists of dark grayish brown fine sand. Subsurface layer to depth of about 12 inches consist of light brownish gray fine sand. Subsurface layers below this to a depth of 55 inches consist of sand or fine sand. Below these layers the subsoil is brownish yellow fine sandy loam, dark grayish brown sandy clay loam. Limestone bedrock begins at a depth of about 55 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is slow. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months and can recede to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Hydrologic group is B /D. Oldsmar fine sand (Map Unit #16 Landscape position — Flatwoods. Soil profile — Surface layer to a depth of 3 to 8 inches consists of fine sand. Subsurface layer to depth of about 4 to 50 inches consist of sand or fine sand. Subsurface layers below this to a depth of 30 to 65 inches consist of sand or fine sand. Below these layers the subsoil is fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or sandy loam. Limestone bedrock begins at a depth of 60 to 72 inches but may not begin within 80 inches of the surface in some pedons. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is slow or very slow. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months. Hydrologic group is B /D. Basinger fine sand (Map Unit #17) Landscape position — Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Soil profile — All soil horizons present to a depth of 80 inches or more are comprised of fine sand. A weak spodic horizon occurs beginning at depths ranging from 12 to 38 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is rapid. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within 12 inches of the surface for 3 to 6 months. Shallow standing water is present for about 7 days following peak rainfall events during the wet season. Hydrologic group is B /D. This soil is classified as a hydric soil by the NRCS. Boca fine sand (Map Unit #21) Landscape position — Flatwoods Soil profile — The surface layer is typically a very dark gray fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface is fine sand to a depth of about 26 inches. The subsoil is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam to a depth of about 30 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of around 30 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is moderate. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table (apparent) is set at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Hydrologic group is B /D. Page 10 of 25 Packet Page -3081- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12.2012 Boca Rivera limestone substratum and Copeland rine sand depressional (Map Unit #25 Landscape position — Depressions, cypress swamps, and marshes. Soil profile for Boca soil — Surface layer to a depth of 4 inches consists of very dark gray fine sand. Subsurface layers to a depth of about 26 inches consist of light gray to brown fine sand. The subsoil below these layers to a depth of 30 inches is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of around 30 inches. Soil profile for Rivera soil — The surface layer to a depth of 6 inches is gray fine sand. The subsurface layers to a depth of 32 inches consist of light brownish gray fine sand. The subsoil layers consist of grayish brown to dark gray sandy clay loam to a depth of 54 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of around 54 inches. Soil profile for Copeland soil — The surface to a depth of 6 inches consists of black fine sand. The subsurface layers to a depth of 18 inches consist of very dark grayish brown to dark gray fine sand. The subsoil layer is light gray mottled sandy clay loam to a depth of about 24 inches. The substratum is a light gray marl to a depth of around 30 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of around 30 inches. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Very poorly drained. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow. Seasonal high water table (apparent) is up to 2 feet above the surface for 6 months or more typically. Hydrologic group is D. Holopaw fine sand (Map Unit #27) Landscape position — Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Soil profile — Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 5 inches thick. The subsurface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand to a depth of about 52 inches. The subsoil extends of a depth of about 62 inches and consists of fine sandy loam. Drainage /Hydrologic characteristics — Holopaw soils are very poorly drained. Permeability for Holopaw soils is moderate to moderately slow. The available water capacity is low. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by shallow, slow moving water for about 7 days. Hydrologic group is B /D. Page 11 of 25 Packet Page -3082- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS (POST- DEVELOPMENT 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The current Mirasol project proposal consists of a maximum of 1121 living units, a maximum of 18 holes of golf, an associated clubhouse, the required lakes and infrastructure, a constructed water pass- through, and a substantial (approx. 1,089 acres) preserve area with approximately 32 acres of constructed wood stork foraging improvements. Construction of the project will result in impacts to 514.42 acres of State jurisdictional wetlands. The main access to the project is via State Road 846 along the southern boundary of the property. A secondary access may be constructed off of Broken Back Rd (CR 951) on the eastern side of the project. In conjunction with the proposed development, several preserves will be established, enhanced, and maintained in perpetuity. All of the proposed preserves will be enhanced through the removal of exotic vegetation, the re- establishment of native species within the preserve areas, and specific management activities designed to enhance the habitats for wildlife utilization. Species specific management activities such as mid -story vegetation control and prescribed burning will also be undertaken to enhance and augment the viability of the native habitat for listed species utilization. Three upland areas will be scraped down to wetland elevations to augment flow capabilities in the southern portion of the western preserve area. In addition, wood stork foraging improvements will be undertaken on the three upland scrape -down areas as well as the existing farm field. The berms on the northern and eastern side of the field will be removed and a series of depressions of varying depths will be created to concentrate prey and improve the ability of wood storks and other wading birds to forage successfully. This contouring will encompass approximately 31.8 acres as depicted on the accompanying exhibits. All preserve areas will be placed under conservation easements, and will be maintained exotic free in perpetuity. The large northern and western preserve is proposed to eventually be given to the CREW Trust (along with an endowment account for future maintenance) once the enhancement, creation, and foraging improvement activities have been completed. The smaller southern preserves will remain under the control of the CDD or homeowner's association but will still be maintained in perpetuity. Various acreage estimates for the proposed project are provided below. • Total area within Mirasol property PUD boundary = 1,638.56 acres • Total wetlands within the PUD Boundary = 1,356.86 acres • Total uplands within the PUD boundary = 281.70 acres • Total native habitat within PUD boundary = 895.6 acres • Total area to be developed as part of the project = 709.8 acres • Portion of development area to be preserved = 36.84 acres • Total area outside of the development area boundary to be preserved = 928.0 acres • Total native habitat to be preserved (on -site) = 532.3 acres • Wading bird foraging improvements = 31.86 acres • Total area to be preserved = 964.8 acres 3.2 PROJECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS The proposed project will impact a total of 514.4 acres of wetlands which have been degraded to varying degrees by exotic vegetation infestations and hydrological impacts. Figure 6 illustrates the wetlands that will be impacted. Appendix A, Table 1 provides the existing habitat types (FLUCFCS map units) occurring in the wetlands to be impacted. During construction, appropriate best management practices will be employed to help protect Page 12 of 25 Packet Page -3083- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 water quality and minimize the discharge of sediments and /or turbid water from the project site. The specific erosion /sediment/turbidity control methods and devices used will generally conform to applicable standards and criteria set forth in the "FDER Florida Development Manual," Sections 6- 301 through 6 -500 (FDER. 1988. "The Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management," Chapter 6: "Storm Water and Erosion Control Best Management Practices for Developing Areas; Guidelines for Using Erosion and Sediment Control Practices, "). 3.2.1 DIRECT, PERMANENT IMPACTS Development of the proposed project will result in direct, permanent impacts to a total of 514.4 acres of SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and to a total of 561.87 acres of USACE jurisdictional wetlands. As used herein, the term "direct, permanent impacts" refers to actions that will result in the complete elimination of jurisdictional areas (i.e. excavation and fill). The remainder of the existing on -site wetlands will be preserved or retained. Tables 1 and 2 list the proposed permanent wetland impacts while Figure 6 illustrates these impacts. The wetlands proposed to be permanently impacted are all degraded to some extent by exotic vegetation and hydrological impacts. WRAP scores for the existing functional values of these wetlands range from 0.306 to 0.806 (see Table 4, Appendix D). 3.2.2 TEMPORARY IMPACTS Conducting the proposed wetland mitigation program for the project will result in temporary "impacts to certain on -site wetlands within the preserve area. As used herein, "temporary impacts" refer to those impacts that represent a temporary physical disturbance to wetlands but the affected areas still remain as wetlands following this disturbance. Proposed wood stork foraging improvement activities will require mechanized clearing, grubbing, and grading of the farm field area and the three wetland creation areas as shown on Figure 10. The proposed foraging improvement program will require temporary impacts to a total of 17.6 acres of SFWMD and USACE jurisdictional wetlands and the conversion of 14.55 acres of uplands to contoured wetland habitat. The effects of the clearing and grading activities proposed should not be considered wetland "impacts" since they are necessary to carry out the foraging improvement activities and will result in overall positive benefits to the affected wetland areas. 3.2.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS TO OFF -SITE WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES The proposed layout of the project's development features will minimize potential secondary impacts to the adjacent off -site wetlands by providing an appropriate buffer between the development features and these wetlands. 3.3 PRESERVATION, ENHANCEMENT, AND CREATION OF WETLANDS The proposed wetland impacts will be compensated by conducting mitigation activities in the on- site preserve areas as described below. An assessment of the wetland impacts and mitigation program was conducted using the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) set forth in Technical Publication REG -001 by the Resource Management Division, Regulation Department of the South Florida Water Management District. A summary of this assessment is provided in Tables 4, 5 and 6 of Appendix D. The WRAP assessment indicates that the scores for the on -site wetlands range from 0.306 to 0.806 and that the total functional value of the project wetlands prior to any development is 646.04 functional units. The WRAP assessment further indicates that the gross functional gain, or "lift ", that will result from conducting the proposed mitigation activities is projected to be at least 13.75 functional units. Page 13 of 25 Packet Page -3084- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 Since the net increase in wetland functional values derived from the mitigation program exceeds the wetland functional values that will be lost as a result of the project's wetland impacts, the proposed project wetland mitigation program will fully compensate for the proposed project wetland impacts. The WRAP assessment indicates the project will not result in any net loss of wetland functions. Instead, this assessment indicates there will be a net increase in wetland functions that will result from the on -site mitigation program. The on -site mitigation program will involve conducting wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation activities and enhancement of uplands within the preserves. The wetland mitigation areas total approximately 964.8 acres, 857 of which are or will be wetlands. Table 3 of Appendix A lists the extent of each habitat type (FLUCFCS mapping units; vegetation associations) anticipated in the preserve area following the completion of mitigation. Major components of the anticipated mitigation activities include: • Eradication and control of Category 1 and 2 invasive exotics identified in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's (EPPC) "List of Invasive Species ", in general accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.1.g.ii. Eradication and control of nuisance plant species as necessary (target control likely <5% cover by nuisance species). As used herein, "nuisance" plant species are native plants that tend to colonize disturbed areas rapidly and thus can out - compete desirable native species. Examples include cattail, dog fennel, ragweed, and grapevine. • Grading (mainly excavating) the areas shown as FLUCFCS 140 and 211 in the enclosed Figure 9 to form depressions of varying topography as shown in Figure 10. This area will create open foraging habitat for wood storks and other wading birds. • Scrape down and contouring of the two upland areas shown as FLUCFCS 411 in the southern portion of the western preserve (Figure 9). These areas will be contoured similarly to the 140 and 211 areas described above and will add to the area created for wood storks and other wading bird foraging improvements. • Removal of the existing perimeter berm around the farm field during the grading process, thereby creating more natural wetlands from this existing upland feature and improving overland flow through this area. The mitigation areas will be protected via placing them into conservation easements required by Collier County pursuant to LDC 3.05.07.H.1.d. These areas will also be protected by placing it into a separately recorded conservation easement pursuant to requirements of state and federal permitting agencies. 3.4 PROJECT IMPACTS TO LISTED SPECIES A thorough survey for listed animal and plant species was conducted on the project lands by Turrell, Hall & Associates ecologists. This listed species survey and its results are discussed in Appendix B. Appendix B, Exhibit 5 shows the approximate locations where listed animal species were observed on and near the project lands during the course of the referenced survey. The listed animal species observed on project lands by Turrell, Hall & Associates included snowy egret, tricolored heron, white ibis, wood stork, big cypress fox squirrel, and Florida black bear. Other than the fox squirrels, none of the observed listed animal species reside or nest on the project lands. No listed plant species were found on the project lands. Appendix C provides a protection plan (management plan) for the listed species that were documented utilizing the project lands and for some additional listed wading birds. Page 14 of 25 Packet Page -3085- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12.2012 The following subsections provide an assessment of the proposed project's potential impacts to various listed animal species. The species addressed include those observed on or in close proximity to the project property as well as certain species that could potentially occur on or adjacent to the project site. Wood Storks (Mvcteria americana No wood stork nests, rookeries, or roosting sites have been found on the project lands. The closest documented wood stork colony is located at the two rookeries located approximately 5 miles northeast of the property in the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. The proximity of this rookery (colony) places the proposed project within the colony's 18.6- mile Core Foraging Area as defined by FWS. The property is also within the CFA of one other rookery sites. It is about 18 miles from the North Katherine Island rookery. Wood storks have been documented foraging in the small pond in the southern portion of the property as well as in the existing ditch located on the farm field. Most of the on -site wetlands do not provide suitable foraging habitat for wood storks for various reasons (water depths, density of shrub cover, inappropriate hydroperiod, minimal prey species, etc.). It is possible that wood storks could occasionally forage in limited portions of on -site wetlands however the quality of these habitats for foraging purposes is minimal. The proposed project will impact wetlands present on the Mirasol property (514.42 acres total impact to SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands; 561.87 acres total impact to USACE jurisdictional wetlands). These impacts constitute a loss of foraging habitat but the proposed wetland mitigation program will result in the establishment of more suitable wood stork foraging habitats that do not currently exist through the proposed wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement activities. The depressional areas to be created in the southern portion of the preserve as part of the wetland mitigation activities will add wetlands to the preserve area that will provide better foraging opportunities than are present today. During the construction phases of the project, various measures will be taken to help ensure protection of wood storks. These measures are addressed in the enclosed "listed species protection plan" (see Appendix C). As discussed in this document, the development plan proposed has been refined to further avoid and reduce impacts to wetlands, including suitable wood stork foraging habitats. The proposed wetland mitigation activities will occur within the same wood stork Core Foraging Area in which the proposed wetland impacts will occur. This mitigation is in keeping with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and should adequately compensate for the loss of the existing low- quality wood stork foraging habitats that will be impacted. Given these considerations, it is concluded that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect wood storks. Various Listed Wading Birds Little blue herons (Egretta caerulea), snowy egrets (Egretta thula), tricolored herons (Egretta tricolor), and white ibis (Eudocimus alba) have been observed foraging in various locations on the Mirasol property, predominately during the wet season. Little blue herons and snowy egrets have also been observed foraging in the small cattle ponds and along the canal at the southern end of the property and in the canal on the farm field site. No nests of these species have been observed on the project lands. Development of the Mirasol project will result in the loss of on -site wetlands thereby reducing potential foraging habitats for the listed wading birds mentioned. The proposed mitigation program will improve and increase wetland habitats that can be used by these species while the project lakes and shorelines will also provide potential foraging habitats. The listed species protection plan includes measures to help protect these species during project construction and operation. Overall, the proposed project will impact existing low- quality foraging habitats but should adequately compensate for these impacts and not threaten the continued existence of the cited listed wading birds. Page 15 of 25 Packet Page -3086- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 Eastern Indigo Snakes (Drymarchon corals couperi No indigo snakes have been observed on the project lands and the majority of these lands do not provide particularly suitable habitats for indigo snakes. Considering their elusive nature, their large home range, and the wide array of habitats they may utilize, there remains a limited potential that indigo snakes could occasionally frequent portions of the project lands. The listed species protection plan adopted as part of the Mirasol project includes appropriate measures for helping ensure the protection of indigo snakes. The particulars of the protection plan for indigo snakes set forth in the project's listed species protection plan basically follow the FWS's prescribed "Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake ". There are no known gopher tortoise burrows, and only a very few armadillo burrows, on the project lands where an indigo snake could be buried or trapped and injured during project activities. In consideration of these points and given the limited probability of any indigo snakes occurring on the project lands, it is anticipated that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect this species. Florida Panthers (Puma concolor coryi) Primary Zone panther habitat conservation overlays encompass the Mirasol property, and although no Florida panthers have ever been documented on project lands, they have been documented on immediately adjacent lands. Development of the property will permanently impact 709.8 acres within the property boundary all of which is located in the Primary Zone. The FWS has established panther Habitat Suitability Values (HSVs) for various types of habitats with scores (values) ranging from 0 (no value) to 9.5 (optimal value). When the acreage of a given habitat type (polygon) is multiplied by this habitat's HSV, the result is termed the Panther Habitat Unit value or PHU value. Based on the existing habitat types present, the total PHU value of the land to be impacted by actual development is 3,493 PHUs. While the affected habitat areas have HSVs ranging from 0 (example, drainage ditches) to 9.5 (example, pine flatwoods), the majority of these areas have lower habitat suitability values due to the heavy exotic vegetation infestation. The weighted average HSV (as weighted by acreage) is slightly more than 4.9. The 928.0 -acre preserve will not be impacted by development. An additional 160 acres in Section 11 will also be preserved and enhanced as compensation for potential panther impacts associated with the project. The current total PHU value for habitats within the Preserve is 5,822 PHUs. Following successful completion of the proposed wetland mitigation program, however, the Preserve habitats are anticipated to have a post- restoration PHU value of 10,138 PHUs. This increase will be achieved via the various restoration and enhancement activities proposed as part of the wetland mitigation program. Preservation and restoration of the preserve areas will be one component of the project's plan for compensating for the project's impacts to potential panther habitats (i.e. the project's "panther mitigation plan or program "). The Preserve will function to provide a total of 7,980 PHUs that can be used toward compensation for these impacts. Although the post- restoration PHU value for the Preserve will be 10,138 PHUs, FWS requires that a restoration adjustment factor be applied to the increase or "lift" in PHUs derived through restoration /enhancement activities. Only half of this increase can be counted toward the final post- restoration PHU value. Applying this to the Preserve, the PHUs that can be used to compensate for panther habitat impacts is calculated as follows: 5,822 existing PHU value + ((10,138 post- restoration PHU value — 5,822 existing PHU value) / 2) = 7,980 PHUs available for compensating panther habitat impacts. The applicant currently anticipates that the additional mitigation needed to compensate for the proposed potential panther habitat impacts will be achieved through preservation and management of additional lands located within the Primary Zone panther habitat conservation overlay. The FWS has previously approved this approach to mitigating development impacts to potential panther habitats in the general region. Page 16 of 25 Packet Page -3087- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 The applicant is coordinating with the FWS to address the project's impacts to Florida panthers and their potential habitats. The specifics of the location of the off -site lands to be preserved and protected as part of the project's panther mitigation program will be provided by the applicant as outlined in the Biological Opinion that is currently issued for the project. The applicant will ensure that the compensation value of these off -site lands combined with the compensation value of the on -site Preserve will be at least equal to if not greater than the current PHU value of project lands proposed for development. Given this approach, it is anticipated that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Florida panther. Florida Black Bears (Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear tracks have been observed in two locations along the mid - eastern project boundary. The first location is along the fence line adjacent to pine flatwood habitat and the second is along Broken Back Road adjacent to a cypress dome. In addition, foraging evidence (torn up cabbage palms) has been observed on the adjacent Saturnia Falls property. All observed track locations were recorded with a hand held Garmin GPS unit and overlain on the property boundary. Development of the property should not directly impact black bears nor will development result in a significant loss of suitable bear habitat. The dense exotic vegetation and limited food sources on the project site diminish the property's value as "suitable" bear habitat. Habitat management for the preserve areas is proposed to be conducted primarily with exotic removal and thinning or removing undesirable understory vegetation. Controlled fire management may potentially be used for habitat management. If fire management techniques are deemed inappropriate for this preserve area due to poor weather conditions, proximity to residential development, or other identified risks, periodic thinning of native vegetation may occur within the preserve to enhance habitat conditions for the resident fox squirrel population. However this will not adversely affect the black bear habitat and so will be consistent with both of these management objectives. The owner is aware that Collier County approvals (i.e. a vegetation removal permit) will be necessary for native vegetation removal other than nuisance vines and herbaceous vegetation. Prior to commencement of work on the site, fencing and containment surrounding the proposed impact areas will be installed to keep construction equipment within the defined development footprint area. Currently there are no known Black Bear denning areas onsite. Thus, none would be impacted by the proposed construction. Educational information and signage will be in place to inform residents and guests of the rules to avoid adverse interactions with on -site wildlife including Florida Black Bears. