Loading...
Agenda 02/22/2005 RCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA February 22, 2005 9:00 AM Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Vice - Chairman, District 2 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 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 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774 -8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. Page 1 of 9 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Associate Pastor David King, Berean Baptist Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) B. January 25, 2005 - BCC /Regular Meeting C. January 26, 2005 - BCC /District 3 Town Hall Meeting D. January 28, 2005 - BCC /Parks and Boat Access Workshop E. February 4, 2005 - BCC /Strategic Planning Workshop 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation to recognize the Veteran's Transportation Program. To be accepted by Jim Elson, President of the Collier County Veteran's Council. B. Proclamation to designate the month of March 2005 as National Purchasing Month. To be accepted by Steve Carnell, Director of Collier County Purchasing and his staff. 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Chappell Wilson to present Commissioner Jim Coletta a commission as a Kentucky Colonel. B. Recommendation to recognize Carol Sykora, Investigator, Code Enforcement, as Employee of the Month for February 2005. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public Petition request by Mr. William A. Petruzzi to discuss procedures for serving notice to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. B. Public Petition request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss CEB Case No. 97 -029 on behalf of Anthony Varano. Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 12:30 p.m., unless otherwise noted. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 Southern Development Company, Inc. represented by Jeff L. Davidson, P. E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural and "C -2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment overlay zoning districts to "C -3" Commercial Intermediate zoning district for property located East of the US 41 and SR 951 intersection, further described in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 6.07+ acres. Page 2 of 9 B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Brentwood Land Partners, LLC., represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady. Minor & Associated, P.A., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural And "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to a new PUD for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consisting of 175.67+ acres. C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Palm Springs, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from the C -1 zoning district to the PUD zoning district to be known as Triad RPUD Planned Unit Development which will include a maximum of 86 multi - family residential housing units. The property is located on the north side of Radio Lane, east of Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75± acres. D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex -parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142 Naples Syndications, LLC, represented by Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Warm Springs PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change. The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119± acres. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Request Board to set the place and time for the Clerk, with the assistance of the County Attorney's Office, to open and count the mail ballots of the nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee. B. Discussion regarding the makeup of the Coastal Advisory Committee. (Commissioner Coletta) C. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. D. Appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. E. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to adopt by Resolution the revised 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual contained policies, procedures and techniques. B. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an overview and status of traffic signals and the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS); to present solutions taken to mitigate increased traffic volumes and diminished roadway capacity; to state the status and objectives of Phase 2 of the Advanced Traffic Management System; and to examine traffic engineering techniques and technologies to implement in the future. C. Recommendation to approve Collier County Government's participation with WGCU Public Broadcasting as a financial partner to produce a documentary series on the history and development of Collier County and its communities at a cost of $33,000 per year, over a -- period of three (3) years. Page 3 of 9 D. Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 92-60 Relating to Tourist Development Taxes, as Amended, to expand the use of Category C -2 uses to include Municipal owned museums; to change the percentages of C -1 & C -2 uses and to enable the use of surplus Tourist Tax Funds for additional promotion. E. Approve a Resolution urging the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation allowing local governments to use photographic traffic control systems in the detection and enforcement of red light violations to enhance safety at signalized intersections. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. This item continued from the February 8, 2005 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve and execute the site improvement grant agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS --------------------------------------- 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Hold Harmless Agreement between Collier County and Bayvest, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation. 2. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase 1A ", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 3. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Torino & Miramonte ", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 4. Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.920 "Bristol Pines Commercial Excavation ", located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. 5. Petition CARNY- 2005 -AR -7164, Mr. Benny Starling, Executive Director, of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, requesting a permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta on February 24th through March 6, 2005, at 110 North 1st Street in Immokalee. Page 4 of 9 6. Petition CARNY- 2005 -AR -7177, Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, of the Golden Gate Community Center, requesting a permit to conduct the annual Golden Gate Community Festival on February 24 through 27, 2005, at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. 7. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development - related review and processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2 -11. 8. An update to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a previous request made by David E. Bryant, Esquire, to forego the PUD amendment process in order to reduce density for the previously approved H.D. Development PUD. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1. Recommendation to approve the use of transportation disadvantaged funds (126) to purchase a para- transit bus in the amount of $57,002 under State contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1. 2. Recommendation to approve the use of transit enhancement funds (313) to purchase a para - transit bus under State contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1 and trolley decal wrap in the estimated amount of $64,000. 3. Recommendation to award a contract in the amount of $222,450 to Aquagenix for the 2005 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project No. 51501), and approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $59,100. 4. Reccomendation to Award Bid #05 -3754 for annual contract for "Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operations" to American Boring and Trenching, Inc. 5. Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement for the conveyance of right -of -way required for the construction of improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road between Polly Avenue and Collier Boulevard, and constructing new entry wall features and signage for Wing South, Inc. at the southern end of Skyway Drive (off Rattlesnake Hammock Road (Project No. 60169). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $74,415.00 6. Recommendation to approve, sign and execute a coordination agreement between Collier County, as Community Transportation Coordinator, and the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. 7. Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for Transportation Disadvantaged and Transit Planning Activities for FY 2004105. 8. Recommendation to enter into a contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan and Park & Ride Study C. PUBLIC UTILITIES Recommendation to approve a contract amendment to Hole Montes in the amount of $185,000 and a work order Amendment to Malcolm Pirnie in the amount $106,284 for the South County Water Reclamation facility 16 MGD Expansion Project 73949. Recommendation to approve component and service purchases totaling $256,804.00, with total Project Costs totaling $307,143.00, and authorize a Budget Amendment in the amount of $115,000.00 for the installation and systems programming of nutrient monitoring equipment at the South County Water Reclamation Facility, Project 725081. Page 5 of 9 3. Recommendation to Request Standardization and Approve Purchase of a TV Truck from Community Utilities Environmental Services, Inc., (CUES, Inc.) in the Amount of $198,300. TV Truck Purchase 4. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 5. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 6. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 7. Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal impact is $114.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. 8. Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 9. Recommendation to award Contracts 05 -3681 "Fixed Term Instrumentation and Controls (I &C) Engineering Services" (Estimated annual amount $1,200,000) to four (4) firms. 10. Recommendation to approve conveyance of an Easement to Florida Power & Light Company (FP &L) as required to provide power to new public water supply wells located at the North Collier Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) at a cost not to exceed $18.50, Project Number 710111. 11. Recommendation to award Contract #05 -3767 to Gulf States, Inc. to construct the Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitations, in the amount of $438,400, Project 72504. D. PUBLIC SERVICES Recommendation to approve budget amendments to reflect an overall decrease of $597 in the Older Americans Act programs and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida D /B /A Area Agency on Aging. 2. Recommendation to approve the Summer Food Service Program Grant in the amount of $586,400. 3. Request for County Sponsorship in the amount of $50,000 for US Military Appearances during July 1 through July 5, 2005. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1. Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05 -3765 "Annual Contract for Painting Contractors" for painting of County facilities to Service Painting of Florida, Cover -All, Inc., and Perfectly Painted of Collier County as a multiple award up to $350,000. Page 6 of 9 2. Report and ratify staff- approved change orders and changes to work orders to Board - approved contracts. 3. That the Board approves termination of Verizon Wireless from contract number 03 -3551 for cause as provided in the contract. 4. Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05 -3787 "On -Call Plumbing Contractor" for plumbing repairs and maintenance of County facilities to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as primary and United Mechanical, Inc., and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. as secondary. Annual capital and maintenance expenses are estimated at $500,000. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1. Recommendation to Approve a Grant Award and Agreement Articles for an Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District in the Amount of $225,000, Approve the Purchase of a Fire Engine utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Bid #04 -05 -0824 at a total cost of $250,000 and Approve the Necessary Budget Amendments. 2. Approval to purchase additional Disaster Assistance Response Trailers (DARTs) and portable generators for a total of $31,600 to increase the County's ability to adequately shelter evacuees during time of emergency, approve utilizing Bid #04 -3617, expired 1/30105 and approval of a budget amendment transferring funds from an operating line item to capital line items. 3. Board of County Commissioners approval to purchase a new Mobile Command Vehicle (MCV) to replace the existing 1989 converted John Deere RV utilizing an existing Henry County, GA bid #SB- 05 -21- 111204 -1, Contract #HC -05 -21 for a total cost of $279,450. 4. Recommendation to accept an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) County Grant Award from the Florida Department of Health in the amount of $112,672.82. 51 Approve an Out -of -Cycle FY2005 TDC Category "A" Grant Application, Budget Amendment and Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for the dredging of Doctors Pass Project #90549 in the amount of $598,500. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement #407953- 1 -94 -01 for the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) at the Immokalee Airport and a Budget Amendment for $50,000. H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend Marco Island Historical Society - Marco 40th Anniversary - "Marco Sari" Auction on February 26, 2005 at the Marco Polo Restaurant; $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 2. Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Collier County Republican Executive Committee Lincoln Day Celebration on March 12, 2005 at the Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Page 7 of 9 I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1. Miscellaneous Items to File Record with Action as Directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1. Recommendation to approve and authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Section 73.032, Fla. Stat., to Respondents, Bradley Damico and Darryl Damico ( "Respondents "), in the amount of $16,330.00, as full compensation, excepting attorney's fees and costs, for the acquisition arising out of the condemnation of Parcel No. 134 in Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter, et al., Case No. 03- 2273 -CA. 2. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the County Attorney's Office to Make a Business Damage Offer to Settle a Claim for Business Damages by Circle K Stores, Inc. Associated with the Acquisition of Parcel 739 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples., et al., Case No. 04- 3587 -CA (Immokalee Road Project #66042). 3. Recommendation to approve the Proposals of Settlement for Engineering Costs and Planning Costs as to Parcels 739 and 839 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Nancy L. Johnson Perry, et al., Case No. 03- 2373 -CA (Golden Gate Parkway Road Project 60027). 4. Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees as to Parcel 153 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John F. Sudal, et al., Case No. 02- 5168 -CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018). 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI - JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. SE- 2004 -AR -6772, A Resolution amending Resolution No. 04 -326, the Lutgert Companies Parking Exemption, by providing for an amendment to correct a scrivener's error due to the incorrect reference to the C-4 Zoning District in the Recitals and Operative sections of the Resolution and changing the references to the correct zoning district of RMF -6. B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex -parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 Seacrest School, Inc., represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting a PUD Rezone from "E" Estates and "E" Estates zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for expansion of the existing school facility." The property is located at 7100 Davis Boulevard, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.4± acres. Page 8 of 9 C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex -parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Champion Lakes Development, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed residential dwelling unit types, and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve RPUD. A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested on 101.5 acres, with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per acre. The property is located on the north side of Championship Drive, in Sections 11, 14 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. D. This item is being continued indefinitely. An Ordinance amending Ordinance 04 -12, Section Four entitled Exemptions and Exclusions From Certificate Requirements and providing for an effective date. E. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 8, 2005 BCC MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ -A -2003- AR -4942 - Conquest Development USA, LC, requesting a PUD to PUD rezone for property located on the East Side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and approximately 1 314 Miles South of Tamiami Trail (Us 41), further described as Silver Lakes, in Section 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774 -8383. Page 9 of 9 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING February 22, 2005 Continue Item 6B to the March 8 2005 BCC meeting• Public Petition request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss CEB Case No. 97 -029 on behalf of Anthony Varano. (Petitioner request.) Item 8B: The title on the printed agenda is missing the petition number and the new PUD name. The title should read: Petition PUDZ A- 2003 -AR -5968 Brentwood Land Partners, LLC., represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural and "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district t a new PUD to be known as Malibu Lakes PUD for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consisting of 975.67+ acres. (Staff request.) Item 16A7 continued to the March 22 2005 BCC meeting,: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development - related review and processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2 -11. (Commissioner Henning request.) Item 16B8 should read: Recommendation to enter into the negotiation of a contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan and Park & Ride Study. (Staff request.) Move Item 16C2 to 10F: Recommendation to approve component and service purchases totaling $256,804 with total project costs totaling $307,143 and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $115,000 for the installation and systems programming of nutrient monitoring equipment at the South County Water Reclamation Facility, Project 725081. (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Item 16G1 should read: Recommendation to approve an increase (rather than approve an amendment) in the Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement #407953- 1 -94 -01 for the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) at the Immokalee Airport and a budget amendment for $50,000. Move Item 17C to 8E: PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Champion Lakes Development, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed residential dwelling unit types, and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve RPUD. A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested on 101.5 acres, with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per acre. The property is located on the north side of Championship Drive, in Sections 11, 14 and 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Halas request.) NOTE: Items 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 9:00 p.m. (rather than 12:30 p.m.), unless otherwise noted. Time Certain Items: Item 10D to be heard at 10:30 a.m Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 92 -60 relating to Tourist Development Taxes, as amended, to expand the use of Category C -2 uses to include Municipal owned museums; to change the percentages of C -1 and C -2 uses and to enable the use of surplus Tourist Tax Funds for additional promotion. Agenda Item No. 4A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Veteran's Transportation Program Is a cooperative effort between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County Veteran's Council; and, WHEREAS, the Program has provided free transportation since 1992 for veterans to VA medical facilities in Ft. Myers, Tampa, Bay Pines, and other facilities located in South Florida; and, WHEREAS, volunteer drivers transport veterans in two donated DAV vans owned by VA, and one vehicle provided by the Ford Motor Company under their Fleet Test Program, and all three vehicles are stationed at the Collier County Veteran's Service Office; and, WHEREAS, In 2004 our 21 drivers transported 533 veterans to VA medical appointments including 123 trips to Bay Pines and 139 trips to Ft Myers. Over 1, 900 volunteer hours and over 60,000 accident free miles were logged, and, WHEREAS, this Transportation Program could not exist without the dedication of the volunteer drivers and the support of their families, to achieve the goal of prompt and efficient transportation to VA medical appointments. NOW THEREFORE, be It proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida, that the Veteran's Transportation Program, Its volunteer drivers, and office staff be recognized as vakrable assets to the veterans they transport and to the community that they serve. DONE AND ORDERED THI5 22NO DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROOK, CLERK Agenda Item No. 4A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 4A Item Summary Proclamation to recognize the Veteran's Transportation Program. To be accepted by Jim Elson, President of the Collier County Veteran's Council. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Kathleen Martinson Administrative Aide to BCC 2/11/2005 2:59:44 PM Board of County County Manager Commissioners BCC Office Approved By Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC Date Board of County Commissioners BCC Office 2114/2005 4:39 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2/14/2005 4:54 PM Agenda Item No. 413 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the purchasing profession plays a significant role in the efficiency and effectiveness of both government and business; and, WHEREAS, purchasing professionals through their combined purchasing power spend billions of dollars every year and have a significant influence upon economic conditions throughout the world; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Purchasing Department provides value - added services such as; contract negotiation and administration, vendor management, and training; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Purchasing Department and professional purchasing associations throughout the world engage In special efforts during the month of March to inform the public about the importance of the role played by the purchasing profession in business, Industry, and government. NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida recognize the importance of the purchasing profession in general, and the Collier County Purchasing Department in particular, and hereby declare the month of March, 2005, as NATIONAL PURCHASING MONTH DONE AND ORDERED THIS 22nd day of February 2005. BOARD OF COUNTY C0MMI55IONER5 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. sROGK, CLERK Agenda Item No, 4B February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 4B Item Summary Proclamation to designate the month of March 2005 as National Purchasing Month. To be accepted by Steve Carrell, Director of Collier County Purchasing and his staff. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Kathleen Martinson Administrative Aide to BCC 211112005 3 :02:58 PM Board of County Commissioners BCC Office Approved By Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC Date Board of County BCC Office 2/14/2005 2:53 PM Commissioners Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 211412005 4:56 PM FROM FAX NO. Sep. 21 2004 %Va N 5A Page 1 of 2 SUBJECT: Kentucky Colonel predentatiou to ConnmissionM Colatta, on Tuesday February 22, 2005 at 9 :00 am in the meetinS room a BO Of County Commissioners of Collier County by Chappell Wilson, Commissioners. Ladies and Gentleanen: On behalf of the Honorable Ernie Fletcher, Governor of the Commomealth of Kentucky, I am pleased to present Tian Coletta a commission as a Kentucky Colonel. This honor is bestow0d upon Commissioner Colette in recognition of his hard work, dais at the � desire to make Collier County, Florida a better place to live, work, and play y Kentuckians who now call Collier County home. in order to help people understand why the Governor of the Commonwealth ofKentucky comsn moons various people as Kentucky Colonels, we must review our history. The highest honor awarded by the Commonwealth of Kemtucky is that of Kentucky Colonel. Our Colonels are Kentucky's ambassadors of good will and fellowship around the world. Commissions as Kentucky Colonels are presented for contnbutionss to the person's corm u ity, state or nation, and for special achievements of all kinds. With your commission as a Kentucky Colonel, the Governor recognizes your service to others. A. list of Kentucky Colonels is a Who's Who of outstanding men and women amend the world. The oatiSca% signed by the Governor and the Secretary of State and bearing the Great Seal of Kentucky, has hung on the walls of such distinguished leaders as President Lyndon B. Johnson and the English Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Astronaut John Glenn, America`s first man in space, was commissioned while orbiting Earth on his historic mission. It all began when Kentucky's first Governor, law Shelby, ,gave his son-ia law. Charles S. Todd, the title of colonel of his staff Shelby later issued comunissions to all who enlisted in his regiment in the war of 1812. Later Kentucky governors commissioned colonels to act as their protective guard; they wore uniforms and were present at most official Ametions. The "Honorable Ordr of Kentucky Colonels" was founded in 1932 by governor Ruby Laffoon and has since been officially incorporated as a charitable organization. Over the years the Colonels have supported many worthy causes. Each year on the first Saturday of May, which is the ruuaing of the famous Kentucky Derby, Kentucky Colonels from all over the world gather for a celebration of fellowship in the true spirit of Kentucky hospitality. Kentucky Colonels am invited to attend the Govemes Kentucky Derby Breakfast on the lawn of the state capital. On behalf of the many Kentucky residents now living in Collier County, Florida, we say thank you, Colonel Tim Coletta, for all the things you do for us. Conguauxledow. Agenda Item No. 5A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 5A Item Summary Chappell Wilson to present Commissioner Jim Coletta a commission as a Kentucky Colonel. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Nancy Roslak Executive Aide to the BCC Date Board of County Commissioners BCC Office 2/8/2005 2:22 PM Approved By Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC Date Board of County Commissioners BCC Office 2/9/2005 11:58 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2110/2005 4:08 PM Agenda Item No. 513 February 22, 2005 . Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to recognize Carol Sykora, Investigator, Code Enforcement, as Employee of the Month for February 2005 OBJECTIVE: To recognize Carol Sykora as Employee of the Month. CONSIDERATIONS: Carol Sykora not only went above and beyond her normal job duties, she saved the life of one of our citizens while putting her own life at risk! While investigating a case in Golden Gate Estates, Carol rescued a man who was drowning in quicksand. Carol herself was sinking but managed to extricate herself reaching back in to grab the fellow who by that time was up to his waist and was not able to help himself. She managed to pull him onto his side and out of the sand at great personal risk. Carol sustained personal injuries, from which she is still recovering, while performing this heroic act. Carol has wonderful interpersonal skills. This abilky to work well with others has earned her the trust and respect of those citizens of Collier County whom she serves as well as her co — workers. Carol is thorough in the execution of her job duties and strives to be as fair as possible in the investigation and validation of code violation complaints. She works closely with citizens and business owners to correct violations and spends the extra time needed to bring about compliance. Carol possesses a Level 1 certification with the Florida Association of Code Enforcement. Carol's community service involves giving status reports of cases pending and providing information on new or modified code requirements. Carol regularly attends Association meetings of the neighborhoods within the geographic area to which she is responsible. Carol is a perfect example of an employee whose service to the public "Exceeds Expectations." FISCAL IMPACT: "Employee of the Month" selected receives a $150.00 cash award. Funds for this award are available in the Department Budget Cost Center. RECOMMENDATION: That Carol Sykora is recognized as the Employee of the Month for February 2005. PREPARED BY: Dawn Ragone, Administrative Assistant, Human Resources Department. Agenda Item No, 5B February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 5B Item Summary Recommendation to recognize Carol Sykora, Investigator, Code Enforcement, as Employee of the Month for February 2005. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Dawn Ragone Administrative Assistant 2/10/2005 3:25:24 PM Administrative Services Human Resources Approved By Len Golden Price Administrative Services Administrator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 211012005 4:08 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2005 9 :14 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:18 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 2/11/2005 2:19 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 6A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER' S OFFICE 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, FL 34112 + 239- 774 -8383 • Fax 239 - 774 -4010 February 1, 2005 Mr. William A. Petruzzi 880 2"d Street NE Naples, FL 34120 Re: Public Petition Request to Discuss Procedures for Serving Notice to Appear Before the Code Enforcement Board Dear Mr. Petruzzi: Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of February 22, 2005, regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F ") of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. rely, James V. Mudd County Manager JVM /jb cc: David Weigel, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, C.D. &E.S. 11 0 C a I pd ! a r 0 a 06 It t r Agenda Item No. 6A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Request to Speak under Public Petition Please print Name: William A. Petruzzi Address: 880 2nd Street NE. Naples, FI. 34120 Phone: 239 -455 -1179 Date of the Board Meeting you wish to speak: Feb 22, 2005 Please explain in detail the reason you are requesting to speak (attach additional page if necessary): The method and procedure for serving notice to appear before the Code Enforcement Board.Code enforcement first posted a notice of violation at my residence of 880 2nd Street NE. for property at 5025 Bayshore Dr. On or about Nov #, 2004 a Statement of violation was posted at 5025 Bayshore. .� On Dec 24,2004 at 4:35pm I was served , Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Board. The hearing was scheduled for Nov. 29,2004. Article 3 of the findings states that I was served by certifeid mail and posting.The time frame for compliance to the findins was Dec. 19,2004, which had expired by 5 days. I spoke to Ms. Arnold about this matter and she put me on the agenda to speak before the Board on Jan 27, 2005_1 speared in the board room and waited my ture, when Ms. Arnold read my name to speak Mr Flegal said that he would not allow me the opportunity to do so because he didn't know what I was planning to speak about. Ms Arnold outline why and what the topic was. If I was on the agenda to speak why did Mr. Flegal deny me the right to speak? Please explain in detail the action you are asking the Commission to take (attach additional .page if necessary): To instute proper notification In cases going before the Code Enforcement Board. E1-- -0 Agenda Item No. 613 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, FL 34112 * 239 - 774 -8383 • Fax 239 - 774 -4010 February 9, 2005 Jeff Bluestein, Esq. Marc L. Shapiro, P.A. 720 Goodlette Road North, Suite 304 Naples, FL 34102 Re: Public Petition Request to Discuss CEB Case No. 97 -029 on Behalf of Anthony Varano Dear Mr. Bluestein: Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of February 22, 2005, regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F ") of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, �Jam�esV. Mudd County Manager JVM /jb cc: David Weigel, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, C.D. &E.S. Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director G a I #It*, • r C a 14 K R Feb 04 05 05:59p Agenda Item NAB February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Please prim Name: Jeff Bluestein, Esq. o/b /o Anthony Varano Address: 720 Goodlette Rd. N., Ste. 304 Naples, FL 34102 • 1 1 •_11 entered into a settlement agreement =1= -.1• June 24, 2003 regarding CEB Case No. 97-029. Mr. Vgmo believes he, substantially coml2lied Y. the = 111 of the settlement agreement • on 1 1 authorized the Counly Attorney to hold him in breach and re-initiate foreclosure : • • 1t • - • • : : r::, + 1' LL' l= 11 ,=�4 =11=i ! == 11=11 • r 4t_t• -- : •rg•:ft under the terms of : • :• is MAft Mue%Greenlfna, adw%Pub0o POMM PwqueW FWM[1j.dx Agenda Item No, 8A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 36 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RZ,2003- AR4961, Southern Development Company, Inc. represented by Jeff L. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural and "C -2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment overlay zoning districts to "C -3" Commercial Intermediate zoning district for property located East of the US 41 and SR 951 intersection, further described in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the subject properties totaling 6.07 acres from Rural Agricultural (A) and Commercial (C -2 ST) Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay zoning district to a new Commercial (C -3) Commercial Intermediate zoning district for the purpose of unifying two properties into one zoning district and to make sure that the project is consistent with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: .— The petitioner requests a rezoning for 6.07 acres from the Rural Agricultural (A) and Commercial (C -2ST) Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay zoning districts to the Commercial Intermediate (C -3) zoning district. The petitioner has proposed to utilize the subject property for retail, office, restaurant and other uses consistent with the C -3 zoning district. The subject property is located east of the US 41 and SR 951 intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The petitioner owns and is developing the adjoining commercial 8.08 acres to the southeast. The Comprehensive Plan has included the subject property within Commercial District/Mixed Used/Activity Center Subdistrict #18. The existing zoning will not allow the full commercial development of the 6.07+ acres, thus this rezoning petition has been submitted. Three two -story structures have been identified on a "Conceptual Site/Rezoning Map," but the owner would not be precluded from constructing additional structures in the future. Staff has noted for the record that the zoning on the property had been mislabeled on the Official Zoning Map. In reviewing Resolution 87 -64, the original request was for a C -2ST classification, but the Resolution approved the rezoning from "A" to "C -1 ST." The Zoning Map will require a scrivener's error to correct the zoning designation if this rezone petition is denied. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the property is rezoned, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page i of 4 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 36 development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. 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 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. 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 IMPACT: The subject property is located in Activity Center #18 a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMT). This Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all of the new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. The mix of uses in Activity Center #18, as indicated in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), ranges from 80 percent to 100 percent commercially zoned and/or developed property. For the purpose of this specially designated Activity Center, the entire Activity Center is eligible for 100 percent commercial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Review staff evaluated this petition and determined that there are no environmental issues that need to be addressed at the rezoning stage, because a preserve area has been identified per Section 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element in the GMP. The petitioner had submitted a revised "Conceptual Site/Zoning Map" on which they are proposing to increase the "Preserve Area" from .91 acres to 1.51 acres to accommodate a "Preservation" requirement from the petitioner's property that is being developed on the property to the east. RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 2 of4 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 36 EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard this request at their January 5, 2005 meeting. The EAC moved to recommend approval of this application with the stipulation that they review this development prior to the approval of the SDP. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on January 20, 2005 and moved to deny this request on the basis that the request was not consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GUY). The motion passed 8 -1. The Planning Commissioners vote for denial did not agree with staffs proposed mitigation to withhold approval of the required site development plan until the level of service for the intersection of US 41 and Collier Boulevard meets the adopted GMP's concurrency standards. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based. The legal considerations are reflected in the Collier County Planning Commission's evaluation of the listed criteria in Chapter 10.03.05 and Chapter 10.02.12 of the LDC. These evaluations are completed as separate documents that have been incorporated into the attached staff report. A summary of the legal considerations and findings are noted below: The proposed change has been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMT. The proposed land uses are compatible with the existing land use pattern. The proposed change will not 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. This project has also been deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Element of the GNP. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private, shall be provided. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 subject to the following conditions: 1. As per Section 3.15 of the Land Development Code, the Site Development Plan (SDP) for the subject property would not be approved until sufficient capacity is acquired for SR 951, south of US Highway 41, by the addition of lanes and improving the roadway segment from a four lane to a six -lane facility. 2. The Environmental Advisory Council shall review this development prior to the approval RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item No, BA February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 36 of the Site Development Plan. 3. Access to the adjoining commercial properties shall be provided to facilitate cross access between the commercial properties to the east and west of the subject property. 4. A sidewalk shall be provided along the frontage of the subject property on Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) per LDC Section 5.05.08.C.4, and 10.02.03.B.l.i.xiii. PREPARED BY: Michael J. DeRuntz, C.F.M., Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 4 of 4 A�' da Item No, 8A eb Fnlary 22, 2005 Page 5 of 36 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number BA Item Summary This item requires that ail participants be sworn in and ex pane disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 Southern Development Company. Inc. represented by Jeff L. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering. Inc., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural and "C -2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment overlay zoning districts to "C -3" Commarcial Intermediate zoning district for property located East of the US 41 and SR 951 intersection, further described in Section 3, Township 51 South. Range 28 Fast. Collier County Florida This properly consists of 6.07+ arses. Meeting Date 21227005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 217120654:05 PM Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 217120054:29 PM Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Development& Community Development& Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 218x2005 11:11 AM Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Development S Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 21111=D011:60 AM Approved By Donald L. Scott Transportation Planning Director Date Transportlon Services Transportation Planning 21912005 2:00 PM -- Approved By Norm E. Fader, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin 2/912005 5:11 PM Approved By Patrick O. White Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 211012005 7:44 PM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Administrator Dots Community Development S Community Development S Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin 2110x2005 9:09 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211It2005 8:57 AM Approved By Mark eackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211512008 10:35 AM Approved By Michael Smykowskl Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management d Budget 211512005 11:05 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 211612008 10:14 AM Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 36 Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 20, 2005 SUBJECT: RZ- 2003 -AR -4961; HOME CENTER PLAZA OWNER/AGENT: Agent: Jeff L. Davidson, P.E. Davidson Engineering, Inc. 2154 Trade Center Way, Suite #3 Naples, FL 34109 REOUESTED ACTION: Owner: Mario Curiale, Director Southern Development Company, Inc. 845 Bald Eagle Drive Marco Island, FL 34145 The petitioner wishes to rezone 6.07 acres from the Rural Agricultural (A) and Commercial (C -2ST: Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay) zoning districts to the Commercial Intermediate (C -3) zoning district. The petitioner has proposed to utilize the subject property for retail, office, restaurant and other uses consistent with the C -3 zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is located near the northeast comer of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 3, Township 51, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (See Location Map, Exhibit 1). RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 1 OF 12 a Y O w Y w w r r- 0 z a -a ca M ->o -AlL _... EVE m Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 36 LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 1 RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 2 OF 12 �d -AlL _... EVE m Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 36 LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 1 RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 2 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 36 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property consists of two undeveloped tracts of land (See Aerial Map, Exhibit 2). The western tract has an area of 2.02 acres and is zoned "A ", and the eastern tract has an area of 4.04 acres and is zoned "C -2ST" (See Zoning Map, Exhibit 3). The applicant owns and is developing the adjoining commercial 8.08 acres to the southeast. The Comprehensive Plan has included the subject property within Commercial District/ Mixed Used/Activity Center Subdistrict #18 (See Activity Center #18 Map, Exhibit 4). The existing zoning will not allow the full commercial development, thus this rezoning petition has been submitted. Three two -story structures have been identified on a "Conceptual Site/Rezoning Map ", but the owner would not be precluded from constructing additional structures in the future (See Conceptual Site/Rezoning Map, Exhibit 5). Resolution Number 87 -64 rezoned 4.04 acres of the subject property from "A" to the current C -2ST zoning district in 1987 (copy attached). That rezoning was sought to allow a 6,900- square -foot building to be constructed to the northwest of the existing 12,500- square -foot building on the adjoining property, which is being developed by the owner of the subject property. That 6,900 square foot structure was never constructed. In reviewing Resolution 87-64, the original request was for a C -2ST classification, but the Resolution approved the rezoning from "A" to "C -1 ST." The Zoning Map has had a scrivener's error on this property since that approve rezoning request. This was reported and made of record at the Collier County Planning Commission meeting on January 20, 2005. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Property: Undeveloped Property, zoned A & C -2ST North: Multi - family development, Falling Waters Beach Resort, zoned PUD East: Commercial buildings, zoned C -5 South: U.S. Highway 41 right -of -way, then undeveloped property zoned A West: Commercial buildings, zoned C-3 ST GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: The subject property is currently located in Activity Center #18 in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all of the new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. The mix of uses in Activity Center #18, as indicated in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), ranges from 80 percent to 100 percent commercially zoned and/or developed property. For the purpose of this specially designated Activity Center, the entire Activity Center is eligible for up to 100 percent, RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 3 OF 12 " r• �y ry, FALLING WATER F , HOME CENTER PLAZA PHASE 11 y � Maus SUBJECT PR nPFR TV n �" ZONE AE M. (EL 7) flits ZONING MAP Agenda Item No. SA February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 36 Pub """" mm. �Mr 1 a1.1a RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 .w EXHIBIT 3 ............. wawa. r- ACTIVITY CENTER 018 MAP EXHIBIT 4 CCPC MEETING PAGE 5 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 36 000� CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN EXHIBIT 5 RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 6 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 36 Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition in an Activity Center: 1. Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such PUDs except that all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. The proposed rezone application is not in the form of a PUD. However, it does generate consistency with the surrounding non -PUD commercial properties. 2. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. The area in and around Activity Center #18 contains a variety of existing PUDs with commercial components including, but not limited to, Lely Resort PUD, Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD and Henderson Creek PUD. The area also contains financial institutions, supermarkets, restaurants, and various other retail outlets that are consistent with C -2 thru C -5 commercial zoning districts. The location of Activity Center # 18 takes in the intersection of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and C.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) in Collier County. 3. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. There was no market study submitted to the County. However, the conceptual site /rezone proposal illustrates office, retail, and financial institutions that are compatible with C -3 zoning and surrounding commercial in and around Activity Center #18. Given the site's location on U.S. 41 and abutting commercial zoning on both sides, staff essentially views this commercial zoning requests as an acceptable proposal based upon the GMP and does not think a market study is necessary. 4. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. There is a variety of existing land uses within Mixed Use Activity Center #18 and within two radial miles including commercial (retail, restaurants, etc.), agricultural, residential single - family, residential multi - family and mixed use PUDs. The Activity Center itself is developed with all commercial uses. RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 7 OF 12 Agenda Item No, 8A February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 36 5. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity (particularly roads). The project fronts U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East). The Transportation Division will conduct a detailed traffic analysis. There are no other concurrency issues with any Category A public facilities. 6. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. Adjoining properties include Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD, C -3, C -4, C -5 and A zoning. The adjoining properties, other than the Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD, are being developed commercially, with the exception of the properties on the south side of Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41), which are undeveloped. Comprehensive Planning staff defers the compatibility determination (also required by FLUE Policy 5.4) to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. 7. Natural or man -made constraints. According to the 2401 Aerial and Map Atlas for Collier County and the Collier County Property Appraiser's GIS Maps, there appear to be no natural constraints affecting the subject site. A man -made constraint, a swale abutting U.S. 41, does affect access to the site, but not its ability to be developed. 8. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. The Zoning and Land Development Review staff determines compliance with the rezoning criteria requirements of the Land Development Code. 9. Conformance with Access Management Plans for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code. The access points, as illustrated on the submitted Home Center Plaza - Conceptual Site /Rezone Plan, appear consistent with similar commercial properties in the area. The LDC contains no specific language regarding access management as it relates to this application and Mixed Use Activity Centers. The LDC contains language that is more general. Actual Access Management maps have been deleted from the LDC. Transportation staff will review this petition for compliance with the Access Management Policy Resolution. 10. Coordinated traffic flow on -site and off -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on -site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and Internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. A Traffic Impact Study was submitted with this rezone petition. The coordinated traffic flow, access point locations, and proposed median openings to and from the subject property and RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 8 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 36 U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East) are demonstrated on Home Center Plaza - Conceptual Site/Rezone Plan. There are no traffic signals located on the abutting roadway (U.S. 41). The nearest traffic signals are situated at the intersection of U.S. 41 and C.R. 951. The proposed landscape buffers and sanitary sewer mains are also shown on the Conceptual Site/Rezone Plan. A detailed traffic review is performed by Transportation staff and, since this is a State road, by the Florida Department of Transportation. 11. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with the existing and future adjacent projects. According to the Conceptual Site/Rezone Plan, a proposed interconnection for pedestrian, bicycles or motor vehicles with the adjacent property has been identified through the parking lot to the west, as well as to the property to the east (which is under the same ownership). Presently, the adjacent properties are under construction and are providing for future interconnections. 12. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. The rezone application contains only a Conceptual Site/Rezone Plan and does not specify architectural designs for the property. All building designs must adhere to the LDC requirements and shall be reviewed once a Site Development Plan is submitted to the County. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis and review, the Comprehensive Planning staff concludes that the proposed rezone from A/C -2 ST zoning district to C -3 zoning district may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff evaluated this petition, and has recommended denial of the rezoning. This recommendation is based on the Level of Service analysis contained in the TIS. The project impact on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) south of US 41 is 4.4 percent. This segment of Collier Boulevard is currently operating at over capacity and there are no scheduled improvements planned in the County's five -year work program. Policy 5.1 of the Growth Management Plan states the following: "The County Commission will review all rezone requests with consideration of their impact on the overall system, and shall not approve any such request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service within the five year planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved." While improvements have been completed within the past year to the Highway 41 and CR 951 intersection, the Level Of Service for north bound traffic on CR 951 remains at a LOS "D ". A possible means of mitigation is the approval of a condition that "Any future Site Development Plan for the subject property shall not be approved until the Level of Service for the intersection of Activity Center #18 (Tamiami Trail — U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard - C.R. 95 1) meets concurrency standards." RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 9 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 36 ANALYSIS: Appropriate evaluation of petitions for rezoning establishes the factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision - makers. The evaluation by professional staff includes an analysis of the project's relationship to the community's future land use plan, and whether or not a rezoning action would be consistent with the GMP. Other evaluation considerations include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses, a consideration usually dealt with as a facet of analyzing the relationship of the rezoning action to the long range plan for future land uses. Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based (LDC Section 2.7.3.2.5). This evaluation forms the basis of the recommendation (of approval or denial) by the Planning Commission, which is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The BCC considers the relevant information and renders a final decision regarding the request. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review is listed below. Each of the criteria is summarized culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as a separate document that is attached to the Staff Report. In addition, staff offers the following synopsis. Relationship to Future Land Uses - A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the proposed zoning action to the Future Land Use Element of GMP. Because the property is designated as Activity Center #18, Urban Commercial on the Future Land Use Map, this district permits commercial uses as proposed, at the density proposed. Staff believes that the petitioner's requested uses and density are compatible with Activity Center #18, thus this petition is consistent with the GMP. Relationshiv to Existing Land Uses - The subject site is bordered by platted lots of similar size along Tamiami Trail (to the northwest and southeast), a South Florida Water Management District drainage ditch (to the south), and the residentially developed PUD to the north. Although the petitioner may utilize the C -2ST zoning district's development requirements on the 4.04 acre eastern tract, the petitioner desires to develop the entire 6.07 acres to the full extent that the C -3 Commercial zoning designation permits. The C -3 zoning regulations would make the development fundamentally compatible with the adjoining commercial land uses. The petitioner has agreed to provide access to the adjoining commercial properties, which would facilitate cross access through the adjoining commercial properties, and potentially reduce the number of trips generated by the subject property and the adjoining commercial properties. The commercial development would be required to meet the buffering requirements for commercial properties abutting residential properties. Therefore, staff believes the uses allowed in the petition would not adversely impact the existing land uses in the area. Furthermore, staff believes that the development regulations, landscaping, and the screening and buffering requirements of the C -3 District are consistent with other commercial properties in the area. Environmental: Environmental Review staff evaluated this petition and determined that there are no environmental issues that need to be addressed at the rezoning stage, because a preserve area has been identified per Section 6. 1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element in the GMP. The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard this request at their January 5, 2005 meeting. The RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 10 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 36 EAC moved to recommend approval of this application with the stipulation that they review this development prior to the approval of the SDP. Transportation: LDC Section 5.05.08.C.4 and 10.02.03.B.l.i.xiii requires that pedestrian walkways shall be provided from building entry(s) to surrounding streets, external sidewalks, outparcels and parking areas. Pedestrian ways shall be designed to provide access between parking areas and the building entrance(s) in a coordinated and safe manner through the incorporation of walkways, sidewalks and crosswalks, and along public right -of -ways. Utility Infrastructure - The petitioner has indicated that he will connect to the County utility system to provide water and sewer service to this project. All development must comply with surface water management requirements of the LDC. This issue is addressed during plan review. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The applicant held the required meeting on September 2, 2004 at the East Naples Library at 5:30 P.M. Approximately ten individuals from Falling Waters Beach Resort, along with the petitioner /agents and county staff attended. Kelly Smith of Davidson Engineering and Mario Curiale, of Southern Development Corp. presented the requested rezone and proposed project information. In response to questions, the agents addressed the following: 1. How high will the proposed building(s) be? Maximum fifty feet 2. Where will access be located? From U.S. 41 with an interconnect through Eckerd's Drugstore Other comments: Funds for anticipated sidewalks are being held in escrow until the widening of U.S. 41 is complete and an eight -foot wall is planned for the north end of the site. There were no objections stated to the proposed rezone and development of this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed rezone is consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP, with the exception of Section 5.1. Therefore, Zoning & Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition RZ- 2003- AR4961 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Any future Site Development Plan for the subject property shall not be approved until the Level of Service for the intersection of Activity Center #18 ( Tamiami Trail — U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard - C.R. 95 1) meets concurrency standards. 2. The Environmental Advisory Council shall review this development prior to the approval of the Site Development Plan. 3. Access to the adjoining commercial properties shall be provided to facilitate cross access between the commercial properties to the east and west of the subject property. 4. A sidewalk shall be provided along the frontage of the subject property on Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) per LDC Section 5.05.08.C.4, and 10.02.03.B.Li.xiii. RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 11 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 36 PREPARED BY: IC.* 4'r A-- MICHAEL J. POUNTZ, P IN PAL PLANNER DATE ZONING & LAND DEVELO ENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: [-�' /;L, a$ RAY BEI4LOWS, MANAGER I DATE ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT WQIA- isos SU AN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: JO Pk K. SCHMI , ADMINIS RATOR 15A TE C M UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the February 22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: 4011a RUSSEL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Attachments: Resolution No. Copy of Resolution No. 874C Rezoning Findings RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 CCPC MEETING PAGE 12 OF 12 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 36 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION RZ- 2003- AR4961 Section 2.7.2.5. (10.02.08) of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff analysis (see attached Staff Report) indicates that the proposed rezone is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element and the other applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern; The parcel is adjacent to commercial uses and meets the criteria established by the Commercial Mixed Use Activity Center #18 Subdistrict. According to the Growth Management Plan, the proposed rezone is consistent with the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The parcel is adjacent to commercial uses. Analysis of the surrounding uses indicates that the rezoning will not create an isolated, unrelated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The current district boundaries are logically drawn, since they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. 1 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 36 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The petitioner states that there is a need for commercial zoned properties in this area to serve the business and service needs of the growing residential population. Staff has determined that this request is consistent with the goals of the Activity Center # 18 of the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The parcel is adjacent to existing residential uses (Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD). The Conceptual Site Plan has identified a fifteen -foot Type "B ", with an eight -foot high masonry wall located along the north property line. This buffer would be placed adjacent to the adjoining residential development, and would meet the minimum buffering requirements of LDC Section 2.4.7. 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. Collier Boulevard south of Tamiami Trail currently has a Level of Service of "F ". the subject property is located within the Activity Center #18, which was created in the GMP to locate commercial activities, because these locations could manage the traffic generated by these activities. Redevelopment of the site is not proposed at this time. However, when redevelopment does occur, the Site Development Plan will be required to meet the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code, including access management, and concurrency. A condition of approval has been included to limit any construction on the subject property until the Level of Service of this intersection is brought into a level "C ". 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Redevelopment of the site is not proposed at this time, however, when redevelopment does occur, the site will be required to meet applicable stormwater retention criteria. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards of the zoning district in which they are located. These development standards are designed, at a Agenda item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 36 minimum to maintain light and air circulation. However, redevelopment of the site is not proposed at this time. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; An appraisal of estimated future property values resulting from a rezone was not required to be submitted. However, this site is adjacent to residential and other commercial uses and an adverse effect on property values is not anticipated. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The development of adjacent properties in accordance with existing regulations will not be affected by this rezone. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Since the proposed rezone has been found to be in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, the proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The property today could be used for agricultural and commercial uses. However, the subject property in located within the Activity Center #18 on the Future Land Use Map, and the proposed rezoning would provide for the full development potential proposed by the Growth Management Plan. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Since the proposed rezone complies with the Growth Management Plan, it is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. This rezone request is not to create additional C -3 zoning in order to add new uses, but to bring the subject property into compliance with the goals of Activity Center #18. 3 Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 36 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. Redevelopment of the site is not proposed at this time. Future development might involve clearing of the existing vegetation and construction of a building or buildings, which meet C -3 development standards. 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 rezoning of this property will result in the creation of a commercial development. The Site Development Plan or Plat will be reviewed for compliance with the Levels of Service required for public facilities in the area. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: STANDARD REZONE Petition No.: Commission District: 1. General Information: Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 36 RE- SUBMITTAL Date Petition Received: RZ-2003-AR-4961 — PROJET #2002070048 DATE: 6/11/04 Planner Assigned: MIKE DERUNTZ ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Name of Applicant(s) Southern Development Company Inc Applicant's Mailing Address 845 Bald Eagle Drive City Marco Island State FL Zip 34145 Applicant's E -Mail Address: Applicant's Telephone # 239 - 642 -8043 Fax # _ 239 -642 -5602 Name of Agent _ Jeff L. Davidson, P.E. Firm Davidson Eng_tneering, Inc Agent's Mailing Address 2154 Trade Center Way Suite #3 City Naples State FL Zip 34109 Agent's Telephone # 239 -597 -3916 Fax # 239- 597 -5195 Agent's E -Mail Address: seffedavidsonensineerin9.com COLLIER COUNTY CObDIUNTTY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES /CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403- 2400/FAX (941) 643 -6968 *Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 36 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition: (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address city State Zip Name of Master Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Ciyic Association: N/A Mailing Address 2. Disclosure of Interest Information: City State Zip a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership N/A . b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address, and Office 'Percentage of Stock Southern Development Co.. Inc. 100% Mario Curiale, Director 845 Bald Eagle Drive Marco Island FL 34145 Agenda Item No, 8A February 22, 2005 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of th84asd4AdtVQhe percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest N/A d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership N/A e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership N/A Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address N/A g. Date subject property, acquired ® Jan. 2000, leased ❑ Term of lease yrs. /mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: . or anticipated closing date Agenda Item No, 8A February 22, 2005 h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur 90* 44@0@0 @0 the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 3. Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application• (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1 " to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre- application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 3 Township: 51 Range: 26 Lot: Nom._ Block: N/A Subdivision: N/A Plat Book N/A Page #: N/A Property I.D. #: 007259600014; 00726040001 Metes & Bounds Description: See attached survey 4. Size of property: 661 ft. X 400 ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 6.07 5. Address4eneral location of subiect property: Tamiami Trail East. East of CR 951 6. Adiacent zoning and land use: Zoning N PUD S AG E C -5 W C -3ST Land use Apartments Vacant Commercial Development Commercial Development Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 36 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). N/A Section: Township: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Range: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: 7. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the A/C -231 zontrw district (s) to the C -3 zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Pit. Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Retail/Office/Restaurant and other uses consistent with the C -3 zoning district 8. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to. the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. Standard Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 2.7.2.5.) 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. ^_ ztNIJ xE= _ RZ- 2003 -AR -4961 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE 411M PROJECT #2002070048 DATE: 10/4/04 MIKE DERUNTZ — -- Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 36 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of f�i tra, c deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because ofpeak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise of ffect public safety. & Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously of lect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 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 ofpotential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 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 [Code ch. 106, art. H], as amended. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. 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. 10. Previous land use aetidgns on the subject property To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 11. Additional Submittal reauirements: In addition to this completed applicationptla ft9l Wjhg shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the pre- application meeting. a. A copy of the pre - application meeting notes; b. If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide fifteen (15) copies of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan (16 copies if for affordable housing) [and one reduced 8%" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, depicting the following [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), or CCPC]; • all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, • provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), • all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], • required yards, open space and preserve areas, • proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the site), • proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the County, c. An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. d . , An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate. e. Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved (per LDC Section 3.9.5.5.4.). f . Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches); g . A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre - application meeting; h. A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre - application meeting); i . Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional -uses and identified during the pre- application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federal permits. Section 2.7.2.3.2 (3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign (s) immediately Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 36 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST 1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Southern Development Co.. Inc. 2. MAILING ADDRESS: 845 Bald Eaele Drive CITY Marco Island STATE FL ZIP 34145 3. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): No current street address 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached survey Section: 03 Township: 51 Range: 26 Lot: N/A Block: N/A Subdivision: N/A Plat Book N/A Page #: N/A Property I.D. #: 00725960001 & 00726040001 Metes & Bounds Description: see attached survey 5. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c . FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT ❑ (GPD capacity) e . SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ 6. TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED: a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b . CITY UTILITY SYSTEM c . FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) 7. TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: 24 ERC's ■ ■ 1101 Agenda Item No, 8A February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 36 S. PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER-PEAK _ 20 GPD AVERAGE DAILY 7.200 GPD B. SEWER -PEAK 16 GPD AVERAGE DAILY 5.760 GPD 9. IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED: Jan.2005 10. 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 effluent 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. UtlUty Provision statement RJM 10/17/97 Agenda Item No. FA February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 36 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST °lease complete the following aid submit to the Addressing Section for Review. Not all items will avnly to mvavMiect lt=s in hold ,= magirgA• 1. Legal description of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached See Attached. Section 3. Township 51, Range 26 2. Folio (Property ID) number(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description.if more than one) 00726040001 & 00725960001 3. Street address or addresses (as applicable, if already assigned 4. Location map, showing exact location of projeet(site in relation to nearest public road right -of -way (attach) 5. Copy of survey (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTIES) 6. Proposed project name (if applicable) Marco Building SwDly Rezone 7. Proposed Street names (1f applicable) 8. Site Development Plan Number (FOR EXISTING PROJECTS /SITES ONLY) SDP 9. Petition Type — (Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) O SDP (Site Development Plan) 0 PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ SDPI (SDP Insubstantial Change) ❑ FP (Final Plat) 0 SIP (Site Improvement Plan) O LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) O sIPA (SIP Amendment) 0 BL (Blasting Permit) 0 SNR (Street Name Change) 13 ROW (Right -of -Way Permit) - 0 Vegetation/Exotic (Veg. Removal Permits) 0 EX? (Excavation Permit) ® Land Use Petition (Variance, Conditional Use, 0 VRSFP (Veg. Removal & Site Fill Permit) Boat Dock Ext., Rezone. PUD rezone, etc.) 0 Other - Describe: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if applicable; indicate whether proposed or existing) 10. Please Check One: R Checklist is to be Faxed Back ❑ Personally Picked Up 11. Applicant Name Tocia Weeks, Davidson Eng,Weeringti Inc. Phone 239 -597 -3916 Fax 239 -597 -5195 12. Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Section, FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number Address Number Address Number Address Number Approved by Date Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 36 A TIS is required unless waived at the pre - application meeting. The TIS required may be either a major or minor as determined at the pre - application meeting. Please note the following with regard to TIS submittals: MINOR TIS: Generally required for rezone requests for property less than 10 acres in size, although based on the intensity or unique character of a petition, a major TIS may be required for petition of ten acres or less. MAJOR TIS: Required for all other rezone requests. A minor TIS shall include the following: 1. Trip Generation: Annual Average Daily Traffic (at build -out) Peak Hour (AADT) Peak Season Daily Traffic Peak Hour (PSDT) 2. Trip Assignment: Within Radius of Development Influence (RDI) 3. Existing Traffic: Within RDI AADT Volumes PSDT Volumes Level of Service (LAS) 4. Impact of the proposed use on affected major thoroughfares, including any anticipated changes in level of service (LOS). 5. Any proposed improvements (to the site or the external right -of -way) such as providing or eliminating an ingress/egress point, or providing turn or decel lanes or other improvements. 6. Describe any proposal to mitigate the negative impacts on the transportation system. 7. For Rezones Only: State how this request is consistent with the applicable policies of the Traffic Circulation Element(TCE) of the Growth Management Plan (GNP), including policies 1.3, 1.4, 4.4, 5.1,5.2, 7.2 and 7.3. A Major TIS shall address all of the items listed above (for a Minor TIS, and shall also include an analysis of the following: 1. Intersection Analysis 2. Background Traffic 3. Future Traffic 4. Through Traffic 5. Planned /Proposed Roadway Improvement 6. Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 36 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) STANDARDS: The following standards shall be used in preparing a TIS for submittal in conjunction with a conditional use or rezone petition: 1. Trip Generation: Provide the total traffic generated by the project for each link within the project's Radius of Development Influence (RDI) in conformance with the acceptable traffic engineering principles. The rates published in the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report shall be used unless documentation by the petitioner or the County justifies the use of alternative rates. 2. Trip Assimment: Provide a map depicting the assignment to the network, of those trips generated by the proposed project. The assignment shall be made to all links within the RDI. Both annual average and peak seasonal traffic should be depicted. 3. Existine Traffic: Provide a map depicting the current traffic conditions on all links within the RDI. The AADT, PSDT, and LOS shall be depicted for all links within the RDI. 4. Level of Service (LOS): The LOS of a roadway shall be expressed in terms of the applicable Collier County Generalized Daily Service Volumes as set forth in the TCE of the GMT. 5. Radius of Development Influence fftffl The TIS shall cover the least of the following two areas: a) an area as set forth below; or, b) the area in which traffic assignments from the proposed project on the major thoroughfares exceeds one percent of the LOS "C ". Land Use Dista ee Residential 5 Miles or as required by DRI Other (commercial, indust 0 - 49, 999 Sq. Ft. 50,000 - 99, 999 Sq. Ft. 100,000 - 199, 999 Sq. Ft. 200,000 - 399, 999 Sq. Ft. 400,000 & up vial, institutional, etc.) 2 Miles 3 Miles 4 Miles 5 Miles 5 Miles In describing the RDI the TIS shall provide the measurement in road miles from the proposed project rather than a geometric radius. 6. intersection Analysis: An intersection analysis is required for all intersections within the RDI where the sum of the peak -hour critical lane volume is projected to exceed 1,200 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH). Agenda Item No. 8A February 22, 2005 7. Background Traffic: The effects of previously approved but undevelOPCdaW 3PQ9Wly developed projects which may affect major thoroughfares within the RDI of the proposed project shall be provided. This information shall be depicted on a map or, alternatively, in a listing of those projects and their respective characteristics. 8. Future Traffic: An estimate of the effects of traditional increases in traffic resulting from potential development shall be provided. Potential development is that which may be developed maximally under the effective Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Collier County Land Development Code. This estimate shall be for the projected development areas within the projects RDI. A map or list of such lands with potential traffic impact calculations shall be provided. 9. Through Traffic: At a minimum, increases in through traffic shall be addressed through the year 2015. The methodology used to derive the estimates shall be provided. It may be desirable to include any additional documentation and backup data to support the estimation as well. 10. Planned/Pr000sed Roadway Improvements: All proposed or planned roadway improvements located within the RDI should be identified. A description of the funding commitments shall also be included. 11. Project Phasing: When a project phasing schedule is dependent upon proposed roadway improvements, 'a phasing schedule may be included as part of the TIS. If the traffic impacts of a project are mitigated through a phasing schedule, such a phasing schedule may be made a condition of any approval. 'nS FORM RVBWM 10/17/97 Agenda Item No. BA February 22, 2005 ORDINANCE NO. 05 — Page 35 of 36 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04- 41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 JUST EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND "C -2ST" COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY TO "C -3" COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE FOR RETAIL, OFFICE, AND RESTAURANT AND OTHER USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Jeff L. Davidson of Davidson Engineering, representing Southern Development Corporation, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: The zoning classification of the subject real property, more particularly described by Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, located in Section 03, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agriculture and "C -2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay to "C -3" Commercial Intermediate for retail, office, and restaurant and other uses and the appropriate Official Zoning Atlas Map, as described in Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly, subject to the fbllowing conditions: 1. As per Section 3.15 of the Land Development Code, the original Site Development Plan (SDP) for the subject property would not be approved until sufficient capacity is acquired for SR Highway 951, south of US Highway 41, by the addition of lanes and improving the roadway segment from a four lane to a six lane facility. 2. Prior to SDP approval, access to the adjoining commercial properties shall be provided in the form of easements granted to adjacent property owners to facilitate cross access between the commercial properties to the east and west of the subject property. 3. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the frontage of the subject property on Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41) per LDC Sections. 5.05.08.C.4, and 10.02.03.B.Li.xiii. 4. Prior to the approval of the original SDP, the Environmental Advisory Council reviews the approved South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permit mitigation of wetlands impacts. Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No, 8A February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 36 SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2005. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney RZ- 2003- AR4961/MDhp Page 2 of 2 FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 105 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ-A- 2003 -AR -5168, Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural and "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to a new PUD to be known as the Malibu Lake PUD for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the subject properties totaling 178.6 acres from Rural Agricultural (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a new PUD for the purpose of unifying three commercial properties into one PUD zoning district and to make sure that the project is consistent with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard. The petitioner wishes to combine three existing approved PUDs (Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD), and approximately three acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) into a single 178.6 -acre PUD. The northern 37.1 acres of the proposed PUD are designated for commercial land uses while the southern 141.50 acres of the subject property are designated for residential development. As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, there will be four commercial out - parcels (one existing) with frontage on Immokalee Road and a fifth out - parcel internal to the commercial tract. The remaining commercial property is proposed to be developed as a shopping center. This petition will not change the maximum of 708 residential dwelling units that have been approved for the Malibu Lake PUD of which approximately 530 units have been developed. The petition will reduce the allowable commercial floor area from 456,000 square feet to 330,000 square feet. The petitioner also proposed an alternate Master Plan to provide for a future improvement to the north -bound off ramp for the I -75 and Immokalee Road interchange (See Exhibit "I "). FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the property is rezoned, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. 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 PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR 5168 Pagel of4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agenda Item No_ 86 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 105 County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project at the time of the SDP application. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. 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 the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. 37.1 acres of the subject property are within Interchange Activity Center # 4, which allows for a mixture of land uses, which may include a full array of commercial uses, residential and non- residential uses, institutional uses, hotel /motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code. In addition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU /A) and recreation and open space uses. This Subdistrict is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Staff concludes the commercial development and residential uses and density for the subject site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (4.10), of the PUD document provides a commitment that the most current environmental regulations will control all development within the PUD. The subject site is completely altered, isolated by a major roadway and development, and is actively used as an access parcel. The subject parcel is not a viable habitat for species to nest, den, or forage. No endangered, threatened, or species of special concern were observed on the site. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard this request at their January 5, 2005 meeting. The EAC moved to recommend approval of this application. PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 Page 2 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 105 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Transportation Staff has several problems with the proposed inclusion of Oakes Estates and Tarpon Bay Home Owners Association conditions approved by the Planning Commission. Items 3, 10 and 11 are subject to other actions that the Developer has no control over and should not be included in the PUD. For instance, item 10 will require a Growth Management Plan change to implement. Staff also has a concern that the cost estimate for item 12 will not cover the proposed project and that the County will end up funding the remainder. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) reviewed and approved this petition at their February 3, 2005 meeting with a vote of 7 to 2. The approval included the following conditions: 1. Staffs recommendation related to the requested deviations shall be included; 2. Sections 5.7.C, 5.8, and 5.9 shall be amended with the County Attorney's recommendations; 3. The list of conditions (See List, Exhibit 5) that had been agreed to by the developer and the neighboring residential communities, with the exception of condition #1, shall be included into the PUD document. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based. The legal considerations are reflected in the Collier County Planning Commission's evaluation of the listed criteria in Chapter 10.03.05 and Chapter 10.02.12 of the LDC. These evaluations are completed as separate documents that have been incorporated into the attached staff report. A summary of the legal considerations and findings are noted below: The proposed change has been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMP. The proposed land uses are compatible with the existing land use pattern. The proposed change will not 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. This project has also been deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Element of the GMP. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private, shall be provided. PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 Page 3 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 105 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve Petition PUDZ -03- AR -5168, subject to the Collier County Planning Commission's conditions stated at their February 3, 2005 regular meeting. PREPARED BY: Michael J. DeRuntz, C.F.M., Principal Planner Department of Zoning & Land Development Review PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -516$ Page 4 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agenda ebruary 22.. 