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has a Be Bear Aware campaign. They have made available various informative brochures including a homeowner's guide. FWC's outlined protocol for home owners will be provided to all residents. A few of the listed items include: • Properly storing garbage in lidded cans • Trash put outside no earlier than the night before pickup • No pet food to be outside • Protect gardens and outdoor pets • Clean grills and store them in secure areas Page 17 of 25 Packet Page -3088- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT. JULY 12,2012 3.5 PROJECT IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL RESOURCES As outlined in Section 2.5 of this report, it does not appear that development of the Mirasol property will impact any historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological value. If a suspected archaeological or historical artifact is discovered during the course of site development activities (construction, clearing, etc.), the development activities at the specific site will be immediately halted and the appropriate agency notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the County or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action. Page 18 of 25 Packet Page -3089- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 4. WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM The Mirasol project has proposed to establish a large on -site preserve area to compensate for wetland impacts associated with the development activities. The complete Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, provided as Appendix C, outlines the creation, enhancement, and foraging improvement activities proposed within the preserve areas associated with the project. It also outlines the monitoring efforts that will be done to track and document the success of the creation and enhancement efforts. A summary of the wetland and upland activities are outlined. below. The codes used correspond to the mitigation plan exhibits that are included with this plan. Development of the Mirasol project will impact approximately 514.4 acres of existing wetlands located within the property boundary. Mitigation for these permanent wetland impacts will be provided through mitigation efforts conducted within the preserve areas. The preserve areas will encompass a total of 928.0 contiguous acres as well as an additional 36.8 acres isolated within the development area. Conducting the mitigation program will result in some temporary impacts (excavation, limited fill, mechanized clearing) to the existing wetland farm field area located within the preserve boundary. These impacts will primarily result from clearing and grading activities necessary to establish appropriate grades for the wading bird foraging improvements. No mitigation is proposed for these "impacts" since they are a critical component of conducting the mitigation and since the affected wetland areas will be viable and enhanced wetlands following the "impacts ". The wetland mitigation program involves enhancement of preserved wetlands and uplands, through exotic removal and restoration of native habitats, the creation of new wetlands from uplands, improvements to wading bird foraging opportunities, and the maintenance, management, and protection of these areas. This section describes key components of the wetland mitigation program. 4.1 ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS OF MITIGATION PROGRAM Protection of Wetlands and Uplands via Conservation Easements: The preserve areas will be placed under appropriate conservation easements which will protect the future integrity of the created and enhanced wetlands and uplands encompassed by the conservation area. The easements will ensure that the preserve areas are preserved and protected in perpetuity. The large main preserve is also planned to be donated to the CREW Trust once enhancement, creation, and foraging improvement activities have been completed. Wetland and Upland Enhancement via Maintenance and Eradication of Exotic and Nuisance Plants: The preserve area will be maintained in perpetuity to ensure that the areas are free from exotic /invasive plant species immediately following maintenance events and such that exotic and nuisance plane species will constitute no more then 5% of the total plant cover in the interim between these maintenance events. Exotic invasive plant species will include Category I and Category II species identified in the current "Invasive Plant List' published by the Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council (FLEPPC) as well as Class I and Class II Prohibited Aquatic Plants listed in Chapter 62C- 52.011, Florida Administrative Code. Nuisance plant species will include native plant species deemed detrimental due to their potential adverse competition with desirable native species. Visual inspection for exotic, non - native and nuisance plant invasion will be conducted annually and all exotic, non - native and nuisance vegetation including those defined by County codes and the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, found within the preserve areas will be flagged, mapped and Page 19 of 25 Packet Page -3090- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12.2012 reported for treatment. Felled material will be removed from the preserve areas where possible or killed in place where removal would cause extreme damage to the surrounding native areas. Any stumps remaining after the exotic, non - native and nuisance removal will be treated with a U.S. EPA approved herbicide and visible tracer dye to prevent regeneration from the roots. These maintenance activities will be performed in perpetuity as needed. Wetland and Upland Preserve Delineation: Preserves will be clearly delineated with appropriate signage both during and after construction activities. Protective barricades will be used to cordon off construction areas and keep construction equipment out of preserve areas. A double row of silt fence will be used along preserve areas to separate them from the construction activities. The silt fence will remain in place until the perimeter berm is installed around the area of work. Appropriate signage will be placed along the perimeter of the preserves at 100 to 150 foot spacing. Prescribed Fire: The main preserves will be periodically burned according to the schedule developed in coordination with the CREW Trust and the Florida Forest Service. 4.2 GENERAL MITIGATION SPECIFICATIONS The mitigation program will require exotic and nuisance plant eradication activities, grading activities, and planting activities as previously noted. The following paragraphs provide additional information and specifications regarding these activities. Exotic & Nuisance Vegetation Eradication: The previously noted eradication methods will be employed throughout the preserve area in both uplands and wetlands. They may include physical removal of exotics and/or directed herbicide applications as dictated by the mitigation feature type and specific conditions and species encountered. Initial exotic and nuisance plant eradication efforts will involve a combination of methods including directed herbicide applications and cutting down exotics with subsequent application of herbicides to the stumps. Non - mechanized exotic and nuisance plant eradication methods will be employed wherever practical in order to preserve the greatest amount of existing native vegetation still present within the preserve areas. Methods include the use of hand implements such as chainsaws and machetes to cut down exotic vegetation with follow -up applications of herbicides as well as directed herbicide applications alone. Areas of exotic eradication handled in this manner will be allowed to recruit naturally for a year before determining if any replanting is necessary. Mechanical clearing of exotics may be employed where density and size of the material make hand removal impractical. In areas of mechanical eradication, replanting of native vegetation will be conducted immediately following the eradication activities. During the initial exotic /nuisance vegetation eradication process, felled materials will be generally removed from the perimeter of the preserve areas. Some felled woody plants will be stacked on- site, as necessary to best preserve desirable vegetation and provide for re- growth of desirable plants. Where stacking is employed, piles will be segregated into a limited number of scattered areas. Following initial eradication process, subsequent maintenance events will commonly employ non - mechanized exotic and nuisance plant eradication methods. These methods may include directed herbicide applications and /or physical removal of exotics. Page 20 of 25 Packet Page -3091- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 Clearing & Grading Activities: The mitigation program includes grading activities that will affect 31.86 acres of the existing farm field and three upland areas within the preserve boundary. The process will involve mechanized clearing and grubbing of the areas to be graded followed by the actual grading work. Cleared vegetation will be removed from the Preserve area for disposal either within portions of the Mirasol property to be developed or within a duly licensed off -site disposal facility. It is anticipated that excess soil excavated during the grading process will be removed from the preserve area and used as fill in areas of the project to be developed. Prior to the clearing, grubbing, and grading activities, the exact limits of zones requiring complete clearing and grading will be determined in the field and will be marked with protective barriers such as flagging, ropes, silt fence, enviro- fence, or a combination of such items. These marker barriers will remain in place until grading activities are completed. Prior to initiation of the clearing and grading activities, silt fences will also be installed at appropriate locations adjacent to existing wetlands to control erosion and sediment transport. These erosion /sediment control devices will remain in place until grading activities are completed and the graded areas are stabilized. Machinery /vehicle ingress and egress routes to the areas requiring grading will be restricted to avoid unnecessary damage to upland and wetland areas both within the boundaries of the preserve area and to areas situated outside the property boundary and the preserve area. The only other areas where grading and excavation may be conducted on any of the identified preserve areas will only be for the purposes of filling in tire ruts caused by land management mechanical equipment or in the maintenance of fire breaks. Planting Specifications: Certain mitigation activities will require planting native vegetation. Appendix C of this report provides a potential list of species which may be employed when planting wetland and upland areas within the preserve. The final determination of plant species to install may vary from these descriptions depending on site conditions and the species availability. Specifications for planting mitigation /enhancement activity types (features or areas) are as follows: Wetland Marsh and Wetland Prairie (FLUCFCS 641 & 643) - - -- Ground cover species will be planted on maximum 3 -foot centers (average) using minimum bare -root or liner stock. They will typically be planted in staggered rows and in clusters. For that portion of the Wetland Marsh area that is an existing wetland, the density of plantings required may be reduced depending upon the cover provided by viable native plants remaining following completion of the initial exotic eradication process. Herbaceous freshwater marsh areas (641) and wet prairies (643) must be planted with a mixture of appropriate wetland ground cover species. Where extensive areas must be planted, install at least 5 different species. Graminoids should primarily be planted in wet prairie areas. Hydric Pine and Pine /Cypress (FLUCFCS 624 & 625) - - -- Canopy species will be minimum 3- gallon stock with a minimum height of 4 feet. Sub - canopy species will be installed on maximum 7 -foot centers using minimum 1- gallon stock. Ground cover species will be planted on 3 -foot centers (average) throughout the area using minimum bare -root or liner stock. Page 21 of 25 Packet Page -3092- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 5. WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The permittee will submit monitoring reports to the SFWMD and USACE documenting general conditions in the Mirasol preserve areas established for the project's wetland impact mitigation program. One "baseline ", one "time zero ", and five annual monitoring reports will be submitted. The "baseline" monitoring report (with monitoring conducted prior to initiation of mitigation activities) will provide the following information: 1. Brief description of current conditions within the preserve area. 2. Brief description of anticipated maintenance /management work to be conducted over the next year. 3. A summary of rainfall data collected during the year preceding the monitoring report based on rainfall data recorded at an onsite station. 4. Photographs documenting conditions in the preserve area at the time of monitoring. Photos will be taken at permanent photo stations within the preserves. At least two photos will be taken at each station with the view of each photo always oriented in the same general direction from one year to the next. 5. Quantitative data collected from various habitat types documenting existing vegetation composition and wildlife utilization. The "time zero" monitoring report (with monitoring conducted shortly after completion of all initial mitigation activities) and the five annual monitoring reports will provide the following information: 1. Brief description of maintenance and /or management and /or mitigation work performed since the previous monitoring report along with discussion of any other significant occurrences. 2. Brief description of anticipated maintenance /management work to be conducted over the next year. 3. A summary of rainfall data collected during the year preceding the monitoring report based on rainfall data recorded at an onsite station. 4. A summary of water table elevation data collected from the on -site piezometers or continuous recording water level gauges. Data (water table elevations) will be collected at least bi- weekly during the peak of the wet season (late July through mid - October). 5. Photographs documenting conditions in the preserve area at the time of monitoring. Photos will be taken at four permanent photo stations within the on -site Preserve. At least two photos will be taken at each station with the view of each photo always oriented in the same general direction from one year to the next. 6. Quantitative data will be collected from mitigation /enhancement areas as outlined in the Monitoring Plan included as Appendix C. 7. Other general observations made in various portions of the preserve area. These observations will address potential problem zones, general condition of native vegetation including planted species, wildlife utilization as observed during monitoring, and other pertinent factors. 8. A plan view drawing of the preserve area showing mitigation features, monitoring transects /sampling plots, photo stations, and piezometers /staff gage locations. 9. A summary assessment of all data and observations along with recommendations as to actions necessary to help meet mitigation and management /maintenance goals and mitigation success criteria. 10. A summary of all observed wildlife sightings and evidence of wildlife utilization. In addition to the information described above, the time zero monitoring report will also provide "as built" drawings depicting the topography of those portions of the preserve where grading was conducted as part of the mitigation program. The following provides the currently anticipated monitoring schedule for the wetland mitigation Page 22 of 25 Packet Page -3093- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12, 2012 program, though this schedule may be altered depending on issuance of the permits and other required approvals: The time zero report will be submitted following completion of the initial exotic eradication efforts, grading activities, and initial planting activities. This report will document initial conditions in the preserve area following the initial plantings and the number, size, and species of plants installed. It will also contain the information and data described above for annual reports along with exhibits depicting the graded areas. One should remember that the approach to mitigation will involve first conducting clearing, grubbing, and grading activities along with initial exotic eradication activities. Then a period of roughly one year will elapse during which time mitigation activities will focus on further intensive exotic and nuisance plant eradication and control. The majority of initial plantings will not be installed until near the beginning of the first wet season that follows. Thus, the time span beginning when the initial mitigation activities are first started (initial exotic eradication, initial grading) and ending when these initial activities are completed (time of initial plantings) could encompass 18 months or more. The time zero monitoring will not be conducted until after initial plantings have been completed. Subsequent annual monitoring reports will be submitted over a period of five consecutive years following submittal of the time zero report. These annual reports will contain the monitoring information described and will focus on changes from the conditions documented in the preceding monitoring report, and attainment of success criteria. The permittee will notify the SFWMD and USACE if alterations to the anticipated monitoring schedule become necessary. The permittee shall retain the ability to modify this monitoring program and monitoring schedule should this become necessary to make the schedule consistent with monitoring requirements of other government agencies or to improve the information provided by the monitoring program. Any substantial modification must first be approved by the SFWMD and the USACE. Page 23 of 25 Packet Page -3094- Monitoring Event Report Report Submittal Date Baseline Monitoring Report Jan. 15, 2013 Time Zero Monitoring Report Dec. 15, 2013 1S Annual Monitoring Report Dec. 15, 2014 2" Annual Monitoring Report Dec. 15, 2015 3� Annual Monitoring Report Dec. 15, 2016 4 Annual Monitoring Report Dec. 15, 2017 5 Annual Monitoring Report Dec. 15, 2018 The time zero report will be submitted following completion of the initial exotic eradication efforts, grading activities, and initial planting activities. This report will document initial conditions in the preserve area following the initial plantings and the number, size, and species of plants installed. It will also contain the information and data described above for annual reports along with exhibits depicting the graded areas. One should remember that the approach to mitigation will involve first conducting clearing, grubbing, and grading activities along with initial exotic eradication activities. Then a period of roughly one year will elapse during which time mitigation activities will focus on further intensive exotic and nuisance plant eradication and control. The majority of initial plantings will not be installed until near the beginning of the first wet season that follows. Thus, the time span beginning when the initial mitigation activities are first started (initial exotic eradication, initial grading) and ending when these initial activities are completed (time of initial plantings) could encompass 18 months or more. The time zero monitoring will not be conducted until after initial plantings have been completed. Subsequent annual monitoring reports will be submitted over a period of five consecutive years following submittal of the time zero report. These annual reports will contain the monitoring information described and will focus on changes from the conditions documented in the preceding monitoring report, and attainment of success criteria. The permittee will notify the SFWMD and USACE if alterations to the anticipated monitoring schedule become necessary. The permittee shall retain the ability to modify this monitoring program and monitoring schedule should this become necessary to make the schedule consistent with monitoring requirements of other government agencies or to improve the information provided by the monitoring program. Any substantial modification must first be approved by the SFWMD and the USACE. Page 23 of 25 Packet Page -3094- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 6. MITIGATION / PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Mirasol preserve area, which encompasses the lands where the wetland mitigation program will be conducted, will be maintained to suppress infestation by exotic /invasive and nuisance plant species. Maintenance /management actions will be conducted as required to meet the mitigation success criteria previously described. Once the applicable regulatory agencies have determined that all success criteria have been achieved and annual monitoring is no longer necessary, these areas will be maintained in perpetuity such that exotic and nuisance plant infestations do not exceed the maximum allowed by the original mitigation success criteria. It is anticipated that the large northern and western preserve will be given to the CREW Trust once the maintenance activities are completed and stabilized. CREW will then take over the long -term maintenance of this area. After initial eradication efforts are complete, follow -up exotic and nuisance plant control will include directed herbicide applications and /or physical removal methods throughout all portions of the preserve area. Exotic /nuisance plant control is likely to occur on at least a semi - annual basis for the first three years following completion of initial eradication efforts. Such maintenance events may be conducted more frequently if field observations indicate the need. At the end of this period, the frequency of activities necessary to adequately control nuisance and exotic plants will be re- assessed and a program developed for future maintenance. At a minimum there will be at least one exotic /nuisance plant control event per year of monitoring. Follow -up plantings of previously planted areas will be conducted as necessary when and where survivorship, density, and /or percent cover goals are not achieved. The need for such re- plantings will typically be assessed on an annual basis. Management/maintenance activities may include removal of dead, dying, or diseased plants (both planted and existing plants) as deemed necessary. A qualified biologist or similar environmental professional will inspect the preserve area at least once a year for the duration of the mitigation monitoring program. During the first few years inspections will likely occur more frequently in an effort to rectify any potential problem situations (e.g., exotic /nuisance plant infestations, mortality of planted species, etc.) before they worsen. The necessary maintenance activities will be determined by the biologist during these inspections. The maintenance will be conducted during the course of the year following issuance of the biologist's recommendations. Following completion of the mitigation monitoring program, the preserve area will be maintained in perpetuity such that the total vegetative cover accounted for by exotic and nuisance plants each constitute no more than 5% of total plant cover. Page 24 of 25 Packet Page -3095- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLEMENT JULY 12,2012 7. BASIS OF WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM AS ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS The wetland mitigation program proposed involves wetland creation, wetland restoration, wetland enhancement, and upland enhancement activities within the preserve area. As demonstrated through the WRAP calculations /analyses, it is anticipated that this mitigation program will more than compensate for the project's proposed wetland impacts. A WRAP summary is presented in the Tables for existing conditions in the on -site wetlands that will be permanently impacted by the project provided in Appendix D. WRAP summaries for the existing and proposed conditions in the wetlands contained in the preserve areas are also provided in Appendix D. The table below summarizes the results of the WRAP calculations provided in Appendix D. As can be seen in this table, the proposed mitigation program will generate a total net functional gain that exceeds the functional loss that will result from the project's proposed impacts to SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands (gain exceeds loss by 13.75 functional units). Table A WRAP Summar f of the Proposed Wetland Im act and Mitigation Activities It is clear from the WRAP analysis that the proposed wetland mitigation program will compensate for the project's proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. There will be no net loss of wetland functions /values. Instead, there will be a net increase in wetland functions /values following successful completion of the mitigation program. Page 25 of 25 Packet Page -3096- Wetland Acreage Pre- Development Score Post Development Score Functional Score Total Site 1,356.86 646.04 Development Area 514.42 0.00 Internal Preserves 34.75 20.34 Main Preserve 807.69 631.70 Wetland Creation 14.55 7.75 646.04 659.79 13.75 Unit Surplus It is clear from the WRAP analysis that the proposed wetland mitigation program will compensate for the project's proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. There will be no net loss of wetland functions /values. Instead, there will be a net increase in wetland functions /values following successful completion of the mitigation program. Page 25 of 25 Packet Page -3096- w i;n @SP 2 „R, ± . . . =w w2 »© « \d »« <\w ?