2005 Page 5 of 105 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 8B Item Summary This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parse disclosure be provided by Commission members. Brentwood Land Partners, LLC., represented by D. Wayne Arnold of O. Grady Minor & Associated, P.A., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural And '•PUD` Planned Unit Development 20ning district to a new PUD for properly iocMed on Line south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida. This property consisting of 175.67+ acres. Meeting Date 2/2212005 9'. 00:00 AM Prepared By Date Michael J. DeRuntz Principal Planner 21712005 4:21:45 PM Community Development & zoning & Land Development Review Environmental Services Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development & 21712005 4:40 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Sondra Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Development & Community Development & 21712005 4:47 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Susan Murray, AICP zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & zoning &Land Development Review 218/2005 12:35 PM Environmental Services Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Zoning It Land Development Review 2/812005 3:32 PM Environmental Services Approved By Community Development & Date Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Administrator Community Development & Community Development & 2/1012005 9:U6 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin, Approved By Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney Date County Attontey County Atlomey Office 2111/2005 10:39 AM Approved By Donald L. Scott Transportation Planning Director Date 1 ransponion Services Transportation Planning 2!11/2005 12:54 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Managers Offire Office of Management & Budget 21112005 1:40 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Managers Office Office of Management & Budget 2115/2005 10:39 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 21512005 11:06 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Managers Office 21191200 5 10:39 AM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 105 Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 20, 2005 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA - 2003 -AR -5168, MALIBU LAKE PUD AGENT /APPLICANT: Owner: Brentwood Land Partners, LLC Agent: D. Wayne Arnold 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Indianapolis, IN 46202 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall TPN -12D Minneapolis, MN 55403 REOUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission consider an application to rezone 178.6 acres from Rural Agriculture (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD known as the Malibu Lake PUD for the purpose of revising the PUD document. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on following page) PUDA- 03 -AR -5 ] 68, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. SB February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 105 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Malibu Lake PUD was originally approved by Collier County in Malibu Lake PUD Ordinance Number 99- 49. The proposed PUD amendment combines three existing approved PUDs (Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD), and approximately three acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) into a single 178.6 - acre PUD. The northern 37.1 acres of the proposed PUD are designated for commercial land uses while the southern 141.50 acres of the subject property are designated for residential development. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing Zoning of Subject Parcel: Land Use: Acreage: Malibu Lake PUD Commercial (Vacant) 8.59 Acres Mixed Residential (Developed — Tarpon Bay) 104.85 Acres Conservation Area 33.71 Acres Total 147.15 Acres Crestwood PUD Commercial (Developed AmSouth Bank) 1.35 Acres Industrial Tract 6.30 Acres Conservation Area 2.20 Acres Total 9.85 Acres Brentwood PUD Rural Agricultural (A) Surrounding Land Uses: North: East: South: West: PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Commercial Tract Conservation Area Agricultural (Undeveloped) 17.30 Acres 1.30 Acres Total 18.60 Acres 3.0 Acres Immokalee Road right -of -way (ROW), and a partially developed mixed -use commercial and residential project zoned the Northbrooke Plaza. PUD. Tarpon Bay Boulevard, and then single - family residential development and two church developments, zoned Estates (E) Undeveloped land, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) Interstate 75, ROW Agenda Item No, 8B February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 105 Exhibit 4 — Zoning Map PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Mdibu Lake PUD 3 �'�� d ��.r "" ,r i �Y � rl .� yffi,��' i � '� ��=r'� ) � r J" r ikM§ !"� _ �� nu t�! ,�'�•_. 4 e � * j ��� 9..iy�kF��• .aqr� S11 eR " �� (� 3'� � t,W ! r ki� 3 i� a � v � �. ,.• - ra xa All Moll Mm ji y»AT��"� 'ICli P �aPl�+ !r y �t�liaNtwrrrair A4 . al('A Zsl 21 Q Agenda item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 105 The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Future Land Use Element: Relevant to this petition, 37.1 acres of the subject property are within Interchange Activity Center # 4, which allows for a mixture of land uses, which may include 100 percent or any combination thereof, each of the following uses: the full array of commercial uses, residential and non - residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development code. In addition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU /A) and recreation and open space uses. This Subdistrict is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. For rezones within Activity Centers, there are several "factors to be considered" that are to be addressed by the petitioner. These pertain to market justification for additional commercial, access, compatibility, etc. However, since only the ± 2 acres zoned Rural Agricultural of the added ± 28.45 acres (all of which are in the Activity Center) are not already approved for commercial uses, and since those + 2 acres are abutting I -75 and are irregularly shaped thereby severely limiting viability for most land uses, and since no access or compatibility issues are readily apparent pertaining to these + 2 acres; and because of the location, size and shape of these + 2 acres, staff essentially views them as defacto commercial; staff does not believe it necessary or appropriate to require the petitioner to provide the usual analysis of the Activity Center "factors to be considered ". Review of the Density Rating System yields the non - Activity Center portion of the site (141.56 acres) is eligible for a base density of 4 DU /A. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a density consistent with the Density Rating System. This portion of the development is located within a residential density band and is eligible for a density bonus of up to 3 residential units per gross acre, yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU /A. Base Density 4 DU /A Density Bonus +3 DU /A Total Eligible Density 7 DU /A Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the commercial development and residential uses and density for the subject site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Transportation Element: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GNP) and was found consistent with Policy 5.1. The consistency finding provides a statement to the project, that when developed, it will not excessively increase traffic congestion as identified Open Space /Conservation: A minimum of thirty percent open space of the gross site area, as described in Section 4.02.01 .B.2 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Policy 1. 1.6 of the GMP, will be required of the PUD. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.03.05 and Section 10.02.13 of the Land Development Code and required staff evaluation and comment. The Planning Commission to the BCC also used these criteria as the basis for their recommendation. Appropriate evaluation of petitions for PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 5 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 105 amendments to PUDs should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision - makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted and are summarized by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B "). Other evaluation considerations should include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses, a consideration usually dealt with as a facet of analyzing the relationship of the rezoning action to the long range plan for future land uses. Notwithstanding the above, staff in reviewing the determinants for adequate findings to support a rezoning action advise as follows: Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (4.10), of the Zone PUD document provides a commitment that the most current environmental regulations will control all development within the PUD. The subject site is completely altered, isolated by a major roadway and development, and is actively used as an access parcel. The subject parcel is not a viable habitat for species to nest, den, or forage. No endangered, threatened, or species of special concern were observed on the site. The meeting for the Environment Advisory Committee (EAC) is scheduled for January 5, 2005. The Planning Commission will be informed at their meeting as to the action the EAC had taken with this petition. Transportation Analysis: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and notes that the PUD document has been reviewed to ensure all development within the Malibu Lake PUD will be subject to and compliant with the policy contained within the Transportation Sub - element 5.1 of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the regulatory fabric contained in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Transportation Section (4.8), of the PUD document, has been created to parallel the current LDC regulations. The Traffic Impact Study identified that the peak (5 -6 p.m.) traffic generation from the future commercial development will be 697 trips per hour. Immokalee Road (CR 846), while having a Level of Service "D" currently, is scheduled in the existing 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan to be widened to six lanes. The improvements to Segment I.D. No. 43 of Immokalee Road (CR 846) will provide a peak hour /peak direction of 3,250 (2,240 - Background, 627 — Banked, and 383 — Remaining). Improvements to Tarpon Bay are proposed to include widening the pavement to three lanes, to provide turning lanes. Also, an area on the northwestern comer of the subject property has been set aside for the future northbound exit and access ramp improvement. Utility Issues: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: water distribution, sewage collection and transmission, and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Two well sites and associated easement areas have been identified on the Master Plan. Access to these well sites will be provided over and across ingress /egress easements as identified in the operating and easement agreement. Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis: The evaluation by professional staff includes an analysis of the project's relationship to the community's future land use plan, and whether or not a rezoning action would be consistent with the GNP. Other evaluation considerations include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Staff completed a comprehensive PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 105 evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based (LDC Section 10.02.13). This evaluation forms the basis of the recommendation (of approval or denial) by the Planning Commission, which is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The BCC considers the relevant information and renders a final decision regarding the request. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review is listed below. Each of the criteria is summarized culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as a separate document that is attached to this Staff' Report. In addition, staff offers the following synopsis. Relationship to Future Land Uses - A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the proposed zoning action to the Future Land Use Element of GMP. Because the property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This district permits commercial and residential uses as proposed, at the density proposed. Staff believes that the petitioner's requested uses and density are compatible with the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, thus this petition is consistent with the GMP. Relationship to Existing Land Uses - The subject property is bordered by Interstate 75, Immokalee Road (CR 846), Tarpon Bay Boulevard, and the Malibu Lakes Apartment Complex. Although the petitioner may utilize the existing Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, and Brentwood PUD development requirements, which would allow for the commercial development of approximately 456,000 square feet of commercial floor area, the petitioner has agreed that the proposed PUD amendment will not be developed at a floor area greater than 330,000 square feet. That limitation will reduce the traffic generation from the proposed commercial area by 26 percent. By combining the three PUDs commercial areas into one PUD, the commercial development will be controlled through an individual zoning document and private management documents. The benefit to the community would be a unified development and architectural plan. The petitioner has agreed to provide improvements to Tarpon Bay Boulevard to accommodate the added traffic to this road segment. Therefore, staff believes the uses allowed in the petition would not adversely impact the existing residential land uses in the area. Furthermore, staff believes that the development regulations, landscaping, and the screening and buffering requirements of the PUD District would meet the goals of the Interchange Activity Center for the GMP, and enhance the aesthetic quality of this area. The PUD development standards require that the principal structures be a minimum of 25 feet from public road right -of -ways and project boundaries with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. The PUD also provides that "platting or subdivision of building tracts for separate ownership for a building within typically connected buildings and parking lots shall not require setbacks and other requirements from the building to a property line, including but not limited to landscape buffers; however, a minimum of ten percent of the commercial area shall be open space." These setback requirements are similar to other approved commercial projects in Collier County. The PUD also permits a maximum building height of 50 feet, which is the same height that is permitted within the Northbrooke Plaza PUD. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking three deviations and has identified them in Section 2.7 of the PUD document. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations in correspondence received by the staff on PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 105 August 27, 2004, September 17, 2004, and December 8, 2004 (Exhibit C and D). Staff has analyzed the deviations and provides the analyses and recommendations below. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.06.C.1 for Directory Signs of multi- occupancy parcels, such as shopping centers with over 25,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area, which require eight or more independent businesses to allow a directory sign with five or more independent businesses. The petitioner provided the justification for this deviation in an August 9, 2004, letter to staff stating the following: "The proposed center will have an estimated 330,000 square feet (SF). The center will be anchored by a Super Target and contain three other junior box (20,000-33, 000 SF) users and one 10, 000 SF small shop building. Since the Super Target will occupy 184,600 SF of the total SF there is not enough remaining SF to provide for seven additional tenants to get required eight tenants required for a directory sign. The Super target combines several uses in the center (grocery, pharmacy, garden center, general merchandise). If the site were developed under the existing three PUDs there would be the required eight tenants to provide for a directory sign, " Staff is supporting deviation No. 1 noting that this project incorporates some unusual features in that the gross leasable floor area exceeds the minimum area required for a directory sign by 1200 percent. Due to the space desired for the proposed independent businesses and the limited area of the subject property, the threshold for the number of independent businesses is not achieved, but if the desired space for the independent businesses were less many more independent businesses could occupy the center, therefore the staff finds the deviation in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, in that the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.06.C.I for Directory Signs of multi - occupancy parcels, such as shopping centers with over 25,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area, which are limited to one directional sign per a single entrance on each public street to allow two directional signs on Immokalee Road with no entrance. The petitioner provided the justification for this deviation in an August 9, 2004, letter to staff stating the following; "An existing drive cut is located on Immokalee Road just east of the I -75 off ramp terminus, The developer has committed to close this entrance to improve safety on Immokalee Road. " September 17, 2004 letter: "The center's proposed sign program includes three directional signs. One sign will be located on the 1 -75, one sign on Immokalee Road and one sign on Tarpon Bay Blvd. The I - -75 sign would be in place of the "Super Target" wording on the I - -75 building elevation (west elevation). The building signage on the I -75 elevation (west elevation) will be reduced from three signs at a total of 250 SF allowed to one 85 SF sign. " December 8, 2004 letter: "Access from Immokalee Road to the amended boundary for Malibu Lake commercial tract is presently prohibited by Collier County due to spacing concerns between 1-75 and a project entrance. The Crestwood PUD presently has legal access via the frontage road that does exist on Immokalee road. The proposed Malibu Lakes PUD consolidates three PUD's into a single PUD, which will have the overall effect of reducing access points and site signage. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No, 8B February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 105 The property owners are working with Collier County to provide for future I -75 improvements by reserving right -of -way. This reservation may or may not result in the ability to provide access to the site from Immokalee Road. However, the placement of a directory sign at the location near the present road address to Crestwood PUD will provide the motorizing public assistance in finding the various tenants, and permit motorists to safely access the site at Tarpon Bay Boulevard. The sign at this location meets the intent of parcels located at intersections and those having multiple occupancy. Staff is supportive of deviation No. 2 with the stipulation that only one directory sign would be permitted along Immokalee Road, noting that this project incorporates some unusual circumstances as noted in the correspondence stated above. The presence of the current access to Immokalee Road in the Crestwood PUD established a vested right for access to Immokalee Road therefore the staff finds the deviation in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, in that the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.06.C.2 from the maximum number of signs (3) and the wall signs area (250 square feet) for retail businesses with a floor area of larger than 60,000 square feet to allow five signs, with a total area 706 square feet, for the north elevation of the Super Target building. The petitioner provided the justification for this deviation in an August 9, 2004, letter to staff stating the following; "A. The total signage for the 184,600 SF Super Target will include 85 SF of signage on the west elevation (250 SF allowed) and 706 SF of wall signs on the north elevation (250 SF allowed). The 706 SF of proposed wall signage is on approximately 12,700 SF of wall area of the Super Target north elevation. B. The additional signage area will conform to the overall scale of the building. The length of the Super Target building is 557 feet. The depth of the Super Target building is 365 feet. The average building height is 25 feet and the tower height is 38 feet. C. A total of six wall signs are proposed for the Super Target. All other tenants' wall signs shall conform to the LDC. Five signs shall be located on the north elevation totaling 706 SF. The west elevation shall have one sign instead of the three allowed. The total combined number of signs on the west and north elevation is six. This does not exceed total combined number of signs (six) allowed per the LDC. D. The deviation is also justified by showing a reduction in the total amount of wall signage from the existing three PUDs and limiting the amount of signage on the west (1-75) elevation to 85 SF. The county has maintained the wall sign standards of LDC Section 5.06.06.C.2 for all buildings over 60,000 that have been developed within the county. Lacking any compelling evidence from the petitioner that the increase in the number and total area of wall signs for the Super Target are a necessity, staff recommends that this deviation be denied finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, that "the element can be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community" PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Mallbu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 105 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The petitioner held a Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 11, 2004 that was attended by approximately 50 individuals. Of those persons that spoke, most expressed a serious concern about the existing traffic congestion on Immokalee Road, and the added traffic congestion that this development would create on Immokalee Road, as well as Tarpon Bay Boulevard, 20th Avenue NW. and Logan Boulevard. Concerns about the adequacy of the existing water and sewer services were expressed. The type of landscaping, buffering, and architectural design of the commercial development was also discussed. The concern for the future maintenance of the landscaping on Tarpon Bay Boulevard was expressed STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of Petition PUDZ -03 -AR -5168, and subject to the denial of Deviation 3 regarding the wall sign standards of LDC Section 5.06.06.C.2 for all buildings over 60,000 square feet. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL J. DERUNTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 10 DATE REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the February 22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ- 2003 -AR -5168 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 105 Division 2.7.2.5, of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: PUDA -03 -AR -5166, Malibu Lake PUD 11 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 105 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The density permitted within the Malibu Lake PUD is consistent with the FLUE as currently provided in the Growth Management Plan by Policy 5.1 that provides that property zoned prior to the adoption of the Plan and found to be consistent through the Zoning Re- evaluation Program are consistent with the GMP and designated on the Future Land Use Map series. Therefore, this petition is Consistent by Policy. 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property, Malibu Lake PUD, consists of three existing approved PUD's (Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD), containing approximately 172 - acres, and approximately three acres of "A" Agricultural zoned land. The total area of the proposed PUD will be 175.67 acres. 1 acre of the commercial development within the Brentwood PUD is developed (AmSouth bank building). 33 -acres of the three PUDs, that have commercial area, are undeveloped. Three acres of land zoned Agricultural are undeveloped. 708 residential units have been constructed in the Malibu Lake Apartments and Tarpon Bay Condominium Development. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The Malibu Lake PUD is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency -- with the FLUE. The subject property is located in an Interchange Activity Center. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed rezoning combines three existing PUDs (Malibu Lake, Crestwood, and Brentwood) into a single PUD, which include the currently approved district boundaries that were previously deemed to be logically drawn in relation to existing conditions at the time the property was first rezoned to the three PUDs, plus the addition of the three acres of undeveloped Agricultural zoned property. EXHIBIT "A" 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The applicant desires to develop the commercial area of the proposed PUD into a commercial center, which will include a single structure comprising a 184,600 square foot Super Target plus three retail stores totaling 80,000 square feet for a grand total of 264,945 square feet; a 10,000 - square foot multi -unit retail structure; the existing AM South Bank building; and three outlots. The proposed amendment would consolidate the three individual commercial zoning instruments into a unified zoning document. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Mahbu Lake PUD 12 Agenda Item No, 8B February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 105 The proposed change should not have an adverse influence on the living conditions of the surrounding neighborhood. The amendment will provide coordinated architectural, landscaping, buffering, traffic circulation, infrastructure, and environmental protection applications to the commercial component of the Malibu Lake PUD. This coordination should provide enhanced esthetic value to the area. The residential component will remain unchanged as approved with the original Malibu Lake PUD. 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. Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP and was found consistent The three existing PUDs have been previously approved, and the projected traffic generation from these previously approved PUDs have been incorporated into the design capacity of Immokalee Road.. The proposed change will result in an overall decrease in daily trips within the Malibu Lake PUD, as determined by the Traffic Impact Statement. The planned improvements to Immokalee Road, that are scheduled in the 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan, will provide the needed capacity for the projected traffic that will be generated from the proposed commercial development 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The Land Development Code specifically provides the development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and above what would occur without development. In summary, every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub - surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. This project was reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to meet County standards as a condition of approval. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) and were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The development standards within the Malibu Lake PUD will not be affected by the requested change to the PUD document. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not adversely affect property values. It should be noted that the value of property is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 13 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 105 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The subject property is being developed in compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The surrounding property is fully developed, with the exception of some isolated Estates lots. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that proposed amendment to the PUD complies with the GMP. In light of this fact, the proposed PUD Amendment 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 said plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Uses within the proposed Malibu Lakes PUD will remain substantially the same as those in the existing PUDs, with the following changes proposed: Permitted Use • Building materials, hardware, and garden supply (Groups 5231 - 5261), including h ome improvement superstores, • Eating and drinking places (Group 5813 only cocktail lounges in coniunction with a restaurant — outdoor dining shall be permitted subject to narking and fire code requirements, • General merchandise stores (Groups 5311 — 5399), including warehouse clubs and discount retail superstores, AccesspH Uses • REMOVE — Cocktail Lounge • ADD — Seasonal sidewalk sales for retail tenants in additional to seasonal temporary uses permitted in Section 5.04 of the LDC Sidewalk sale areas shall maintain adequate pedestrian access and meet fire safety standards. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed amendment complies with the GMP and will not adversely impact the scale, density and overall intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the Urban Designated Areas of Collier County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are other sites, which are zoned to accommodate the subject development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. This petition is consistent PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 14 Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 105 with all elements of the GMP, is compatible with the adjacent land uses, has adequate infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action is consistent with all County codes. 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. The delineation of the three existing PUDs would not permit the orientation of the proposed conceptual master plan. 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. A multi - disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this petition and has found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. The proposed change will have no affect upon those conditions. FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ- 2003 -AR -5168 Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 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. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the Malibu Lake PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. Any PUDA -03 -AR -5158, Malibu Lake PUD 15 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 105 inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the Planning Commission and the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 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. Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity is addressed in the Staff Report. 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 PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. The LDC to assure harmonious relationships between projects automatically regulates external relationships. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. Section 4.4.H.1 states that "Except for required landscape buffers, water management areas, and native vegetation preserves, all other required open space for the mixed -use PUD shall be incorporated into the residential area of the PUD." In Section 5.1 U states that "In the event that construction within the I -75 right -of -way reservation area impacts the required preserve, that preserve acreage will be recreated elsewhere on site with an approved plan by the appropriate governmental agency. The recreated preserve shall consist of enhanced buffers, native planting within water management areas, or any combination thereof. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. PUDA -03 -AR -5166, Malibu Lake PUD 16 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 105 Given the fact that the Malibu Lake PUD is currently under development, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. This assessment is described at length in the staff report. In addition, this petition will not adversely impact any previous determination of consistency with the GMP. The project is also timely because the supporting infrastructure is available. 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. This criteria essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning districts. The change is simply an increase in the amount of land in the PUD, through the combination of the adjoining commercial PUDs and three acres of undeveloped agricultural property into one unified PUD zoning district. The overall number of dwelling units is not increased, and the density and development regulations essentially stay the same. The allowable commercial building area is reduced from 456,000 square -feet to 330,000 square -feet. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 17 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 105 Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION BEARING DATE: JANUARY 20, 2005 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA- 2003 -AR -5168, MALIBU LAKE PUD AGENT /APPLICANT: Owner: Brentwood Land Partners, LLC Agent: D. Wayne Arnold 30 South Meridian street, Suite 1100 Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Indianapolis, IN 46202 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall TPN -12D Minneapolis, MN 55403 REOUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission consider an application to rezone 178.6 acres from Rural Agriculture (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD known as the Malibu Lake PUD for the purpose of revising the PUD document. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on following page) PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD LEE COUNTY Ri dd ro..uri mr r �• .,v.ur• • Iwnn n ii u r• �7Cf;lrb7 lOby -ow - ii ------ -- rt .�✓ rnrrr R ..w r�� � r mw• u rwa 1• o yx 1• f �q� •1rMY �,II ulO • D[� r� ■ Wk � ■ tYOIYt � t0 arn9 � �� rarR t2 mllO •vYr•Y�•1' � �r t� nry I e I s i i PROJECT � � 1°•"O LOCATION I 1 YCPYi N ww wo .r�'iarlse I t t �r �■ i £ •�Im I u�• • n �'� aI n �• EI I 1 ••�ul 1 I nlYirlN j r�irrl T 1 mro ua�r w w�lidalllora yr w alm _ I Wllrq WIp• I O1•• •�i I ao` I i i•lYiM 1 A •M �w ti I I 1 1 I ua � M[�uP • • IMr D M MR Or•1p 1� I LOCATION MAP Q Agenda Item No. 8S February 22. 2005 Page 24 of 105 PETITION IIIPUOZ- 2003- AR- 5168 SITE MAP Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 105 PURPOSE /DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Malibu Lake PUD was originally approved by Collier County in Malibu Lake PUD Ordinance Number 99- 49. The proposed PUD amendment combines three existing approved PUDs (Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD), and approximately three acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) into a single 178.6 - acre PUD. The northern 37.1 acres of the proposed PUD are designated for commercial land uses while the southern 141.50 acres of the subject property are designated for residential development. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: ExistinR Zoning of Subiect Parcel: Land Use: Acreage: Malibu Lake PUD Commercial (Vacant) 8.59 Acres Mixed Residential (Developed — Tarpon Bay) 104.85 Acres Conservation Area 1 33.71 Acres Total 147.15 Acres Crestwood PUD Commercial (Developed AmSouth Bank) 1.35 Acres Industrial Tract 6.30 Acres Conservation Area 2.20 Acres Total 9.85 Acres Brentwood PUD Rural Agricultural (A) Surrounding Land Uses: North: East: South: West: Commercial Tract Conservation Area Agricultural (Undeveloped) 17.30 Acres 1.30 Acres Total 18.60 Acres 3.0 Acres Immokalee Road right -of -way (ROW), and a partially developed mixed -use commercial and residential project zoned the Northbrooke Plaza PUD. Tarpon Bay Boulevard, and then single - family residential development and two church developments, zoned Estates (E) Undeveloped land, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) Interstate 75, ROW PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 105 EXHIBIT 2 - INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER #4 Ov� WA i +XAM I^w4'-r NV4N MM a 49 Ass ■ ■ st EXHIBIT 3 — BOUNDARY SURVEY Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 105 'A EXHIBIT 3 — BOUNDARY SURVEY Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 105 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 105 Exhibit 4 — Zoning Map PUDA- 03- AR•5168, Malibu Lake PUD j I 1 • 'o�� �� �� ter a; gab %aL 1 r L 4. r t JI ski d rr i 7m t ► n 1' r N 13 I ir ty. 'I•WY �M W 44 r_.. d rr i I r Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 105 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Future Land Use Element: Relevant to this petition, 37.1 acres of the subject property are within Interchange Activity Center # 4, which allows for a mixture of land uses, which may include 100 percent or any combination thereof, each of the following uses: the full array of commercial uses, residential and non- residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development code. In addition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU /A) and recreation and open space uses. This Subdistrict is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. For rezones within Activity Centers, there are several "factors to be considered" that are to be addressed by the petitioner. These pertain to market justification for additional commercial, access, compatibility, etc. However, since only the + 2 acres zoned Rural Agricultural of the added + 28.45 acres (all of which are in the Activity Center) are not already approved for commercial uses, and since those + 2 acres are abutting I -75 and are irregularly shaped thereby severely limiting viability for most land uses, and since no access or compatibility issues are readily apparent pertaining to these + 2 acres; and because of the location, size and shape of these + 2 acres, staff essentially views them as defacto commercial; staff does not believe it necessary or appropriate t require the petitioner to provide the usual analysis of the Activity Center "factors to be considered ". Review of the Density Rating System yields the non - Activity Center portion of the site (141.56 acres) is eligible for a base density of 4 DU /A. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a density consistent with the Density Rating System. This portion of the development is located within a residential density band and is eligible for a density bonus of up to 3 residential units per gross acre, yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU /A. Base Density 4 DU /A Density Bonus +3 DU /A Total Eligible Density 7 DU /A Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the commercial development and residential uses and density for the subject site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Transportation Element: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and was found consistent with Policy 5.1. The consistency finding provides a statement to the project, that when developed, it will not excessively increase traffic congestion as identified Open S,yace/Conservation: A minimum of thirty percent open space of the gross site area, as described in Section 4.02.013.2 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Policy 1. 1.6 of the GMP, will be required of the PUD. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malj'bu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 105 ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.03.05 and Section 10.02.13 of the Land Development Code and required staff evaluation and comment. The Planning Commission to the BCC also used these criteria as the basis for their recommendation. Appropriate evaluation of petitions for amendments to PUDs should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision - makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted and are summarized by staff; culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B "). Other evaluation considerations should include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses, a consideration usually dealt with as a facet of analyzing the relationship of the rezoning action to the long range plan for future land uses. Notwithstanding the above, staff in reviewing the determinants for adequate findings to support a rezoning action advise as follows: Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (4.10), of the Zone PUD document provides a commitment that the most current environmental regulations will control all development within the PUD. The subject site is completely altered, isolated by a major roadway and development, and is actively used as an access parcel. The subject parcel is not a viable habitat for species to nest, den, or forage. No endangered, threatened, or species of special concern were observed on the site. The meeting for the Environment Advisory Committee (EAC) is scheduled for January 5, 2005. The Planning Commission will be informed at their meeting as to the action the EAC had taken with this petition. Transportation Analysis: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and notes that the PUD document has been reviewed to ensure all development within the Malibu Lake PUD will be subject to and compliant with the policy contained within the Transportation Sub- element 5.1 of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the regulatory fabric contained in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Transportation Section (4.8), of the PUD document, has been created to parallel the current LDC regulations. The Traffic Impact Study identified that the peak (5 -6 p.m.) traffic generation from the future commercial development will be 697 trips per hour. Immokalee Road (CR 846), while having a Level of Service "D" currently, is scheduled in the existing 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan to be widened to six lanes. The improvements to Segment I.D. No. 43 of Immokalee Road (CR 846) will provide a peak hour /peak direction of 3,250 (2,240 - Background, 627 — Banked, and 383 — Remaining). Improvements to Tarpon Bay are proposed to include widening the pavement to three lanes, to provide turning lanes. Also, an area on the northwestern corner of the subject property has been set aside for the future northbound exit and access ramp improvement. Utility Issues: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: water distribution, sewage collection and transmission, and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Two well sites and associated easement areas have been identified on the Master Plan. Access to these well sites will be provided over and across ingress /egress easements as identified in the operating and easement agreement. PUDA- 03- AR.5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 105 Zoning and Land Develoipment Review Analysis: The evaluation by professional staff includes an analysis of the project's relationship to the community's future land use plan, and whether or not a rezoning action would be consistent with the GMP. Other evaluation considerations include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based (LDC Section 10.02.13). This evaluation forms the basis of the recommendation (of approval or denial) by the Planning Commission, which is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The BCC considers the relevant information and renders a final decision regarding the request. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review is listed below. Each of the criteria is summarized culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as a separate document that is attached' to this Staff Report. In addition, staff offers the following synopsis. Relationship to Future Land Uses - A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the proposed zoning action to the Future Land Use Element of GMP. Because the property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This district permits commercial and residential uses as proposed, at the density proposed. Staff believes that the petitioner's requested uses and density are compatible with the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, thus this petition is consistent with the GMP. Relationship to Existing Land Uses - The subject property is bordered by Interstate 75, Immokalee Road (CR 846), Tarpon Bay Boulevard, and the Malibu Lakes Apartment Complex. Although the petitioner may utilize the existing Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, and Brentwood PUD development requirements, which would allow for the commercial development of approximately 456,000 square feet of commercial floor area, the petitioner has agreed that the proposed PUD amendment will not be developed at a floor area greater than 330,000 square feet. That limitation will reduce the traffic generation from the proposed commercial area by 26 percent. By combining the three PUDs commercial areas into one PUD, the commercial development will be controlled through an individual zoning document and private management documents. The benefit to the community would be a unified development and architectural plan. The petitioner has agreed to provide .improvements to Tarpon Bay Boulevard to accommodate the added traffic to this road segment. Therefore, staff believes the uses allowed in the petition would not adversely impact the existing residential land uses in the area. Furthermore, staff believes that the development regulations, landscaping, and the screening and buffering requirements of the PUD District would meet the goals of the Interchange Activity Center for the GMP, and enhance the aesthetic quality of this area. The PUD development standards require that the principal structures be a minimum of 25 feet from public road right -of -ways and project boundaries with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. The PUD also provides that "platting or subdivision of building tracts for separate ownership for a building within typically connected buildings and parking lots shall not require setbacks and other requirements from the building to a property line, including but not limited to landscape buffers; however, a minimum of ten percent of the commercial area shall be open space." These setback requirements are similar to other approved commercial projects in Collier County. The PUD also permits a maximum building height of 50 feet, which is the same height that is permitted within the Northbrooke Plaza PUD. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 8$ February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 105 Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking three deviations and has identified them_ in Section 2.7 of the PUD document. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations in correspondence received by the staff on August 27, 2004, September 17, 2004, and December 8, 2004 (Exhibit C and D). Staff has analyzed the deviations and provides the analyses and recommendations below. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.06.C.1 for Directory Signs of multi- occupancy parcels, such as shopping centers with over 25,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area, which require eight or more independent businesses to allow a directory sign with five or more independent businesses. The petitioner provided the justification for this deviation in an August 9, 2004, letter to staff stating the following: "The proposed center will have an estimated 330, 000 square feet (SF). The center will be anchored by a Super Target and contain three other junior box (20,000-33, 000 SF) users and one 10, 000 SF small shop building. Since the Super Target will occupy 184,600 SF of the total SF there is not enough remaining SF to provide for seven additional tenants to get required eight tenants required for a directory sign. The Super target combines several uses in the center (grocery, pharmacy, garden center, general merchandise). If the site were developed under the existing three PUDs there would be the required eight tenants to provide for a directory sign, " Staff is supporting deviation No. 1 noting that this project incorporates some unusual features in that the gross leasable floor area exceeds the minimum area required for a directory sign by 1200 percent. Due to the space desired for the proposed independent businesses and the limited area of the subject property, the threshold for the number of independent businesses is not achieved, but if the desired space for the independent businesses were less many more independent businesses could occupy the center, therefore the staff finds the deviation in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, in that the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.06.C.1 for Directory Signs of multi- occupancy parcels, such as shopping centers with over 25,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area, which are limited to one directional sign per a single entrance on each public street to allow two directional signs on Immokalee Road with no entrance. The petitioner provided the justification for this deviation in an August 9, 2004, letter to staff stating the following; "An existing drive cut is located on Immokalee Road just east of the I -75 off ramp terminus, The developer has committed to close this entrance to improve safety on Immokalee Road. " September 17, 2004 letter: "The center's proposed sign program includes three directional signs. One sign will be located on the I - -75, one sign on Immokalee Road and one sign on Tarpon Bay Blvd. The I -75 sign would be in place of the "Super Target" wording on the I -75 building elevation (west elevation). The building signage on the I - -75 elevation (west elevation) will be reduced from three signs at a total of 250 SF allowed to one 85 SF sign. " PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 105 December 8, 2004 letter: "Access from Immokalee Road to the amended boundary for Malibu Lake commercial tract is presently prohibited by Collier County due to spacing concerns between I -75 and a project entrance. The Crestwood PUD presently has legal access via the frontage road that does exist on Immokalee road. The proposed Malibu Lakes PUD consolidates three PUD's into a single PUD, which will have the overall effect of reducing access points and site signage. The property owners are working with Collier County to provide for future I -75 improvements by reserving right -of -way. This reservation may or may not result in the ability to provide access to the site from Immokalee Road. However, the placement of a directory sign at the location near the present road address to Crestwood PUD will provide the motorizing public assistance in finding the various tenants, and permit motorists to safely access the site at Tarpon Bay Boulevard. The sign at this location meets the intent of parcels located at intersections and those having multiple occupancy. Staff is supportive of deviation No. 2 with the stipulation that only one directory sign would be permitted along Immokalee Road, noting that this project incorporates some unusual circumstances as noted in the correspondence stated above. The presence of the current access to Immokalee Road in the Crestwood PUD established a vested right for access to Immokalee Road therefore the staff finds the deviation in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, in that the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.06.C.2 from the maximum number of signs (3) and the wall signs area (250 square feet) for retail businesses with a floor area of larger than 60,000 square feet to allow five signs, with a total area 706 square feet, for the north elevation of the Super Target building. The petitioner provided the justification for this deviation in an August 9, 2004, letter to staff stating the following; "A. The total signage for the 184,600 SF Super Target will include 85 SF of signage on the west elevation (250 SF allowed) and 706 SF of wall signs on the north elevation (250 SF allowed). The 706 SF of proposed wall signage is on approximately 12,700 SF of wall area of the Super Target north elevation. B. The additional signage area will conform to the overall scale of the building. The length of the Super Target building is 557 feet. The depth of the Super Target building is 365 feet. The average building height is 25 feet and the tower height is 38 feet. C A total of six wall signs are proposed for the Super Target. A11 other tenants' wall signs shall conform to the LDC Five signs shall be located on the north elevation totaling 706 SF. The west elevation shall have one sign instead of the three allowed. The total combined number of signs on the west and north elevation is six. This does not exceed total combined number of signs (six) allowed per the LDC. D. The deviation is also justified by showing a reduction in the total amount of wall signage from the existing three PUDs and limiting the amount ofsignage on the west (1-75) elevation to 85 SF. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 105 The county has maintained the wall sign standards of LDC Section 5.06.06.C.2 for all buildings over 60,000 that have been developed within the county. Lacking any compelling evidence from the petitioner that the increase in the number and total area of wall signs for the Super Target are a necessity, staff recommends that this deviation be denied finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, that "the element can be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community" NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The petitioner held a Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 11, 2004 that was attended by approximately 50 individuals. Of those persons that spoke, most expressed a serious concern about the existing traffic congestion on Immokalee Road, and the added traffic congestion that this development would create on Immokalee Road, as well as Tarpon Bay Boulevard, 20'' Avenue NW. and Logan Boulevard. Concerns about the adequacy of the existing water and sewer services were expressed. The type of landscaping, buffering, and architectural design of the commercial development was also discussed. The concern for the future maintenance of the landscaping on Tarpon Bay Boulevard was expressed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of Petition PUDZ -03 -AR -5168, and subject to the denial of Deviation 3 regarding the wall sign standards of LDC Section 5.06.06.C.2 for all buildings over 60,000 square feet. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lakc PUD 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 105 PREPARED BY: e A MICHAEL J. DERfVff, PRINCIP LANNER ATE DEPARTMENT OjeZONTING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: /2, kAYVOND V. BELLOWS, MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99 O j' USAN HURRAY, AICP, DEtUTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: O ' JOS K. SCHM , ADMINISTRATOR DATE CO Y DEVELOPMENT AND E ONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION Tentatively scheduled for the February 22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER C UNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 1 ] Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 37 of 105 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ- 2003 -AR -5168 Division 2.7.2.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The density permitted within the Malibu Lake PUD is consistent with the FLUE as currently provided in the Growth Management Plan by Policy 5.1 that provides that property zoned prior to the adoption of the Plan and found to be consistent through the Zoning Re- evaluation Program are consistent with the GMP and designated on the Future Land Use Map series. Therefore, this petition is Consistent by Policy. 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property, Malibu Lake PUD, consists of three existing approved PUD's (Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD), containing approximately 172- acres, and approximately three acres of "A" Agricultural zoned land. The total area of the proposed PUD will be 175.67 acres. I acre of the commercial development within the Brentwood PUD is developed (AmSouth bank building). 33 -acres of the three PUDs, that have commercial area, are undeveloped. Three acres of land zoned Agricultural are undeveloped. 708 residential units have been constructed in the Malibu Lake Apartments and Tarpon Bay Condominium Development. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The Malibu Lake PUD is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE. The subject property is located in an Interchange Activity Center. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed rezoning combines three existing PUDs (Malibu Lake, Crestwood, and Brentwood) into a single PUD, which include the currently approved district boundaries that were previously deemed to be logically drawn in relation to existing conditions at the time the property was first rezoned to the three PUDs, plus the addition of the three acres of undeveloped Agricultural zoned property. EXHIBIT "A" PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 12 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 105 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The applicant desires to develop the commercial area of the proposed PUD into a commercial center, which will include a single structure comprising a 184,600 square foot Super Target plus three retail stores totaling 80,000 square feet for a grand total of 264,945 square feet; a 10,000- square foot multi -unit retail structure; the existing AM South Bank building; and three outlots. The proposed amendment would consolidate the three individual commercial zoning instruments into a unified zoning document. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change should not have an adverse influence on the living conditions of the surrounding neighborhood. The amendment will provide coordinated architectural, landscaping, buffering, traffic circulation, infrastructure, and environmental protection applications to the commercial component of the Malibu Lake PUD. This coordination should provide enhanced esthetic value to the area. The residential component will remain unchanged as approved with the original Malibu Lake PUD. 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. Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of th Transportation Element of the GMP and was found consistent The three existing PUDs have been previously approved, and the projected traffic generation from these previously approved PUDs have been incorporated into the design capacity of Immokalee Road.. The proposed change will result in an overall decrease in daily trips within the Malibu Lake PUD, as determined by the Traffic Impact Statement. The planned improvements to Immokalee Road, that are scheduled in the 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan, will provide the needed capacity for the projected traffic that will be generated from the proposed commercial development 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The Land Development Code specifically provides the development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and above what would occur without development. In summary, every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub - surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. This project was reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to meet County standards as a condition of approval. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 13 Agenda Item No. 86 February 22, 2005 Page 39 of 105 zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) and were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The development standards within the Malibu Lake PUD will not be affected by the requested change to the PUD document. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not adversely affect property values. It should be noted that the value of property is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The subject property is being developed in compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The surrounding property is fully developed, with the exception of some isolated Estates lots. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that proposed amendment to the PUD complies with the GMP. In light of this fact, the proposed PUD Amendment 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 said plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Uses within the proposed Malibu Lakes PUD will remain substantially the same as those in the existing PUDs, with the following changes proposed: Permitted Use • Building materials, hardware, and garden supply (Groups 5231 - 5261), including home improvement superstores, • Eating and drinking places (Group 5813 only cocktail loun{�,es in conjunction with a restaurant — outdoor dining shall be permitted subject to parking and fire code requirements, • General merchandise stores (Groups 5311 — 5399), including warehouse clubs and discount retail superstores, AccessoKy Uses • REMOVE — Cocktail Lounge • ADD — Seasonal sidewalk sales for retail tenants in additional to seasonal temporary uses permitted in Section 5.04 of the LDC Sidewalk sale areas shall maintain adequate Pedestrian access and meet fire safety standards. PUDA -03 -AR -5166, Malibu Lake PUD 14 Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 40 of 105 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed amendment complies with the GMP and will not adversely impact the scale, density and overall intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the Urban Designated Areas of Collier County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are other sites, which are zoned to accommodate the subject development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. This petition is consistent with all elements of the GMP, is compatible with the adjacent land uses, has adequate infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action is consistent with all County codes. 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. The delineation of the three existing PUDs would not permit the orientation of the proposed conceptual master plan. 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. A multi - disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this petition and has found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. The proposed change will have no affect upon those conditions. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 13 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 41 of 105 FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ- 2003 -AR -5168 Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 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. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the Malibu Lake PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the Planning Commission and the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 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. Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity is addressed in the Staff Report. 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 PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. The LDC to assure harmonious relationships between projects automatically regulates external relationships. EXHIBIT `B" PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 16 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 42 of 105 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. Section 4.4.H.1 states that "Except for required landscape buffers, water management areas, and native vegetation preserves, all other required open space for the mixed -use PUD shall be incorporated into the residential area of the PUD." In Section 5.111 states that "In the event that construction within the I -75 right -of -way reservation area impacts the required preserve, that preserve acreage will be recreated elsewhere on site with an approved plan by the appropriate governmental agency. The recreated preserve shall consist of enhanced buffers, native planting within water management areas, or any combination thereof. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Given the fact that the Malibu Lake PUD is currently under development, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. This assessment is describe. at length in the staff report. In addition, this petition will not adversely impact any previous determination of consistency with the GMP. The project is also timely because the supporting infrastructure is available. 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. This criteria essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning districts. The change is simply an increase in the amount of land in the PUD, through the combination of the adjoining commercial PUDs and three acres of undeveloped agricultural property into one unified PUD zoning district. The overall number of dwelling units is not increased, and the density and development regulations essentially stay the same. The allowable commercial building area is reduced from 456,000 square -feet to 330,000 square -feet. PUDA -03 -AR -5168, Malibu Lake PUD 17 Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 43 of 105 Coer County SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2005 RE: PETITION: PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 MALIBU LAKE PUD SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Collier County Planning Commission was scheduled to hear the Malibu Lake PUD at its January 20, 2005 meeting. The petition was continued because the petitioner met with the neighbors and agreed to address a number of their concerns. The petitioner therefore wanted time to make the necessary revisions, as well as address several issues that staff had identified. The petitioner requested that the item be heard at the February 3, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Attached is a copy of the justification for an additional deviation that the petitioner has requested. The deviation is from the landscape buffering requirements between commercial buildings and lot lines (LDC Section 4.06.02). A copy of the revised PUD document is attached, as well as a summary of the most current changes. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommendation remains the same. Analysis indicates that this PUD is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the Malibu Lake PUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. ATTACHED INFORMATION: The Staff Report prepared for the January 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting is attached. In addition, a letter is attached which was received after the petition packet was printed. PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 MAUBU LAKE PUD 1 of 2 SupptemenW Staff Report PREPARED BY: MICHAEL J. DE RUNTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RAY BELLOWS, MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Petition PUDZ- 2003 -AR -5168 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN � , DATE DATE DATE Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 44 of 105 PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 MALIBU LAKE PUD 2 oft Supplemental Staff Report Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 45 of 105 PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 PROJECT # 2003080015 DATE: 12/22/2003 1r, oln% 0 P RAY BELLOWS APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: [JPVD REZONE ®PUD TO PUD REZONE Petition No.: Date Petition Received: Commission District: Planner Assigned: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF 1. General Information: Name of Applicant(s) Brentwood Land Partners. LLC Applicant's Mailing Address 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 City Indianapolis State IN Zip 46202 Applicant's Telephone # 317 -577 -5600 Fax # 317 -577 -5617 Applicant's E -Mail Address: pkiaC�3te d'teco corn Name of Agent D Wayne Arnold Firm 0. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Agent's Mailing Address 3800 Via Del Rey City Bonita Springs State FL Zip 34134 Agent's Telephone # 239- 947 -1144 Fax # 239 - 947 -0375 Name of Agent Richard D. Yovanovich Firm Goodlette Coleman & Johnson, P.A Agent's Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North; Suite 300 City N@ples State FL Zip 34103 Agent's Telephone # 239 - 435 -3535 Fax X239) 435 -1218 02/27/03 Anuaeatlon For Public Hntrhm For PW Rezoae Agenda item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 46 of 105 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403 -2400 / FAX (941) 643 -6968 02/27M Application For Public Dentine For PUD Rmpe Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 * Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordine6ge 47 of 105 and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State TL _ Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Master Association: Mailing Address Name of Civic Association: Mailing Address City State FL Zip City State FL Zip City City State FL Zip State FL Zip 2. Disclosure of Interest Information: a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Agenda Item No. 88 February 22, 2005 Page 48 of 105 b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock !et Corporation 56.75 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LRAMD PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Kite Development 43.25 30 South Meridian Street. Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tamet Corporation 56.75 e.. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: 02/27/03 Mulleadoa For Public Hearing For PLID Rem** Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional pard6spelM A05 individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired () leased (): Term of lease _MJmos• If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 3. Detailed legal description of the Property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 30 Township: 48 Range: 26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: See attached legLI dopol tion 4. Size of property: ft. X & = Total Sq. Ft. Acres ±175.67 5. Address /general location of subject Property: The subject_propertv is located on the south side of Immokalee Road adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way (wrincoWgated Collier County). Florida and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard. The protect includes properties known as Brentwood PUD Crestwood PUD Malibu Lakes PUD and vacant ogdcultural land Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 50 of 105 6. PUD District (LDC 2.2.20.4): ® Residential Q Community Facilities ® Commercial ❑ Industrial 7. Adiacent zoning and land use: Zoning Land Use N ROW Imokalee Road S A Agricultural E E Estates W Row Interstate 75 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: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: 8. Rezone Reauest: This application is requesting a rezone from the A (ate() PUD (Crestwood and Brentwood and Malibu Lakes) zoning district(s) to the _PUD (Malibu Lakes PUD) zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant aQliculture. Commercial (Amsouth Bank),and Residential consisting of Malibu Lakes Apartments and Tarpon Bay. Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property. 330,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial and a 7025 RJP Original PUD Name: Malibu Lake PUD Ordinance No.: 99-49 9. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 AND Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. 02127/03 AnDlication For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone Agenda item No. 8B February 22, 2005 PUD Rezone Considerations (LDCSection 27.3.211 Page 51 of 105 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, trait and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 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. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. 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. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. b. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 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. 9. 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. 10. Previous (land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? NO Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 52 of 105 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST 1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Brentwood Land Partners, LLC 2. MAILING ADDRESS: 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 CITY Indianapolis STATE IN ZIP 46202 3. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section: 30 Township: 48 Range: 26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: Please see attached lejW description 5. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY LTTII.,PTY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) [] PROVIDE NAME d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT (GPD capacity) e. SEPTIC SYSTEM 6. TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED: a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY LTTII.,PTY SYSTEM c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) [] 7. TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: , 330,000 sq, ff. of retail Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 53 of 105 8. PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER-PEAK-1 3 mgd AVERAGE DAILY 33 000 and B. SEWER -PEAK 1 3 m d AVERAGE DAILY 33.000 gpd 9. IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED: November 2004 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. Utility Provision Statcment RJM 10/17/97 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 54 of 105 Malibu Lakes PUD PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 2.7.3.2.5) 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject amendment proposes to amend the existing commercial component of the Malibu Lakes PUD to add additional acreage that is now zoned A, agriculture, Crestwood PUD, and Brentwood PUD. All but approximately 3 acres of the subject property is currently zoned PUD. The Brentwood PUD and Crestwood PUD's will be repealed concurrent with this PUD amendment. The subject property is located in an Interchange Activity Center, which permits a wide variety of commercial land uses. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of I -75 and Immokalee Road, providing good accessibility for the mixed use PUD. 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, which is the subject of the zoning action is under the unified control of the applicants and by authorization of affected property owners. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth managementplan. e subject PUD is located within -an Interchange Activity Center and Residential Density Band. Densities have been previously approved in the Malibu Lakes PUD. The commercial land uses proposed meet the requirements of the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element. 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 proposed PUD amendment represents a less intensive zoning action than that currently authorized by the present zoning districts. The residential component of the PUD remains unchanged. The commercial intensity has been reduced from that presently approved. Appropriate buffering between land uses and the abutting rights -of -way have been provided in the PUD document. PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 PROJECT # 2003080015 F:VOBIMALIBUPUD AMENDRezzone FindirW.doc DATE: 12/22/2003 RAY BELLOWS Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 55 of 105 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUD Master Plan demonstrates compliance with the open space requirements for residential and commercial projects as specified in the LDC. Appropriate open spaces consisting of lakes, buffers, preserves, and general open space have been provided in the PUD document and on the conceptual master plan. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. All residential components of the PUD have been constructed. The commercial component will commence construction upon the PUD amendment approval, and will be subject to concurrency requirements in the LDC. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The PUD encompasses all existing and potential commercial properties located within the subject interchange activity center. No plans exist for expansion beyond the current boundaries. 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 ofsuch regulations. The subject PUD document and conceptual PUD master plan are in conformance with Section 2.7 of the LDC. Appropriate commitments have been included in the PUD document to insure compliance with the Growth Management Plan and LDC. _ F:VOBIMALIBUIPUD AMENDARWOne Findi'W-d- PUD REZONE APPLICATION SUBAUTTAL CHECKLIST This completed checklist is to be submitted with application packet! Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 56 of 105 Requirements of Not Required Co fe4 Required 1. Completed Application/PUD documents 24* ✓ 2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(s) and all 2* ✓ Partners if a Corporation 3. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 2* ✓ 4. Pre-application notes/minutes 24* ✓ 5. Conceptual Site Plans 24* ✓ 6. Environmental Im act Statement - EIS 4 ✓ .7. Aerial Photograph - with habitat areas identified 5* ✓ 8. Completed Utility Provisions Statement (with required 4 ✓ attachments and sketches 9. Traffic Impact Statement - S 4 ✓ 10. Historical & Archaeological Survey or Waiver 4 ✓ Application 11. Copies of State and/or Federal Permits 4 ✓ 12. Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s) 4 ✓ 13. Pre - Application Fee, Application Fee and Data - ✓ Conversion Fee Check shall be made payable to Collier County Board of County Commissioners 14. An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of the ✓ submittal packet. 15. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING: ✓ APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: Copy of Affidavit attesting that all property owners, civic associations and property owner associations were notified. Copy of audio /video recording of public meeting. Written account of meeting. 16. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement 4 ✓ including all Applications and Exhibits. 17. Boundary Survey (no more than 6 months old) 5 ✓ 18. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: * Documents required for Long -Range Planning Review * 1 additional copy if for affordable housing As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. December 12, 2003 Agent/Applicant k#Aature Date 02/27/03 AeuNeadon For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 57 of 105 ORDINANCE NO. 05— AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP(S) NUMBERED 8630N AND 8630S BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND THREE "PUD" ZONING DISTRICTS TO ONE "MPUD" MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS MALIBU LAKE MPUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (SR -846), ADJACENT TO AND EAST OF THE INTERSTATE 75 RIGHT -OF -WAY AND WEST OF TARPON BAY BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 178.6 + ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 99 -49, MALIBU LAKE PUD, ORDINANCE NUMBER 99 -89, BRENTWOOD PUD, AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 90 -7, CRESTWOOD PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agricultural and three "PUD" Zoning Districts to one "MPUD" Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", which is incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas Maps numbered 8630N and 8630S, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 99-49, known as the Malibu Lake PUD, adopted on June 22, 1999 by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County; Ordinance Number 99 -89, known as the Brentwood PUD, adopted on December 14, 1999, by the Board of County Commissioners of Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 58 of 105 Collier County, and Ordinance Number 90 -7, ]mown as Crestwood PUD, adopted on January 23, 1990, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney PUDZ- 2003- AR- 5168/MJD /sp 2005. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 59 of 105 Agenda Item No. 86 February 22, 2005 Page 60 of 105 MALI BU LAKE PU D A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: KITE DEVELOPMENT 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 PREPARED BY: Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134 AND RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. 4001 N. TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 EXHIBIT "A" DATE FILED DATE REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER CATemp\Temporary Internet Files\0LK5F12- 9 -05pud - margie changes - rdy changes. doc Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 61 of 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 1 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1 -1 SECTION it PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2 -1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3-1 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL 4-1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5 -1 H Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 62 of 105 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT "A" CONCEPTUAL MASTER AND WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT "B" DIRECTORY SIGNAGE EXHIBIT "C" DEPICTION OF ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED POLE LIGHTING EXHIBIT "D" DEPICTION OF ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED POLE LIGHTING EXHIBIT "E" DEPICTION OF PROJECT ENTRY SIGN EXHIBIT "F" DEPICTION OF PROJECT ENTRY SIGN EXHIBIT "G" LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "H" BOUNDARY SURVEY EXHIBIT "I" PROPOSED 1 -75 RAMP R/W 11 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 63 of 105 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 178.6 t acres of property in Collier County, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as the Malibu Lake PUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The commercial and residential facilities of the Malibu Lake PUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons: 1. The commercial portion of the subject property is within the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map, as described in the Activity Center Sub - District of the Urban - Commercial District in the Future Land Use Element. The Future Land Use Element permits a full array of commercial land uses in this area. 2. The subject property is located on the southern side of Immokalee Road, in the southeastern quadrant of 1 -75. This location allows the commercial site area access for the location of highway interchange land uses, as permitted by the Future Land Use Element and access to a signalized intersection at Tarpon Bay Boulevard. 3. The subject project has access onto Immokales Road, at a signalized intersection. This access point is a designated access point on the Collier County Access Management Plan, as described in Policy 4.6 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The residential portion of the subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 5. The residential project area is located within the Residential Density Band around the Interstate 75 - Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) Activity Center, as described within the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. 6. The project development is compatible and complimentary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. m Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 64 of 105 7. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code as set forth in Objectives 2 and 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 8. The projected density of 5.00 dwelling units per acre on the residential portion of the subject PUD is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: a Base Density Activity Center Density Band Maximum Permitted Density 4 dwelling units /acre +3 dwelling unitslacre 7 dwelling units /acre All final local development orders for this project are subject to Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code. 1V SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No, 8B February 22, 2005 Page 65 of 105 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Malibu Lake PUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 178.6± acres, located in Section 30, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East, with the legal descriptions provided as Exhibit "G ". 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by: Brentwood Land Partners, LLC 30 South Meridian Street Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall TPN -12D Minneapolis, MN 55403 AmSouth Properties Department 3000 Riverchase Galleria #1600 Birmingham, AL 35244 -2372 PR VI, LLC 350 North La Salle Drive Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60610 -4726 WCI Communities, Inc. 24301 Walden Center Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34134 -4920 1 -1 Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 66 of 105 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right -of -way (unincorporated Collier County), Florida. B. The northern 37.1± acres of the subject property are designated for commercial land uses and includes lands zoned Crestwood PUD, Malibu Lakes PUD, Brentwood PUD, and approximately 36 acres of A, Agricultural zoned land. The southern 141.5± acres of the subject property are designated for residential development. At the time of this rezoning approximately 1± acre of commercial development has been constructed. Approximately 708 residential units have been constructed. C. At the time of this rezoning the subject property was zoned A, agricultural and PUD (Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD, and Malibu Lake PUD). 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the 1 -75 Canal Drainage Basin according to the Collier County Drainage Atlas. The proposed out -fall for the project is the existing canal along the eastern property line. Natural ground elevation is approximately 10.2 to 13.9 NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone "X" with no base flood elevation specified. The water management system for the project proposes the construction of a perimeter berm with crest elevation set at the 25 -year, 3-day flood stage. Water quality pretreatment is proposed for the on -site lake system prior to discharge to the existing canal, located along the eastern PUD boundary. Utilization of the wetlands for discharge (no storage) of the design storm improvements is included as part of the design. Discharging into the wetland preserve areas will improve the hydro - period. Per Collier County Soil Legend, dated 1998, there are four types of soil found within the limits of the property: #2 - Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum #11 - Hallandale Fine Sand #14 - Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum #21 - Boca Fine Sand The site vegetation on the undeveloped portions of the project consist mainly of pine flatwoods and cypress /cabbage palm wetlands. The site has been 1 -2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 67 of 105 extensively invaded by exotics (i.e. Melaleuca and Brazilian Pepper). Approximately 140 acres have been developed with commercial and residential uses. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Malibu Lake PUD is a mixed -use project comprised of 37.1 f acres of commercial land uses on the northern 1200 feet of the subject site and the southern 3950 feet of the site is designated for a maximum of 708 residential units on the remaining 141.56 acres. More specifically the residential portion of the mixed use PUD is comprised of: the 48.1 -acre northern residential area, a 49.1 -acre middle residential area, and a 44.36 -acre southern residential area The residential units are developed as a variety of residential dwelling types. An approximate 10 -acre tract within the northern residential area may be developed as an adult living facility or nursing home, with approval of a conditional use petition. For each acre allocated for development as an adult living facility or nursing home, a minimum of 5.00 units shall be subtracted from the 708 residential units permitted within this PUD. Recreational facilities will be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. The commercial and residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture themes, quality screening /buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Malibu Lake Planned Unit Development Ordinance ". 1 -3 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Agenda item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 68 of 105 The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Malibu Lake PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, PUD - Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Malibu Lake PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through any variance or waiver provisions from any other applicable regulations, the provisions of those regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6 Adequate Public Facilities of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2 -1 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 69 of 105 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 708 dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area within the residential areas is 141.56± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 5.00 units per acre. Unless ownership of all residential parcels (Parcels "B" through "M ") is consolidated, Parcels "B" through "M" as described on Exhibit "G" of this Document shall be prorated residential units based on the percentage of their respective acreage to the 141.56± acres designated for residential areas unless units are specifically allocated by the Board of County Commissioners to the northern, middle, or southern residential areas. Residential units may be transferred across parcel boundaries upon formal agreement of the property owner transferring the units. For each acre allocated for development as an adult living facility or nursing home, with approval of a conditional use petition, a minimum of 5.00 units shall be subtracted from the 708 residential units permitted within this PUD. A maximum of 37.1 acres of land shall be developed within the commercial areas of the project and the maximum square footage permitted within the commercial areas shall be 330,000 square feet. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. The actual development of the residential portion of the property and /or subdivision of the residential portion of the property can occur in any configuration and is in no way limited to the configuration established by the identification of parcels set forth on the PUD Master Plan. However, the types of uses identified on the PUD Master Plan shall be as set forth in the general configuration illustrated graphically on Exhibit "A ", which constitutes the required PUD development plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the uses identified on the PUD Master Plan, Chapters 1,4 and 10, Subdivisions, of the Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. The provisions of Chapter 10, Site Development Plans of the Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Chapter 10 prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. 2 -2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 70 of 105 C. Appropriate instruments shall be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 MODEL UNITS AND SALES FACILITIES A. In conjunction with the promotion of the development, residential units may be designated as models. Such model units shall be governed by Chapters 5 and 10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Temporary sales trailers and construction trailers can be placed on the site after site development plan approval and prior to the recording of subdivision plats, subject to the other requirements of Chapter 5 of the Land Development Code. 2.6 PROVISION FOR OFF -SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation of earthen material and its stock - piling in preparation of water management facilities, or to otherwise develop water bodies, is hereby permitted. Off -site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions. A. Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a "Development Excavation" pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Land Development Code, whereby off -site removal shall be limited to 10% of the total volume excavated but not to exceed 20,000 cubic yards. B. All other provisions of Chapter 3, Excavation, of the Land Development Code shall apply. 2.7 DEVIATIONS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. A. A deviation from Subsection 5.06 Pole or Ground Signs to allow a directory sign for a multiple occupancy center with five or more tenants (in lieu of eight or more tenants). B. A deviation from Subsection 5.06 Pole or Ground Signs to allow a directory sign on a frontage without an entrance (Immokalee Road Frontage). C. A deviation from Subsection 5.06 Wall mansard, canopy, or awning signs to allow a total of 706 SF of wall signage on north elevation of the proposed Super Target Building and a deviation to allow five wall signs on the north elevation of the Super Target building. 2 -3 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 71 of 105 D. A deviation from Section 4.06.02 of the LDC, which requires a landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots, to permit a zero feet setback between buildings and no landscape buffer(s) between separately platted tracts, when buildings are connected as those in a typical shopping center configuration. 2-4 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 72 of 105 The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Residential Areas as shown on Exhibit "A ", PUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the PUD shall be 708 units. Approximately 10 acres within the northern residential area may be developed as an adult living facility or nursing home upon approval of a conditional use petition. For each acre allocated for development as an adult living facility or nursing home, a minimum of 5.00 units shall be subtracted from the 708 residential units permitted within this PUD. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single- family dwellings (includes zero -lot line). 2. Two - family dwellings (includes duplexes). 3. Multi- family dwellings (includes villas, coach homes, carriage homes, townhouses and garden apartments). 4. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, children's' playground areas, tot lots, boat 3 -I Agenda item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 73 of 105 docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts. 3. Managers residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. 4. Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Water management facilities. 7. Recreational facilities, such as boardwalks, walking paths and picnic areas, within the natural habitat preserve preas after the appropriate environmental review. 8. Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering within the natural habitat preserve areas, after the appropriate environmental review. - 9. Any other accessory use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. C. Permitted Conditional Uses and Structures: 1. Adult living facilities and nursing homes (only in the Northern Residential Tract). 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Malibu Lake PUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a public right -of -way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. (a) Carports are permitted within parking areas. (b) Garages are permitted at the edge of vehicular pavement. 3 -2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 74 of 105 TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE - FAMILY TWO- FAMILY MULTI - FAMILY & ALF Minimum Lot Area (per unit) 5,000 Sq. Ft. 3,500 Sq. Ft. NA for M/F & 0.45 FAR for ALF Minimum Lot Width 40' Interior Lots (1) 70' Interior Lots (1) NA Preserve Area Setback 25' (35')(2) 25' Distance Between Structures 50' Corner Lots 80' Comer Lots NA Main /Principal (40')(2) Front Yard Setback 20'(3) 20'(3) 20' Side Yard Setback 15' 15' 20' 1 Story Both 5', or 0'& 10' Both 5', or 0' & 10' Greater of 7.5' or 1/2 BH 2 Story Both 7.5',or 0'& 15' Both 5', or 0' & 10' Greater of 10' or 1/2 BH 3 Story NA NA Greater of 12.5' or 1/2 BH Rear Yard Setback 35' and 2 stories 35' and 2 stories 40' and 3 stories Principal Structure 20' 20' 20' Accessory Structure 10' 10' 10' PUD Boundary Setback Principal Structure NA (4) NA (4) 20' (6) Accessory Structure NA (5) NA (5) 10' Lake Setback (7) 20' 20' 20' Preserve Area Setback 25' 25' 25' Distance Between Structures Main /Principal 1 -Story 10' 10' 15' 2 -Story 15' 15' 20' 3 -Story NA NA 30' Accessory Structures 10' 10' 10' Maximum Height: 50' and 4 stories for ALF only Principal Building 35' and 2 stories 35' and 2 stories 40' and 3 stories Accessory Building 20' /Clubhouse 35' 20' /Clubhouse 35' 20' /Clubhouse 35' Minimum Floor Area 1200 Sq. Ft. 1100 Sq. Ft. 1 bedroom = 650 Sq.Ft. /2 bedroom = 900 Sq.Ft. /3-4 bed- room = 1100 Sq. Ft. (1) May be reduced on cul -de -sac lots. (2) Minimum lot frontage in parenthesis applies in cases where a dwelling unit in a two family structure is on an individually platted lot. (3) Fifteen feet for homes with side entry garages. (4) Fifty feet for single - family and seventy -five feet for two family homes measured from the common boundary between the canal easement and the eastern PUD boundary. (5) Where applicable, twenty -five feet less than the principal structure. (6) Two -story or higher buildings shall have a minimum setback of eighty feet from the common boundary between the canal easement and the eastern PUD boundary. All principal buildings shall have a minimum setback of one foot for each one foot of building height as measured from any PUD boundary. (7) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. 3 -3 @PJL SET ECONOMODE =OFF C @PJL SET MEDIATYPE= REGULAR @PJL Off - Street Parking and Loading Reguirements: SET AWM4WO IMi February 22, 2005 @PJL D Page 75 of 105 As required by Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Open Space Reguirements: 1. A minimum of sixty (60) percent open space, as described in Section 2.6.32 Subsection 4.02.01 of the Land Development Code, shall be provided within the residential portion of the PUD. 2. Each residential site development plan submitted to Collier County shall demonstrate that development of the PUD is in compliance with the minimum sixty (60) per cent open space requirements. D. Landscaping and Buffering Reguirements: 1. A berm, rock, wall, fence, or combination thereof may be provided by the developer adjacent to the Interstate 75 right -of -way. Such buffer may have occasional openings to provide glimpses of the project from Interstate 75. In order to maximize security and minimize impacts on existing trees, fences or walls may measure Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 75 of 105 B. Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements: As required by Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Open Space Requirements: 1. A minimum of sixty (60) percent open space, as described in Section 2.6.32 Subsection 4.02.01 of the Land Development Code, shall be provided within the residential portion of the PUD. 2. Each residential site development plan submitted to Collier County shall demonstrate that development of the PUD is in compliance with the minimum sixty (60) per cent open space requirements. D. Landscaping and Buffering Requirements: A berm, rock, wall, fence, or combination thereof may be provided by the developer adjacent to the Interstate 75 right -of -way. Such buffer may have occasional openings to provide glimpses of the project from Interstate 75. In order to maximize security and minimize impacts on existing trees, fences or walls may measure up to eight (8) feet in height of any berm /wall or berm/fence combination. 2. If landscape buffers are determined to be necessary adjacent to preserve areas, they shall be separate from the preserve areas. 3. If a natural habitat preserve area is shown along the northern boundary of the residential area, where it is adjacent to the commercial area on the PUD Master Plan, and the preserve area's vegetation meets the planting requirements of the normally required buffer, a buffer shall not be required in this area. E. Architectural Standards All residential buildings, lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the project. Exclusive of single - family detached homes, all buildings shall be 3-4 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 76 of 105 primarily finished in light subdued colors except for decorative trim. Within multi - family portions of the project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in tile, metal or architecturally - designed shingles (such as Timberline). Within any single - family portions of the project, all roofs shall be peaked and finished in tile, metal, or architecturally - designed shingles (such as Timberline). 2. All pole lighting, internal to the project, shall be: architectural - designed, limited to a height of thirty (30) feet, and similar architecturally to one of the lighting fixtures shown on Exhibits "C" or "D ". F. Signs Signs shall be permitted as described within Chapter 5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, except as described in the following instances. 1. Up to two (2) ground or wall signs shall be permitted at each main entrance to the residential portion of the PUD and shall be located within the residential areas of the PUD. Such sign(s) shall contain only the name of the entire 141.56± -acre PUD residential project, names of individual communities within the PUD project, and insignia or mottos of the development. Such ground or wall sign(s) shall be similar architecturally to one of the signs shown in Exhibits "E" or "F" and architecturally compatible with the unified architectural theme of the entire PUD (as described in Section 3.4E. of this PUD Document). Said ground or wall sign(s) shall not exceed a combined area of sixty -four (64) square feet, and shall not exceed the height or length of the wall upon which it/they is/are located. 2. Two ground signs shall be permitted along the western PUD boundary. Such signs shall contain only the name of the entire 141.56± -acre PUD residential project and shall be architecturally compatible with the unified architectural theme of the PUD (as described in Section 3.4E. of this PUD Document). Exclusive of landscaping, such ground signs shall not exceed an area of twenty - four (24) square feet. 3. A residential identification and directional sign shall be permitted in the vicinity where Tarpon Bay Boulevard intersects with the existing frontage road along Immokalee Road. Such sign shall contain only 3 -5 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 77 of 105 the name of the entire residential project, the names of the individual communities within the PUD, and directions to such. Such sign shall be architecturally compatible with the unified architectural theme of the PUD (as described in Section 3.4E. of this PUD Document) and shall not exceed an area of twenty -four (24) square feet. 3 -6 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL ASCII 4.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 86 February 22, 2005 Page 78 of 105 The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Commercial "C" designated areas shown on Exhibit "A ", PUD Master Plan. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Commercial areas designated on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide commercial, warehouse, wholesale, and office uses 4.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: - A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Amusement and recreation services (Groups 7911, 7933, 7081). 2. Apparel and accessory stores (Groups 5611 - 5699). 3. Automotive dealers (Group 5511), auto supply stores (Group 5531), convenience food stores with gas pumps (Group 5411) and gasoline service stations (Group 5541 automobile service stations only, with services and repairs as described in Chapter 5 of the LDC and excluding truck stops - retail. Diesel pumps may only be provided for automobiles and trucks of 1 ton or less capacity.), boat dealers (Group 5551) and motorcycle dealers (Group 5571). 4. Auto rental services and car washes (Groups 7514, 7515, 7542 only for automobiles and trucks /buses of 1 ton or less capacity). 5. Building materials, hardware, and garden supply (Groups 5231- 5261), including home improvement superstores. 6. Business services (Groups 7311, 7313, 7322 - 7338, 7361, 7371 - 7384). 4-1 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 79 of 105 7. Depository and non - depository institutions (Groups 6021 - 6199). 8. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812, 5813) and drinking places (Group 5813 only cocktail lounges in conjunction with a restaurant.) - outdoor dining shall be permitted subject to parking and fire code requirements. 9. Educational services (Groups 8211 - 8249 no exterior instruction of motorized equipment, 8299). 10. Food stores (Groups 5411, 5421, 5431 except roadside sales — Group 5499). 11. General merchandise stores (Groups 5311 - 5399), including warehouse clubs and discount retail superstores. 12. Health services (Groups 8011 - 8099). 13. Holding and other investment offices (Groups 6712 - 6708). 14. Home furniture, furnishings and equipment stores (Groups 5712 - 5736). 15. Hotels and motels (Group 7011). 16. Insurance carriers, agents, brokers, and services (Groups 6311 - 6399, 6411). 17. Legal services (Group 8111). 18. Membership organizations (Groups 8611, 8621, 8641, 8661). 19. Miscellaneous repair (Groups 7622 - 7631). 20. Miscellaneous retail (Groups 5912, 5921, 5932 (antiques only) 5941 - 5949, 5992 - 5999 except auction rooms, monument and tombstone sales). 21. Movie theaters (Group 7832) and video tape rental (Group 7841). 22. Museums and art galleries (Group 8412). 4 -2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 80 of 105 23. Personal services (Group 7212 dry- cleaning and laundry pickup stations only 7215, 7217, 7219 - 7291, 7299 car title and tag service and tanning salon only). 24. Professional offices, research, and management consulting services (Groups 8711 - 8748). 25. Public administration (Groups 9111 - 9661). 26. Real estate agents and managers (Groups 6512 - 6552). 27. Security and commodity dealers (Groups 6211 - 6289). 28. Social Services (Groups 8322 only adult day care services, counseling services, and senior citizens associations Group 8351). 29. Travel agencies (Group 4724). 30. Veterinary services (Group 0742 for household pets only and without any overnight boarding or outside kennels). 31. Warehousing (Group 4225 but for self - storage only with no outdoor storage, no on -site maintenance /manufacturing, and buildings architecturally designed to look like office buildings for persons viewing the project from off - site.) 32. Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses within this PUD Document, including outdoor garden centers. 2. Caretaker's residence as described in Subsection 5.03.05 of the LDC. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 4 -3 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 81 of 105 Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. B. Minimum Lot Width: Seventy -five (75) feet, as measured along an internal access easement or right -of -way. C. Minimum Yards: (1) Principal structures: (a) Front yards - Twenty -five (25) feet. (b) Rear yards - Twenty -five (25) feet. (c) Side yards - Ten (10) feet, except no side yard shall be required in accordance with Section 4.4.C.3 of this PUD Document. (d) Yards from the Residential Areas of this PUD - One (1) foot for each foot of building height with a minimum of twenty -five (25) feet. (e) Yards (setback) from preserve areas: Twenty -five (25) feet. (2) Accessory Structures: (a) Setbacks shall be as required by Section 4.02 of the LDC in effect at time of building permit application. All accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty -five (25) feet from the Residential Areas of this PUD. (b) Accessory structure yards and parking areas shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from preserve areas. (3) Platting or subdivision of building tracts for separate ownership for a building within typically connected buildings and parking lots shall not require setbacks and other requirements from the building to a property line, including but not limited to landscape buffers. D. Distance Between Principal Structures: One -half the sum of the heights but a minimum of ten (10) feet. Platting or subdivision of building tracts for separate ownership for a building within 4-4 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 82 of 105 typically connected buildings and parking lots shall not require setbacks and other requirements from the building to a property line, including but not limited to landscape buffers; however, a minimum of ten percent of the commercial area shall be open space. E. Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: Seven hundred (700) square feet of gross floor area for each building on the ground floor. F. Maximum Height: Fifty (50) feet. G. Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements: As required by Section 4.05 of the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. H. Open Space: 1. Except for required landscape buffers, water management areas, and native vegetation preserves, all other required open space for the mixed -use PUD shall be incorporated into the residential area of the PUD. I. Buffering Requirements: (1) A twenty (20) foot wide Type "DA Buffer shall be provided along Immokalee Road, Tarpon Bay Boulevard and Interstate 75, with the landscaping as required in Section 4.06 of the LDC, except the developer shall install landscaping within the buffers of Immokalee Road and Tarpon Bay Boulevard which exceed the minimum required size by installing canopy trees ranging between 14' to 16' in height. (2) A fifteen (15) foot Type "B" Buffer shall be provided along the southern boundary of the commercial area. If a natural habitat preserve area is shown along the northern boundary of the abutting residential area on the PUD Master Plan, this buffer shall not be required as long as this preserve area meets the requirements of a Type "B" Buffer. J. Si4ns 4 -5 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 83 of 105 Site SiQnage: Site signage shall be permitted as described in Section 5.06 of the Land Development Code. Four (4) multi - tenant site signs shall be permitted; (two (2) along the 1 -75 frontage, one (1) along Immokalee Road, and one (1) along Tarpon Bay Boulevard. Each outlot shall be permitted one (1) ground sign, as required by Section 5.06 of the LDC, in effect at the time of building permit application. 2. SignaQe shall also be permitted subject to the deviations authorized in Section 2.7 of this PUD. 4 -6 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 84 of 105 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans, final subdivision plats and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD, in effect at the time of final plat, final site development plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. -- The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the PUD Master Plan and the regulations of this PUD, as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Document. 5.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A ", PUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, 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 final platting or site development plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Section 10.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 5 -1 Agenda Item No. 86 February 22, 2005 Page 85 of 105 5.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT /MONITORING REPORT A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time limits pursuant to Section 10.02 of the LDC. B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02 of the LDC. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. 5.6 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Surface Water Permit application shall be sent to Collier County Development Services with the SDP submittal. B. An excavation permit will be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with Section 3.05 of the LDC and SFWMD Rules. C. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD may be reduced to twenty - five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantial barrier is erected. D. A right -of -way permit from the Big Cypress Basin (SFWMD) shall be obtained for any impacts in the canal east of the property. E. Water management shall be permitted to be shared throughout the PUD. Conceptual water management shall be shown on the first SDP. Subsequent SDP's or amendments shall not be required to modify the original SDP or water management plan. 5.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and /or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -76, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. 5 -2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 86 of 105 B. Except on an interim basis, for structures such as sales /construction trailers and models, the project shall be required to hook -up to and utilize public water and sewer facilities. C. Wellfield easement (30 feet by 30 feet) access shall be provided over and across ingress/egress easements as identified in the operating and easement agreement and said easements shall be conveyed to Collier County at no cost to Collier County. 5.8 TRAFFIC A. Where the project's traffic shall be utilizing 20th Avenue NW as an access, the developer shall be responsible for extending such roadway to the project site, including crossing the canal that is located just east of the site, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project. The developer shall also be responsible for providing a left -turn lane and a right -turn lane along Oakes Boulevard for traffic turning west onto 20th Avenue NW. B. All turn lane improvements committed to by the developer shall be in place prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project. In addition, if, in the sole opinion of the County, the petitioner's construction traffic is shown to cause a safety or operational problem at the intersection of 20th Avenue NW and Oakes Boulevard, the County may require said turn lanes to be installed in advance of the petitioner's scheduled construction for the project. C. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of arterial level street lighting at the project entrance. Such lighting shall be constructed so as to shield adjacent residential uses from glare and direct light spill. In addition, if the project's traffic is utilizing 20th Avenue NW as an access, street lighting levels at the intersection of 20th Avenue NW and Oakes Boulevard shall be augmented by the developer so as to be consistent with arterial standards. Such lighting improvements shall be in place prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that are utilizing 20th Avenue NW as an access. . E. The project may be required to proceed in phases beyond 1999 if the Level of Services (LOS) of any roadway within the Radius of Development Impact (RDI) falls below the minimum standard set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The petitioner may, however, provide additional capacity, such as additional turn lanes at intersections or traffic signals, if 5 -3 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 87 of 105 warranted, in advance of when the County would otherwise have programmed any such improvement. F. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier county Land Development code (LDC) G. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Lighting at the access must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for units /square footage that will directly utilize the access. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. 01 -247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long -range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD Amendment is to be processed. Site - related improvements (as apposed to system - related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO for units /square footage that will directly utilize the improvements. J. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01 -13, as amended, and Division 3.15. LDC, as it may be amended. K. All work within Collier County rights -of -way or public easements shall require a Right -of -way Permit. L. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01 -247), as it may 5-4 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 88 of 105 be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this PUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. M. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in /right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. N. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. O. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right -of -way or easement, compensating right -of -way, if required, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. P. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right -of -way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be bome by the developer and/or adjacent developers on a fair share basis. 5.9 1 -75 RAMP IMPROVEMENTS A. The developer shall set aside an area depicted as the 1 -75 Ramp Reservation Area. The set aside area shall be based upon a study to be performed by the appropriate governmental entity of the need for ramp improvements at the 1 -75 northbound interchange at Immokalee Road. The maximum ramp radii shall be 225 feet. The Reservation Area shall consist of the minimum area needed to construct a new northbound on- ramp and to construct modifications to the northbound off -ramp. B. The developer shall not be required to mitigate for the loss of any required water management, preserve, open space or landscape buffer areas lost 5 -5 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 89 of 105 as a result of the acquisition of the Reservation Area by the appropriate governmental entity. The appropriate govemmental entity shall mitigate the loss of the water management area by relocation to property not owned by the developer unless the developer consents to the water management area being relocated on developer's property. The appropriate governmental entity shall mitigate the loss of the preserve areas.. The appropriate governmental entity shall mitigate the loss of the required open space. The appropriate governmental entity shall mitigate the loss of landscape buffers. C. The developer shall not be responsible for making any modifications as a result of the loss of the Reservation Area to any development orders including, but not limited to, SDP's, plats and/or building permits. The appropriate governmental agency shall make these modifications. D. The developer shall make any necessary physical modifications to the parking areas, drive aisles, curbing, lighting facilities and any other parking area features upon acquisition of the Reservation Area by the appropriate governmental entity. These modifications shall be consistent with Exhibit I attached hereto. E. The developer shall be authorized to construct site features including, but not limited to, landscaping, curbing and pavement within the Reservation Area. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with applicable County regulations in effect at the time permits are issued for their construction. In no event shall the developer be authorized to construct any building within the Reservation Area. F. The developer shall be authorized to construct a "right-in only' access point located 150 feet east of the end of the FDOT limited access right -of- way line on Immokalee Road. G. The County shall provide an expedited review of any SDP's, final plats, building permits or other development permits associated with the commercial components of this MPUD. 5 -6 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 90 of 105 H. The County shall be authorized to approve any amendments to the SDP as a result of the acquisition of the Reserve Area by the appropriate governmental entity at no cost to the developer. The value of the Reservation Area shall be determined based upon the fair market value of that Area on the day before this Malibu Lakes MPUD rezone receives approval by the Board of County Commissioners. J. Upon receipt of written notice of intent to proceed with the 1 -75 ramp improvements by the appropriate governmental entity, the developer shall have six (6) months from that date within which to construct any necessary on -site modifications resulting from the acquisition of the Reservation Area by the appropriate governmental entity. K. The developer shall not be required to provide the necessary commercial site improvements for the project to be located within the Reservation Area once that Area is acquired by the appropriate governmental entity. Existing or proposed site improvements lost as a result of the acquisition of the Reserve Area shall not be relocated to areas within the project retained by the developer, or its successors, for commercial land uses. L. The developer shall pre -pay road impact fees in an amount estimated to be $2,200,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Ordinance. The County shall, upon receipt of the prepayment, issue a Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy for the appropriate amount of commercial development intensity in accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in effect at the time the prepayment is received by the County. 5 -7 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 91 of 105 5.10 PLANNING A. Pursuant to Chapters 2 and 4 of the LDC, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. B. In the event Collier County transfers ownership of the former FDOT service road located adjacent to Immokalee Road to the developer, the developer or successor owners may utilize this area for open space, water management, and landscape buffers, which shall be utilized in meeting the minimum criteria for said uses as may be required at the time of site development plan or plat. C. Site development plans shall be permitted to include multiple owners. All infrastructures shall be constructed and maintained pursuant to a recorded operating and easement agreement. 5.11 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. B. The developer shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species. Where protected species are observed on -site, a habitat management plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan /construction plan approval. C. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation /preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Buffers shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.9of the LDC. In the event the project does not require platting, all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation /preservation tracts or easements and 5 -8 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 92 of 105 dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or as per Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. D. Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty -five (25) feet from the landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Environmental Review Staff. All principal commercial structures shall have a minimum setback of twenty -five feet from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum ten foot setback. E. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. F. A minimum of 25 percent of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on -site (natural habitat preserve area), including both the under -story and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, shall be retained on -site, as described in Section 3.05 of the LDC. The original Malibu Lake PUD contained 134.85 acres of native vegetation. The residential component in Ordinance 99-49 was required to retain a minimum of 32.56 acres of native vegetation. The commercial component of the project will consist of 37.1± acres, of which 10.86 acres is presently native vegetation. The total native vegetation required to be retained on the commercial portion of the Malibu Lake PUD shall be 2.72 acres (10.86 X .25 = 2.715). G. Re- created preserves shall be in accordance with Section 3.05 of the LDC. H. This PUD shall be consistent with the environmental section of the GMP conservation and coastal management element and the LDC at the time of final development order approval. A preserve area management plan shall be provided to Environmental Staff for approval prior to sitelconstruction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. 5 -9 Agenda Item No, 8B February 22; 2005 Page 93 of 105 J. In the event that construction within the 1 -75 Right -of -way reservation area impacts the required preserve, that preserve acreage will be recreated elsewhere on site with an approved plan by the appropriate governmental agency. The recreated preserve shall consist of enhanced buffers, native planting within water management areas, or any combination thereof. K. All approved Agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final Site Plan / Construction Plan approval. 5 -10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 94 of 105 i Apriffm REALTY GROUP MEMORANDUM TO: Karl Fry — Oakes Estates Advisory, Ins. Cliff Meehan — Tarpon Bay Home Owners Association FROM: Eric Strickland DATE: January 22, 2005 RE: Response to Super Target Position Statement from 1/14105 The following is our response to the Super Target Position Statement. The "Developer" is Brentwood Land Partners. The "Owners" are Brentwood Land Partners and Target Corporation. 1. Complete Immokalee Road 6- laning to 951 before allowing the shopping center to open. The Developer will not open for public business any portion of the shopping center other than the existing AmSouth Bank before 03/01/06. However, building, training and stocking of businesses shall be permitted. The Developer and Owners will request the Collier County Transportation Department to accelerate the funded design - build project for six lane widening of Immokalee Road east of 1 -75. The Developer will cooperate with the Collier County Transportation Department on a solution for congestion at the 1 -75 and Immokalee Road Interchange. 2. Target to provide the land needed to build the cloverleaf allowing access from eastbound Immokalee to northbound I -75. The Developer and Owners will revise its PUD to restrict development on 1.68 acres of the proposed shopping center-to allow for the construction of an eastbound Immokalee Road to northbound 1 -75 loop ramp. The proposed ramp is now addressed in Section 5.9 "1 -75 Ramp Improvements" of the Malibu Lakes PUD Amendment. Page 1 of 3 s. merain iignr at immoka/ee Road and Oakes Blvd. Agenda Item No. 813 .February 22, 2005 Page 95 of 105 This issue is beyond the Developer's control and must be addressed by Collier County. The Developer has no ability to address this issue. 4. Add a right-in from Immokalee Road into the Target shopping center (if permitted by the Florida Department of Transportation). The Developer will petition Collier County and FDOT to permit a right -in from Immokalee Road into the center. This access request shall be for right -in only. 5. No widening or expansion of Tarpon Bay Blvd. past the rear of the shopping center. The Developer has submitted Tarpon Bay Blvd. road improvement plans showing additional right of way and travel lanes on Tarpon Bay Blvd. from Immokalee Road to the south property line of the shopping center. No additional road widening will take place by the Developer under the submitted plans. The Developer will work with Collier County to approve the plan limiting the road widening along Tarpon Bay Blvd to the north of the project's south property line. 6. Written and officially recorded restrictions on hours of operation, truck routes (prohibit Oakes Blvd.) and nature of business tenants. The Developer and Owner will restrict the hours of operation of the Super Target and Junior Box Stores, defined as a single tenant over 10,000 SF. The hours of operation, defined as hours open to the public for business, shall be from 6:30 am to 12 pm (midnight) Monday- Sunday. All other tenants, outlots and small shop tenants shall have no restrictions. Deliveries for all center tenants shall occur between the hours of 6:30 am and 10:00 pm Monday — Sunday. The Developer shall restrict delivery traffic to prohibit delivery traffic from using Tarpon Bay Boulevard south of the shopping center. 7. No shopping center signage on Oakes Blvd or Spanish Oakes The Owner and Developer will not install any shopping center signage on Oakes Blvd and Spanish Oakes Blvd. 8. Upgraded sizes of landscaping. The Developer will commit to install larger landscape in the required landscape buffer yards along Immokalee Road and Tarpon Bay Blvd. The planted sizes will exceed the minimum size requirement by 20 %. 9. Target to pay to relocate Tarpon Bay /Malibu Lakes sign from current location. The Developer will commit to leave the existing Tarpon Bay /Malibu Lakes sign in the existing location in the Tarpon Bay Blvd median. Page 2 of 3 i Agenda Item No. 813 February 22, 2005 Page 96 of 105 I 10. County to support the reclassification of Oakes Blvd as a residential road with 35 MPH speed limit. This is a County issue. The Owners and Developer of the shopping center has no position on the Oakes Estates Advisory Inc.'s request to reclassify Oakes Blvd. as a residential road. If. Target or County to fund traffic calming on Tarpon Bay Blvd and Oakes Blvd. The Developer will request the Collier County Transportation Department review the intersection of Tarpon Bay Blvd and the Malibu Lakes Apartment Complex drive for a stop sign warrant. Provided the warrant conditions are met and approved by Collier County, the Developer shall install stop signs at the intersection prior to the opening of the center. 12 Target or County to provide additional traffic calming at the neighborhood park on Spanish Oakes. The Developer will provide $5,000 toward the installation of a crosswalk and flashing indicator signage for a pedestrian crossing at one location on Spanish Oakes Blvd. The proposed crosswalk must be approved within (2) years of PUD approval. The crosswalk location and signage will be subject to the approval of the Collier County Transportation Department. 13. No additional bridges are to be constructed that will connect Tarpon bay Blvd. And Oakes Blvd. The Owners and Developer of the shopping center will not request the construction of any new bridge over the canal east of Tarpon Bay Blvd. 14. If required at any time in the future, Target to fund a new light at Oakes Blvd. And Spanish Oakes Lane. The Owners and Developer of the shopping center will fund it proportionate share of the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection if traffic from the shopping center creates the need for a signal and provided that installation occurs within (5) five years of the approval of the PUD ordinance. The Developer has performed a Traffic Impact Study that models the proposed center. The Traffic Impact Study does not warrant a signal be installed at this intersection. 15. Target to provide a buffer/barrier to shield Oakes Estates residents across the canal from headlights as patrons leave the parking lot. The Owners and Developer of the shopping center will install and or maintain a continuous landscape barrier similar to shrub or hedge row along the east right of way of Tarpon Bay Blvd. to provide screening from traffic. Page 3 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET CHECK ONE: 2800 NORTH HORSESH9 mmem No. 8B NAPLES, FLORIDA 347 February 22; 2005 (239) 403 -2400 FAX (239) e69 -69f 105 5- REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL X CONTINUANCE ❑ WITHDRAWAL If a continuance is requested, please indicate length of time: to: February 3, 2005 OR ❑ Indefinite From: X Planning Commission ❑ Board of County Commissioners I . Date of Scheduled Hearing: January 20, 2005 2. Applicant /Project Name: Brentwood Land Partners, LLC /Malibu Lakes PUD 3. Application /Case number: PUDZ -A- 2003 -AR -5168 4. Type of Application (examples: Rezoning, Conditional Use or Variance) Rezone 5. Reason for Request: Petitioner is working with the in the area to finalize it's agreement with the property owners. Petitioner is requesting a continuance gntil the February 3, 2005, CCPC meeting so that Petition can still be heard on the February 22, 2005, BCC meeting date. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, AND PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 92.525, 1 DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING REQUEST AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. 0 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT Richard D. Yovanovich PRINTED NAME Address: 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 DATE ryovanovich(d)acilaw.com e-mail address 2391135 -3535 Phone number 239-435-1218 Fax number S:IDATA\WPDATA\ LITIGATE\ Kite\ REOUESTFORCONTINUANCEORWITHDRAWAL 001.doc Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 98 of 105 Q, GRADY hUNOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers a Land Surveyors a F'lalutem MARX w MXNO& r•,r%. NORMAL F.17CE UCOCK. Al-C.11, P.E C DEAN 94VT , P -E. DAVID W. 9Ctsr1'% P.I? MOLMILI. ML 71L PB 3awley 19, 2005 WATn -MW). KPMAM493H, FE. MIC}iA81 T. Ksmtu ax P. Q Mr. Nike DeRnutz, C.F.M., Principal Pl=nw Community Devedopmentamd Envirromm=W Services Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Malibu Lakes PW;PUD7,- A- AR -Sl68 Dear Mr. DeRuntz: Agenda Item No. 8S February 22, 2005 Page 99 of 105 V. WAYNE AP30". AJ,CP. ROBERT -'eat- nMNM, A- 1-C-r. n10MAS 1. CARRrS, ?AM. S WHHN V, BUS GEM PS.M, ALAN V POSEMAN CHOTMEI-MC. HAYPS. P.E. IVY Wn.IL P.8 Tht following is au additional deviation request for the above mentioned PUD. We have revised Section 2.7 of the PUD Document to reflect tins new deviation and have pr+ovtded just $cafion in this letter: l . From Section 4.06.02 of the LDC, wh eb requires a landscap* buffer to be provided between platted crmmer6al building rota, to pmt a zero shat .aktbeck bmveea buildings and no landscape buftr(s) between sepamely platfed tracts, when bwWwp we conuocted as those in a typical shopping center oonfipmujoa. This deviation is iWifeed in order to aarsbW allaCI ad buiidirW, as couumnly found is shop*& *eaters, over placed tract lines under separate owmwAip. TUs deviation, will allow the property owner to sell individual tenant spao.s nithin the shopping center building as fee simple btalding logs without requiring a landscape buffer to be provided bd*m these development tract& INs deviation shall owy apply where wmwted buitdhw and their assomw&d pecking fac ties are constructad aczass platted pr+opCfty VEM within thcPUD. Please contact either Richard Yovauovvich or we if these are any questiam Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP D'WA su Encloswe oc; Bich. ywMawkb Pftd juvi Eic Sbidditd {7sj 947!744 • PAX (239) ?-0375 .S -Mat7: rg�gradYminoctom 3900 Via Del Rey ■ Bonier Springr, Florida 34134 -7569 a EBf LB 00OM5t rV0ftALWtNLrpAJ4 tiMjM6bO Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 100 of 105 xl} S. 4ieridian. Suitt 1160, Indianapolis, t ti 46204 September l7, 2004 Mr. Mike DeRuw CommurtRy Development aad Envimnmental Services Division PlauiningServitecs Departmemt 2800 ,North Horsesboe Drive Naple —s, FL 34104 lee: Deletion of one Proposed LDC Deviation Maliba Lakes Pull Amendment Proposed 33 acre Commercial Center Dear Ivlr. DeRaitt2, This letter serves as our cornmiamcrtt to remove one of the proposed LDC deviations in the Malibu Lakes PUD Arneadment. Per our phone conversation on Weducsday 9115/04, ~� we are wanting to remove one of the proposed deviations that pertains to signagc. Specifically, we want to remove the proposed Directory Sion devialion Wow: Directory Signs Deviation from Sect %h 1.5.5,2 S.! Pole or Ground Sigvrs to allow a directory sign an a frontage without ats entrance (1 -75 Frontage). .Irryo leatriolr The cemer s proposal sign program iaclu(tes Ibrcc directory signs, One sign wilt be locatat on the 1 -75, one sip on Jntntokalee Road and one sign on Tarpon Day Blvd. The ausched site plan shows the sign locol;otts and tic proposcd sign design_ The 1.75 sign would he i,) place of the `.Super Target" wording on the 1.75 bui,ltintg clevation (wCSi ckvadon). The building signage can the 1 -75 eteyallion (west elevation) will be rcducc from throe signs at a iota[ of 250 SF allowed to ogle 85 SF sign. We want to keep all other proposed dcviations in the PUD document. We will work with your offit a to ptovidc an updated PCD documant with this item deleted. Agenda Item No. 8B �FP-gruary 22, 2005 Page.101 of 1 . Please t'oelfrre contact:m.�l�;��rlittxf'te �t (3�'7� 578.57•G� ux crr�ai�. a� esiric lsnd a itece &O nir Eric Strickland. K to Realty Grote ic-c bana c*, M,Magnonc, Collier couttry Sn% Darien, Target Corporation Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 102 of 105 SCOWN 30 S. Meridian, Suite 1100, Indianap►lis, IN 46204 August 9, 2004 Mr. Mike DeRuntz Community Development and Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 Notch I lorseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Proposed Sign Devialiuns Malibu [Ake. PUD Amendment Proposed 33 acre Commercial Center Super Target Dear Mr. D Runtz, Per our meeting on 'Wednesday 814144, %tre have reviewed the existing sign code and developed the following list of proposed deviations and justifications as part of the PUD Amendment. Pteasc review these justifications. We are incorporating the proposed deviations into the language in the FUU Amendment. Dirsetory Signs Deviation from Section 1.5.5.2,5. x Pole or +GrounalSigns to allow a directory sign for a multiple otcupaney center with five or more tenants (in lien or eigbt or more tensix4s). Justification The proposed center will have an estimated 330,000 total SR The center will b- anchored by a Super Target and contain three other junior lox (20,000- 33,000 SF) users and one 10,000 SF small sheep building. Since the Super Target will occupy 184.600 SF of the total SF there is not Cru►ugh remaining SF to provide for seven additional tenants to get required right tenants rcquircd for a directory sign. The Super "Target combines several cues in the center (grocery, phu navy, garden center, general merchandise). If the site were developed under the existing three PtjDs there would be the required eight tenants to provide for a directon• sign. See the attached site exhibit for the proposed tenant layout. Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 103 of 105 Deviation from Section 2.5.5.2.5.1 Pole or Ground Signs to allow a directory sign on a frontage without an entrance (1 -75 Frontage). justification The center's proposed sign program includes three directory signs. One Nign �% :ill be located on the 1.75. one sign on Immokalee Road and one sign on Tarpon Bay Blvd. f he attached site plan shows the sign locations and the proposed sign design. The 1 -75 sign would be in place of the "Super Target" wording on the 1 -75 building elevation (west elevation). The building signage on the I -75 elevation (west elevation) will be reduce from thnx signs at a total of 250 SF allovcd to one 85 SF sign. Sec the attached exhibit, Deviation from Section 2.5.5.2.5.! Pole or Ground Signs to allow a directory sign on a frontage without an calrance (Wraekalee Road Frontage). duvrrfica ian An existing drive cut is located on Irnmokal-�c Road just east of the I- 75 off ramp terminus. The developer has committed to close this entrance to impro4c safety on Tmmok:alee Road. The altachcd exhibit shows one dircctfiry sign at this lurmer drive location. Null Signs Deviation from Section 2.5.5.2.5.2 Wall mansard, canopy, or awning signs to allow a total of 706 SF of wall signage on north elevation of the proposed Super Target Building and a deviation to allow five waU signs on the north elevation of the Super Target building. Jusllfka ons A. The total signage f0r for 184.600 SF Super Target will include 85 SF of signage on the west elevation (250 SF allowed) and 706 SF of %vW[ signs on the north elevation (250 SF allowed). See the anached 'Target Wall Signage Ilan_ The 706 SF of proposed wW1 signage is on approximately 12,700 SF of wall area of the Super Target north elevation_ '11tis sign area is 5.551% of the north visual fagnde area, This is less than the criteria that the sign area not to exceed 20% of the facade in the LDC_ l3_ The additional signage area will conform to the overall scale of the building. The length of the Super Target building is 357 feet. The depth of the Super Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 104 of 105 Target building is 365 feet, The average building height is 25 feet and the tower height is 38 feet. C A total ol'six wall signs arc proposed For the Super Target. All other tenants' wall signs shall conform to the LOC. Five wall signs shall be located on the north elevation totaling 706 SF. The west elevation shall have one sign instead of the three allowed. The total combined number of signs on the west and north elevation is six. This does not exceed total combined number of signs (six) allowed per the LOC. D. The deviation is also justified by showing a reduction in the total amount of wall signage from the existing three PL:Ds and limiting the amount of signage on the west (1 -75) elevation to 85 SF_ The table below is a comparison of will signage proposed in the PUD Amendment to the wall sigrage allowed in the existing YLJD. -;. The area of reduction in total wall signage is 12.60K. Existwg PUD Use Grroce6 Al01900.S F) Drug Store _(14,500 SF) Garden Ceniar (10,00U 5n Target P- Storc* t 125.000) Ward Amended signage PUP Use SF - 'VIV -an Saignage 204) SF 200 SF 150 SF 150 SF _ 150 SF 150 SF Super Target" ?U6 SF R5 SF 150 SF t 50 ST' 250 $F 250 SF i Jr. Anchor 200 SF Jr. Anchor 200 Siz (33.000 S!-) (33,000 SF) Jr. Anchor 25,200 Sr) Jr, Anchor 21 ,000 SP Shops — One Tenant 10.000 SF Total 200 SF � Jr. Anchor — (25,240 SF) 150 SF Jr. Anchor* (21,000 SF) 150 S11" Shops — One 150 51{ Tenant 10,000 SF i 2,050 SIR 200 SF 150 SF 150 SF _ 150 SF 150 SF ],791 SF Agenda Item No. 8B February 22, 2005 Page 105 of 105 Please feel free contact me by phone al (317) $78 -5 165 or email at sstrickland-0?kiteco,com. Thank you for meeting with us on Thur -Aay 8/5144. Sincerely, Eric Strickland Kite Development Cc: Diana Compagnone, Collier County John Danen, 'rargct Corporation Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 133 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petition PUDZ - 2004 -AR -6015 Palm Springs, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from the C -1 zoning district to the PUD zoning district to be known as Triad RPUD Planned Unit Development which will include a maximum of 86 multi - family residential housing units. The property is located on the north side of Radio Lane, east of Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75 acres. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the requested rezone is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and is in the best interest of the community. CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed Residential PUD rezone will eliminate a portion of the undeveloped commercial parcels that exist in the local area. The Triad RPUD rezoning request is seeking approval for a residential development that includes a maximum of 86 residential housing units on approximately ±10.75 acres. The gross project density requested for the project is 8 dwelling units per acre. The Triad RPUD dwelling units are designed as multi - family residences. Access to the property will be from Palm Springs Boulevard via Radio Lane. The proposed RPUD document indicates that the project is to be completed in a single phase with construction commencing in the third quarter of 2005. Project build - out is anticipated to occur in 2006. The project is proposing customary accessory uses such as private garages, swimming pools, social and recreational space, landscaped open space, and a variety of passive, native preserves. The subject property is within one mile of Interchange Activity Center No.9 and is located within a residential density band. Commercial and multi- family zoning districts surround the site. The existing structures that surround the site consist of a gas station, an apartment complex, and single - family homes. The single - family homes on Pine Crest Lane (the street to the immediate north of the project) are within a Residential Multi - family (RMF -12 (7)) zoning district. Single - family homes were permitted to be constructed within the multi- family zoning district due to a provision within the zoning district that allows, "Single - family dwelling units for existing nonconforming lots subject to the RSF -6 dimensional standards." Saddlebrook Village Apartments to the immediate east of the project is part of the Saddlebrook Village PUD, a residential PUD authorized for 12.96 dwelling units per acre. To the immediate south of the project sits a Circle K gas station. The existing commercial zoning boundaries for the subject site were designated at a time when Radio Lane, the east -west road immediately south of the subject property, was part of Radio Road, which is an arterial road connecting to Davis Boulevard. Subsequently, Radio Road has been modified, connecting to Davis Boulevard, east of the subject site, and thus resulting in the creation of Radio Lane. This configuration has created a limited access pattern for the commercially zoned subject site. To access Radio Lane, an east bound vehicle must make a left turn against opposing Radio Road traffic without PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 133 a traffic signal, and the west bound traffic on Radio Road must make a right turn lane to access Radio Lane, which is a two lane local road. As noted, Radio Road at one time intersected with Davis Boulevard east of the subject site. This original design called for the subject site and the surrounding area to accommodate a high intensity of land use. The current zoning designation of the subject site, Commercial Professional and General Office (C -1), was the result of a downzoning from the Commercial Convenience (C -2) zoning designation in 1993 through Ordinance No. 93 -73. The RMF -12 (7) zoning designation to the north of the property was the result of a downzoning from the RMF -12 zoning designation. The RMF -12 (7), indicates that the property is zoned Residential Multi - family with a cap of 7 dwelling units per acre. As discussed within the Growth Management portion of this staff report, the conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning makes the project eligible for up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The final number of dwelling units per acre allocated to the project is determined by the compatibility of the surrounding land uses. As noted, the property is bordered by commercial zoning to the south and west, RPUD zoning to the east eligible for 12.96 dwelling units per acre, and RMF- 12 (7) Residential Multi - family to the north eligible for 7 dwelling units per acre. The RMF -12 (7) zoning district to the north, although eligible for 7 dwelling units per acre has a majority of the parcels developed with single - family homes. These single - family homes are an interruption to the zoning pattern within the area. These homes are bordered to the north and the east by multi - family zoning and to the south by commercial zoning. The presence of the single - family homes to the north of the project has made the issue of compatibility more difficult. The majority of the parcels are developed with single - family homes, but any of the undeveloped lots, or any of the developed lots through redevelopment, could develop a multi - family structure whose density would be determined by multiplying the parcels' acreage by seven. For instance, the .41 -acre undeveloped parcel which abuts the subject site on Pine Crest Lane could develop a three -unit dwelling. This fact forces staff to view these single - family homes in a more non - traditional manner. Planning theory traditionally calls for a stepping down of the intensity of the land use as you progress from a transportation network, such as Radio Road, now Radio Lane. For example the current Circle K gas station is zoned C -4, the current adjoining zoning to the north, which includes the subject property is C -1. The transition from C -4 to C -1 is a decrease in allowed land use intensity. As you progress north from the C -1 zoning district, there is a transition to the RMF -12 (7) zoning district. This transition represents a gradual decrease in land use intensity from the least intensive commercial district to a higher intensity residential multi - family district. Further north from the RMF -12 (7) district sits an RMF -6 zoning district. Once again, the transition in zoning districts represents a step down in allowed intensity. Finally to the north of the RMF -6 district sits an RSF -4 district a less intensive residential district compared to the bordering RMF -6 district. This gradual transition of allowed intensities is a direct manifestation of the traditional step down zoning approach. The proposed rezoning request will further the step down zoning for the area by eliminating a portion of the existing commercial zoning in the area. It is staff opinion that the RPUD rezoning will be more compatible with the surrounding land uses, and also more compatible with the transportation infrastructure available to the area. PUDZ- 2004 -AR 6015 2 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 133 The applicant is requesting a project density of 8 units per acre, which is consistent with the eligible density allotted by the Growth Management Plan (GMP.) Based upon the potential intensity of existing commercial zoning of the subject property, the 12.96 units per acre of Saddlebrook PUD to the east, the 7 units per acre to the north, the General Commercial (C -4) zoning to the south, and the C -1 zoning to the west, the density request can be justified. Staff recognizes the consistency argument the applicant has offered, but based upon the existing presence and potential for the single - family home construction to continue to the north of the subject property, the traditional step down zoning transition discussed above, and the access issues the property would present to commercial use, staff is recommending a project's density to 8 units per acre. The property is bordered by commercial zoning on two sides and residential zoning on the other two sides. The residential zoning intensity of the bordering districts is 12.96 units per acre and 7 units per acre. It is staff's opinion that 8 units per acre, which is less than half of the difference between the two intensities, will provide a better consistency with land use transition in the area based upon the existing land uses and discussion of step down zoning. The removal of the commercial zoning of the subject property based upon the access concerns, as discussed, justifies approval of the petition, but the level of intensity allotted to the PUD has to find context with the existing surrounding zoning and land use. It should be noted that the developer and the surrounding property owners entered into an agreement on February 2, 2005 to reduce the project's density from 13 units per acre to 8 units per acre, in addition to a number of other modification to the PUD document that are summarized with the CCPC recommendation of approval. That agreement has been attached to the executive summary packet. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning of this PUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the property is rezoned, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. 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 Levels 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 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is currently designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Furthermore, it is within one mile of Interchange Activity Center #9 and is located within a residential density band. Thus, it is allowed 3 additional residential units per gross acre to be added to the base density of 4 dwellings units per acre for a total eligibility of 7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is applying the Density Bonus for conversion of Commercial Zoning, which grants a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre, which may be added for every 1 acre of commercial zoning that is converted. These dwelling PUDZ- 2004-AR -6015 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 133 units may be distributed over the entire project, however the project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits non - residential uses that are compatible with, and/or support, the residential character of the residential designation, such as private garages, swimming pools, and model homes. Review of the Density Rating System yields that the Triad RPUD is eligible for a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed RPUD uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE.) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (6.9) of the Triad RPUD document has been written to reflect the most current environmental regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The petition was heard at the February 2, 2005 Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) hearing. The EAC vote unanimously to forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition on February 3, 2005. The CCPC, with a 7 to 2 vote, forwarded a recommendation of approval of Petition PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 subject to the following changes to the Triad RPUD document: 1. The developer shall place a deed restriction on the property to prohibit rentals on the property in perpetuity, which will be enforceable by the residents of Palm Springs Village Unit One and Palm Springs Estates Unit One subdivisions. 2. The developer shall construct a school bus stop (uncovered concrete pad with bicycle rack) at the furthest east location possible on Radio Lane. 3. Building height for the project shall not exceed 35 feet (2 stories), with both first and second floor units available. 4. The average size of the units (all unit sizes in the development divided by the total number of units) will not be less than 2,000 square feet in total gross area. 5. The project shall have a 24 -hour controlled access gate. 6. The developer shall provide a gate or fence along the project's northern boundary in addition to the landscape berm at the request of the northern adjacent property owners. 7. The developer shall move the entrance to the project off Palm Springs Boulevard to Radio Lane if permitted by the County Transportation Division's regulations. If the width of the project's road frontage along Radio Lane is not sufficient to accommodate the entrance relocation, then the developer shall move the entrance to the project on Palm Springs Boulevard as close to Radio Lane as the County Transportation Division's regulations will permit. 8. The developer shall request from the County Transportation Division, a temporary construction access permit on the eastern portion of the project off Radio Lane. PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 4 Agenda Item No. SC February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 133 9. The project shall be limited to a density of 8 dwelling units per acre, a reduction from the 13 units per acre originally requested. 10. Revise Section 2.8 of the PUD document to reference new LDC citation. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based. The legal considerations are reflected in the Collier County Planning Commission's evaluation of the listed criteria in Chapter 10.03.05 and Chapter 10.02.12 of the LDC. These evaluations are completed as separate documents that have been incorporated into the attached staff report. A summary of the legal considerations and findings are noted below: • The proposed change has been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMP. • The proposed land uses are compatible with the existing land use pattern. • The proposed change will not 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. This project has also been deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Element of the GMP. • The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private shall be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff analysis indicates that the proposed Triad RPUD is compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 subject to the Triad RPUD document as modified by the CCPC recommendation of approval. PREPARED BY: Mike Bosi, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning and Land Development Review PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Agenda Item No 8C February 22, 2005 Page f of 133 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS item Number BC item Summary TKs itern requires that all participarts be sworn in and ex pane disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Palm Springs, LL,C, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RVVA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from the. C -1 zoning district to the PLO zoning district to be known as Triad RPUD Planned Unit Development which will include a maximum of 86 multi - family residential housing units. The properly is located on the north side of Radio Lane, east of Palm Springs boulevard, in Section 34. Township 49 South, Range 26 East.. Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75± acres Meeting Date 272;2005 9'. DO= AM Prepared By Date Mike Bost, AICP Principal Planner 2/4/2005 3:35 :14 PM Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review Environmental Services Approved By Mike Soil AICP Principal Planner Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 2x11200510:59 AM Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 2!7/2005 10:24 AM Approved By Constance A, Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Development& Community Developmem& Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 2712005 2:26 PM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review 2,712005 3 :23 PM Environmental Services Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 2/7/2005 4:19 Pfd Approved By Norm E. Feder. AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin, 21812005 11:09 AM Approved By Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 2110/2005 7:33 PM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Date Environmental Services Atlminstrator Community Development & Community Development& Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 2/1012005 8:42 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112005 8:54 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211 4120 05 12:17 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management 8, Budget 2115/2005 9:04 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Dale Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 21161'2005 7:51 AM Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 133 Co er Count y STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2005 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ - 2004 -AR -6015, TRIAD RESIDENTIAL PUD OWNER/AGENT: Agent: Dwight Nadeau R. Bruce Anderson R.W.A., Inc. Roetzel and Andress 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 270 850 Park Shore Drive 3`d Floor Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34103 Owners: Palm Springs, LLC 6535 Nova Drive #106 Davie, FL 33317 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone approximately 10.75+ acres of land currently zoned Commercial Professional and General Office (C -1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Triad RPUD authorizing a maximum of 140 multi - family dwelling units and customary recreational accessory uses. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the Radio Road/Palm Springs Boulevard intersection, approximately 1300 feet west of the terminus of Radio Road. The property comprises numerous parcels located in the southwest half of Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on page 2 and the PUD Master Plan on page 3.) - 1 - N Agenda Item No. 8C February 22. 2005 Page 8 of 133 y �Qr F 1—�a t Li-LLIJ, sw2 masse xxr � �NW.v00X WIACC EtR GaIOMY r {� me am uxc 91TC LOCATION i i y uvs xxsw xou xx� wn xsxr x'.wncx xanw[r coacacc exta if I LOCATION MAP SITE MAP PETITIONxPUN- 2004- AR- 0010 anmi wicaww • . GOLDEN GATE i - -- ,�• wars vrw a•.,w � x «. w ♦nwiwwn .w- w «wxw.. j� xe rawx�1.My al mnw IC ClIY � i4i.�esnw. °�IOS'� LJ ae PROJ_OT rmwau aaaw 'e LCC ION iwrtii�.. wa i au f: «vw ' xMxw _ Fm [r i ,1 o[en xW-0 waur a,. yawl wow[ !s �'d St ' •�v[ ]x .1� 1 a Agenda Item No. 8C February 22. 2005 Page 8 of 133 y �Qr F 1—�a t Li-LLIJ, sw2 masse xxr � �NW.v00X WIACC EtR GaIOMY r {� me am uxc 91TC LOCATION i i y uvs xxsw xou xx� wn xsxr x'.wncx xanw[r coacacc exta if I LOCATION MAP SITE MAP PETITIONxPUN- 2004- AR- 0010 Vi TRIAD RPUD RPUD MASTER PLAN IN Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 133 r:-,s�f r 04 I N r:-,s�f r 04 I Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 133 PURPOSEMESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed Residential PUD rezone will eliminate a portion of the undeveloped commercial parcels that exist in the local area. The Triad RPUD rezoning request is seeking approval for a residential development that includes a maximum of 140 residential housing units on approximately +10.75 acres. The gross project density requested for the project is 13.02 dwelling units per acre. The Triad RPUD dwelling units are designed as multi - family residences. Access to the property will be from Palm Springs Boulevard via Radio Lane. The proposed RPUD document indicates that the project is to be completed in a single phase with construction commencing in the third quarter of 2005. Project build -out is anticipated to occur in 2006. The project is proposing customary accessory uses such as private garages, swimming pools, social and recreational space, landscaped open space, and a variety of passive, native preserves. The local area, the southern segment of the Palm Springs Boulevard/Radio Lane intersection, is populated with developed (Circle K gas station) and undeveloped Commercial parcels, and existing single- family and multi - family residential structures. The subject property is within one mile of Interchange Activity Center No.9 and is located within a residential density band. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: -4- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 133 Subject Parcel: The subject property is a 10.75+ -acre site currently undeveloped; zoned C -1. Surrounding: North: Palm Springs Village single - family subdivision; zoned RMF- 12 (7) East: Saddlebrook Village; zoned PUD @ 12.96 units per acre South: Circle K & Radio Road ROW; zoned C -3 West: Undeveloped Parcels; zoned C -1 I FINE �+CpIE �LME _ 9 PUB pww'I � e � a 101. ► 9S YILACi EJBf GAlENNY FTS 1 AL&57GR lllEY RA 12.96 dwelling C� r TAU V PIKE aasr LAW units per acre MMOME LMM + W ccweICF corms NI , f GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is currently designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Furthermore, it is within one mile of Interchange Activity Center #9 and is located within a residential density band. Thus, it is allowed 3 additional residential units per gross acre to be added to the base density of 4 dwellings units per acre for a total eligibility of 7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is applying the Density Bonus for conversion of Commercial Zoning, which grants a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre, which may be added for every 1 acre of commercial zoning which is converted. These dwelling units may be distributed over the entire project, however the project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits non - residential uses that are compatible with, and/or support, the residential character of the residential designation, such as private garages, swimming pools, and model homes. Review of the Density Rating System yields that the Triad RPUD is eligible for a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The table below illustrates the total number of dwelling units possible in the Urban Residential -5- Agenda item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 133 Subdistrict if both the Proximity to Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center and Commercial Conversion Density Bonuses were utilized. Because both of these density bonuses added to the base density exceed the cap of 16 dwelling units per acre, the maximum density the applicant can seek is only 16 dwelling units per acre. BASE DENSITY 4 dwelling units per acre PROXIMITYTOMIXED USE ACTIVITY +3 dwelling units per acre CENTER OR INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL ZONING +16 dwelling units per acre TOTAL ELIGIBLE DENSITY 16 dwelling units per acre x 10.75 A =172 dwelling units per acre FLUE Policy 5.4 requires that all new developments are compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The Comprehensive Planning Department leaves this determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed RPUD uses and density may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP and was found consistent, a statement advising that this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion. Open Space /Conservation: A minimum of 60 percent open space of the gross site area, as described in Chapter 4.02.01 of the Land Development Code and Policy 1.1.6 of the Growth Management Plan, will be required of the PUD. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Chapter 10.03.05 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and required staff evaluation and comment. The Planning Commission also will utilize these criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Appropriate evaluation of petitions for rezones to PUDs should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision - makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criteria noted and are summarized by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non- compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B "). Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental -6- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 133 regulations. The Environmental Section (6.9), of the Triad RPUD document has been written to reflect the most current environmental regulations. The petition is scheduled for the February 2, 2005 Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) hearing. A verbal update of the hearing results will be provided to the Planning Commission at the CCPC public hearing. Transportation Analysis: Transportation Division Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: The PUD document, in relation to the Transportation element, has been crafted to ensure all development within the Triad RPUD will be subject to and compliant with the policy contained within the Transportation sub - element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the regulatory fabric contained in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted with the application and attached to this staff report indicates that the project will generate a total of 70 weekday a.m. peak hour trips and 80 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. Utility Issues: The Utilities Division Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: water distribution, sewage collection and transmission, and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. The water management requirements for the development of the PUD shall be in accordance with the regulations of the Land Development Code of Collier County in effect at the time of building permit application. Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis: The proposed use is consistent with the property's land use designation as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The GMP, through Policy 5.4, also requires proposed development to be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. As noted in the Comprehensive Planning discussion, development standards, such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, potential building mass, building location, orientation, and the amount and type of open space and location of that open space are considerations of compatibility as well. The subject property is within one mile of Interchange Activity Center No.9 and is located within a residential density band. Commercial and multi - family zoning districts surround the site. The existing structures that surround the site consist of a gas station, an apartment complex, and single - family homes. The single - family homes on Pine Crest Lane (the street to the immediate north of the project) are within a Residential Multi - family (RMF -12 (7)) zoning district. Single - family homes were permitted to be constructed within the multi - family zoning district due to a provision within the zoning district that allows, "Single - family dwelling units for existing nonconforming lots subject to the RSF -6 dimensional standards." Saddlebrook Village Apartments to the immediate east of the project is part of the Saddlebrook Village PUD, a residential PUD authorized for 12.96 dwelling units per acre. To the immediate south of the project sits a Circle K gas station. The existing commercial zoning boundaries for the subject site were designated at a time when Radio Lane, the east -west road immediately south of the subject property, was part of Radio Road, which was an arterial road connecting to Collier Boulevard. Subsequently, Radio Road has been modified, connecting to Davis Boulevard, east of the subject site, and thus resulting in the creation of Radio Lane. This configuration has created a limited access pattern for the commercially zoned subject site. To access Radio Lane, an east bound vehicle must make a left -7- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 133 turn against opposing Radio Road traffic without a traffic signal, and the west bound traffic on Radio Road must make a right turn lane to access Radio Lane, which is a two lane local road As noted, Radio Road at one time intersected with Collier Boulevard east of the subject site. This original design called for the subject site and the surrounding area to accommodate a high intensity of land use. The current zoning designation of the subject site, Commercial Professional and General Office (C -1), was the result of a downzoning from the Commercial Convenience (C- 2) zoning designation in 1993 through Ordinance No. 93 -73. The RW -12 (7) zoning designation to the north of the property was the result of a downzoning from the RUT-12 zoning designation. The RMF -12 (7), indicates that the property is zoned Residential Multi - family with a cap of 7 dwelling units per acre. As discussed within the Growth Management portion of this staff report, the conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning makes the project eligible for up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The final number of dwelling units per acre allocated to the project is determined by the compatibility of the surrounding land uses. As noted, the property is bordered by commercial zoning to the south and west, RPUD zoning to the east eligible for 12.96 dwelling units per acre, and RMF -12 (7) Residential Multi - family to the north eligible for 7 dwelling units per acre. The RMF -12 (7) zoning district to the north, although eligible for 7 dwelling units per acre has a majority of the parcels developed with single - family homes. These single - family homes are an interruption to the zoning pattern within the area. These homes are bordered to the north and the east by multi - family zoning and to the south by commercial zoning. The presence of the single - family homes to the north of the project has made the issue of compatibility more difficult. The majority of the parcels are developed with single - family homes, but any of the undeveloped lots, or any of the developed lots through redevelopment, could develop a multi - family structure whose density would be determined by multiplying the parcels' acreage by seven. For instance, the .41- acre undeveloped parcel which abuts the subject site on Pine Crest Lane could develop a three -unit dwelling. This fact forces staff to view these single - family homes in a more non - traditional manner. Planning theory traditionally calls for a stepping down of the intensity of the land use as you progress from a transportation network, such as Radio Road, now Radio Lane. For example the current Circle K gas station is zoned C-4, the current adjoining zoning to the north, which includes the subject property is C -1. The transition from C -4 to C -1 is a decrease in allowed land use intensity. As you progress north from the C -1 zoning district, there is a transition to the RMF -12 (7) zoning district. Once again, a gradual decrease in land use intensity from the least intensive commercial district to a higher intensity residential multi - family district. Further north from the RMF -12 (7) district sits an RMF -6 zoning district. Once again, a step down in allowed intensity. Finally to the north of the RMF -6 district sits an RSF -4 district a less intensive residential district compared to the bordering R1AF -6 district. This gradual transition of allowed intensities is a direct manifestation of the traditional step down zoning approach. The proposed rezoning request will further the step down zoning for the area by eliminating a portion of the existing commercial zoning in the area. It is staff opinion that the RPUD rezoning will be more compatible with the surrounding land uses, and also more compatible with the transportation infrastructure available to the area. W11 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 133 The applicant is requesting a project density of 13.02 units per acre, which is consistent with the eligible density allotted by the GMP. Based upon the potential intensity of existing commercial zoning of the subject property, the 12.96 units per acre of Saddlebrook PUD to the east, the 7 units per acre to the north, the General Commercial (C -4) zoning to the south, and the C -1 zoning to the west, the density request can be justified. Staff recognizes the consistency argument the applicant has offered, but based upon the existing presence and potential for the single - family home construction to continue to the north of the subject property, the traditional step down zoning transition discussed above, and the access issues the property would present to commercial use as described in the second paragraph of the Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis, staff is recommending a reduction of the project's density to 9.5 units per acre. The property is bordered by commercial zoning on two sides and residential zoning on the other two sides. The residential zoning intensity of the bordering districts is 12.96 units per acre and 7 units per acre. It is staff's opinion that 9.5 units per acre, which is less than half of the difference between the two intensities, will provide a better consistency with land use transition in the area based upon the existing land uses and discussion of step down zoning. The removal of the commercial zoning of the subject property based upon the access concerns, as discussed, justifies approval of the petition, but the level of intensity allotted to the PUD has to find context with the existing surrounding zoning and land use. The rezone request is seeking two deviations from the regulations provided for in the Land Development Code (LDC). 1. A deviation from Chapter 4.06.05, Landscape berms, of the Land Development Code (LDC), or successor provision. This Subsection requires a five -foot setback from a property line for the toe -of- slope, when a proposed berm is greater than two feet in height. The applicant indicates that a concrete wall exists along the Triad RPUD's easterly property boundary and in an effort to screen/buffer the proposed project from the existing wall, fill will be installed at a 10:1 slope up to the wall to enable landscape materials to be placed along the length of the wall south of the Preserve Tract. Cross - section B -B, on sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set attached to the staff report illustrates the proposed berming interface with the existing masonry wall. The applicant provides justification for this deviation stating, "Requiring the toe -of -slope setback would create a non - uniform improvement that would tend to collect storm water and irrigation water that would eventually compromise the integrity of landscape plantings, the berm itself, and possibly the wall of the Saddlebrook Village PUD." The applicant also indicates that no toe -of- slope setback would be provided along the project frontage on Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. A six -foot, flat top of berm will be provided within the project adjacent to the above Rights -Of -Way. That flat area will be where a potential fence /wall will be located with landscape material installed between the wall and the respective Rights -Of- Way. Cross - section D -D, on sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set attached to the staff report illustrates the wall/berming interface with the Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane Rights -Of -Way. The applicant request is seeking a deviation from Chapter 5.03.02, Fence height measurement for all districts, of the Land Development Code (LDC), or successor provision. This section requires fences to be measured from the existing grade. The applicant seeks a deviation from this subsection to allow fences to be measured from the -9- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 133 finished grade. The applicant indicates that in an effort to screen/buffer the proposed project from Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane traffic, the ability to install a six - foot wall on top of the required water management berming along the project's road frontage is desired. Staff is concurs with the justifications provided by the applicant and is supporting both requested deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The meeting was held on August 18, 2004 at 5:30 P.M. at the Comfort Inn conference center, 3860 Tollgate Boulevard, Naples, FL. Agent for the applicant, Mr. Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc. gave the presentation to approximately sixty persons in attendance. Of those that spoke, most expressed concerns over the type of development being proposed and sought the assurance of the developer that the units would not be for lease and not be marketed as "affordable housing ". Mr. Nadeau made the following statements to address these concerns and questions: • "You have my commitment that these are owner occupied, for sale, market rate" products. • The units will be for sale, owner occupied condominiums, not affordable housing, not rental apartments. • A maximum of 140 units is being requested. • A sidewalk on the east side of Palm Springs Boulevard will be constructed. • A wall on top of water management berm will be provided. The developer stated intention to landscape in the R.O.W. in agreement with Saddlebrook Village Apartments. It should be noted that staff has received nine letters of opposition to the proposed project, the majority of which express their desire for the property to remain commercial. These - letters have been attached to the staff report. ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPQ forward a recommendation of approval of petition PUDZ -04 -AR -6015 subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated in the PUD document with a reduction from the requested 13.02 dwelling units per acre to 9.5 dwelling units per acre, and the above described deviations from the Land Development Code. -10- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 133 PREPARED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RAY BELLOWS, MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the February 22, 2005, Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN - 11 - Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 133 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION RZ -04 -AR -6015 Section 2.7.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 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 proposed development is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The proposal is to eliminate existing commercial zoning in exchange for residential use. This elimination of existing commercial zoning is promoted within the GNP. The GMP states that if, "the project includes conversion of commercial zoning which is not located within a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center, or which is not consistent with the Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units may be added for every one acre of commercial zoning which is converted." The proposal is consistent with the FLUE contained in the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern; North: Palm Springs Village single - family subdivision; zoned RMF -12 (7) East: Saddlebrook Village; zoned PUD @ 12.96 units per acre South: Circle K & Radio Road R -O -W; zoned C -3 West: Undeveloped Parcels; zoned C -1 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The subject site is surrounded by commercial and multi - family zoning districts. The proposed conversion of existing commercial zoning to multi - family residential PUD will not create an isolated, unrelated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing commercial zoning boundaries for the subject site were designated at a time when Radio Lane, the east -west road immediately south of the subject property, was part of Radio Road, which was an arterial road connecting to Collier Boulevard. Subsequently, Radio Road has been modified, connecting to Davis Boulevard, east of the subject site, and thus resulting in the creation of Radio Lane. This configuration has created a limited access pattern for the commercially zoned subject site. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. -12- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 133 The existing commercial zoning boundaries for the subject site were designated at a time when Radio Lane, the east -west road immediately south of the subject property, was part of Radio Road, which was an arterial road connecting to Collier Boulevard. Subsequently, Radio Road has been modified, connecting to Davis Boulevard, east of the subject site, and thus resulting in the creation of Radio Lane. This configuration has created a limited access pattern for the commercially zoned subject site. The proposed rezone, and the lower impact of residential development in comparison to commercial on community infrastructure make the proposed change necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The local area, southern segment of the Palm Springs Boulevard/Radio Lane intersection, is populated with developed (Circle K gas station) and undeveloped Commercial parcels, Residential Multi- Family with existing single - family and multi - family residential structures, and Residential PUD zoning. The structures within the area are single family and multifamily dwelling units, and gas station. The proposed Residential PUD rezone will eliminate undeveloped commercial parcels. 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. Evaluation of the project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Traffic element of the GMPP and was found consistent, a statement advising that this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion. The proposed change will result in an overall increase in daily trips within the school, however Transportation staff has indicates that there is adequate capacity in the road system to accommodate it. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The LDC specifically provides the development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and above what would occur without development. In summary, this project has been reviewed for consistency the applicable regulations and required to mitigate all sub - surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Section 6.6 of the proposed Triad PUD document requires that more than sixty percent of the project will be dedicated to usable open space or lands reserved for conservation purposes. This commitment in the PUD, in combination with the landscape buffers required -13- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 133 of the PUD, and the development standards required by the PUD will ensure that this project when developed will not adversely reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This site is adjacent to other residential uses. The density associated with the petition is consistent with the density permitted within the surround developments. The property is currently zoned Commercial. The proposed change to residential use, in general planning theory, is more compatible to the surrounding residential land uses and therefore is not expected to adversely affect property values. Within this petition, an appraisal of estimated future property values resulting from a rezone was not required. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The regulations contained within the proposed PUD document are required to be constructed to minimize the effect of the uses contained within on the surrounding properties. The proposed PUD rezone, with a requirement of sixty percent dedicated open space is not viewed as a deterrent to the development or improvement of the 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 rezone to PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said plans. In light of this fact the proposed PUD zoning 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; There is no reason that the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing commercial zoning. Staff does feel that accessibility to the site has somewhat diminished the commercial value of the property and thus making the conversion to residential use a more practical measure. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed rezone complies with the GMP and will not adversely impact the scale, density and overall intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County. The proposed conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning is viewed by staff as a more compatible land use to the general area than the currently permitted commercial zoning. -14- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 133 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development. However, this proposal is a request to convert commercial zoning to that of residential zoning. This conversion is a action that is viewed by the Growth Management Plan as favorable. 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. The commitment to over sixty percent open space provided by the PUD document will restrict the location and square - footage of the buildings, but the degree of site alteration to make the property usable for the range of uses prescribed by the PUD document will be customary to any improvement project. 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. A multi - disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this petition and they have found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships -15- Agenda Iteal No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 133 FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ- A- 2004 -AR -6015 Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 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. Public utility facilities and services are currently available in this area of Collier County. The local area, the southern segment of the Palm Springs Boulevard/Radio Lane intersection, is populated with developed (Circle K gas station) and undeveloped Commercial parcels, and existing single - family and multi - family residential structures. The proposed Residential PUD rezone will eliminate a portion of the undeveloped commercial parcels. Jurisdictional reviews by County stall' support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the Triad PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the Planning Commission and the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 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. Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity is addressed in the Staff Report. 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. Staff analysis indicates that the Triad PUD is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. The exchange of 10.75 -16- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 133 acres of future commercial use, for the proposed residential use, is viewed as more compatible with the existing residential dwelling unit mix for the local area. The development standards and commitments contained within the PUD document will ensure that the proposed rezone will not negatively impact the surrounding developed and undeveloped neighboring properties. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by the PUD Document (sixty percent) is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. All development authorized by the Triad PUD is required to meet concurrency requirements at the time of Site Development Plan approval. The improvements proposed by the PUD Document indicate construction activity to complete within a single phase. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Ability to expand, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads which is available to this site. Infrastructure is in place in the vicinity and its adequacy will be determined at the time of SDP approval. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed PUD document conforms to PUD regulations or requests deviations that staff analysis finds justified. -17- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 133 ORDINANCE NO. 05 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO AMEND THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS AND CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY FROM THE C -1 ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS "TRIAD RPUD" WHICH WILL INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 86 MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RADIO LANE, EAST OF PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10.75f ACRES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., representing Palm Springs, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject real property as part of Petition PUDZ - 2004 -AR -6015. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the subject real property located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, as described in Section 1.2 of Exhibit "A," the "Triad RPUD" PUD Document, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein is changed from the C -I zoning district to the PUD zoning district to be known as the "Triad RPUD Planned Unit Development." The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps; as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: 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 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney PUDZ- 2004- ARfi015/MH day of , 2005. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 133 TRIAD RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING TRIAD RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: PALM SPRINGS, LLC 6535 NOVA DRIVE # 106 DAVIE, FLORIDA 33317 PREPARED BY: P 101 NS[3L'I"Il VA 7G. 3050 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE SUITE 270 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 and ROETZEL AND ANDRESS 850 PARK SHORE DRIVE TRIANON CENTRE -THIRD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34103 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL Exhibit "A" (1.1�fllid \lld_f}(17h /1!1 Triad RPT TTi 7neii..olllhll•i Rovnn:nn \T.inil RP1 TT1 T1m 1_�fl_M fR FAN �tn� Agehda item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 133 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits, Tables and Appendix i Statement of Compliance Section I Property Ownership and Legal Description I -1 Section II Project Development Requirements II -1 Section III Residential Development Standards III -1 Section IV Recreation Area IV- I Section V Preserve Area V -1 Section VI Development Commitments VI -1 n- \9nn4 \nA-a i n nA TA.A Tt PTTn 7—;i .N lnn1 R—i— \T i—i RPTM Tl— 1_9A_!M rT TAA1 Ann. Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 133 LIST OF EXHIBITS, TABLES AND APPENDIX EXHIBIT "A" RPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "C" VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT "D" PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS APPENDIX "A„ i DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS n•%7nm\na_nnin nn "r;.d PPTM 7...; ,,annnz Rvrm n., (`i PAN A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 133 STATEMENT OF CONWLL4 NCE The development of approximately 10.75 acres of property in Collier County, Florida as a residential planned unit development to be known as Triad RPUD will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The residential uses and recreational facilities of the Triad RPUD are consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the GMP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property for development is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as dentified on the Future Land Use Map as provided for in Objective 1 of the Future Land Use Element ( FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. 2. The project is proposed to be a residential development located less than one mile from a designated Interchange Activity Center (Activity Center # 9). The Density Rating System of the FLUE provides for a four (4) dwelling unit per gross acre density bonus when a proposed project is within one mile of an Activity Center. Under the FLUE Density Rating System, as an incentive to convert commercial zoning which is not consistent with the locationai requirements set forth in the FLUE, a density bonus of up to 16 units per acre may be granted for conversion of such vested commercially zoned properties from commercial to residential use The subject site consists of 10.75 acres, which, when multiplied by the conversion density factor of 16 units per acre, would allow for up to 172 dwelling units. The PUD allows for a maximum of 140 Dwelling units. The proposed density of the Triad PUD is 13.02 units per gross acre, and is therefore consistent with the FLUE, Policy 5.1 of the Collier GNIP; Including the increased density based on the conversion of commercial zoned property. 3. The development of the Triad RPUD will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policy 3.1.g. of the FLUE. 4. The Triad RPUD implements Policy 5.6 of the FLUE in that more than 606/o of the project will provide useable open space, or lands reserved for conservation purposes. 5. The native vegetation provisions of the _ Triad RPUD implements Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element in that "native preserves" will be incorporated into the project design. 6. The Master Development Plan, with its localized natural area, lakes and open space areas, and with its moderate residential density, will insure that the developed project will be an attractive and enjoyable residential development. 7. By virtue that the project must comply with the provisions of Chapter 6.02 of the Land Development Code (LDC), it will implement, and further Objective 8 of the Transportation Element ii n.\?nnd \nd_noin nn Tri.A TiPTTTI 7— ina \f1M4 R"—ind�Trii.A RPTM n— i -?n- R l417AVA- SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8C February 22; 2005 Page 29 of 133 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Triad RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL OF BLOCKS 2, 4, AND 6, PALM SPRINGS PLAZA, UNIT NO. 1 AND THAT VACATED PORTION OF CALLE DEL REY RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 21 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by: Robert S. Barber TR (Folio: 65721360006, 65720840006, and 65720320005) The Barber properties are under contract for purchase with Palm Springs, LLC. Palm Springs, LLC, shall have full, unified control of the Triad RPUD. 1.4 DEVELOPER The Triad RPUD is intended to be developed by Palm Springs, LLC. All references to the "developer" as may be contained in this RPUD Document shall mean Palm Springs, LLC, unless, and until the subject property described and depicted in this RPUD Document is conveyed, or assigned It is the responsibility of Palm Springs, LLC to notify Collier County, in writing, of the land conveyance, or assignment of the subject property described and depicted in this RPUD Document within six months from the actual conveyance, or assignment 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The property is located in the southwest half of Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida The property is currently undeveloped and vacant I -1 n•% ?nndknd_nn t n nn Tr;.A R PT M 7„ „; „oknnnz RPM') In n— i _ ')n_nd rT A AN A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 133 The water management system consists of approximately 1.1 acres of lakes that will receive run-off from structures and parking areas. Run-off shall be collected by catch basins and culvert systems for conveyance to the lakes. Allowable discharge rates shall be in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -10 as amended, and Collier County Ordinance No. 01- 027. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Triad RPUD shall be a residential development that includes a maximum of 140 residential housing units. The amenities proposed as developer commitments to be provided in the project include structures (clubhouse, pool, etc.), and areas (interior within the clubhouse, and swimming pool), to provide social and recreational space, lakes, natural and landscaped open spaces, and a variety of passive (native preserves) and active recreational opportunities. Access to the property shall be from Palm Springs Boulevard via Radio Lane. The development intent is to complete the project in a single phase with construction commencing in the third quarter of 2005, Project build -out is anticipated to occur in 2006, or sooner based on market demand Each residential unit will be served with centrally provided potable water, sanitary sewer, electric power, and telephone. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Triad Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance". -° I -2 n-onm\nA.nni n n(1 T,4.4 Ii PTTn 7— inalgflflR RnvnnindTriwA RPT 1T) T)­. L9T1_T A rT FAN Ann SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. SC February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 133 The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the Triad RPUD development, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Triad RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, the RPUD- Residential Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these RPUD regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district of the County LDC shall apply. B. This RPUD Document and attendant RPUD Master Plan is generally tailored to provide specific development standards for the residential product proposed by the developer. C. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. D. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions . for the development of the Triad RPUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the RPUD site may be developed. E. Unless modified, waived or excepted through the approval of a deviation stated herein, the provisions of other. sections of the LDC, where applicable, remain in firll force and effect with respect to the development of the land that comprises this RPUD. F. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concutrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6.02, Adequate Public Facilities, of the LDC, at the earliest or next -to -occur of either Final Site Development Plan approval II -1 (1• \�nnd \nd_nn10 nn T'i.d RPTTTI 7nni— \nnnq PVT TT) n— 1-7n-(U rl 17 AN A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 133 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS A- The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and uses of land is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A ", RPUD Master Plan. TABLE I PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS TYPE UN1TS/FT. ACREAGE± TRACT "R" RESIDENTIAL 140 8.8 TRACT `RX' RECREATION AREA 0 0.3 TRACT "P" PRESERVE 0 1.6 B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the some general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A Minor modification to all tracts, lakes 'or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of Site Development Plan approval, subject to the provisions of Chapters 10.02.05, and 10.02.03 of the Collier County LDC, or as otherwise permitted by this RPUD Document C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit "A ", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi - private) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY A mmumum of 140 residential dwelling units may be constructed on the total project area. The gross project area is approximately 10.75 acres. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 13.02 dwelling units per acre. 2.5 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A Prior to final local development order issuance for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan and the Collier County LDC. H -2 rl- 19f104104_M110 00 Tr:aA R TTI 7— ; —\n004 RPTTTI T1— 1_90_!14 rT PAN A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 133 B. Exhibit "A ", RPUD Master Plan, constitutes the required RPUD Development Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with Chapter 10.02.04 of the Collier County LDC, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. C. The provisions of Chapter 10.02.03 of the Collier County LDC, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division prior to the issuance of a budding permit or other development order. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and methods for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.6 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATIONS A. Lakes shall conform with the requirements of Section 22- 112(a) of Ordinance No. 04- 55, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances of the LDC for a development excavation. Lakes may be excavated to the maximum development excavation depths set forth in Section 22- 112(c) of Ordinance No. 0455, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances of the LDC. Removal of fill from the Triad RPUD shall be limited to an amount up to ten percent (10 %) (to a maximum 20,000 cubic yards), of the total volume. . 2.7 AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this RPUD Ordinance or RPUD Master Development Plan, Exhibit "A ", as provided for in Chapter 10.02.13.E of the Collier County LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described in Section 6.3.0 of this RPUD document may be made in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the Collier County LDC. 2.8 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES Easements shall be provided for water management areas, rights -of -way, utilities and other purposes as required. All necessary _ easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the. continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time of adoption of this Ordinance establishing the Triad RPUD. 11 -3 n•N,nnaina_nns n nn T i-q uvrm 7,,.,;—\nnn1 RvTm n— i_ ')n" rt Faw A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 133 Whenever the developer elects to create land area and/or recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of residential units or real property within the Triad RPUD, the developer shall Provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a property owners' association, or master condominium association, whose fimcdon shall include provision for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space, subject further to the provisions of Subsection 2.2.20.3.8. (this Section of the LDC was omitted from the rewrite and is intended to be added) of the Collier County LDC. 2.9 MODEL, SALES, AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATION FACILITIES A. Models, sales/rental centers and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale and/or rental of real estate such as, but not limited -to, pavilions, viewing platforms, gazebos, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Triad RPUD subject to the requirements of Chapter 5.04.04 of the Collier County LDC. B. Temporary use permits for sales centers, and model homes may be approved subsequent to zoning approval. Temporary use permit applications, and associated Site Development Plan (SDP) application(s) for residential models, may be submitted, concurrently with . applications for Site Development Plans for the overall project, to depict the location of the model units within the project. D. Temporary uses for sales centers may be serviced by temporary well and septic systems. E. A portion (no more than 1/3 of the gross floor area), of the clubhouse facilities may be used as a temporary sales facility to be utilized to- market residential products, including the re -sale of residences within the boundaries of the Triad RPUD. The temporary sales facility use must cease when the control of the condominium association is transferred to the residents of the project. 2.10 CLUBHOUSE Construction approvals for the clubhouse and related common recreational facilities may be approved subsequent to zoning approval. SDP applications for the .clubhouse and related facilities may be submitted concurrently with applications for Site Development Plan approval for the overall project, to depict the location of the clubhouse and related facilities within the project site. The clubhouse and related facilities must be located on a parcel within the RPUD boundaries, and depicted and described by a legal description to be included as a part of subsequent development order approvals. II 4 n- \9nAA\nd_anin nn Te•i.,i RPTIII 7nnina \!NN@ Rrannio olTrisd RPTM T-1— 1_70_(14 rT RdN A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 133 2.11 FILL STORAGE Fib material generated may be stockpiled within areas designated for residential development. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, a request, along with plans showing the locations and cross- sections shall be submitted to Collier County Environmental and Engineering Staff for review and approval. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope: 3:1 B. Stockpile maximum height thirty -five (3 5) feet C. Fill storage shall not be permitted in Preserve Areas. 2.12 REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING Where the development of land within the Triad RPUD requires a permit from a local, State, or federal agency with jurisdiction over the:. property proposed for development, the developer shall obtain such permits prior to final development order approval. 2.13 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County GMP, and Chapter 3.05.07 of the Collier County LDC; a minimum of 1.34 acres (15% of the native vegetation on site) is required to be retained or replanted - Native vegetation areas do not include those areas of-vegetation that have greater than seventy- five percent (75 %) canopy coverage of exotic species. The RPUD Master Plan depicts one Preserve area. The 1.62+ acre Preserve depicted will be retained native vegetation. This is due to the fact that of the 10.75 -acre project site, only 8.92 acres of the site is `native ", by definition. The minimum width of the preserve shall be an average of thirty feet but not less than twenty feet in width The design, area, and configuration of the native preserves may be modified from the depiction on the RPUD Master Plan. However, the remaining native preserves shall not be decreased below 1.34 acres in total area. 11 -5 o- mnAknd_nnin M Triw l RPTM 7n i..dn(MZ RPTm n— i_70_nA rT PAN A- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 133 2.14 LINKAGE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Pursuant to Chapter 10.02.13.0 of the Land Development Code, upon adoption of the RPUD- Ordinance and attendant RPUD Master Plan, the provisions of the RPUD Document become a part of the IDC and shall be the standards of development for the RPUD. Thenceforth, development in the area delineated as the Triad RPUD District on the Official Zoning Atlas shall be governed by the adopted development regulations set forth in this RPUD Document, RPUD Master.Ku4 and applicable provisions of the LDC. II -6 o-\,) nA\n6.f nin M TA.4 RPTTTI 7— inu5AnA4 RP,^.i —ATA*A RPTTTI nl T.MJU (R FAN fl v,, SECTION III RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 37 of 133 The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for areas designated as Tract "R" on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit "A". Infrastructure, perimeter land use buffers, sWaage, as well as project recreational/social facilities will occur within this Tract. 3.2 M[ANMMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be established at the time of development plan review, but shall not exceed 140 dwelling units. 3.3 USES PERIVIITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following A. Principal Uses: 1) Multi - family residences. B. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses and structures including, but not limited to private garages, swimming pools, with or without screened enclosures, and other outdoor recreation facilities along with the following. Model homes (See Section 2.9 of this Document). 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between struchues. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. B. OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS As required by Chapters 4.05.04 and 4.05.07, of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. III -1 !1• \9nnA \1)A_nnl n nn T'inri RPTTT 7-- oknnn4 Rw7n ;"6 \Trind RPTM T-b— 1_9n_nA ('T FAN ri- Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 133 TABLE II RESIDENTIAL. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT MULTI- CLUBHOUSE/ STANDARDS FAMILY RECREATION BUILDINGS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 S.R. 10,000 S.F. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F. N/A MINIMUM FRONT YARD 20 FEETSenN°tm N/A MINIMUM SIDE YARD 1S FEET N/A MINIMUM REAR YARD IS FEET N/A MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET 25 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 FEET N/A MAXIMUM BLDG. HEIGHT 2 STORIES N/A NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET N/A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM FRONT YARD S.P.S. See NOSO' 20 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD S.P.S 'h BH MINIMUM REAR YARD (ATTACHED) 5 FEET N °`°` 10 FEET (DETACHED) 5 FEET s°` NON 20 FEET MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET 10 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE ... ._. _ — BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 FEET greater of IS feet or % BH SN Swdon 43.4- °fm+. docwwL MAXIMUM BLDG. HEIGHT. 2 STORIES 2 STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET 35 FEET S.P.S.: Same as Principal Strucum. BH: Building Height III -2 fl•1)f1! AMA -nAjA M TA.A RPTM 7— ;—V1nn1'3 RPTTr1 Ts— 1_ ,)f1 -nA f`T RAN Air Agenda Item No, 8C February 22, 2005 Page 39 of 133 Notes: 1) The location of structures proposed adjacent to a lake may have no setback from the lake maintenance easement. 2) No structures arepermitted in the required, 20 foot lake maintenance easement. 3) All garages associated with residential units must be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk, adjacent to internal drives, closest to the garage, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided generally parallel to the garage opening to avoid vehicles Being parked across a portion, or all of the referenced sidewalk 4) No principal or accessory structures shall encroach into the perimeter landscape beers, III -3 f1•l9nnAknd_nn In nn Tri-i RPITT) 7^ni.,Annni RPT TT) I)— 1_9n_m rT RAW 4n SECTION IV RECREATION AREA 4.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 40 of 133 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "RA," Recxration Area on Exhibit "A ", RPUD Master Plan., The primary function and purpose of this Tract is to provide for social and recreational areas/spaces as an amenity for the residents of the project. 4.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required: Principal Uses: 1) Structures intended to provide social and recreational space. �— 2) Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playground improvements/facilities, and passive and/or active water features. 3) Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the IDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses or structures incidental to reoreation areas. and, or facilities, including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, storage or shelter with appropriate screa drag and landscaping. 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Development standards for Tract RA are contained in Table Il in this Document. There sball be a minimum 20 -foot separation between recreational building(s) and all residential units. IV-1 0:12004104- 0010.00 Triad RPUD ZoninQ10003 Rezoni4Triad RPUD Doc 1 -20-04 CLEAN.doc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 41 of 133 B. OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS As required by Chapters 4.05.04 and 4.05.07 of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. IV -2 0:12004\04- 0010.00 Triad RPUD ZoninjG003 RezoniniTriad RPUD Doc 1 -20 -04 CLEAN -doc SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 42 of 133 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as Tract "P ", Preserve Area on Exhibit "A,', RPUD Master Plan. The primary function and purpose of this Tract is to preserve and protect vegetation and naturally functioning habitats, such as wetlands, including upland buffers, in their natural, and/or enhanced state. 5.2 USES PERMITTED Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. For the purpose of this section, passive recreational uses are those uses that would allow limited access to the preserve in a manner that will not cause any negative impacts to the preserve, such aspervious pathways, benches and educational signs are permitted in the preserve. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection in the preserves in accordance with the protected species Chapters 10.02.02.4.8, and 10.02.03.B.b.d.iii of the LDC. Fences and walls are not permitted within the preserve area. No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than, the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required: Principal Uses: Open spaces /nature preserves. Accessory Uses: 1) Water management structures. 2) Mitigation areas. 3) Hiking trails, boardwalks, shelters, or other such facilities constructed for the purposes of passage through or enjoyment of the site's natural attn'butes, subject to approval by the appropriate permitting agencies. V -1 0:\2004\04-0010.00 Triad RPUD Zoning\0003 Rezoning\Triad RPUD Doc 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doc SECTION VI DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 43 of 133 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 6.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans, final subdivision plats (if required), and all applicable state and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Section III of the Construction Standards Manual shall apply to this project, even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted The developer, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document The developer, its successors or assignee, small follow the Master Development Plan and the regulations of the RPUD Document; as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successors or assignee in title to the developer, are bound by any commitments within this Document These commitments may be assigned or delegated to a condominium/ homeowners' association to be created by the developer: Upon assignment or delegation, the developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments. 6.3 RPUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Exhibit "A ", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, parcel, or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final, and may be varied at any time at any subsequent approval phase, such as final platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10.02.13.E of the LDC, amendments may be made fiom time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granters to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and all common areas in the project C. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee, shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Triad RPUD Master Plan upon written request of the developer. VI -1 0:\2004 \04.0010.00 Triad RPUD Zoning\0003 RezoninglTriad RPUD Doe 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22,2005 Page 44 of 133 1) The following limitations shall apply to such requests: a. The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County GMP, and the Triad RPUD Document b. The minor. change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Chapter 10.02.13.E.1 of the Collier County LDC. c. The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with adjacent land uses, and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, wader management facilities, and Preserve Areas within, or external to the RPUD boundaries. 2) The following shall be considered minor changes or refinements, subject to the limitations of LDC Chapter 10.02.13.E: a. Reconfiguration of Preserve Areas, jurisdictional wetland limits, and mitigation features as a result of regulatory agency review and permitting. There may be no overall decrease in Preserve Area b. Reconfiguration of lakes or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water -Management District and Collier County. c. Internal realignment of roadways and interconnection to off -site areas, other than a relocation of access points from publicly maintained roadways (Le.: State or County roadways), to the RPUD itself; where no water conservationipreservation areas are affected, or otherwise provided for d. Reconfiguration of residential parcels when there is no proposed encroachment into a Preserve Area, except as provided for in a. paragraph of this section above. 3) Minor changes and refinements, as described above, shall be reviewed by appropriate County staff to ensure compliance with all applicable County ordinances and regulations prior to the Administrator's consideration for approval. 4) Approval by the Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from, and prior to any application for subdivision plat (if required), or site development plan approval. However, the Administrator's, or his designee's, approval shall not constitute an authorization for development, or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all applicable County permits and approvals. VI -2 0:12004104 -0010.00 Triad RPUD Zoning10003 Rezoning \Triad RPUD Doc 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 . Page 45 of 133 6.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/1VIONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. This RPUD is subject to the sunset provisions of Chapter 10.02.13.D of the LDC. B. An annual RPUD monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Chapter 10.02.13F of the LDC, and be in the form of an affidavit by the property owner, or designated agent. C. 'The project shall be developed in one phase. Completion of the final dwelling unit is anticipated to occur in late 2005. Recreation and clubhouse facilities will be constructed simultaneously with the development of the residential product 6.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control device s, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (.N=CD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site - related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the fast CO. D. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01 -13, as amended, and Chapters 6.02.00 and 10.02.07 of the LDC, as it may be amended E. All wont within Collier County rights -of -way or public easements shall require a right -of -way Pmt F. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. VI -3 0:\2004\04-001 0.00 Triad RPUD Zoning10003 Rezoning\Triad RPUD Doc 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 46 of 133 G. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right inhight out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof; be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. IL All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and intmronnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer. Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. I. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right -of -way or easement, compensating right -of -way, if necessary, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. J. It in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public rigbt -of -way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. 6.6 PLANNING The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: More than 60% of the project will provide useable open space, or lands reserved for conservation purposes. 6.7 WATER MANAGEMENT The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Detailed paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Engineering Review Services Department for review and approval. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until Planning Services Staff grants approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the approved plans.--­ B. An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with the Collier County LDC and South Florida Water Management District Rules. VI -4 0:12004\04 -001 0.00 Triad RPUD Zoning\0003 RezoningUriad RPUD Doc 1-20 -04 CLEANi.doc Agenda Item No. 8C February.22, 2005 Page 47 of 133 6.8 UTILrIUS The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities to serve the project shall be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned, and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 01 -57, as amended, and other applicable County Hiles and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distnbution and sewage collection facilities shall be considered to be customers of the County, and shall be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. 6.9 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this RPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules, and shall be subject to review and approval by Environmental Services Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted toward mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. B. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans, and shall be similarly depicted on any plat- A2y instruments, plats, or plans creating conservation areas shall include provisions imposing protective covenants per, or similar to, those found in Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. Setbacks from conservation areas shall be provided in accordance with Chapters 3.05.07.H.1.d and 3.05.07.H.3 of the Collier County LDC. Conservation areas shall be conveyed or dedicated to the homeowner's association, or like entity for ownership with responsibility for maintenance, and to Collier County, with no responsibility for maintenance. C. All principal structures shall have a minimum setback of 25' from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures and all other site alterations, other than water management benning, shall have a minimum 10 -foot setback. D. The Developer shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF &WS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission TFWCC) regarding potential impacts to `.`listed species ". Where protected species or their habitats are observed on site, a habitat management plan for those protected species, or their habitats shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. VI -5 0:120 04104 - 00 10.00 Triad RFUD Zonin810003 RezoningNTriad RPUD Doc 1-20-04 CLEAN.doc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 48 of 133 E. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council, shall be removed finrn within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. F. The RPUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County GMP, Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of final development order approval. G. All approved agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final plat/construction plan approval. K A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to Environmental Staff for approval prior to site/construction approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. 6.10 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures may be constructed simultaneously with, or following the construction of the principal structure, except for the clubhouse facilities, the construction operation /management office and model center. These structures may be constructed after zoning approval. 6.11 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Chapter 5.06.00 of the . Collier County LDC in effect at the time of final plat, or site development plan approval. 6.12 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted throughout the Triad RPUD, except in Preserve Areas. The following *standards shall apply: A. Landscape berms may have the following maximum side slopes: -.. 1) Grassed berms 4:1 2) Ground covered berms 3:1 VI -6 0:\2004104- 0010.00 Triad RPUD Zoning10003 RazoningUriad RPUD Doe 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doe Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 49 of 133 B. Fence or wall maximum height: six feet as measured from the finished grade. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered no greater than 18 inches above the crown elevation of the nearest existing road, unless the fence or wall is oonst ted on a perimeter landscape berm along the property abutting Palm Springs Boulevard, or Radio Lane. Deviation from LDC Chapter 5.03.02.B to allow fencelwall height to be measured from finished grade rather than existing grade, of the ground at the base of the fence or wall, C. Pedestrian sidewalks, brake paths, water management facilities and structures may be allowed m landscape buffer areas provided that the landscape buffer area is increased by an equivalent width D. No tow of slope setback will be provided along the project frontage on Palm Springs Boulevard, nor Radio Lane. A six foot (6') flat top of berm will be provided within the project adjacent to said Rights -Of -Way, that flat anew will be where a potential fencoJwall will be located, with landscape buffer material installed between the wall and the respective Rights -Of -Way. Cross - section D-D, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates this wall/baming interface with the Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Land Rights -Of -Way. Deviation from Chapter 4,06.05.I of the LDC, where a 5 -foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height E. No tow of slope setback will be provided along the eastern project boundary, south of the Platted drainage easement, where the project interfaces with the west boundary of Saddlebrook Village. Cross - Section B-B, on sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set ltlustrates the proposed bemzing interface with the existing masonry wall constructed as a part of the Saddlebrook Village PUD improvements. Deviation from Chapter 4.06.05.I of the LDC, where a 5 -foot setback is required from a property line for the tow of slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet. 6.13 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF - STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with Chapter 4.06.03.B of the Collier County LDC m effect at the time of building permit application. 6.14 DEVIATIONS 6.12.B. Fence or wall maximum height: six feet as measured from the finished grade. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered no greater than 18 inches above the crown elevation of the nearest existing road, unless the fence or wall is constructed on a perimeter landscape berm along the property abutting Palm Springs Boulevard, or Radio Lane. Deviation from LDC Chapter 5.03.02.B to allow fence/wall height to be measured from finished grade rather than existing grade, of the ground at the base of the fence or wall. VI -7 0:12004\04 -0010.00 Tried RPUD Zoning\0003 Rezoning\Triad RPUD Doc 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doc Agenda Item No. 8C .February 22, 2005 Page 50 of 133 6.12.D. - No tow of slope setback will be provided along the project frtmtage on Palm Springs Boulevard, nor Radio Lase. A six foot (6') flat top of berm will be provided within the project adjacent to said Rights -Of- Way, that flat area will be where a potential fencelwall will be located, with landscape buffer material msWW between the wall and the respective Rights -Of- Way. Cross - section DD, on Sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustates this wall/berming interface with the Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane Rights -Of -Way. Deviation from Chapter 4.06.05.I of the LDC, where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for the tow-of-slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet in height 6.12.E. No tow of slope setback will be provided along the eastern project boundary, south of the platted drainage easement, where the project interfaces with the west boundary of Saddlebrook Village., Cross- Section RB, on sheet 5 of 5 of the RPUD Plans Set illustrates the proposed bermmg interface with the austiing masonry wall constructed as a part of the Saddlebmok Village PUD improvements. Deviation from Chapter 4.06.05.I of the LDC, where a 5-foot setback is required from a property line for .the tow of slope, when the proposed berm is greater than two feet. V1 -8 0:12004W-0010.00 Triad RPUD Zonini;10003 Rezoning lTriad RPUD Doc 1 -20 -04 CLEAN.doc E V� Agenda item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 133 1� it11'11J lJ L i�.r U L.0 AN MASTER .J �c���._ { �FI :A EPiT Rur -rz (7) E V� Agenda item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 133 1� it11'11J lJ L i�.r U L.0 AN MASTER { �FI Rur -rz (7) SINGS -rANIY DEVEtOFEU L ..� ► - - 0 _ rnAer •Rr uNO usE SuuNtARY wm USE ASRGSE uais F-I \ riser •r A!lOORY AAO ./- ACRB r0u F-1 nnn •Ar acanAroN rau e.aa '/' "CINDI a I I l I err ia.m • 1 1 A I A I I gC4p ai nacT •r I k nun •r � u.c 1 � nucr •r I I yi I I FOAL OESC$ g!TION Ctl-11 �y ri d wnuf n a. Nn '. PNN n'.aas FlA7A mar �� I i g } +R. ANO wn rAGIEO NmDt 1 uui � AtY b� sort a r. �[tnrm w w wa t we Tr ar ,91 ar eawe egam, nuRw L I — — — RPUO NA_CTER PLAN NOTFC RADIO ROAD (C.R. -l56) GAS STATN i UNYPROJm iww r�s�wiR"L�ii r Osa w �sros'�ir riewi • <. HYHy J1 a Ida Item No. 8C bruary 22, 2005 Page 52 of 133 BOUNDARY SURVEY PALM SPRINGS VILLAGE UNIT ONE 40.0' N89'54'20 "E 620.41'(P) 620.19'(M) CHAIN PEENCE x ;I� O i IOO.f:' 5110.0' i I I I,Ol J Ol ( CALLE D0. REY VACATED BY OR B. 1408, P: 1122 �i ai CP I 4: J r. <t' I � — c N 1 n io ti 1 ; ,00.0' ,00.0' tOQO' 100.0' t00.0' 120.67^ r4 � o 1V r' 0. I 100.0' too.O' ISO. SfrD.C' — 100.0' 120.7'4 II` m b b I % C 589'54'20 "W — 595.43'(P) 595.41'(At) / STATE'�ROAD 5 -858 100' RIGHT OF WAY . LE(;END /A8sRE,hAT10NS Q ir s •se M w1w feel] A, A& NNt A s W PAS R =I CHORD I BEARING 3 RA a" lot I cl 0 ola now ow 4 sower uwlr pry rill sift ' THIS SURVEY IS PREPARED FOR• . LUOtNr rMA0 •: r)USINC PAR I'vIFPS o} njlr 0 0 J Z D W - UWAT c4mw R Ne - AR 611WRAW Ap0RES5 OF PROP0UL . o uro i l 4LAf SPR�NCS pLw4�AgP l hereby certify that this surVS mow Y r Y K - the minlmum toollnlcal standards as per MCI 011a"o r SW - aolcmw NOTES: Chapter QIC17 -6 F.A.0 ua. UYAW "X" Thu b not o wi that- of 17114 Ioaing, w - 10" sr sA+e sr- XYM %.w c CGP TONE - PANFL 12,)D1,? 04 :'L D. or Froodom of encumbronees. w.04=W&W G n ?1HCS BtSED ON PHY51CAL CJc.NT^?JW:: Or Abstroat has not barn reNlWed and 1pd,- r F'hAt tFRNGS BOJ�AAD r,5 BCNd SD'..i r 7: other eos fflonts and restrictions may us uum E�ivnl,:ra5 Af2E BA:i:O fiN AN A3S'ltit�L7� 100.7'. apply to this parcel, All other ro"Inants who, - usUlT MAWIN that exist are requL'ed to be proMdid 4ECAL DESCRIP77CW to the surwyar by the client of his lOn. B 20.4 ALL _Y' ELOid:S Z. 4. NCi E, %ABM Sz;rl;v P or Aar agent per Florida Statute ob of urwy. PLA:r, U4ii- Nil. 1 AND Tt!r:T "A:. i.TER tiIG17- [+.00d (i0) F.A.G 'T:.�:' ;k" :;ALte 0.Z F,Et' 4.'S! {T :r IV( 1' Pr,_101W, 0 I,, PL•:T &XIE' 0, AA of ?! LA ; ° 130' 7+E -:13:.rc lh- t;Gr.•,c .0 C"Lclil? lavNT•. Soak: ProJsct Ng� g�i -3 •:.O °IL .,. Cord C. Nelson, P.L. 1POIJ F8 No. P, .:r SJO WRwo Soutewrd South nPride 34117 Bey N0, NOT VAUD UNLESS N IK. WBOSSED WITH SEAL COPYRIGhr 2004 SY CAROL L NELSON P.A.. ALL RIOIYTS RESERHTD. (3 ) J04 -0053 area* �P3Y) 304 -0047 F09411nAs Exhibit i6B" N i o a WC OD DE < LANES J WESTPORT aZ m TWELVE COMMERCE N LAKES CENTER 4 �. 3 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 28 26 CI TYGA TE 35 WHITE LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL PLAZA 1 -75 /COLLIER TOLL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL PLAZA CENTER R. v. 2 FOREST GLEN Ui! WILDWOOD ESTATES q�� CEDAR OF NAPLES R26 E C) 4' GOLDEN GATE LO GOLDEN GATE 'O VILLAS FO UNDERS I I NEW HOPE NAPLES. HERITAGE PARKWAY PLAZA ASHLEY'S SERVICE STATION MINISTRIES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PROMENADE Apr 07, 7064 — 16:44:00 P: \7004 \04 - 0090.00 me RPUD Zoning \0003 Rdzond)q\RPU0 EXM /0175 \40010XOt.dwq Lu 4� ` P� CITY CLIENT: TRIAD HOUSING PARTNERS, z) 0 m JACARANDA CENTER RA A"" NO= SCALL N (s) Q 5mvern & Or. °"'""" °"• TITLE: 27 28 FOUNDERS A.S. VICINITY MAP 0 PLAZA fOBDNrrli NatW�es eur lf0 m PARKWAY r" saw N U)j < PLACE (S) g" ""` '�' 34 495 28E PRwECT 04- 0010.00 NUMBER; M{ ¢ PARKWAY 40010X01 Fmtmj..=n� = qtl C/) CENTER 177 MAGNOLIA GOLDEN GATE BERKSHIRE HERON POND COMMERCE LAKES LAKE PARK COLLIER BLVD. INTERSTATE-75 MIXED USE COMMERCE SHERWOOD CENTER 33 PARK 34 GREEN PROJECT 0 BERKSHIRE HERON SITE TRIAD < ' LAKES p 1 -75 ALLIGAI PUD }2ADIO ROAD (C.R. 856) L^ W N i o a WC OD DE < LANES J WESTPORT aZ m TWELVE COMMERCE N LAKES CENTER 4 �. 3 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 28 26 CI TYGA TE 35 WHITE LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL PLAZA 1 -75 /COLLIER TOLL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL PLAZA CENTER R. v. 2 FOREST GLEN Ui! WILDWOOD ESTATES q�� CEDAR OF NAPLES :---I C) 4' HAMMOCK LO 'O I I NEW HOPE NAPLES. HERITAGE i I I MINISTRIES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB Apr 07, 7064 — 16:44:00 P: \7004 \04 - 0090.00 me RPUD Zoning \0003 Rdzond)q\RPU0 EXM /0175 \40010XOt.dwq ' 04. 04 CLIENT: TRIAD HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC. RA A"" NO= SCALL N 5mvern & Or. °"'""" °"• TITLE: v vim' -z �,a A.S. VICINITY MAP atia= W. fOBDNrrli NatW�es eur lf0 r" saw N g" ""` '�' 34 495 28E PRwECT 04- 0010.00 NUMBER; sHEk7 NUMBER: 1 I I OF NUMBER 40010X01 Fmtmj..=n� = Exhibit "C" TRIAD RPUD OFFSITE INTERFACE EXHIBIT ''•RBFi. ••h ,I, ..r. �..� _rte ►' y� . ' �' � , I^. PUD R F•0 j" PUD PUD io / 3 . PUD ja All C-2 w9. � I Iii �li c -a T ca i RMF- 12)10) PUD '°°0.,".,j." PUD PPU.DDa Agenda Item No. 8C' February 22, 2005 Page 54 of 133 B j A t mfI i! �t TRIAD RPUD CROSS SECTIONS ©EA ---------- - =- - -- �s __________ _______ Z� LY" f.SiCQ ---------- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - Agenda Item No. BC February 22. 2005 Page 55 of 133 FEES W�,l I 4 11 !0l 7 i Ulf Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 56 of 133 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: PUD .REZONE (PUDZ) ❑PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ A) Petition No.: Date Received: 1. General Information: Planner Assigned: PUDZ-2004 -AR -6015 PROJECT #2004040053 Commission District: DATE: 6!7104 — MICHAEL BOSI ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Name of Applicant(s): Palm Springs, LLC Applicant's Mailing Address: Attention: Oliver Pfeffer 6535 Nova Drive # 106 City Davie State Florida Zip 33317 Applicant's Telephone #: 954 472 -3050 Fax #: 954 472 -3099 Applicant's E -Mail Address: op c4triadlhn.com Name of Agent: Dwight Nadeau Firm: R.W.A. Inc. Agent's Mailing Address: 3050 North Horseshoe Drive Suite 270 City: Naples_ State: Florida Zip: 34104 Agent's Telephone #: (239) 649 -1509 Fax #: (239) 649 -7056 Agent's E -Mail Address: dhnla,)consult- rwa.com Name of Agent: R. Bruce Anderson Firm: Roetzel and Andress Agent's Mailing Address: 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre -Third Floor City: Naples State: Florida Zip: 34103 Agent's Telephone #: _ 239) 649 -2708 Fax #: (239) 261 -3659 Agent's E -Mail Address: banderson(a- ralaw.com COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW °^ 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403- 2400/FAX (941) 643 -6968 Anniicadon For Public e8rina For PUD Rezone 8129/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 57 of 133 *Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Master Association: Mailing Address Name of Civic Association: City City State Zip State Zip City State Zip Mailing Address City State Zip 2. Disclosure of Interest Information: a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 8/29/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholMnuaM tlfd 33 percentage'of stock owned by each. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Robert S Barber TR 8211 College Parkway Fort Myers, Florida 33919 -5193 Michael D. & Janice K. Danzig Deborah L. Rosen Revocable Trust U/D /T Dated 9/23/02 John S. & Jan Fifer Charles H. Bechert II Tr UTAD 3/5/99 Robert S. Barber F.M. Lusebrink, Partner, Angus Naples Land Company Prudential Securities C/F Frank M. Johnson IRA Rollover H. Dieter Voatland Tr U/A Dtd 8/30/00 SW Florida Heart Group, P.A. Employee PSP -FBO Michael Danzig. Jeffrey Land M.D.. P.A. Thomas F. Gillaspie, D.V.M.. P,A. Defined Benefit Pension Plan Retirement Accounts FBO Frances C. Fenning, IRA # 042044 Application For Public Hearine For PUD Rezone 8/29/03 Percentage of Interest Folio # 6572 360006 Folio # 6572 _ 840006 ` Folio # 657 320005 5% 5% 5% 20% 1.25% 5% 5% 5% Robert E. Newman, M.D. Employee P/S Plan & Trust William Nunez Trustee Skyward Companies of America Retirement Plan Alfred Johnson, Trustee Alfiea Entrp., Inc. Retirement Plan Cardiac Consultants Employee Profit Sharing Plan Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt Employee Profit Sharing Plan Dr. Gerhard Niesslein 5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.45% 13.75% 5% Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 59 of 133 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Palm Springs, LLC Oliver B. Pfeffer 33 1 /3% David A. Schultz 33 1/3% David M. Reich 33 1 /3% 6535 Nova Drive, Suite 106 Davie, Florida 33317 Date of Contract: 12/15/2003 f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address Application For Public Hearin[ For PUD Rezone 8/24/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 g. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ): Term of lease Page 60 of 133 yrs. /mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: terminates: , or anticipated closing date and date option h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 3. Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. 7. Section: 34 Township: 49 South Range: 26 East Lot: Block: 2.4, 6 Subdivision: Palm Springs Plaza Plat Book 8 Page #: 21 Property I.D. #: 65721360006, 65720320005 Metes & Bounds Description: Size of property: 755 ft. X 620 ft. =Total Sq. Ft. 468,270 Acres 10.75 Address /general location of subject property The prgposedproject site is generally located on the north side of Radio Lane, east of Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South Range 26 East Collier County Florida. PUD District (LDC 2.2.20.4): ® Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Adiacent zoning and land use: Zoning Land use N RMF -12 Palm Springs Village, residential subdivision S C -3 Circle K and County Right -of -way E PUD Saddlebrook Village W C -1 Undeveloped Lands Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). No Application For Public Heerine For PUD Rezone 8/29103 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 61 of 133 Section: Township: Range: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: 8. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the C -1 zoning district(s) to the RPUD Development zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Undeveloped lands. Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the Residential Subdivision Original PUD Name: Ordinance No.: 9. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 and Sec. 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staffs 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 aDCSecdon 2.7.3.2.51 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The proposed PUD's consistency with the locational criteria set forth on the Future Land Use Map and supporting Future Land Use Element (FLUE), of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and consistency with the applicable Elements related to access, drainage, water, sewer, and other utilities, combined with the development conditions and commitments contained in the proposed PUD document, gives reasonable assurance that all infrastructure will be developed consistent with County regulations. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The documents submitted with this Petition Application provide evidence of unified control. Further, the proposed PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. Application For Public Hearine For PUD Rezone 8/29/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 62 of 133 _.. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. Please refer to the Statement of Compliance located in the Triad RPUD Document. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The RPUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. Additionally, most external relationships are automatically regulated by the Land Development Code to ensure harmonious relationships between projects. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this proposed project meets or exceeds.the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Adequate improvements, utilities and other facilities can be provided. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. Relative to this Petition, development of the subject property is timely, because supporting infrastructure are available, or will be in place by the time permitting of the proposed improvements is complete. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justif ed as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The development standards in the proposed PUD document are similar to those standards used for the residential structures and related improvements when compared to County regulations. 10. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Ao Ilestion For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 9129/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 11. Previous land use petitions on the subiect property: To your knowledge, h£tage IdM hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No 12. Additional Submittal renuirements: In addition to this completed application, the following shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the pre - application meeting. a . A copy of the pre - application meeting notes; b . If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide twenty (20) copies (this includes: HUI if affordable housing, Joyce Ernst, if residential and Immokalee /Water Sewer District, if in Immokalee) of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan [and one reduced 8%2" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, depicting the following [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), or CCPC]; • all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, • provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), • all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], • required yards, open space and preserve areas, • proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the site), • proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the County, c. An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. d. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate. e . Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved (per LDC Section 3.9.5.5.4.). f . Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches); AvOication For Public H fjrine For PUD Rezone 8129/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 g. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre - application meetidipge 64 of 133 h. A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre - application meeting); i . Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and identified during the pre - application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federal permits. j . An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of this submittal package. k . Boundary Survey, no more than six months old - LDC Section 2.7.3.1.2.(8) Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2 (3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign (s) immediately. STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST 1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Palm Springs LLC 2. MAILING ADDRESS: Attn: Oliver Pfeffer 6535 Nova Drive # 106 CITY Davie STATE Florida ZIP 33317 3. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section: 34 Township: 49 Range: 26 Lot: Block: 2, 4, 6 Subdivision: Palm Springs Plaza Plat Book 8 Page #: 21 Property I.D. #:65721360006. 65720840006. 65720320005 Metes & Bounds Description: 5. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT ❑ (GPD capacity) a. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ 6. TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED: a ' COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) IN Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 65 of 133 7. TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: 199 =140 units X 1.42 occupants per unit 8. PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER -PEAK 56.2 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 36,815 GPD (LOS: 185 GPD /capita) B. SEWER -PEAK 44.1 GPM AVERAGE DAILY28,855 GPD (LOS:145 GPD /capital Peak = Average Daily x 2.2 peak factor + 1440 minutes 9. IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED: 4th Quarter 2005. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. Utility Provision Statement RJM 10/17/97 Application For Public Hearin¢ For PUD Rezone 8129103 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 PUD REZONE APPLICATION Page 66 of 133 - SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET! REQUIREMENTS # OF COME S REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED 1. Completed Application /PUD documents 24* X 2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(s) and all Partners if a Corporation 2* X 3. Completed Owner /Agent Affidavit, Notarized 2* X 4. Pre - application notes /minutes 24* X 5. Conceptual Site Plans 24* X 6. Environmental Impact Statement - (EIS) or Waiver Request 4 X 7. Aerial Photograph - (with habitat areas identified) 5* X 8. Completed Utility Provisions Statement (with required attachments and sketches 4 X 9. Traffic Impact Statement - (TIS) 7 X 10. Historical & Archaeological Survey or Waiver Application 4 X 11. Copies of State and /or Federal Permits 4 12. Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s) 4 X 13. ZApplication Fee — "PUD Rezone" = $10,000 + $25 per acre ®Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review = $2,250 ❑ Application Fee — "PUD to PUD Rezone" = $8000 Fire Code Review = $150 EIS Review = $1600 Check shall be made payable to: Collier County Board of Commissioners 14. An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of the submittal packet. X 15. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement including all Appendices and Exhibits. 4 X 16, Boundary Survey (no more than 6 months old) 5 X 17. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: * Documents required for Long -Range Planning Re As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I in this submittal package. I understand that failure 9 processing this petition. Signature Application For Public Hearine For PUD Rezone 8/24/03 * 1 additional copy if for affordable housing t that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included ude all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of S-1-1116 Y ate Agenda Item. No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 67 of 133 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS): A TIS is required unless waived at the pre- application meeting. The TIS required may be either a major or minor as determined at the pre - application meeting. Please note the following with regard to TIS submittals: MINOR TIS: Generally required for rezone requests for property less than 10 acres in size, although based on the intensity or unique character of a petition, a major TIS may be required for petition of ten acres or less. MAJOR TIS: Required for all other rezone requests. A minor TIS shall include the following: Trip Generation: Annual Average Daily Traffic (at build -out) Peak Hour (AADT) Peak Season Daily Traffic Peak Hour (PSDT) 2. Trip Assignment: Within Radius of Development Influence (RDI) 3. Existing Traffic: Within RDI AADT Volumes PSDT Volumes Level of Service (LOS) 4. Impact of the proposed use on affected major thoroughfares, including any anticipated changes in level of service (LOS). 5. Any proposed improvements (to the site or the external right -of -way) such as providing or eliminating an ingress /egress point, or providing turn or decel lanes or other improvements. 6. Describe any proposal to mitigate the negative impacts on the transportation system. 7. For Rezones Only: State how this request is consistent with the applicable policies of the Traffic Circulation Element(TCE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), including policies 1..3, 1.4, 4.4, 5.1,5.2, 7.2 and 7.3. A Major TIS shall address all of the items listed above (for a Minor TIS, and shall also include an analysis of the following: 1. Intersection Analysis 2. Background Traffic 3. Future Traffic 4. Through Traffic 5. Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements 6. Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development Aaulication For Public Hearin¢ For PUD Rezone 8/24103 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 68 of 133 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) STANDARDS: The following standards shall be used in preparing a TIS for submittal in conjunction with a conditional use or rezone petition: 1. Trip Generation: Provide the total traffic generated by the project for each link within the project's Radius of Development Influence (RDI) in conformance with the acceptable traffic engineering principles. The rates published in the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report shall be used unless documentation by the petitioner or the County justifies the use of alternative rates. 2. Trip Assignment: Provide a map depicting the assignment to the network, of those trips generated by the proposed project. The assignment shall be made to all links within the RDI. Both annual average and peak seasonal traffic should be depicted. 3. Existine Traffic: Provide a map depicting the current traffic conditions on all links within the RDI. The AADT, PSDT, and LOS shall be depicted for all links within the RDI. 4. Level of Service (LOS): The LOS of a roadway shall be expressed in terms of the applicable Collier County Generalized Daily Service Volumes as set forth in the TCE of the GMP. 5. Radius of Development Influence (RDI): The TIS shall cover the least of the following two areas: a) an area as set forth below; or, b) the area in which traffic assignments from the proposed project on the major thoroughfares exceeds one percent of the LOS "C ". Land Use Distance Residential 5 Miles or as required by DRI Other (commercial, indust 0 - 49, 999 Sq. Ft. 50,000 - 99, 999 Sq. Ft. 100,000 - 199, 999 Sq. Ft. 200,000 - 399, 999 Sq. Ft 400,000 & up rial, institutional, etc.) 2 Miles 3 Miles 4 Miles 5 Miles 5 Miles In describing the RDI the TIS shall provide the measurement in road miles from the proposed project rather than a geometric radius. 6 . Intersection Analysis: An intersection analysis is required for all intersections within the RDI where the sum of the peak -hour critical lane volume is projected to exceed 1,200 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH). Application For Public H ar ne For ?11Q Rezone 8/29/03 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 7. Background Traffic: The effects of previously approved but undeveloped QaVsMa11}t 33 developed projects which may affect major thoroughfares within the RDI of -the proposed project shall be provided. This information shall be depicted on a map or, alternatively, in a listing of those projects and their respective characteristics. 8. Future Traffic: An estimate of the effects of traditional increases in traffic resulting from potential development shall be provided. Potential development is that which may be developed maximally under the effective Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Collier County Land Development Code. This estimate shall be for the projected development areas within the projects RDI. A map or list of such lands with potential traffic impact calculations shall be provided. 9. Through Traffic: At a minimum, increases in through traffic shall be addressed through the year 2015. The methodology used to derive the estimates shall be provided. It may be desirable to include any additional documentation and backup data to support the estimation as well. 10. Planned /Proposed Roadway Improvements: All proposed or planned roadway improvements located within the RDI should be identified. A description of the funding commitments shall also be included. 11. Proiect Phasing: When a project phasing schedule is dependent upon proposed roadway improvements, a phasing schedule may be included as part of the TIS. If the traffic impacts of a project are mitigated through a phasing schedule, such a phasing schedule may be made a condition of any approval. 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 s=ly necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning for aperiod of six 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 2.2.20.2.3) Application For Public Rearina For PUD Rezone 9/29103 Agenda Item No. 8C e- - February 22, 2005 Page 70 of 133 PRE- APPLICATION MEETING NOTES E PUD Rezone ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone Date: yt- B- Time: Al 3o Firm:_ W _ Project Name: Applicant Name: c=Ax�, \?z sue- " .� � Phone: Owner Name: Owner Address: �, Phone: Meeting Attendees: Planner: / s k OysCc,_ 6;- 40!t E'Y Submittal Requirements (refer to application for additional requirements) 24 Copies of the following: [ Completed Application Q� Pre - application Meeting Notes [} j Conceptual Site Plan 24X 36" and One 8 Va X 11 " copy L,d PUD document and Master Plan 2 Copies of the following: Deeds/Legals & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended) []� List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation Owner /Agent Affidavit signed & notarized Q° Completed Addressing Checklist PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 ~- 4 C9Pies of the following: PROJECT #2004040053 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or waiver DATE: 6/7/04 Historical Survey or waiver request MICHAEL BOSI ❑ Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches ❑ Architectural rendering of proposed structures ❑ Architectural Review required [ Survey, signed & sealed Seven (7) Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver [� Five (5) copies of Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1" = 400' [� One (1) Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette) Fees: Application Fee: 13/$10,000 + $25 per acre (plus Property Owner Notification fees) ❑ $8,000 amendment [� $150.00 Fire Code Review $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review $500.00 Pre - application fee (to be credited toward application fee if submitted within 4 months of pre - application meeting. $681.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). $205.00 Legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting $1600.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee h.0 r-eC+,tt f`rcCrf - * Property Owner Notifications $1.00 Non - certified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail ( to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review Fee Total $ Meeting Notes Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 71 of 133 `„j_S.h.ar •u/ ��„ ntM1G. T <0 r "k"1V tss C0 VLS,2 �C�s4 •Wr �J NAP j (.DC, S=L. 2.:. Zo .l Q-' u.�`l 4.S a- �P'•�C.O�a� SEc.�rwn�c. CC k IT54, A 5. C i i S CSC) 1-0-C (I L-f-a (A C iii Cl i n CLU &\nCa -r,-- C l.�j S U f ur U. rr��1 r5'aAL1 a C yn m Ir<i 4 4VLi A UL4S a LLp Y4 /6 a ut-I 6-3, g A -f r 4 i 4r < 4 YM 41 4- f-eY d) � tS GdOudrh 3�to 4�j -4 444 1, V /4 U ,i Is GcPC� ' rt pEi7 C-DC Z Z 2 3 S Pu- 6'1 t'C Trrl -o 42� A k US T 00'TtCE r ry� P2.an�z-rY Cst�.ruE�25 �'{� -�� /�T E�'� -, enQ�tao tom. ra.PFo I�tAZS -- G: \Current\Pre -App forms \PUD pre- app.doc Revised October 15, 2003 DATE OF MEETING PROJECT: LOCATION: PRE -APP MEETING REPORT April 8, 2004 . • • i_9 CDES Conference Room Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 72 of 133 ATTENDEES: Representine Triad Housing Partners, Michele Mosca Alan Elurfali LLC: Linda Bedtelyon Robert Wiley Dwight Nadeau Jon Morganstine Laura Roys Michael Sawyer Oliver Pfeffer Jamey Anderson Darren Murphy Trinity Caudill -Scott Dwight Nadeau — RWA. Inc. Dwight described the project as 10.75 acres, which we will be requesting 13.0 units per acre for a total of 140 condominiums, with a small recreation facility. The project will be a rezone from C -1 to RPUD. The density is consistent with that of Saddlebrook. The site is disturbed and an EIS waiver will be requested. The 140 units will consist of 8 and 10 unit, 2 story buildings. Approximately 15% will be wet detention (lake), and 15% native vegetation. The project will be served by Collier County water and sewer. The project will not have direct access to Davis Boulevard or Radio Road. The access will be from Palm Springs Boulevard. Dwight advised that a methodology meeting was held with transportation staff. A sidewalk deviation would be requested for a portion of the internal roadways given these areas where the deviation will be sought will. only have buildings on one side of the roadway. Alan El- Urfali- Transportation Planning: Stated that a 5 ft sidewalk on one side of Palm Springs Boulevard would be required at SDP. He further stated that Palm Springs Boulevard may need to be improved to County standards to the development entrance. Depending on the outcome of the TIS, a right turn or left turn lane on Palm Springs Boulevard may be required. Linda Bedtelyon - CDES: The normal public information process, meetings with surrounding neighborhoods in a convenient location. Robert Wiley — Stormwater Management: Advised that due to the lack of easements and conveyance capacity, the development should design for "zero' discharge unless an adequate drainage easement can be conveyed to the County (north of I -75). He advised that in the past he had been working with Hope Brack, Transportation ROW. Also, he stated that the design of the project should provide for the .15 CFS /AC discharge rate and no post - development increase in discharge volume for up to the 100 year design storm. Laura Roys — Environmental Review: And EIS waiver request should be according to the exemptions in the LDC /GMP. When submitting include a FLUCCS overlay on aerial. Also, take note of the native vegetation definition in CCME 6.1.1. If an EIS waiver is granted, listed species survey will be required including RCW survey. P. \2004 \04.0010.00 Triad"UD Zoning \0003?sa i.S \P —App. among nom 1 8-04 w Dwigh, tladx Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 73 of 133 Michelle Mosca — Current Planning: Stated that all deviations need to be listed in the application, as well as applicable section of the PUD document. END OF MEETING @ 10:15 a.m. This report is assumed to be a true and accurate account of this meeting, unless written notification to the contrary is received within ten (10) worldng days of the date of issue of this report. Submitted By: Trinity L. Caudill-Scott, Project Coordinator - Planning P:12004W4- 0010.00 Triad RPUD Zoningl0003 Rc ainore -App trecting noto 44-04 w Dwight tic.doc PALM SPRINGS, LLC RWA, Inc 3050 North Horseshoe Dr., Suite 270 Naples, Florida 34104 To Whom It May Concern: PLTDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 PROJECT #2004040053 DATE: 6/7/04 MICHAEL BOSI Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 74 of 133 Please be advised that authorization is hereby given to the firm of RWA, Inc., to act as agent in all actions relating to the permitting of a residential land use on the following described lands: ALL OF BLOCKS 2, 4, AND 6, PALM SPRINGS PLAZA, UNIT NO. 1 AND THAT VACATED PORTION OF CALLE DEL REY RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 21 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FOLIO NUMBERS: 65721360006; 65720840006; 65720320005. Sincerely, Oliver Pfeffer, e er STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD P% The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befor me this 11* day of iMJA4. ► 2004, by M10tot PAhftt , who' personally kno m or produced identification , and who i not to a an oa OT PUBLIC 40RGA NOTARY PUBLIC Commission Number: 093 L26 �� : #DD 09=6 :o�w Witness my hand and seal 9 •.• ,�„� Q� this 1 l K day of M , 2004. 6535 Nova Drive, Suite 106, Davie, Florida 33317 Phone:(954) 472 -3050, Faa:(954) 472 -3099 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 75 of 133 HOU'S NG PARTNERS February 12, 2004 RWA, Inc. 3050 N. Horseshoe Dr., Suite 270 Naples, FL 34104 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that authorization is hereby given to the firm of Rwa, Inc., to act as agent in all actions relating to the permitting of residential land use on the following described lands: ALL OF BLOCKS 2, 4, AND 6, PALM SPRINGS PLAZA, UNIT NO. 1 AND THAT VACATED PORTION OF CALLE DEL REY RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 21 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FOLIO NUMBERS: 65721360006; 65720840006; 65720320005 Sincerely, Oliver Pfeffer Member, Triad Housing Partners LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14`s day of February, 2004 by who i sonalIy known to r produced identi ication , and who not a an oath. NOTA UB ,N 499GANST�i,��� NOTARY PUBLIC Commission Number: DD 093226 Witnessed my hand and seal this 14a' day of February, 2004 �� ��� �t,IFSSSIO�i�p�'•. F��i aC� aSY 1B, %TZ- NDD 093226 � �o ar +unnl�► TRIAD HOUSING PARTNERS 6535 NOVA DRIVE, #106, DAVIE, FL 33317 - - -- 1te�Noi8C PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 February 22, 2005 PROJECT #2004040053 Page 77 of 133 DATE: 6/7/04 MICHAEL BOSI COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT I, Oliver Pfeffer, Member of Palm Springs, LLC, being first duly sworn, depose and say that Palm Springs, LLC agrees 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. Additionally, Palm Springs, LLC, or successor developer agree 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. Finally, and if applicable, Palm Springs, LLC or successor developer agrees to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Oliver Pfeffer, Member Palm Springs, LLC The foregoing instrument was acknowledged bdbre me this 2 F 4 day of /, A "` , 200, by e0✓%ot PA%t. who is personally known to or has produced as identification. State of Florida ,6gnature of Net4y Public - State of Florida) County of Broward LO%Ja %11ur++►011,/" j. J M o rt4A.ys 9•i�+ ti (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name `���'O�•�,1gSI0NF�.yf� ��: 1e, of Notary Public) #DD 093226 La Agenda Item No. 8C February 22; 2005 Page 78 of 133 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT I, Oliver Pfeffer, Member of Triad Housing Partners, LLC, being first duly sworn, depose and say that Triad Housing Partners, LLC agrees 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. Additionally, Triad Housing Partners, LLC, or successor developer agree 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. Finally, and if applicable, Triad Housing Partners, LLC or successor developer agrees to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Oliver Pfeffer, Member Triad Housing Partners, LLC The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m is Z' day of FIE 61tuAR 200 '� by 0(-1 vi lz Pf— 6AA 62 who is('— Crsonally known t'o i)or has produced as identification. State of Florida g nature of N t ry Public - State of Florida) County of Collier bq (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) . U'' 4 drY ? . irc : r.w Va i 01) OD= : � Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 79 of 133 o., AFFIDAVIT I, Oliver Pfeffer, Member of Palm Springs, LLC being first duly sworn, depose and say that Palm Springs, LLC is contract purchaser 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 this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I 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 significantly altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As contract purchaser, and Member of Palm Springs, LLC further authorize Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager of RWA, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, Attorney at Law of Roetzel and Andress, to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. S' nature of Contract Purchaser YMW M 6;oox/ti6S , c L..C_ Typed or Printed Name of Contract Purchaser f� M The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m_e_ this ._ / Z day of /"A � , 200 y , by O IL Poi!�FFcz who is06ersonally known to mor has produced as identification. /'(-- Sole-of Florida ounty of Broward (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 PROJECT #2004040053 DATE: 6n104 MICHAEL BOSI Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 80 of 133 AFFIDA VIT 1, Oliver Pfeffer, Member of Triad Housing Partners, LLC being first duly sworn, depose and say that Triad Housing Partners, LLC is contract purchaser of the property described herein, and which is the subject natter 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 this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I 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 significantly altered Public hearings will not he advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As contract purchaser, and Member of Triad Housing Partners, LLC further authorize Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager of RWA, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, Attorney at Law of Roetzel and Andress, to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Tr I rtd A,r s i' . Pcv -r.el-s t U L Signature of Contract Purchaser C' L 1 VEIL tO Ff FFL: -#?_ Typed or Printed Name of Contract Purchaser The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before n e this I Z day of l 6,904 y 100 , by 04-1 W.2 P�FFAEA who d ersonally known to m or has produced as identification. to of Flo /rid ounty of Collier (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) TRIAD RPUD COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT November 2004 Prepared For: RWA, Inc. 3050 N Horseshoe Drive Suite 270 Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 649 -1509 Prepared By: Passarella and Associates, Inc. 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 (239) 274 -0067 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 81 of 133 Project No. 04PSL 1103 I i Agenda Item No. 8C 7 � February 22, 2005 COLLIER COUNTY �Wy FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP TRIAD RPD PROJECT LOCATION , SEC 34, TWP 49 S, RGE 26 E PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Ecologists DRAWN BY: W.C. DATE: 5/17/04 Agenda !tern No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 83 of 133 Exhibit B. A FLUCFCS and wetlands map of the property is provided as Exhibit C, and an acreage breakdown of the habitat types is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Habitat/FLUCFCS Types and Acreages C. Topographic map and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Where possible, elevations within each of FLUCFCS categories shall be provided. A topographic map is enclosed as Exhibit D. D. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations. According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following soil type is found on the property (Exhibit E): Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Soil Map Unit 14). E. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, outfall and off-site drainage. Please see the Conceptual Water Management Plan enclosed as Exhibit F. F. Development plan including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area Please see the Triad RPUD Master Plan enclosed as Exhibit G G. Site plan showing preserves on -site, and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations ofproposed and existing development, roads, and areas for stormwater retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as public owned conservations lands, conservation acquisition area, major flowways and potential wildlife corridors. Please see the Off -site Interface Exhibit enclosed as Exhibit H. -1t f \ A ry.��'� rt"'�t�4sy Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) I Pine. , • " • Exotics) Wet Prairie, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) Disturbed/Cleared Land 1 C. Topographic map and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Where possible, elevations within each of FLUCFCS categories shall be provided. A topographic map is enclosed as Exhibit D. D. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations. According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following soil type is found on the property (Exhibit E): Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Soil Map Unit 14). E. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, outfall and off-site drainage. Please see the Conceptual Water Management Plan enclosed as Exhibit F. F. Development plan including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area Please see the Triad RPUD Master Plan enclosed as Exhibit G G. Site plan showing preserves on -site, and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations ofproposed and existing development, roads, and areas for stormwater retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as public owned conservations lands, conservation acquisition area, major flowways and potential wildlife corridors. Please see the Off -site Interface Exhibit enclosed as Exhibit H. Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 84 of 133 H. For properties in the RLSA and RFMU Districts, a site plan showing the location of the site, and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan. Please see the Project Location with Land Use Designations Map enclosed as Exhibit I. The project lies within the Residential Density Bands and the Urban Residential subdistricts on the Urban designation on the Future Land Use Map. The project does not lie within the RLSA or RFMU Districts. 3.8.5.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION A. Provide an overall description of the project with respect to environmental and water management issues. The Triad RPUD is 10.75± acres and is located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). The project site is located on the north side of Saddlebrook Drive approximately 300 feet from the eastern end of the road. The surrounding land uses include a single - family subdivision to the north; a multi - family residential complex to the east; a road and undeveloped, forested lands to the west; and Saddlebrook Drive to the south. A 1" = 200' scale aerial of the project site is attached as Exhibit B. a The parcel consists of a combination of disturbed pine, disturbed wet prairie, �- disturbed/cleared land, and a road. i i l The proposed project includes a multi - family residential development with associated amenities and surface water management. Of the 10.75± acres on the project site, 8.89± acres are considered habitats with native vegetation present. Those habitats not included as native vegetation habitats include disturbed/cleared land and a road. There is one small disturbed wet prairie wetland and no "Other Surface Waters ". A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. on the project on June 15, 2004, with additional observations made on May 12, 2004 to determine whether the project was being utilized by state or federal listed species. No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey or during any other site visits. There are 0.21± acre of South Florida Water Management District/Coller County jurisdictional wetlands and no "Other Surface Waters" located on the subject property. The project development will result in impacts to 0.17± acre of SFWMD /Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. A wetland impact map is shown as Exhibit J. Since the wetland to be impacted is less than 0.50± acre, no mitigation will be required by the SFWMD and no mitigation is proposed. 4 j Agenda Item No. 8C f February 22, 2005 Page 85 of 133 The basic operation of the surface water management system includes the collection of surface water runoff into concrete catch basins, transportation of the flow through a series of r concrete pipes, and directing the runoff to the lake. The wet detention area discharge will occur through a single control structure. When the requisite water quality volume has been achieved, the treated surface water is permitted to flow over the crest of the slot of the control structure. The collected surface water will discharge northward, under I -75, into the Golden Gate Main Canal, A 1.58: acre upland area and a 0.04± acre of wetland will be enhanced and preserved. The exolie.md nuisance vegetation to be removed includes, but is not limited to, •melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Australian pine (Casuarian equisitifolia), downy rose - myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosus), and cattails (Typha latifolia). Exotic vegetation removal will include both mechanical and hand removal of exotics. In general, in areas with less than 75 percent coverage by exotics, the exotics will be treated in place with an appropriate herbicide and left standing; or exotics will be cut, the cut vegetation will be removed or stacked in place, and the remaining stumps treated with an appropriate herbicide. B. Explain how the project is consistent with each of the Objectives and Policies in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, where applicable. Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Plan states: "All canals, rivers, and flow -ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards." To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states: "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system ". This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: • Fifteen percent of the existing native vegetation will be retained on -site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Selection of preservation areas are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. • Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction PIan submittal. Preserve j areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Agenda Item No: 8C February 22, 2005 Page 86 of 133 • Littoral. shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.13. • The requirement for an EIS pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. • In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the R.PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the RPUD document, with changes to these uses stipulated in the staff report. Uses within preserve area shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood . G control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and no listed wildlife species were identified on the subject property. • In accordance with Policy 11.1.2, correspondence has been sent to the Florida Department of the State regarding possible archaeological or historical sites within the project area. 3.8.5.4 NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION - A. Identify the acreage and community type of all upland and wetland habitats found on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Provide a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on site by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant, common, and occasional). A description of each FLUCFCS type with the acreage of this habitat type found on the project site is as follows: Pine Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics) ( FLUCFCS Code 4159 ED This habitat type composes the majority of the site and occupies 8.01+ acres or 74.5 percent 1 of the property. The canopy consists of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), java plum i (Syzygium cumini), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The sub -canopy consists of slash pine, java plum, cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), beauty -berry (Callicarpa Americana), buckthorn (Bumelia sp.), and melaleuca. The ground cover - includes little blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolfum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), spermacoce (Spermacoce verticillata), love vine (Cassytha fl formis), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), and grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia). Pine. Disturbed (50 — 75% Exotics) CFLUCFCS Code 4159 E3) This upland community is located on the northeast corner of the site and occupies 0.671 acre or 6.2 percent of the property. The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1 with 50 to 75 percent melaleuea in the canopy and sub - canopy. 2 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 87 of 133 Wet Prairie. Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6439 E1) This wetland community is located in the northern central portion of the site and it totals 0.21+ acre or 2.0 percent of the property. The canopy contains very scattered cypress (Taxodium distichum) and slash pine. The sub- canopy includes very scattered melaleuca and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), rush fuirena (Fuirena scirpoidea), bluestem (Andropogon sp.), grapevine, and love vine. Disturbed/Cleared Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) This upland land use surrounds the road cutting east -west through the center of the property and along the;eastern boundary of the property and occupies 1.58± acres or 14.7 percent of the property. The canopy is open and the sub -canopy contains scattered Brazilian pepper along the edges. The ground cover is dominated by bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) but also includes spermacoce, smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), fingergrass (Eustachys petraea), southern gaura (Gaura angustifolia), common wireweed (Sida acuta), and hairy beggar -ticks (Bidens pilosa). Road (FLUCFCS Code 814) This paved upland land use cuts east -west through the center of the property and occupies 0.28± acre or 2.6 percent of the property. This classification consists of an old asphalt road that is in disrepair. B. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, and Division 3.9 ofthe Land Development Code. Provide an exhibit illustrating such. Include calculations identifying the acreage for preservation and impact, per FLUCFCS category. j The property lies within the Urban designation of the Collier County Future Land Use Map. 1 According to the vegetation preservation and retention standards for residential and mixed use development for an area of greater than five acres but less than 20.0t acres, a minimum of 15 percent of the native vegetation areas located on the subject property will be retained. The property has a total of 8.89± acres of native vegetation habitat. The habitats are composed of Pine, Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E 1); Pine, Disturbed (50 — 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3); and Wet Prairie, Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6439 E1). A Native Vegetation Map is provided as Exhibit K, while Table 2 provides an acreage breakdown of these native habitats. 7 Agenda Item No: 8C February 22, 2005 Page 88 of 133 Table 2. Native Vegetation Habitat Types and Acreages The proposed project design has incorporated 1.62± acres of the wetlands and uplands as preserves within the development plan. At post - development these uplands will be enhanced by the removal of exotics. The preserved and enhanced uplands will be placed under a conservation easement. This preserve will exceed the native vegetation requirement for this property. A Wetland Impact Map, which includes the site plan of the property is provided as Exhibit J. C. For sites already cleared and in agricultural use, provide documentation that the parcels) are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation in Policy 6.1.5 ofthe Conservation and Coastal Management EIement ofthe Growth Management Plan and Division 3.9 ofthe Land Development Code. For sites cleared prior to January 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. Not applicable. D. Have preserves or acreage requirements for preservation previously been identf fled for the site during previous development order approvals? If so, identify the location and acreage of these preserves, and provide an explanation if they are different from what is proposed. A review of Collier County records located no existing development orders or conditional or provisional use permits for the property. E. For properties w i_ development plan preserved. th Special Treatment "ST" overlays, show the ST overlay on the and provide an explanation as to why these are being impacted or There are no areas with Special Treatment overlays located within the subject property. Agerida Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 89 of 133 3.8.5.5 WETLANDS A. Define the number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to Policy 6 2.1 and 6.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan) according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Include a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on -site by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory, and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant, common, and occasional), Wetland determinations are required to be verified by the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, prior to submission to the County. Approximately 0.2 11 acre of SFWMD /Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property (Figure 2). The SFWMD wetland lines were approved by the SFWMD during a May 18, 2004 site visit with BKI, Inc. This wetland is composed of one FLUCFCS type: Wet Prairie, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6439 El). Table 3 provides a breakdown of the wetland acreage for the site by FLUCFCS type. Table 3. SFWMD /Collier County Wetland and `Other Surface Waters" Acreages Disturbed NEI � TOTAL 1 Wet Prairie Disturbed 0 — 24% Exotics FLUCFCS Code 6439 E1 This wetland community is located in the northern central portion of the site and it totals 0.21± acre or 2.0 percent of the property. The canopy contains very scattered cypress and slash pine. The sub - canopy includes very scattered melaleuca and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes swamp fern, gulfdune paspalum, rush fuirena, bluestem, grapevine, and love vine. B. Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators. Indicate how the project design improves /affects predevelopment hydroperiods. Provide a narrative addressing the anticipated control elevation(s) for the site. Biological indicators of seasonal high and historic water levels were not analyzed since such 1, a small acreage of wetland (0.04+ acre) will be preserved. Please see the stormwater management report by RWA, Inc. for control elevations for the proposed lake included as part of the project. C. Indicate the proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects ofproposed impacts on the functions of these wetlands. Provide an exhibit showing the location of wetlands to be impacted and those to be preserved on -site. Describe how impacts to wetlands have been minimized. 6 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 90 of 133 The project development will result in impacts to 0.17± acre (81.0 percent) of SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands (Table 4). The proposed wetland impacts are shown as Exhibit J. The habitat to be impacted is Wet Prairie, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6439 E1). Table 4. Wetland and "Other Surface Waters" Impact Summary Y. N }e ^v. a rr •r. x j T A h : ny S Gt d`t t:5 �S f,.. j �5 '.� r Ea NI` r. Im m..r� ��' .�.Yrf � L,C; •x r.h.� a sr, bb'kr � � w {m':. Wet Prairie, Disturbed 6439 El 0.21 0.04 0.17 Fill Total 1 .21 t 0.04 0.17.____L Fill Due to the small and isolated status of the existing wetland, the existing wetland provides very little use for wildlife or water quality. Wetland functional loss will be negligible. Since the wetland is located in a central area within a small project area, total avoidance of the wetland would be cost prohibitive. A portion of the wetland will be preserved as part of the preserve area located on the northern portion of the property. D. Indicate how the project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the ' Growth Management Plan. For sites in the RFMUDistrict, provide an assessment, based on the South Florida Management District's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, that has !— been accepted by either by the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection. For sites outside the RFMU District, and where higher quality wetlands are being retained on -site, provide justification based on the 1 Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Since the only wetland on -site is an isolated wet prairie system (FLUCFCS Code 6439 E1), which is only 0.21± acre, mitigation will not be required by the SFWMD. Therefore, no mitigation for the impact to this wetland is proposed. 3.8.5.6 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT l A. Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how it works, the basis of design, historical drainage flows, off -site flows coming in to the system and how they will be incorporated in the system or passed around the system, positive outfall availability, Wet Season Water Table and Dry Season Water Table, and how they were determined, and any other pertinent information pertaining to the control of the storm and ground water. The basic operation of the surface water management system includes the collection of surface water runoff into concrete catch basins, transportation of the flow through a series of 10 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 91 of 133 concrete pipes, and directing the runoff to the lake. The wet detention area discharge will occur through a single .control structure. When the requisite water quality volume has been achieved, the treated surface water is permitted to flow over the crest of the slot of the control structure. The collected surface water will discharge northward, under I -75, into the Golden Gate Main Canal. B. Provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as. it exists in its pre - development conditions. This analysis is required for projects impacting five (S) or more acres of wetlands. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies. Not applicable. The project has less than five acres of wetland impacts. C. Identify any Wellfreld Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM -S7) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM -STs. No Wellfield Risk Management Zones exist within the project area. 3.8.5.7 LISTED SPECIES A. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on -site, and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State actual survey times and dates, and provide a map showing the location(s) of species of special status identified on -site. A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. on the project on June 15, 2004, with additional observations made on May 12, 2004 to determine whether the project was being utilized by state or federal listed species. The survey methodology and results are provided in Exhibit L. No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey. B. Identify all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on the site or that have been directly observed on the site. The proximity of listed species to the project site as recorded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) is provided as Exhibit M. f I Listed wildlife species that were not observed but which have the potential to occur on the project site are listed in Table 3. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume I. Mammals 11 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 92 of 133 (Humphrey 1992), Volume III; Amphibians and Reptiles (Moler 1992); Volume V. Birds (Rodgers et al. 1996); and personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Table 5. Listed Wildlife That Could Potentially Occur on the Triad RPUD FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission I USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service T — Threatened E — Endangered Eastern Indio Snake Drymarchon corals counertl The Eastern indigo snake could potentially occur within the native upland habitats on the project site. The Eastern indigo snake is far ranging and may utilize activity areas of 125* to 250± acres or more (Moler 1992). The Eastern indigo snake is typically found in association with populations of gopher tortoise. No gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the project site. Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius Paulus) Potential habitat for Southeastern American kestrel may exist within the pine habitats on the project site (FLUCFCS Codes 4159 E1 and 4159 E3); however, the project site is at the southernmost extreme of the known range for this subspecies. Since 1980, observations of Southeastern American kestrel in Florida have occurred primarily in sandhill or sandpine scrub areas of north and central Florida (Rodgers et al. 1996). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceghalus) Potential nesting habitat for bald eagle may exist within the Pine (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1 and 4159 E3) habitats on the project site. A review of FWCC documented nest sites for eagle nest locations within the county shows no bald eagle nests within a five mile radius of the project site. 12 J a r 1Y� p 'IiD Drymarchon corals cou eri Eastern Indio Snake T T 4159E 1/4159 yiksd�cw +�f �i:., .E3 6qi. l.•. .. , i «_ �. Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American T _ 4159E1/4159 E3 Kestrel Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T T 4159E1/4159 E3 Picoides borealis Red - cockaded T E 4159E1/4159 E3 Woodpec ker 4159E1/4159 E3 Big Cypress Fox T L _ Sciurus niger avicennia Squirrel -_ - FeIis concolor coryi Florida Panther E I E 4159E1/4159 E3 FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission I USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service T — Threatened E — Endangered Eastern Indio Snake Drymarchon corals counertl The Eastern indigo snake could potentially occur within the native upland habitats on the project site. The Eastern indigo snake is far ranging and may utilize activity areas of 125* to 250± acres or more (Moler 1992). The Eastern indigo snake is typically found in association with populations of gopher tortoise. No gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the project site. Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius Paulus) Potential habitat for Southeastern American kestrel may exist within the pine habitats on the project site (FLUCFCS Codes 4159 E1 and 4159 E3); however, the project site is at the southernmost extreme of the known range for this subspecies. Since 1980, observations of Southeastern American kestrel in Florida have occurred primarily in sandhill or sandpine scrub areas of north and central Florida (Rodgers et al. 1996). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceghalus) Potential nesting habitat for bald eagle may exist within the Pine (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1 and 4159 E3) habitats on the project site. A review of FWCC documented nest sites for eagle nest locations within the county shows no bald eagle nests within a five mile radius of the project site. 12 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 93 of 133 Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Potential foraging habitat for red - cockaded woodpecker may exist within the pine habitats (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1 and 4159 E3) on the project site. A review ofFWCC documented nest sites for known red - cockaded woodpecker colonies within the county shows the closest known red - cockaded woodpecker colonies documented approximately 0.5 mile from the project site on the south side of Davis Boulevard. Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus nivaer avicennia) Potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat exists within the upland pine habitats. Upland habitats on the project site have a dense understory of saw palmetto, which is considered undesirable as Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat. Florida Panther (Fells concolor corvtl The subject parcel does not occur within Priority 1 or 2 panther habitat according to a review of the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993). The project is not located in Primary or Secondary Panther Habitat as identified on the draft USFWS Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT map dated September 6, 2001 (MERIT Map). Approximately five radio - collar telemetry points from Florida panthers have been recorded approximately one mile from the project site. They are found to the northeast of the project on the north side of Interstate 75 and to the southeast of the project on the south side of Davis Boulevard. The close proximity of neighboring development would deter any panthers from utilizing the site. No panthers or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat, etc.) were observed during the listed species surveys conducted on the property. Listed plant species that were not observed but which have the potential to occur on the project site are listed in Table 4. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Table 6. Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur on the Triad RPUD FDA — Florida Department of Agriculture USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service T — Threatened E - Endangered i L A S "T-11 M_ Owl' Lilium catesbaei Catesb 's Lily 4159 Tillandsia balbisiana Inflated Wild Pine 4159/6439 Tillandsia asciculata Common Wild Pine E - 4159/6439 Tillandsia exuosa Twisted Air Plant E - 4159/6439 Tillandsia pruinosa Fuzzy-wuzzy air plant E - 4159/6439 Tillandsia utriculata Giant Wild Pine E - 4159/6439 Ziephyranthes sim sonic Sim son's Zephyr Lily T - 4159 FDA — Florida Department of Agriculture USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service T — Threatened E - Endangered i L Agenda Item. No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 94 of 133 C. Indicate how the project design minimizes- impacts to species ofspecial status. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. , The proposed project will not likely impact any species of special status. D. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property. For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones, bald eagle managementplans are required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD documents, where applicable. Not applicable. E. Where applicable, include correspondence received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (I.TSFWS), with regards to the project. Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met. To date, no correspondence has been received from either the FWCC or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding this project. 3.8.5.8 OTHER A. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show t how the project is consistent with the Marina Siting and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan. Not applicable. B. Include the results of any environmental assessments and/or audits of the property. If applicable, provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site. A Phase'I Environmental Site Assessment of the Triad RPUD was conducted by GFA International in January 2004. The results of this study found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions. A copy of this report is enclosed as Exhibit N. i C. For site located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern — Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) overlay district, show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations established for the ACSC -ST. Not applicable. E. Soil sampling or ground water monitoring reports and programs shall be required for sites that occupy old farm fields, old golf courses or for which there is a reasonable basis for f believing that there has been previous contamination on site. The amount of sampling and 14 i Agenda Item No. 8C t February 22, 2005 Page 95 of 133 testing shall be determined by the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Not applicable. F. Provide documentation for the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the project area Locate any known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed project design. Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historic /archaeological integrity of the site. Correspondence from the Florida Department of the State regarding archaeological or historical sites that may be present within the project area is still pending. Upon receipt, a copy of this correspondence will be forward to you. A copy of the correspondence sent to the Florida Department of State regarding archaeological or historical sites that may be present within the project area is enclosed as Exhibit O. 15 1 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 96 of 133 REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550 - 010 - 001.x. Third Edition. Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Moler, Paul E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Rodgers, J.A., H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith. 1996. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 16 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 r , Page 99 of 133 1. INTRODUCTION Metro Transportation Group, Inc. (Metro) has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed Triad RPUD development. The site is located on the east side of Palm Springs Boulevard to the north of Davis Boulevard within Collier County, Florida. The site location is illustrated on Figure 1. The proposed Triad RPUD is slated to contain a total of 140 multi - family dwelling units upon completion of construction. Access to the site will be provided via a single access location to Palm Springs Boulevard. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. A methodology meeting was held on March 18, 2004 with Collier County Transportation Planning Staff in order to discuss the necessary analysis that will be required as a result of the Triad RPUD. The resultant Methodology Checklist is attached in the Appendix of this report for reference. Trip generation and assignments to the site access drives will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bordered to the west by Palm Springs Boulevard. To the south, the site is bordered by the old alignment of Radio Road. To the east of the subject site is additional multi- family residential development. The Palm Springs Village single family residential development borders the subject site to the north. Radio Road is a four -lane divided roadway that currently terminates at Davis Boulevard near the subject property. Radio Road was recently realigned in order to improve the safety on Radio Road. As a result of the realignment, the portion of Radio Road that was abandoned is now referred to as Radio Drive. The Radio Drive/Radio Road intersection allows directional turning movements. The minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standard Page 1 0 Agenda Item No. BC February 22, 2005 ti14 r. V Pago 101 of 133 for Radio Road adjacent to the subject site is LOS "D ". Radio Road's intersection with- . Davis Boulevard functions under signalized conditions. Radio Road has a posted speed -limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Davis Boulevard is a four -lane arterial roadway in the vicinity of the proposed Triad RPUD. The minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standard for this roadway adjacent to the subject site is LOS "D ". The intersection of Davis Boulevard and Radio Road currently operates under signalized conditions. Davis Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 50 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. In order to gain .a better understanding of the traffic conditions that currently exist at the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard, Metro obtained a 2002 P.M. peak hour turning movement count from Collier County. Figure 2 indicates the resultant 2002 P.M, peak hour, peak season turning movement volumes at the Radio Road/Davis Boulevard intersection. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The PUD master plan for the proposed Triad RPUD indicates the construction of 140 multi- family residential dwelling units. The residential dwelling units will be ownership units. The proposed development will access Palm Springs Boulevard, which will allow the development traffic to access Radio Road and Davis Boulevard. Table 1 summarizes the land use utilized for trip generation purposes for the subject development. Table 1 Triad RPUD Land Uses Multi-family 140 dwelling units IV. TRIP GENERATION The trip generation for -the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 7a` Edition. Page 3 8 N O enda Item No. SC "ebruary 22, 2005 Page 102 of 133 N -A� T W E S N.T.S. LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEK DAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2002 BACKGROUND TURNING MOVEMENTS T 0 RIAD RPUD Figure 2 Agenda Item No, 8C February 22, 2005 r ' Page 103 of 133 The trip generation of the proposed commercial development was calculated based on Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse). Table 2 outlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation of the Triad RPUD. The daily trip generation is also indicated within Table 2. The trip generation equations for Land Use Code 230 are included within the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 2 Trip Generation Tri9A 112PtM 44 W* .A.1Lr.Pa'{yF,,3/n�our Vtrcda =P 1Vi. Pea1t 0 r73'' ■eetda Multi- Family 10 60 70 55 25 80 855 140 dwelling units V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trips shown in Table 2 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the r anticipated routes the drivers will utilize to approach the site. - The project distribution for the proposed development is indicated in Figure 3. Based on the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 3, the development traffic was distributed to the site access intersection and the major intersections in the surrounding area. Figure 4 indicates the site traffic assignment based on the project traffic distribution. In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates the impact percentages on the area roadway network. According to the Significance Test from Collier County Ordinance 3.15.6.4.3, the development traffic was compared to the Level of Service Standard for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2003 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). The Level of Service threshold volumes were obtained from the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff and are attached in the Appendix of this report for reference. It should be noted that Santa Barbara Boulevard to the north of Davis Boulevard was analyzed as a six -lane roadway as a result of the six- laving of this link with an anticipated start date within Fiscal Year 2005. For this roadway link, the Level of Service threshold volumes were Page 5 Item No. 8C LEGEND 4-200/o-100, PERCENT DISTRIBUTION E PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION TRIAD RPUD Figure 3 N W+ E S N.T.S. �rpgO Lti�, �OOo P60 �o � J �� 1101 y 1101' ' !V O LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEK DAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦ (000) WEEK DAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1.:...1..! SITE TRAFFIC IAD RPUIp NMENT Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page-105 of 133 Figure 4 4.60 (25) LO LO Z0LO _ ac a� CD to 2_ Q m (55) 10 ' !V O LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEK DAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ♦ (000) WEEK DAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1.:...1..! SITE TRAFFIC IAD RPUIp NMENT Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page-105 of 133 Figure 4 Agenda Item No..SC Februaity 22, 2.005 Page 106 of 133 taken from the FDOT Level of Service Handbook. Table 4 -7, Generalized Peak Hour l')irectional Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas, is attached in the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 3 indicates the adopted Level of Service Standard for the surrounding roadways. Table 3 Triad RPUD VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS It was assumed that the proposed commercial site would be completed by the year 2007. Therefore, the future background traffic volumes were calculated by growing the AUIR's 2003 peak "hour volume for the significantly impacted roadway links to 2007 traffic .conditions based on the annual growth rate determined from the 2003 Collier County Average Daily Traffic Report. ' Table 2A in the Appendix of the report indicates the methodology utilized to determine the 2007 peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes for � the surrounding roadways. Based on the project distribution shown in Figure 3, the link data was analyzed for the 2007 traffic conditions both with and without the Triad RPUD development traffic. . Page 8 County Barn Rd Santa Barbara Blvd, 2 O00 ve Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Blvd Radio Rd LOS (1,090 Radio Rd Collier Blvd LOS D 1,090 veh Livingston Rd Santa Barbara Blvd LOS D Radio Road 030 veh LOS D Santa Barbara Blvd Davis Blvd 2,120 veh LOS D Golden Gate Pkwy Radio Rd 2,450 veh Santa Barbara Blvd LOS D Radio Rd Davis Blvd 2 4s0-Veh . . VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS It was assumed that the proposed commercial site would be completed by the year 2007. Therefore, the future background traffic volumes were calculated by growing the AUIR's 2003 peak "hour volume for the significantly impacted roadway links to 2007 traffic .conditions based on the annual growth rate determined from the 2003 Collier County Average Daily Traffic Report. ' Table 2A in the Appendix of the report indicates the methodology utilized to determine the 2007 peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes for � the surrounding roadways. Based on the project distribution shown in Figure 3, the link data was analyzed for the 2007 traffic conditions both with and without the Triad RPUD development traffic. . Page 8 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Wage 107 of 133 ; Table 4 indicates the percent impact to the adopted Level of Service for each link within the study area. Table 4 Triad RPUD imnaet to Adnnted i.nvai of Ca.ar:nn Ctonr�urd As can bee seen from Table 4, no roadway link will be significantly impacted by the proposed Triad RPUD based on the 3 % -3 % -5% signifcant impact criteria. Figure 5 indicates the year 2007 peak hour -. peak direction traffic "volumes and Level of Service for the roadway links immediately adjacent 'to the subject site. Noted on Figure 5 is the peak hour — peak direction volume and Level of Service of each link should no development occur on the subject site and the peak hour — peak direction volume and Level of Service for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours with the development traffic added to the roadways. As a part of the analysis required within this report, intersection analysis was performed at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Radio Road.' In order to determine the 2007 turning movement counts at the surrounding intersections, the turning movements indicated within Figure 2 of this report were increased to reflect the annual growth on Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. The growth rates utilized were taken from Table 2A contained within the Appendix of this report. In addition, the project traffic indicated within Figure 4 was added to the 2007 background traffic projections in order to obtain the 2007 buildout tuming movements at the Davis Boulevard/Radio Road intersections. Page 9 r It 41 0 Yr'xTwa�•'N� ��1���•� �6 �. jj� ae 4:n .� {aY i : 4a, �l W. of Santa Barbara Blvd # "17 3% 0.5% Davis Blvd W. of Radio Rd (# 18 ) 3% 1.4% W. of Collier Blvd # 18 3% 1.1% Radio Rd W. of Santa Barbara Blvd # 79 3% 1.2% W. of Davis Blvd # 80 3% 1.6% Santa Barbara Blvd N. of Radio Rd # 86 3% 0.1% N. of Davis Blvd (# 87) 3% 0.2% As can bee seen from Table 4, no roadway link will be significantly impacted by the proposed Triad RPUD based on the 3 % -3 % -5% signifcant impact criteria. Figure 5 indicates the year 2007 peak hour -. peak direction traffic "volumes and Level of Service for the roadway links immediately adjacent 'to the subject site. Noted on Figure 5 is the peak hour — peak direction volume and Level of Service of each link should no development occur on the subject site and the peak hour — peak direction volume and Level of Service for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours with the development traffic added to the roadways. As a part of the analysis required within this report, intersection analysis was performed at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Radio Road.' In order to determine the 2007 turning movement counts at the surrounding intersections, the turning movements indicated within Figure 2 of this report were increased to reflect the annual growth on Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. The growth rates utilized were taken from Table 2A contained within the Appendix of this report. In addition, the project traffic indicated within Figure 4 was added to the 2007 background traffic projections in order to obtain the 2007 buildout tuming movements at the Davis Boulevard/Radio Road intersections. Page 9 r Z z O O z x O g RADIO ROAD DAVIS BOULEVARD F0402.09 PARKWAY N D D m O C yJ zz n ^< n O r r M W 884 -'B" 0 (896 - -C") r [ 895 - "C "I 2 ATE 75 1,338 - "C' (1,377 - "C') 11,373 - "C -1 843 -'B" (852 - "B ") [851 - "B "I M. LEGEND Item No. BC N W E S N.T.S. XXX - "C' 2007 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATION (XXX ='C) 2007 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS AM PROJECT TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATION [XXX -"C"I 2007 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PM PROJECT TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATION 2007 BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS TRIAD RPUD Figure 5 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 109 of 133 Figure 6 indicates the resultant 2007 P.M. peak hour buildout turning movements at the surrounding intersections. VII. PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE AND UgPROVEMENTS Figure 5 details the Level of Service for all links inside the project's area of influence. These Levels of Service were derived based on the Level of Service thresholds indicated within the Collier County ART -PLAN 4.0 Spreadsheets and Table 4 -7 of the FDOT Level of Service Handbook as previously indicated. Table 1A -in the Appendix details the calculations to determine the Level of Service on the analyzed links based on the build -out traffic conditions of the Triad RPUD. According to the information indicated within Figure 5, all roadway links significantly impacted as a result of the proposed Triad RPUD will operate acceptably when the development traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. All roadway links will maintain a Level of Service at or better than the accepted Level of Service standard according to Collier County. Therefore, no roadway link improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Triad RPUD. Intersection analysis was performed at the Davis Boulevard/Radio Road interrsection. This intersection was analyzed utilizing the latest' version of the HCS2000 software. Attached in the Appendix of this report are the resultant HCS2000 data sheets. In order to illustrate -the results of the intersection Level of Service analyses, Table 7 was created. The Level of Service of the Davis Boulevard/Radio Road intersection is shown in Table 7. Table 7 Triad RPUD interaeetinn inv. Aealvaia R.eanita Page 11 t ..Davis Blvd @ Radio Road D D 42.7 sec 42.9 sec) Page 11 ebruary 22, 2005 Page 110 of 133 N W E S N.T.S. LV O E LEGEND f- 000 WEEK DAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2007 BUILDOUT TURNING MOVEMENTS TRIAD RPUD Figure 6 Agenda Item No: 8C February 22, 2005 Page 111 of 133 Based on the intersection analysis results indicated within Table 7, no intersection improvements will be required as a result of the addition of the proposed Triad RPUD development traffic. No intersection approach that is directly impacted by the proposed Triad RPUD is shown to experience an adverse impact as a result of the added development traffic. Construction of new turn lanes will not be warranted as a result of the proposed Triad RPUD on Palm Springs Boulevard or Radio Drive, The through traffic on Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Drive is minimal, so no turn lanes will be required on these roadways as a result of the Triad RPUD traffic. In addition, the turn lanes constructed at the Radio Road/Radio Drive intersection will not require modification as a result of the added Triad RPUD traffic, The southeast left turn lane is constructed to 400 feet and the northwest right turn lane consists of 350 feet of total distance according to FDOT Design Standards. Therefore, no new turn lanes will be required as a result of the proposed Triad RPUD development. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Triad RPUD residential development located in the northeast corner of the Radio Lane/Palm Springs Boulevard intersection within Collier County, Florida will not adversely impact the existing roadway network. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the projected 2007 build -out traffic conditions. Based on the analysis contained within this report, no roadway segments are anticipated to be significantly impacted as a result of the added residential development traffic. All roadway links adjacent to the subject site are shown to operate under, acceptable Level of Service conditions when the development traffic is added to the roadway network. Intersection analysis was performed as a result of this analysis. Based on the results of the intersection analysis, no intersection improvements will be required as a result of the addition of the development traffic. All intersections /intersection approaches that are Page 1 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 112 of 133 W directly impacted by the proposed Triad RPUD development are shown to operate under acceptable Level of Service conditions when the development traffic is added. No new turn lane construction will be required as a result of the proposed Triad RPUD. A turn lanes currently exist at the Radio Road/Radio Drive intersection, and they will not be significantly impacted by the proposed Triad RPUD development traffic. Therefore, no roadway improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Triad RPM \k:\2004\02\09Uepor.aoo RE- SUBMITTAL A Fe au, 22- PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Page 113 of 133 PROJECT #2004040053 DATE: 9/14/04 MIKE BOSI Triad Rezoning PUD Conceptual Surface Water Management Report and Calculations Prepared for: Palm Springs, LLC 6535 Nova Drive Suite 106 Davie, FL 33317 Prepared by: VVIT) rNC. CONSULTIN - Engineers - Surveyors & Mappers • Planners • Project Managers 3050 North Horseshoe Drive Suite 270 Naples, FL 34104 August 2004 Prepared _r Reviewed By, { Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 114 of 133 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Existing Conditions 4 2.1 General Predevelopment Site Conditions 4 3.0 Proposed Conditions 5 3.1 General 5 3.2 Water Management Facilities 5 3.3 Design Parameters 5 3.4 Design Calculations 6 3.5 System Maintenance 6 SECTION H — EXHIBITS • EXHIBIT 1- Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida. (Support copies). • EXHIBIT 2- Water Management Design Calculations • EXHIBIT 3- 25year- 3day Routing • EXHIBIT 4- 100year -3day Routing Page 2 of 10 0:\2004 \04.0010.00 Trid RPUD Zo1ft=03 R=0i12glWater Management CakuVtbro\Comaptu + l Wow Management Ropon 06- 18-04.dK Agenda Item No. SC February 22, 2005 Page 115 of 133 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document presents the Conceptual Surface Water Management Report and calculations for the proposed Triad Rezoning PUD (Project) located on North side of Radio Road, Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The Conceptual Surface Water Management Report and calculations are intended to support the RPUD plan set for the Project, which are included in this submittal (RWA File No. 04- 0010). Page 3 of 10 0:U —\0a oao.00 rr;ha "UD zonMS\0W3 x=oomgMatcr Mmnmm a c, cublimr%Con«pu,t waf. M2nvyC�t xRon osaa -oa.ax Agenda Item No. 8C February 22,-2005 Page 116 of 133 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.2 General Predevelopment Site Conditions The subject parcel is bound on the north by Palm Springs residential Subdivision, to the west by Palm Springs Boulevard and commercial undeveloped lands, to the south by Radio Road right -of -way, and to the east by the Rezoned PUD Saddlebrooke Villages. The most recent use of the subject property is as vacant residential lands. The site was previously cleared and a roadway ( Calle Del Rey) crosses the property from west to east. There is 0.28 ac. of jurisdictional wetland located at north - center of the project which is going to be impacted. There is no State - issued surface water management permit for the subject property. At the present time, the subject property is mostly pervious, except for the impervious area occupied by Calle Del Rey. The site topography is generally level with an easterly drainage pattern, and ranges in elevation from 9.8 ft. National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to approximately 11.3 ft. NGVD at the middle of the site according to the topographic information. Further analysis of the run -off of the site and surrounding historical drainage will be done in the water management calculations, upon approval of the RPUD. There is an existing 25 feet drainage easement located at the north -east of the project, and parallel to the east boundary. Page 4 of 10 o:lMA04- WIO.00 TrW xPU1>Z4 n6WW3 Rumps aw Mowge t CdwWr wTwwq" wua Me wra t Report 08.18-a.aoc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 117 of 133 3.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS 3.1 General The Triad RPUD will be located on a parcel of 10.75 acres. The entire 10.75 acres is to be considered for development as the `PROJECT ". 3.2 Water Management Facilities The proposed conceptual surface water management plan will incorporate best management practices for above ground surface water treatment and storage prior to discharge into the existing canal easement at northeast of property. The collected surface water will discharge northward, under I -75, into the Golden Gate Main Canal. All construction activities will employ best management practices, limiting the potential for pollutant discharge in accordance with United States Environmental Protection Agency - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The system will be designed as a one drainage basin, to treat and attenuate the runoff from 10.75 ac. The upland conservation area will not be used for attenuation of the system. The surface water management design requires attenuation and modeling of the 25 -year and 100 -year storm routings for water quantity and finished floor elevations. The discharge will be limited to 0.15 cfs/ac according to Ordinance 2001 -27 as amended, once water quality standards have been met. The subject uplands have been modeled using a SFWMD 25 -year, 3 -day storm to obtain the "Design High Water" for the crown road elevation as well as the perimeter berm. As is standard engineering practice, runoff quantities will be calculated using the 10 -year, 1 -hour FDOT storm intensities (3.4 in/hr). Minimum finished floor elevations will be dictated by the 100 -year, 3 -day routing.. The basic operation of the surface water management system includes the collection of surface water runoff into concrete catch basins, transportation of the flow through a series of concrete pipes, and directing the runoff to the lake. The wet detention area discharge will occur through a single control structure. When the requisite water quality volume has been achieved, the treated surface water is permitted to flow over the crest of the slot of the control structure. Page 5 of 10 0:12M\04-00I0.00 Triad RPUD Zomn`10003 RezoninMlNau r MwBenant Cakuhtiors\Cooaptual Water Maupnwt Report 084"rdoc Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 118 of 133 3.3 Design Parameters The control elevation for this Project has been selected by examining surrounding projects (Saddlebrooke Village, Phases I and II) and the type of soil from Soil Survey of Collier County, assuming a wet season water table elevation of 9.60 ft. NGVD (Exhibit 1). The Land Use Summary of the Development Plan for the subject property indicates that there are 4.07 acres of impervious uplands and 5.57 acres of pervious uplands (Exhibit 2). Other key project assumptions have been noted at the top of the page of the Conceptual Water Management Calculations in Exhibit 2. 3.4 Design Calculations The conceptual surface water management system was modeled using XPO SWMM Surface Water Management software version 9.0 for the 25 -year, 72 -hour event and 100 -year, 72 -hour event, which yields 11.55 and 14.27 inches of rain respectively. The rainfall was determined utilizing Method 1 from the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resources Permit Information Manual Volume IV. The Santa Barbara Method was selected as the basis for the design simulation as is common in engineering practice. The model uses a time -series approach to calculate the runoff volumes, again without consideration for the infiltration into the substrate (a built -in mechanism for a factor of safety and a "conservative" design) and hydraulics of the system. The peak stage obtained from the 25 -yr 72 -hr model is 11.18 NGVD, and the peak stage obtained from the 100 -yr 72 -hr is 13.21 NGVD. The input and output of this modeling exercise are presented in this report (Exhibit 3 & 4). 3.5 System Maintenance The surface water management system will be maintained periodically, based on both scheduled events and the variable impact of natural storm events, which will ensure proper function. The surface water management system will be maintained and operated in perpetuity by the Condominium Association and as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation and condominium documents. The roof collection system, which consists of the gutters and downspouts, will be inspected quarterly, or after a large storm event, for proper flow. The above ground dry detention areas will be maintained on an "as- necessary" basis. In the case where excessive sedimentation causes a significant reduction of functionality, the sediment will be excavated and properly removed from the site. The drainage structures, conveyance system, and control structures will be inspected quarterly by Condominium Association staff. Page 6 of 10 0A2004W4. 0010.00 Tried RPUD Zord" 0OW3 Rommin`\WUer Meeu`envw Cekulufon$\Coe m"1 Wuer MmMemeet Report 03.18- 04.doe Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 119 of 133 EXHIBIT 1 Page 7of10 0:QW4104- 0010.00 Trill RKM Zwin& W3 R=oninSNWR r Mwmgwwm CakulntlowkConcapwd Wow M.mgc nmc Repm 09- 1844.&c August 1 st,2004 RECEIVED Agenda Item 2 20 5 AUG s 2004 Dave & X lta; �a "V ion 7,70 Ptne 17ale Court ZONING DEPARTMENT )Vaples, ,FK 34104 Collier County Government Community Development and Environmental Services Review 2 800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 V, , q)& t I , ' , , t we i i r cwast t gabm spli#i m r i t 'W& ~ uem f wvfiir a d6t tai, cA� 4 M& zonwf ory dws& pave& uu& dra a e "uf' M,e,af2p �4 t16 Ao~ ue.,mwA"aa#4 ~ &v t161pw",s&4 t&mea t& standard 4A& & n"ww Aames, pwt, im t& luo t, 4 t1w Aou&Af aaea, %&& a w w sa urulwl m v 11w" 9i'c wt W 4 d, ita s#& sa d,"& to tot v '76 " ~ not ma#uP aua& &A &A& du & s& c&&& L#v �Jt gals& dm*Wl uioa & maze' its possi,8& jav mares apaa+nQ d& to 8& "neaai t1w, wawn m we, am wW cww"# ed /a,& Me, taa#,& -- Mab -m, saPtfMa'�, d wmafe-, pt"", mimo� and. euacuatiary p44i&m I(," t &au . dw, peop& t t4i& i ui t most t Mem r r r rt t r r MVPel maul wady apposed to Ae, zaning, d *u,;& �etitia+v PUDZ- 2044 -AR -6015. Wh" -itw /" k4mf t4e, ume, to zeal Mi& &- Aeaav t1w, pea ptm issues, OTTO- VON- GUERICKE - UNIVERSITAT MAGDEBURG ut{,nl(1�Eit,r RECEIVEI�enda Item N�. C ebruary , Page Medizinische Fakultat AUG 2 2004 x > o n 71 ZONING DEPARTMENT K inik fir Plastische -, Wiederherstellungs- and Handchirurgie =953.2003 Direktor: o.Univ.Prof. Dr. coed. Dr.med.habil. W. Schneider 50)ANIrE NOCHSOWISWOORT 29" -200+3 u% IAHRE OTTO- VO11•GUEEICKE -UNI VLF Universitiltsklinikum, Leipz)ger StraMe 44, D - 39120 Magdeburg Collier County Government Community Development and Environmental Services Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FI 34104 Ihre Zeichen, lhre Nachhcht vom Unsere Zeichen Hausapparat Datum Prof./ Schn * *49 391 6715599 15.07.2004 Petition: PUDZ - 2004 -AR -6015 to rezone the property north of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Boulevard Dear County Commissioners, I was very astonished to get two days ago the message of the above mentioned petition from Collier County Government. I am a surgeon in the University since more than 30 years and I am working for about 70 to 90 hours a week ( including day -and nighttime ). I will retire in three or four years and this was the reason why I was searching worldwide for my retirement a sunny, quiet low settled Area with a minimum of traffic and noise in a lovely town near by the sea. First I found friends in Naples Palm Springs and very slow I came to the result, that this area could be the right place I was looking for. I went to the Collier County Government to get an insight in the Zoning of the property North of Radio Lane and West and East of Palm Springs Boulevard to be sure I had found the area I looked for. I found these area promised as a C -1 and I was satisfied, so that I bought my Property Pine Crest Lane 738 in august last year. My investment till now is more than half a million US $. 1 have done this investment under all the before described conditions. Think the rezoning which is described in the petition will destroy complete the area which I looked for and also my dreams of my new home and my investment. I kindly ask you to reject the rezoning of the Property North of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Boulevard. SincerAed. Prof. DV,�rford, bil. Wolfgang J. W. Schneider LOnswe Ger many ( priv. address ) Tel. (0391) 67 15699 * Fax (0391) 67 15588 e -mail: wolfgang.schnelder (amedizln .uni- magdeburg.de Intemet: httpJ /www.mod .uni- magdeburg.daMme /=hVkprwh/ Re: Palm Springs Rezoning Dear Mr. Michael Bosi and to the Planning Staff RECFIV�D (Petition # PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015, Triad ROWda Item o. 8 PAX96f 884 ZONING DEPARTMENT I along with my fellow neighbors would like to respectfully voice our strong objection to the idea of rezoning the 10.75 acre parcel know to as 'Triad RPUD'. To our families, neighbors and myself it is our home and it more than just concerns me how a few people, a Trust company, for the sole purpose of making a one time profit, can change the lives and futures of so many residents in such a permanent manner. When we purchased our property in 1988 the area in question, along what was then Radio Road was zoned for commercial uses. The owners of that land also knew it was zoned for commercial uses when they acquired it, it has been zoned for commercial use since at least 1969. We bought our property and built on it, as many others have since, with that understanding and to change the zoning now is unfair to those of us who live here. Traffic is a major concern that has only been amplified by the extensive development approvals in the area and since the re- routing of Radio Road and the relocation of the Davis Boulevard intersection. At the present time the vast majority of people use the Circle K parking lot as a short-cut to Davis Blvd. If the present or future owners of the Circle K property should decide to out off access to Davis Boulevard, the present u -turn intersection, which is cumbersome now, will become unmanageable for the proposed number of people that a multi - family zoning would generate. Buffering as determined by the comprehensive plan adopted by Collier County suggests that there should be a buffering between the high density of our neighbors, Tuscan Isles and Saddlebrook, amounting to some 438 units. The present low intensity C -1 zoning on the 10.75 acre property will provide a much better buffer than an additional 140 units as proposed by this high density application. The traffic that is generated by the bowling ally, 'Woodside' (PUD), at the intersection of Radio Road and Radio Lane is mostly benign to our community as it is adjacent to the new termination of Radio Road, which does not allow a left turn out. This intersection is difficult with the limited number of vehicles today, but a higher - density zoning will surely compound our future traffic problems. Safety and piece of mind for my family and our neighbors is of utmost concern. Since the first phase of Saddlebrook (the approved PUD directly to the East) contains 140 units and Tuscan Isles (also an approved PUD directly to the East) contains 298 units, we now have a situation of 438 units of high - density housing adjacent to our humble little community of 86 single family dwellings, most of which are built on lots averaging 0.4 acre and up. We are all very concerned about the intensive growth that has fallen upon our area and we ask that you consider any further intensity that will only cause hardships to those of us who will continue to permanently reside there. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, XCJ 4 Jonathan Smith and Family 761 Pine Vale Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 123 of 133 RECEIVED Jeanne Noble AUG 17 2004 728 Pine Vale Court ZONING DEPARTMENT Naples, Fl. 34104 (239) 455 -1953 Dear Commissioners: In regard to the proposed zoning change request for the TRIADPUD (PUDZ- 2004 -AR -601 5). I urge you to deny this request for the following reasons. 1.)The density involved, when the effects of Saddlebrook 11 haven't hit us yet plus the proposed Blue Heron complex already approved.. 2.)The Palm Springs subdivision established in 1968 or 1969 has only in the past year started to develop further. 3.)The request to make the main access on unnamed street on north side of block is just a way to get out of building a turn lane on Radio Lane. (I understand this street was abandoned by the county some time ago, so does not exist — (we maybe talking two blocks here). % 4.)keeping that block as C1 would be encouraging,,other developers to build & so fill up the sub division (as required by state planning) before developing other areas. 5.)I agree with what Mrs. Fiala said (On TV) " We have enough low cost housing here already ". My husband (now deceased) and I bought our property in 1969, (just the second house built) never dreaming that Naples would grow so fast. Within a year, Bill (William B) Stone built 4 streets of low cost Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 124 of 133 housing-BUT_ we (over the years) applauded him for this because they were owned; not rented. 90% of these are well maintained and many cases there are improvements. There are still many of the some people living in them from 1970. In 1980, we (two representatives of the community as it was then) fought & won to deny a petition from the proposed Sherwood Subdivision to put a sewage plant area directly north of us and also to use our side road as ingress to their property. This subdivision grew slowly in the northern estates area through 1980 - 1990 . These are good homes on large lofts, owned mainly by families with children , (only one of these estates is to date undeveloped) . Now , with the new larger homes recently built on Pine Crest Lane and the duplexes on Pine Cone Lane , the subdivision has the potential to be a viable, safe place to bring up children. This would certainly be hindered by the high density prpposal. The county park , donated to the county by the original developer (Walter Donovan) is well maintained and a big asset to the community . I urg&you to mote no on this prro on sal. / Yours Sincerely Agenda Item No, 8C February 22, 2005 RECEIVED Page 125 of 133 AUG 17 2004 ZONING DEPARTMENT August S, 2004 Honorable Collier County Commissioners Collier County Government Complex 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL. 34112 Attention Tom Henning, Dear Tom and all other Honorable Commissioners, I have known you for many years and I do not believe you could be a part of the rezoning of the property north of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Boulevard. I think the rezoning of our area will cause many problems. We have none right now. We do not want any. My husband is a schoolteacher and I am a retired Process server wanting to enjoy the peace and quiet and closeness we have in our neighborhood. We want to keep our children and grandchildren safe, as well as our elderly. We have been homeowners on 736 Pine Vale Court for 32 years. We chose to live here when my children were very young (Kindergarten) because it is a quiet, settled, and a safe neighborhood where everyone helped their neighbors and friends. We watched each others children, and were always there for each other. We already have our share of low housing income in our neighborhood. The volume of traffic will certainly affect all of our safety. The rezoning in our area will destroy the area, bring in crime, ruin our property value, and cause it an unsafe and unfit area for our children to play. Tom, please help us. You are a family man, a caring man, and one that we all put into office because we know you understand us. Please reject the rezoning of the property North of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Boulevard. incerely, /Mazer on & ary Agenda Item No. SC February 22, 2005 Page 126 of 133 BosiMichael From: GUELFICASSBO@aol.com Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 3;00 PM To: BosiMichael Subject: palm springs rezoning Dear Mr. Bosi, I am writing in regards to potential rezoning of property in Palm Springs Estates. My husband and I purchased our property in 1982, we built our home in 1984. We searched carefully before purchasing a property for a good location that we felt was safe and quiet where the grandchildren could come and play without worry. We were aware of the commercial zoning and felt that it would not interfere with the safety of the community being that businesses would mainly be open 9 to 5 Monday through Friday and that traffic would not be too excessive on the average. I am sure you are aware of the traffic situation as it is now. It has already gotten much worse with Saddlebrooks development and I cannot imagine what the addition of 200 more some odd vehicles coming and going at work hours will do. The school buses already have a tough enough job picking up the children now. I hope you will leave the zoning as it is. All of the residents in palm springs are satisfied with it as is, we are not asking for any change, just to remain the way it was when we purchased it. Thank you for your time. Peggy Guelfi 753 Pine Vale Drive Naples, F1 34204 guelficassbo @aol.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Agenda item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 127 of 133 BosiMichaei From: Jerry Van Hecke [JVANHECKEUSMC @msn,com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:30 PM To: BosiMichaei Subject: Rezone petition Mike: Thank you for meeting with me the other day. I am writing to tell you my feelings on the rezoning requested for Triad PUD. We bought our lot In 1973 and built our house there in 1991. When we bought and built we were aware of the zoning that was in place at the front of Palm Springs and the type of commercial property that could be built. Knowing that, we were willing to live with the consequences of are decission. We are still willing to live with the consequences as long as it is commercial consequences. We did not bargain for multi - family housing with such high density. 140 units with all of the other multi - family developments surrounding us and planned for this area Is excessive and dangerous. I can not believe Palm Springs Blvd. or Radio Lane were designed to handle all of the traffic that will be dumped on them. The Circle K parking lot will need to be redesigned to handle all the extra traffic. That parking lot is a throughfare. It is an accident waiting to kill someone. Right now to get on Davis Blvd., If you do it legally, you must go down Radio Road and make a U -turn to come back up to Davis. It works OK, now but add 280+ trips a day. Nightmare! It will really be dangerous with the amount of trips that will be generated by this new development stacked on top of the existing traffic. It will be interesting when the school buses are running In the neighborhood. Do not forget, the property across the street from this PUD. It is the same size and if this rezoning request is successful, it will be next and It probably will be a mirror image of this PUD. I am aware that commercial zoning will create traffic but it will be business specific and it will stop at the end of the work day and there will be very little on weekends and holidays. Further, the traffic will not start until later in the morning when school buses have already picked up kids. In closing it is not be fair to change the rules that have been in place and everyone was willing to live with when we bought the property. I might add, the current owners of the property were also aware of the zoning. They must have been willing to abide by the zoning that was in place when they purchased the property. By not changing the zoning no one is denying the owners right to develop the property they will just be asked to live by the rules that were in place when they bought the property. Once again thank you and feel free to include this in the rezoning request. Jerry Van Hecke 760 Pine Vale Drive Naples, FI 34104 Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http: / /exglorer.msn.com 7/23/2004 AgendFAVrIW $C February 22, 2005 Page 128 of 133 BosiMichael From: Rena and Jack Ucollins335146@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:25 PM To: BosiMichael Subject: Petition #PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Dear Mr. Bosi: We are writing this email to state our position concerning the above referenced petition. Our home has been located at Pine Vale Drive since 1984. When our property was originally purchased, the property located at the front of Palm Springs Development (facing what is now "Radio Lane) was zoned "commercial". (Please see the article which is attached.) We are strongly opposed to this property being rezoned and would like to see it stay "commercial ". Consideration of our position will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, John and Rena Collins Robert W. Buchan 680 Pine Vale Dr. Naples, FL 34104 August 2, 2004 Mr. Kenneth Abernathy, Collier County Planning Cormiussion 2800 N. horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 129 of 133 RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2004 ZONING DEPARTMENT RE: The Petition: PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 to rezone the property North of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Boulevard Dear Mr. Kenneth Abernathy, First let me say that my wife and I are absolutely, with out a doubt, satisfied with the current Cl zoning of the property located North of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Blvd for the following reasons and concerns: My wife and I bought our house in 1979. We were thrilled with the idea of being so close to town yet secluded in a neighborhood off the beaten path without being in a gated community. We've grown to love our location and neighbors. We planned a family and have been raising our children here for 16 years. We have a County park in the neighborhood which is open to the public from dawn until dusk. We've seen neighbors come and go, a few new homes have been built in our neighborhood. Interstate 75 came through the woods to the North of us and developments have popped up on the East, West and South sides of us. Our streets have been flooded many times with summer rains over the years. We even have a convenience store and a bowling alley within a half mile of our home. The roads in our neighborhood have been paved twice in 10 years because of the increased traffic. There is even a Wal Mart Super Center being built within 2 miles of us as I write this letter to you. We have welcomed all of this growth with open arms because we expected growth "around the boundaries of our neighborhood. In fact, the entrance to our neighborhood was recently modified to close off the intersection that was once Radio Rd. and Davis Blvd, which existed for as least 35 years if not longer. When we purchased our home we were thrilled with the C 1 zoning of the property along Radio Lane and we are still thrilled with the C 1 zoning of that property. It is our only buffer. Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 130 of 133 Page 2 August 2, 2004 Petition: PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 This area of approximately 2 miles by 1 mile has swelled with population due to the factors mentioned above. The developments that are here to date are not completely full of tenants. We have not yet experienced the full impact of the growth that is happening as you read this letter. For example, Saddle Brook, Tuscan Isle, Sherwood, The Heron and The Ibis Club, all of these developments surround us. The only relief we have is the property to the South of our neighborhood currently zoned C1, which is one of the main reasons why we chose to purchase a home in this area. The traffic on Radio Lane has greatly increased from Saddle Brook (144 units = approx. 200 vehicles), Tuscan Isle (298 units = approx. 400 vehicles), and the bowling alley. Traffic on Palm Springs Blvd has also increased due to the building of 19 new homes and 11 new duplexes (22 apartments) with 8 empty lots in Palm Springs Estates. Estimating that each dwelling has 2 vehicles this has increased traffic by approximately 80 vehicles added to the current 90+ vehicles already here. The impact of a new development in Palm Springs Estates that utilizes Palm Springs Blvd having 145 -- dwellings will add an approximate increase of 200 additional vehicles in this neighborhood. This would certainly add to the current chaos where Radio Lane and Palm Springs Blvd meet. Should this new development be approved there will be approximately 1,000 vehicles utilizing Radio Lane and Palm Springs Blvd to get to Radio Rd. Just remember, Saddle Brook has a phase 2 planned for the near future, bringing possibly another 200 or more vehicles to this area. We also have many school buses that currently pick up and drop off children at various stops in this small area. We are extremely concerned about the safety and welfare of the families in this neighborhood. My children ride these buses to school and back. My daughters bus stop is currently at the Circle K convenience store on Radio Lane and Palm Springs Blvd. The high school bus picks up as early at 6:15AM. My wife drives our daughter to the bus stop and they wait in the Circle K parking lot for the bus to arrive. Most of the parents in our neighborhood do the same because we don't believe Palm Springs Blvd is safe for children to walk along the roadside, in the dark, at 6:OOAM to catch the school bus. The same bus that my daughter rides is also used by Saddle Brook. Those children have to walk in the dark from this development under the same dangerous conditions as our neighborhood children. During this time of morning there are a vast number of vehicles ranging from 18 wheelers, dump trucks, construction vehicles of all sizes, other school buses, cars, Waste Management trucks that service the Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 . Page 131 of 133 Page 3 August 2, 2004 Petition: PUDZ- 2004 -AR -6015 Circle K dumpsters all while children are present and waiting for the bus. All of the traffic are patrons of the convenience store, parents, students and the surrounding population that go to and from town at this time of day. At times it can become extremely congested and can pose a dangerous situation. Now that Tuscan Isle is here the school system will probably need additional buses to handle the increase of children, which will only add to the current chaos. The afternoon run of buses is no different from the morning run. We are deeply troubled by the thought of more population and traffic being introduced to an area that is already overwhelmed with its current population and only expected to increase as the current developments continue to fill up. The current C 1 zoning of this property would not have anywhere near the extreme impact on our neighborhood and surrounding community as the rezoning would create. By keeping the current zoning at C 1, if in the future there are small business' built, the patron traffic would be during the day when children are in school and citizens are at work. Please hear our voices. We do not want the rezoning of the property to pass. Please vote against the Petition: PUDZ - 2004 -AR -6015 to rezone the property North of Radio Lane and East of Palm Springs Boulevard. Most Sincerely, 4A h.i -' A,. �,WW Mr. & Mrs. Robert W. Buchan CC: Ra" A. DW dim= Mark P. Stain, Vice Chair Robert Murray, Secretary Lindy Adeistein Dwicht Richardson Brad C. Schiffer Robert Vighotti Paul Midney Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 132 of 133 Marcel Gagnon 250 -1362 Tim and Cathy Gorman 352 -2488 Tom and Rene Guthrie 353.8847 Richard and Tamara Hampton 352 -7260 February 1, 1005 To All Neighbors: We apologize for taking so long to get you this letter. We have been in intense negotiations with the developer, Triad, for the past few weeks. Countless phone calls, e- mails, and conference calls have taken place. None of us are 100% happy with the outcome (as summarized below), but both sides have compromised. We assure you that the developer is as frustrated as we are, but we believe this to be the best solution for all. First, the developer has agreed to a deed restriction on the property. This restriction will run with the land, and therefore, will bind the current owner as well as any and all future owners of the property. The deed restriction will prohibit a rental apartment complex on the property and will be enforceable by all of us (i.e., all lot owners within the Palm Springs Village Unit 1 and Palm Springs Estates Unit 1 subdivisions). Second, a school bus stop (uncovered concrete pad with bicycle rack) will be constructed on Radio Lane as far east (as close to the Saddlebrook apartments) as possible. Third, building height will not exceed 35 feet (2 stories), and both first and second floor units will be offered. The average size of the units (all unit sizes in the development divided by the total number of units) will not be less than 2,000 square feet in total gross area. The development will have a 24 -hour controlled access gated entry. Fourth, in addition to a berm with a tree /shrub buffer behind (to the south of) the existing adjacent houses, the developer has agreed to install a gate or fence, depending on the desire of the adjacent lot owners. Fifth, the developer has agreed to use good faith efforts to move the entrance to the development as close to Radio Lane as possible. However, we have been informed that, according to County transportation regulations, the closest possible distance to Radio Lane, is 350 feet. Agenda Item No. 8C February 22, 2005 Page 133 of 133 Sixth, the developer has agreed to request from the County a temporary construction access permit so that construction vehicles will enter and exit the development toward the east side of the property off of Radio Lane. Therefore, in the event the County issues the permit, the construction vehicles will not have to use Palm Springs Boulevard. Lastly, in exchange for these concessions from the developer, we have agreed to a density of 8 units per acre. We fought hard for a lower density, but the county's staff report (which was prepared three weeks ago) recommends a density of 9.5 units per acre. We have come to the realization that we probably will not win if we argue that the property should remain with commercial zoning. We also know that we can ask the County Commissioners for a lower density and the other concessions discussed above (with the exception of the deed restriction), but there is no guarantee that we will get anything from the Commissioners. Rather than "roll the dice," we think the best solution is to accept 8 units per acre in exchange for the guaranteed concessions from the developer. Furthermore, if the Commission did agree with us, and the developer then walked away, we would begin again with no idea of what we may get from a different developer. Again, we have done our best and feel this is the best deal. As we stated, we are not 100% happy with this, but after we debated this greatly amongst ourselves, we have decided that it is probably in all of our best interest. To complete this negotiation, we have agreed to speak in favor of the rezoning at the public hearings, with the condition that the developer's concessions be made part of the rezoning approval. The developer has also requested that we ask the neighbors who submitted letters to the County in opposition to withdraw those letters. We are more than happy to talk to everyone regarding this whole matter. We have done our best to find what we believe to be the best scenario for everyone. PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ANY ONE OF US TO DISAGREE OR ASK QUESTIONS. WE HAE ALSO CALLED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TONIGHT SO WE CAN PERSONALLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. We truly apologize for not being in touch sooner. Since the negotiations took place through attorneys, they had to remain confidential and this agreement was only reached basically today. Again, we have tried our best and hope you will agree that this is the best solution. Please be aware that when we speak, we will be asking the Commissioners for nothing less of the MAC builders who intend to develop the west side. I. -- Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 85 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142 Naples Syndications, LLC, represented by Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Warm Springs PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change. The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road, in .Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119 acres. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: At the January 25, 2005 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, the BCC voted by unanimous vote to reconsider the Warm Springs Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment heard at the January 11, 2005 BCC public hearing. At the January 11, 2005 public hearing, the Warm Springs PUD amendment failed to gain a super majority vote necessary for approval of a PUD. Commissioner Coletta at the hearing made a motion to approve the Warm Springs PUD amendment with the following conditions: 1) the applicant is authorized to construct a maximum of 525 dwelling units 15 percent of which shall be affordable housing blended throughout the project (2) the applicant shall dedicate an additional 50 -feet of Right -of -Way on Massey Road without cost to the County or impact fee credits gained by the applicant (3) no more than 50 percent of the project shall be built before the completion of the CR951 widening project and the remainder after the completion of the project (4) the PUD development standards shall be modified so that the 75 -foot PUD boundary setback is reduced to a 50 -foot PUD boundary setback for the primary structure located at the southeastern portion of the project. The motion failed to gain a super majority with an affirmative vote of 3 to 2. The Executive Summary prepared for the January 11, 2005 BCC public hearing is attached with the full agenda packet. PREPARED BY: Mike Bosi, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning and Land Development Review PUDZ -A -AR -6142 Agenca Item No, 8D February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 85 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 8C Item Summary This item requires that all participants be sworin in and ex- arte P disclosure be Provided by Commission members. PUOZ: A- 2004- AR -C;142 Naples Syndications, LLC, represented by Karen Bis.^.otJ of PMS Inc. of Naples requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUC" Planned Unit Development known as Warm Springs PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Pian by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units., a density in crease from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change. The prepeity is located an the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokaee Road, in Section 26. Township 48 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119± saes. Meeting Date 2;22!2006 9.00 00 AM Prepared By Date Mike Basi, AICP Principal Planner 21312005 11:57:13 AM Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review - Approved By Mike Be.;, AICP Principal Planner Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land D- 0opmant Review 21112 005 10;67 AM Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & f -and Development Review 8/312005 3:16 PM Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 2131' «005 3:57 PM Approved By Constance A. Johnsmt Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Oevetopmeot & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 214120051:00 PM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 2!712005 3:56 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder. AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transponion Services Transportation Services Admin, 2181200511:13 AM Approved By Community Development & Community Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Adminstrator Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 211012005 8:44 PM Approved By - OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111!2005 8:55 AM Approved By Murk Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112005 1:48 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 21412005 4:31 PM Approved By James V, Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 211412005 6:37 PM Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 85 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ-A- 2004 -AR -6142 Naples Syndications, LLC, represented by Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Warm Springs PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change. The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119 acres. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the requested rezone is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and is in the best interest of the community. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner proposes a PUD with a maximum of 540 residential dwelling units. The current PUD zoning permits a variety of residential units and accessory uses customarily associated with residential developments with a maximum of 250 dwelling units. The Nicaea Academy Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on August 1, 2000, and recorded through Ordinance Number 00 -52, and amended on November 18, 2003, and recorded through Ordinance Number 03 -64. The application seeks to revise the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre. A portion of the project (40.7 acres) is within the Residential Density Band that surrounds the Activity Center at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The remainder of the project (78.3 acres) is outside the Residential Density Band. The 540 dwelling units on 119 acres results in a maximum gross density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre. The density rating system permits a maximum of 598 dwelling units for the 119 -acre site. The Warm Springs PUD document has designated ten percent of the proposed units to be available under the provisions and terms of the Collier County Affordable Housing program for moderate - income owner occupied residences. Assuming that all 540 units are constructed, this will yield fifty - four affordable housing units. The current Nicaea Academy PUD (Ordinance 2000 -52) is being repealed in its entirety and the petitioner has reformatted and rewritten the proposed PUD document. The petitioner proposes to enter into a Developer contribution agreement (DCA) for the future construction of Tree Farm Road. The DCA would provide the County with a minor collector foot print and establish the first leg of a proposed loop road for the benefit of the County Transportation network. The Developer through this DCA along with others interested parties will provide the funds necessary for the expansion of the bridge, roadway Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 85 construction and access improvements. This DCA is consistent with the intention of the donated 40' right -of- way as outline in the original PUD. The petitioner agrees that access to the development will be off Tree Farm Road. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning of this PUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the property is rezoned, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. 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 Services (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 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and is partially within a Residential Density Band, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This Subdistrict permits residential development at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions; recreation and open space uses; and a variety of community facility uses. The westerly side of the project has 40.7 acres located within the Residential Density Band around the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard Activity Center and the remaining 78.3 acres of the project are outside this Residential Density Band. The 540 proposed units and resultant density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre are in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: 40.7 acres within the Density Band at 7 dwelling units/acre = 285 dwelling units 78.3 acres outside the Density Band at 4 dwelling units /acre = 313 dwelling units 119 total acres= 598 dwelling units maximum at a density of 5.03 units /acre Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed amendments can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Warm Springs PUD document has been reviewed to ensure the most current environmental regulations have been incorporated within the document. The PUD is governed by an existing South Florida Water 0) Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 85 Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) number 11- 01973 -P, and an existing Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit number 200001393. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition because an Environmental Impact Statement was submitted and reviewed by County staff and the EAC with the original PUD petition in 2000. No additional environmental impacts are proposed. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPQ RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition on December 16, 2004. The Commission motioned to forward petition PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142 with a recommendation of approval with the following modifications to the PUD document: • A reduction of the number of units from the 540 units proposed to 278 units, a density reduction from 4.52 dwelling units per acre to 2.33 dwelling units per acre, with the retention of the commitment for ten percent of the units to remain dedicated to affordable housing as designated within section 5.12 of the PUD document. • Increasing the setback required for a principal structure from the PUD boundary from 25 feet to 75 feet. • The elimination of the word generally in section 2.2.a of the PUD document. • Modification of Section 2.2.a. to allow for the Land Development Code regulations to control when more restrictive. • Elimination of note one from the development standards table that stated, "Sidewalks shall generally be located between parking areas and buildings." • Replace the final word of Section 4.2.b.2 with the word approval, rather than review. • Create Section 5.13 to call out a requested deviation from Chapter 3.05.07 of the Land Development Code to allow for site alteration within ten feet of a preserve area. The motion passed by an eight to one margin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Petition PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142 subject to the regulations contained in the PUD document as modified by the Planning Commission's recommendation with the exception of the density reduction and as otherwise described by the Ordinance of Adoption and Exhibit s thereto. PREPARED BY: Mike Bosi, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning and Land Development Review 3 Co�r County STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 8 -B Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 85 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2004 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS AGENT /APPLICANT: OWNER: Naples Syndications, LLC AGENT: Karen Bishop 540 Myrtle Road PMS, Inc. of Naples Naples, FL 34108 2335 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 408 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Warm Springs PUD. The application seeks to revise the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road. The site consists of approximately 119 acres, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on following page) PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD 1 NC ro Agenda Item No. 8D February 22. 2005 Page 7 of 85 LOCATION -MAP SITE MAP PFTlTlnM Opiiny- 2i9011I_ AR- 1119 a a A G'1 b w.a�Yiw Moom Mau r a" rrr�lt awns +art P ABM �wwwrwr w r.w -rrw msrooransa�a �. � .. iww wwi�+rti��trrr... w ywwwrw�wrrw �.�. � �nw�rw.��wrwww�w� w�w�wwwY. - I 1 Agenda Item No. BD February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 85 �l to A` C b 0 ro A i 0e w..rrnw� —'i 'ws YI.11'NlYm •r M.ifrR �I� .{NIOM�II�I.IMI NiM. am 'fir aw rw �t wusa r ........ . ...... s �,►� „� IN gigs 11111] 1111 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 85 1 :. Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 85 PURPOSEMESCRIPTION OF PROTECT: The Nicaea Academy Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on August 1, 2000, and recorded through Ordinance Number 00 -52, and amended on November 18, 2003, and recorded through Ordinance Number 03 -64. The petitioner proposes a PUD with a maximum of 540 residential dwelling units. The current zoning permits a variety of residential units and accessory uses customarily associated with residential developments with a maximum of 250 dwelling units. A portion of the project (40.7 acres) is within the Residential Density Band that surrounds the Activity Center at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The remainder of the project (78.3 acres) is outside the Residential Density Band. The 540 dwelling units on 119 acres results in a maximum gross density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre. The density rating system permits a maximum of 598 dwelling units for the 119 -acre site. The Warm Springs PUD document has designated ten percent of the proposed units to be available under the provisions and terms of the Collier County Affordable Housing program for moderate - income owner occupied residences. Assuming that all 540 units are constructed, this will yield fifty-four affordable housing units. The current Nicaea Academy PUD (Ordinance 2000 -52) .is being repealed in its entirety and the petitioner has reformatted and rewritten the proposed PUD document. PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 85 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: The parcel is an undeveloped 119 -acre site; zoned Nicaea Academy PUD (2.1 units per acre). Surrounding: North: Recreational vehicle park; zoned Crystal Lake PUD (2.89 units per acre) and several parcels along Acremaker Road, some undeveloped, some developed with residential uses; zoned A. East: Undeveloped land; zoned A, in a Rural Fringe Receiving Area. West: Collier Boulevard ROW, across which are multi - family residential units; zoned Brittany Bay Apartments PUD (8.16 units per acre). South: Undeveloped land; zoned Bristol Pines PUD (6.98 units per acre) several parcels, some undeveloped, some developed with residential uses; zoned A (Please note, several of these parcels have submitted a rezone petition for the expansion of the Bristol Pines PUD). : -UA K -LYN �IOFICAID PUn PUn �r�tWOaD TUSCANY COVE WA TERWAYS VILLA S 5.06 DU /A SU R NT— P1N•E-DR Pun .0 10.25 DU /A Pun —r_L — A CRYSTAL LA KE — x�rDno to rcES 2.89 DU /A% / PUn *, Proposed Warm Springs @ 4.52 DU /A IRITTANYSAYPun WCAEAACADE"MY PUn 8.16 DU /A —T----)-_-FA CE IN AA 6.98 DU /A BRISTOL PINES VA eVM-R8 ILT CO UWRY CLUB —P DU /A = Dwelling Units per Acre GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and is partially within a Residential Density Band, as identified on the Future PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD 6 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 85 I. Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This Subdistrict permits residential development at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions; recreation and open space uses; and a variety of community facility uses. The westerly side of the project has 40.7 acres located within the Residential Density Band around the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard Activity Center and the remaining 78.3 acres of the project are outside this Residential Density Band. The 540 proposed units and resultant density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre are in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: 40.7 acres within the Density Band at 7 dwelling units /acre = 285 dwelling units 78.3 acres outside the Density Band at 4 dwelling units /acre = 313 dwelling units 119 total acres = 598 dwelling units maximum at a density of 5.03 units /acre Future Land Use Element: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed amendments can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Transportation Element: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan -- (GMP) and was found consistent with Policy 5.1. The consistency finding provides a statement to the project, that when developed, it will not excessively increase traffic congestion. Open Space /Conservation: A minimum of sixty percent open space of the gross site area, as described in Section 4.02.01 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Policy 1. 1.6 of the GMP, will be required of the PUD. Section 3.5 of the Warm Springs PUD document requires that the minimum of sixty percent open space be maintained for the project. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Chapter 10.03.05 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and required staff evaluation and comment. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) also must utilize these criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Appropriate evaluation of petitions for amendments to PUDs should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision - makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criteria noted and are summarized by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B "). PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD 7 Agenda item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 85 Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (5.9), of the Warm Springs PUD document has been revised through the amendment process to reflect the most current environmental regulations. Transportation Analysis: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: The PUD document, in relation to the Transportation element, has been updated to ensure all development within the Warm Springs PUD will be subject to and compliant with the policy contained within the Transportation sub - element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the regulatory fabric contained in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Transportation Section (5.8), of the Warm Springs PUD document, has been revised through the amendment process to parallel the current LDC regulations. Utility Issues: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: water distribution, sewage collection and transmission, and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis: As previously noted, the subject property is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and is partially within a residential density band, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This Subdistrict permits residential development at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions; recreation and open space uses and a variety of community facility uses. The proposed zoning action will provide for a more consistent density pattern in the local area. Considering the availability of community infrastructure and services, and the applicant's commitments in the PUD document, staff concludes that the proposed changes to the PUD document are consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). In addition to an evaluation of the proposed rezoning action to the Comprehensive Planning consistency review, an evaluation of the proposed action compared to existing land uses is required. The discussion of the relationship to existing land uses concerns the compatibility with the adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west. The subject site is within a half -mile of an Activity Center, which permits commercial zoning, and a maximum of sixteen residential dwelling units per acre. The surrounding development, within one mile of the Warm Springs PUD boundary, consists of a range of densities and dwelling types: Crystal Lake PUD with Park Trailer and Recreational Vehicles at a density of 2.89 units per acre, Brittany Bay PUD with single and multi - family units at a density of 8.16 units per acre, Bristol Pines PUD with single family units at a density of 6.98 units per acre, Summit Place PUD with single and multi- family units at a density of 4 units per acre, and Tuscany Cove PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD Agenda Item No. 817 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 85 PUD with multi - family units at a density of 10.25 units per acre. From review of the surrounding development within the local area, a consistent pattern of dwelling type and density cannot be established. Within one mile of the subject property, there is a 7.36 unit per acre range in density within adjacent developments (Tuscany Cove @ 10.25 DU /A and Crystal Lake (iP 2.89 DU /A), with the other surrounding residential projects falling within the range. One aspect of the development pattern of the area that is firmly established is the location of the Activity Center that encompasses a portion of the Warm Springs PUD. It is the location of this Activity Center to Warm Springs, and the commercial activity and higher residential densities that Activity Centers contain, which inclines staff to conclude that the proposed density would be compatible with the existing and future land use pattern of the local area. Additionally, the Warm Springs PUD contains a requirement that 10 percent of the authorized units be dedicated to affordable housing. It is staff's belief that the provision of affordable housing by the PUD, in addition to the density compatibility, makes the proposed amendment one that will not detract from the land use environment of the local area, while providing a contribution to the affordable housing stock to the County. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The petitioner held a Neighborhood Information Meeting on August 17, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. at Faith Community Church, 6455 Hidden Oaks Lane, Naples, FL. Approximately 12 individuals, including the applicant's team and county staff, attended the meeting. Of those persons that spoke, most expressed no opposition to the proposed rezone request. Agent for the applicant, Mr. Michael Fernandez of Planning Development Inc., made the following statements during the presentation: • A total of 598 units is to be developed. • The units will be sold as "fee simple ". • 10% of those units are to be marketed as "moderate level affordable housing" throughout the development. • Direct access will be provided from Tree Farm Road. • Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of Tree Farm Road. • Seventy -one of the 119.45 acres will be held in preserve status. • Preliminary Site Development Plan currently under review depicting three lakes, thirty 3 -story condos of eighteen units each. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of Petition PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142 that repeals Ordinance Number 03 -64 as described by the Ordinance of Adoption and exhibits thereto, the Warm Springs PUD regulatory document, subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated in the PUD document. PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD 9 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 85 PREPARED BY: —��� : /j- 2q-0(4 MIKE BOSI, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RAY BEL6bWS, MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I USAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTOR 0 DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: AV O PH K. SC ADMINI TRATOR DATE C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the January 11, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN PUDA -04 -AR -6142, WARM SPRINGS PUD 10 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 85 PUD FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ- A- 2004 -AR -6142 Chapter 10.02.12 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners be supported by the following findings, where applicable: 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. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the PUD document give assurance that all infrastructure will be developed consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies, which require supplementing the PUD document, will be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the Growth Management Plan. The Warm Springs PUD was found suitable for the type and pattern of development in the area. The ability of the PUD and neighboring future developments to use Tree Farm Road as a mutual access point would ease the flow of traffic along Collier Boulevard. 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. Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Staff analysis indicates that the Warm Springs PUD is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. A more detailed description of this conformity is addressed in the Staff Report. 4. The internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on Iocation of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation (i.e. I EXHIBIT A Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 85 preserves, lakes, golf course, etc.). External relationships are automatically regulated by the Land Development Code to assure harmonious relationships between projects. Staff analysis indicates that the Warm Springs PUD is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The existing PUD is undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of open space. The proposed PUD will meet the LDC requirement for 60 percent open space in residential developments. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. The PUD is required to meet concurrency requirements at the time of Site Development Plan approval. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability to expand, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads which is available to this site. Infrastructure is in place in the vicinity and its adequacy will be determined at the time of SDP approval. 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 Iiteral application of such regulations. The proposed Warm Springs PUD conforms to PUD regulations or requests deviations that staff analysis finds justified. EXHIBIT A 2 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 85 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -6142 Chapter 10.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff analysis (see attached Staff Report) indicates that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the other applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern; The parcel is adjacent to residential uses on the north, west, and portions of the south. Portions of the abutting properties to the south are agricultural (however a rezone petition has been submitted for the remaining adjoining south properties). The property to the east is also agricultural. According to the Growth Management Plan, the proposed rezone is consistent with the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The parcel is adjacent to residential and agricultural uses. Analysis of the surrounding uses indicates that the PUD will not create an isolated, unrelated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Since the PUD is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the district boundaries are logically drawn. The current district boundaries are logically drawn, since they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the -proposed amendment necessary. The condition that permits the subject property a higher residential density has not changed. The petitioner feels that implementation of the concurrency management EXHIBIT B 1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 85 system will allow the residential density prescribed to the PUD to better align with that allocated by the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The parcel is surrounded by existing residential uses, or agricultural lands eligible for rezoning to residential. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. 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. Analysis by the Transportation Services Division has determined that the proposed PUD will not increase traffic congestion from that generated by the PUD which is currently approved, or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed amendment will not increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The project will be required to obtain a permit from the South Florida Water Management District. Drainage problems should not be created when construction is done in accordance with the permit. The project will be required to obtain a permit from the South Florida Water Management District. Drainage problems should not be created when construction is done in accordance with the permit. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The proposed land uses will be required to meet building setbacks and height restrictions. All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards of the zoning district in which they are located. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This site is adjacent to other residential uses. The density associated with the petition is consistent with the density permitted within the surround developments. Within this petition, an appraisal of estimated future property values resulting from a rezone was not required. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; EXHIBIT B 2 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 85 The development of adjacent properties in accordance with existing regulations will not be affected. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Since the proposed PUD has been found to be in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, the proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The property today could be used for to construct a smaller number of residential dwelling units, as allocated within the existing Nicaea PUD document. However, the Growth Management Plan, with the presence of the residential density band covering a portion of the subject property, permits a higher density than currently allocated. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The change is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Since the proposed PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan, it is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are many similar parcels in the County. The petitioner wishes to construct residential uses on this parcel. 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. While site conditions may restrict the location and square - footage of the buildings, they would not render the property unusable. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the IeveIs 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. EXHIBIT B 3 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22; 2005 Page 21 of 85 The rezoning of this property will eventually result in the creation of a residential development. The Site Development Plan or Plat will be reviewed for compliance with the Levels of Service required for public facilities in the area. EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 05- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM 'PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE WARM SPRINGS RPUD, TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 540 DWELLING UNITS FOR A DENSITY OF 4.52 UNITS PER ACRE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846), IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 119-+ ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 03 -64, THE FORMER NICEA ACADEMY PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Karen Bishop of Project Management Systems Inc., representing Naples Syndications, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Warne Springs RPUD, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", which is incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas snap or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 03 -64, known as the Nicea Academy PUD, adopted on November 18, 2003, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 85 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of , 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney PUDZ•A- 2004 -AR -61 42/MB /tp ._RuggI Agenda Item No. 810 February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 85 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 85 EXHIBIT "A" WARM SPRINGS PUD A Residential Planned Unit Development REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE WARM SPRINGS PUD, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR SUCCESSOR CODE. Prepared For: Naples Syndications, LLC 540 Myrtle Road, Naples, Florida 34108 PREPARED BY: PMS, Inc. of Naples 2335 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 408, Naples, Florida 34103 239.435.9080 / 239.435.9082fax AND McAnly Engineering & Design, Inc. 5435 Park Central Ct., Naples, Florida 34109 239.593.3299 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DATE June 18, 2004 DATE FILED June 21, 2004 CURRENT DOCUMENT DATE December 14. 2004 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC December 16, 2004 DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Compliance Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 85 PAGE Section I Property Ownership and Description 1 -1 Section II Project Development Requirements 2 -1 Section III Residential Areas Plan 3 -1 Table I Development Standards 3 -3 Section IV Preserve Areas Plan 4 -1 Section V Development Commitments 5 -1 Exhibit "B" RPUD Master Plan Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 85 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 119.45± acres of property in Collier County, as a Residential Planned Unit Development to be known as the Warm Springs RPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The residential facilities of the Warm Springs RPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons: 1. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the. Future Land Use Element. 2. The project development is compatible and complementary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 3. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element. - 5. The project is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, on the Future Land Use Map. The westerly side of the project has 40.7 acres of the project located within the Residential Density Band around the Immokalee Road /Collier Boulevard Activity Center and the remaining 78.3 acres of the project are outside this Residential Density Band. The 540 proposed units and resultant density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: 40.7 Acres for an Urban Project Inside a Residential Density Band Base Density 4 dwelling units /acre Residential Density Band +3 dwelling units /acre Maximum Permitted Density 7 dwelling units /acre 78.3 Acres for an Urban Project Outside a Residential Density Band Base Density 4 dwelling units /acre Maximum Permitted Density 4 dwelling units /acre Maximum permitted units = 40.7 acres x 7 dwelling units /acre = 285 units plus maximum permitted units = 78.3 acres x 4 dwelling units /acre = 313 units for a total maximum number of 598 dwelling units at a maximum density of 5.03 dwelling units /acre. Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 85 Requested dwelling units = 540. Requested density = 4.52 dwelling unitsfacre. An additional Bonus Density consideration, available through the Affordable Housing provisions of the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code, is not requested by this application. 6. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code. 7. The subject property for development is within the Urban Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map as provided for in Objective 1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and the uses contemplated are consistent therewith. 8. The project will implement Objective 1 of the Housing Element by providing additional "affordable housing" dwelling units in Collier County, within the proposed master planned development. 9. The project will further the implementation of Policy 1.4 of the Housing Element by providing "affordable housing" in an area where planned infrastructure and services will be available. 10. The project will act to implement Policy 2.9 of the Housing Element by providing "affordable housing" dwelling units blended within the planned market rate development. 11. The development will be compatible with and complementary to existing and planned surrounding land uses. Specifically, the conservation land use along the north property line abuts a like land use over the adjacent Crystal Lake PUD. Additionally, the proposed density of 4.52 units per gross acre which includes a 10% affordable housing component is complementary to the Bristol Pine PUD to the south of the subject parcel, which has an intensity of 6.98 units per acre and also includes a 10% affordable housing component. 12. The development of the Warm Springs RPUD will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policy 3.1.g. of the Future Land Use Element. 13. The Warm Springs RPUD implements Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element in that more than 60% of the project will provide useable open space, or lands reserved for conservation purposes. 14. The native vegetation provisions of the Warm Springs RPUD implements Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation Coastal Management Element in that "native preserves" will be incorporated into the project design. Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 85 ._ 15. The Master Development Plan, with its extensive natural area, lakes and open space areas, and with its moderate residential density, will insure that the developed project will be an attractive and enjoyable residential development. 16. By virtue that the project must comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code, it will implement, and further Objective 8 of the Transportation Element. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 85 The purpose of this section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Warm Springs Residential RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 119.45± acres, is fully described as the South Y2 of the South Y2 of the South %2 less the west 100 feet thereof; and the South Y2 of the North Y2 of the South Y2 of the South Y2 less the west 100 feet thereof; all in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by Barton and Wendy McIntyre, 2200 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34116, and is under a purchase contract by Naples Syndications, LLC, 540 Myrtle Road, Naples, Florida, 34108. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The subject property is located on the eastern side of Collier Boulevard south of and abutting the Crystal Lake PUD (unincorporated Collier County), Florida. The property can be further described as being located north of the Bristol Pines PUD and 30 feet of private access easement, proposed to be included in the future Tree Farm Road. B. The entire project site currently has PUD Zoning and is proposed to be rezoned to RPUD. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located outside of any specific drainage basin according to the Collier County Drainage Atlas. The outfall for the project is the Collier Boulevard Canal located along the western property boundary and the permitted maximum discharge rate is 0.15 cfs per acre. Natural ground elevation varies from 10.0' NGVD within the onsite wetland areas to 13.0' NGVD in the uplands. The average elevation being approximately 12.2' NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone "X" with the base flood elevation undetermined. 1 -1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 85 The water management system of the project proposes the construction of a perimeter berm with crest elevation set at or above the 25 -year, 3-day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatment is proposed in the on -site lake /natural vegetation areas prior to discharge. A water management system has been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmental Resource Permit process. Rules and regulations of SFWMD have been imposed upon this project including but not limited to those relative to: storm attenuation, minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm and finished floor elevations, water, and wetland hydrology maintenance. The existing permit and associated ACOE permit is proposed to be amended reflecting the proposed development change and its drainage requirements. However, the permit - associated conservation easement and associated environmental permitting restrictions and requirements and wetland mitigation requirements shall remain. Per Collier County Soil Legend dated January 1990, the soil type found within the limits of the property is predominately #18- Riveria Fine Sand, limestone substratum, and areas of #16- Oldsmar Fine Sand and #10- Oldsmar Fine Sand, limestone substratum. The site vegetation consists primarily of slash pine, cabbage palm, and Cypress trees with upland areas of Slash Pine and Saw Palmetto. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Warm Springs RPUD is a project proposed for a maximum of 540 residential units. These units are proposed to be developed as a multi- family project(s). Recreational facilities and other facilities and services may be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, if applicable, and signage shall be designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, quality screening /buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. The Developer has committed to provide 10% of the constructed dwelling units, by phase, under the provisions and restrictions of the County's provisions for affordable housing. The owner occupied units shall minimally meet the designation of moderate income level housing units. 1.7 PROJECT NAME This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Warm Springs Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance" 1 -2 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 85 The purpose of this Section is to delineate and describe the project plan of the development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses within the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for the development of the Warm Springs Residential RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, RPUD - Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code, or successor ordinance, and Collier County Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of development order application, where such standards are not otherwise addressed by this Document or the RPUD Master Plan which is an attachment to this document. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County LDC. The development of this RPUD shall be consistent with the RPUD Master Plan and its provisions. Additionally, development of this RPUD shall be governed by and consistent with the existing SFWMD ERP number 11- 01973 -P and the existing ACOE permit number 200001393 (IP -DEY), as they may be amended. The regulations contained within the LDC shall govern when more restrictive, unless exempted by this document. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County LDC, or successor ordinance, in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Warm Springs RPUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the RPUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this RPUD, the provisions of other sections of the LDC where applicable remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this RPUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Land Development Code, as may be amended or superceded. 2 -1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 85 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "B ", RPUD Master Plan. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR LAND USE INTENSITY A maximum of 540 residential multi - family dwelling units shall be constructed in the total project area. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 4.52 units per acre. 2.5 ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREAS MAINTENANCE Whenever the developer elects to create land area and /or recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of the property within said development in which the common interest is located, that developer entity shall provide appropriate legal instniments for the establishment of a Property Owners' Association whose function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space subject further to the provisions of the Section 2.03.06 of the LDC. 2 -2 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 85 The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the land uses as designated on the RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the RPUD shall be 540 units, a gross density of 4.52 units per acre. Ten (10 %) percent of the constructed units, by phase, shall be affordable housing units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Multi- family dwellings (includes townhouses, garden apartments, villas, coach homes, and carriage homes). 2. Neighborhood amenity recreational uses including, pools, tennis courts, clubhouse, fitness center. 3. Offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. A portion of the clubhouse facilities may be utilized as a temporary sale facility. Sales shall be limited to the onsite development. 4. Any other use deemed comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the applicable LDC process. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts. 3 -1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 84 of 85 3. Any other use deemed comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the applicable LDC process. C. General Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted through the developable acreage of the RPUD. 1. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 4. Water management facilities and related structures including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 6. Architectural features and elements including walls, fences, arbors, gazebos and the like. 7. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 8. Landscape / hardscape features including, but not limited to landscape buffers, berms, fences, water features and walls. 9. Fill storage, site filling and grading. 10. Any other use deemed comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the applicable LDC process. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. GENERAL: All yards, setbacks, etc. shall be in relation to the individual parcel boundaries, except as otherwise provided. See Table I. 3 -2 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22; 2005 Page 35 of 85 TABLE I STANDARDS MULTI- FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 40,000 sf Minimum Lot Width 100 ft Front Yard Setback (1) 28 ft when separated by parking from edge of driveway pavement 14 ft when not separated by arkin Side Yard Setback 1 Story 7.5 ft 2 Story 10.0 ft 3 Story 12.5 ft Accessory Structure 6.0 ft. Neighborhood Amenity the greater of 10 ft or Y2 the height of structure Rear Yard Setback Principal Structure 20 ft Accessory Structure loft Lake Setback from control elevation 20 ft PUD Boundary Setback Principal Structure 75 ft Accessory Structure loft Lake Setback (measured from control) 25 ft Entry Gate 100 ft Preserve Setback Principal Structure 25 ft Accessory Structure loft Distance Between Structures Main /Principal 1 -Story 15 ft 2 -Story 20 ft 3 -Story 25 ft Neighborhood Amenity 25 ft Accessory Structures 12 ft Maximum Height / Max. No. of Stories: Principal Building 45 ft / 3 stories Accessory Building 35 ft / 2 stories Minimum Floor Area 1 Bedroom = 750 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedroom = 900 Sq. Ft. 3 Bedroom = 1100 Sq. Ft. TABLE 1 NOTES: (1) Setback may include pedestrian sidewalk. TABLE 1 GENERAL NOTES: 1. Carports; are permitted_ within parking areas. 3 -3 Agenda Itern No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 85 3.5 Open Space Requirement: 60 percent minimum (71.67 acres) 3.6 Natural Habitat: 25 percent minimum (29.86 acres) 3.7 Conservation Area: 71.14 acres (existing SFWMD easement) (includes drainage infrastructure as permitted by SFWMD within conservation area, enhances desirable hydration of wetlands) Transition grades from the boundary of conservation areas shall be as permitted by the SFWMD. 3.8 Architectural Standards: All buildings, lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include: compatible architectural design and use of compatible materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and fences /walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall be the primary unifying design element of the development. 3-4 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 37 of 85 The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the areas designated as "Preserve" on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit "B ". 4.2 PERMITTED USES No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to regional state and federal permits when required: A. Principal Uses: 1. Open spaces / nature preserves B. Accessory Uses: 1. Jurisdictional agency permitted infrastructure improvements designed to be an enhancement to conservation area lands, including water management structures. 2. Supplemental landscape plantings, screening and buffering after appropriate environmental approval. 4 -1 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No, 8D February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 85 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with the final site development plan and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD in effect at the time of approval. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the LDC shall apply to this project. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall be bound the by the Master Plan and the regulations of the RPUD, as adopted. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the developer is bound by the commitments within this Document. 5.3 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "B" represents the RPUD Master Plan B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 5.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT / MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A site development plan shall be submitted per County regulations in effect at time of site plan submittal. The project is projected to be completed in one or two phases. A. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13(F) of the Collier County LDC. B. The Warm Springs RPUD shall be subject to the Sunset Provisions of Section 10.02.13(D) of the Collier County LDC. 5 -1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 39 of 85 5.5 UTILITIES The Developer shall provide a 30 foot by 50 foot public well easement abutting and north of the 40 feet dedicated right -of -way. The applicant has tentatively located the easement approximately 750 feet east of the southwest comer of the subject property. Final location shall be determined at the time of site development plan permitting. 5.6 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the LDC. 5.7 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS A. Landscape Buffers: 2. 3 CR 951 Canal: Tree Farm Road RPUD Perimeter Landscape Buffers and Other Internally Required Landscape Buffers: Where abutting the residential development: 20 foot width, LDC Type D Buffer Where abutting the residential development: 20 foot width, LDC Type D Buffer Conservation Area: No buffer is required, except as noted elsewhere in this Document. 5.8 TRANSPORTATION A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access shall be consistent with the 5 -2 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 40 of 85 Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. 01 -247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long -range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a RPUD Amendment is to be processed: D. Site - related improvements (as apposed to system - related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. E. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01 -13, as amended, and Division 3.15. LDC, as it may be amended. F. All work within Collier County rights -of -way or public easements shall require a Right -of -way Permit. G. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01 -247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. H. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right Wright out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. I. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. J. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right -of -way or easement, compensating right -of -way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. The donated 40' right -of -way shall satisfy this requirement for future turn 5 -3 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 41 of 85 lanes on Tree Farm Road. The developer as outlined in the Developer contribution agreement as it relates to the Warm Springs PUD will pay for the turn lane improvements on Tree Farm Road. K. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a control device, sign or pavement marking right -of -way or easement is determined to shall contribute its fair share contribution improvement. Such traffic signals shall maintained by the county. traffic signal, or other traffic improvement within a public be necessary, the developer toward the cost of any such be owned, operated and L. The developer shall share in the design and construction costs of upgrading existing Tree Farm Road to minor collector status. These upgrades include improvements to the actual roadway and associated utilities including water and sewer facilities. M. The developer shall share in the design and construction costs of upgrading the bridge over the Big Cypress Canal. These upgrades include sidewalks on each side of the roadway component of the bridge together with an additional tum -lane. N. The developer shall share in the costs incurred for the design and construction of the right turn lane on the northbound side of Collier Boulevard (CR #951) onto Tree Farm Road. O. The developer shall provide the on -site water management facilities associated with the upgrade of Tree Farm Road to minor collector status. P. Full access from the development onto Tree Farm Road shall be allowed at the first entrance. Once the second entrance from Tree Farm Road into the development is completed, the access at the first entrance point may be limited to egress only, if deemed warranted by the County. Q. The developer shall pay all actual costs incurred for the design and construction of an eastbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane from Tree Farm Road leading into the development. R. The details of the payment of costs associated with the transportation improvements for the project are set forth in a Developers Contribution Agreement by and between the developer and Collier County dated January 11, 2005. 5-4 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 42 of 85 5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL A. This RPUD shall be consistent with the Environmental section of the GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the LDC at the time of final development order approval. B. All conservation areas shall be designated as tracts /easements with protective covenants. Easements shall be dedicated on the plat to the homeowner's association for ownership and maintenance and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. C. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. D. A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to Environmental Staff for approval prior to site construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. E. All approved Agency (SFWMD, ALOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final Site Plan Construction approval. F. This RPUD shall comply with the guidelines of the USFWS and FFWCC for impacts to protect species. A Habitat Management Plan for those species shall be submitted to environmental review staff for review and approval prior to Site Plan approval. G. All principal structures shall have a minimum setback of 25' from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum 10 foot setback. 5.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Pursuant to Section 2.03.06(E) of the LDC, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.11 POLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 2.01.04 of the LDC provision shall be made for the future use of building space within common areas for the purposes of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place. An agreement recorded in the official records of the Clerk 5 -5 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 43 of 85 of the Circuit Court of Collier County, which shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest that acquire ownership of such commons areas including, but not limited to, condominium associations, homeowners associations, or tenants associations. This agreement shall provide for said community recreation /public building /public room or similar common facility to be used for a polling place if determined to be necessary by the Supervisor of Elections. 5.12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT Ten (10 %) percent of the constructed dwelling units, by phase, shall be affordable housing units, minimally meeting the moderate income level thresholds established by the County. Additionally, the Developer shall comply with the applicable provisions, policies and procedures of the County's affordable housing program. No density bonus units shall be awarded for this commitment. These created units shall be owner occupied housing. 5.13 DEVIATIONS Deviation from LDC Chapter 3.05.07 to allow alternative design for the Conservation Buffer where abutting residential development: Setback shall be grass or landscaped and no vegetative buffer shall be required except as provided for by the existing SFWMD permit, as may be amended. Where development tract(s) abut the conservation easement, a continuous hedge, 4 feet in height at installation and to be maintained at a height of 6 feet, shall be provided within the setback area to provide for a structural buffer. Shade trees or palms shall complement the hedge with a minimum spacing of 1 per 25 feet and trees and /or palms shall have an overall height of 10 feet at installation. Required hedge and trees and /or palms shall be native. 5 -6 i i @, Lm Agenda Item No. 8D Page 44 of 85 WSWO �.� 7" ILI 11 is !! ma RR w1• M• Y 1-7 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 45 of 85 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ❑PUD REZONE (PUDZ) RPUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ -A) Petition No.: Date Received: 1. General Information: Planner Assigned: Commission District: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Name of Applicant(s) Naples Syndications, LLC Applicant's Mailing Address 540 Myrtle Road City Naples -_ State FL Zip 34108 Applicant's Telephone # 516- 938 -1828 Fax # 516- 938 -0546 Applicant's E -Mail Address: Robert(q)bobsinger.com Name of Agent Karen Bishop Firm PMS, Inc. of Naples Agent's Mailing Address 2335 Tamiami Trail N. #408 City Naples State FL Zip 34103 Agent's Telephone # 239435 -9080 Fax # 239435 -9082 Agent's E -Mail Address: karenbishop(ibmsnaples com COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE- NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403- 2400/FAX (941) 643 -6968 Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6/14/04 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 46 of 85 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State Zip� Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Master Association: Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Civic Association: Mailing Address City State Zip 2. Disclosure of Interest Information: a. if the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage-of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership 111 +/- Acres: Barton and Wendy L. McIntyre 100% by the entirety 8 +/- Acres: Joseph Maedalener 100% 119 +/- Acres: Total Parcel AMIca8on For Public Hearing FgE PUD Rezone 8aRM Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Pag q7 of 85 b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, List the officers and stockholders ands the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LEv1ITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Naples Syndications, LLC _ Robert Singer, Manager _ Linda Singer, Manager / Member _ Amir Chaluts, Member Ben Rasabi, Member _ Seree Hovda, Member Steve Rasabi, Member Percentage of Ownership 00% 25% 20% 20% 10% 25% Date of Contract: 1/21/04 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 48 of 85 £ If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address N/A g. Date subject property acquired (N /A ) leased (NIA ): Term of lease _ /AyrsJmos. I> j Petitioner has e0ea to W5-, Wisate date of eption: Petitioner has a contract / aereement for deed dated 1121/04 and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date 12/29/04 h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 3. Detailed legal descrip_ §o_u of the Rrooerty covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate .legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant ._ shall submit , four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1 " to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 26 Township: 48S Range: 26 E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: 00192960003 Legal Description: The subject property being 119± acres is fully described as the South % of the South'/i of the South's/: less the west 100 feet thereof; and the South % of the North % of the South Y: of the South'/: less the west 100 feet thereof; all in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 4. Size of property: 1004 +/- ft. X 5163 +/- ft. = Total Sq. Ft 5,183.640 +/- Acresl9 ±__ Applicadon For Public WariogFor PUD Remoe Efl9W S. Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 49 of 85 Add general location of subiect property: East side of Collier Boulevard. approximately one mile south of Immokalee Rd. Collier County, Florida PUD District (LDC 22.20.4): 7. Adiacent zoning and land use: Zoning X Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Land use N PUD Crystal Lake RV Park S A/PUD/PU Vacant / Bristol Pines PUD / Provisional Use E A/CU Calusa Pines W ROW Collier Boulevard tCR 951) 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). N/A Section: Township: Range; Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property LD. #: Metes & Bounds Description: 8. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning district(s) to the PUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential Original PUD Name: Nicaea Academy PUD — 11/18103 Ordinance No.: 2003.64 Original PUD Name: Nicaea Academy PUD — 08/01/00 Ordinance No.: 2000-52 (C92ies of both ordinances provided) Apps' tioo For NbRe Hearing For PUD Rmne 11129/03 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 50 of 85 9. 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. . N/A 10. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? CCBOCC Nicaea Academy PUD — 11/18/03 Avolkafioo For Publk H ada= For PUD Rezone DOM Agenda Item No: 8D February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 85 _0 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WARM SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY (PROJECT NO. 040805) PREPARED BY: Metro Transportation Group, Inc. 12651 McGregor Boulevard, Suite 4 -403 Fort Myers, Florida 339194489 239 -278 -3090 August 24, 2004 (1r� eid C. Fellows, P.E. Lice s N ., 61673 TI i Agendas Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 52 of 85 I I �Nrw-l. ll I CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS I III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT { IV.. TRIP GENERATION V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION i VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ( VII.' PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE AND IMPROVEMENTS I VIII. CONCLUSION Agenda item -No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 53 of 85 I. INTRODUCTION Metro Transportation Group, Inc. (Metro) has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed 119.45 -acre Warm Springs Residential Community. The site is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard at the northeast corner of its intersection with the future Tree Farm Road in Collier County, Florida. The site location is illustrated on Figure 1. The proposed Warm Springs Residential Community will, allow for the development of approximately 540 multi- family residential dwelling units. Access to the site will be provided via two access points to the future Tree Farm Road. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways and 1 intersections. Trip generation and assignments to the various site access drives will be ! completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the l surrounding intersections. ! -II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bordered to the south by Tree Farm Road. To the west, the site is bordered by Collier Boulevard. To the north, the site is bordered by the existing Crystal Lake Recreational Vehicle Resort. To the east, the proposed development is bordered by vacant agricultural parcels of land. Collier Boulevard is a two -lane arterial roadway in the vicinity of the subject site. ` Collier Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 55 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. The 2003 Collier County Annual Update Inventory_ Report (AUIR) indicates the six laning of Collier Boulevard along the frontage of the subject site to occur in Fiscal Year 2005. This improvement was accounted for in the analysis performed" in this report for the build -out of the site. Immokalee Road is a four -lane arterial roadway to the west of Collier Boulevard and a two -lane roadway to the east of Collier Boulevard. The above mentioned Collier County Page 1 'rrt:rao Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 P 55 of 85 age AUIR indicates the six- laving of Immokalee Road to the west of Collier Boulevard by Fiscal Year 2006. In addition, construction is currently underway on the six- laning of the existing two -lane segment of Immokalee Road to the east of Collier Boulevard. These roadway improvements were accounted. for as a part of this analysis. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed re- zoning of the subject site will allow for the development of the Warm Springs "Residential Community to consist of approximately 540 multi- family ownership dwelling units within Collier County. Table 1 summarizes the land use utilized for trip generation purposes for the subject development. Table 1 Warm Springs Residential Community i.ond ITana Vie Multi- Family LUC 230 540 dwelling units Access to the subject site is proposed via two access locations to Tree Farm Road. The two access points will consist of a right out only access approximately 700 feet to the east of Collier Boulevard -and a full access approximately one half mile to the east of Collier Boulevard on Tree Farm Road. The development, traffic can proceed west to Collier Boulevard where full turning movements will be allowed. IV. TRIP GENERATION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation; 7h Edition. Trip generation calculations were performed for the development based on the proposed 540 multi - family dwelling units. Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/ Townhouse) was utilized for trip generation purposes. The equations for this land use. are contained in the Appendix of this report for reference.. Table 2 outlines the anticipated Page 3 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 56 of 85 weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation of the proposed re- zoning of the Warm Springs Residential Community. The daily trip generation is also indicated within Table 2. Table 2 Trip Generation Warm CnAnaa Reaidentisl %nmmunity y.,�y .aJd� aJ� s p♦ I wry`■ may{ `�i�[ yp *ealC onr R�' c.. �tip�: (27W ,� i r'■4 r 7 y� f F 7 :. r` t� r -�+ Multi- Family 35 165 200 160 80 240 2,690 540 dwelling units V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trips shown in Table 2 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the anticipated routes the drivers will utilize to approach the site. The driveway volumes shown. in Table 2 were assigned to the proposed site access drives. The project distribution utilized for the Bristol Pines RPUD at the southeast corner of the Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection was utilized for this TIS as well. The project distribution for the proposed development rezoning is indicated in Figure 2. Based on the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 2, the project traffic was distributed to the projects' access points. Figure 3 indicates the site traffic assignment of the Warm Springs Residential Community based on the proposed access locations to Tree Farm Road. - In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly i impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates the impact percentages on the area roadway network. In accordance with the Significance Test from Collier County Ordinance 3.15.6.4.3, the development traffic was compared to the Level of Service Standard for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as- defined by the latest concurrency data within the updated 2003 Collier County Concurrency Spreadsheet provided by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department. The Level of Service threshold volumes were obtained from the Collier County ART -PLAN Level 'of Service Spreadsheets and the 2002 FDOT Level of Service Page 4 et ruary , 2005 Page of 85 W E S N.T.S. LEGEND ♦200/6-10- PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Now— I PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Figure 2 WARM SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ebruary 4, 2005 Page 8 of 85 W E S N.T.S. ----------------------------- - - - - -- I I i { I I I I SITE I I 1 I 1 �. 115 (55) coo 1 00 l 50 (25) .J 1- -.6- 80 {401 — — — — '� ♦ - (-} _ _. — J Lffm 9 a J0 LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEK DAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4- (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Figure 3 WARM SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY I t, I I� I Agenda Item No. 8© February 22, 2005 - Page 59 of 85 a Kim Handbook - Generalized Peak Hour Peak Directional Volumes for Florida's Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Areas.. The FDOT Level of Service Handbook was reviewed due to the proposed roadway improvements included within this analysis. A copy of the Level of Service Handbook volumes is included within the Appendix of this report. Table 3 indicates the adopted Level of Service Standard for the surrounding roadways. Table 3 Warm Springs Residential Community Level of Service Standard Vl. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS It was assumed that the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community would be completed by the year 2009. The 2009 background traffic volumes were calculated by increasing the . existing traffic volumes from the most recent 2,003 Collier County Roadway Concurrency Spreadsheet by the appropriate annual growth rate for the roadway link. The annual growth rate for each roadway link was taken from the Collier County 2003 Average Daily Traffic Report. Table 2A in the Appendix of the report indicates the 2009 peak hour, peak direction background traffic volumes for the roadway links that are significantly impacted as a result of the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community. Table 4 indicates the percent impact to the adopted Level of Service for Page 7 l oOway ce ti r: ,FrAnj TO Immokalee Rd . Tree Farm Rd LOS D 2,790 veh Tree Farm Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd LOS D Collier Boulevard 2'790 veh LOS D Vanderbilt Beach Rd Golden Gate Blvd 2,790 veh) Golden Gate Blvd Pine Ridge Rd LOS D 2,180 veh 1 -75 Collier Blvd LOS D (3,230 veh hnmokalee Road LOS D. Collier Blvd Oil Well Rd 2,730 veh Vanderbilt Beach Rd Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 2 000 ve Vl. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS It was assumed that the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community would be completed by the year 2009. The 2009 background traffic volumes were calculated by increasing the . existing traffic volumes from the most recent 2,003 Collier County Roadway Concurrency Spreadsheet by the appropriate annual growth rate for the roadway link. The annual growth rate for each roadway link was taken from the Collier County 2003 Average Daily Traffic Report. Table 2A in the Appendix of the report indicates the 2009 peak hour, peak direction background traffic volumes for the roadway links that are significantly impacted as a result of the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community. Table 4 indicates the percent impact to the adopted Level of Service for Page 7 i I t Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 60 of 85 each link within the study area. As can be seen in Table 4, the only roadway link that will be significantly impacted is Collier Boulevard to the north of Tree Farm Road. Table 4 Warm Springs Residential Community 1- -.-+ +n AAffv.+f►A T.aval of Carving Ctandard Based on the project distribution shown in Figure 2, the significantly impacted links were' analyzed for the- build -out traffic conditions of the Warm Springs Residential Community both with and without the development traffic. Figure 4 indicates the year 2009 peak hour — peak direction traffic volumes and Level of Service for the various roadway links within the study area based on the traffic projections for the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community. Noted on Figure 4 is the peak hour — peak' direction volume and Level of Service of each link should no development occur on the subject site and the peak hour — peak direction volume and Level of Service for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours with the development traffic added to the roadways. VU.: PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE AND IMPROVEMENTS Figure 4 details the Level of Service for all links inside the project's area of influence. These Levels of Service were derived based on the Level of Service thresholds indicated within the Collier County ART -PLAN Level 'of Service Spreadsheets and the 2002 FDOT Level of Service Handbook as previously indicated. Table 1A in the Appendix details the calculations to determine the Level of Service on the analyzed links based on the build -out traffic conditions of the Warm Springs Residential Community. Page 8 #j 5'iC1477rV1,K. �.� ,LdwaYin►J� •,5tnclar n1 r °hii N. of Tree Farm Rd # 33 3% "°/a S. of Tree Farm Rd # 33 3% 1.8% Collier Boulevard S. of Vanderbilt Beach Rd # 33 3% 1.8% S. of Golden Gate Blvd # 34 5% 1.1% W of Collier Blvd # 48) 3% 2.5% Immokalee Rd E. of Collier Blvd (# 50) 3% 0.6% Vanderbilt Beach Rd W. of Collier Blvd # 123 3% 0.9% Based on the project distribution shown in Figure 2, the significantly impacted links were' analyzed for the- build -out traffic conditions of the Warm Springs Residential Community both with and without the development traffic. Figure 4 indicates the year 2009 peak hour — peak direction traffic volumes and Level of Service for the various roadway links within the study area based on the traffic projections for the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community. Noted on Figure 4 is the peak hour — peak' direction volume and Level of Service of each link should no development occur on the subject site and the peak hour — peak direction volume and Level of Service for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours with the development traffic added to the roadways. VU.: PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE AND IMPROVEMENTS Figure 4 details the Level of Service for all links inside the project's area of influence. These Levels of Service were derived based on the Level of Service thresholds indicated within the Collier County ART -PLAN Level 'of Service Spreadsheets and the 2002 FDOT Level of Service Handbook as previously indicated. Table 1A in the Appendix details the calculations to determine the Level of Service on the analyzed links based on the build -out traffic conditions of the Warm Springs Residential Community. Page 8 } ebruary 22, 2005 Page 61 of 85 LEGEND XXX - "C' 2009 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATION (XXX - - "C) 2009 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS AM PROJECT TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATION JXXX -"C"I 2009 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PM PROJECT TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATION (111:003 2009 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WARM SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY Figure 4 Agehda Item No. 8D ! February 22, 2005 l Page 62 of 85 As can be seen from Figure 4; all roadway Iinks significantly impacted by the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community will function under an acceptable Level of ' Service when the development traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. In addition, all roadway links are shown to operate at the "same Level of Service as projected without the subject development. Therefore, no roadway improvements will be required. as a result of the proposed Warm Springs Residential Community. i Intersection capacity analysis was performed at the Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection. The proposed Warm. Springs Residential Community traffic indicated within Figure 3 was added to the intersection traffic indicated within the most recent Bristol Pines TIS.- The Bristol Pines intersection analysis can be found in the Appendix of this report for reference. The turning movement volumes were then applied to the Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection, and the appropriate lane arrangements were entered in the SYNCHRO® 6. software due to the HCS2000 software's inability to analyze unsignalized intersections on 6 -lane roadways. The intersection was analyzed based on the A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic projections for the proposed rezoning of the Warm Springs Residential Community. Attached in th e Appendix of - this report are the resultant SYNCHRO® 6 HCM unsignalized intersection analysis data sheets. In order to illustrate the results of the intersection Level of Service analyses, Table 5 was created. The Level of Service of each intersection approach at -the Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection is shown in Table 5. ' Table 5 Warm Springs Residential Community . Intersection LOS Analysis Results � ���.� �y �..1 s+ T_L� �•�y +�„T# �i yy$$f 4 � � ��yA, yy �q �,g Collier Blvd @ WB C C E E Tree Farm Rd Based on the intersection capacity analyses performed as ' a result of this report, all intersection approaches are shown to operate acceptably when the development traffic is Page 10 is Agenda Item No. 8D. ! F.ebruary 22, 2005 Page 63, of 85 t added to the surrounding roadway network. LOS "E" is not an ideal Level of Service for the westbound approach to Collier Boulevard on Tree Farm Road, ' but it does not represent a failing Level of Service. Currently, Collier County has hired a consultant to complete the construction plans for the six laning of Collier Boulevard between Immokalee Road and Livingston Road. The plans are near 94% completion. It is Metro's understanding that the 90% design plans will indicate a full median opening on 1 Collier Boulevard at Tree Farm Road. This intersection is being designed as a full median opening with the intent that it will likely operate under signalized conditions. Should this intersection operate under signalized conditions, the Level of Service of the Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection could be as good as LOS "B" depending on -the signal timings. When signal warrants are met at this intersection, the signal will be paid for jointly by the Developers of the properties that access Tree Farm Road. Regardless, the signalization of this intersection is not required as a result of the Warm Springs Residential Community. Therefore, no intersection improvements, beyond potential turn lane improvements, will be required as a result of the proposed Wane Springs Residential Community. j Turn lane improvements will be required when the development traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network based on the Collier County Ordinance 93 -64. Botha northbound right turn lane and a southbound left turn lane will be required on Collier ' Boulevard at Tree Farm Road. These turn lanes are being designed as a part of the six -' laming of Collier Boulevard. In addition, an eastbound left turn lane .will also be . warranted on Tree Farm Road at the full site ' access intersection. Table 6 below indicates the necessary turn lane lengths at the site access intersections based on both access scenarios. The turn lane storage length for the southbound left turn lane required on Collier Boulevard at Tree Farm Road was based on the Queue Length from the i SYNCHRO° 6 report indicated within the intersection analysis. In addition, no turn lane storage was indicated for the eastbound left turn lane on Tree Farm Road due to the lack i� of through traffic. } Page I 1 Agenda Item No. 8D .February 22, 2005 . Page 64 of 85 Table 6, Turn Lane Lengths: Wu %-fti QnAn'cre RPaidPnfi0 rommunift WB rig 155 feet Tree Farm M Site - EB left 205 feet The storage length for them tuin lanes was based on the 951 percentile Queue Length from the SYNCHRO* 6 intersection analysis. No storage was assumed for the EB left on Tree Farm Rd due to the lack of through traffic on Tree Farm Road The turn Ian . e i . mprovements indicated within Table le 6 reflect the requirements after the addition of both the Bristol Pines RPUD and the Warm Springs Residential Community to the Collier County roadway network. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Warm Springs Residential Community ,at the northeast comer of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) and Tree Farm Road within Collier County, Florida will not adversely impact the existing roadway network. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the projected 2009 build-out traffic condition.&' Based on the -analysis contained within this report, all roadway segments significantly impacted as a result of the Warm SpringsResidential Community will operate . at or above the Level of Service Standard for that roadway as established within the 2003 Collier County AUIR When the development traffic is added to the roadways. Turn lane analysis was performed its, a' result of the. proposed Warm Springs Re'sidential Community and the approved Bristol Pines RPUD. The required turn lane 'improvements are indicated within Table 6 of the 'previous section of this report. In. addition, intersection ection capacity analysis was performed at the ,Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection-. Based on the results of the capacity analysis, all approaches will operate under. acceptable Level of S . ervice conditions when the project traffic is sidded to the intersection, . Therefore, the turn lane improvements, no roadway improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Warm Springs Residential Commumty. WA2604\08\05Veport.doc Page 12 Collier Blvd @ Tree Farm Rd NB right feet 405 f SBleft 480 feet' WB rig 155 feet Tree Farm M Site - EB left 205 feet The storage length for them tuin lanes was based on the 951 percentile Queue Length from the SYNCHRO* 6 intersection analysis. No storage was assumed for the EB left on Tree Farm Rd due to the lack of through traffic on Tree Farm Road The turn Ian . e i . mprovements indicated within Table le 6 reflect the requirements after the addition of both the Bristol Pines RPUD and the Warm Springs Residential Community to the Collier County roadway network. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Warm Springs Residential Community ,at the northeast comer of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) and Tree Farm Road within Collier County, Florida will not adversely impact the existing roadway network. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the projected 2009 build-out traffic condition.&' Based on the -analysis contained within this report, all roadway segments significantly impacted as a result of the Warm SpringsResidential Community will operate . at or above the Level of Service Standard for that roadway as established within the 2003 Collier County AUIR When the development traffic is added to the roadways. Turn lane analysis was performed its, a' result of the. proposed Warm Springs Re'sidential Community and the approved Bristol Pines RPUD. The required turn lane 'improvements are indicated within Table 6 of the 'previous section of this report. In. addition, intersection ection capacity analysis was performed at the ,Collier Boulevard/Tree Farm Road intersection-. Based on the results of the capacity analysis, all approaches will operate under. acceptable Level of S . ervice conditions when the project traffic is sidded to the intersection, . Therefore, the turn lane improvements, no roadway improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Warm Springs Residential Commumty. WA2604\08\05Veport.doc Page 12 is .PPENDIX Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 65 of 85 TABLES IA & 2A Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 66 of 85 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 67 of 85 TABLE 1A PEAK DIRECTION PROJECT TRAFFIC VS. 3% LOS STANDARD TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PROJECTTRAFFIC = 200 VPH IN= 35 OUT- 165 TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC = 240 VPH IN= 160 OUT- 80 PERCENT PROD! ROADWAY LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOSE LOS PROJECT PROJECT LOS ROADYVAY SEGMENT CLASS VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME STANDARD' TRAPS ATR FFIC STANDARD Collier Boulevard N. of Tree Farm Rd 6LD 370 2260 2600 2790 2790 D 2790 70.00% 116 4.1% S. of Tree Farm Rd 6LD 370 2260 2600 2790 2790 D 2790 30.00% 50 1.8% S. of Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6LD 370 2260 2600 2790 2790 D 2790 30.00% 50 1.8% S. of Golden Gab Blvd 4LD 790 1710 1840 2180 2180 D 2180 15.00% 25 1.1% Immokales Road W. of Collier Blvd 6LD 370 2260 2600 3250 3250 D 3250 50.00% 83 2.5% E. of Collier Blvd 6LD 370 2260 2600 2730 2730 D 2730 10.00% 17 0.6% Vanderbilt Beach Rd W. of Collier Blvd 4LD 240 1470 1730 2790 2790 D 2790 15.00% 25 0.9% ' The Level of Service Threshold volume for Collier BmAevard, Irmnokalee RosA and Vanderbilt Beads Road were taken t m the 2002 FOOT Leval of Service Hantbook for Florida's Areas Transitionirq into Urbanized Aran due to the fukae widenkv of Bese roadways accounted for as a pan of this analysis, ' The Level of Service Standard for each roadway link was taken from the 2003 Conaxren y Cheddist. - denotes a roadway link that is expected to experience a significant tmpad due to the project Agenda Item No. 8D February 22. 2005 Page 68 of 85 TABLE 2A COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC COUNTS AND CALCULATIONS TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC AM - 200 VPH IN - 36 OUT- 185 TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC PM - 240 VPH IN- 180 OUT= 50 2004 2009 2009 2009 PK NR PK HR PERCENT SCKGRND BCKGRND BASE YR 2003 YRS OF ANNUAL PK SEASON PK SEASON PROJECT AM PROJ PM PROJ ♦ AM PROJ • PM PROJ ROADWAY SE.GME.IQ WI MI GgOWIH MX PEAK DIR. PEAK DIR. TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC Cc iw 8009vard N. of Site 19125 19454 1 1.88% 1019 1118 70.00% 110 112 1234 1230 S. of Site 10125 19484 1 1.88% 1019 1118 30.00% 50 48 1188 1158 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 69 of 85 2002 FDOT LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK - GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTIONAL VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S AREAS TRANSITIONING INTO URBANIZED AREAS Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 70 of 85 TABLE 4 - S GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S AREAS TRANSITIONING INTO URBANIZED AREAS OR AREAS OVER 5,000 NOT IN URBANIZED AREAS' UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS FREEWAYS Level of Service Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C 100 330 620 D 870 E 1,200 Lanes A B C D E 2 1,290 2,130 2,890 3,420 3,800 I Undivided 2 Divided 980 1,590 2,300 2,980 3,390 3 2,000 3,290 4,460 5,280 5,970 3 Divided 1,470 2,390 3,460 4,470 5,080 4 2,700 4,430 6,030 7,140 7,940 5 3,400 5,600 7,610 9,010 10,010 STATE TWO -WAY ARTERIALS Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) BICYCLE MODE Level of Service (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway A B C D E geomcWcs at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of Lanes Divided I Undivided "* 210 690 820 860 bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown 2 Divided 240 1,470 1,730 1,810 ••* below by number ofd adorn roadway lanes to determine maximum service 3 Divided 370 2,260 2,600 2,710 * *• volume&) Class 11(2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Latta Level of Service Level of Service Coverage A B C D E Lanes Divided A B C D E 0.49% "* 100 170 720 >720 1 Undivided •e ee 560 760 810 50.84% me 130 210 >210 r*e 2 Divided •• 200 1,290 1,620 1,700 85 -1001A 170 380 >380 * *• e.* 3 Divided '* 320 2,000 2,430 2,560 PEDESTRIAN MODE Clara III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile) (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on Level of Service roadway geometric at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not Lanes Divided A B C D E number of pedestrians using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle I Undivided *• •• 260 620 770 volumes shown by number of directional roadway lanes to determine 2 Divided •• •* 620 1,440 1,630 maximum service volumes.) 3 Divided •• •* 970 2,220 2,450 Level of Service Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 049% *e ee ee 330 810 NON -STATE ROADWAYS 50.844/6 *• •• •* 520 990 Major City /County Roadways 85 -100% ** 120 590 >590 *** Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E ARTERIALINON -STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS 1 Undivided ** *• 370 720 770 DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED 2 Divided *" •* 870 1,550 1,630 3 Divided •* *• 1.360 2,330 2,450 Lanes Median Left Tar Lanes Adjustment Factors Other Signalized Roadways I Divided Yes t5% (signalized intersection analysis) 1 Undivided No -2016 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Level of Service Multi Undivided No -25% Lanes Divided A B C D E I Undivided ** *r 230 490 630 ONE -WAY FACILITIES 2 Divided " ** 540 11070 1,270 Source: Florida Department of Transportation 02122/02 increase corresponding volume 206.6. Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 : /twwwll flarida.c Tannin am/los/dolhult.htm *Thle table doe na oaadtuo w euwdaal aW Shedd be wed only for gaaanl pluming appliaaicew The amp mer Modem hem which We able le derind sh-6 bt wed br non ap6aao p1memelas *ptknbsr The able wed derivb%comepwm modem dwutd ram be need for candor e, iauseetim design, whom mart reused whn4 es exit. Vehm Bowe en hmdy twawey %vimem br levele of servin ood e e Ibr the anaotbaMnak olede wake epednesl ly sts" Level of service lamer pwde thrahoWa are probably rt empswble wass wade m4 d embm, saw moil eompwdeau sbnld be mdewi h caution, Pm'themore. am etwag levels of sevlce ofdlf)bneg made Into one overall odway level ofnrvkt m not mcme mended. The uble's kpat valet doatdts wad lend of service edmis op pm pap. Cakwletlau am bred en plenaime spplieaear ornt telghway Capadty IAaanl, nkyde LOS Mudd mad pdorir LOS MWOL respectively Poe the aatommWkamdt. bIMk ud pdemen mode. -Cum be acNorod adK table kptt vales defidu. ••'No eppiabk for the level of aervia km fade. For mmemAblkhtwk wades, volumes Se"M tlnn level of eevkn VI IF betrm laummeetm etpwdtia hm bee mcbcL For Mefwle eW Podeswim mode, lbe te,el of m vine Irate pads tteleding F) Is not eehlevwble, be em them is a6 aueimum vchtele, votuwm tmnanwW velog able kip* vskme deledrs. QC t _. i Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 71 of 85 UUJLLlhK UUUNTY ART -PLAN LEVEL OF SERVICE SPREADSHEETS i I l_. Collier Boulevard User Notes: ART =P L.AN 4w0 Febr 05 Arterial Level of Service Based on chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manuel Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office - May 2000 . From: Golden Gate Blvd. To: Immokalee Road K Factor. 0.097 D Factor. 0.668 PHF: 0.910 Arterial AADT: 14,708 Posted Speed: 55 mph Area Type: Transitioning /Urban Arterial Class: 1 Study Period: PM PEAK Adj. Sat Flow mate: 1,850 Section Length: 3.10 mi. Signal Type: Semiactuated Peak Direction B 40.7 AADT mph FIN Maximum Service Volume Off-Peak Direction Modnwm servlw volumm sre not carcdand for Me oil -peak drwffon. Cycle Length AffiVA Flow vk Control 1I08 Speed Unkk . Ty" Rats Ratio Delay A B C D E Level of Service B AADT 10,800 15,700 16,800 16,800 16,800 PHV 600 870 930 930 930 Arterial Speed 38.9 mph % No Cyde t ngth Anival Flow vie controi InL Link Fran To MDT MW Tums Lanes LORM 9C 010,00 Tym Rate Raft Dd0V LOS Speed LOS FGolden Gate VandsrW 1147081810 1 12 1 1.0 120 10.44 52x30 4 1783.31 38.81 0 132.1 1 C v.ndarho Immokeiee 1128091695 1 12 11.0 1120 10A4 IMMI 72.1 1 n_a2 I 2B_9 I C 1432 1 A Level of Service Arterial Speed From To B 40.7 AADT mph FIN % No Tums Lanes Off-Peak Direction Modnwm servlw volumm sre not carcdand for Me oil -peak drwffon. Cycle Length AffiVA Flow vk Control 1I08 Speed Unkk . Ty" Rats Ratio Delay immokalee VanderM 10091 529 12 1.0 1 120 0.44 11088 3 151 1.9 a.s2 28.4 44.0 A Vanderbilt I Golden date 147081 818 1 12 1.0 1 120 0.44 5280 3 3 . Printed:09 /1112001 01:04:47 PM I! i i t I �i l r i i i l I H enaa neM NO. uU ART-PLAN 4.0 ' PeDrUab Arterial Level of Service Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office • May 2000 Collier Boulevard From: Pine Ridge Road To: Golden Gate Blvd. User Notes: Study Period: PM PEAK K Factor. 0.097 D Factor. 0.653 PHF: 0.925 Adj. Sat Flow Rate: 1,850 Arterial AADT: 24,282 Posted Speed: 55 mph Section Length: 1.10 mi. Area Type: Transitioning/Urban Arterial Class: 1 Signal Type: Semiactuated Peak Direction Level of Service B Arterial Speed 36.3 mph From To AADT PHV AADT PHV % No Turns Lams A 12,500 790 cycle Maximum Service Volume B C D E 27,000 29,000 29,200 29,200 1,710 1,840 1,850 1,850 Length A.,1 Flow Vic contra Int. Unk Rata Roo DdW LOS $P°d LOO Pine Ridge Goiden Gate 24282 1538 12 20 1120 0.44 1 5808 4 1483 0.89 1 29.3 C 136.3 B Level of Service From TO AADT PHY TUMS Direction Link LMWS W Roo* Type R� Rodo Del" - LOS Printed :09/11/2001 02:20:49 PM , r i ART =P LAN CO Fe �'uu Arterial Level of Service Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capadty Manual Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office - May 2000 ' {' Immokelee Road From: 1-75 East Signal To: CR 951 User Notes: Study Period: PM PEAK K Factor: 0.097 D Factor: 0.600 PHF: 0.980 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate: 1,850 Arterial AADT: 29,067 Posted Speed: 45 mph Section Length: 3.30 mi. Area Type: Transitioning/Urban Arterial Class: 1 Signal Type: Semiactuated Peak Direction Level of Service B Arterial Speed 34.3 mph From To AADT PHV AADT PHV % No Tarts Lams Maximum Service volume A B C D 1,900 28,500 31,800 31,800 110 1,680 1,850 1,860 Cycle Length Arrival Flow vic Control L h Rd* Ratio Delay E 31,800 1,880 Id. LOS $pow Ltnk LOS 1 -75 East Oakes Blvd 29067 1833 12 2.0 120 0.44 1 1564 4 1 1646 1.01 48 0 D 114.1 F Oakes Blvd OR 961 14502 1914 12 2.0 120 0.44 115540 4 820.7 B OR 951 14502 492 12 42�.0120 0.44 16840 3 441.8 21.7 C 41.3 B Oakes Blvd rah East 29067 987 12 20 0.44 1554 3 0 .5 Level of Service Arterial Speed From To B 37.9 MDT mph PHV % Turns No Lan" Cycle U h Off -Peak Direction ma viumi savkas vok~ are not calcukaW rr the oft-peak ailreckbh. Length Arrival Flow Vic control Int. Speed TYW Ads Rah Del LDS LOS OR 951 14502 492 12 42�.0120 0.44 16840 3 441.8 21.7 C 41.3 B Oakes Blvd rah East 29067 987 12 20 0.44 1554 3 0 .5 E Printed:1 1 /28/2001 02:38:44 PM i r 1 ART-PLAN 4.0 Fe ; Arterial Level of Service Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual t Florida Department of Transportation, Systems Planning Office - May 2000 Immokalee Road From: CR 951 To: oil well Road User Notes: Default Study Period: PM PEAK K Factor: 0.097 D Factor: 0.600 PHF: 0.910 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate: 1,850 Arterial AADT: 16,899 Posted Speed: 50 mph Section Length: 6.56 mi. Area Type: Transitioning/Urban Arterial Class: 1 Signal Type: Semiactuated Peak Direction E * *. MDT Maximum Service volume % Turns A B C D E Level of Service ERR AADT 8,800 15,200 15,900 15,900 16,900 PHV 620 880 930 930 930 Arterial Speed . mph % No CyoN Length Arrival Flow via Control IrR• Llnk ems.. .,a�, i cis SPA ins Level of Service Arterial Speed From To E * *. MDT mph PHV % Turns No Lana C>�a L Off -Peak Direction mawm m ser** volumes ere not for Via o�� �� Arrival �, via Control I"L Sri Length GPs Rata Rath LOS LOS Randall 09 Well Roe 10714 624 12 1.0 120 0.44 SM 4 4 24.4 C 36.8 B Wilson 15231 886 12 1.0 120 0.44 2429 4 856.8 67.9 E 15.2 F CR 951 Wilson 16899 984 12 1.0 120 0.44 25972 4 107 $ 3 Printed:l 1/28/2001 02:47:02 PM T ✓1 L1 t -, --� ART -PLAN CO Arterial Level of Service Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office - May 2000 Vanderbilt Beach Rd From: Logan Blvd To: CR 951 user Notes: Default Study Period: PM PEAK K Factor: 0.097 D Factor: 0.610 PHF: 0.925 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate: 1,850 Arterial AADT: 9,746 Posted Speed: 55 mph Section Length: 2.00 mi. Area Type: Transitioning /Urban Arterial Class: 1 Signal Type: Semlactuated Peak Direction Level of Service ,A Arterial Speed 44.0 mph From To AADT PHV AADT PHV % No Turns Lanes Maximum Service Volume• A B C D E 12,400 15,500 15,600 15,600 15,600 740 920 930 930 930 Cycle Length Arrival !'low vk Control Int. Speed LOS ate o Delay LOS Len 91C hat T R Reg Logan Blvd. CR 951 9746 1577 12.0 1 1 120 0.44 1105M 4 548.910.67 5 C 144.0 A Arterial Level of ServiceA Speed IS TO AADT PHV Tuna LAnes • Direction ma,ximum sombe volumes are not Length Anival Flow vic Control bit Lw%p __g#C (laet) TYM Rate ROO Daily • ' LOS Printed:09 /11/2001 11:43:45 AM Agenda Item No. SD ConcSegments February 22, 2005 Page 77 of 85 1 Airport Road Immokales Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 2480 4 1900 65 1965 495 2 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 4280 6 2400 163 2563 1717 3 Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 3830 6 2650 249 2899 931 4 Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 3230 6 2690 167 2857 373 5 Airport Road Radio Road Davis Boulevard 4100 6 2370 206 2576 1524 6 Airport Road Davis Boulevard US 41 2580 6 1730 217 1947 633 7 Bayshore Drive US 41 Thomasson Drive 1950 4 870 44 914 1036 10 County Barn Road Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 1860 4 670 166 836 1024 11 CR 29 US 41 Chokoloskes Island 760 2 1D0 4 104 656 12 Davis Boulevard US 41 Airport Road 3420 6 1980 33 2013 1407 13 Davis Boulevard Airport Road Lakewood Boulevard 2080 4 1900 43 1943 137 14 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 2430 4 1960 61 2021 409 15 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 2400 4 1790 235 2025 375 116 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 1530 2 1140 80 1220 310 17 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 2350 4 980 57 1037 1313 18 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 Gcodlette -Frank Road 3180 6 1250 49 1299 1881 19 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette -Frank Road Airport Road 4570 6 3000 98 3098 1472 20 Golden Gate Parkway Airport Road 1-75 4370 6 2060 53 2113 2257 21 Golden Gate Parkway 1 -75 Santa Barbara Boulevard 3790 6 2070 99 2169 1621 22 Golden Gate Parkwiay Santa Barbera Boulevard Collier Boulevard 1980 4 1800 60 1860 120 23 Goodkette -Frank Road Immokakee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 1190 2 840 67 907 283 24 Goodk>tte -Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 2790 4 1160 45 1205 1585 25 Goodlette -Frank Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 2790 6 1720 133 1853 937 26 Goodlette -Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 3890 6 1660 94 1754 2136' 27 Green Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 1040 2 750 13 763 277 29 Gulfshore Drive 111th Avenue Vanderbilt Beach Road 530 2 270 14 264 246 30 Collier Boulevard immokelee Road Golden Gate Boulevard 2790 6 950 69 1019 1771 31 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Green Blvd 2180 4 1980 127 2107 73 32 Collier Boulevard Green Boulevard 1 -75 2260 4 1570 167 1737 523 33 Collier Boulevard 1-75 Davis Boulevard 2860 4 2750 246 2998 -138 34 Copier Boulevard Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 3300 6 1770 278 2048 1252 35 Copier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 3310 6 1580 212 1792 1518 36 SR 951 US 41 Manatee Road 1970 4 1810 143 1953 17 37 SR 951 Manatee Road Mainsail Or 2590 4 1460 206 1666 924 39 111th Avenue N. Gutfshore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 760 2 240 16 256 504 40 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt Drive US 41 1040 2 460 44 504 536 41 Immokalee Road US 41 Airport Road 3030 6 2100 140 2240 790 42 Immokalee Road Airport Road 1 -75 3070 6 2330 133 2463 607 43 Immokelee Road 1-75 CR 951 3250 6 2240 180 2420 830 44 Immokelee Road Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 2730 4 1270 68 1338 1392 45 Immokelee Road Wilson Boulevard Oil Well Road 2260 4 1020 54 1074 1186 Page 1 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 8D ConcSegmenta February 22. 2005 Page 78 of 85 46 Immokalee Road Oil Well Road Everglades Boulevard 860 2 280 36 316 544 47 Lake Trafford Road West of SR 29 SR 29 760 2 640 29 889 91 48 Logan Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 990 2 630 56 686 304 49 Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green Boulevard 2070 4 1630 124 1754 316 51 Livingston Road Imperial Street Immokalee Road 2770 6 170 117 287 2483 52 Livingston Road Immokeles Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0 6 44 53 Livingston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 0 6 54 54 Livingston Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 3370 6 950 126 1076 2294 55 Livingston Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 4160 8 970 122 1092 3068 58 N. tat Steel New Market Road Main Street 1000 2 400 8 408 592 59 New Market Road Broward Street SR 29 1010 2 450 6 456 554 62 Old US 41 Lee County Line US 41 860 2 790 20 810 50 63 Seagate Drive Crayton Road US 41 1620 4 840 35 875 745 64 Pine Ridge Road US 41 Goodlette -Frank Road 2730 6 2230 92 2322 408 65 Pine Ridge Road Goodletts -Frank Road Shirley Street 3300 6 2760 132 2892 408 66 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 4000 6 2660 129 2789 1211 67 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road 1 -75 4510 6 3110 86 3198 1314 68 Pine Ridge Road 1 -75 Logan Boulevard 4170 6 2370 Be 2456 1714 69 Radio Road Airport Road Livingston Road 1590 4 1290 97 1387 203 70 Radio Road Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 2030 4 1540 47 1587 443 71 Radio Road Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard 2120 4 1250 74 1324 796 72 Rattlesnake Hammock Re US 41 East Charlemagne Boulevard 1940 4 990 165 1175 765 73 Rattlesnake Hammock Re Charlemagne Boulevard County Bern Road 1940 4 970 162 1132 608 74 Rattlesnake Hammock Re County Bam Road Polly Avenue 2340 4 760 218 978 1362 75 Rattlesnake Hammock Re Polly Avenue Collier Boulevard 1860 4 810 255 1065 795 76 Santa Barbara Boulevard Green Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway 1930 4 1690 105 1795 135 77 Santa Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 2790 6 1800 176 1776 1014 78 Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road Davis Boulevard 2790 6 1410 185 1595 1195 80 SR 29 US 41 CR 837 670 2 100 0 100 570 81 SR 29 CR 837 1-75 670 2 60 0 60 610 82 SR 29 1 -75 CR 858 670 2 110 1 111 559 83 SR 29 CR 858 CR 29A (New Market) 670 2 450 28 478 192 64 SR 29 CR 29A South N 15th St 1860 4 850 19 869 991 86 SR 29 CR 29A North SR 82 720 2 630 25 655 65 87 SR 29 Hendry County Line SR 82 720 2 290 3 293 427 88 SR 82 Lee County Line SR 29 720 2 540 21 561 159 89 Tamiami Trail East Four Corners Goodiette -Frank Road 3410 6 2090 80 2170 1240 90 Tamiami Trail East Goodletle -Frank Road Davis Boulevard 3880 8 3500 200 3700 180 91 Tamiami Trail East Davis Boulevard Airport Road 2750 6 1860 177 2037 713 92 Temtaml Trail East Airport Road Rattlesnake Hammock Road 2010 6 1940 374 2314 -304 93 Tamiami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Road Triangle Boulevard 3500 6 2450 392 2842 658 94 Tamismi Trail East Triangle Boulevard Collier Boulevard 3200 8 1940 276 2216 984 Page 2 95 Tamiami Trail East 96 Tamiaml Trail East 97 Tamiami Trail East 98 Tamiami Trail North 99 Tamiami Trail North 100 Tamiami Trail North 101 Tamiami Trail North 102 Tamiami Trail North 103 Tamiami Trail North 104 Tern ami Trail North 105 Tamiami Trail North 106 Tamiaml Trail North 107 Tamiami Trail North 108 Thomasson Drive 109 Vanderbilt Beach Road 110 Vanderbilt Beach Road 111 Vanderbilt Beach Road 112 Vanderbilt Beach Road 114 Vanderbilt Drive 115 Vanderbilt Drive 117 Wiggins Pass Road Agenda Item No. 8D ConcSegments February 22, 2005 Page 79 of 85 Collier Boulevard San Marco Drive 1075 2 720 306 1026 49 San Marco Drive SR 29 1075 2 260 8 268 807 SR 29 Dade County Line 720 2 400 2 402 318 Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 2400 6 1910 88 1998 402 Wiggins Pass Road Immokalee Road 2870 6 2630 197 2827 43 Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 3500 6 2740 159 2899 601 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 3930 6 2600 168 2768 1162 Gut( Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 3860 6 2670 161 2831 1029 Pine Ridge Road Solana Road 337D 6 2900 53 2953 417 Solana Road Creech Road 3470 6 2790 44 2834 636 Creech Road Golden Gate Parkway 3320 6 2550 45 2595 725 Golden Gate Parkway Central Avenue 3860 6 2120 51 2171 1689 Central Avenue Goodlette -Frank Road 3880 6 2180 51 2231 1649 Bayshore Drive US 41 Fast 760 2 400 48 446 314 Gut(ahom Drive US 41 1340 2 1120 46 1166 174 US 41 Airport Road 1820 4 1360 106 1466 354 Airport Road Logan Boulevard 2790 6 1650 79 1729 1061 Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 2790 6 1730 41 1771 1019 Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 760 2 620 83 703 57 Wiggins Pass Road 111th Avenue 1150 2 660 42 702 448 Vanderbilt Drive US 41 1050 2 460 61 521 529 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 80 of 85 SYNCHRO 6.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS -- COLLIER BLVD @ TREE FARM RD Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2008 A4Wg9 §Hd& 3: Tree Farm Road & Collier Boulevard 8 /19/2004 Lane Configurations + ++ Sign Control Stop .. -:, Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 55 120 ,::1043 20 4.5 795 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 130 1134 22 49 864 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume ' ` 1 520 ' 378 1155 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1134 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 386 , vCu, unblocked vol 1520 378 1155 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF.(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 61 79 92 ' cM capacity (veh/h) i 154 620 600 Y Volume Total 288 288 288 60 130 378 378 378 22 49 Volume Left 60 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 Volume Right _ 0 130 0 0 - 0 22 0 0 0 0, cSH 154 620 1700 1700 1700 1700 600 1700 1700 1700 Voluini? to.> Capacity 0.39 0.21 _ 0.22 0.22. ;O.22. 