\» 2\ °§< / §6�� ... V'L�W -1zWz cM/ 9 »» � /6 » $ LLJ j( § � / d ez \§ \� \� \ k <§ x 0\\ LL) ®S // d=Iz tA0 z) o ui ƒ +T* y & o � w | % z ® §/) \\§&< U) 729§} §� -h A¢ \ o e §!q / \ \ \§) §§o;; � � Q � 2 O < . U� O -j W � U) � d /pG tea%? cj. �3»m aL)25 ƒ / 7E�� z c,z:\ \} � ) AA IA n/nn An 14-.....,. 4 7 A I I/ 1 J/ L V I L 1 LAI 11 1 1 1./ ♦. o� S S rvTTT ' IIxl7 Fluccn REVISIONS: � ® ■ Prvaec *^ J4tg EXHIBIT: 03 -07 -12 07 -77 -07 7llRRELL HALL &ASWc..GS.INC. Marne &EmvonmenLl Ctmsulling ' F; \� //� ■` -ol -ue Z �5 �7 -os W4 E,,W, A— suite x. I�.�Ie..F��auw;n� Ee :191641 -HABITAT: FLUCCS MAP aAeis 1200' FlLE rv�A F W-32 t231, v�mie cmeiL a mt II- : � Icsrnm Packet Page -3098- -660£- DSed I@PEd 0 W W TA. W 0 00 w _. U Q o O Q Q N N woQO FN �. Lo" } �, S z z F o Z rn y ¢�Q m w p O ` m,r -aNi Q N ¢ mNm U cO W r NU a mQ �n�a odM.. cnes ¢ U r N ¢ z (p 7 N U 1 I _. U - 5 y w N O N U w �F w O Z ° 0 z a m (D CL Q z w X Q zoo W r = I- Zo a U Q N IL 0 ¢ Z m a LL 0 o > m Z W O w ¢ o o = N O \ t0 d Q IfJ/I U) zgm z0 L) i o � 3 w < a: J C Q o O Q Q N N woQO FN �. Lo" } �, S z z F o Z rn y ¢�Q m w p O ` m,r -aNi Q N ¢ mNm U cO W r NU a mQ �n�a odM.. cnes ¢ U r N ¢ z (p 7 N U 1 I _. U - 5 y N¢ U o r = J In N 7 �� ✓, \ t0 d Q IfJ/I O I° i � J C d ¢ U - - .. _ � 1 � d L� Lud4l 6 �U61E� /�� ' l nn I W � U F ♦: z -�XF ►� W W 16 c LO woad �Inzw} 3 � S u z' o W w ¢ w 2 } O 4 m U N Q F- a o o co m m z 3 w 1 F Z v 0 -OOZE- aged I@Ped w W� Opz wU Lu a�a Z y X �0a g L) a�� Boa o0Z ZW ° - --j < co cf)— zOVa w<< �m w LL m N � I LU Z z w X CO W N m z o a p o , s d „',moo = z 0 V*L<- well Zl- OZ /£l- /1, l- U U < 16 c LO woad �Inzw} � S z' \� W w ¢ w o } 4 F- a o o z z 3 w 0 F Z v 0 N O O U m W N V*L<- well Zl- OZ /£l- /1, l- -TOTE- aSed I@Ped f- W - / . T 00 NU m __. O O p p O p p Cf) m W o O Z w i- iii a. D 2 z U) Z 0 0a Sao_= Wo a a. LL cr' Oo¢ LUZ0Lu Zg< Z Z J �wV< mw o � N N ` W LL m N LU z W X z m = < W N z c 7 Q d o o W z 0 H 0 z z W .. ° N a z U, o W' O O U N CD Z O U W U) 0 , Q U) U LL U D .,.m U (O ifi Q N Q C Oi Q r N�a ..0 N . y Q Q .Y O � p N co �_W N Q U O^ U N O o � N N ` W LL m N LU z W X z m = < W N z c 7 Q d o o W z 0 H 0 z z W .. ° N a z U, o W' O O U N CD Z O U W U) 0 , Q U) U LL U D V*LL Wall ZLOZ /CL /L L 3 .,.m U (O ifi Q N Q C Oi Q r N�a ..0 N . .Y �_W N Q O^ COD F c,:s U W N F U Y9 Q Q �N� A Q> 0 0.1 up`^ 'N m U i. i O (J O� N Q O Q W ai N r Y � U. Q N CSC U r Q 1 A 4 N N< N U L N U N N N V*LL Wall ZLOZ /CL /L L 3 of ol /o1 ?/7 -i') 14- 17 A 1 1! I V/ L V 1 L I kV 1 1 1 I I - •. X E 2,900 - NOTES:. o THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE <� SPOT ELEVATIONS OBTAINED FROM AGNOLI, BARBER 8 BRUNDAGE, INC. TOTAL WMD WETLANDS: 1,356.86 ACRES TOTAL WMD UPLANDS: 281.70 ACRES o S S pTTT TOPO RP S: � w w ^ /� ■ ■ ■� rao�wra. OS TURRELL.IIALLd ASSOCIATES, INC. ' � \V /' K \ \.J) i 941g EXHIBIT: -27 -O8 -27-0 M— &E. wonmrnt.]c —Ing pq °'_ °'_I' 31. rrcM1 ,Avc. 1—B. ` rlimi.: 1.141M3-03 " "' "``I3"'- TOPOGRAPHIC MAP scue. fltF wwE, Fns. (13Y1 N3 -,ifi3? P—M "�s� ° " "`sp „°” 11 /1'4/,?n19 Itmm 17 0 11/13/2012 |tpOM 174 'V Xih 0 900 1,800 3,200 SCALE IN FEET 625e3 VT 30.91 A t13 A) 1 62 01 18G 31 4 lei 424 24.103 AC 9. 24 'AC 181, 411.1 1.85 AC O.D6 AC 1 40 7 is 41 le2 625e2 47 A 2.78 AC 24e2 188 17 2.67 AC 1 1e2 62le2 0. 187' 6.34 AC 24e 185 621el 621el 3661A'6 18 0.57 AC 9.48 AC F., C 411 e2 41-1-Al 6 4.36 AC NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. 41 le2 50.47 AC 1 40 2.78 AC 5 ADDED TO BOUNDARY 41-1-Al NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. ACREAGE CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE: NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE Turrell, Hall & Associates, 4::3 DRAWN BY: SS 02-15-2012 _ SHEET: — ADDITIONAL LANDS 3584 Exchanae Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104-3732 JOB NO: .9418 NIA Email: tuna(i�turrell-associatesxom Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6631 SECTION- TOVVNSHIP-48S RANGE-26E — Packet Page -3104- P: \9418 Miras -012 DRAWINGS1County\County EIS 2012.dwg 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. N A W '1�XEt E S 0 900 1,800 3,200 SCALE FEET , LANDS ADDED TO PRESERVES ORIGINAL PRESERVES )TES: THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ILY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. ACREAGE CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE: NO RVEY DATA AVAILABLE V j� �7 OJ l J i U V�� Hull p �eCo�l�`�c Tn�. DESIGNED: T.T.T. REVISION: ITAB NAME: ADD PRESER% M 1 FRA S O L DRAWN BYSS 02 -16 -2012 SHEETMaI'llle Envtronm ent8.1 COTl$Uli1Rg �3584TExchange CREATED: 04 -26 -06 SCALE: ADDITIONAL PRESERVES N/A Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 JOB NO.: 9416 N/A Email tuna�9urrell- associates.com Phone: (239)64M]66 Fax: (239) 643 -6632 Packet Page -3105- SECTION- TOWNSHIP-48S RANGE-26E P:19418 Mimsol @012_DRAWINGS\County\County EIS 2012.dwg 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. -` Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 Email: tunaCtmrell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632 1\/i 1 RA S O L IMPACTS & PRESERVES (ALL) Packet Page -3106- DESIGNED: T.T.T I REVISION: ITABNAME Imp & Pre All DRAWN BY: SS 7 -17 -07 SHEET: 11 CREATED: 04- -25 -06 05 -27 -08 SCALE: I 1 "= 1.800' JOB NO.: 9418 03 -01 -12 E—= >GH I B I-T 6 SECTION- TOWNSHIP-48S RANGE-26E -LOTS- aSed laPed c CCD Z 00 7u u Ln CD 11 CD �6> C4 X < N T, LLJ > U) LU uj L) N In 'Y -V4 06 !S 'Y L < < C) > N r 0� G 13i i7s �5 �g Jo JJT 117- _LU n= < w < L) co N't- C'� co cl� K , 7 < fi < x7' E-3 < L) < 6 VLF W,911 Z � OZ/C V) Ld LU w � 7 U) U) LU :) W L) c,5 "It OD 0 (1) Z g ; C) � to 0 x :� o U, 'j LU (9 CL z < 0I z ct) X LLI LLJ > > z 0 0 W_ EL (If Of 0 z W LLJ < 0 H (n LLJ U) W LU (L 2 LU 0 (L LL LLj X Z I? co CL CL CL Of 0 0 Lu rn 0Z 0 q 0 a LL Z > W z o Z Z W z 0 Lu it LLJ P: -1 cr W z LU co 0 LIJ z Z > ir, < < W (.) < ul CD < m IN LLI < 'Le > zi Io C.-If z z I'D 6 0 P ZI O z () ui 0 L) (01 CN Z 0 F_ U) Vi LLJ > U) LU uj L) N In 'Y -V4 06 !S 'Y L < < C) > N r 0� G 13i i7s �5 �g Jo JJT 117- _LU n= < w < L) co N't- C'� co cl� K , 7 < fi < x7' E-3 < L) < 6 VLF W,911 Z � OZ/C M Q TOTY aged SPY FE _i=l IF;. c" < V5 "Wilt QN, - AS, OIL C"i 'M 1w ` 7 14 1 E—D i 7- C14 ILI i- 7 ilk 1 JpQ 1 5Q S vl'L� W911 UOZ CMS ' om LU N ai w .1 Z < y Al LD 9 > z z 0 u Cul L- � I I zy 1 2uuj) to 'V" uw SYR 0- N > jot P tO A CU) ui 06 lot! 121A _iT <. oil M A'S NU J, °o 0-01 z Tom' 00 u M Q TOTY aged SPY FE _i=l IF;. c" < V5 "Wilt QN, - AS, OIL C"i 'M 1w ` 7 14 1 E—D i 7- C14 ILI i- 7 ilk 1 JpQ 1 5Q S vl'L� W911 UOZ CMS ' om LU N ai w .1 Z < y Al LD 9 > z z 0 u Cul L- � I I zy 1 2uuj) to 'V" uw SYR 0- N > jot P tO A CU) ui 06 lot! 121A _iT <. oil M A'S NU J, -60IE- aSed ja�:)ed 00 oeW E Z491 a�.yT�t oo m U � N 0 N U U 0 Y 3 - N U o Q O m m N N Q Nam N� G �� N R p ��(7 U NU W ..a OZZ = /W/ V J to `U x L) VJ U � N r a V'L � WGII Z WZ /C M � ' 0 0 Y 3 - LLl a w m m =e7Tio cb cn W D a i acti; j, W ..a OZZ = /W/ V J to `U x L) VJ I c� _ �mQ z m W w< _ �cl� -- _ — - Zw � X F u=i rUn W O FzOa IL r a V'L � WGII Z WZ /C M � ' N m � 0 0 1 LLl a w m m =e7Tio cb cn W D a j, W ..a OZZ = /W/ V J to x L) VJ I c� {{ a�a.. M z m W w< K z W Zw � X F u=i rUn W O FzOa IL '6 k C _EE j 1 -4 CL LL � w o Q z o 0 4 O 1 ii�il � p it I a_ 0 z w . o 0 2 ui W O J z g z > O � ¢�gm Z 3 3 Z.Z. J. <.. 0 { r Q ' Y c0 W V QQ Q Q WQ iIi`i i U Q r m O d LU N S W=.mod}0l> C H Z Q 0 z z W p 0 F Z v0 U) N ¢ m W O D U V% N m � 0 r 1 r! Z V „f. =e7Tio !O 1— =_p� /W/ V J VJ W {{ W VJ '...:..:.... LU IL '6 k C _EE j 1 -4 1 ii�il � p it � O cdi a 'Es �x Cn �w Q z g ..0; Of, > O � { r ' Y c0 iIi`i i U Email 11/13/2012 Item W.A. x E )a S FL� x VACANT ftT-TAL CRIPTI ON ACRES - 5? •;•;•;•;•:;:;:' NATIVE PRESERVE 5323 COUN7YPRESERVE 166.2 y+L �' z 'y PROPERTY BOUNDARY \ SFWMDONLV PRESERVE - .10.61 PARKLAND �p S, (y', .. ,�e w. tk ' !�. (A) NOTESS. t (PUD) .': VACANT .> THESE DRAWING6 ARE FOR PERMITTING 1i1RP06E8 y- y ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. +"r'¢ ;Ir'��` �a1 ACREAGE CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. NO A r4 SURVEV DATA AVAILABLE r d a"C) OR b . s OP. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY WALDROP ENGINEERING (A) .;... N VACANT P ............. .. ..:................. A I OP' w ' OP_ L /G TERAFINA (PUD) t L J P.. L L /G TERA '' R/G HERITAGE (PUD) ••, ll..••V/�� BAY R/G (PUD) L h R/G RESERVE L PRESERVE L R/G bP � ;I R/G L R/G i > L 1 L R/G L, 'OP3 NP N .:OPij F �/G1 TREE FARM R/G (PUD) n OP :Np % HERITAGE BAY (]P (PUD) PROPE RT Y t PROPE OLDE BOUNDARY CYPRESS - — OP R/G (PUD) OP _ R/Gv MIRASOL - I NO::' R PROPERTY / q BOUNDARY �–,u OP. ( 4 —•- L FUTURE ACTIVITY 2 –� OP CENTER EXISTING --– DIRT _ L ROAD 0 REVISION: TAB NAM; Turrell & Associates, Inc. A DRnwNB" AB tea. "E� Marine & Environmental Consulting CREATED: 148-07 ,nza.6e SCALE: 0.S SHOWN 3581 Exchange Ave. Suim B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 SOB NO.: ea,e Bae+ -rz E =I -+Ia,T °In Ph—(739)643AI66 Fax:(239)643 -W2 Packet Page -3110 SECTION -10 TOWNSHIP -48S RANGE -26E TERAFINA (PUD) TER AFI N A (PUD) 11/13/2012 Item W.A. N A..' W ", XPlx E lk,T -' (A) s VACANT 0 -- 400 800 1600 SCALE IN IF= ' . OP Y a HATCH DESCRIPTION ACRES _OI'] L OTHER WETLAND PRESERVE 4.2 .0 ff •^""'L.,.,�^' NATIVE PRESERVE .3 TOTAL'COUNTY PRESERVE *4j R/G �R/G I 'µ L' L L. L R/G R/G R/G L L L R/G L L bP R/G L. R/G F R/G r R/G L OP .:.. ........ :' :': T R/G - REE FA R/G ;PUD) OP L NP. . OP _L MIRASOL; PROPERTY OLDE �. "' -- BOUNDA� Y CYPRESS — (PUD) OP R/G 't— OP L -- R/G -- — / MIRASOL PROPERTY !-P• R BOUNDARY OP L FUTURE - - ACTIVITY _ O.P CENTER — --�i •'pN�.•. •.'.'.'. ��, SFWMD ONLY PRESERVE .10.61 41 • • • • • •' •' •' ' NOTES: - o THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. • kt �L, • L - ACREAGE CALCULATIDNSAREAPpRDxIMATE NO. Tr": SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE -_ 11.1TE PLAN PROVIDED BY —DROP ENGINEERING HERITAGE BAY (PUD) - SFWMD PRESERVE HERITAGE BAY (PUD) XISTING DIRT ROAD DESIGNED'. TT.T EVIS.- TAB NAME. Terrell &Associates, Inc. D-Bt, AB Bs n BB sNEET S Mar ne & Environmental consultin N, �-� 0 �- � caEAreD r -,ear Iazaoe uAUe AssNOwn 35&t Excfiauge Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 341043732 .we NO: .IS I aaal.,2 Ex. -.IaIT S�OC�MR(DN PhBIrc�(239, 6434,(,6 1uR39I A43 -6fi32 Packet Page -3111- SECTION -10 _TOWNSHIP- 485 RANGE -26E'B Aw /An /^^An Il_.Y A''7 A I I/ 1 ..7/ AC. V I G I LIU 11 1 I/ ./--%. NATIVE VEGETATION 895.6 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION (>25% NATIVE CANOPY) GMP REQUIRES 60% PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION. FOR THIS SITE, A MINIMUM OF 537.4 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION MUST BE PRESERVED. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS 532.3 ACRES OF NATIVE PRESERVE. 11.8 ACRES OF EXISTING NATIVE AREA ARE BEING CONVERTED TO WOODSTORK FORAGING IMPROVEMENTS AND ARE NOT COUNTED IN THE NATIVE PRESERVE CALCULATIONS. THE 5.1 ACRE SHORTAGE IS PROVIDED THROUGH RESTORATION OF THE REMAINING 410.8 ACRES. P.U.D. ACREAGES UPLAND AREAS [<75% EXOTICS] (265.98 AC.) (e1) 0 -25% EXOTICS [113.43 WETLAND AC.] (e2) 26 -50% EXOTICS [157.13 WETLAND AC.] Q (e3) 51 -75% EXOTICS [359.11 WETLAND AC.] 76 -100 % EXOTICS [742.91 AC] WETLAND (742.91 AC.) n s 0 600 1,200 2,400 SCALE IN FEET NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. — ACREAGE CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AS NO SURVEY DATA AVAILIBLE r- oA a e S ehEV+EO S R'1' 1'T rl Ia17Exotics REVISIONS: EXHIBIT: 03 -01 -12 05 27 -08 TURREI.L. HALL — wlC —h.E INC. hlanne$Environme— ng �ATE=i t12R "h -,B. )Swt Ex�h1.1 a- m: B. " ° "` "111 HABITAT: EXOTICS MAP _ +.*+acm..r��nee m +� iex: f319� N? -643? moil: wnetNrwrcn..scci. ream 1., 1. ,4- D ,..n 31 1 7_ r r..... ... In A A /A •% /e%^A P% I1_.__ A-7 A I 1! I.JlGU IL ILl=II I I ! .h. NATIVE VEGETATION 895.6 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION ( >25% NATIVE CANOPY) GMP REQUIRES 60% PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION. FOR THIS SITE, A MINIMUM OF 537.4 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION MUST BE PRESERVED. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS 532.3 ACRES OF NATIVE PRESERVE. 11.8 ACRES OF EXISTING NATIVE AREA ARE BEING CONVERTED TO WOODSTORK FORAGING IMPROVEMENTS AND ARE NOT COUNTED IN THE NATIVE PRESERVE CALCULATIONS. THE 5.1 ACRE SHORTAGE IS PROVIDED THROUGH RESTORATION OF THE REMAINING 410.8 ACRES. P.U.D. ACREAGES UPLAND AREAS [-75% EXOTICS] (265.98 AC.) (e1) 0 -25% EXOTICS [113.43 WETLAND AC.] (e2) 26 -50 % EXOTICS [157.13 WETLAND AC.] Q (e3) 51 -75% EXOTICS [359.11 WETLAND AC.] 76 -100% EXOTICS [742.91 AC] WETLAND (742.91 AC.) N W �.,OXE3:�E 5 0 600 1,200 2,400 SCALE IN FEET NOTES: — THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE o ACREAGE CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AS NO SURVEY DATA AVAILIBLE. oanwu ev S S TI REV151 -.2 TU HALL &ASSOCIATES, INC. ]EX�HIBIIT. 1-. 03 -ot -tz o7 -n -m -.1 m—, Marne 8 Envimnmrntal Consulting LE �;I�, �aPln'Tt ,tom» Plw -rI. 1.313 NATIVE HABITAT: EXOTICS <75% Packet Page -3113- 4 4 14 0 /nn 4 n 114 -. w. 4-7 A 11/ I%J7 G.V IL 1«slll 11 .11. NATIVE PRESERVE ACREAGES UPLAND AREAS [ <75% EXOTICS] (110.84 AC.) (e1) 0 -25% EXOTICS [110.58 WETLAND AC.] (e2) 26 -50% EXOTICS [91.79 WETLAND AC.] (e3) 51-75% EXOTICS [230.85 WETLAND AC] TOTAL ON -SITE COUNTY PRESERVES (NATIVE & NON - NATIVE) [964.8 AC.] NATIVE VEGETATION 895.6 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION (>25% NATIVE CANOPY) GMP REQUIRES 60% PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION. FOR THIS SITE, A MINIMUM OF 537.4 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION MUST BE PRESERVED. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS 532.3 ACRES OF NATIVE PRESERVE. 11.8 ACRES OF EXISTING NATIVE AREA ARE BEING CONVERTED TO WOODSTORK FORAGING IMPROVEMENTS AND ARE NOT COUNTED IN THE NATIVE PRESERVE CALCULATIONS. THE 5.1 ACRE SHORTAGE IS PROVIDED THROUGH RESTORATION OF THE REMAINING 410.8 ACRES. INTERNAL PRESERVES 'AREA UPLAND E1 E2 E3 76 -100 TOTAL "A" 2.09 2.54 1.18 0.63 4.17 10.61 "B" 6.71 1.33 .2.16 3.57 13.77 "C' 0.54 0.70 1.55 2.79 '.D' 6.83 2.84 9.67 TOTALS 2.09 1 9.79 9.34 3.49 1 12.13 1 36.54 P.U.D. ACREAGES M' UPLAND AREAS [ <75% EXOTICS] (265.98 AC.) (e1) 0- 25 % EXOTICS [113.43WETLANDAC.] (e2) 26 -50% EXOTICS [157.13 WETLAND AC.] (e3) 51 -75% EXOTICS [359.11 WETLAND AC.] 76-100% EXOTICS [742.91 AC] WETLAND (742.91 AC.) N sivl W -r4Xf � E S 0 600 1,200 2,400 SCALE IN EEET .VOTES: - THESE. DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. o ACREAGE CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AS NO SURVEY DATA AVAILIBLE o ugME' s s RTC -T v a D�E4� a"- iF3 EXHIBIT: , , ... b REVISIONS 07 -77-07 TURRELL. HALL &A SSOCIATS Ma&Em-ml oting INC. 35ha E.rh.. - S1111 N. FI. 341(4.3732 �h ,:39,M3 16 Fax; j239)603.M37 NATIVE HABITAT & PRESERVES DPiE. 9 D- ...I..,+ D 'I91 A_ ... b M 0 O N W .A W C-4 O Z.O" -: , 0 �,k r�j•X � J O Q 9Nm Q M W > V. W W a, M N O N Q N LO D) N c� tD ._ N Q N N Q O N to N N T V CY) ` C-4 O U fit...... J O Q 9Nm r O _ M C N O G _.... n N M C� _... CD.. LO O Q CO U LLNLI N LO O T N � N T W > V. W W a, M N O N Q N LO D) N c� tD ._ N Q N N Q O N to N N Q C-4 O U N U 9Nm N M a m N Q — ^ LO C O G _.... Q C� W N M LO O Q CO Q LLNLI N LO O T N � N T N ``W^^ C) 'V'L 1. wall Z 1,OZ /£ V 1, 1, ' -SITE- aged Iz Q O W_ Wm � 1�1 W rx — 0. � T N U n � Q ' U to N Q N M W � U N Q vQ U N 'o C%4 CO 9Nm Nvco N¢ N r— `— M LO to � N D1 C O W U LO O Q v CO Q LLNLI O N T N � O ``W^^ C) O LL, LL U Q J Q UJ � O Z � r.- n (D ~ R 5 N r N m M W a V -;g N LU W o r Con IL J Q Z Z O 0 rn 0 W 5 N N �. a Z n w W Q ,y N W a U n � Q ' U to N Q N M cv M O co O _ T LO OrQ O) N U OD O w E s m m d w w D - 00 Z ZO N pz w w CLi z O w y �zo U a �w< N aOLL w z ti a C, ¢ D R a a 0wwy > 'z z a LL LL, wz N Z zO 0 a JAI Z v y 3 wa m W W � U N Q vQ U N 'o C%4 CO N Q co N LC) O Nvco N¢ N r— `— M LO to � N D1 C w W U LO O Q v CO Q LLNLI O N T N � O ``W^^ C) O LL, LL U cv M O co O _ T LO OrQ O) N U OD O w E s m m d w w D - 00 Z ZO N pz w w CLi z O w y �zo U a �w< N aOLL w z ti a C, ¢ D R a a 0wwy > 'z z a LL LL, wz N Z zO 0 a JAI Z v y 3 wa m W ---u— Q O N �1 T � T M M W � N Q r J Nvco N¢ N r— `— Q to � N D1 C w W U LO O Q v CO NrU.) V cli LLNLI O N > M Q ``W^^ C) LL, LL n J Q z W z W ' ` W a V -;g N o r Con ---u— Q O N �1 T � T M M W � � c C3 O z xG /1 �n W a d" L 1, wall Z LOVE 1-/ 1, 1, 1 -9IZE- @Sed I@Ped m W WD O w LL — 0 a m w J Q Z ;o ` ti m �0a W F U CL N - o w uw. w o w LL LL m Z o a s°° n N O d 00 W O 0 Z wxwOw W m o o = Z 3 a 5 Z5 �— O Z Z J > W Q Q oQOQa r m o m Z W,<W} t14 r J a Z Z O ` N �' . z V O v to In w m W ,,i� �FTk� o v N t i G 0 �O- M O Q ,• nNrn m M W N N v' W N C m Ate' �r�"ry',xM �04 cq H 4 to � Q 4 N U d o a M O M Q . N 1 � C, N r v s a.� U cm cjo M Q Q Q y O co o a Z o Z Q U "" x con ui ,z ~ ?i N U O 9 .o °� Cl) O r-- (D Q • _ �_ W X W M r n g Q c 0 Lo F�.C-�IZr W U U U y Q V i- O O O Q ¢ OX w w U F x W w R' w °u\j O Q c � p X 6 w ono — Q Z O N 0 00 — Z D v CN CO a% F1 0 V tia d" L 1, wall Z LOVE 1-/ 1, 1, 1 WIA / U CO Q Z Q LU Q LL s m N N fD a r Of E �ry m�4 ao IL U m< co w C) W q �pn`: t9 Q F- cn R U tt{ OO �� -� x a N C4 adw C O p Z N I-F Q U �aCR \ n N r m O � N -LTTE- aged 1@10ed m a - N ry ova m }°o CM CD In QN ma m r m N � ofQ r ma G N� toles rag' �r� C 4 � s 1 .w Vj-1, wall Z1,OZ /£1,/1.1, /-.V Q '1 x co v 1a W CO Q Z Q LU Q LL s m oz 0 Z N ao IL w 4 ;e . w C) W q �pn`: Z�'�W OO> F- cn R U tt{ OO �� -� x adw p Z m 0uj m LL z Z W ° rc rri d N ao _ U mtg�m to fD U U a a �at+mi UJ W Z zov> N yeti�rn N 3LI1 ;d Lu h' Z 0: !c N $ O q a w��° t wg of C�1J N }< o 2'o ♦C� UO> LU U �u,o ZOO U U 4 W LL� r W C) �� =pX Z�LL t�iiq m `t W G to an d mev U Q U 0 Z W m p3: ZOK Zfkfz Z0 Z �U- . N m n . r o N' ^¢ a �tl O L- Vj-1, wall Z1,OZ /£1,/1.1, /-.V Q '1 x co v 1a W CO Q Z Q LU Q LL s m oz 0 Z N ao IL w 4 ;e . w C) W q �pn`: Z�'�W OO> F- cn R U tt{ OO �� -� x adw p Z m 0uj m LL z Z W ° rc � d N F- H J 2 zov> 0 3LI1 ;d Lu h' N $ O q a w��° t wg m N }< o "vo0UW') U N O ❑ U m � W LL� r Z ® W G W 0 U 0 Z W W Z0 Z C} L N m n . r N' a U � CO Q Z Q LU Q LL W a? . W F- CY z 611 'C Y .x1 a Z�'�W OO> F- cn R w�l N G tt{ OO �� -� x © - p Z F- 111 U Y � LL ill Ll- --- --- --- - Y�L UJ�l| ��LO�/�L/[L _ - OZ /C 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package UTILITY PROVISIONS STATEMENT & AVAILABILITY LETTER Packet Page -3119- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Co ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net .r APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) IM Collier Joint Venture ADDRESS P.O. Box 10489 CITY Naples STATE FL TELEPHONE # 239- 498 -7840 E -MAIL ADDRESS: damilarcik @aol.com CELL # 239 -825 -0455 FAX # ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): N/A Section /Township /Range Lot: Block: Plat Book LEGAL DESCRIPTION 10, 15, 22 / 48 /_26 Subdivision: Page #: Property I.D. #: See Exhibit "D" of PUD Document hibit " Metes & Bounds Description: See ExD" f DH r) Document TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑✓ b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME ❑ c. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT ❑ (GPD capacity) ❑ d. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ TYRE OF WATER SERV[CE TO BE PROVIDED a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM ✓❑ b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) ❑ Packet Page -3120- ZIP 34101 February 4, 2011 co &;r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.collieraov.net 2,242 (1121 du @ 2 persons per unit) PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER -PEAK 239.8 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 345,268 GPD B. SEWER -PEAK 747.3 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 269,040 GPD IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED 10/2013 NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre - application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. February 4, 2011 Packet Page -3121- Q a J N a (` W W N z 0 a D J a U N W J H D ._ v Q c O Ln L Q N X c t-I N c-i r-I N N N n c O 7 Q O G. 9 Li 0 U LL (9 N d a� a Q) c l7 rn O O N N � O Q O 0 0. v co m r w a OR 1n d Ql rn 41 0 N t6 O Y Q 3 0 00 C 0 aQ. N C7 `n lzt M c rp O f0 E a. Ln L = C7 r-i ac ... O U v a L 0 j N O a 0 r-I z C O N 2) U_ F, O n_ 4 'c 7 O U L L a) L O_ o � U O0 L =- � O ❑. Q v N M X E Ln E L W � N N c m -i vN 0 N O L N d O II I I L v c O to O v 'ZI i m m f0 LL O Q m M O 0) N O_ d. a� O :r a L O c Q ,, O a �o U Y � O m OJ a '^ a LO v co m C O Q. 3 � O c 0 Qa o c7 O1 N C m O !_ ++ _ a O. Q O f° E a N U y (D ,1 O U a OC N 0 OJ a 0 E D z 2 2 a a C7 � N M Q1 Ln u n c O E cu w Q Q ` L a v Y 3 'S Ln 4% L CO. vas Y O 4J a a Y Y f6 fC D H {n W W JL C.J \ N O N r+ CD E J 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Public Utilities Division Operations Support February 29, 2012 Mr. Alexis V. Crespo Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Subject: Mirasol Water and Wastewater Availability Dear Mr. Crespo: Potable water service (for domestic and irrigation purposes) and wastewater service are available for the above referenced project via existing lines along Immokalee Road. A master meter shall be required for such facilities as rental apartments, shopping centers, strip malls, high rise condominiums, recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks or any other multi - family projects that cannot or do not provide the required CUEs paralleling a typical single family street cross - section or any other project that does not comply with or meet the intention of Ordinance 2004 -31, as amended or superseded. If this project is not to provide the required Collier County Utility Easements (CUEs), all water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by the owner, his successors or assigns. If this project is to provide the required CUEs, all water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by Collier County Public Utilities. Tie -in to water and sewer lines shall be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by Engineering Review Services, showing that the downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. The District will be making phased expansions to the water supply, treatment and transmission facilities and sewage transmission, treatment and disposal facilities servicing the area in question and other areas of the County, based on demands within the system and other binding commitments. These expansions should provide sufficient capacity to supply the referenced property's anticipated potable water and sewage treatment and disposal demands and the remainder of the District's committed capacity. 3339 Tamiami Trail E. • Suite 305 *'Packet Page -3123-39-252-6237 • FAX 239 - 252 -6789 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. co��er co -�H.ty Public Utilities Division Operations Support February 29, 2012 Mr. Crespo Mirasol Page 2 However, no guarantee can be issued that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of potable water and sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until each phase has received a commitment for service. Connections are also subject to the availability of water and sewer capacity at the time formal application is received. Should water supply or sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would be required to provide an interim means of water supply and treatment and sewage treatment and disposal until the District's facilities have the adequate capacity to serve the project. Please note that any and all improvements that you construct must be in accordance with all applicable ordinances and policies, including the payment of impact fees. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252 -6237 S Analyst, Public Utilities Operations cc: Gary Morocco, Supervisor Revenue Craig Callis, Engineering Review Services Steve Nagy, Wastewater Collections Manager Water Distribution Manager Cheri Rollins, Supervisor Revenue 3339 Tamiami Trail E. • Suite 305 • packet Page - 3124 -39- 252 -6237 • FAX 239- 252 -6789 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A -PL20 120000303 CCPC Package BOUNDARY SURVEY (I 1'r'rx I 7rr) Packet Page -3125- 1 11/13/2012 Item W.A. t z �9 Z �� Z Z '�; ZZ 5 Z S Z M9 ggx�,Xxg, Ag;gAX9 —AXWux —17251 P611117 N.• M %7Z �,nn ssz 4 ss nz '7 !1 Fan lv n, iss ,4 44- jiksng !i;iiiij V Vim i fz! FF S2 z� 2-L-1 —929'W 51 % M Y, -JNI .I ry, ql. t— Packet Page -3126- 1 11/13/2012 Item W.A. t z �9 Z �� Z Z '�; ZZ 5 Z S Z M9 ggx�,Xxg, Ag;gAX9 —AXWux L - - - - dl :real II ■ 11111 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Packet Page -3127- . ........ . . ... . .... -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - — - - - - - - - Al Packet Page -3127- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT Packet Page -3128- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT For MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT (NW Corner of C.R. 951 @ Immokalee Road) February 27, 2012 Revised April 30, 2010 Prepared by: JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 761 21" STREET NW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 20 (239) 919 -2767 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27830 (PROJECT NO. 1 2021 1 ) Packet Page -3129- i0 4-30 -Zoi 2 Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Purpose of Report 3 Methodology Meeting 3 Scope of Project 4 Table A - Approved/Vested " +" Proposed PUD Amendment 4 Figure 1 - Location Map/Road Classification 4.1 Project Generated Traffic 5 Table B 5 Table 1A - Net New Site - Generated Traffic 5.1 Table 1B - Vested + Net New Site - Generated Traffic 5.2 Table 1C - Vested Site - Generated Traffic 5.3 Table C - Mirasol Trip Generation Equivalency Rates 6 Existing + Committed Road Network 6 Table 2A - Area of Impact/Road Classification 6.1 Project Generated Traffic Distribution 7 Exhibit 3 - Trip Distribution by Vanasse Daylor (Tune, 2006) 7.1 Figure 2A - Project Traffic Percentage Distribution 7.2 Figure 211 - Project Traffic Volume Distribution (322 d.u.'s) 7.3 Figure 2C - Project Traffic Volume Distribution (1,121 d.u.'s) 7.4 Area of Significant Impact 8 Table 2A - Area of Impact/Road Classification 8.1 2012 thru 2018 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions 9 Site Access Turn Lane Evaluation 9 Table 2B - 2012 & 2018 Link Volumes 9.1 Table 2C - 2018 Link Volumes /Capacity Analysis 9.2 Table 2D - 2018 Intersection Analyses 9.3 Appendix 1 Packet Page -3130- 10 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Conclusions Road Impact Mitigation Requirements Based upon the findings and conclusions of this report, it was determined that the Mirasol PUD Amendment will not have a significant impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways & intersections, within the project's area of influence, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the vested 799 dwelling units and the proposed additional 322 dwelling units. As determined, the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for 2018 project build -out conditions, and the PUD Amendment will not create any additional off -site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Mirasol will continue to participate in the previously established Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA). Upon receiving approval to amend the Mirasol PUD, the DCA agreement will need to be revised to reflect the project's fair share contribution based upon the development of 1,121 dwelling units and an 18 -hole private golf course with associated amenities. Site- Related Roadway Improvements Site Access on Immokalee Road It was determined that an ingress left deceleration/turn lane (EB -to -NB left turn lane) and au ingress right turn lane (WB -to -NB right turn lane) will be warranted at the project's access on Immokalee Road. Both turn lanes were previously constructed pursuant to Collier County standards and will continue to ensure a safe means of ingress, as well as minimize delay to east /west traffic flow. Because this access prohibits egress via SB -to- WB left turn movements, only a single southbound right -out lane is needed. Site Access on Collier Boulevard North (alkla, Broken Back Road) It was determined that an ingress left deceleration/turn lane (NB -to -WB left turn lane) will be warranted at the project's access on Broken Back Road. Unless Collier Boulevard is extended north to intersect with Bonita Beach Road, an ingress right turn lane (SB -to- WB right turn lane) will not be needed. A single shared EB right - out/left -out egress lane will be adequate. Previous Commitments & Vesting Mirasol previously executed a DCA with Collier County Government, which vested the project for the development of 799 dwelling units and a 36 -hole golf course with club house and related amenities. As part of the DCA, there were identified off -site transportation improvements that needed to occur, which some have been completed. The improvements include: a.) capacity & signal upgrades to C.R. 951 @ Immokalee Road, b.) construction of C.R. 951 North, c.) providing right -of -way for C.R. 951 North, and d.) installing a 10' wide multi -use path along the north side of Immokalee Road Canal. To date, Mirasol has paid $$3,229,558.00 towards the DCA, which exceeds the required 33% prepaid vesting rights for the 799 dwelling units. As such, a reevaluation of the project's vesting rights and other obligations for the development of 1,121 dwelling units will be forthcoming. The DCA is currently being updated by others, but is subject to review and approval by all affected parties. 2 Packet Page -3131- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Purpose of Report This report was prepared pursuant to the criteria set forth by the Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines for site development plan approval (SDP) as set forth by the Collier County Government. More specifically, the study examines the potential transportation related impacts that may occur as a result of constructing the additional 322 dwelling units as proposed by the Mirasol PUD Amendment. Methodology Meeting Prior to preparing the Traffic Impact Statement, a methodology meeting was conducted at the office of Collier County's Transportation Department. Attendees of this meeting were the applicant's representative (James M. Banks & Mr. Don Milarcik) and Collier County Government's representative (Mr. Reed Jarvi & Mr. John Podzerwinsky). As agreed, the Traffic Impact Statement will evaluate the potential off -site impacts associated with only the additional site - generated traffic associated with the increase in residential units (i.e., 322 units) and the effects of reducing the size of the golf course from 36 -holes down to 18- holes. The traffic and its impacts for the previously approved 799 dwelling units has been accounted for as "vested" trips by Collier County's 2011 AUIR Report. Therefore, the report's evaluation was based upon the vested trips plus actual counted and forecasted traffic as being the 2018 background traffic. Also, site - generated trips will be assigned to the surrounding road network based upon the previously approved distributions depicted in the Mirasol Traffic Impact Statement, dated June, 2006 as prepared by Vanasee Daylor. The only adjustment to the previously established traffic assignments was to the distribution of traffic at the intersection of C.R. 951 /lmmokalee Road. The distribution assignment was revised to reflect the change in the southbound approach configuration (i.e., SB tlu-u & left was previously prohibited). Also, an adjustment to the distribution of east/west travel on Immokalee Road and north/south travel on Logan Boulevard was performed in order to account for increased travel on Immokalee Road (and a decrease on Logan) due to the recently completed I- 75@ Immokalee improvements. A copy of the agreed upon methodology has been provided in the appendix. 3 Packet Page -3132- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Scope of Project Mirasol is a planned residential & golf course community. The project was previously approved and vested for the development of 799 dwelling units, a 36 -hole golf course with club house and associated amenities. It is being proposed to amend the PUD to increase the number of dwelling units to a total of 1,121 and reduce the size of the private golf course to 18 -holes with a club house and amenities. Note: Non - residents will be allowed to play golf until the project is complete. Upon project completion, ownership of the golf course will be accepted by the Mirasol Homeowners Association and restricted to private use (i.e., residents and their guests only). The site is located on the northwest quadrant of C.R. 951 @ Immokalee Road. The site will have access via one directional left -in median opening (right - in/out and left -in) on Immokalee Road and one full access on Broken Back Road (a/k/a C.R. 951 Extension). For further details, refer to the site development plans prepared by Waldrop Engineering, P.A. TABLE A Approved/Vested Development " +" Proposed PUD Amendment Land Use Code & Approved/Vested Proposed PUD Vested + Proposed Land Use Description Development Amendment PUD Amendment (799 d. u. 's) 322 d. u. 's) 1,121 d. u, 's) LUC 210 Single-Family Units 423 +310 733 LUC 230 Multi - Family Units 376 +12 388 LUC 430 Golf Course 36 Holes -18 Holes 18 Holes 4 Packet Page -3133- It II 1 L IL I I — — — — — — L-T!!t id !Landl! E t Boren Rd al ............... GoMen Got* Parkwo .............. .....................v .. te NORTH N.T.S. knmokoles. 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. II ........... . ................... .......... i ------- - - ----------------- -- ........ LEGEND 6—LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL • - - — — — - 4—LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL ............• 2—LANE ARTERIAL 2—LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL ----- — -------- — -------------------------------- ------- He TRANBPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. ,vIirosol PUD Amendment PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1 ROADWAY CLASS & E+C NETWORK February 22, 2012 Packet Page -3134- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by the project was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 8t' Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use codes "Single - Family Detached housing" (LUC 210), "Residential/Condominium Townhouse" (LUC 230) and "Golf Course" (LUC 430) were most appropriate in estimating the net new trips associated with the proposed amendment to the PUD. Note: Because the golf course will become private once the development is complete, only employee generated trips were considered off -site trips. Adjustment to the ITE rates was necessary because LUC 430 was based upon general public use golf courses. In order to determine the PUD's net new traffic, the estimated trips for the previously approved /vested 799 dwelling units were subtracted from the estimated trips for the total 1,121 dwelling units. That is, Proposed Total Development Trips less Previously ApprovedlVested Development Trips = Net New Trips As determined, the project's net new trips during the AM & PM peak hours will be 221 vph & 252 vph, respectively. Table lA depicts the methods and procedures used in determining the project's net new trips. The results shown in Table 113 vs. Table 1C are the site's vested trips "+" new trips versus vested trips, respectively. Table B is a summation of the net new trip generations for the additional 322 dwelling units. TABLE B Net New Site - Generated Trips (Summation of Table 1A Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) (vph) (v h) 2,608 221 252 The report concludes that the project will generate more than 100 net new trips during the weekday highest peak hour. As such, the report investigates the traffic impacts associated with the project based upon the criteria set forth by the Collier County Government's Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines for developments generating "more than 100 trips ", which is identified as a major -scale study. Packet Page -3135- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. TABLE IA Mirasol PUD Net New Site - Generated Traffic QnnrovedNested Development " +" Proposed Development Land Use Code & Approved/Vested Proposed Vested + Proposed Land Use Description Development Development Land Uses LUC 210 Single-Family Units 423 +310 733 LUC 230 Multi - Family Units 376 +12 388 LUC 430 Golf Course 36 Holes -18 Holes 18 Holes Net New Trips = Total Vested Trips +New Trips (see Table IB) - Total Vested Trips (See Table IQ Net New Trips Net New Site- Generated Trips Packet Page -3136- Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT vh vh Vested + New Trips See Table 1B) 8,051 646 781 Vested Trips (See Table 1 C) 5,433 425 529 Net New Trips 2,608 221 252 55 in/ 166 out 159 in/ 93 out Packet Page -3136- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. TABLE 1B Mirasol PUD Vested plus New Site - Generated Traffic Trip Generation Computations Build -out Schedule 8 vph Land Use Code Land Use Code Description Vested + Proposed 25 %Enter /75 %Exit = LUC 430 - AM Peak Hour = 2.23 (X) = 2.23 (18) = 40 LUC 210 Single- Family Detached Housing 733 Dwelling Units 36/109 vph LUC 230 Residential Condominium Townhouse 388 Dwelling Units LUC 430 Golf Course (Private at build -out)' 18 -Holes 79 %Enter /21 %Exit = DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Internal Ca Capture Net New Ext. Trips LUC 210 - Daily Traffic = Ln(T)= 0.92Ln(X) +2.71= 0.92Ln(733) +2,71 =6,499 36vph Less Golf Course Capture = 460 ADT LUC 210- Daily Traffic = Ln(T)= 0.87Ln(X) +2.46= 0.87Ln(388) +2.46 = 2,092 6,039 ADT Less Golf Course Capture = 87 ADT LUC 430 - Daily Traffic = T = 35.74 (X) = 35.74 (18) = 643 2,005 ADT Employee Only Trips will be 15% = 96 ADT 547 ADT 85,040 ADT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH) LUC 210 - AM Peak Hour = T= 0.70(X) + 9.74 = 0.70(733) + 9.74 = 523 33 vph Less Golf Course Capture = 28 vph 495 vph LUC 230 25 %Enter /75 %Exit = 124/371 AM P k — vph ea Hour — Ln(T)= 0.801^X) +0.26 = 0.80Ln(388) +0,26 = 153 Less Golf Course Capture = 8 vph 145 vph 25 %Enter /75 %Exit = LUC 430 - AM Peak Hour = 2.23 (X) = 2.23 (18) = 40 36/109 vph Employee Only Trips will be 15% = 6 vph 79 %Enter /21 %Exit = 4/2 vph 36vph 646 vph 164/482 vph PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH) LUC 210 - PM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.90Ln(X) +0.51 = 0.90Ln(733) +0.51= 632 Less Golf Course Capture = 33 vph 599 vph 63 %Enter /37 %Exit = LUC 230 - PM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.82Ln(X) +0.32= 0.82Ln(388) +0.32 = 183 377/222 vph Less Golf Course Capture = 9 vph 174 vph 67%Enter/3 3 %Exit = LUC 430 - PM Peak Hour = 2.78 (X) = 2.78 (18) = 50 117/57 vph Employee Only Trips will be 15% = 8 vph 45 %Enter /55 %Exit = 4/4 vph 42 vph 781 vph 498/283 vph 'Mirasol will allow non - residents to play golf until the project is complete. Upon project build -out, the golf course will be accepted by the Mirasol Homeowners Association and restricted to private use (i.e., residents & their guests only). Packet Page -3137- TABLE 1C Mirasol PUD Vested Site - Generated Traffic In Generation Computations 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Build -out Schedule Land Use Code Land Use Code Description Vested + Proposed LUC 210 Single - Family Detached Housing 423 Dwelling Units LUC 230 Residential Condominium Townhouse 376 Dwelling Units LUC 430 Golf Course (Private at build -out)' Internal Net New DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) C, apture Ext. Trips LUC 210 - Daily Traffic = Ln(T)= 0.92Ln(X) +2.71= 0.92Ln(423) +2.71 =3,918 Less Golf Course Capture = 363 ADT 3,555 ADT LUC 210- Daily Traffic = Ln(T)= 0.87Ln(X) +2.46= 0.87Ln(376) +2.46 = 1,976 Less Golf Course Capture = 184 ADT 1,792 ADT LUC 430 - Daily Traffic = T = 35.74 (X) = 35.74 (18) = 643 Employee Only Trips will be 15% = 96 ADT 547 ADT 5,443 ADT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH) LUC 210 - AM Peak Hour = T = 0.70(X) + 9.74 = 0.70(423) + 9.74 = 306 Less Golf Course Capture = 28 vph 278 vph 25 %Enter /75 %Exit = 70/208 vph '� UC 230 - AM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.80Ln(X) +0.26 = 0.80Ln(376) +0.26 = 149 Less Golf Course Capture = 8 vph 141 vph 2 5%Enter/75 %Exit = 35/106 vph LUC 430 - AM Peak Hour = 2.23 (X) = 2.23 (18) = 40 Employee Only .Trips will be 15% = 6 vph 79%Enter/2 1 %Exit = 4/2 vph 36vph 425 vph 109 /316 vph PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH) LUC 210 - PM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.90Ln(X) +0.51 = 0.90Ln(423) +0.51= 385 Less Golf Course Capture = 33 vph 352 vph 63 %Enter /37 %Exit = 222/130 vph LUC 230 - PM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.82Ln(X) +0.32= 0.82Ln(376) +0.32 = 178 Less Golf Course Capture = 9 vph 169 vph 67%Enter/3 3 %Exit = 113/56 vph LUC 430 - PM Peak Hour = 2.78 (X) = 2.78 (18) = 50 Employee Only Trips will be 15% = 8 vph 45 %Enter /55 %Exit = 4/4 vph 42 vph 529 vph 339/190 vph 'Mirasol will allow non - residents to play golf until the project is complete. Upon project build -out, the golf course will be accepted by the Mirasol Homeowners Association and restricted to private use (i.e., residents & their guests only). Packet Page -3138- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Trip Generation Equivalency Rates Table C reflects the trip generation equivalency rates for Mirasol's single - family versus multi - family dwelling units. As determined, one (1) single - family dwelling unit will generate the same PM peak hour trips as 1.82 multi - family dwelling units or (1) multi- family will generate the same PM peak hour trips as 0.55 single - family dwelling units. TABLE C Mirasol's PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Equivalency Rates (Single- Family versus Multi - Family) Note: The trip generation equivalency rates are specific to the Mirasol development. Results may vary slightly if using significantly smaller or larger proportions of multi and/or single-family units. Mirasol's PMpeak hour equivalency rates were developed based upon its mixture of dwelling units. Existing + Committed Road Network Figure 1 depicts the E + C road network. As shown, there are no significant 5 -year committed roadway improvements within the project's area of impact. Although improvements to Oil Well Road are under construction, it is outside the project's area of impact and therefore not noted in this report. The two principal arterials that will provide immediate access to the site are Immokalee Road and C.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard). Immokalee Road is classified as a six -lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary east/west interconnect between the northern Golden Gate Estates Area and northwest Collier County, as well as continues north/south to the Immokalee Community and interconnects with S.R. 29. Within proximity of the site, the posted speed limit of hmmokalee Road is 45 MPH. Collier Boulevard is classified as a six -lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary north/south corridor that extends between Immokalee Road and Marco Island. Within proximity of the site, the posted speed limit of C.R. 951 is 45 MPH. Collier Boulevard @ Immokalee Road is a four -way intersection and is controlled by a traffic signal. Table 2A provides a detail of the surrounding E + C road network and their respective minimum level of service performance standards and capacity. 6 Packet Page -3139- 1- Single - Family (0.817 Trips/PM Hour ) 1- Multi- Family (0.449 Trips/PM Hour Multi- Family = 1.82 1 Single - Family = 1 0.55 Note: The trip generation equivalency rates are specific to the Mirasol development. Results may vary slightly if using significantly smaller or larger proportions of multi and/or single-family units. Mirasol's PMpeak hour equivalency rates were developed based upon its mixture of dwelling units. Existing + Committed Road Network Figure 1 depicts the E + C road network. As shown, there are no significant 5 -year committed roadway improvements within the project's area of impact. Although improvements to Oil Well Road are under construction, it is outside the project's area of impact and therefore not noted in this report. The two principal arterials that will provide immediate access to the site are Immokalee Road and C.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard). Immokalee Road is classified as a six -lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary east/west interconnect between the northern Golden Gate Estates Area and northwest Collier County, as well as continues north/south to the Immokalee Community and interconnects with S.R. 29. Within proximity of the site, the posted speed limit of hmmokalee Road is 45 MPH. Collier Boulevard is classified as a six -lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary north/south corridor that extends between Immokalee Road and Marco Island. Within proximity of the site, the posted speed limit of C.R. 951 is 45 MPH. Collier Boulevard @ Immokalee Road is a four -way intersection and is controlled by a traffic signal. Table 2A provides a detail of the surrounding E + C road network and their respective minimum level of service performance standards and capacity. 6 Packet Page -3139- c Z U ` t IL �i aLL CM OC, W m LLJ x Q ` ~ (n Z C WC O� � 0 CL t i c ZZZZ Z ZZZ �W0000 oWW000 Wo c E }�� Z V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- NMNU>Ln EN N. C4 N N OP LtiA N � r - o0Orn O IL NTOr00 rCV M000 4N 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 M �� E NNNNcr1M NNNNNN M M Co �� 1 LY CD CO M OrnMN vr- I" ENNrN fM'tf-r0� Nr O O IL Z > V C V A 0 L ~ d N T N - LO CO N N O d N avi n E CL 9L o � a H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N M M ti r (O N N Co 6. a 0)o > 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O rn rn O o O O d d I- ti LO LO O O N N O O Cri CD NQ E Co Co M M N N V 00 00 M C'M CO M M M O O o Y -I a O d O_ 3 iv 4, n 0 0 n W W 0 w W ❑❑ O U � Y a (D o U) o U �I »n ° °o nnnoon a' N N CD (0 (D Co CD rn � _ m C X = CO W W .o a a� a C7 d m c N C r^ w 2> O O (D r a 3 O > ` CD (D O> n z U N 0 m N ° ('9 Co _ 'o a CL O 0 0 O O 0 'Z 0 0) O N E E N O J 0 2 m (D E YO v W 11 O C Q a) YO N w O 0 0 E o o N_ E m y x z Z > C7 CL -L � fn U > ° a Y G CL z° CN i m C) E E a z C14 A N v v o 'a a Packet Page -3140- c o U- a n 0 _ .j 11/13/2012 Item 17.A 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Project Generated Traffic Distribution The project's net new trips were assigned to the surrounding road network based upon the distribution assignments of the FSUTMS Travel Model. More Specifically, the travel model results, which were previously developed as part of Mirasol's approved Traffic Impact Statement, dated June 2006, were referenced in performing the net new trip assignments. Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the FSUTMS distribution results, which were developed by Vanasse Daylor. The only adjustment to the previously established traffic assignments was to the distribution of traffic at the intersection of C.R. 951 1Immokalee Road. The distribution assignment was revised to reflect the change in the southbound approach configuration (i.e., SB thru & left was previously prohibited). Also, an adjustment to the distribution of east /west travel on Immokalee Road and north/south travel on Logan Boulevard was performed in order to account for increased travel on Immokalee Road (and decrease on Logan) due to the recently completed I -75@ Immokalee improvements. The adjusted trip distributions, within the project's area of influence, are depicted on Figure 2A. The PUD's net new trip assignments for those roadways within the project's area of impact are depicted on Table 2A and Figure 2A. The net new AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes at the intersection of C.R. 951 @ Immokalee Road are shown on Figure 2B. The project's total vested 'Y' net new trips (i.e., 1,121 d.u.'s) are shown on Figure 2C. 7 Packet Page -3141- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. �tpt M (o to N ar �. 1 t ** 26% Logan Boulevard r** 26% ** 26% 0 ** 18% b\ f Ito LEGEND 26 %— Project traffic distribution by direction * Denotes change in previous distribution due to reconfiguration of C.R. 951 0 Immokalee Rd (i.e., S8 Thru & Left) ** Denotes change in previous distribution due to completion of I -75 ®Immokalee Rd improvements �qQ ED Signalized Intersection �1'IG7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, , INC. Mirasol PUD Amendment PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 2A February 22, 2012 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION Packet Page -3142- = N 1� v � 10 I ♦ 1 �tpt M (o to N ar �. 1 t ** 26% Logan Boulevard r** 26% ** 26% 0 ** 18% b\ f Ito LEGEND 26 %— Project traffic distribution by direction * Denotes change in previous distribution due to reconfiguration of C.R. 951 0 Immokalee Rd (i.e., S8 Thru & Left) ** Denotes change in previous distribution due to completion of I -75 ®Immokalee Rd improvements �qQ ED Signalized Intersection �1'IG7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, , INC. Mirasol PUD Amendment PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 2A February 22, 2012 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION Packet Page -3142- = N r� v � 10 I ♦ 1 � r Z 1� �M d' N 1 .9 13% .— 21% 2% .— 12% J 41 10% 25% —� « 4% 12% —= 10% 10% —� * 13% —� I Collier Boulevard (CR 951) 2% 1 j * 9% --1 OR" N * * * at w O R 't cn MIRASOL 1 N 75 %--1 7 I 1 C14 �rn r �tpt M (o to N ar �. 1 t ** 26% Logan Boulevard r** 26% ** 26% 0 ** 18% b\ f Ito LEGEND 26 %— Project traffic distribution by direction * Denotes change in previous distribution due to reconfiguration of C.R. 951 0 Immokalee Rd (i.e., S8 Thru & Left) ** Denotes change in previous distribution due to completion of I -75 ®Immokalee Rd improvements �qQ ED Signalized Intersection �1'IG7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, , INC. Mirasol PUD Amendment PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 2A February 22, 2012 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION Packet Page -3142- = N r� v � OZ I ♦ 1 � r Z 0 _ o �tpt M (o to N ar �. 1 t ** 26% Logan Boulevard r** 26% ** 26% 0 ** 18% b\ f Ito LEGEND 26 %— Project traffic distribution by direction * Denotes change in previous distribution due to reconfiguration of C.R. 951 0 Immokalee Rd (i.e., S8 Thru & Left) ** Denotes change in previous distribution due to completion of I -75 ®Immokalee Rd improvements �qQ ED Signalized Intersection �1'IG7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, , INC. Mirasol PUD Amendment PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 2A February 22, 2012 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION Packet Page -3142- 1. Traffic from 322 Units AM Peak Hour = 221 vph = 55 in/166 out PM Peak Hour = 252 vph = 159 in /93 out MIRASOL � I N I v N f^ � M N w n O 1\ 00 ¢ v N cD N N v c:;- 183 (5) 73) 1 (3) i 2 (6) .— 15 (8) I f'A1 4 15 29) 43 (123)__j 2 (6) —J 10 (1 1) —' 3 (2) --' M 5 (3)� N r v LEGEND 15 (15) —► AM (PM) Peak Hour Project Traffic by Direction r� Ui v r1N r � N v n O7 Q� Q' U v e 0 m 0 U 11 /13/2012 #em 17.A. ) op NORTH N.T.S. immokolee Rd ® Signalized Intersection JME1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. M i ra s o l P U D Amendment PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION February 22, 2012 (PUD'S 322 ADDITIONAL UNITS) FIGURE 2B Packet Page -3143- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Traffic from 1,121 Units & 18 —Hole Golf AM Peak Hour = 646 vph = 164 in/482 out PM Peak Hour = 781 vph = 498 in/283 out NORTH N.T.S. MIRASOL I N t!) O l� n v � � u 241 (14)) . 43( (25) ,. l� 1 (3) .� — 3 137 (413) 130 (393) 7 (20) I 31 (34) —i 9 (6) 15 (8) v Ln r7 N LO 4 v lLn N LEGEND 15 (15) AM (PM) Peak Hour Project Traffic by Direction ® Signalized Intersection JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. M i ra s o l P U D Amendment PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION February 22, 2012 (1,121 121 UNITS & GOLF COURSE) . FIGURE 2C Packet Page -3144- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2 %, 2% and 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2A describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads and intersections that were identified as being within the projects are of impact are: Roadway Sei ment C.R. 951 North of Immokalee Road Immokalee Road I -75 to Logan Boulevard Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard to Site Access Immokalee Road Site Access to C.R. 951 Logan Boulevard Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd Intersection C.R. 951 @ Immokalee Road Site Access @ Immokalee Road Site Access @ C.R. 951 North Configuration 4 -Way w/ Signal "T" w/ SB STOP "T" w/ EB STOP 8 Packet Page -3145- Percent Project Traffic Distribution 21 % NB /25 %SB 53% EB /WB 79% EB /WB 9% EB /13 %WB 26% NB /SB Percent Project Traffic Distribution See Figure 2A See Figure 2A See Figure 2A e NQ LL i wQ( -� W " m �Q cn i- U W� i O� � L CL - v 0 N t` N N U- o2� » ❑ ° °❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ NN � V N N O (`D � V O Co CD O O (D N N M ��000000 00W000 00 Er }zzzz z >->- ,.z m_ W W w [t] O O O O d cO tl N Cl N to LO V N (D I- V) t- 00 O �NVOr00 N CD t: N Co (D M N tt Lq N r [T OR VN IL c rNM000 c a 9 at N r o> C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� 0 0 0 0° 0 o � 0 0 0 0 0 E N N N N M M N N N N N N M M Cn v CL .. .0 C �� Q V ti L o m w o o ° j O o 0 = 0 E E a 0 0 I�- d ENNIN00 = cOOV r-T O V qt O O 0 o m m c a o m a m o a` z >° o c ' o E 6 - o n N '� E c w x z Z> C9 o L _t -0i in CU > " w a > O O V O O O Tr N O N d d N V N V N� r V E i M ° " a a7 d o a v c E0 F L O O O O O O O O O O O O "S V y r t() U7 Lo 0 0 N N r N r r N M O M° ° CO to N r� V (D O N r � 'o a a 0 0 3 Packet Page -3146- m (Q.+ o L >000000 IL a. O O rn M o O O o d `' t'- t- LO Ul) O O N N 0 0 (n ) d 000 00 N N V V 0 0 (D (D t- ti M G) N p E M M N N C`M M M M M M 0 a a 3 `m � U C y 200000❑ W W❑ 0 LLI W r.) o 6 o N IL m 0 o2� » ❑ ° °❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ NN � V N N O (`D � V O Co CD O O (D N N M � � c W W w [t] - a a a v m c C4 a Co - � � rn c o_ c a 9 at N r o> o m tY - CpO o W o c It > a 2 -o a M O 17. ° o v CL .. .0 C �� Q o m w o o ° j O o 0 = 0 E E a 0 0 Co = c w E E m 0 M o a W 0 o m m c a o m a m o o c ' o E 6 - o n N '� E c w x z Z> C9 a _t -0i in CU > " w a Y C cc CL z i M ° " a a � io m 0 0 3 Packet Page -3146- m IL a. v 11/13/2012 Item W.A. 11/13/2012 Item W.A. 2012 thru 2018 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2012 thru 2018 project build -out traffic conditions, traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour /peak direction factor as shown on Table 2B was derived from the 2011 Collier County AUIR Reports. The annual growth rate was extracted from the growth trend determined via the 2006 thru 2011 AUIR Reports. After the correct adjustments were computed, the vested trips, which include the vested trips of Mirasol's 799 units, was then added to the forecasted traffic volumes. Once the 2018 background traffic was established, the net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 2C provides a summary of the 2012 thru 2018 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build -out. All intersections, within the project's area of impact, were analyzed based upon the criteria set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. Provided in the appendix are the HCS worksheets that depict the input variables and resulting AM & PM peak hour LOS determinations for each intersection under review. Table 2D provides a summary of the intersection analyses results. As shown, all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for 2018 project build -out conditions. Site Access Turn Lane Evaluation Figure 2C provides a detail of the anticipated turning movement volumes that will occur at the project's accesses. Based upon the expected intersection turning movement volumes, the report concludes that: Site Access on Imnaokalee Road An ingress left deceleration/tam lane (EB -to -NB left tuna lane) and an ingress right turn lane (WB -to -NB right turn lane) will be warranted at the site's access on Immokalee Road. Both the left and right turn lanes were previously constructed pursuant to Collier County standards and will continue to ensure a safe means of ingress without impeding east/west traffic flow. Because the access prohibits SB -to -WB left turn movements, only a single right -out egress lane is needed. Site Access on Collier Boulevard North (a/k/a, Broken Back Road) An ingress left deceleration/turn lane (NB -to -WB left turn lane) will be warranted at the project's access on Broken Back Road. Unless Collier Boulevard is extended north to intersect with Bonita Beach Road, an ingress right turn lane (SB -to -WB right turn lane) will not be needed. A single shared EB right - out/left -out egress lane will be adequate. 9 Packet Page -3147- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. C D N N O C O O +7 7 O Co= d M M N N N ano ao O Y IM '= O O N N v 00 00 Co (00 N O .19 > Z Z NNN N M C N N 001 a CL in in L O C N Y V p 9 0 I- v N N 0 0 0 0 M M r n t N Y O N LO to N N O N �NJ It N N N O O O O C N ems- N d d t rn o M Y v Z a 'C '7 O O tD�O 2 N C M OM/ N O O C O �O (O C7 M N h M M M > pZ� N y W U1 C O O 3 +1 v CO ++ S V O O 00 Oo 00 N N N^ d 0 Y �^ r- r- v Co Co Co M n n cn E W y N Q y 0 > N a 1G y a G 0 a; p o iaf °o °o °O °O °O °O °o °O °O °O r Co O° Ur N N N N N N N N N N N N M m C1 N Zb b mas 9 >r N m NI O N Co M C! M- Co 000 'D M C4 U o N v iL W c c Q C o0 to In 0 LO 0 LO 0 0 0 LO U) o m 10 Fo- > c Co CD o Q Q FE N 00 O O 0 lD M LO N N N N > - - - - � � n , •' o N A o N CO N /� N C1 `i. y 'O R 0 O N y T Ri Q `E 9 N N M O v N n n Q! m O N N N O O O N N M M M N N 0 0 �> N c F- > O > NO y C N O a C w O Q y fD w a a m .+ 3 3 > V W W ° m a ° CC N Y a a v m c > C7 ' CL m '> — w a m d c v a m 0 as o, Co c :o ai •, a. 0 o > `O 'a ' CU o O ° c a' a -0 Y Y C9 Co i oo o — o O o a W y 'a Li O N w0 f0 N V O ,� m- � $ J Cd 0 m ca E E x W aci CC ° c Q °� o o O O E c° c � u; O m D �' E c c o u Z z > C7 a. 3 i - in CU � � > n Y o a � w a y d 0 d y CD 0 r N 'O 0 d j r LL N i6 m Z Z a M Packet Page -3148- m w U V J Z Z C d E Co C' M R Co C .0 H N O A U t6 a N U D s 0 A m Q' N l�0 Oj{ 9 Q .d. N 3 d � L C a c e 'y m B Q T O tll � F > _ o 0 C. N 7 `1 co E 'Do � L N c4 a C � o N U m d � 'fl 3 0 0 v = - Y m t° CL d a Q J. C � N 0 v Y O d N � N LL N O 2 O Z 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. C 3 O �N goo= N O Y p) U U U U D D U U m M U U a0 m' x a L C N N O O O ;C O Z O Z CO N _ {q p Y _L R 2 2 M N to O t.- O O 1l h tD O Ui O) h fD Z Z 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a Y > to m IL in > o 0 V d= d O O O O n n t[1 Lo 0 a 0 O O O O O N N O 0 O O 'Z M Q N N a a M M N N 00 OD CD CD ti h Co Co M M Cl) CO N� N °' a c > > o 009= U O 'R N N 7 v w M O M O O p•' N lY0 Q> t0 w O 0 N N ClJ N O v v M O Co N N N� Co O M a x a CO L L 0 ro 0 = Y �. O Y a r N 0(D M to v N r 4 y o > Q a Z Z L C o Q v o = v Ri m = O Y L It N 7 '� O Co _ N a > N 7 ~ p a x U ;+w. a qQ �i O = _ O t o U U U U D D U U U N � U U U (, O pn aam NW�") 5: ' o C o Q) O 0 Z M� W O "C N Y L z Cl) N N N N N cN N oOD aOD CD LO CD (D > M o > N N a a m a0i C Z Q O 0 T t%) N"0 "col UUUU UUUUUi.) U0 Q Q. a �C O a C 7 O Q O d L 0 0 Co N NN MO Co '/ 1� Y N CO CO N r N T w a a Co C CD C L7 N a W d a v m c> C9 a M 13— a� a m 0 0 c m c 0 c °� m ?� c m � I > v a0i v a, c _ V N Q > O C N 0 0 0 •o a O w 0 N / O O (D 0 tM N . > O �O , E E Y M O o O E c —6 m C O c ,� y w O E c z z E> C-) o. ::1 i -oj 05 U > CTd Cr M _ O N 'a p d w D N Z' is m r_ Packet Page - 3149 -. LPL U t J C d E Co C' M R Co C .0 H N O A U t6 a N U D s 0 A m Q' N l�0 Oj{ 9 Q .d. N 3 d � L C a c e 'y m B Q T O tll � F > _ o 0 C. N 7 `1 co E 'Do � L N c4 a C � o N U m d � 'fl 3 0 0 v = - Y m t° CL d a Q J. C � N 0 v Y O d N � N LL N O 2 O Z 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. CO " ''W^, Cn J Z " Q " O� Cl F. N V LLI J � �W" Z C t C± N t N T , N ' N 0 N N LL o = ao 0 Y y S�a0I� o a N •' Sa. J O m a z N 2 .. 0 Z � � a c a �oIN ¢ a Z Z 0 S w ¢ N •' J G1 ¢ M 0 0 v d Y O E E tO rn w U t+�o v v d 0 Q t a1 � a3 p C LL d E CD N ad m M rn N J � Q1 LL N C v o Q y 0 E d H A U � o v o Y E Q E m i yf U) w � v D N d 1? N a w N y O N N G 3 r O Packet Page -3150- 2 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. s � a ° of g g N z z S` Y a J z° m N v C O Z = 3 a) c a �oIN ¢ a Z Z N U J ¢ 10 M 0 0 v d Y O E E tO rn w U t+�o v v d 0 Q t a1 � a3 p C LL d E CD N ad m M rn N J � Q1 LL N C v o Q y 0 E d H A U � o v o Y E Q E m i yf U) w � v D N d 1? N a w N y O N N G 3 r O Packet Page -3150- 2 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. oa.ol ¢ a Z Z N J Z d 0 Z 2 y r d y ¢ ¢_ N to Ol Z Z ¢ v O eo w � � U d y � C d O 0 O o E E` U @? v �! (D m g Y! 0) ¢ ¢ Y U M to 0 0 v d Y O E E tO rn w U t+�o v v d 0 Q t a1 � a3 p C LL d E CD N ad m M rn N J � Q1 LL N C v o Q y 0 E d H A U � o v o Y E Q E m i yf U) w � v D N d 1? N a w N y O N N G 3 r O Packet Page -3150- 2 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Support Documents APPENDIX 10 Packet Page -3151- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. General Information 1Site Information Analyst MB Trans ortation Intersection Road nUGGJJ Lw )11111IVIIGIGG oad ,,�nc /Co. Performed rialysis Time Period Jurisdiction Project Description Mirasol PUD 1,121 d.u.'s 212612012 nal sis Year 2018 PM Peak Hour East/West Street: lmmokalee Road Packet Page -3152- Project Description Mirasol PUD 1,121 d.u.'s East/West Street: lmmokalee Road North /South Street: Site Access Intersection Orientation: East -West 1Studv Period hrs : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 393 2426 2000 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR vehlh 413 2553 0 0 2105 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — -- Median Type Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T R ,Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h ) 70 F Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 F,, . iy Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 73 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 1 onfi uration R , Queue Len th, and Level of Service proach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound r ola vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 e Configuration L R (veh /h) 413 73 (m) (veh /h) 262 226 !c 1.58 0.32 5% queue length 82.97 1,41 Control Delay (s /veh) 1092 28.5 OS F D Approach Delay (s /veh) -- -- 28.5 Approach LOS — -- D 3r I © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 2/26/2012 11:49 AM Packet Page -3152- TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 3eneral Information ISIte Information 11 1 iliA_ A_ _ Analyst JMB Transportation Intersection J!(G riirLGJJ `W Il 111JIUA0MV Road Movement Agency/Co. Date Performed 212612012 Jurisdiction L T Analysis Year 2018 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 0.95 0.95 Project Description Mirasol PUD (1,121 d.u.'s East/West Street: lmmokalee Road North /South Street: Site Access Intersection Orientation: East -West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L L T Volume veh/h) 130 2000 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 136 2105 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — Median Type 0 RT Channelized -- Raised curb Lanes 1 2 �onfi uration L T J stream Signal 1 0 inor Street Northbound ovement 7 8 0 L T olume veh /h 9 10 eak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Flared Approach 0.95 N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 Lonfi uration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration L 0 (veh /h) 136 0 (m) (veh /h) 175 Ic 0.78 5% queue length 7.54 Southbound Control Delay (s /veh) 87.7 9 LOS F 12 Approach Delay (s /veh) -- — Approach LOS — — Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Packet Page -3153- Westbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 2426 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0 2553 10 -- 0 -- -- Raised curb 0 0 0 0 2 1 T R 0 Southbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 70 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 R 73 160 0.46 2.39 46.0 E 46.0 E HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 2126/2012 11:50 Packet Page -3153- TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. General Information ISite Information nal st JMB Transportation Intersection " "- '_—_ -1 -1-1 emu.,,, Road L Performed Analysis Time Period Jurisdiction 212612012 Analysis Year 2018 AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North -South Project Description Mirasol PUD (1,121 units) East/West Street: Site Access North /South Street: Broken Back Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 34 100 100 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 35 105 0 0 105 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR iJ stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R r,'me veh/h) 1 121 F Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 1 0 127 0 0 0 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh /h) 35 128 (m) (veh /h) 1498 951 Ic 0.02 0.13 95% queue length 0.07 0.47 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.5 9.4 LOS A A Approach Delay (s /veh) — — 9.4 )ach LOS -- — A Cc. it © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 2/26/2012 12:00 PM Packet Page - 3154 - 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC /TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Sc PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT METHODOLOGY MEETING REPORT For MIRASOL PUD AMENDMENT (NW Corner of C.R. 951 @ Fmmokalee Road) February 13, 2012 Prepared by: JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 761 2 1 sr STREET NW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 20 (239) 919 -2767 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION No. 27830 (PROJECT NO. 1 2021 1 ) Packet Page -3155- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:02 -13 -2012 Time: 9:00 AM Location: Collier County Government Off ces (North Horseshoe Drive) People Attending• Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) James M. Banks, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239 -919 -2767 2) Don Milarcik, 239 -498 -7840 3) John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Government, 239- 774 -8192 4) Reed Jarvi, Collier County Government, 239 -774 -8192 Study Preparer• Preparer's Name and Title: James M, Banks, P.E., President Organization: JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Address & Telephone Number: 761 21st Street NW Naples, Florida 34120 (239)-919- 2767 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: Reed Jarvi, Planning Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name & Title: John Podczerwins , Project Manager Organization & Telephone Number: Collier County Transportation Planning Department Applicant: Applicant's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: Mirasol PUD Amendment Location: NW corner of C.R. 951 (a, Irnmokalee Road Land Use Type: Residential Golf Course Community ITE Code #: LUC 210. LUC 230 & LUC 430 rcdy� Proposed number of development units: 735 S.F. & 386 M.F. (1,121 total d u.'s) and an 18 -hole Private Golf Course with Club House and other amenities Other: Description: Zoning: Residential PUD Existing: Vacant C.WsetsWamas M. BanksI DaskluplPROJEC77S1120211- HrasohMediodologyReport.dae Packet Page -3156- 11/13/2012 item W.A. Comprehensive plan recommendation: N/A Requested: Findings of the Preliminary Study: See the attached Study 'lope: Major Study TTIS Study Area: Boundaries: As previously established via the project's TIS dated June 2008 and maybe amended based upon the County's 2% 2% & 3% impact hale See attached excerpts from the project's Traffic Impact Statement dated June 2008 wages A-3 A-6 & A-7. Additional intersections to be analyzed: To be determined Horizon Year(s): 2018 Oc- Analysis Time Period(s): Aglax P1VTeeak VC 4M- PEA�G Future Off -Site Developments: None -:— wA LL, Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (See Page 5) Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: Pass -by trips: none Internal trips (PUD): arses �ee attached Trip Generation Computations (See Page,5) Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2018 Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: See Attached Site -trip generation: See Page 5 Trip distribution method: Based upon distribution previously! approved as established by the project's TIS dated June 2008 (See Pages A-4 and A-5) / Traffic assignment method: Based upon assiansnent previously approved as established by the project's TIS dated June See Pa es A -4 and A -5 f Traffic growth rate: Per Collier Countv Historical & Current AUIR Deports but not less than 2% C.iE/sudlarimM,BwkslDasWp ' ROJECMf202lf 4&eaoM4effiodofogyRaMt.doc FjP Packet Page -3157- 5 ecial t+'eatures: (i ci ents locations: Si t distance: Que g: preliminary study or, prior experience) Access ocation & configuration: Traffic c trot: Signal syst location & pr ession needs: On -site parkin needs: Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study rep s• Access polic and junsdicti Review -P cess: 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Small Scale Study — No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1500.00 X Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each To be determined All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and mast be paid to T ansportatlon prior to our sign -off on the application. SI Applicant C.WserWamesM. BenkstDesk(WRQJECTS12021 Wiraso1V&Lhodo1ogyRepoddoc WS Packet Page -3158- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT A Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review - $500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re- submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. "Small Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the. submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collectedlassembled, review of off -site improvements within the right -of -way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments /questions. " Maior Study Review" - SI 500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip . generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost. estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments /questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews"'- $500 Feel Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. UftersUMP41A. Bm ikADwkt oplPROJECM120211- MasoWeftdolwRepatdw Aq Packet Page -3159- TABLE 1 Mirasol PUD Trip Generation Commutations 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Land Use Code Land Use Code Description Build -out Schedule LUC 210 Single - Family Detached Housing 735 Dwelling Units LUC 230 Residential Condominium Townhouse 386 Dwelling Units LUC 430 Golf Course (Private) 18 -Holes 4� �v Internal Net New DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) C tune Ext. Tries LUC 210 - Daily Traffic = Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X) +2.71= 0.92Ln(735)+2.71 =1 1,047 nnT LUC 210- Daily Traffic = Ln(T)= 0.87Ln(X) +2.46= 0.87Ln(386) +2.46 = 2,083 I na apture will be 20 %-= a r�T �L,r" �« A TT LUC 430 - Daily Traffic = T = 35.74 ()Q = 35.74 (18) = 643 1 Emplo.we Only Trz= r wO he 15%—=; 96 ADT 2, 626ADT 10,600 AD 12:°� AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH) LUC 210 - AM Peak Hour = T= 0.70(X) + 9.74 = 0.70(735) + 9.74 = 524 Interim �� = ____ 105 vph 419 vph 25 %Enter /75 %Exit = 105 /314 vph T.UC 230 - AM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.80Ln(X) +0.26 = 0.80Ln(386) +0.26 =152 I o — 30 vph 122 vph 25 %Enter /75 %Exit = 31/91 vph LUC 430 - AM Peak Hour = 2.23 (X) = 2.23 (18) = 40 Employee Only Trips will be 15% = 6 vph 79 %Enter /21 %Exit = 4/2 vuh PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPR) LUC 210 - PM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.90Ln(X) +0.51 = 0.90Ln(735)+0.51= 633 Internal Capture will be 20% = 63 %Enter /37 0/oExit LUC 230 - PM Peak Hour = Ln(T)= 0.82Ln(X) +0.32= 0.82Ln(386) +0.32 = 182 Internal Capture will be 20% = 67 0/oEnter /33 %Exit = LUC 430 - PM Peak Hour = 2.78 (X) = 2.78 (18) = 50 Employee Only Trips will be 1.5% _ 45 %Enter /55 %Exit = `j�C 1G� L' dJ KtTJ l.J 14 E. tJ T., rlcm� a -r S . /"Y'QC -T ,4,5 4 Packet Page -3160- 135 vph 547 vph 140 /407 vph t/- 5 A 127 vph 506 vph 319/187 vph 3 6 vph 146 vph 98/48 vph 8 vph 4/4 vtih 162 vph 660 vph 421/239 vph C4(t - o✓T, 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Vanasse Daylor TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT MIRASOL PUDA July 18, 2007 - Updated December 7, 2007 - Updated February 4, 2008 - Updated March 17, 2008 - Updated June 19, 2008 Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) at Immokalee Road Naples, Florida Prepared For: Don Milarcik 111COLLIER JOINT VENTURE 6704 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 lob # 80950.05 Prepared By: Vanasse & Daylor LLP 1273D New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600, Fort 6lyen, Florida 33907 1239.437.4601 ► 239.437.4636 w vanday.com k Packet Page -3161- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The above equations were used to generate the estimated trip generations for the Mirasol project. Since the proposed development will have dissimilar land uses, a percentage of the site - generated residential traffic will be captured by the golf course inside the development and not be introduced to the external roadway network. The golf courses will have a limited number of external memberships and will primarily be a recreational use for the residents of the Mirasol site, an internal capture of 50% of the golf course traffic (and associated residential traffic) is anticipated. This is consistent with other analyses conducted within Collier County. Table 1 shows the trip generation calculation for vested trips. Table i Vested Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak PM Peak LAND USE Size Unit ADT Tg2( hr BKk TOW E�l= � Single Family (LU 210): 423 DU 3,919 306 77 230 393 248 145 Internal Capture Deduction -417 26 5 -21 -33 -18 -15 Residential Condombdum/rownbouse (LU 230):. 376 DU 1.979 149 25 124 178 119 59 hft n d Capture Deduction 216 -13 3 -10 -16 .9 -7 Golf Course (LU 430): 36 Hofes 1,287 80 63 17 99 44 55 Internal Capture Deduction Sow -643 39 31 4 -49 22 27 Totals 799 DU 3,899 457 126 932 372 362 210 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The pattern of site - generated trip distribution is based on locations of generators and attractors in the study area of the project. The traffic distribution generated from the FSUTMS model run for 2015 was used to develop the site - generated traffic distribution presented in Table 2 and graphically shown on Exhibit I The Appendix contains FSUTMS model printouts. Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) for the vested project traffic were developed for the project and inputted into the FSUTMS 2015 model to develop project trip distribution. MImsol PUDA TIS 6 i�r ek,maonsossam.�eawaroe?sso��aooe loss ��vo� ttsose,� Packet Page -3162- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. N W E S Not to Scale ® a project Site 'r4 ti t C. ry •z• Immokeles Road '3 O N O � CGy� d p d .r U m m m c 42nderbilt Beach Road j, N *t: Golden Gate Bnulevani SWdled Intereecdonr Pine Ridge Road Vanasse 'IS U ndi Phnaat in�c RIA 561hu �ndwpe Ntk�uaure EnrimnmmWl Etima el rmaAM me Wr Jon Milaralk Aw "?M MF76350/ PI1t1A M (W Enentahl El 366 WOOLLIER JOINT VENWRE Study Area & Studied Intersections /`'� 1111➢ w �T h*A w SB M4 Lane Oak BW EXHIBIT 2 �+ 1M Upn. (I ilin Nsplak PL 34108 �,��`N � *ZT+f.MU7 Uf� ry9A3Zt6]i lwo4aes 80860_PUDA TIS08_Exhibits.xls A— Packet Page -3163- Table 2 Site- Generated Trip Distribution 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The trip distribution percentages of the • land use were applied to the site - generated traffic volumes to determine the site - generated vehicle trip assignment. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the vested site - generated trip assignments for the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively. Significance Test According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6,02.02 and Collier County TIS Final Guide Dated 11 -03 -2006; "Significance Test: Impact for the impact traffic analysis purposes for a proposed development project will be considered significant: , On those roadway segments directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or greater than 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; For those roadway segments immediately adjacent to segments which are directly accessed by the project where project traffic is greater than or equal to 290 of the adopted LOS standard service volume; or For all other adjacent segments where the project traffic is greater than 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segments using the above standards, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments." Mlrasol PUDA TIS 7 A tvt�ensmo95om.woAenssc e�aacuossp wor�nw9a„ Packet Page -3164- Percentage Segment Distribution ' ImmoWee Rd Airport Road to Livingston Rd k7% Immokalee Rd Livingston Rd to 1 -75 26% Immokalee Rd 1-75 to Logan Blvd. 43% Immokalee Rd Logan Blvd. to Site Access 50% Immokalee Rd Site Access to c.R. 95i 4% Immokalee Rd Collier Blvd CR. 95t to Wilson Blvd. of immokalee Rd � 2�� ,_ , Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd 15% Collier Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Golden Gate Blvd 10% Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Pine Ridge Rd 8% - Collier Blvd Pine Ridge Rd to Green Blvd 4% Vanderbilt Beach Rd Airport Rd to Logan Blvd, 9% Vanderbilt Beach Rd Logan Blvd to C,R. 951 2% Pine Ridge Rd 1 -75 to Logan Blvd. 4% Pine Ridge Rd Logan Blvd to C.R. 951 3% Logan Boulevard Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd 361ya Logan Boulevard Vanderbilt Beads Rd to Pine Ridge Rd 2,A 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. The trip distribution percentages of the • land use were applied to the site - generated traffic volumes to determine the site - generated vehicle trip assignment. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the vested site - generated trip assignments for the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively. Significance Test According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6,02.02 and Collier County TIS Final Guide Dated 11 -03 -2006; "Significance Test: Impact for the impact traffic analysis purposes for a proposed development project will be considered significant: , On those roadway segments directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or greater than 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; For those roadway segments immediately adjacent to segments which are directly accessed by the project where project traffic is greater than or equal to 290 of the adopted LOS standard service volume; or For all other adjacent segments where the project traffic is greater than 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segments using the above standards, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments." Mlrasol PUDA TIS 7 A tvt�ensmo95om.woAenssc e�aacuossp wor�nw9a„ Packet Page -3164- IPy 7 peog 5pou ua %wg t I t7 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Packet Page -3165- 1 0 m fl � h x p Uzi i� 4 w 0 Cd � � s l� MCI ! S61lO %01 et %SL c .moo M --- s B -0 li1•�. .n � P m { Lt %9f �A {444 �'— 765E � d —i6ti p� Aolno8 uB2ol � 1 9CZ--+ J c a� � dwey uQ d—,d 1O PAN SL*! PunoTNoN SL ^I � e du+�NuC 'o o aweuao !!lkkk Puno9�noS SL'I Punogt Ds SL-I p� Packet Page -3165- 1 0 m fl � h x p Uzi i� 4 w 0 Cd � � s l� MCI 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. In Other words, a project will have a significant and adverse impact on a state or regionally significant roadway only if both of the following criteria are met: (1) the project will utilize 2 percent or more of the maximum peak hour service volume at the adopted level of service standard for the adjacent and next to adjacent link; 3 percent for the other links; and (2) the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted level of service standard. Significance was estimated according to Collier Colimty's 2/213 mile, and the links were evaluated to determine whether projected operation would he within County standards. The data resources used for this analysis are shown in the Appendix. Table 3 presents the significance test results. Table 3 Significance Test (PM Peak Hour) Masai PUDA TIS Packet Page -3166- C1Prok�iBMV�' 959nrtfOcV 'tIDA\ENSO�mtIW81HG9SQ Jilflq -'n5d9 dal Site as Vested'Site PCT of Irlills From To Dot STD SE,uc Ida LOS St Immokalee Road Uvi.ngstan Road 1-75 EB 3,290 94 Z9% Immokalee Road 1 -75 Logan Boulevard WB Ell 3,29D 76 1.3% 3.629 156 4.3% Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard South Site Access WB EB 3,629 3.629 90 2.5% 311 8.6% Immokales Road South Site Access Collier Boulevard WB EB 3,629 3,629 177 4.9% 59 1.6% immakalee Road Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard WB EB 3,629 3,79D 67 1.8% $ 0.2% Broken Back Road* East Site Access Immokalee Road WB NB 3,790 860 14 0.4% 76 8.8% Collier Boulevard tmmokaiee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road SB NB 860 3 ,300 53 54 6.2% 1.6% Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard SB N8 3,300 - 3,300 32 36 1.0% 1.1% Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road s8 NB 3,30D 3,30() 21 0.6% 29 091A SB 3,300 17 0.5% Golden Gate Boulevard Colder Boulevard Wilson Boulevard EB 21350 2 D.1% WS 21350 4 0.2% Vanderbilt Beach Road Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard EB 3,60D 7 0.1% WB 3,600 4 0.1% Logan Boulevard Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road NB 1,110 130 1 i.7% SB 11110 76 6.8% Logan Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road NB 990 91 9.2% SB 990 53 5.4% Masai PUDA TIS Packet Page -3166- C1Prok�iBMV�' 959nrtfOcV 'tIDA\ENSO�mtIW81HG9SQ Jilflq -'n5d9 dal 11/13/2012 Item W.A. The studied intersections are shown in Table 14. Copies of the analyses are contained in the Appendix. Table 14 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Existing Gen.." Improved Geometry Existing Badegrotmd Total Traffic Background Totat Traffic Trafc 2008 Traffic 2015 2015 Traffic 2015 2015 Signalized Intersection 1-75 Northbound Ramp & Immokalee Road's AM D 30 E 70 E so D 36 D 40 1 -75 Southbound Ramp & Immokalee Road* PM AM C C 24 27 E F 57 96 E F 69 112 C 24 C 25 D 43 D 49 Immokalee Road & Collier Boulevard# PM AM C C 30 28 E D 72 49 F F 95 94 C 34 D 40 Immokalse Road & Logan Boulevard PM AM C 21 F 103 F 106 D 37 D 37 D D 45 40 PM C 31 D 36 Collier Boulevard & Vanderbilt Beach Road AM C 31 F 270 F 274 D 41 C 27 E C 62 28 PM D 37 F 202 F 2t5 C 30 C 30 .Uns_iCnglized Intersection Irnrn0 lee Road & South Site Access AM PM E 42 Broken Rack Road & East Skg Access AM C 19 PM A 9 A 9 the nmps and Immoialea Raid Intersection will be upgraded during 175 cc=mcdon which Is undar way bon as of yet undakned *' dtk imwt"fion wKl be improved v t tha tmisvucdon sdmdLd d for the DCA between the Mbasol developer and the Cotmty The analyses indicate that the Immokalee Road & I -75 northbound and southbound ramps intersections operate within threshold value under AM and PM background and total traffic conditions, for 2015 with reconfiguration associated with the widening of 1-75 project. The Immokalee Road & Collier Boulevard intersection is projected to experience operational delays that are beyond threshold limits, however, the DCA construction agreed to by this developer and Collier County will address this issue. The projected improved geometry needed to accommodate 2015 background traffic for the Iuunokalee Road & Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard & Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection are as follows: Irnmokalee Road & Logan Boulevard intersection: Single left and single right turn lane in all direction Collier Boulevard & Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection: Dual northbound left turn lane MirwofFUDAnS 20 nv.e QUOSUOSSOn ,.mewuoaaovso�weioaeBassopuol A-1 Packet Page - 3167 - 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package AERIAL LOCATION MAP Packet Page -3168- � s_ -. � , ;� }. «» °< f d � � �� . . : . � /� y: . . . =y y «� . , , : � : .� / < . /%�. . «� » :� ��® :� . ° , . . \��. �� ^ ©` �� d .. .� § 2. � a \ 2 \ \ \�.� � \. \� � � / � \� w . . . � ��, .:,:, ^- � «sue � \ \��\ ,m1a w :: \\\. \ ry> . . �a�y » m « :: .f \w y:.�.w . z.. ^ ©� � «` �` ~ ^ ^?�� \ %�� w� z \�,�,y 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package JUSTIFICATIONS/ RATIONALE FOR DEVIATIONS Packet Page -3170- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. MIRASOL PUDZ -A DEVIATIONS & JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires cul -de -sacs and local streets to have a minimum sixty (60') right -of -way width and two (2) ten foot (10') wide travel lanes, to allow a minimum right -of -way width of 40' for private local streets and 50' for private spine roads. Justification: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and remains appropriate for the RPUD for a number of reasons. The majority of roads within the proposed development are intended as private, rather than public roads. Therefore, the maintenance responsibility will fall upon the development and the homeowners association. Additionally, the reduced rights -of -way are appropriately designed to accommodate necessary infrastructure requirements, including standard width travel lanes and utility easements. Reduced right -of -way widths are proven to serve traffic calming purposes by reducing vehicle speeds and increasing public safety. Lastly, the reduced rights -of -way will support the clustered development program by allowing for increased useable open space for the enjoyment of future residents and preservation purposes. Please note the spine road refers to the main entry roadway shown on the PUD master plan, which does not provide direct access to proposed residential units. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow cul -de -sacs in excess of 1,000' in length. For any cul -de -sac exceeding 1,600 feet in length, the roadway must include at approximately 1,600 feet intervals design features which provide for the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design features shall be allowed. Justification: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and is warranted due to the irregular configuration of the development tracts, which are expressly designed to minimize environmental impacts. The Applicant is requesting an increase to the maximum length of cul -de -sacs requiring design features due to the reduced development footprint and efforts to maximize the preservation of wetlands internal to the development. Cul -de -sacs will be designed with standard travel lanes and turning radii per the LDC requirements. Therefore, public health, safety and welfare will be upheld upon approval of this deviation, in addition to the noted environmental benefit. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.Q. Street System Requirements, which requires that street name markers shall be approved by the County Manager or designee for private streets or in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However, breakaway posts shall be used. Justification: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and will not impact public health, safety or welfare. The deviation will permit the developer to create a more customized streetscape, reflective of the community character and architectural standards. The street markers will be sized and located in order to meet the intent of Mirasol PUDZ -A Deviations & Justifications — Revised 8/15/12 Page 1 of 5 Packet Page -3171- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A standards, and will be reviewed at the time of construction plan approval. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0l.R. Street Requirements, which requires that street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of public roadway markings shall be provided by the developer as required by the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived for private roadways. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device standards. Justification: This deviation was approved per Ordinance 09 -21 and will not impact public health, safety or welfare. The deviation will permit the developer to create a more customized streetscape, reflective of the community character and architectural standards. Moreover, the streets will be privately maintained and will be the responsibility of the developer and homeowners association. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 1 parking space per 200 square feet of office /lobby /pro shop/health club/ clubhouse /lounge /snack bar /dining /meeting room associated with golf courses. The requested deviation is to allow for 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office /lobby /pro shop /health club /clubhouse /lounge /snack bar /dining /meeting room associated with the proposed golf course. Parking spaces for golf course holes, exterior recreation uses, and maintenance buildings will be provided per the LDC. Justification: The proposed golf course and amenity facility will be private and exclusively for the use of the development's residents. Due to the pedestrian amenities, such as sidewalks and trails, as well as anticipated golf cart usage, patrons of the clubhouse will utilize alternative modes of transportation as intended by the LDC's requirements. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the private golf course developments throughout the County, and will encourage multi -modal movement throughout the community. This deviation language was recently approved as part of the Talis Park (fka Tuscany Reserve) PUD per Ordinance 2012 -11. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.04.A, which limits the developer to 100 acres of residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake excavations within the PUD. The requested deviation is to allow the developer to clear up to 300 acres of residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake excavations within the PUD or project where the excavation is taking place. This is not a deviation from the Collier County Excavation Ordinance. Justification: The proposed deviation allows for construction flexibility of the stormwater management features internal to the development, and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Development of the golf course component will result in significant excess fill due to the number of proposed lakes. Approval of this deviation will allow the developer sufficient area on -site to store the fill, thereby reducing unsightly stockpiles. Furthermore, it is understood that any site clearing will require approval from the SFWMD and Collier County. Mirasol PUDZ -A Deviations & Justifications — Revised 8/15/12 Page 2 of 5 Packet Page -3172- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum wall height of 8' throughout the development. Where abutting an existing or future public roadway, a 20' tall wall, berm, or combination walUberm is permitted. Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along Immokalee Road, a 6 -lane divided arterial roadway, as well as the future CR 951 extension, which is also an arterial roadway. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area. 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of six (6) model homes per development tract, not to exceed 60 model homes within the overall RPUD. Justification: The RPUD proposes a variety of product types to accommodate various demographics and income levels. Due to the size of the project, the phased nature of the development, and the variety of dwelling types proposed, the Applicant is seeking an additional model home allowance to ensure the community is properly marketed to prospective buyers. The proposed deviation provides the County with the necessary safeguards to ensure an excess of model homes are not constructed. Therefore, public health, safety and welfare will not be negatively impacted upon approval of this deviation. 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. Justification: Due to the property's substantial setback from Immokalee Road, as well as the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. 10. Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.2, which permits one (1) real estate pole sign per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of two (2) real estate pole signs per street frontage setback a minimum of 5' from the property line along Immokalee Road only. Justification: The subject property is set back approximately 100 feet from Immokalee Road, a six (6) lane arterial roadway. Due to the setback and the high travel speeds along the road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable number of real estate pole signs and reduction to the setback in order to ensure visibility of this new community. Mirasol PUDZ -A Deviations & Justifications — Revised 8 /15/12 Page 3 of 5 Packet Page -3173- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.5, which requires on- premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow for on- premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. Justification: This deviation will allow for the development of appropriate directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the large -scale master - planned developments throughout Collier County. The proposed community will be master - planned with a unified, cohesive signage theme. The reduced setback will allow for flexibility of signage placement, while ensuring public health, safety and welfare is protected. 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f. per sign. The requested deviation is to allow for two (2) ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.f. per sign. Justification: The subject property will be accessed via two (2) arterial roadways (Immokalee Road and the future CR 951 extension), which demonstrate relatively high travel speeds. Additionally, the property has a significant street setback due to the location of the Cocohatchee Canal along the property's frontage. Due to the setback and the property's locational along these arterials, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry signage height and area to ensure visibility of the community. This deviation request is similar to previous requests approved for large master - planned communities within Collier County. The required setback from rights -of -way for entry signs will meet LDC standards, thereby ensuring public, health, safety and welfare is protected. 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development. The requested deviation is to allow for one (l) ground sign at the property corners fronting on existing and proposed public roadways that provide access to the project, in addition to two (2) ground signs at each project entrance. The proposed ground signs at property corners, commonly referred to as "boundary markers ", will be permitted at a maximum height of 10' and sign area of 32 s.f. per sign. Justification: The Applicant is seeking additional boundary marker signage to increase the community's visibility and better delineate the property from surrounding master - planned communities. Due to the size and scope of the project, and the distance between the entrance and property corners, the additional signage will not negatively impact viewsheds from surrounding roadways. The sign area and required setback from rights -of -way will meet LDC standards, thereby ensuring public, health, safety and welfare is protected. 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, which requires sidewalks on both sides of roadways internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow for an 8' wide sidewalk on Mirasol PUDZ -A Deviations & Justifications — Revised 8 /15/12 Page 4 of 5 Packet Page -3174- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. one side of the spine road internal to the development, and 5' wide sidewalks on one side of all other private, local roadways internal to the development that service residential units on one (1) side of the roadway, and/or terminate in a cul -de -sac up to a maximum length of 2,500 H. For the purposes of this deviation, the spine road is limited to that portion of the main entry road shown on the PUD master plan that does not provide direct access to dwelling units, and does not provide direct access to residential neighborhoods on both sides of the roadway. Justification: The deviation is proposed to allow for a more clustered development pattern that maximizes useable open space in consideration of the reduced development footprint, while ensuring appropriate pedestrian connections within and outside the project. In addition to the sidewalks, the community will include nature trails and other forms of pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure to ensure connectivity. The private, local roadways internal to the development will have relatively low vehicular travel speeds; therefore, the deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the reduced internal right -of -way width requested per Deviation #1 will decrease the distance residents must travel to reach internal sidewalks on those roadways where sidewalks are provided on one (1) side. This deviation has previously been approved for numerous projects throughout the County, including Saturnia Lakes (FKA Rigas PUD), The Parklands PUD/DRI, and most recently for Marsilea Villas (Ordinance 2011 -03) and Talis Park PUD (FKA Tuscany Reserve) approved per Ordinance 2012 -11. As proposed, the sidewalks will provide adequate circulation throughout the community, and to sidewalk connections along Immokalee Road. Please note the spine road refers the main entry roadway shown on the PUD master plan, which does not provide direct access to proposed residential units. 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 10.02.04.0 which limits the developer to one (1) Site Development Plan submittal for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant submits the response to the first staff review comments. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of three (3) Site Development Plan submittals for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant submits the response to the staff review comments. Justification: The proposed deviation allows the developer the ability to permit and construct multiple facilities simultaneously within the PUD, and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Mirasol PUDZ -A Deviations & Justifications — Revised 8/15/12 Page 5 of 5 Packet Page -3175- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS Packet Page -3176- strict School C'J o� 41� 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of n the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all """' applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation /information may be requested during the review process. Collier CWu -.-' For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239 - 377 -0267. Please check [�] type of application request (one only): [X] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, I. Project Information: Project Name: Mirasol Municipality;_ Collier County Parcel ID #: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): Please see attached Location /Address of subject property: Access Undetermined. North of Immokalee Road 3 miles east of I- 75(Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: Immokalee Road and Collier Blvd. ll. Ownership /Agent Information: Owner /Contract Purchaser Name(s): IM Collier Joint Venture Agent/Contact Person: Alexis V. Crespo, AICP (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305. Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone #: (239) 405 -7777 Fax: (239) 405 -7899 Email alexiscna waldropengineering.com I hereby certify the statements and /or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 02/24/2012 Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date III. Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Urban Proposed Land Use Designation: Urban Current Zoning: RPUD Proposed Zoning: RPUD Project Acreage: 1,628. Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: 799 OR 799 0 0 0 Total Units Proposed by Type: 1,121 OR 1,121 0 0 0 Is this a phased project: Yes or No YES If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date /time stamp: Packet Page -3177- 74 c 0 w ? � \ \ / \ w A \ W � � § + ® _ ( ' Q 8 + 3 � ° ' 2 _ ? o 2 2 } / �•= 2 2 3 0 0 � q c ( � � IZ. � ? C � W 2 0 S © © 2 3 R 2 - m w © / 2 Q Z � o � � e :D ƒ k kr) Q S 2 \ o R f _ qm kn CL « _ » � � 7 2 W $ m ? (1) 0- n c c \ 0 ® o kr) o o 9- 7 kf) CT E .@ 7 � k � � � ƒ \ / \ w A \ � � § + ® _ ( ' Q 8 wLa \ 3 � ° ' 2 _ ? o 2 2 } / �•= 2 2 3 0 0 \ + CA 0 � c � � IZ. � S © © w © / / Z � o � e :D ƒ k Q S 2 c � CG � w 2 � G W N o_ N CD 3 � 0 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SYNOPSIS Packet Page -3179- II L 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Memorandum To: Kay Deselem From: Alexis Crespo cc: Rich Yovanovich Date: June 27, 2012 Subject: Mirasol RPUD (PUDZA- PLr2012000303) Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis IM Collier Joint Venture, in conjunction with Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Waldrop Engineering, P.A., and Collier County Staff conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Tuesday, June 5, 2012. Also in attendance was a representative from the contract purchaser. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at St. Monica's Episcopal Church at 7070 Immokalee Road. The sign -in sheet is attached as Exhibit "A ", and demonstrates approximately 10 residents were in attendance, not including the consultant team. Handouts were distributed outlining the project overview, proposed uses, and site development regulations, and are attached as Exhibit "B ". Rich Yovanovich (Agent) began the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and an overview of the rezoning process. Mr. Yovanovich outlined the public input opportunities throughout the process, and noted that dates had not been set for the Planning Commission or Board of County Commission hearings. Mr. Yovanovich provided an overview of the project location and history, and pointed out the location of the acreage being added to the PUD. He also outlined the handouts provided to attendees. Mr. Yovanovich presented the approved PUD Master Plan and proposed PUD master plan, noting the additional preserve area and reduction to the development footprint. Following the Agent's presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees to make comments and ask the Agent and Applicant questions regarding the proposed development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question /Comment 1: What is the timeframe to start construction? Response: The developer would like to break ground in 2013. Question /Comment 2: Does that include the golf course? Will the golf course be developed in the first phase of construction? Page I of 4 Packet Page -3180- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Response: Yes. Question /Comment 3: What do the improvements to Broken Back Road entail to provide access to the development? Will the existing bridge remain until the construction of the CR 951 extension occurs? Response: The access shown on the master plan the will be used for temporary construction access. The County is also designing improvements to the Broken Back Rd /CR 951 intersection. All improvements to the roadway will require permitting approval through Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. Question /Comment 4: The existing Broken Back Road is not permitted. Where you aware of that? Response: No, this project is our first involvement with this roadway. Question /Comment 5: What is the outparcel in the northern portion of the development? How is that land zoned? Response: That parcel is not owned by the developer, and is zoned for agricultural purposes. The PUD currently provides for access to this parcel and so does the amendment. Question /Comment 6: Is there a road along the northern perimeter of the development? Response: No, there is no road in that area. Question /Comment 7: Are you under the DRI threshold? Response: Yes, the threshold is 2,000 units. The project is 1,121 units. Even if the density was maximized based on the property acreage development would not exceed the DRI threshold. Question /Comment 8: Will Collier Blvd. be extended to Bonita Beach Road? Response: Collier County has a long -range plan to extend Collier Blvd., but this project has nothing to do with the extension of Collier Blvd. This project does not contribute toward the need for the extension, nor is the developer constructing a portion of Collier Blvd. as a result of this project. Question /Comment 9: Are there any insurance companies connected with the developer? Response: I do not know. That is not a zoning -level issue. There are no commercial uses associated with this project. Question /Comment 10: Will the property to the east be commercial? Response: Yes, there are commercial uses permitted to the east. Question /Comment 11: Do you anticipate any reconfiguration of access to Immokalee Road? Response: No, the developer will use the existing bridge. There will be no new /additional points of access to Immokalee Road. Question /Comment 12: When will a plan be presented that shows the location of the golf course? Is it like the original plan? Response: We are still working on the site plans and do not have details to provide yet. It will be similar to the original plan, in that there will be single- family and multi- family uses around the golf course. Page 2 of 4 Packet Page -3181- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Question /Comment 13: Where will the clubhouse be located? Response: The clubhouse has been relocated internally to the development as shown on the property PUD master plan. Question /Comment 14: When will the (site) plan be available? Response: The consultant team is working on it right now; we typically do not have that level of detail available during the zoning process. Question /Comment 15: Will there be a public park in the development? Response: No, this will be a private community. All amenities will be private and for the use of the community's residents. The developer will pay a park impact fee to fund community and regional parks. There will be a pathway system provided along the property's Immokalee Road frontage. Question /Comment 16: Will the gate be manned 24 hours per day? Response: That level of detail is not available yet, but I would imagine so. Question /Comment 17: Do you have the percentages of single- family and multi- family units? Response: Not at this time. The plans are geared towards more of a single - family community. Question /Comment 18: Who is the builder? This could have a big impact on employment in Collier County if they use local contractors. Response: Yes, this will have a positive impact on local employment. Taylor Morrison will use local contractors. Question /Comment 19: Will the golf course be an equity course or a public course? Response: The developer has not decided yet, but they are considering a bundled golf concept, where the membership fee is associated with the cost of the homes. Question /Comment 20: What will the price range be? Response: It will be market -rate homes. Question /Comment 21: What will the name of the community be? Response: The developer does not know yet, but it will not be Mirasol. Question /Comment 22: Do you have a website where we can watch the development and progress? Response: Not at this time, but eventually there will be a website. Question /Comment 23: Is the corner of CR 951 and Immokalee zoned for commercial? Response: These properties are known as the Tree Farm PUD and Addie's Corner PUD. Addie's Corner is zoned for commercial uses. The Tree Farm PUD is zoned for mixed -use. The northern portion of the Tree Farm project is residential or Assisted Living Facilities. These projects are also in the preliminary design stages. Question /Comment 24: Is the project part of the primary panther zone? Response: Yes. Question /Comment 25: Are there any old cypress? Page 3 of 4 Packet Page -3182- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Response: The site was logged in the 1930's and the trees are approximately 50 -70 years old. Question /Comment 26: What is the property just above you (to north)? Response: Village Walk in the City of Bonita Springs. Question /Comment 27: Will there be a road going from Village Walk down to Collier County? Response: Yes, the CR 951 extension is on the Collier County long -range plan. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Yovanovich thanked attendees for coming and advised they will receive notification when the Planning Commission hearing is scheduled. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:00 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the CD attached as Exhibit "C ". Page 4 of 4 Packet Page -3183- EXHIBIT A 11/13/2012 Item W.A. MIRASOL NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NAME �,tex� s c•rc�o W A,l dkw- (;'.1 �� t�1 �C 1. ✓� � L 7V, G �. SIGN -IN SHEET JUNE 5, 2012 EMAIL i -_ i raw@ wtt �A GOA 4 C �AhT�l� (� .� i�.5 a vt H'yG P }�fiCl/�u,�f%• � � Packet Page -3184- / J v 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT B Mirasol RPUD Neighborhood Information Meeting June 5, 2012 — 5:30 p.m. — 7070 Immokalee Rd. — St. Monica's Episcopal Church Project Information Sheet Project Size: 1,638.6 + / -acres (approved 1,543.6 + /- acres) Preserves: 965.6 + /- acres (approved 785.7 + /- acres) Development Area: 709.8 + / -acres (approved 809.8 + /- acres) Future Land Use: Urban Residential Subdistrict & Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay Current Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) & Rural Agricultural (A) Current Use: Vacant /Agricultural Lands Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Proposed Density /Uses: Maximum of 1,121 dwelling units with up to 18 holes of golf (approved for 799 units with up to 36 holes of golf) Maximum Attainable Density: 1,946 dwelling units Packet Page -3185- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. MIRASOL RPUD PERMITTED USES A maximum of 1,121 residential units and a maximum of 18 golf course holes may be developed within the RPUD. I. Residential /Golf Tracts (RG): A. Principal Uses: 1. Single- family detached dwelling units. 2. Zero lot line dwelling units. 3. Townhouse dwellings. 4. Two - family and duplex dwellings. 5. Multiple - family dwellings. 6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the "RG" district. B. Accessory Uses /Structures: 1. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted 2. Guest houses. 3. Common area recreation facilities. 4. Clubhouse or recreation centers for residential uses. 5. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails constructed of alternative materials, bikeways, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 6. Model homes, model home centers, welcome centers and sales trailers, including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing, as well as resale and rental of units within the RPUD in perpetuity. 7. Golf course, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters snack bars and golf course maintenance yards. 8. Golf Club Complex as located on the Master Plan: i) Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not limited to, golf, tennis and recreation related sales. ii) Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to serve club members and club guests iii) Pro- shops, golf club, tennis clubs, health spas and equestrian clubs. 9. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation. 10. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. Packet Page -3186- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 11. Essential services, pursuant to the LDC. 12. Water management facilities and related structures. 13. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or architectural or structural bank treatments. 14. Community and neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, community centers. 15. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer, builders, and their authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 16. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffer berms, fences and walls. 17. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the "RG" district. II. Conservation/Preserve Tract: A. Principal Uses: 1. Passive recreation uses limited to the following so long as clearing for such uses does not result in the reduction of Preserve acreage below the minimum requirement: i. Boardwalks ii.Environmental uses (wetland and conservation areas) iii. Pedestrian bridges iv. Equestrian trails v. Pervious nature trails except where American Disabilities Act requires otherwise. vi. Native Wildlife sanctuary vii. Inclement weather shelters, in preserve upland areas only unless constructed as part of a permitted boardwalk system. The shelters shall be a maximum of 150 square feet each. 2. Environmental research 3. Drainage and water management facilities subject to all required permits. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list or permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals through the process outlined in the LDC. Packet Page -3187- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIRASOL RPUD * SPS = Same as Principal Structure 'H = Building Height Packet Page -3188- Single Zero Multi- Clubhouse/ PERMITTED USES Family Lot Two Family Townhouse Family Recreation AND Detached Line and Duplex Dwelling Buildings STANDARDS Principal Structures Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF per 3,500 SF 9,000 SF n/a lot or unit Minimum Lot Width 50' 40' 35' per lot 20' 90' n/a or unit Front Yard Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 25' Side Yard Setback 5' 0 or 10' 7.5' 7.5' 10' 5' Rear Yard Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 0' Setback From Golf Course 10' 10' 10, 10' 10' 20' Setbacks from Preserves 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Maximum Zoned Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' (5 50' (2 stories stories not over parking to exceed not to exceed 50') 50') Actual Height 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 75' Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF n/a Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 20' *5 15' or .5 BH Between whichever is Principal greater Structures Accessory Structures Front Yard SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Setback Side Yard 5' 0 or 10' S' S' 10' S' Setback Rear Yard Accessory 5' 5' S' 5' S' 5' Setback Setback From Preserves 10' 10' 10' 10' 10, 10' Distance Between 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Accessory Structures on the same lot Distance Between 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' Accessory and Principal Structures on same lot Maximum Zoned Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS * SPS = Same as Principal Structure 'H = Building Height Packet Page -3188- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Mirasol RPUD PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 CCPC Package SIGN POSTING AFFIDAVIT Packet Page -3189- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (Section 10.03.00, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supercede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to Section 10.03.00 of the LDC. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right -of -way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED Ai ' -, S C�c ��- WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE /SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER IG =P RE PPLICANT OR AGENT NAME (TYPED OR PRINTS ) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Thq foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this (MC Y i S ersonally known to me or who produced _ and who did /did not take an oath. dUIL IAN .IdNM III NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA Comm# EE099159 1� Expires 6/1/2015 My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) tT--- Cnrnt- d C-\ r, , STREET OR P.O. BOX � � I )O;r,- 6-1 CITY, STALTE ZIP Signature of otary Pu lic day of 20q27, by as identification Printed Name of Notary Public J:\276 -00 Mirasol\Word2oning\Sign Post\AFFIDAVITAND SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS 5- 2- 05.doc Packet Page -3190- Sign 1— Immokalee Rd. Sign 2 — Rose Blvd. Packet Page -3191- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Sign 3 — Nursery Lane Packet Page -3192- - � �� : �_ �.dr ,: .> �. 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. ORDINANCE NO, 12- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009 -21, THE MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 799 TO 1,121; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2404 -41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 95 +1- ACRES OF LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE MIRASOL RPUD; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; AND ADDING DEVIATIONS AND REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) BORDERED ON THE EAST BY BROKEN BACK ROAD AND FUTURE COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 1,638.6 + /- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, IMCOLLIER JOINT VENTURE, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately 95 acres of the herein described real property located in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District to the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District and when combined with the existing Mirasol RPUD provides for a 1,638.6 + /- acre project in accordance with the revised Exhibits A -F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as Mirasol RPUD 1 PUDZ- A- PL2012 -303 Page 1 of 2 Rev. 9/26,!12 Packet Page -3194- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. described in Ordinance Number 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2012. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK IN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: , Deputy Clerk Of N x'17 Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attachments: Exhibit A - Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit B2 - Flag Lot Scenario Exhibit C - Location Map Exhibit C2 - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - Deviations Exhibit F - Developer Commitments CP112- CPS - 01158148 1 Mirasol RPUD 1 PUDZ- A- PL2012 -303 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 9/26/12 FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Packet Page -3195- EXHIBIT A FOR MIRASOL RPUD PERMITTED USES: 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. A maximum of 799 1,121 residential units and a maximum of 3b 18 golf course holes may be developed within the RPUD. L Residential /Golf Tracts (RG): A. Principal Uses: 1. Single- family detached dwelling units. 2. Zero lot line dwelling units. 3. Single family at+.,ehed an Townhouse dwellings. 4. Two - family and duplex dwellings. 5. Multiple - family dwellings. 6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the "RG" district. B. Accessory Uses /Structures: 1. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted 2. Guest houses. 3. Common area recreation facilities for residential „^ residents and their guests. 4% 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 4. 5. Model homes, model home sales centers, weleeme eenters and sales trailers, including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing, as well as resale and rental of units. 6. Golf course, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters snack bars and golf course maintenance yards for residents and their guests. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through text is deleted Page 1 of 19 Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3196- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. -8-. 7. Golf Club Complex as located on the Master Plan: i) Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not limited to, golf, tennis and recreation related sales for residents and their guests. ii) Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to senxe Bleb ffieffibeFS and elub guests for residents and their guests. iii) Pro - shops, golf club, tennis clubs, and health spas and equestrian clubs for residents and their ug ests. iv) Golf course practice areas and ranges golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters snack bars and golf course maintenance yards and facilities. -9: 8. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation for residents and their Quests. 1$ 9. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. +4. 10. Essential services, pursuant to the LDC. 1-2. 11. Water management facilities and related structures. 13: 12. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or architectural or structural bank treatments. 14. 13, G it -and eeiighbefheed pParks, recreational facilities, community centers for residents and their guests. ice. 14. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer, builders, and their authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 1-6. 15. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffer berms, fences and walls. H-, 16, Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the "RG" district. 11. Conservation/Preserve Tract: A. Principal Uses: PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted A2irasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3197- Page 2 of 19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Passive recreation uses limited to the following so long as clearing for such uses does not result in the reduction of gpreserve acreage below the minimum requirement: i. Boardwalks ii. Environmental uses (wetland and conservation areas) iii.Pedestrian bridges - 4,.,.Egoes -t+ —y- iv Pervious nature trails except where American Disabilities Act requires otherwise. —4. v. Native Wildlife sanctuary -Vii. vi. Inclement weather shelters, in preserve upland areas only unless constructed as part of a permitted boardwalk system. The shelters shall be a maximum of 150 square feet each. 2. Environmental research 3. Drainage and water management facilities subject to all required permits. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list or permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals through the process outlined in the LDC. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through text is deleted Pale 3 of 19 Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3198- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT B FOR MIRASOL RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "RG" RESIDENTIAL AREAS PERMITTED Single Zero Two Family Single ley Multi- Clubhouse/ Recreation USES Family Lot and Duplex ��> Buildings AND Detached Line To�+mhouse* 12 Dwelling* D'w`elling 12 *6 STANDARDS 4- 2 3 4 3 6 Principal Structures Minimum Lot 5,000 IF .. 4,000 IF 3,500 IF per 3,5W2,00QSF 9,000 SF nla Area lot or unit *3 Minimum Lot 50' *7 40' *7 35' per lot 3P 20'It7 90' Wa Width *4 14 or unit *7 Front Yard 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20' *2 Aq 20 *2 25' Setback Side Yard 1-5'' 5' *7 0 or 10' 7.5' *7 *8 7.5' -*4 *8 4-51,12 BH *5 5' Setback *2 *11 *7 Rear Yard 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' 4 15' 0' Setback *I Setback From 10' *7 10' *7 10' 10' 10' 20' Gulf Course Setbacks from 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Preserves Maximum 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' (5 stories 50' (2 stories Zoned Height not to over parking not *10 exceed 50') to exceed 50') *9 Actual Height 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 75' *l0 Floor Area 1000 SF 1000 IF 1000 IF 1000 IF 750 IF nla Min. Per Unit (S.F.) Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 20LI/'2 SUM 15' or .5 BH Between of BH *5 whichever is Principal greater *6 Structures P UDZ- A- PL20120000303 Mirasol RPLJD Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Strike - through text is deleted Underline text is added Packet Page -3199- Page 4 of 19 11/13/2012 Item W.A. Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a public road right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). *1 - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section, *2 - Single - family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi- family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of23 feet from the edge of sidewalk. *3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires it lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. *4 — Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. * 5 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages. *6 Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential or preservation boundary. * 7- The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths. However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced. * 8- Zero foot (0') setback for internal units. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through text is deleted Page 5 of 19 Mirasol RPUD underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3200- Single Zero Two Family sin& Multi- Clubhouse/ Family Lot and Duplex Fan* Family Recreation Accessory Detached Line Aftashed Dwelling Buildings Structures Tovmhouse *6 Front Yard SPS *7 SPS *7 SPS SPS SPS SPS Setback *2 Side Yard 5' *7 0 or 10' 5' 5' 4-W 1/2 BH 5' Setback *7 Rear Yard -I0 5' *7 - 40 5' *7 - 40 5' - 405, - l 0' 40 5' - Accessory Setback *1 Setback From 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserves Distance 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' Between Accessory Structures on the same lot Distance 0' or 40- 5' 0' or 40= 5' 0' or W 5' 0' or 480- 5' 0' or W 5' 0' or 44P 5' Between Accessory and Principal Structures on same lot Maximum SPS SPS SPS SPS £slur 35' Sl9 35' Zoned Height *10 Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS &R& 45' SPS 45' *10 Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a public road right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). *1 - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section, *2 - Single - family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi- family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of23 feet from the edge of sidewalk. *3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires it lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. *4 — Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. * 5 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages. *6 Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential or preservation boundary. * 7- The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths. However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced. * 8- Zero foot (0') setback for internal units. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through text is deleted Page 5 of 19 Mirasol RPUD underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3200- 11/13/2012 Item W.A. *9 Inclusive of under building parking ` *10 Buildings shall not exceed three stories within 1,250 feet of Immokalee Road. *11 5' side yard setbacks shall apply to lots eoual to or lesser than 70' in width Lots greater than 70' in width will provide 6' side yard setbacks. *12 Maximum length of buildings shall not exceed 300 linear feet. BH = Building Height SPS = Same as Principal Structure Notwithstanding the fore oin&, none of the footnotes shall operate as a deviation from the Land Development Code unless they arc listed as deviations on Exhibit E None of the footnotes operate as deviations from the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3201- Page b of 19 l � I l j Mo LOT ` FLAG LOT } I DEMOTES LOT LINE JIM: THIS EXNBIT IS FDR ILLUSTRATIVE HRPOSES TO SHOW HOW CERTAIN 6F01lfTRY OF A MEN TRACT IYOOLD fACILLTATE THE 04PLEMENTATION OF A "FLA4 LOT` oulam LAI'Otlr. 0 50 100 2Q0 SCALE IN FEET I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE 1911ftGNOLI BARBER & WHESSIBRUNDAGE; INC. Professional Engina:rs, Pianners & Land Surreyotr C.- C—q:f,ePT....ri 7..9 M.•Ng4,R•lttq P11.. asry niaif7. r,c ft+fFiKW7 PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through text is deleted Mirasok RPUD Underline text is added Last. Revised: September 25, 2012 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. OVILD10; FOOTPRINT Fuc Lar l I MIRASOL PUDA FLAG LOT SCENARIO EXHIBIT 'B2' 9° I Ae@ PRO.}EL7 Ma : 78$3 w er. rrur• i .�_.... - ....— � --n -� Packet Page -3202- N R u Page 7 of 19 SEE SHEET # 2 FOR CONTINUATION . R/6 R/6 L R/6 TERAHMA lop) R/6 ODMOEPTIIAL L aws HOtlaE rAMPEEY VMAVO R/6 L L OIDi • � aA QMEaa p s L trap) m W AM „ PROPERTY iOUNPAW a r •. '. M 17 1L 13 • m :L { Y 93 91 m • tax 2") W1VPE T LR. L R/6 L R/6 a L R/8 R/6 11/13/2012 Item W.A. NOTE FOR PW EEOEMO AND p arim NOTMSEE O aHEET :OF i II e r J N aFMV ' �PRUMVE RMtlTA6E my (PUP) 6 MUM ` PRIVATE AMME R/6 m TYPE v E.R.E. R/6 tao MPOPOSEO ax. aFt E1Lf. R O.M OFDIaATEVR Y�q L ,s TrPE T La.i L WAIHlcKAMM FAOHRY TYEE FA1171 (M) NOYATE SMwE ROAD Fbnwu MM" R/8 INTOW"NErr Tr t.i.E V111A oil I P rMlRr,rERAa ENGINEERING Ram BoeroARY & �a� ■�� wuwwa axas n,amllanmraeob>7dJaRns w1wowwEaT MIRASOL L R/6 F1ITURE ".UD. A19NDMENT A91" I L UNTER CONCEPTUAL L MASTER PLAN 1 EXHIBIT "C2" SHEET 1 OF 3 lIORAOE _ 0 UPDATED: 22012.0 PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strife- through text is deleted h'tirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3203- Page 8 of 19 i F ... N n 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through tent is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underiine text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3204- CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHBIT "C2" SHEET 2 OF 3 = NAME: 27600HXMAwg UPDAM: 7012-09-25 Page 9 of 19 .;.......,s N AR . .... ................. ........... rAeirF ....... .. .... ovT fMM .......... oMNEb ......... ..... ............ ............... FARMM" • is ?"PENN (Pug) BAUNdARY IAt YA�INT IOU VAGNT f i } }6 i ................. .............................................. ................................................ I/A TEiAFINA ......................................... ................................................ IP04) ................. .......... ............. ................... .......................... ............ .................... r ' , ENGINEERING awz rrarsirw • ur SEE SHEET # t FOR CONTINUATION Ewsraarur,apwa '" "�"�`""`IN NOM FOR ►LAN LEOENi as "am "M SEE MEET ! OF 0 WRASOL LP.U.D. AM W MENT PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through tent is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underiine text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3204- CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN EXHBIT "C2" SHEET 2 OF 3 = NAME: 27600HXMAwg UPDAM: 7012-09-25 Page 9 of 19 L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS * R/C RESIDENTIAL / GOLF PRESERVE RIGHT -OF -WAY * LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO RELOCATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. SPECIAL NOTES: t) WHERE APPLICABLE ALANB PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC RE14CYYAL THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REQUIRED. NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY: EXISTING NATIVE HAB(TAT = 9".6 Aa :L REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT = 937.4 As. ± PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = S37.4 U ± ACREA0E SUMMARY: SECTION 22 - 426.E Aa :t SECTION 1S = 634.6 As. SECTION 10 — 578.Y Ae. ± TOTAL — 1,636.6 Ae. :1: TOTAL AREA OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY = 428.E At. :k TOTAL AREA WITHIN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY = 709.E As. ± PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3205- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. Page 10 of 19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT D FOR MIRASOL RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPTING THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) PARCELS: 1) THE SOUTH % OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST ''/4, 2) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST '/. OF THE SOUTHEAST t/4, 3) THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST/40F THE SOUTHEAST '/, 4) THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST'/ OF THE SOUTHEAST'' /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 AND ALL OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; THE NORTHEAST'' /4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, AND THE EAST'/ OF THE NORTHWEST' /4 OF THE NORTHWEST' /, THE WEST %z OF THE SOUTHEAST %4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, THE EAST/20F THE NORTHWEST' /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST V4, THE EAST % OF THE SOUTHEAST/ 40F THE NORTHWEST V4, THE NORTHWEST/40F THE NORTHEAST 1/4; AND THE WEST 1/z OF THE NORTHEAST ' /a OF THE NORTHEAST '/, THE EAST ! /i, OF THE NORTHEAST/ 40F THE NORTHEAST' /4, THE WEST''/ OF THE SOUTHWEST %4 OF THE NORTHEAST `/4, THE EAST %z OF THE SOUTHWEST %4 OF THE NORTHEAST ' /a, THE EAST %2 OF THE NORTHEAST' /4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114, THE EAST '' /z OF THE WEST % OF THE SOUTHEAST/ 40F THE SOUTHWEST '/4, THE WEST %2 OF THE EAST %2 OF THE SOUTHEAST/ 40F THE SOUTHWEST '/,, THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST'/ OF THE SOUTHEAST'/ OF THE SOUTHWEST'/ THE NORTH % OF THE WEST %z OF THE NORTHWEST %4 OF THE SOUTHEAST `/4, THE SOUTHWEST/ 40F THE NORTHWEST/ 40F THE SOUTHEAST' /, THE WEST' /z OF SOUTHWEST %4 OF THE SOUTHEAST %4, THE WEST 3/4 OF THE EAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHEAST' /4, THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strife- through text is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3206- Page 1 I of 19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH t/2 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, moo EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 1638 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through test is deleted Mirasol RPUD Ulnderline tesi is Added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3207- Page 12 of 19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT E FOR MIRASOL RPUD DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 91 seeks relief from Appendix B ef the LDC Section 6.06.01.0, entitled "Typi-eal Street See;iens and Right-ef way Design ", which requires cul -de -sacs and local streets to have a minimum sixty (60') right - of -way width and two (2) ten foot (10') wide travel lanes, to allow a minimum right -of -way width of 40' for private local streets and fift), -feet 50' for private spine, i o roads. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow cul -de -sacs in excess of 1,000' in length. For any cul -de -sac exceeding 4—,299 1,600 feet in length, the roadway must include at approximately ,ZW 1,600 feet intervals design features which provide for the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design features shall be allowed. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.Q. Street System Requirements, which requires that street name markers shall be approved by the County Manager or designee for private streets or in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.EH.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However, breakaway posts shall be used. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06,01.R. Street Requirements, which requires that street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of public roadway markings shall be provided by the developer as required by the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived for private roadways with 40' w: Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device standards. 5. Deviation_ #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires I 12arkina space per 200 square feet of office /lobby /pro shoe /health club/ clubhouse /lounge /snack bar/dining/meeting room associated with golf courses. The requested deviation is to allow for 3 parking spaces per 1.000 square feet of office /lobby /pro shop/health club /clubhouse /lounge /snack bar/dining/meeting room associated with the proposed olf course. Parking spaces for golf course holes exterior recreation uses, and maintenance buildings will be provided per the LDC 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.04.A which limits the developer to 100 acres of residential. commercial or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake excavations within the PUD. The requested deviation is to allow the developer to clear up to 300 acres of residential. commercial or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated b , lake excavations within the PUD or project where the excavation is taking place This is not a deviation from the Collier County Excavation Ordinance 7. Deviation 47 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.0 which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum wall height of 8' throughout the development. Where abutting an existing or future public roadway, a 20' tall wall berm. or combination wall /berm is permitted. PUDZ-A-PL20 1200003 03 Strike- through text is deleted Page 13 of 19 Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3208- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes or a number corresponding wo ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is lessLper platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of six (6) model homes per development tract. not to exceed forty (40) model homes within the overall RPUD As part of the application material for every building permit for a model home the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so that the maximum of forty (40) model homes is not exceeded. 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5 04 06 A 3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. 10. Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.2, which permits one (1) real estate pole sign per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of two (2) real estate pole signs per street frontage setback a minimum of 5' from the property line along �lmmokalee Road only. 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5,06.02'.B.5 which requires on- premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow for on premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to _propeM adjacent to public roadways. 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f per sign The requested deviation is to allow for two (2) ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.f. per sign. 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) around signs per entrance to the development The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) around sign at the Property corners fronting on existing and proposed public roadways that provide access to the roiect, in addition to two 2 ground signs at each oroiect entrance. The pro osed ground signs at pro_peM corners commonly referred to as "boundary markers" will be permitted at a maximum height of 10' and sign area of 32 s.f, per sign. 14. Deg iation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 6 06 02 A which requires sidewalks on both sides of roadways internal to the site The requested deviation is to allow for an 8' wide sidewalk on one side of the private spine road as shown on the PUD master plan and 5' wide sidewalks on one side of all other private local roadways internal to the development that service residential units on one (1) side of the roadway, and/or terminate in a cul -de -sac up to a maximum length of 2.500_I If PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike - through text i`i deleted Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25. 2012 Packet Page -3209- Page 14 of 19 11/13/2012 Item W.A. 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 10.02.04.0 which limits the developer to one (1) Site Develo ment Plan submittal for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant submits the resl2onse to the first staff review comments. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of three (3) Site Development Plan submittals for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant submits the response to the staff review comments PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike -thr of gh text is deleted hlirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3210- Page 15of19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT F FOR MIRASOL RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Regulations for development of the Mirasol RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order in which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. RPUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C2 ", the RPUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries, shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.13 of the LDC, RPUD amendments may be made from time to time. B. TRANSPORTATION Upon the County's adoption of a CR -951 extension corridor alignment, and within 180 days of the County's request, the Developer Owner, its successors or assigns, shall dedicate to County fee simple right -of -way for the roadway and drainage system at the agreed upon appraised value per acre, for those areas located outside the limits of the residential /Golf Course areas depicted as "RIG" on the PUD master plan. Upon recordation of the deed or other conveyance instrument in the public records of Collier County for the dedication of the right -of -way, the Developer shall become eligible for Transportation Impact fee credits in accordance with the consolidated impact fee Ordinance in effect at the time of recordation of the dedication. If the project is built out or has prepaid transportation Impact Fees to be assessed for the project, then the Developer or its successors or assigns shall be eligible to request cash reimbursement. The Developer shall not be responsible to obtain or modify any permits on behalf of the County related to the extension of CR -951. 2. The Developer shall construct a 10' multi -use pathway to be located along the Immokalee Road right -of -way on the North side of the Cocohatchee Canal as a part of the entrance construction. Completion of construction of the pathway shall be completed concurrently with the vehicular connection to the existing bridge over the Cocohatchee Canal. PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Page 16 of 19 Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3211- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. As set forth by the Mirasol PUD Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA ), dated May 3, 2007 the Developer was responsible for a total financial commitment of $3,229,588.00, and upon satisfaction, Mirasol would be vested for transportation concurrence for 799 residential units. The Developer satisfied the financial commitment by funding improvements to the Immokalee Road - Collier Boulevard intersection, which were completed by March 31, 2009 at a cost of $3,187,912.68 and the remaining balance of $41,645.32 was paid to the County. A letter confirming satisfaction of the financial obligations and project vesting was issued by Collier County on Aril 23, 2009. The Developer, its successors, or assigns, agree that at the time of any subsequent DevelepmeT' Omer- appr-eval withi issuance of a building_ permit for the 400 residential dwelling unit authorized_ by his PUD, or commencement of construction of the intersection improvements, the Developer, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for their respective fair share of the North leg of the CR- 951 /Broken Back Road intersection with Immokalee Road, which includes modification, replacement, or relocation of the at -grade bridge crossing the Cocohatchee Canal. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 781 Two Way, unadjusted PM Peak hour trips. 6. The Developer may use the eastern entrance from Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard as shown on the master plan for "construction -only" traffic upon issuance of a County road right -of -way permit for temporary access. Developer shall be required to install a stabilized road base and provide for dust abatement measures for the construction traffic. 7. At the time that Developer applies for a road right -way- permit for a permanent eastern entrance from Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard as shown on the master plan, Developer shall construct at its cost the two northbound lanes of a future four lane road design of Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard (CR -951) from the Quarry's north entrance (alternatively, from its terminus that may be north of the Quarry's entrance as a result of road construction by others for their site specific access needs) to the Mirasol project's eastern entrance. The roadway shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards including_ drainage features and sidewalks of a two -lane collector roadway as required by the Collier County LDC and Code of Laws and Ordinances at the time of issuance of the road right of wav permit. The Developer Ajll be required to construct only those site access improvements such as turn lanes along Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard (CR- 951) that are specific to the Mirasol project. In the event the County at time of issuance of the road right of wav permit requests improvements to Broken Back Road /Collier Boulevard (CR -951) that exceed the collector standards of the LDC and Code of Laws and Ordinances, then Developer shall be eligible for impact fee credits for those additional improvements. The County will accept the roadway by Resolution for ownership and maintenance one (1) year after acceptance of the construction of the roadway. The Developer shall not be required as part of this PUD to provide for offsite treatment and storage of stormwater for Broken Back RoadlCollier Boulevard (CR -951) outside of the County's road right of way. The PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underline test is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3212- Pale 17 of 19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. stormwater is planned to be conveyed to the Quarry for storage /treatment or to another off -site location as directed by Collier County. C. ENVIRONMENTAL 2j The project shall retain a minimum of 537.4 acres of native vegetation on -site in compliance with the Growth Management Plan Easements or ROW created for access to outparcels within the preserve or for future extension of the CR -951 corridor shall not cause the preserve to fall below the minimum native vegetation retention requirement. - ,. - - - - _ U- - 2j The project shall retain a minimum of 537.4 acres of native vegetation on -site in compliance with the Growth Management Plan Easements or ROW created for access to outparcels within the preserve or for future extension of the CR -951 corridor shall not cause the preserve to fall below the minimum native vegetation retention requirement. 5 The minimam -p esei-,�e aereage shall D. EXCAVATION Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a commercial or development excavation pursuant to Section 22 -106 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County Florida. The entire water management pass -thru will be constructed at one time as per South Florida Water Management permit PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Page 18 of 19 Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3213- - - - -- - - 5 The minimam -p esei-,�e aereage shall D. EXCAVATION Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a commercial or development excavation pursuant to Section 22 -106 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County Florida. The entire water management pass -thru will be constructed at one time as per South Florida Water Management permit PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Page 18 of 19 Mirasol RPUD Underline text is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3213- 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 411- 02031 -P, as amended, prior to the residential development under an administratively issued "development" excavation permit as long as no more than 20,000 c.y. of material is removed off -site. As per Section 22 -106 of Code of Laws and Ordinances, a commercial excavation permit will be required for removing more than the approved 20,000 c.y. of material off -site. E. OUTPARCEL IN SECTION 10 A temporary access easement shall be granted by the Owner to the owner of parcel number of 00178760007, at a location specified by IM Collier Joint Venture it's successors and assigns. At such time that the northern portion of the Mirasol RPUD has access to a public road, the developer shall provide reasonable access from the parcel number 00178760007 across the Mirasol RPUD to the public road. Both the temporary and permanent easements shall be granted to the owner of this parcel, at no cost to the County or the owner of this ou arcel. F. UTILITIES 1. The _develo-per shall connect to the Collier Countv Water Sewer District (CCWSD potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2. The developer shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3. The developer shall connect to the CCWSD Irritation Ouality water system at a location CCWSD when capacity is available. G. PLANNING PUDZ- A- PL20120000303 Strike- through text is deleted Mirasol RPUD Underline test is added Last Revised: September 25, 2012 Packet Page -3214- Page 19 of 19 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 26D )) Wednesday, October 24, 2012 )) NAPLES DAILY NEW S NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, November 13, 2012, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier. County Government Center; 3299 East Tamiami Trail;. Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '.OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009 -21, THE . MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY INCREASING THE 'PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 799 TO 1,121; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE' NUMBER 2004 -41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 95 +/- ACRES OF LAND ZONED RU- RAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE MIRASOL RPUD; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT'• STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; AND ADDING DEVIATIONS AND REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE.ROAD (CR 846) BORDERED ON THE EAST BY BROKEN BACK ROAD AND FUTURE COLLIER BOULEVARD,(CR 951) IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 1,638.6+/ , ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. -NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator- Prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on. behalf of an organization or group is encouraged.. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum..of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing.. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by }the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision' of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252 -8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY.COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN' DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) October 24 2012 No. 1965308 Packet Page - 3215 - 11/13/2012 Item 17.A. 24D » Friday, October 26, 2012 -)1 N A P L E S D A I LY N E W S u:. NOTICE OF INTENT TO. CONSIDER ORDINANCE. Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY. November, 13, 2012, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Admin- istration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance: The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR- IDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009 -21, THE MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 799 TO 1,121; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVEL- OPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANG- ING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 95 +/- ACRES OF LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE MIRASOL RPUD; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; AND ADDING DEVIATIONS AND REVISING DEVELOPER COM- MITMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR B46) BORDERED ON THE EAST BY BROKEN BACK ROAD AND FUTURE COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 1,638.6 + /- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for Inspec- tion, All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. WOTE; All persons wishing to speak on any agenda Rem must register with the County administra- tor prior to presentation of the agenda Item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any Rem. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an Item. Persons wishin6 to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent Part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a'decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings per- taining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252 -8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk - (SEAL) No 240194978 - October 26.2012 Packet Page -3216-