0.01. 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 42 20 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Control Delay "(s) 42.4 12.3. 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS E B B i Approach Delay (s) ' 21.8 0.0 0.6 Approach LOS C Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 Bristol Pines RPUD - Phase II Synchro 6 Report Metro Transportation Page 1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2008 PU4xWiAM ~- 3: Tree Farm Road & Collier Boulevard 8/19/2004 4' 'I-- t io" I► l Lane Configurations TTT r I TTT Sign Control Stop .. Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 35 80 1043 60 130 795 `. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly fiow rate ph) 38 87 1134 65 141 :; 864 . Pedestrians Lane Width (4) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage ' Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (1) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume ,1704 378 1199 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1134 VC2, stage 2 conf voi " + 571 vCu, unblocked vol 1704 378 1199 tC, single (s) _ 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 71 86 76 cM capacity (vehih) -129 620 578 65 141 288 288 288 Volume Total 38 87 378 378 378 Volume Left 38 0 0 0 0 0 141 0 0 0 Volume Right ,. „ 0 87 0 0 ' 0 65 0 0 0 0 cSH 129 620 1700 1700 1700 1700 578 1700 1700 1700 Volume to;Capac ty 0.29 0.14 0.22 0.22 ° 0.22 0.04 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 12 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 44.0 11.8 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 13.2 0.0 0:.0 0.0 Lane LOS E B B Approach Delay (s). . -21.6 0.0 1:.9 Approach LOS C Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.0 40.7% IQ, U Level of °Service 15 Q I- Bristol Pines RPUD - Phase II Synchro 6 Report Metro Transportation Page 1 Agenda Item No. 8D HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2005er f*5 3: Tree Farm Road & Collier Boulevard 119/2004$85 4,-. 4�- t f 1 Lane Configurations 11" fw 't TTT Sign Control Stop Free Free ._, Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume. � vlh , <..) 105 235 _ 1 043 30 70 795 ` � :.. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 HoudV,flow rate (vp i}, , : 114 255 .1134.. 33. '> 76 864' - Pedestrians Lane WidthfE Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median a Rai typ Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicti►eg,volume .. X074 378 116& vC1, stage 1 conf vol..' 9 VC2, stake 2 corif vol: 440 vCu, unblocked vol 1574 378 1166 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 . .. 4:1 ... tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 ,..:3,3 2.2 p0 queue free % 23 59 87 cM capacity (vehtti} ` . 148 620 - 595 Volume Total 114 255 378 378 378 33 76 288 288 288 Volume Left 114 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 Volume Right 0.: 255 0 0 0 33 0 0- ) d cSH 148 620 1700 1700 1700 1700 595 1700 1700 1700 Vok"e to C par y 0.77- ; = - 0.41 ° 0.22 0.22. 0,22 0.02 ` 0.13 '. 0.17; 0.17 .0:17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 50 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 Contro l Del (s) $3.8 X14.8 '-0.0 .0.0 . 7,0:0 0.0 11.9 Lane LOS F B B } 'Approach tea (sT 3C.1 Q:U 1.0 I Approach LOS E Average Delay 5.8 Intersection Ca "�, Utilizatidn> peaty.. 4.1.4% �' 1CU Lovet of- Sennce , -A Analysis Period (min) i 15 Warm Springs Residential Comm. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 Metro Transportation l.. Agenda Item No. 8D HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2006 ',,ujg (9j5 3: Tree Farm Road & Collier Boulevard 8/19/2004 Lane Configurations 11 r TTT r' 1 TTT Sign Control' imp Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vetlh) 60 135 1043 11.0 , 240 795 - Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow, rate (vph) 185 1147 1134 =120 261 :` 864 ._, Pedestrians Lane Width (it) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (vehj Median type Raised - Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume =1943 378: 1253 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1134 vC2; stage 2, conf Vol il3 l0 vCu, unblocked vol 1943 378 1253 6 9 :.':: 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 31,5 3.3 .. 2.2 -. p0 queue free % 28 76 53 cM capacity (veh/h) :° 90 620 551 Volume Total 65 147 378 378 378 120 261 288 288 28.8 Volume Left 65 0 0 0 0 0 261 0 0 0 volume higf(t D ;147 0., 0 0 .120-.,",, 0 0 0 0 cSH 90 620 1700 1700 1700 1700 551 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.72 0.24- ; ,22 '022: 22 0107 . 0.47 0.17 0.17 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 23 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) .::. 112.7.:12.6 . = 0.0 ` 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B C Approach D+Ettay is)` 43.4 0.0 4.0 Approach LOS E Average Delay 5.3 Intersection Capacity .Utilization: 46:8 °k Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU Level of Service A Warm Springs Residential Comm. Synchro 6 Report Metro Transportation Page 1 Agenda Item No. 8D February 22, 2005 Page 85 of 85 TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS WARM SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 7th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) Multi- Family Detached Housing (LUC 230 Ln (T) = 0.80 Ln (X) + 0.26 Ln (T) = 0.82 Ln (X) + 0.32 Ln (T) = 0.85 Ln (X) + 2.55 T = Trips, X = Units i I' Agenda Item No. 9A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST BOARD TO SET TIE PLACE AND TIME FOR THE CLERK, WITH THE .ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO OPEN AND COUNT THE MAIL BALLOTS OF THE NOMINEES TO FILL THE VACANCIES ON THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITEE OBJECTIVE: To set the place and time to count the mail ballots for applicants seeking membership on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee. CONSIDERATIONS: This 11 member Advisory Committee was established by Ordinance 2002 -27 as amended. The Division provides landscaping services, including all public road maintenance and park areas, street lighting services, aquatic management services, beach cleaning, and the Clam Bay Restoration Project. It is the Division's responsibility to provide the framework of long -term community planning so that residents can enjoy the benefits of Pelican Bay while ensuring both the social and financial well being of the Pelican Bay Community. A list of the current membership is included in the backup. The terms for Glen D. Harrell (commercial/developer), Maurice James Burke (resident), George H. Werner (resident), John Domenie (resident), and Christopher F. Sutphin (resident) will expire on March 31, 2005. A press release was issued and resumes were received from the following interested citizens: APPLICANT CATEGORY DISTRICT ELECTOR David J. Trecker - WITHDREW Resident 2 Yes John J. Boland Resident 2 Yes Matthew William Mathias Commercial 4 Yes John Domenie Resident 2 Yes Christopher Sutphin Resident 2 Yes Joan Sehdev Resident 2 Yes Maurice James Burke Resident 2 Yes Mary Anne Womble Resident 2 Yes Harry L. Coburn Resident 2 Yes Ordinance 2002 -27, Section Eight, subsec. iii, states, "The mail ballots shall be cast directly with the Clerk. At the place and time stated in the notice of the balloting published by the Board of County Commissioners, the Clerk, with the assistance of the County Attorney's Office, shall open and count the ballots, which have been returned to the Clerk as of the date and time stated in such notice of balloting, in a manner which the Clerk deems advisable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. Any member of the public shall be entitled to attend and observe. The determination of the Clerk and the County Attorney of validity of any ballot shall . be final. THE PLACE AND TIME FOR COUNTING THE BALLOTS RECOMMENDED BY THE CLERK IS: BCC Chambers on Monday, March 1 e at 2:00 p.m. Agenda item No. 9A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT: NONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners set the place and time to count the ballots as: BCC Chambers on Monday, March 14th at 2:00 p.m., and direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution confirming the place and time. Prepared By: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Agenda Date: FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Agenda Item No, 9A February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 9A Item Summary Request Board to set the place and time for the Clerk, with the assistance of the County Attorney's Office, to open and count the mail ballots of the nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee, Meeting Date 2122/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC 2/3/2005 9:29:01 AM Board of County Commissioners BCC Office Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2/10/2005 6:44 PM Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page I of 8 APPOINTMENT OF MEM 3ER(S) TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE OBJECTIVE: To appoint 1 member to serve a 2 -year term, expiring on December 31, 2006, to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. CONSIDERATIONS: The Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee had 1 term expire on December 31, 2004. This 5- member committee assists the Board of County Commissioners by reviewing and making recommendations regarding the budget and operation of the community center. Applicants must reside within the Golden Gate Community Center MSTU District. Terms are 2 years. A list of the current membership is included in the backup. The term for James J. Hennink expire on December 31, 2004. A press release was issued and resumes were received from the following interested citizen: APPLICANT CATEGORY DIST ELECTOR ADV. COMM. Ernest F. Bretzmann I Resident within the MSTU I 3 Yes None COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Ernest F. Bretzmann FISCAL IMPACT: NONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation for appointment, appoint 1 member, and direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution confirming the appointment. Prepared By: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Agenda Date: FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 8 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 9C Item Summary Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC 2/1/2005 7:13:31 AM Board of County Commissioners BCC Office Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2110/2005 4:17 PM Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2 005 Page 3 of 8 Memorandum To: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners From: Keith Larson, Community Center's Supervisor Golden Gate Community Center Re: Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board Date: February 10, 2005 Sue, At the February 7`h meeting of the Golden Gate Community Advisory Board, they voted unanimously to recommend Ernest Bretzmann to fill the current vacancy. Would please forward to the BCC for approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you, Keith Larson Community Center's Supervisor Collier County Parks & Recreation Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 8 Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term Name Home Phone DateR"ppt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term Ms. Kaydee Tuff 03/28/00 12/31/01 2 Years 2642 44th Terrace, S.W. 455 -3496 12/16103 12/31/05 2 Years Naples, FL 34116 E -Mail: newsroom @goldengategazette.com District. 3 Category. Resident within MSTU Ms. Cheryle L. Newman 5101 31 st Avenue, S.W. Naples, FL 34116 E -Mail: bird1dy2 @aoLcom District. 3 Category: Resident within MSTU Mr. William E. Arthur 4200 22nd Place, S.W. Naples, FL 34116 E-mail. wmenaples @aol.com District: 3 Category: Resident within MSTU Mr. James J. Hennink 4397 21st Avenue, S.W. Naples, FL 34116 E Mail: jcmmb@hotmail.com District. 3 Category: Resident within MSTU Ms. Vicki A. Clavelo 3610 21st Avenue, S.W. Naples, FL 34117 E -Mail: velavelo@aol.com District: 3 Category: Resident within MSTU 12/03/96 12/31/98 353 -7969 12/14104 12/31/06 09/26/00 455 -4503 12/14/04 09/26/00 353 -3697 01/28/03 06/08/99 455-1475 12/16/03 Thursday, December 16, 2004 Page 1 of 2 12/31/00 12/31/06 12/31/00 12/31/04 12/31/99 12/31/05 2 Years 2 Years 3 Months 2 Years 3 Months 2 Years 6 months 2 Years Agenda Itern No. 9C February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 8 Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee Name Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateRe -appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term This 5 member committee was created by Ord. No. 75-4 to advise the Board of County Commissioners on the budget and operation of the Golden Gate Community Center. Members must reside within the boundaries of the Golden Gate Community Center Municipal Services Special Taxing District Terns are 2 years. Keith Larson, Golden Gate Community Center Supervisor 455 -2343 FL STAT 125.01 Staff Maria Ramsey, Parks and Recreation Director. 353 -0404 Thursday, December 16, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2005 Page 6of8 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 13, 2004 TO: Elections Office i FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissions RE: Voter Registration - Advisory Board Appointments The Board of County Commissioners will soon consider the following individuals for appointment to one of the county's advisory committees. Please let me know if those listed below are registered voters in Collier County. Also, please list the commission district in which each applicant resides. GG COMMUNITY CENTER Ernest F. Bretzmann C 2284 50`� Terrace, S.W. J Naples, FL 34116 Thank you for your help. COMMISSION DISTRICT 3 'RECEIVED 4 2004 ho?rti of '.:oust y Comm'ss iOners Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 13, 2004 TO: Keith Larson, Supervisor, Gold 7r a Community Center FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manag Board of County Commission RE: Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have a vacancy on the above - referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit a resume for consideration. I have attached the resumes received for your review as follows: Ernest F. Bretzmann 2284 5& Terrace, S.W. Naples, FL 34116 Please Iet me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 774-8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments n U ILI • filson_s From: advisoryboards @colliergov.net Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:36 AM To: filson s Cc: RegulaJason Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted. Board of County Commissioners -1' 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Tel: (239) 774 -3602 Fax: (239) 774-3602 11/29/2004 November 29, 2004 Application for Advisory Committees / Boards Name: Ernest F Bretzrnann Home Phone: 239 - 4553496 Home Address: 2284 50th Tarr SW City: Naples Zip Code: 34116 Fax Number. 239- 261 -3955 Business Phone: 239 -251 -7112 Emall Address: uwofcc2 (Dao1.com Board / Committee Applied for: Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board Category: (if applicable) No information provided. Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold public office? No Do you now serve, or have you served on a Collier County board or Yes committee? If yes, please list the boards f committees: Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board (past) Health and Human Services Advisory Committee (past) Social Services Work Group (current) Please list your community activities: Dept.of Children 8 Families Collier County Community Alliance (current) Collier County Health Care Access Consortium (current) Twenty year member of Rotary International and a Paul Hams Fellow (past) Education: BS degree from Grand Canyon University, Major: Behavioral Science Experience / Background: Agenda Item No. 9C February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 8 r� � I . . . . . . . . . . . . Agenda Item No. 9D February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 10 county Memorandum To: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners From: Liz De Leon, Operations Coordinator MSTU Date: February 10, 2005 Subject: Bayshore Beautification MSTU Sue, at the Bayshore Beautification MSTU meeting on February 9, 2005 the MSTU Advisory Committee reviewed the resumes of two applicants, Sharon D. King, and Victor L. Brittain. The committee found all two applicants to be qualified. The committee by a vote of 4 -0 chose to retain the current members Sharon D. King and Victor L. Brittain. Transportation Services Division Road Maintenance Department Agenda Item No. 9D February 22, 2005 Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Page 2 of 10 Name Work Phone App(V Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateR"ppt 2ndE*Date 2nd Term Ms. Sharon King 2207 Dominion Drive Naples, FL 34112 E Mail: king575441 I@cs.com District: 4 Category: Resident Mr. Victor L. Brittain 2779 Becca Avenue Naples, FL 34112 E -Mail: barecloset @aol.com District. 4 Category: Resident Mr. Thomas E. Finn 3524 Windjammer Circle Naples, FL 34112 E Mail. District. 4 Category: Resident Mr. Maurice Gutierrez 2736 Shoreview Drive Naples, FL 34112 Entail: District: 4 Category: Resident Mr. Bill L. Neal 3839 Clipper Lane Naples, FL 34112 E -Mail: District. 4 Category: Resident 777- 3531 04/27/04 03/03/05 774 -4176 04/27/04 793 -3223 03/11/03 793 -2085 03/03/05 1 Yew,,,/ 1 Year I/ 03/03/06 3 Years 263 -0572 08/03/99 03/03/00 8 Months 774 -7022 01/27/04 03/03/08 4 Years 03/03/98 03/03/00 2 Years 774 -6325 01/27/04 03/03/08 4 Years Wednesday, AprU 28, 2004 Page I of 2 Agenda Item No. 9D y Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 10 Name Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateRe -appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term This 5 member committee was created on December 16, 1997, by Ordinance No. 97-82 to provide curbing, watering facilities, plarrdrgs and maintenance of the median strips of roadways within the MSTU; provide traffic calming improvements; and, beautification and maintenance of Wier areas within the MSTU_ Members will prepare and recommend an itemized budget to the Board of County Commissioners. Members must be permanent residents or owners of commercial property within the MSTU. Terms are 4 years. FL STAT 125.01 Staff. Bob Petersen, Transportation Services: 213 -5871 Wednesday, April 28. 2004 Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No, 9D February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 10 DATE: February 7, 2005 TO: Elections Office 1 FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manage Board of County Commissioner RE: Voter Registration - Advisory Board Appointments The Board of County Commissioners will soon consider the following individuals for appointment to one of the county's advisory committees. Please let me know if those listed below are registered voters in Collier County. .Also, please list the commission district in which each applicant resides. BAYSHORE BEAUT MSTU ADV COMM Sharon D. King 3307 Captains Cove Naples, FL 34112 Victor L. Brittain 2779 Becca Avenue Naples, FL 34112 Thank you for your help. COMMISSION DISTRICT Agenda Item Flo. 9D February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 10 DATE: February 7, 2004 TO: Bob Petersen, Landscape Engineer II Transportation Department FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commission , RE: Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have 2 vacancies on the above - referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit a resume for consideration. I have attached the resumes received for your review as follows: Sharon D. King 3307 Captains Cove Naples, FL 34112 Victor L. Brittain 2779 Becca Avenue Naples, FL 34112 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 774 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments To: _ _ _ _ Ex.Manager to BCC Sue Filson Sent : 1/31/05 at 1.01:26 PM act: _.._MSTIJ -• -- - -• -- - • - - - -- From: Sharon D King Pages : 2 (including Cover)genda Item No. 9D February 22, 2005 C]- -- n -Z.- Sue, Attached please find my re- application for the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Comiirttee Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sharon King 3307 Captains Cove Naples, Fl. 34112 774 -4176 777 -3531 King5754411 @cs.com 0 • Board of County Commissioners 3301 Eaat•Tamiaml Trail 44* D • Naples, FL 34112 5 (239) 7748097 0 Fax: (239) 774.3602 Application for Advisory Committees/Boards Name Han* ne Phone: -7744-- -4 -17(c Code: 31-+ 02- Faz No.— q G436Bwiness Phone:-7n -'5 51 e-mall address: �• no rj"%'" I r S .Cc�In �� (.Q✓ Isuerrl.P� Place of Employeament• ICV' L.k L-! "remits i4 1- Board or Committee Applied Category (if applicable): Z=mple: Con sWon District, Developer. eavtroammUHst, loy pason, otc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Are you a registered voter in Collier County Years 3_ �� Months Y40 No Do you currently hold public 911ke? Yes No ✓ If so, what it that edict? .Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No. 1/11'_ If yak esplala: Do you now wrve, or have you ever served, on a Colllor County board or committee? Yes No Uyee, pteanalm the comnittecWoardo• Please list your connnnnity activities (civic clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. and positions r ►t � :rJ a► a • tlwoo.4feek �+w addlote..r;s�onw.6e. fer. j d p., eta nor Tfu appUasb" skerdd be jwwwrd d to Saw Mm, J wcw6W MAw#V r,. rls ae.,r,fcourq Caeo�tsfoeers. Jlor ast Terala+rd � lYaples, ri ldr1� �jva wlrlt, a�eJ�r•�:r ■ +� (239)77"602 aw &-MAU A* -V9Mk 'A 7Lwk Y" fir ra7+wrftwift 0 A*~ 00 6196"a &f C*Ww COMM * r: a a1VN1 Y Va L+V {l aal• I.JVaaaaaaaV VaV as va v 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 e *aN 9D (239 )774 -8097 : e05 Fax: (239) 774 -3602 i 10 Application for Advisory Committees /Boards Name: �C/y� z �/ /��/1� Home Phone:''VJ: I Home Address 0��'7 ,, .�C�i¢ }!/ ?� Zip Code: Sle-�IG Fax No., ' & Business Phone:� e-mail address: Place of Employeement: A1;1 Z-_� Board or Committee Applied for:_Q��- ��� %%�y 4 Category (if applicable): Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Years Months Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes +/_No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No If so, what is that office? Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No If yes, explain: Do you now serve, or have you ever served, If yes, please list the committees/boards:— Please list your community activities (civic clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. and positions held: ii N �i Education: Experience: ase attach any additional informadon you feel pertinent This application should be forwarded to Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the Board of County Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112. If you wish, please fax your application to (239)774 -3602 ore -mail to suefilsore(a'icotlierroxnet Thank you for volunteering to serve the citizens of Col&r County. Agenda Item No. 9D February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 10 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number Item Summary Meeting Date 9D Appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Sue Hson Executive Manager to the BCC 211/2005 7:13:31 AM Board of County BCC Office Commissioners Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 2/10 /2005 5:37 PM Commissioners APPOINTMENT OF.MEMBE.R(S) TO THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION:I f9pua Item No. 9D ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 22, 2005 f10 OBJECTIVE: To re- appoint 2 members to 4 -year terms, expiring on March 3, 2009, to the Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee. CONSIDERATIONS: The Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee has 2 terms expiring on March 3, 2005. This 5 member advisory committee was created on December 16, 1997, by Ordinance No. 97 -82 to provide curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance of the median strips of roadways within the MSTU; provide traffic calming improvements; and, beautification and maintenance of other areas within the MSTU. Members will also prepare and recommend an itemized budget to the Board of County Commissioners. Members must be permanent residents or owners of commercial property within the MSTU boundaries. A list of the current membership is included in the backup. The terms for Sharon King and Victor L. Brittain will expire on March 3, 2005. A press release was issued and resumes were received from the following 2 interested citizens: APPLICANT CATEGORY DIST ELECTOR ADV. COMM. Sharon King Resident 4 Yes Bayshore Beautification .MSTU Bayshore/Gateway CRA Victor L. Brittain Resident 4 Yea I Bayshore Beautification MSTU COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: FISCAL IMPACT: NONE Sharon King - re- appointment Victor L. Brittain — re- appointment GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation for appointment, appoint 2 members, and direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution confirming the appointments. Prepared By: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Agenda Date: FEBRUARY 22, 2405 Agenda item No. 9E Febniary 8, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 7 RECOMMENDATION TO DECLARE A VACANCY ON THE IMMOKA.LEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OBJECTIVE: To declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency and to direct staff to issue a press release soliciting resumes in an effort to fill the vacant position. CONSIDERATIONS: Ordinance No. 2001 -55, Section 8, reads as follows: "It is the intent and strong desire of the Commission that there be full attendance of advisory Board members at all meetings of the Boards, recognizing, however, that it may be necessary for Board members to be absent from a meeting due to unusual or emergency circumstances. Nevertheless, full attendance at Board meetings is encouraged and necessary for the proper operation of the Boards and in furtherance thereof the following requirements are established: A. Any Board member who is absent for more than one -half of the Board's meetings in a given fiscal year shall be deemed to have tendered his or her resignation for such Board. The Commission shall, as soon as practicable after such resignation, declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six herein. The Board member shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position is declared vacant by the Commission. B. In the event that any Board member is absent from two consecutive Board meetings without a satisfactory excuse acceptable to the Board chairman, the Board chairman shall state such fact at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting and shall thereafter notify, in writing, the Administrative Assistant to the Commission of the Board member's failure to attend without satisfactory excuse. The Commission shall review the Board Chairman's notification at a Commission meeting and shall declare the Board member's position to be vacant if the Commission concurs that the Board member was absent from two consecutive Board meetings without a satisfactory excuse and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six herein. The Board member shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position is declared vacant. C. A member of a Board shall be deemed absent from a meeting when he or she is not present during at least 75% of the meetings. • Attached is a memo from staff advising that the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency is requesting that Charlie Esquivel's position be declared vacant for lack of attendance and direct staff to advertise to fill the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency and direct staff to issue a press release soliciting new members. It is also recommended that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution declaring the position vacant. Prepared By: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 0 Date: FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Agenda Item No. 9E February 8, 2005 Page 2 of 7 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 9E Item Summary Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC 2/1/2006 7:13:31 AM Board of County Commissioners BCC Office Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2/1112005 9:22 AM Agenda Item No. 9E February 8, 2005 Page 3 of 7 Coi M-r Co- rrK-ty DATE: February 10, 2005 TO: Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the BCC FROM: John -David Moss, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Sue, This is to notify you that the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board has recommended that Charlie Esquivel's position be declared vacant, and that the vacancy be immediately advertised. Mr. Esquivel verbally resigned his position in November, but has not submitted a written resignation in spite of requests made by staff. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, John -David Agenda Item No. 9E Febwary 8, 2005 Page 4 of 7 Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency Name Work Phone Appt'd E* Date Term Home Phone DateRe -appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term Mr. Fred N. Thomas, Jr. 657- 3649 04/04/95 04/04/96 1 Year 1205 Orchid Avenue 09111/01 04/04/05 4 Years Immokalee, FL 34142 E -Mail: District: 5 Category: Resident in Zone Mr. Richard Heers 229 -9970 09/21/04 04/04/07 3 Years 507 N. 18th Street 657 -4524 Immokalee, FL 34142 E Mail: rkheers2u @aol.com District: 5 Category: Resident of Zone Mr. Ira J. Malamut 658 -3560 03/23/99 04/04/03 4 Years _ 11990 Wedge Drive 04/08/03 04/04/07 4 Years Ft. Myers, FL 33913 E ]Nail District: Category: Non -profit Organization Ms. Sonya L. Tuten 657 -5519 09/21/04 04/04/07 3 Years 1292 CR 830 825 -4965 Felda, FL 33930 E -Mail: agtronix @aol.com District: Category: Chamber of Commerce Mr. Raymond T. Holland 657 -3171 04/01/97 04/04/01 4 Years P.O. Box 5325 657 -4568 09/11/01 04 /04/05 4 Years Immokalee, FL 34143 E Mail: District: 5 Category: Finanical Entity Wednesday, February 09, 2005 Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item No. 9E February 8, 2005 Page 5 of 7 immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency Name Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phone Date-Re -apps 2ndExpDate 2nd Term Ms. Clara Ayala 348- 7221 04/09/02 04/09/05 3 Years 5720 Copper Leaf Lane 348-8790 Naples, FL 34116 E -Mail. District: 3 Category. Local Business in the Zone Mr. Floyd Crews 657 -2429 11/24198 04104/99 4 Months P.O. Box 5157 657 -2370 04/08/03 04/04/07 4 Years Immokalee, FL 34143 E Mail. District: 5 Category. Resident/business Mr. Robert W. Soter 992 -8000 09/21/04 04/04/07 3 Years 6209 Emerald Pines Circle 561 -0154 Ft. Myers, FL 33912 E -Mail: rsoter @sfedb.org District: Category: Private Industry Council Mr. Charlie Esquivel 825 - 3591 04/09/02 04/04/06 4 Years 703 Taylor Lane 368-6827 Lehigh, FL 33936 E Mail: District. Category: Local Business in the Zone Ms. Ana Salazar 658 -3318 02/08/05 1107 Bard Court 303 -0737 Fort Myers, FL 33913 E -Mail. ana_salazar @earthlink.net District. Category: Non -Profit Community -Based Organization Wednesday, February• 09, 2005 Page 2 of 4 04/04/07 2 Years Agenda Item No. 9E February 8, 2005 Page 6 of 7 Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency Name Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateR"ppt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term Sgt. James Mansberger 774 -4434 04/08/03 04/04/06 3 Years 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 E Mail: District: Category: Local Law Enforcement Mr. Gary D. Holloway 2745 Cambridge Court Immokalee, FL 34142 E -Mail: gary44mcanes@yahoo.com District: 5 Category: Resident In Zone Ms. Cristina Perez 1106 Christian Terrace Immokalee, FL 34142 E -Mail: District: Category: Local Code Enforcement 658-3338 10/14/03 04/04/07 657 -2706 657 -3143 09/21/04 04/04/07 657 -5755 4 Years 3 Years Ms. Denise Blanton 353 -4244 12/09/97 00 /00 /00 unlimited 14700 Immokalee Road Immokalee, FL 34120 E Mail: District: 5 Category. non - voting ex- officio member Wednesday. February 09, 2005 Page 3 of4 Agenda Item No. 9E February 8, 2005 Page 7 of 7 Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency Name Work Phone AppfW Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateRe -appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term This 13 member committee was created on April 4, 1995, by Ord. No. 95-22 to induce private investment into distressed areas to create economic opportunities and sustainable economic development for designated areas. Initial members were appointed by Resolution No. 95 -249. To permit Collier County to participate in this program, the Board of County Commissioners nominated the Immokalee Community to be considered by the FL Dept. of Commerce for Enterprise Zone designation in Reso. No. 95 -248, approved March 28, 1995. As part of the formal app for an EZ, the State required that a committee consisting of a broad base of citizens be established. The committee has representation from the Chamber of Commerce, financial or insurance entities, businesses operating within the nominated area, residents, nonprofit community -based organizations, local private industry council, local code enforcement agency, and local law enforcement agency. Amended by Ord. No. 97-81 Terms are 4 years. This committee also serves as the Immokalee Redevelopment Board. FL STAT 290.001 - 290.016 Staff: John -David Moss, Senior Planner, Comp Planning: 213 -2944 Wednesday, February 09, 20#5 Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 54 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt by Resolution the revised 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management . Program Manual along with its contained policies, procedures and techniques. OBJECTIVE: To obtain BCC approval to adopt by Resolution the revised 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Manual along with its contained policies, procedures and techniques. CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the research and recommendations of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Traffic Calming Task Force, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, pursuant to Resolution 95 -608, adopted and implemented the Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The Program contained policies, procedures and techniques to address neighborhood traffic problems. The Program included a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual created by the Traffic Calming Task Force in 1995. In 2004 a second Traffic Calming Committee was formed to review and update the original 1995 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual along with its policies procedures and techniques. The updated 2005 manual includes the introduction of a three -step project approval process that occurs prior to the installation of any calming devices. The three -step process focuses on 1) Education, 2) Enforcement, and 3) Engineering. Additional community noticing and approvals are implemented along with increased minimum requirements for project consideration and a ranking system for prioritization of qualified project funding. Having completed the review task, the 2004 Traffic Calming Committee and Collier County staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve for immediate use the updated NTMP Manual along with its policies, procedures and techniques that will supercede and replace the 1995 NTMP Manual. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $250,000 are budgeted annually for this program. Funds are budgeted in the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund. Source of Funds are Gas Taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt the revised 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual along with its contained policies, procedures and techniques by Resolution fur immediate use. PREPARED BY: Donald A. Schneider, Project Manager, Transportation Planning Department. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 54 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 10A Item Summary Recommendation to adopt by Resolution the revised 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual contained policies: procedures and techniques. Meeting Date 2/2212005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Donald L. Scott Transportation Planning Director 112512005 2:04 :30 PM Transportion Services Transportation Planning Approved By Donald A. Schneider, 11 Principal Planner Date Community Development & Environmental Services Comprehensive Planning 1126/2005 6:46 AM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 112612005 2 :34 PM Approved By Gloria Herrera ManagementlBudget Analyst Date Transportion Services Transportation Operations 112612005 2:37 PM Approved By ^� Donald L. Scott Transportation Planning Director Date Transportion Services Transportation Planning 219/2005 1:36 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin. 2/9/2005 4:50 PM Approved By Pat Lehnhard Executive Secretary Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 21912005 4 :56 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211012005 4:15 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:59 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 211412005 8:54 AM Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 54 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ADOPT THE REVISED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANUAL. WHEREAS, based on the research and recommendations of the Collier County/Naples Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Traffic Calming Task Force, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, pursuant to Resolution 95 -608, adopted and implemented the Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (the "Program"), finding that this Program contained policies, procedures and techniques that would correct neighborhood traffic problems; and WHEREAS, this Program included a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual created by the Traffic Calming Task Force in 1995; and WHEREAS, since its adoption and implementation, the Program and the 1995 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual have inured to the benefit of the people of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Traffic Calming Committee has prepared an updated version of the original 1995 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual; and WHEREAS, both the 2004 Traffic Calming Committee and Collier County staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approved for immediate use the updated Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual and that this updated manual supercede and replace the 1995 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the attached Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual is hereby authorized for immediate implementation and distribution and shall be henceforth used by the Collier County Transportation Services Division in place of the 1995 Manual, use of which is hereby discontinued. This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and majority vote favoring same, this day of 12005, ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney By: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. JOA February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 54 01 u na re 'S 1, 0 L o r P, Ewa Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 1 'FQ OR -A p" RA J 01 u na re 'S 1, 0 L o r P, Ewa Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 1 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 54 Table of Contents Introduction............................. ............................... 3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies ..... ..............................7 Application Requirements ............ ..............................9 Procedures.............................. .............................10 Techniques.............................. .............................16 Application Forms ..................... .............................47 Appendix................................ .............................50 Acknowledgments ..................... .............................51 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 2 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 6of54 n t�c�d NTMP Neighborhood Traffic Management Program The Mission of the Traffic Calming Program is to improve community safety and to preserve and enhance Collier County neighborhoods by working with residents to design and imple- ment solutions to the negative impacts created by automobile traffic on neighborhood streets. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) was created in direct response to a seri- ous problem that blankets Collier County. For a period of five years Collier County did not invest in major improvements or additions to the roadway system. Over time, with no new capacity available, the arterial roadway system became maximized by the increased demand. Additionally, due to ex- isting roadway geometry, there were virtually no collector roadways to mitigate the increase in de- mand. The resulting synergy forced mainstream traffic onto local neighborhood roads, using them as throughways. NTMP was developed to discourage traffic from cutting through and using local residential streets. (The program was not designed as a regulatory arm for neighborhood control of internal traffic, which would then become an enforcement issue). Specifically, the Collier County/Naples Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Traffic Calming Task Force created the Collier County/Naples Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). The MPO staff' and the Task Force then formed the NTMP, incorporating a Traffic Calming Committee and a process for identifying, qualifying and addressing problems related to excessive traffic volumes, motorists cutting through residential areas, speeding and safety on local streets. The authority to implement Traffic Calming comes to us from the following sources: 1. Collier County Growth Management Plan, Transportation Element (III) E. Goals and Objective & Policies. (111) Objective 9: The County shall encourage neighborhood involvement and safe and pleasant conditions for the residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists on neighbor- hood streets, not classified as arterials or collectors, through the implementation of the Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). 2. Board of County Commissioners Resolution 95 -608, which establishes the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 3 Agenda item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 54 Introduction Continued: 3. The Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), Chapter 4, Subdivision Design Require- ments. § 4.03.05 (A) Blocks. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be determined with due regard to: (4.) Where special topographical conditions exist, block lengths greater than 660 feet shall be approved by the County Manager or designee pursuant to procedures set forth in Chapter 90. Traffic calming devices, as approved in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, shall be provided in block lengths greater than 660 feet. Chapter 6. Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements. § 6.06.00 Transportation System Standards. § 6.06.01 Street System Requirements. (G.) Use of local streets by cut- through traffic shall be discouraged, using meth- ods (like traffic calming) that do not compromise connectivity or reduce the number of access points to the subdivision. The NTMP Project Manager reviews requests for traffic calming, which come from a variety of sources: Citizens, Home Owners Associations (HOA), City and County Staff members, and Col- lier County Community Traffic Safety Team. The potential areas are subjected to a qualifying process that includes actual field counts and observations, along with input from citizens in the affected area. Working as a team, citizens and staff derive solutions that may be implemented to address specific problems. Qualified traffic calming projects that are part of the county main- tained road system become subject to a prioritization routine and a three -step installation proc- ess . Funding for the county road NTMP projects must be sensitive to the prioritization criteria. Qualified projects, approved for private road systems, are normally funded by HOA's, or Municipal Service Benefit/Taxing Units (MSBlTU's). Homeowners requesting calming devices along dead - end streets are required to fund those installations. Traffic conditions on residential streets can greatly affect neighborhood livability. When our streets are safe and pleasant, the quality of life is enhanced. When traffic problems become a daily occurrence, our sense of community and personal well -being are threatened. Studies of speeding complaints from homeowners living on residential streets in Collier County illustrate that a majority of motorists drive over the 30 mph speed limit. Those who exceed the speed limit come from all age groups: they are not just teenagers or commuters. • Local residents drive faster on their local streets because they feel familiar and comfortable. • Outsiders use local streets as short cuts to busy arterial roads. By addressing high vehicular speeds and cut through volumes; traffic calming can increase both the real and perceived safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, and improve the quality of life within the neighborhood. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 4 Agenda Item No. 10A Using our NTMP traffic calming study and approval process will help determine when and where traffic - calming measures are appropriate. Because traffic-calming measures have the potential to create controversy, their installation occurs as the final step of a three -step process referred to as the "three E's ", Education, Enforcement, and Engineering. This three -step process is outlined on page 15 in the Project Flow Chart. Noteworthy to this process is the position of emergency responders who are generally not in favor of most traffic calming devices. Step # 1 - Education Educational programs seek to remind speeding drivers of the negative effects of their actions, of- ten by stressing that the community's children and elderly are the most at risk. Educational cam- paigns may use brochures or neighborhood newsletters to spread this message. Newsletters may also contain information on speeding fines (particularly in school zones), pedestrian and bi- cycle safety tips, and information on average speeds in the neighborhood. Step # 2 - Enforcement Enforcement involves a more intensive police presence and a greater allocation of time to enforc- ing the speed limit in a particular neighborhood. Unfortunately, it is often not practical to maintain a police presence at the level needed to permanently lower speeds. Consistent visible enforce- ment, however, does lead to respect of the speed limit by motorists. Step # 3 - Engineering Engineering includes, but is not limited to, traffic calming measures. It can also include the use of signs and pavement markings to obtain the desired effect. Because community involvement is critical to the traffic calming plan development process, NTMP management of the process is required for local roads maintained by the County. Approval or in- volvement of the NTMP for private roadways is not necessary but may be requested by the devel- oper or Home Owners Association (HOA). The selection of traffic calming measures should be based on the following: • The measures potential to address volume or speed reduction on affected roadways. . The type of roadway. • Actual site conditions. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 5 Agenda item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 54 introduction Continued; Specific measures have been grouped into four categories based upon the means by which they reduce volumes and speeds: Horizontal Deflection • Vertical Deflection • Physical Obstruction Signs and Pavement Markings Besides their primary function of reducing speeds or volumes, the large majority of measures also have the ability to reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehi- cles. In addition, well designed and landscaped traffic calming measures can enhance a neighborhood's appearance and the quality of life for residents. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 6 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 54 Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goals: It is the goal of the Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) to estab- lish procedures and techniques that will promote neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impacts of automobile traffic on residential neighborhoods. Although livability has no precise definition, it can be thought of as encompassing the following characteristics: The opportunity to walk or bike within the roadway area with a feeling of safety. • The opportunity to interact socially with neighbors without traffic related distractions or threats. • A sense of community and neighborhood identity. a A balanced relationship between the multiple uses and needs of a neighborhood. Objectives: 1. To promote safe and pleasant conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on neighborhood streets. 2. To reduce vehicular speeding on local neighborhood streets. 3. To preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations. 4. To enhance a sense of community and neighborhood identity. S. To encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities. 6. To provide a. process that will address neighborhood traffic management requests. Policies: 1. Through traffic should be routed to the major roadways designated in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 7 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 54 Pol ivies Con inured; 2. Re- routed traffic that results from a traffic management project should be evaluated on a project -by- project basis. 3. Emergency vehicle access should be preserved. 4. Major roadways are not eligible for NTMP. 5. Collier County shall employ a variety of traffic calming devices to achieve the NTMP's objectives. Such traffic calming devices shall be planned and designed in conformance with sound engineering and planning practices. 6. To implement the NTMP, certain procedures shall be followed in processing neighborhood traffic management requests in accordance with applicable codes and related policies and within the limits of available resources. At a minimum, the procedures shall provide for: Submittal of project proposals. • Evaluation of proposals by staff. • Citizen participation in plan development and evaluation. • Methods of temporarily testing traffic management plans when needed. Communication of any test results and specific findings to area residents and af- fected neighborhood organizations before installation of permanent traffic calming devices. • Review and prioritization of traffic calming projects requiring funding. • Follow -up study and findings report. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 8 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 54 A Traffic Calming Study begins with a request from an individual, or neighborhood group, repre- sented through a petition (Petition Form NTMP2), signed by at least 10% of the households along the affected roadway. Following receipt of the first petition, the NTMP Project Manager will order a traffic study to be established on the affected roadway. Assuming the preliminary study data indicates there is a need for traffic calming, the NTMP will require a completed application and second petition to be submitted by the individual, or group who initiated the request. The com- pleted application identifies the contact person or persons, addresses, phone numbers and dates of application. The application asks for a description of the traffic condition. The best way to de- termine community approval is through a neighborhood survey (second petition). The second pe- tition constitutes a broad neighborhood survey and is required to have at least 51% of the house- holds along the affected roadway requesting traffic calming. (See Application NTMP1 on page 47 and Petition Form NTMP2 on page 48). Pre- application Procedures: 1. Resident or group calls /meets with County staff to discuss neighborhood traffic problem. 2. Resident or group acquires signatures on petition of at least 10% of the households along affected roadway desiring to have a traffic study. 3. County staff reviews problem and site, collects preliminary traffic data to determine if minimum eligibility criteria are met. 4. County staff meets with resident to review data findings. 5. If minimum criteria are met: County staff will determine boundaries of the petition area. Application & Petition Circulation: 1. Resident circulates petition within identified petition area. Resident must obtain signatures of more than 51% of households and/or businesses in the petition area. 2. Upon obtaining the necessary signatures, resident returns petition, completed application and attendant materials to County staff. 3. County staff begins procedure to develop an NTMP project. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 9 A. Receipt of NTMP Application County staff (NTMP Project Manager) receives the NTMP application. B. Preliminary Analysis of Eligibility County staff conducts preliminary analysis to evaluate whether the application meets Minimum Requirements for Consideration: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION (PROJECT THRESHOLD: must meet one of the three) CRITERION MINOR COLLECTOR LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS STREETS 1. Minimum traffic volume > 4,000 vpd or 400 vph > 2,000 vpd or 200 vph 2. 85th percentile speed 10 mph > speed limit 5 mph > speed limit 3. Pedestrian /bike Level of per Calculator Form per Calculator Form Service (LOS) (LOS "C" or worse) (LOS "C" or worse)` C. Neighborhood Workshop County staff will schedule a neighborhood workshop where a Traffic Team will be chosen, the results of the preliminary analysis will be discussed, and the group will be enlightened on the practice of Traffic Calming . If Minimum Requirements for a traffic calming project are met, the neighborhood appoints 3 -5 representatives to work with County staff as members of the Traffic Team. D. Development of NTMP Project Concept The County staff and neighborhood representatives (the Traffic Team) begin with the three step process (see page 15 - Project Flow Chart) to develop a suitable NTMP project concept using various traffic calming techniques. The concept illustrates the desired techniques and improve- ments but is not a construction document. E. Presentation of NTMP Project Concept to Neighborhood The Traffic Team schedules a second neighborhood workshop, notifies residents in the study area, and presents the NTMP concept. The neighborhood residents attending the workshop must reach a consensus of support for the project in order for it to move forward. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 10 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 54 Procedure ' ontii' ui-ed. F. Funding for Design and Construction of the NTMP Project Concept Any NTMP project to receive funding through the NTMP grant process must be ranked according to the Project Prioritization criteria. Rankings indicate which projects, or portions thereof, are to receive funding for development of construction documents and construction implementation. Those NTMP projects, which are to be fully funded by the neighborhood, are not part of the fund- ing prioritization process, but are subject to all applicable planning and engineering review and permitting. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION (Ranking of NTMP projects for funding) I. Safety Factors: Maximum 40 Points Criteria Points 1. Traffic Volumes: Greater than 3,001 vehicles per day 10 points 2,501 to 3,000 vehicles per day 5 points 2,000 to 2,500 vehicles per day 2 points 2. Traffic Speeds: 85th% exceeds speed limit > 20 mph 10 points 85th% exceeds speed limit > 15 mph 5 points 85th% exceeds speed limit > 10 mph 1 points 3. Crash history: > 6 accidents, past 5 years 5 points 3 to 5 accidents, past 5 years 3 points 1 to 2 accidents, past 5 years 1 point 4. Bike /Pedestrian LOS: Level F 10 points Level D 5 points Level C 1 points 5. Other offsetting factors: Provides for unusual /compelling situations not addressed in other criteria. Must be recommended by TC staff for consideration, with background specifics. 0 to 5 points Safety Factor Total ........................ Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 11 Agenda stern No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 54 Procedures: Contir u d: II. Improvement to Neighborhood Value: Max. 30 points Criteria Po_ ints 1. Percentage of residents expressing concern 3 points > 70% of residents expressing concern 10 points > 50% of residents expressing concern 5 points > 30% of residents expressing concern 2 points 2. Neighborhood Aesthetics /Character: 5 points NTMP devices with high -level of aesthetics 5 points (contain both landscape /hardscape improvements) 1 point NTMP devices with medium -level aesthetics 3 points (contain either landscape /hardscape improvements) NTMP devices with low -level aesthetics (non - punitive) 1 point (signage) NTMP devices with low -level aesthetics (punitive) 3 points (speed humps) 3. Value Benefit Area (how many homes benefit from character improvement): > 112 per mile 5 points 81 to 111 per mile 3 points 51 to 80 per mile 2 points 20 to 50 per mile 1 point 4. Neighborhood Cost Participation (property values > $250,000 /unit): Neighborhood contribution 50% of cost 5 points Neighborhood contribution 25% of cost 3 points Neighborhood contribution 10% of cost 1 point 4a. Neighborhood Cost Participation (property values <$250,000 /unit): Neighborhood contribution 50% of cost 10 points Neighborhood contribution 25% of cost 5 points Neighborhood contribution 10% of cost 2 points 5. Other offsetting factors: Provides for unusual/compelling situations not addressed in other criteria. Must be recommended by NTMP staff for consideration, with background specifics. 0 to 5 points Improvement to Neighborhood Value Total ..... ............................... Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 12 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 54 III. Neighborhood Demographic: Max. 30 points Criteria Points 1. Number of children in neighborhood: 40 per mile 10 points 20 per mile 5 points 10 per mile 2 points 5 per mile 1 point 2. Number of houses facing the street (both sides): > 56 per mile 5 points 41 to 55 per mile 3 points 26 to 40 per mile 2 points 10 to 25 per mile 1 point 3. Number of units on adjacent streets that must use the TC street for access: > 56 per mile 5 points 41 to 55 per mile 3 Points 26 to 40 per mile 2 points 10 to 25 per mile 1 point 4. Schools and Public Facilities adjacent to the street: Points for each school 5 points Points for each recreation facility (park, pool, etc) 4 points Points for each trail /walkway crossing 3 points Points for each other public facilities 1 point 5. Neighborhood Services directly accessed by the street: Points for grocery store 5 points Points for neighborhood convenience store 3 points Points for drug /general retail (Eckerd, etc) 2 points Points for local retail (strip center, etc) 1 point Neighborhood Demographic Total ......... ............................... PRIORITIZATION TOTAL SCORE: I, II & III .................. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 13 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 54 Procedures +continued: G. Project Design and Implementation County staff schedules the design and implementation of NTMP projects according to the scores of the rankings. H. Monitoring Immediately following the installation of the project, County staff will begin evaluation of the project, including field observations, traffic counts, speed studies, and other data collection as staff feels may be appropriate, to review the effectiveness and impacts of the traffic calming project. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 14 ~ Study Determines Thresholds Are Not Exceeded Data Retained For Future Com psrloans Problem Decreases Educational Programs Continue Problem Decreases Enforcement Program e Continue Step E 1 And Step i 2 Continue To Serve Neighborhood Neighborhood Selocts I Desired Calming Technique Design Funding Scenarios Determined Public Hearing With Board Of County Commissioners Dlsspprovol Project Is Rejected — Step f 1 and Step i 2 Continue County Performs Traffic Study Step 0 1 Educational Programs Are Initiated Stop N 2 Enforcement Programs Are Initiated Petition0 *term In*aThat I Neighborhood Does Hot W ant Traffic Calming Devices Step / 9 Engineering Design Phase Is Initiated Post Construction Construction of Calming Evaluations Devices Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 54 10% Of Households Along Affected Roadway Desire Traffic Calming Study Study Determ Inca Thresholds Are Exceeded Neighborhood Appoints 9.5 Residents To Work With Transportation Division As A Trafflc Team Problem Persists Problem Persists Neighborhood Traffic Team Circulates Petition Among Households To Determine If 51% Desire Some Typo Of Calming Devloos At Least 51 % Of Households Desire Calming Devices Project Is Approved By BCC Bids Are Solicited For Construction Of Calming Devices Contract Award Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 15 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 54 Techniques Earlier we learned that traffic- calming measures have the potential to create controversy, so it is recommended that their installation often occur as the final step of a three -step process referred to as the "three E's" (education, enforcement, and engineering). Step # 1 - Education Educational programs seek to remind speeding drivers of the negative effects of their actions, of- ten by stressing that the community's children and elderly are the most at risk. Educational cam- paigns may use brochures or neighborhood newsletters to spread this message. Newsletters may also contain information on speeding fines (particularly in school zones), pedestrian and bi- cycle safety tips, and information on average speeds in the neighborhood. Step # 2 - Enforcement Enforcement involves a more intensive police presence and a greater allocation of time to enforc- ing the speed limit in a particular neighborhood. Unfortunately, it is often not practical to maintain a police presence at the level needed to permanently lower speeds. However, consistent visible enforcement does lead to respect of the speed limit by motorists. Step # 3 - Engineering The Traffic Calming Task Force examined many different traffic calming engineered techniques. Realizing that Collier County's /Naples' neighborhoods are not all the same and there are a variety of street designs within neighborhoods, the Task Force included a wide range of techniques in this program that will be needed to address differing traffic conditions. Traffic Calming engineering techniques fall under two general categories— Physical and Psy- chological. In general, wider roads encourage higher automobile speeds. It is therefore natural that many traffic calming techniques are designed to physically change the width of the street. Techniques such as neck downs, roundabouts and medians all decrease road width. If a motorist can see into the distance, the tendency is to increase speed. The interruption of sight lines, with changes in the road's direction will cause motorists to slow down. Using tech- niques such as chicanes and roundabouts, or breaking the road into smaller visual units by changing the surface pavement, such as brick pavers or stamped concrete, causes the driver to slow down. It also means motorists widen their vision field, becoming much more aware of pe- destrians and bicyclists. Changes in the road design force traffic to travel at a slower, more even pace. Traffic calming may also be achieved by changing the psychological feel of the street. Streets using different surface types, vertical landscaping or narrowed lanes create the appro- priate space for a relaxed, pedestrian - friendly feel. These psychological changes give motorists cues that they are no longer on a major roadway but are in a different environment that is shared with people. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 16 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 continued.' _ Page 20 of 54 Techn!q'.' ' 1 eS' ontinued. All traffic calming techniques have a limited range of effectiveness. To achieve traffic calming ob- jectives, some techniques need to be placed every 250 -400 feet. If traffic calming techniques are used too sparsely, traffic may slow close to the installation, but the overall speed will probably not decrease. One technique may be used multiple times or multiple techniques may be used in con- junction with one another. Most techniques will affect noise, air quality, congestion, fuel con- sumption and many other factors. Some can improve these conditions, others may cause these problems to increase. Emergency vehicle access and response time must be considered when designing and installing traffic calming devices. Emergency vehicles, particularly ambulances, have more difficulty with "vertical" devices such as speed humps than with "horizontal" devices such as neckdowns. Likewise, bicyclists and pedestrians must be kept in mind when developing a traffic calming strat- egy, as some devices can obstruct their movements. Many devices can be modified to allow bi- cyclists and pedestrians to by -pass them. For instance, a divertercan be fitted with a bicycle/ pedestrian link to allow for through movement. - The following is a compendium of calming techniques - te mation', p#1 E41 Traffic Calming Education produces activities that inform and seek to modify driver behav- ior. Techniques include printed information, meetings and workshops with staff, interac- tion with neighbors, signing campaigns, enforcement activities, neighborhood speed watches, school programs, parent outreach, etc. The following ideas and concepts are credited to David Engwicht, Co Founder of Creative Communities International, Australia. Traffic Calming Education strives to increase understanding of the dynamitic nature of traffic calming, as well as providing insight into the options of taming traffic with out physical devices. The first step towards better understanding of how to calm traffic is to understand how we lost our streets to traffic in the first place. For thousands of years, streets have not just been a place for movement, but also the stage for spontaneous neighborhood- building activity and the market place for commerce. As we have endeavored to provide better streets and transportation facilities we have designed spaces for motorists that are predictable. Having driving spaces that are predictable allows the typical motorists to develop a false sense of security producing a tendency to speed up. As mo- torists push the safety boundaries and drive faster, residents become intimidated by the traffic and retreat to the safety of their homes and other spaces. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 17 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 54 Education continued: This psychological retreat from the street has not only eroded the quality of neighborhood life and sense of community, but it has also encouraged traffic to go even faster by diminishing the in- trigue and uncertainty factors. There was a time when children played in our streets and adults met there to chat. The presence of children and adults in the roadway created a high degree of intrigue and uncertainly so motorists traveled very slowly. Today we find that the design of our streets and buildings has further reduced the intrigue and uncertainty factors, which has encour- aged even higher traffic speeds. The feelings of intimidation, causing us to retreat from our streets, diminished the community - building processes associated with human activities near or in the streets. Winning our streets back starts by changing our attitudes, refusing to be intimidated and by highly valuing our streets for spontaneous social and cultural activity. Moving human activities back towards the street will begin to reverse the erosion process. Please understand that this does not mean that you start by telling the kids to go play in the traffic. If the last act of surrender was not parking your cars in the street, then this is where you start. This visually narrows the road, which slows the traffic and allows other reclaiming activities to be added in safety. As a neighborhood you can create street activity by organizing inter - street street games competi- tions such as street hockey, hopscotch, etc. You may wish to organize a block party, but one where the street is not closed to traffic. (This is very important as we are trying to establish a new culture of respect for the dual role of streets for movement and social activity.) You can also in- crease street activity by walking your kids to school, or by walking to local destinations yourself. Encourage the establishment of "activity nodes"— places where people are encouraged to linger. Increasing intrigue and uncertainty will reduce speeds, but doesn't this encourage rubbernecking, which we all know causes more accidents? There is a paradox when it comes to safety: you can make an environment safer by making it more predictable or making it less predictable. The amount of predictability or unpredictability does not make an environment safe or unsafe. Any environment becomes unsafe if the actual risks are higher than the perceived risks — that is, when drivers are lulled into a false sense of security about the degree of danger present. We can reduce the instance of a false sense of security by having the design of an environment signal to the driver that they are likely to encounter high levels of unpredictability. If the normative state of a street is that the unexpected should be expected, then traffic control devices such as line mark- ings, official signage, concrete islands and even first- generation traffic calming devices create a mixed message. They promise certain levels of predictability. When we create traffic environ- ments that encourage speed and domination by cars, community life will retreat from the space. (We increased predictability). However, when we create a traffic environment with high levels of ambiguity the traffic speeds will drop and community life will blossom in the space. (We in- creased unpredictability). SLOW-V"n FOR OUR KIDS Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 18 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 54 Ea u cat c n ,,on e : Design signals that the Design signals that the space is predictable I I space is unpredictable Intrigue and uncertainty Traffic intrigue and uncertainty Traffic decline, predictability increase, unpredictability slows increases speeds up increases down Community I Community life life retreats increases The amount of intrigue and uncertainty signaled by the design of a traffic environment must be determined by the vision of the vibrancy of community and economic life desired for a space. Vi- brant neighborhoods plus safe streets equals high levels of ambiguity in the street design. The same design principles used to create a great indoor room are used to create a great street. Unlike traditional traffic calming, they do not necessarily have to change the physical geometry of the street. They rely primarily on changing the psychological feel. They send clear messages about the dual functions of the street, and contain much higher levels of intrigue and uncertainty. The educational aspects of traffic calming include activities that inform and seek to modify driver behavior. Behavioral modification programs may focus on such topics as the following: • Encourage residents to psychologically reclaim their street and relate to it in a new way. • Involve residents in the redesign of their streetscapes. • Encourage residents to reduce their propensity to take risk when driving. • Encourage residents to reduce their car use and the speed at which they drive. One such program that works extremely well to modify behavior is the Neighborhood Pace Car. Residents experiencing traffic problems in their neighborhood are encouraged to sign the Pace Car Pledge. (See page 46). They promise to drive within the speed limit, stop to let pedestrians cross and minimize their car use. They put a Pace Car sticker on the back of their cars so motor- ists behind know why they are driving courteously. When there are sufficient Pace Cars on the streets, traffic is calmed countywide. Pace Cars are "mobile speed bumps" that get out of the way of emergency vehicles. 7PCECRMEa/�, 1e• ` Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 19 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 54 Ed ucati n Continued: The Pace Car is a very important part of an overall strategy to make streets safer and to increase the vitality of neighborhood life. It calms drivers rather than streets and thus reduces the propen- sity for drivers to take risk. The Pace Car sticker is an essential element as it informs the drivers behind why the car is being driven within the law. This reduces the chances of them becoming agitated and is part of an awareness raising process. The Pace Car helps create an environment where adults and children are more likely to walk or use their street for play and socializing. The Pace Car also makes the motorist much more aware of their immediate surroundings. If you break the motorist's fixation on getting to their destination as quickly as possible, they become much more connected to the environment they are passing through. This obviously makes them a safer driver, but it also makes them a part of the street life, rather than an interloper destroying the street life. NE1GH6,_,.RHO NTMP PACE CAR Advantages: Can be relatively effective • Involves and empowers citizens; and • Works well with other mitigation tools. Disadvantages: • Not likely to be as effective on non - neighborhood traffic; • May be difficult to measure effectiveness; • Can be expensive and or time consuming; • May take time to be effective; and • Effectiveness may decrease over time. 1' BRAKE Fq�RJ)A PEDESTIRLANS11 L y. f L s, if 5 yy .. � r, r � �} � � W; } �> Ile, Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 20 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 54 ducatipr C t'tn� red: Sian informing public that traffic calming devices have been installed. Advantages: • informs and alerts driver of oncoming devices; • improves safety of the technique or device being used; and • Improves effectiveness of the technique or device. Disadvantages: More signage on the street, sometimes considered unsightly. Step n #►r�cefe�n# Mobile radar display advises motorists of the speed at which they are trav, el_,� Advantages: • Educational tool; • Very good public relations tool; and • Useful especially in school and construction zones where spot speed reduction is important. Disadvantages: • Requires periodic enforcement; • Effective for limited duration; and • Unit moves frequently, which requires personnel. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 21 Enforcement Continued; Periodic monitoring by police of speeding and other violations. Advantages: • Good temporary public relations tool; and • Serves to inform public that speeding is undesirable behavior, for which there are consequences. Disadvantages: • Effect is not permanent; and • Enforcement is an expensive tool. Agenda item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 22 left t nilein- Speed Control Measures - Vertical Deflection - Raised Crosswalks a.k.a. Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions. Raised crosswalks are Speed Tables outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage to channelize pe- destrian crossings, providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. Also, by raising the level of the crossing, pedestrians are more visible to ap- proaching motorists. Advantages: Raised Crosswalks improve safety for both pedestrians and vehicles; • If designed well, they can have positive aesthetic value; • They are effective in reducing speeds; and • They are good for locations where pedestrian crossings occur at haphazard locations and vehicle speeds are ex- cessive. Disadvantages: • Textured materials, if used, can be expensive; • Impacts on drainage needs to be considered; and • Noise and air pollution may increase. Agenda Item No. 1OA February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 23 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 54 Engineering Continued: Speed control Measures - Vertical Deflection - Speed Humps a.k.a. Road humps, undulations. Speed humps are rounded raised areas placed across the roadway. They are generally 10 to 14 �. feet long (in the direction of travel), making them distinct from the shorter "speed bumps" found; in many parking lots, and are 3 to 4 inches high. The profile of a speed hump can be circular,n `~ parabolic, or sinusoidal. They are often tapered$} as they reach the curb on each end to allow un- impeded drainage. Advantages: • Speed Humps are relatively inexpensive; • They are relatively easy for bicycles to cross if designed appropriately; • They are very effective in slowing travel speeds; and • They are good for locations where very low speeds are desired and reasonable, and noise and fumes are not a major concern. Disadvantages: • They cause a "rough ride" for all drivers, and can cause severe pain for people with certain skeletal dis- abilities: • They force large vehicles, such as emergency vehicles and those with rigid suspensions, to travel at slower speeds; • They may increase noise and air pollution; and • They have questionable aesthetics. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 24 En nud: Speed Control Measures - Vertical Deflection - Speed Tables a.k.a. Trapezoidal humps, speed platforms. Speed tables are flat- topped speed humps, also 3 to 4 inches high but with a sloped approach taper on each side of a flat top. They are generally 20 to 24 feet wide. Comfortable speed limited to 20 to 25 mph. Advantages: • Speed Tables are relatively inexpensive; Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 54 • They are relatively easy for bicycles to cross if designed appropriately; • They are very effective in slowing travel speeds; and • They are good for locations where very low speeds are desired and reasonable, and noise and fumes are not a major concern. Disadvantages: • They cause a "rough ride" for all drivers, and can cause severe pain for people with certain skeletal dis- abilities. • They force large vehicles, such as emergency vehicles and those with rigid suspensions, to travel at slower speeds; • They may increase noise and air pollution; and • They have questionable aesthetics. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 25 Engineering Continued; Speed Control Measures - Vertical Deflection - Raised Intersections a.k.a. Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus. Raised intersections are fiat raised areas covering an entire intersection, with ramps on all approaches and often with brick or other textured materials on the flat section. They usu- ally raise to the level of the sidewalk, or slightly below to pro- vide "lip" that is detectable by the visually impaired. By modi- fying the level of the intersection, the crosswalks are more readily perceived by motorists to be "pedestrian territory". Advantages: Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 54 4 • Raised Intersections improve safety for both pedestrians and vehicles; • If designed well, they can have positive aesthetic value; • They can calm two streets at once; • They are good for intersections with substantial pedestrian activity; and • They are good for areas where other traffic calming measures would be unacceptable because they take away scarce parking spaces. Disadvantages: • They tend to be expensive, varying by materials used; • Their impact to drainage needs to be considered; and • They are less effective in reducing speeds than Speed Humps, Speed Tables, or Raised Crosswalks. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 26 E e+ertnc] t�r� r�� d: n Speed Control Measures - Vertical Deflection - Textured Pavement a.k.a. Change in pavement texture (such as asphalt to brick). Textured pavements are roadway surfaces paved with brick, concrete pavers, stamped asphalt, or other surface materials that produce constant small changes in vertical alignment. Though including textured pavements among vertical features may appear a stretch to some readers, one need only observe travel speeds on old cobblestone and brick streets to appreci- ate the rationale. Advantages: " . If designed well, they can have positive aesthetic value; • They can calm two streets at once; and Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 54 They are good for intersections with substantial pedestrian activity. Disadvantages: They tend to be expensive, varying by materials used; Impact to drainage needs to be considered; and • Require increased maintenance Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 27 Engineering Continued: Speed Control Measures - Horizontal Deflection - Chicane a.k.a. Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists, and staggerings. Chicane is a series of narrowings or curb extensions that al- ternate from one side of the street to the other forming S- shaped curves. Unless well- designed, a chicane may still permit speeding by drivers cutting straight paths across the center line. Shifts in alignment should be at least one lane width, deflection angles of at least 45 degrees, and center is- lands to prevent drivers from taking a straight "racing line" through the feature. Advantages: Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 54 • A very effective method of changing the initial impression of the street. If done correctly, drivers will not be able to see through. Appears as a road closure yet allows through movement; • Aesthetically pleasing; • Reduces speed without significantly impacting emergency response; • Imposes minimal inconveniences to local traffic; • Pedestrians have a reduced crossing distance; • Provides a greater visual obstruction; and • Accepted by public as speed control device. Disadvantages: • They tend to be expensive, varying by materials used; • Appropriate for midblock locations only; • Most effective with equivalent volumes on both approaches; and • They require increased maintenance Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 28 E n n �e ring o nt.i U+ d* Speed Control Measures - Horizontal Deflection - Centerline and Ed a.k.a. Visually narrowing the roadway (E kline Stripin Painting an edgeline several feet from the pavement edge has the effect of visually narrowing the roadway. A double yellow line striped down the center of roadway might have a compara- ble effect, visually limiting drivers to half of the road. In theory, the perceived narrowing could cause a modest speed reduction, just as a real narrowing causes a modest speed reduction. Advantages: Fast, cost effective solution; and They are especially appropriate for rural roads with no shoulders. Disadvantages: • They are not proven to be successful; and • May be most effective immediately after initial installation; Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 29 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 54 Engineering continued. Speed control Measures - Horizontal Deflection - Roundabouts a.k.a. Rotaries. Roundabouts are raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counter- clockwise direction around the circle. Modem roundabouts are "yield upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the circle must wart to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. Advantages: • Reduces crashes by 50 to 90 percent when compared to 2 -way, 4-way stop signs and traffic signals by reducing the number of conflict points at intersections; • Reduces speed at intersection approach; • Cheaper to maintain than a traffic signal; • Effective at multi -leg intersections; • Provides equal access to intersections for all drivers; • Provides a good environment for cyclists; and Does not restrict movements, but makes them more difficult. Disadvantages: • May be restrictive for larger vehicles if designed to a low speed; • May require additional lighting and signage; • If left turns by large vehicles are to be accommodated, then right of way may have to be purchased; • Initial safety issue as drivers adjust; • May increase volumes on adjacent streets; and • Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 30 En r ring Cot inued. Speed Control Measures - Horizontal Narrowing - Lane Narrowin a.k.a. Squeeze. Street is physically narrowed to expand sidewalks and land- scape areas; possibly adding medians, on- street parking, etc. Advantages: • Minor inconveniences to drivers; • Minimal inconveniences to local traffic; • Good for pedestrians, due to shorter crossing distance; • Provides space for landscaping; • Slows traffic without seriously affecting emergency response time; Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 54 • Effective when used in a series; and • Single lane narrowing reduces vehicle speed and through traffic. Disadvantages: • Double lane narrowing not very effective at reducing speeds or diverting through traffic; • Only partially effective as a visual obstruction; • unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to accommodate them; and • Conflict between opposing drivers arriving simultaneously could create problems. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 31 Engineering 'ontinued: Speed Control Measures - Horizontal Narrowing - Mid -Block Median a.k.a. Dividing and narrowing space. Center of street has an island or barrier that serves to segregate traffic. Advantages: • Provides a refuge for pedestrians and cyclists; • May improve streetscape if landscaped; • Provides barrier between lanes of traffic; and • May produce a limited reduction in vehicle speeds. Disadvantages: • May reduce site lines if over landscaped; and • Increased maintenance. Agenda Item No, 10A February 22; 2005 Page 35 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 32 Er�gnrir rird Speed Control Measures - Horizontal Narrowing - Neckdowns a.k.a. Nubs, bulbouts, knuckles, intersection narrowings, comer bulges, safe crosses. Neckdowns are curb extensions at intersections that reduce the roadway width from curb to curb. They "pedestrianize" intersections by shortening crossing distances for pedestri- ans and drawing attention to pedestrians via raised penin- sulas. They also tighten the curb radii at the corners, re- ducing the speeds of turning vehicles. Advantages: May be aesthetically pleasing, If landscaped; Good for pedestrian, due to shorter crossing distance; Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 54 • Can be used in multiple applications or on a single segment of roadway; Through and left -tum movements are easily negotiable by large vehicles; and • Slows traffic without seriously affecting emergency response time. Disadvantages: • Landscaping may cause sight line problems; • Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to accommodate them; and • May require the elimination of some on- street parking near intersections. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 33 Engineering Continued: Speed Control Measures - Other Devices - Angled Slow Point a.k.a. Variant of a chicane or one -lane choker. Angled deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of offset curb exten- sions). Advantages: • Reduces vehicle speed; • More effective when used in a series; • Imposes minimal inconveniences to local traffic; • Pedestrians have a reduced crossing distance; • Provides space for landscaping; and • Provides a visual obstruction. Disadvantages: • Landscaping needs to be controlled to ensure visibility is reduced; • Contrary to driver expectation of unobstructed flow; • Can be hazardous for drivers and cyclists If not designed and maintained properly; Agenda Item No. 10A February 22; 2005 Page 37 of 54 • Confrontation between opposing drivers arriving simultaneously may create problems; • Double lane application is less effective in controlling speeds than single lane because drivers can create a straighter through movement by driving over centerline; and • Increases area of landscaping to be maintained by residents. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 34 Eric gip. Q�Gntinu d. Speed control Measures - other Devices - Rumble Strip a.k.a. Jiggle bumps. Pattern sections of rough pavement which call attention to vehicle speeds. Advantages: • May reduces vehicle speed; • More effective when used in a series; • Imposes minimal inconveniences to local traffic; • Creates driver awareness; and • Relatively inexpensive to install. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 54 Disadvantages: • High maintenance; • May adversely impact bicyclists; • May be ineffective in reducing vehicle speeds; and • Rumble strips are noisy by design, and are not recommended for neighborhood settings. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 35 Engineering continued:' Volume Control Measures - Full Closure - Full Closure a.k.a. Cul-de -sacs, dead ends. Full street closures are barriers placed across a street to com- pletely close the street to through - traffic, usually leaving only sidewalks open. Advantages: • Reduces traffic volumes; • Eliminates through traffic; • Reduces speed of the remaining vehicles; • Improves safety for all the street users; and • Pedestrian and bike access maintained. Disadvantages: • Requires legal procedures for closure; • Reduces emergency vehicle access; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May be perceived as an inconvenience by some neighbors and an unwarranted restriction by the general public; and • May increase traffic volumes on other streets. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 39 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 36 En' gfnernng' nveq,. Volume Control Measures - Partial Closure - Partial Closure a.k.a. Half street closure, one -way closure. Partial or half street closures are barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two -way streets. Advantages: • Reduces traffic volumes; ~- • Eliminates through traffic in one direction; • Allows two -way traffic in the remainder of the street; • Provides space for landscaping; • Improves safety for all the street users; and • . Maintains pedestrian and bike access. Disadvantages: • Reduces emergency vehicle access as they have to drive around partial closure with care; • Compliance with semi- diverters is not 100 %; Reduces access to properties for residents; • May Increase trip length for some residents; • May be perceived as an Inconvenience by some neighbors and an unwarranted restriction by the general public; and • May increase traffic volumes on other streets. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 40 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 37 Engineering Continued: Volume Control Measures - Traversable Barriers - Traversable Barriers a.k.a. Closed to motor vehicles but traversable by emergency vehicles. A barrier placed across any portion of a street that is travers- able by bikes, pedestrians, in -line skaters, and emergency ve- hicles, but not by motor vehicles. Advantages: • Reduces traffic volumes; • Eliminates cut through traffic; • Allows two -way traffic in the remainder of the street; • Provides space for landscaping; • Improves safety for all the street users; and • Maintains pedestrian and bike access. Disadvantages: • Reduces emergency vehicle access as they have to drive around barrier with care; • Compliance with semi- diverters is not 100 %; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May increase trip length for some residents; • May be perceived as an inconvenience by some neighbors and an unwarranted restriction by the general public; and • May increase traffic volumes on other streets. Agenda Item Flo. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 41 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 38 Engineering 6 tinued', Volume Control Measures - Diagonal Road Closure - Diagonal Road Closure a.k.a. Closed to motor vehicles but traversable by pedestrians and bicyclists. A barrier placed Diagonally across a four legged Intersection, Interrupting traffic flow across the Intersection. Advantages: • Eliminates through traffic; • Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of the street; • Provides space for landscaping; • Improves safety for all the street users; and • Maintains pedestrian and bike access. Disadvantages: • Reduces emergency vehicle access; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May increase trip length for some residents; • May be perceived as inconvenience by some neighbors and an unwarranted restriction by the general public; and • May increase traffic volumes on other streets. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 42 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 39 Engineering Continued. Volume Control Measures - Cul -De -Sac - C u I -De -Sac a.k.a. Dead end street. Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards or bar- riers. Advantages: • Eliminates through traffic; • Reduces speed of the remaining vehicles; • Provides space for landscaping; • Improves safety for all the street users; and • Maintains pedestrian and bike access. Disadvantages: • Reduces emergency vehicle access; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May increase trip length for some residents; • May be perceived as an inconvenience by some neighbors and an unwarranted restriction by the general public; and • May increase traffic volumes on other streets. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 43 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 40 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 44 of 54 Engin Grin .iontinu+e : Volume control Measures - Forced Turn Barriers /Diverters - Forced Turn Barriers/ Diverters a.k.a. Forced turn channel izations, pork chops, right turn .islands. Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards or barriers. Advantages: • Changes driving patterns; • May reduce cut through traffic; • Provides space for landscaping; • Improves safety for all the street users; and • Maintains pedestrian and bike access. Disadvantages: • May increase response times for emergency vehicles; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May increase trip length for some residents; • Can be aesthetically unattractive if not landscaped; and • Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 41 Engineering Continued: Volume Control Measures - Modified Intersection - Modified Intersection a.k.a. Forced turn channelizations. Median devices that force turns by motorist. Advantages: • Reduces vehicle speed; • Changes driving patterns; • Necessary to enforce changes in priority from one street to another, • Reduces through traffic; and • May provide space for landscaping. Disadvantages: • May increase response times for emergency vehicles; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May increase trip length for some residents; • Can be aesthetically unattractive if not landscaped; and • Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 45 of 54 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 42 En theeri� ., tinued: Volume Control Measures - one -Way Streets - One -Way Streets a.k.a. Single direction traffic flow. Streets that allow traffic flow in one direction only. Changing the traffic flow pattern with one -way streets should be considered only in areas where there Is a documented high percent of cut through traffic and where aitemative routes exist. Advantages: • Tends to be safer, due to lack of friction from op- posing traffic flow; • Can facilitate traffic flow through an area; • Can open up narrow streets for more resident park- ing; • Maintains reasonable access for emergency vehicles; and • Maze effect of one-way traffic can discourage through traffic. Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2006 Page 46 of 64 Disadvantages: • May increase response times for emergency vehicles; • Reduces access to properties for residents; • May increase trip length for some residents; • Can lead to increased vehicle speeds; and • May result in initial safety concerns as drivers adjust. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 43 Agenda Item No, 10A February 22, 2005 Page 47 of 54 Engineering ontinued: Combined Measures - Gateway Treatment - Gateway Treatment a.k.a. Entrance feature signaling change in use. Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood. Advantages: • Positive indication of a change in environ- ment from arterial road to residential street; • Reduces entry speed; • Reduces pedestrian crossing distances; • On very wide streets provides space for land- scaping the median; • Helps give neighborhood a sense of identity; and • Allows neighborhood creativity and participation in design. Disadvantages: May increase maintenance responsibility. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 44 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 48 of 54 Erna ne ri . C- nfinuedd; Combined Measures - Landscaping - Landscaping a.k.a. Decorative alteration and planting of grounds. Treatment to a streetscape that focuses on landscaping to communicate a sense of neighborhood and helps make motorists aware of a change In driving environment. Advantages: Positive indication of a change in environ- ment from arterial road to residential street; • Reduces entry speed; • May reduce pedestrian crossing distances; • Helps give neighborhood a sense of identity; and • Allows neighborhood creativity and partici- pation in design. Disadvantages: • May increase maintenance responsibility. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 45 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 49 of 54 Engineering Continued: Combined Measures - Modified Street Design - Modified Street Design a.k.a. Change in streetscape. Treatment to a streetscape that focuses on visual aspects, landscaping and dimensional changes to commu- nicate a sense of neighborhood and helps make motorist aware of a change in driving environment. Advantages: • Positive indication of a change in environ- ment from arterial road to residential street; • Reduces entry speed; • May reduces pedestrian crossing distances; • Helps give neighborhood a sense of identity; and • Allows neighborhood's creativity and partici- pation in design. Disadvantages: • May increase maintenance responsibility. Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 46 It"N D TRAFFIC PROGRAM Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 50 of 54 ra TMP PACE Ali p Pace Car Registration Form Neighborhood Pace Car Pledge: Realizing that my driving affects the livability of other people's neighborhoods, just as other people's driving affects my neighborhood, I hereby pledge to: Drive within the speed limit on city streets. • Stop to let pedestrians cross and be courteous to bicyclists and others. • Display my Pace Car Sticker and put something on or in my car that's designed to make others laugh. • Be a courteous and aware pedestrian when I am walking. • Be a courteous and aware cyclist when I am biking. • Have fun while caring for others. Signed Date: First Name: Street Address: Phone* * Optional Last Name: Zip Code: Email* Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 47 NTMP NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC fANAGEMENT PROGRAM Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 54 PROJECT APPLICATION Date: Neighborhood: Names of three to five Neighborhood representatives: Name of Contact Person: Local Address: Contact phone numbers: Which neighborhood street(s) are of concern? FORM Form NTMP1 (01120/05) What traffic problems have you identified affecting the above street(s)? Number of households and/or businesses identified in your petition area: Number of signatures received from households in your petition area: Please return the completed application form along with the signed petition forms to: NTMP Project Manager Collier County Transportation Services Division Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 2883 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239 - 213 -5834 Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 48 NTM--P NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 52 of 54 PAGE OF PETITION FORM Form NTMP2 01120/05 We, the undersigned, as residents of the neighborhood, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic problems on street(s), the problems being identified as And the development of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Project. Please list all addresses in the petition area. One signature per address. DATE NAME (please print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 49 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 53 of 54 Appendix: Roadways in Collier County Not Considered Local Facilities Airport- Pulling Road Bald Eagle Drive Bayshore Drive Bonita Beach Road Carson Road County Barn Road CR 29 (US 41 to end of Chokoskee Is- land Causeway) Davis Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette -Frank Road Green Boulevard Gulf Shore Drive CR 951 immokalee Road Interstate 75 Lake Trafford Road Logan Boulevard Livingston Road N. 1 st Street (immokalee) New Market Road N. 11th Street (Immokalee) Camp Keais Road Old 41 (CR 887) Pine Ridge Road Radio Road Rattlesnake- Hammock Road Santa Barbara Boulevard San Marco Road SR 29 SR 951 Tamiami Trail (US 41) Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 951 to Hammock Oak Drive) Vanderbilt Drive (111th Ave. N. to Bo- nita Beach Rd.) Westclox Road Wiggins Pass Road Roadways in the City of Naples Not Considered Local Facilities • Central Avenue (from Goodlette -Frank Rd. to 8th Street) • Fleischman Boulevard • Golden Gate Parkway • Goodlette -Frank Road • Tamiami Trail • 8th Street (from 4th Ave. N. to 8th Ave. S.) • 10th Street (from 5th Ave. N. to 5th Ave. S.) Coilier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 50 Agenda Item No. 10A February 22, 2005 Page 54 of 54 A�ck a dements The Collier County /Naples Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Traffic Calming Task Force created the Collier County /Naples Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). The MPO staff and the Task Force then formed the NTMP, incorporating a Traffic Calming Committee and a process for identifying, qualifying and addressing problems. This 2004 addition of the NTMP book is an updated version of the original booklet created by the Traffic Calming Task force in 1995. The NTMP would like to grate- fully acknowledge the members of the 2004 Traffic Calming Committee. These participants worked closely with NTMP staff during the revaluation of the NTMP process to establish threshold requirements and project ranking for prioritization of future traffic calming projects. A. Gail Boorman, RLA, ASLA, Chairperson • Karen Homiak, MPO's Citizen Advisory Committee • Sully Barker, MPO's Citizen Advisory Committee • Reed Jarvi P.E., Vanasse $ Daylor LLP • Chief Don Peterson, Golden Gate Fire Department • George Archibald, P.E., City of Naples Collier County Staff: Don Scott, Director Transportation Planning • Dale Bathon, Principal Project Manager • Lt. Harold Minch, Collier County Sheriffs Office • Chris Gonzalez, Collier County Sheriffs Office • Russ Muller, Collier County Engineering • Joe Quinty, Principal Planner • Jeanne Marcella, Planning Technician • Donald Schneider, Project Manager MTMP Other Resource Providers: David Engwicht, Co Founder Creative Communities International Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program NTMP 51 Agenda Item No. 10C February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve Collier County Government's participation with WGCU Public Broadcasting as a financial partner to produce a documentary series on the history and development of Collier County and its communities at a cost of $33,000 per year, over a period of three (3) years. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners to participate as a financial partner with WGCU Public Broadcasting in producing a nine- part series of televised video documentaries focusing on the history, settlement and cultural development of Collier County and its distinct communities at a cost of $33,000 per year over a three (3) year period. CONSIDERATION: At present, there is no centralized archive of Southwest Florida historical information, documents, oral histories or visual records available to the public. With the enthusiastic support of government and business leaders, historical institutions and organizations, local educators, and corporate and individual sponsors throughout Southwest Florida, WGCU Public Broadcasting has undertaken a multi -year project to record and preserve these resources before they are lost, and to make them readily available to students, researchers and the general public in an informative and enjoyable format. A number of these "Untold Stories" programs have already been professionally produced and aired, with over thirty more planned for Lee, Charlotte, Hendry and Desoto County over the next several years. Collier County Government has been invited by WGCU Public Broadcasting to participate as a principal information resource and financial partner in the production of a public media documentary series on the history and cultural development of Collier County. A total of nine, 30- minute, multi -media programs are planned, beginning with a general overview of the County's history, and followed by future programs devoted to the history and settlement of Naples, Everglades and Chokoloskee, Marco Island, Immokalee, the Ten Thousand Islands, the life and times of Barron Gift Collier, and the stories of Collier County's smaller rural communities. The programs will make extensive use of the Collier County Museum's historical image, artifact and document collections, as well as audio interviews with longtime residents, newspaper archives, family collections, historic film footage, and input from local archaeologists, scholars, educators and historians. Each program in the series will have multiple prime time broadcasts on WGCU -TV annually and will be made available to other Florida and national Public Broadcasting affiliates. In addition, each program will have related one to three - minute radio vignettes that will air concurrently on WGCU FM. A monthly in -depth article on the same subject will also be published in "expressions magazine ", the largest paid circulation monthly cultural arts magazine in Southwest Florida. Each program will be accessible to the general public and educators worldwide through WGCU.org, along with digitized photographs, complete audio interviews, and other supporting materials used in the Agenda Item No. 10C February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 3 program's creation. Hyperlinks to all area historical organizations will be integrated into the history program website to stimulate additional inquiry and independent research. School history curriculum materials including lesson plans, class work books and FCAT preparation materials will be produced, through consultation with school curriculum coordinators, for each program in the series. Each video documentary in the series costs approximately $35,000 to $40,000 to produce. WGCU is prepared to commit station funds and resources equal to $18,000 for each of the nine programs planned for Collier County, and will seek matching support from other local sponsors equivalent to 50% of the total production costs. Thus far, WGCU has received strong interest in the project from the Collier County Schools Superintendent, the Education Foundation of Collier County, members of Naples City government, and the Collier County Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board, and has scheduled additional presentations to local governing boards and agencies over the next month to secure financial support. WGCU Public Media's specific funding request to Collier County Government amounts to $33,000 per year (or $11,000 per program) over a period of three years, for a total financial commitment of $99,000. This level of support would produce three video documentaries per year. Funding for the project would begin in Fiscal Year 2006. WGCU intends to approach other financial partners in Collier County to secure the remaining balance needed each year. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding to assist with production of the initial series of three documentaries ($33,000) would be requested in the Collier County Museum's Fiscal Year 2006 budget, Fund 198, with a matching request of $33,000 per year to the Board and the Tourist Development Council over the following two years to complete the project as part of the Museum's annual budget allocation from tourist tax revenues. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no impact on the County's long range planning effort. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve Collier County Government's participation with WGCU Public Broadcasting as a financial partner to produce a nine -part documentary series on the history and cultural development of Collier County and its communities at a cost of $33,000 per year, over a period of three years. PREPARED BY: Ron Jamro Director, Collier County Museums Item Number Item Summary Meeting Date Approved By Ron Jamro Public Services Agenda Item No, 10C February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10C Recommendation to approve Collier County Government's participation with WGCU Public Broadcasting as a financial partner to produce a documentary series on the history and development of Collier County and its communities at a cost of $33,000 per year, over a period of three (3) years 2122/2005 9:00:00 AM Museum Director Museum Date 211112005 10:02 AM Approved By Maria Ramsey Parks & Recreation Director Date Public Services Parks and Recreation 211112005 10:56 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:32 AM Approved By Gary A. Vincent Management & Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112005 12:49 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112005 2:40 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211112005 4:55 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 92 -60 Relating to Tourist Development Taxes, as Amended, to expand the use of Category C -2 uses to include Municipal owned museums; to change the percentages of C -18 C -2 uses and to enable the use of surplus Tourist Tax Funds for additional promotion. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval to prepare and advertise an Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 92 -60, as Amended. CONSIDERATIONS: At the December 17, 2004 BCC/TDC Joint Workshop, The TDC and BCC discussed the following: 1. Increase Museums Category C -1 to 22 %; decrease Category C -2 to 4.764 %. 2. Use surplus funds over projected revenues from all categories for promotion. The change in Category C allocations was suggested as a way to fund the operating expenses of the Naples Depot as a County operated museum. Additionally, on July 27, 2004 the Board of County Commissioners approved including Municipally -Owned Museums in the C -2 grants category. At the BCC/TDC Joint Workshop, the BCC directed staff to take an ordinance proposal to TDC and then return to the BCC with a recommendation. TDC RECOMMENDATION: On January 24, 2005, the TDC recommended a change to the Tourist Tax Ordinance to make a single category for Category C Grants for all museums and to put all requests for Category C funds on an annual application basis. The TDC also recommended the term "publicly owned" in place of County and municipally owned facilities. The TDC also recommended using surplus funds over revenue projections from all categories at mid fiscal year for off - season advertising for one year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to follow the suggestion from the December 17, 2004 Joint Workshop to change the C -1 and C -2 allocation percentages. This change would result in the following wording. Words underlined are added; words stfeek dwough are deleted. Category C: To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one of more County owned or operated museums or municipal owned museums or museums that are owned and operated by not - for -profit organizations and open to the public. 26.764 %. C (1) County owned and or operated Museums: 4-9 22 %. C (2) Municipal owned museums and museums owned and operated by not - for -profit organizations open to the public: 7.764 4.764 %. Agenda Item No, 10D February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 35 Category A- no greater than 50% of the 2% tax and 100% of the 1% tax, reduced by the amount required for Category D, up to a maximum of the approved budget by Board of County Commissioners on or about October 1 of each Year. Category B: 23.236% of the 2% tax. An additional amount may be added at mid fiscal year on or about April 1 which will be based on the difference between the projected amounts of Categories A B and C on October 1 of the applicable fiscal year and the actual amount collected by April 1. Category C: No greater than 26.7641/10 of the 2% tax. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are or will be available in the FY 05 Tourism Department Budget. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: For BCC to direct staff to prepare and advertise an ordinance change with staffs proposed amendments; approve spending surplus Tourist Development funds in excess of the BCC approved projected revenue amount at March 31, 2005 for tourism advertising, promotion and other related tourism administrative expenses. PREPARED BY: Gail Hambright, Administrative Assistant, County Tourism Department Agenda Item No, 10D February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 35 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 10D Item Summary Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 92 -60 Relating to Tourist Development Taxes; as Amended, to expand the use of Category C -2 uses to include Municipal owned museums; to change the percentages of C -1& C -2 uses and to enable the use of surplus Tourist Tax Funds for additional promotion. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Jack Wert Tourism Director Date County Manager's Office Tourism 2!972005 1:35 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 21912005 3:12 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211512005 7:57 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211 672005 10:00 AM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 1 OD February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 35 INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE Eve rglades"'"''^,, Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 35 1 We Must Renourish Our Target Markets The Same Way We Renourish Our Beaches 1 Beaches Beautiful, but do not Sell Themselves - We Must Promote Them Promotion Will Increase Beach Renourishment Funds and Visitor Spending 1 Currently Losing New & Repeat Visitors and Market Share to Other Sun Destinations Potential Customers Tell Us They Would React Favorably if They Saw Our Advertising Agenda Item No. 10D February 22. 2005 Page 6 of 35 Factors in Maintaining Market Share In 2005 1 Improved US Economy Gives Many Choices for Spending Discretionary Vacation Dollars 1 Weak US Dollar Makes Us a Great Bargain for International Visitors Many More Destinations With Big Promotion Budgets Vying for Those Same Vacation Dollars Extraordinary Weather Events of 2004 Make Future July- September's a Concern Agenda Item No. 10G February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 35 I — D990;p T I:j; Sir, 4no Vs] A P l April - October Campaign in Florida Year -Round Employment Goal 1 2004 - Best Off - Season Ever l Set Records from April- November - Tourist Tax + 15% - Visitation + 10% -Spending + 15% Agenda Item No. 10D February 22. 2005 Page S of 35 COMPETITION OUTSPENDS US Budget per Room in US$ Tourism Development Investment by Room by County 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 QJ G Q Counties Agenda Item No. 1 OD February 22. 2005 Page 9 of 35 Collier County 3% _ $9.5 Million Z 10,500 Lodging Units (20% Condos) 1 $1.2 Million Advertising & Promotion 1 $6.3 Million for Beach Projects (66 %) Marketing Per Lodging Unit = $104 Agenda Item No. 1DD February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 35 Lee County 1 3% = $11.2 Million 1 30,589 Lodging Units (Condos 33 %) 1 $6 Million for Marketing & Advertising 1 $3.7 Million for Beach Projects (33 %) 1 Marketing per Lodging Unit = $196 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 35 Manatee County 1 4% = $P4 Million 6,500 Lodging Units 1 $2.0 Million for Advertising & Marketing $1.3 Million /yr for Beach Projects (33 %) Marketing per Lodging Unit $ 308 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 35 Pinellas County 1 4% = $16.3 Million � 35,000 Lodging Units (33% Condo) � $8.3 Million Advertising and Promotion 1 $2 Million for Beach Projects (12.5 %) 1 Marketing Per Lodging Unit - $237 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 35 Palm Beach County 1 4% = $17.3 million 1 15,213 Lodging Units 1 $9.3 Million Advertising and Promotion 1 $5.1 Million /yr for Beach Projects (29 %) 1 Marketing per Lodging Unit = $611 Agenda Item No. 1 OD February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 35 Broward County 1 5% _ $28.1 Million 1 32,000 Lodging Units 1 $10 Million Advertising & Promotion l $1.2 Million /Year Beach Projects (4 %) Marketing per Lodging Unit = $313 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 35 REFERENDUM IN 1992 1 Established the Tourist Development Tax and the Tourist Development Council 1 County Ordinance # 92 -60 Plan for 2 Years - 60% of tax for Beach Improvements, Maintenance - 40% of tax to Promote and Advertise Tourism Agenda Item No. 1 OD February 22. 2005 Page 16 of 35 CURRENT Tourist Tax Allocations Category A- Beach and Beach Park Facilities 5.0% of first two cents; 100% of third cent = 66.67% of total collected Category B - Advertising and Promotion 23.236% of first two cents = 15.49% of total collected Category C - Museums 26.764% of first two cents = 17.84% of total collected C -1 County Owned or Operated - 12.67% C -2 Non - County owned & operated- 5.17% 1a Item No. 10D bruary 22, 2005 Page 17 of 35 ART Jan Feb Tar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual To ° 9 $640,480 $1,267,608 $1,306,337 $1,371,476 $784,828 $488,060 $364,769 $433,174 $345,034 $308,085 $429,607 $512,722 $8,252,18! " " 0 $700,014 $1,238,022 $1,410,142 $1,465,756 $855,005 $521,455 $451,648 $414,920 $364,720 $340,269 $402,161 $567,687 $8,731,79, 1 $729,455 $1,392,218 $1,484,889 $1,560,447 $889,288 $553,759 $$$$$433441695504280,53920280509 1 $$$$$434548722740615,70800235202 $$$$$334546908550180,66060550500 $$$$$223337147774015,30310600907 $$$$$333547713085410,33090885606 $$$$$445565986035710,33110243506 $$$8,856,07 $583,811 $1,2 27,724 $1,413,825 $1,533,919 $821,961 $494,2 6 0 2 4 5 3 $597,396 $1,138,004 $1,356,372 $1,480,581 $6134 550 5 1 1 1 1 6 2 $$6 2 4 $689,368 $1,204,591 $1,674,850 6 88,0 $1$,091080,,,80807 $$5680380,,,4400 52 3 7 3 4 5 8 !,343,,.,3 894 25 l T. ' $600,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 , ,35 $550000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,000 00 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22. 2005 Page 18 of 35 TOURIST TAX REVENUE MINUS 2004 HURRICANE IMPACT + 12.8% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual To - 9 $640,480 $1,267,608 $1,306,337 $1,371,476 $784,828 $488,060 $364,769 $433,174 $345,034 $308,085 $429,607 $512,722 $8,252,18 a $700,014 $1,238,022 $1,410,142 $1,465,756 $855,005 $521,455 $451,648 $414,920 $364,720 $340,269 $402,161 $567,687 $8,' '1 $729,455 $1,392,218 $1,484,889 $1,560,447 $889,288 $553,759 $410,521 $484,722 $361,650 $217,367 $318,386 $453,326 $8,8o "'a 2 $583,811 $1,227,724 $1,413,825 $1,533,979 $821,961 $494,400 $364,389 $370,036 $395,650 $271,002 $375,384 $491,145 $8,343,30, 3 $597,396 $1,138,004 $1,356,372 $1,480,581 $873,340 $553,456 $398,901 $426,851 $408,007 $340,101 $377,056 $585,332 $8,535,39 „ 2004 $689,388 $1,204,591 $1,674,850 $1,688,035 $1,018,887 $588,052 $452,253 $426,851 $408,007 $374,394 $534,965 $567,158 $9,627,43 $600,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,550,000 $900,000 $600,000 $450,000 $475,000 $450,000 $375,000 $400,000 $600,000 $9,000,00, Agenda Item No. 10D February 22. 2005 Page 19 of 35 TOURIST TAX COMPARISIONS 1 1999 -2000 1 2000 -2001 1 2001 -2002 2002 -2003 1 2003 -2004 +5.8% Even -5.8% +2.3% +15.9% (12.8% w/o Aug /Sept) Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 35 MARKETING INVESTMENT IN 2004 BCC Approved $400,000 from Category "B" Promotion Reserves on 10/14/03 - $300,000 for New Advertising - $50,000 for Public Relations - $25,000 for Promotional Items - $25,000 for Trade Show Booth Agenda Item No. 1 OD February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 35 $300,000 Advertising Investment April — August 2004 TV in Miami /Ft. Lauderdale /Palm Beach $225,000 Upscale Corporate Magazines in S.E. Fla. $239000 - Business Week, Forbes, Fortune, Money, etc. Upscale Family Magazines in S.E. Florida $12,000 - Bon Appetit, Country Home, Food & Wine, House & Garden, This Old House, etc. Newspapers in S.E. Florida $30,000 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22. 2005 Page 22 of 35 RETURN ON INVESTMENT $300,000 in Advertising- 2004 TOTAL Per $ Inv. New Visitor Expenditures* $5,781,000 $19.27 Sales Tax Revenue TDC Tax Revenue 3125000 1.04 63,000 .21 * Does not Include Repeat Visitors Representing 60% of our Visitor Market Evans- Klages, Inc. 1 -17 -05 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 35 1 Enhance Promotion of Our Beautiful Beaches During the Critical '05 Off - Season (April- October) 1 Invest Surplus Tourist Tax Revenue Received From First Half of Fiscal Year (10/1 - 3/31) Earn Additional Tourist Tax Revenue for Beach Renourishment, Promotion & Museums During Second Half of `05 (4/1 — 9/30) for Future Use 1 Promote to New Target Markets - Midwest - Northeast - International Participate in New Visit Florida Co -Op Program Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 35 HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE -FY 04 Total Projected $8,446,000 — 50% Collected by 3/31/04 Budget Actual Surplus for 3/31/04 3/31/04 Investment "A" $2,821,000 $392475600 $426,600 "B" 655,500 754,600 993100 "C -1 " 536,000 6175000 815000 "C -2" 219,000 252,100 33,100 TOTAL$4,231,500 $498719300 $639,800 County Office of Management & Budget 1/10/05 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22: 2005 Page 25 of 35 il� i i ''i • i New Visitor Expenditures* Sales Tax Revenue TDC Tax $12,3285946 6655392 134,358 Per Inv. $19.27 1.04 .21 * Does Not Include Repeat Visitation Representing 60% of our Visitor Market Agenda item No. 10€7 February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 35 PROPOSED 2005 INVESTMENT Total Projected $9,486,000 - 50% Collected by 3/31/05 Budget Actual Surplus for 3/31/05 3/31/05* Investment "A" $3,1623000 $39628,400 $466,400 "B" 734,700 8433700 1089500 "C -1 " 6005800 6899600 889800 "C -2" 245,500 281,800 36,300 TOTAL$4,231,500 $458719300 $7009000 * Projected Based on 2004 Results County Office of Management & Budget 1/17/05 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 35 ROI ON PROPOSED 2005 SURPLUS REVENUE INVESTMENT Projected Surplus $700,000 at 3/31/05 TOTAL Per $ Inv. New Visitor Expenditures * $1354895946 $19.27 Sales Tax Revenue 728,400 1.04 TDC Tax 147,000 .21 * Does Not Include Repeat Visitation Which Represents 60% of our Visitor Market Agenda Item No. 10D February 22. 2005 Page 28 of 35 ROI TO TOURIST TAX ON $700,000 INVESTMENT BY CATEGORY- 2005 1 Beaches "A" 1 Advertising "B" 1 Museums "C -1 " 1 Museums "C -2" TOTAL $ 98,000 $ 22,800 $ 18,600 $ 7,600 $147,000 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 35 BENEFITS OF INVESTING SURPLUS REVENUE z Beaches, Museums and Promotion all Receive More Tourist Tax Revenue 4/1- 9/30/05 1 County Receives More Sales & Gas Tax 1 Puts Stagnant Tourism Funds to Work Earning a Return z Nearly Every Collier County Business Receives Increased Visitor Expenditures Agenda ftem No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 35 BENEFITS OF INVESTING SURPLUS REVENUE 1 Year- Round Employment Continues 1 We Maintain Our Market Share With Competition 1 New Revenue and Spending from New or Under Performing Target Markets- Domestic & International 1 Marketing Dollars Invested Per Lodging Unit Improves to $249 1 We Protect July- September (Hurricane Season) Revenue for Leisure and Group ENHANCED MARKETING STRATEGIES Spot TV Chicago /New York Markets 1 Visit Florida Co -op- Radio, Newspaper, Meetings Market 1 tan -Line e- Blasts & Pay Per Click Niche Markets- Nature, Golf, Fishing 1 International Representation 1 Public Relations Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 35 $400,000 $125,000 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 75,000 Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 35 1. Approve 1/24/05 TDC Recommendation to Invest Surplus Tourist Tax Revenue Funds at Mid - Fiscal Year (4/1/05) in Additional Off - Season Advertising (April - October) of Our Beaches and Visitor Amenities 2. Direct Staff to Prepare & Advertise an Ordinance Amendment to Adopt Changes to Invest Surplus Tourist Tax Funds for Off- Season Promotion and Allocations to Museum Categories Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 35 INVEST IN OUR FUTURE Agenda Item No. 40D �� ruar 22, 2005 OI!wICE Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee FEB 14 2W5 3050 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 218, Naples, FL ACTION (239)213-2966 February 10, 2005 Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Collier County Government Center 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Dear Chairman Coyle, In accordance with Collier County Ordinance 2001 -3, the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) was established. The prescribed function, powers and duties of the CAC include advising and making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the TDC on matters pertaining to beach erosion control programs. Relating to the assigned duties and responsibilities of the CAC, the Committee has recently learned the Director of Tourism is recommending diversion of Category "A" Tourist Development Tax funds. These funds, allocated for beach maintenance, would then be diverted to tourism development Category "B" use. Although of significant concern to the CAC, this proposal was never brought to us for comment. The Director of Tourism has designated the funds to be diverted as "surplus ". The funds are those at mid -fiscal -year which exceed original projection. However, in no way can these funds be considered "surplus ". By definition, (Webster's ninth) "surplus is the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied." Factually, we have been advised by staff of a funding shortfall necessitating use of required Emergency Reserve funds to meet current beach related requirements. Additionally we have unanticipated requirements from DEP for our major renourishment program. The Director of Tourism projects at March 31, 2005 the "surplus" would be $700,000 of which 2/3 ($467,000) would be from Category "A" funds. This approximates our current cost for the emergent required dredging of Wiggins Pass. The $467,000 is required to meet the continuing needs of our beach programs for this Fiscal Year. At the last TDC meeting many hotel representatives were there in support of the Tourism Director's proposal. They all cited how great business was the past year and so far this year, best ever. However, the forecast was doom and gloom for the fourth quarter in that they are not getting reservations because of fear of another hurricane season. Accordingly, they want more tourism funding in hopes of improving the situation. As hurricanes are being forecast, the ability to improve the fourth quarter is highly questionable. However, without question we can expect a downturn of tourism in the fourth quarter, making our need for the increased mid -year funds even greater than ever. Agenda Item No. 10D February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 35 In accordance with the foregoing, it is the considered and unanimous advice of the Coastal Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners that there are no surplus funds available from Fiscal Year 2005 Tourist Development Category "A" funds and any diversion of existing funds will be detrimental to our beach erosion control programs. Cc: Commissioner Fiala Commissioner Halas Commissioner Henning Commissioner Coletta County Manager Mudd Director of Tourism Wert Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve a Resolution to Urge the 2005 Florida Legislature to Adopt Legislation allowing Local Governments to use Photographic Traffic Control Systems in the Enforcement of Red Light Running Violations OBJECTIVE: Adoption of a Resolution urging the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation allowing local governments to use photographic traffic control systems in the detection and enforcement of red light violations in order to enhance safety at signalized intersections. CONSIDERATIONS: The incidents of red light running by Collier County motorists is an increasing problem. Running a red light is behavior that is dangerous, not only to the driver, but to the life and property of other drivers, passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians. Photographic traffic control systems (red light cameras) in use by other states, have been shown to provide efficient detection and punishment of violators without a violation of privacy, reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, and deter future violations at signalized intersections. Currently, Florida Statutes do not allow local governments to use photographic traffic control systems to enforce red light running violations. The Resolution urges the Florida State Legislature to consider implementation of legislation allowing local governments to use these systems in the enforcement of red light running violations. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this Executive Summary. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to urge the 2005 Florida Legislature to adopt legislation to allow local governments to use photographic traffic control systems in the enforcement of red light running violations. Prepared By: Dan E Summers, CEM Director, Bureau of Emergency Services Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 94 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 10E Item Summary Approve a Resolution urging the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation allowing local governments to use photographic traffic control systems in the detection and enforcement of red light violations to enhance safety at signalized intersections. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Darcy Waldron Senior Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Emergency Management 2/1012006 4:01 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date Bureau of Emergency Services Office of Management & Budget 2/1112006 2:68 PM Dan E. Summers Director Data County Manager's Office Bureau of Emergency Services 2110/2005 4:22 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2006 9:03 AM Approved By Mark isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112006 2:33 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112006 2:68 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211412006 10:32 AM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 10E RESOLUTION NO. 2005- February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 94 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO URGE THE 2005 FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT LEGISLATION WHICH ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO USE PHOTOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RED LIGHT RUNNING VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, running a red light is an aggressive driving behavior that can seriously injure or kill others and Is not only dangerous to the driver of the motor vehicle, but also to the life and property of other innocent individuals such as other drivers, passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, drivers usually increase their speed when running a red light, which can result in collisions causing more severe injuries and damage than other intersection collisions, sometimes leading to death; and WHEREAS, red light camera technology, available and in use by many local governments in other states for many years, has been shown to provide both efficient and effective punishment for violators without an Invasion of privacy, as well as a deterrence from future violations; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners agree that it is time for local governments in Florida to be statutorily authorized to use photographic traffic control systems In enforcement of red light running violations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board respectfully urges the Florida State Legislature to consider the implementation of legislation that will allow local governments to enforce red light running violations through the use of photographic traffic control systems. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Robert N. WhSry Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED W. COYLE, Chairman I City of Greensboro SafeLig--hit- Pro Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Prepared for: (3 GREENSBORO Prepared bv: ❑IGmley -Horn and Associates, Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 94 August 2004 Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 94 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse or an improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final e 6 of 94 Executive Summary Red light running has become an issue in the United States with over 25o,000 annual crashes at intersections attributed to red light running resulting in nearly goo fatalities per year. The City of Greensboro, along with other municipalities in North Carolina, had experienced the effects of decreased safety due to red light running and set out to specifically address this problem. In 199g, there were 498 traffic accidents in Greensboro attributed to red light running that resulted in 274 personal injuries. In 2000, the City of Greensboro established SafeLight, a red light photo enforcement program with three main objectives: 1. Enhance safety at signalized intersections in Greensboro by reducing the frequency and /or severity of crashes caused by red light running 2. Provide an additional method of violation enforcement so that police can use resources to fulfill other objectives g. Raise awareness of safe driving practices in Greensboro In October 2000, the City of Greensboro (the City) contracted with Peek Traffic Inc. to install and operate a red light photo enforcement system. In February 2001, Peek Traffic installed the first two automated red light cameras in the City of Greensboro. By November 2001, all 18 SafeLight cameras were operational and issuing red light running citations. With the exception of a few minor outages, the 18 cameras have been operational for nearly three years. As the initial contract period between Greensboro and Peek Traffic drew to a close, the City contracted with Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. in early 2004 to perform a comprehensive program review of the SafeUght program and determine whether the program was meeting the City's objectives. The Greensboro program manager requested a program review and analysis that covered all aspects of the three objectives. Objective 1— Enhance Safety The first objective of Greensboro's SafeLight program is to enhance safety at signalized intersections by reducing the instances of red light running and number of crashes caused by red light running. Angle accidents are among the most severe types of crashes that can occur at an intersection. There are only two ways vehicles can be traveling in opposition through an intersection controlled by a traffic signal. One is if the signal has lost power and is not functioning. In this case, the intersection technically is not operating under signal control and should function as a multi-way stop. The other is if one vehicle has violated the signal and has entered the intersection on a red indication. Red light cameras are installed at intersections for the purpose of identifying and ticketing drivers violating the law by entering intersections on a red indication. The cameras were installed to supplement or replace customary police surveillance. In Greensboro and other North Carolina municipalities, the fine for this violation is $50 if cited by photo enforcement. Considered a civil offense with no points assessed to the driver or vehicle owner, the citation is issued to the registered vehicle owner according to DMV records based on the license tag number. In contrast, drivers ticketed for running a red light by a law enforcement officer in North Carolina are assessed a fine of $125 August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final e 7 of 94 GREENfRORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM iii Citations Over rime _ ,_., Y 3500 A r� h 2.000 JJ ..... ._...._____.... _. ...._.__.. ......__...._ ......___ ..... .. ....... ........ r 1.000 --'--'-- i 501 a a; g ;, s s s a c et y g C 0 a m y 0 0 r e ®, s a e e s p w E E:�1411 XIAl l.tk<" ass &IsaatS;9ka46ll:ff (consisting of a $25 penalty and $loo court costs) and three points on their driver's license. Citation Summary During the course of the program to- date, over 89,000 citations have been issued. Looking at numbers of citations issued each month in the graph of citations over time, the citation rates dipped the most between December 2002 and February 2003, although citations rose in the next several months in 2003. Summing citations annually and normalizing for the number of cameras and months each was active each year, average monthly citations declined 17% from 2001 to 2004. Because enhanced safety is the first objective of the SafeLight program, program managers expect the number of citations issued to decline over time as drivers begin to comply more often with the red indication. The greatest reductions in violations occurred during the first year of the program, which is likely a result of the public information campaign by the City and media attention during that first year. The average monthly citations issued in the first quarter of 2004 increased at most locations over the 2003 monthly averages. Crash Summary The crash data used for the before - and -after study of the red light photo enforcement program in Greensboro was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System ( TEAAS). The installation dates of each of the cameras were provided by Peek Traffic. Because NCDOT prepared the crash analysis, the last available crash data from the Department of Motor Vehicles in TEAAS is through September 30, 2003. To create the longest study period possible, NCDOT analysts determined the length of the after period for each intersection to be the length of time between the end of the adjustment period and September 30, 2003. The before period mirrors the after period in length so that the before - and -after crash statistics can be compared. The average daily traffic (ADT) for the median year was used to generate rates for all years so they can be compared to each other. Overall, 15 of the 18 intersections saw reductions, or improvements, in at least one measure of effectiveness from the before period to the after period. While the statistical significance of such results maybe debated due to the small number of locations and the small number of crashes at each intersection, the total number of crashes at all 18 August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final ReP"e 8 of 94 intersections went down by 4% from 776 to 746 with a standard deviation of 0.049, and the number of angle crashes — usually the more severe crash type — went down by 14% from aoq to 26s with a standard deviation of 0.071. Objective i Findings The, first objective of enhancing safety has been achieved The analysis shows a 4% reduction in total crashes and a 14% reduction in angle crashes during the study period from an equivalent before period. The rates of citations issued for the total program decreased 17% from 2001 to April 2004, and several of the intersections saw significant reductions in citations from inception through December 2003. Objective 2 - Provide Additional Enforcement The second objective of Greensboro's SafeLight program is to provide photo enforcement as an additional method of violation enforcement. The benefit to Greensboro Police Department (GPD) traffic enforcement officers would be that they could use their limited resources elsewhere to make the City safer. GPD likes the fact that the cameras are able to clearly record motorists who are breaking the law. In some cases, the police have used the camera images to identify hit and run vehicles. GPD believes that the existence of the 18 red light running cameras in Greensboro aids the officers in monitoring approaches at intersections and enforcing traffic laws. To allow the GPD to benefit from the presence of photo enforcement, traffic enforcement officers as a practice do not monitor photo enforced intersection approaches for red light running violations. This allows these officers to focus more time on monitoring the other approaches at these intersections or at other intersections and monitoring for other types of violations. In 2000, the year before the red light cameras were installed in Greensboro, GPD issued 1,446 red light running citations between January 1 and December 31. In 2003, the most recent calendar year in which all 18 cameras were operational, GPD issued 1,043 red light running citations. This is a decrease of 403 citations or a 28% reduction in citations issued from 2000 to 2003. If an officer takes so minutes to issue a citation, as reported by the GPD, the 89,000 citations issued by the Safelight Program since inception would have taken nearly 15,000 hours of officers' time. This would equate to 2 -3 additional officers doing nothing but issuing red light running citations full time for 3 years. At a reported cost of $21.13 per hour for a law enforcement officer's salary and benefits, it would have cost the city over $300,000 to have officers issue the same number of citations as the cameras have over the program duration. Moreover, had the citations been issued by a law enforcement officer rather than through the SafeUght program, they would have carried points and a fine and court costs of $125, which also would have resulted in additional costs to the citizens of Greensboro. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. iii Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final ReP"e 9 of 94 Objective s Findings The second objective of providing additional enforcement has been achieved by contracting with Peek Traffic to install and maintain 18 red light cameras. The Greensboro Police Department reported they do not enforce red light running on photo enforced intersection approaches. This gives the Department time to focus on other locations and other moving violations. Objective 3 — Raise Awareness The third objective of Greensboro's Safel fight program is to raise awareness of safe driving practices in Greensboro. To evaluate the degree to which the program is meeting this objective, it is necessary to investigate the methods employed by the City to educate the public and how the program has been perceived in the media. Media Review Summary Individual citizens and some elected officials have taken issue with red light photo enforcement programs across the country, and the media has aired or printed their viewpoints in several instances. A primary theme throughout several articles is the perception that government agencies are providing a mechanism for private companies to profit at the expense of its citizens and that the point of the programs is to generate revenue rather than to improve safety. Some imply that system operators have chosen locations and adjusted clearance times to maximize revenue. The right to due process, violation of privacy, the presumption of guilt, and the fining of vehicle owners without proof of driver identification are other themes seen in news articles critical of photo enforcement programs. Articles portraying the benefits of red light camera programs report the reduction in crashes and decrease in citations issued. Articles also report what other safety improvements have benefited the community with revenues from the paid citations. Many, if not all, systems have been portrayed positively and negatively by the media at one time or another. In the Triad region, many news reports have centered on the issues raised by the High Point lawsuit. Program Outreach Summary Before the first camera was installed, the City of Greensboro had begun a planned outreach campaign to educate the citizens about the SafeUght program. The campaign focused on reaching the public through the media and through direct contact. The City issued press releases that introduced the Safelgight program and then issued a press release when each red light camera was turned on. Many local media outlets picked up on the press releases and reported on the SafeLight program status. In addition, the City used its own community access Channel 13 to reach the public. In cooperation with the SafeUght Charlotte program, a fifteen minute video was produced that explained the SafeUght program and its operations. In 2002, as the cameras were being installed, this video was shown eight times a day on Channel 13 for about six months. The City also went directly to the citizens to educate them on the Safel fight program. A flyer explaining the program was distributed with water bills mailed to citizens in 2002 reaching nearly go,000 Greensboro residents. In addition, the program provided about 5,000 Safel fight brochures, io,000 SafeLight bumper stickers, and io,000 children's flashing Safelight buttons for August 2004 iv Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final I ft 10 of 94 distribution to Greensboro citizens. Finally, City staff met with the public at 25 civic group meetings to give a presentation on the SafeLight program and at "City Hall in the Mall" events. Objective 3 Findings The City has met the third objective of raising awareness of safe driving practices by actively participating in marketing the program. The City has distributed several types of marketing materials for the SafeLight program and has been open and cooperative with the media regarding the program. In addition, funds from SafeLight have gone toward other safe driving programs in Greensboro. Program Compliance with State and Local Laws The operation of Greensboro's SafeLight program is fully compliant with state and local laws. In fact, the program has extended the payment window for citations beyond the period stated in the Greensboro ordinance. In January 2003 the City made a policy decision to extend the period for an individual to pay or appeal a citation from 21 to 28 days. The purpose of this change was to be more consistent with other City payment processes and hopefully increase the collection rate for penalties. The North Carolina General Statute allowing the operation of red light cameras requires that the clearance intervals be calculated by methods that are contained in the Design Manual published by the Signals and Geometric Section of NCDOT. The yellow change and red clearance intervals are used in traffic signals to allow motorists approaching the intersection to have sufficient time to clear the intersection at the termination of the green before displaying a green indication to the conflicting traffic. The amount of time given is a function of the posted or average speed, the grade of the approach, and the width of the intersection that vehicles must traverse. The yellow change and red clearance intervals at the 18 SafeUght intersections comply with the NCDOT guidelines. Program Compliance with Federal Guidelines In 2003, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a report on red light cameras titled, Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras. The report was in response to the rapid deployment of red light photo enforcement programs in the United States and the often inconsistent implementation of these programs. The FHWA presented proven and effective practices to provide guidance in addressing red light runners and how to implement a red light photo enforcement program if deemed beneficial. The guidelines were published by the FHWA two years after Greensboro had its first red light camera installed and operational. Nevertheless, Greensboro's red light photo enforcement program adheres to the majority of the guidelines. One area where the Greensboro program differs from the FHWA guidelines is system procurement and contracting. The FHWA report suggests that when a private contractor is responsible for processing citations, the contractor's compensation should not be based on the number of citations issued (i.e., receiving a percentage of the citation fines). The FHWA believes this type of payment arrangement to be a conflict of interest with the potential for impairing the contractor's judgment regarding installation and operation of the red light camera system. The City has addressed this concern by reducing the per citation August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc,. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final 11 of 94 payment as the number of citations increases, which limits the contractor's proceeds, and by having a system of checks and balances limiting independent decisions made by the contractor about system operations. Program Financial Review According to the City, the revenue collected from the more than 89,000 citations issued during the three - year SafeLight program has exceeded $3.4 million. During this time, Greensboro paid Peek Traffic approximately $2.3 million to operate the program according to the payment schedule in the contract. Greensboro spent nearly $i5o,000 on adjudication for those who appealed the citations and paid over $8,000 to the Department of Motor Vehicles to allow Peek Traffic to access vehicle registration records. rA ueo�u4;Fi7 cnMCw, r "cH.xnn� � r. Nark" oa rrt A rtuv MNL"tn:�� rsNY.xwlw u}esv }.r..r .wrq,+.�� -- xq.wNY.w.a.... �C.q}q.ugt es� YMMt /W wlMr�. Rnan..KwW Gq.q.Yl}O. N.. 1 %Mli �. Nx•^r' .W y}}»:eg6 u. .1K }}yy ��r.wg•YYw.<..m..g.g.r.g 'hN,gygwMlu. Mibml b Your n.gwy �In.mrn�ull pr�olfpq(�1fi1 V..gMSrpq With the remaining funds from the citations, the City r - f:. has financed safety programs. The City helped to ��" ST� *'RED UNrcr fund the Neighborhood Speed Watch and Pace Car program. These safety programs attempt to lower speeds in the City through various initiatives. Specifically, some of the photo enforcement revenues were spent purchasing radar /display units for citizens to use in their neighborhoods to help combat speeding. The City also purchased 30 portable generators to power traffic signals during power outages that can occur due to storm events. Providing temporary power to signals in critical areas will help maintain order and minimize congestion and dashes during prolonged power outages. The City currently retains a balance of over $goo,000 that will be used to fund safety improvements. To operate photo enforcement systems, contractors are generally paid either on a lump sum or per- citation basis. Lump sum payments reduce the perception that systems are designed to maximize citations and revenue but per - citation payments ensure the system is well maintained and operating effectively by tying the revenue to issuance of citations. In Greensboro, which has a per- citation payment contract, the City selected the sites and set the clearance times. The system includes a 0.2- second grace period after the light changes from yellow to red before a violation is considered to have occurred. Finally, the percentage of payment to the contractor from each citation decreases as the number of citations increases. The contractor has little ability or incentive to make changes to increase the numbers of valid citations issued. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Vi Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final 12 of 94 Conclusions and Recommendations Currently, the SafeLight program has been operational for three years and the City is considering renewing the contract to provide red light photo enforcement in Greensboro. The City is meeting the objectives it set for the program to date. Based on the findings in this report, the following items are recommendations for the City to consider as they enter the next phase of the SafeLight program. • When renewing the contract with the red light camera provider, consider a lump sum payment schedule rather than a per- citation payment schedule. This may eliminate perceptions that the SafeLight program has the sole purpose of generating revenue. Revisit the selection of intersections with red light cameras. Locations where crashes and red light violations are not decreasing do not meet the first objective of the program and may be more suited for alternate engineering or enforcement countermeasures to enhance safety. Also, consider using updated crash statistics and solicit input from the Police Department to identify potential new locations for red light cameras. Continue to invest in program outreach to educate the public about the SafeLight program. The program could target new drivers through presentations at high schools and driver education classes. The program could provide annual reports that highlight the benefits of the program and the benefits of the revenue that is generated. Finally, Greensboro staff should work with local media to publicize the benefits of the system. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. MT- Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final RIPWO 13 of 94 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................... » .................................... ...... ............... » » » ... ... » » .................. .1 1.1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND ............................................................................... ............................... 1 1.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... ............................... 5 1.3 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ ............................... 5 2 OBJECTIVE 1— ENHANCE SAFETY .......... ... .. ......... ............................................................. 7 2.1 CITATION AND VIOLATION ANALYSIS ............................................................ ............................... 7 21.1 Citation Trends ...................................................................................... ............................... 7 2.1.2 Appealed and Paid Citation Trends .................................................... ............................... 11 2.1.3 Citation Summary ................................................................................ ............................... Il 2.2 SAFETY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ ............................... 12 2.2.1 Crash Evaluation Methodology ........................................................... ............................... 12 2.2.2 Educational Background ..................................................................... ............................... 12 2.2.3 Program Safety Analysis ..................................................................... ............................... 15 2.2.4 Resul ts ................................................................................................... .............................19 2.3 INVENTORY AND OBSERVATIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................ ............................... 20 2.4 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... ............................... 23 2.4.1 NCA& TStudy ....................................................................................... .............................23 2.4.2 NCHRP Synthesis ................................................................................ ............................... 26 2.5 OBJECTIVE 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ ............................... 27 3 OBJECTIVE 2 — PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT..„..„..». .....»..... »...... » »........ » ». 29 3.1 GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES ......................................... ............................... 29 3.2 GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT CITATIONS .......................................... ............................... 29 3.3 OBJECTIVE 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ ............................... 30 4 OBJECTIVE 3 — RAISE AWARENESS...»....».....»..»»» ....................»..„. ...... » »................. »....» 31 4.1 PROGRAM OUTREACH ................................................................................... ............................... 31 4.2 MEDIA REvIEw ............................................................................................. ............................... 31 4.3 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY ............................................................................. ............................... 32 4.4 OBJECTIVE 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ ............................... 32 5 LEGAL REVIEW...„ ..............„..........».......»............................»..»..»............ ........................... „... 34 5.1 RED LIGHT RUNNING REGULATIONS ............................................................ ............................... 34 5.2 PHOTO ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS .......................................................... ............................... 34 5.3 LEGAL CHALLENGES .................................................................................... ............................... 35 5.4 HIGH POINT LAWSUIT ................................................................................... ............................... 36 5.5 PROGRAM COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS ............................. ............................... 38 6 PROGRAM OPERATIONS REVIEW ..................»......„»......».................. „........... ».. » ».............. 39 6.1 NORTH CAROLINA RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS .............. ............................... 39 6.1.1 Fayetteville SafeLight Program .......................................................... ............................... 40 6.1.2 Rocky Mount Safe.Light Program ........................................................ ............................... 41 6.1.3 Wilmington SafeLight Program ........................................................... ............................... 41 6.2 FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS .. ............................... 42 7 PROGRAM FINANCIAL REVIEW ......................„..»......».................. .. „.. „ »............ » „ ».... » » „.. 44 8 PROGRAM CONTRACT REVIEW ...... » ..................»..„..»....................».. .. »........................ » ».. 45 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... .................................. „........................ „..... 48 August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. viii Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red. Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final 14 of 94 10 MATIONS .»............»......»..»..»............»....» .........................»..»»........ .............. » ».... ».......... 50 10.1 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. ............................... 50 10.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. ............................... 50 August 2004 ix Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 1 OE February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final 15 of 94 List of Figures FIGURE 1. GREENSBORO SAFELIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS ........ FIGURE 2. CITATIONS OVER TIME ................. ............................... FIGURE 3. CITATIONS OVER TIME PER INTERSECTION ................. List of Tables .......................... ............................... 2 ........................ ............................... 10 ........................ ............................... 10 TABLE 1. GREENSBORO SAFELIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS ............................................... ............................... 3 TABLE 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL MONTHLY CITATIONS ISSUED ........................................... ............................... 8 TABLE 3. CITATIONS ISSUED BY LOCATION AND YEAR .................................................... ............................... 9 TABLE 4. SAFELIGHT DUPLICATE VIOLATORS SUMMARY ............................................. ............................... 12 TABLE 5. CRASH ANALYSIS PERIODS ............................................................................. ............................... 15 TABLE 6. BEFORE PERIOD CRASH ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................. ............................... 18 TABLE 7. AFTER PERIOD CRASH ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................... ............................... 18 TABLE 8. PERCENT DIFFERENCES FROM BEFORE TO AFTER PERIODS ............................ ............................... 19 TABLE 9. INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................. ............................... 21 TABLE 10. NORTH CAROLINA RED LIGHT PROGRAMS ................................................... ............................... 39 TABLE 11. SAFELIGHT FINANCIAL SUMMARY, 2001 -2004 ............................................ ............................... 44 List of Appendices APPENDDC A. SAMPLE SAFELIGHT CITATION APPENDDC B. CITATTON TRENDS GRAPHS APPENDIX C. SAFELIGHT FLYER APPENDDC D. SAFELIGHT BROCHURE APPENDDC E. NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES: CHAPTER 16OA -300.1 APPENDDC F. CITY OF GREENSBORO ORDINANCE: SECTION 16-58 APPENDDC G. FIELD INVENTORY PHOTOS APPENDD{ H. FIELD INVENTORY DATA SHEETS APPENDIX 1. FIELD OBSERVATION SUMMARIES APPENDIX J. MEDIA REVIEW ARTICLE SUMMARIES APPENDDi K. MEDIA REVIEW ARTICLES APPENDIX L. GUIDELINES FOR UPDATING THE PROGRAM REVIEW DATABASE Appendices A through F are attached to the end of this report. Appendices G through L are provided under separate cover. August 2004 x Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Red Light Camera Program Review and Analysis Final 16 of 94 INMODUCTION 1.1 PRoGRAmBACKGRouND Red light running has become a problem in the United States with over 250,000 annual crashes at intersections attributed to red light running resulting in nearly goo fatalities per year. The City of Greensboro, along with other municipalities in the State of North Carolina, has experienced the effects of decreased safety due to red light running and set out to specifically address this problem. In 1999 there were 498 traffic accidents caused by red light running that resulted in 274 personal injuries. In 2000, the City of Greensboro established SafeLight, a red light photo enforcement program in their city with three main objectives: 1. Enhance safety at signalized intersections in Greensboro by reducing the frequency and /or severity of crashes caused by red light running 2. Provide an additional method of violation enforcement so that police can use resources to fulfill other objectives 3. Raise awareness of safe driving practices in Greensboro In October 2000, the City of Greensboro (the City) contracted with Peek Traffic Inc. to install and operate a red light photo enforcement system. In February 2001, Peek Traffic installed the first two automated red light camera in the City of Greensboro. By November 20o1 all 18 SafeLight cameras were operational and issuing red light running citations. With the exception of a few minor outages, the 18 cameras have been operational for nearly three years. The 18 intersections were chosen by weighing factors including: • Number of observed red light violations • Ranking of the intersection based on crash history • Appearance of the location on a Greensboro Police Department (GPD) high accident list • Lack of prohibitive construction issues The selection committee consisting of City and GPD staff made recommendations of the intersections they felt would most benefit from red light photo enforcement. After compiling the list of intersections, Peek Traffic commenced field studies to measure actual red light running violations at each location. Peek Traffic also investigated the layout and geometry of the intersections to determine if a red light camera could be installed effectively at the location. Following the field study, Peek Traffic and the City, working together, selected the final intersections from the list of intersections recommended for installing cameras. Each intersection selected by Peek Traffic had been identified by the City as an intersection where the perceived safety by the public would increase due to the installation of a red light camera. Table i lists the Greensboro Safel fight camera locations and the approach monitored at each intersection. Figure 1 shows the camera locations on a map of Greensboro. August 2004 Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. i �i I III 4. e cl f, r Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 94 r v Legend a Signalized Intersections • Intersections with Red Light Cameras f `" ,. City Limits Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 94 Table i. Greensboro SafeLight Camera Locations Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 94 Site Number Intersection Monitored Approach 6o1 Holden Road & Spring Garden Street Southbound 602 Wendover Avenue & English Street Westbound 6o Battleground Avenue & Brassfield Road Northbound 6o4 Hi h Point Road & Pinecroft Road Eastbound 6o Wendover Avenue & Church Street Westbound 6o6 Holden Road & Wendover Avenue Northbound 6o7 Randleman Road & Florida Street Northbound 6o8 Randleman Road & Creek Ridge Road Northbound 6og Battleground Avenue & Pisgah Church Road Southbound 610 Holden Road & Pinecroft Road Southbound 611 High Point Road & Merritt Drive Eastbound 612 Cone Boulevard & Church Street Westbound 613 Battleground Avenue & Cone Boulevard Northbound 614 Wendover Avenue & Big Tree Way Westbound 61.5 Freeman Mill Road & Coliseum Boulevard Northbound 616 Friendly Avenue & Spring Street Southbound 617 Wendover Avenue & Hill Street Eastbound 618 Wendover Avenue & Bridford Parkwa Westbound The cameras used at the intersections operate in a manner similar to most other red light photo enforcement systems deployed in the United States. The camera system does not operate continuously, but only activates when the traffic signal turns red. Vehicle detectors in the roadway sense vehicles and record their speed at the stop line of the intersection. If they detect a vehicle moving at a speed of 13 miles per hour or higher after the signal light has been red for over 2/10 of a second, the camera is directed to take pictures of the vehicle. The first picture taken is of the vehicle at the stop line showing the red light of the signal. The second picture shows the vehicle with its back wheels past the stop line during the red phase. Finally, a third picture is taken that is directed at the license plate of the violating vehicle. All of the pictures taken are stored in a digital format in the camera. The pictures are downloaded daily for review using phone lines to the Peek Traffic office. At the Peek Traffic office, all pictures are reviewed in a timely manner. Two Peek reviewers inspect each set of photos to determine if an actual red light violation had occurred and if the license plate is decipherable. They then access the DMV database to verify the vehicle registration matches the vehicle shown on the citation photos. Next, the possible violations are forwarded to the City program manager. A third reviewer at the City also determines if a violation occurred and makes the final decision on the issuance of a citation. All reviewers follow specific guidelines and procedures. According to the City's printed documentation for all reviewers, the criteria for a valid citation are as follows: The first picture must clearly show: • The vehicle prior to touching the painted stop line on the roadway. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E • That the governing traffic signal has the red phase illuminated. February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 94 The second picture must clearly show: • That the same vehicle entered the intersection during the red phase showing the vehicle's back wheels beyond the stop line. The third picture must clearly show: • The vehicle's license plate readable to the naked eye. • That the license plate image was created from the same vehicle violation images. In general, for a valid citation the following must be true: • The data box superimposed on the photo in a manner that does not block key information. • All text and characters of the data box are readable. • That there are no visible factors which would invalidate the violation. • That the name and complete mailing address of the registered owner of the vehicle can be obtained from the appropriate motor vehicle administration. • That the vehicle description obtained from the motor vehicle administration appears to match the vehicle photographed in the violation. • That the red signal indication is illuminated in the color red on all citations. After identifying a valid violation, a citation is processed by the contractor and mailed to the registered owner of the violating vehicle. The citation is printed in color showing all three photographs and accompanying data. Appendix A shows a sample citation. A final review of the citation verifies that the DMV information matches the license plate shown on the citation and that all photos are legible. Fines from the citations are paid to the City of Greensboro and can be paid in person at the SafeUght office or City Government Building, through the mail, over the phone, or online. Payments can be made by cash, check, or credit card. The citation fine is $50. A late fee of an additional $50 is charged if the fine is not paid before the due date, which is 28 days after the mailing date of the citation. The decision to extend the original due date of 21 days is addressed in Section 5.5. After a citation is issued, it can be appealed by the vehicle owner by following directions printed on the back of the citation and returning the appeal form sent with the citation. The appeal must be received by the citation due date for the request to be accepted. All appeals are reviewed by local, state bar - certified attorneys during scheduled hearings. The program was initiated with 5 different adjudicators, but currently uses g adjudicators on a rotating schedule to hear appeals. These adjudicators have all completed a training session for the program and they are paid on a per - appeal basis by the City from SafeLight program revenues, receiving the same amount regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The owner may attend the appeal hearing in person or submit documents and letters supporting the appeal. All appeal decisions by the adjudicators are considered final. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 1.2 FROGR" OBMCFIvES Agenda FebruItem N. I OE ary 22p 2005 As stated above, Greensboro's SafeLight program was developed to meet three _ page 20 of 94 objectives: - • Enhance safety at signalized intersections by reducing the incidents of red light running and number of crashes caused by red light running • Provide an additional method of violation enforcement so that police can use resources to fulfill other objectives • Raise awareness of safe driving practices in Greensboro As the initial contract period between Greensboro and Peek Traffic drew to a close, the City contracted with Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. in early 2004 to perform a review of the SafeUght program and determine whether the program was meeting the City's objectives. The Greensboro program manager requested a program review and analysis that covered all aspects of the three objectives. Aspects of the three objectives reviewed and presented in this report include: • A statistical review of the number and trend of red light running citations issued by the photo enforcement system. • A safety analysis of the numbers of crashes and rates at the program intersections before and after the cameras were installed. • A literature review of other reports evaluating red light photo enforcement programs worldwide as well as guidelines published by national transportation and safety agencies. • A programmatic review including review of case law and legal issues related to Greensboro and other red light photo enforcement programs. • A review of news reports about red light photo enforcement programs in Greensboro and elsewhere. • An engineering investigation of each of the project intersections to ascertain geometric characteristics of each location. • A comparison of the policies and practices of Greensboro's program to other programs in North Carolina. 1.3 .FINDINGS The first objective of enhancing safety has been achieved. The analysis shows a 4% reduction in total crashes and a 14% reduction in angle crashes during the study period from an equivalent before period. From 2001 to 2004, the average monthly citation rates have declined 17%. The second objective of providing additional enforcement has been by contracting with Peek Traffic to install and maintain 18 red light cameras. The Greensboro Police Department reported they do not enforce red light running on photo enforced intersection approaches. This gives the Department time to focus on other locations and other moving violation. The City has met the third objective of raising awareness of safe driving practices by actively participating in marketing the program. The City has distributed several types of marketing materials for the SafeLight program and has been open and cooperative with August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E the media regarding the program. In addition, funds from SafeLight have gonelpWMry 22, 2005 other safe driving programs in Greensboro. Page 21 of 94 August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 2 OBJECTIVE 1— ENHANCE SAFETY Page 22 of 94 °— The first objective of Greensboro's Safel fight program is to enhance safety at signalized _ intersections by reducing the instances of red light running and number of crashes caused by red light running. Angle accidents are among the most severe types of crashes that can occur at an intersection. There are only two ways vehicles can be traveling in opposition to each other at an intersection controlled by a traffic signal. One is if the signal has lost power and is not functioning. In this case, the intersection technically is not operating under signal control and should function as a multi-way stop. The other is if one vehicle has violated the signal and has entered the intersection on a red indication. To evaluate the program's effectiveness in meeting this objective, it is important to analyze the trends in citation frequency over time from the program inception. One can infer that as red light citations decline, the numbers of violations are declining. As violations decrease, the likelihood of conflicts or chances for conflicts decreases, the likelihood of angle crashes decreases and the safety of the intersection increases. It is also important to analyze the trends in the number and severity of crashes before and after the program inception to verify whether crashes have decreased after the program was implemented. Finally, this chapter includes a literature review to present findings from other studies on the subject of enhancing safety and a field inventory to investigate features of the intersections chosen for the program that may affect safety. 2.1 Q TTONAND ViomnoNANALYSIS Red light cameras are installed at intersections for the purpose of catching and ticketing drivers violating the law by entering intersections on a red indication. The cameras supplement or replace customary police surveillance. In Greensboro and other North Carolina municipalities, the fine for this violation is $50 if caught by photo enforcement. A civil offense with no points assessed to the driver or vehicle owner, the citation is issued to the registered vehicle owner according to DMV records based on the license tag number. Comparatively, if a driver is caught running a red light by a law enforcement officer in North Carolina, he or she is assessed a fine of $125 (which consists of a $25 penalty and $loo court costs) and three points on his or her driver's license. 2.1.1 CITATION TRENDS The first camera installed was operational in 2001 for eleven months and the last camera installed was operational for one and a half months in 2001. With a total number of citations in 2001 of 21,304, the average monthly citations issued in 2oo1 was 3,080 weighting each location by the length of time it was in service. In 2oo2, the average citations issued per month was 2,425, with a total number of 29,109 citations. A total 28,637 citations in 2003 yields an average of 2,386 citations per month. In 2004, citation data was provided through the end of April with a total of 10,261 citations and 2,565 average citations per month. Overall, the number of citations issued was 89,311. Due to driver variability, inattention, and impairment, the number of citations, or violations, will never be zero. Table z illustrates the average annual monthly citations issued, which was determined by dividing the total citations issued each year at each location by the number of months the camera was active that year at that location and summing the results of all 18 locations for each year. August 2004 7 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Table 2. Average Annual Monthly Citations Issued Year Avg. Monthly Citations % decrease from 2001 2001 3,080 - -- 2002 2,425 21% 2003 2,386 22. % 2004 2,565 1 Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 _ _ Page 23 of 94 Table 3 illustrates the numbers of citations issued by location and by year. Another way to illustrate the trends in citations is to graph the actual monthly citations both on a total program and per location basis. Figure 2 illustrates the sum of citations issued over time for all 18 intersections. Figure 3 illustrates citations issued over time for each individual intersection. Because each intersection is unique, trends in citation rates for each vary. When averaged over an entire year, the numbers show that citation rates have decreased since the first year the cameras were activated. The month -by -month graph shows that it is not a steady decline but rather fluctuates from month to month over time. No one month of the year appears to be worse than another, but more citations are issued on Friday than any other day of the week. Sunday has the lowest number of citations issued. The period of 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM sees the largest number of violators with nearly 15,000 of the 89,000 total citations issued during this 2 hour period every afternoon. The fewest number of violations occur between 4:oo AM and 5:oo AM. This is also typically the time of day with the lowest traffic volumes. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Table 3. Citations Issued by Location and Year Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Paap 4 of 94 Site Intersection 2001' 2002 2003 2004" Total Number 6o1 Holden Road & 2,367 2,179 2,098 633 7,277 Sprinit Garden Street 602 Wendover Avenue & 1,049 1,091 827 312 3,279 English Street 603 Battleground Avenue & 1,017 1,058 1,12o 346 3,541 Brassfield Road 604 High Point Road & 3,673 3,652 3,786 1,509 12,620 Pinecroft Road 605 Wendover Avenue & 1,526 1,875 1,378 421 5,200 Church Street 6o6 Holden Road & 1,204 1,266 828 315 3,613 Wendover Avenue 607 Randleman Road & 232 212 331 1o6 881 Florida Street 6o8 Randleman Road & 2,039 2,035 1,944 667 6,685 Creek Ridge Road 6o9 Battleground Avenue & 1,624 2,660 11990 675 6,949 Pisgah Church Road 610 Holden Road & 419 828 904 307 2,458 Finecroft Road 611 High Point Road & 2,321 2,666 3,637 1,373 9,997 Merritt Drive 612 Cone Boulevard & 146 483 351 68 1,048 Church Street 613 Battleground Avenue & 1,723 3,363 3,504 1,309 9,899 Cone Boulevard 614 Wendover Avenue & 129 1,041 1,247 648 3,065 Big Tree Way 615 Freeman Mill Road & 16o 381 499 161 1,201 Coliseum Boulevard 616 Friendly Avenue & 240 911 885 265 2,301 Spring Street 617 Wendover Avenue & 1,176 2,903 2,858 1,072 8,009 Hill Street 618 Wendover Avenue & 259 505 450 74 1,288 Bridford Parkway TOTAL: 21,304 29,109 28 6 10,261L 82,31i * Number of active months for each camera varies. Activation dates of each camera are shown in Table 5. ** Consists of January through April. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure a. Citations over Time GREENSHORD RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM ^ Citations Over Time III Am.w* 3;500 3AQU 28M I A00 lAw- 500 -4 0. F?;F?s F� FSFp OPP ??Plop Opp d6 x i � 11 ; ! it 8 J. A I f I � j � R I # a A A I i A k g A A I A Figure 3. Citations over Time per intersection SAFE UORT INTERSECTION 200 - 4- Citations Over Time ``:: sit oil 112 :111 4 —116 A 4- A� *p li 1-0 of It Vi VO J -A Lit Ve )+p 1p Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 94 August 2004 10 )Urnley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E Appendix B provides additional information including graphs illustrating nFffiRffry22,2005 005 of citations issued by month and year for the total program and for each intersectionpage 26 of 94 rates of appeals to citations, rates of payment of citations, appeals upheld versus overturned, etc. 2.1.2 APPEALED AND PAID CITATION TRENDS In the first year, 3.1 percent of citations issued were appealed. In 2002 and 2003, 3.9% of citations were appealed. In the first 4 months of 2004 for which data was available, 2.17% of citations were appealed. During the program, less than a quarter of the citations appealed were overturned. From the citations issued, less than 25% remain unpaid each year according to records provided by Peek Traffic. Of the total number of citations paid, about 9o% were paid within the due date and the remainder was paid with a late fee. 2.1.3 CITATION SUMMARY Overall, the citation rates dipped between December 2002 and February 2003 by the greatest amount, although citations rose in the next several months in 2003. Overall, citations declined 17% from 2001 to 2004. Because enhanced safety is the first objective of the SafeLight program, one would expect the number of citations issued to decline over time as drivers begin to comply more often with the red indication. The greatest reductions in violations occurred during the first year of the program. The average monthly citations issued in 2004 increased at most locations over the 2003 monthly averages. A reduction in month to month citations indicates a reduction in vehicles running red lights. This could indicate a reduction in conflicts, thereby a rise in the level of safety at the program intersections because the potential for frontal angle and left -turn crashes has been reduced. While a 17% reduction indicates success with the photo enforcement program, some changes may yield even greater results. Perhaps, some drivers are not aware of the program. If the public service announcements are increased, more citizens may become aware of the dangers of the unlawful practice of running red lights and the fines associated at 18 Greensboro Safelaght intersections. Perhaps the red light runners are unfamiliar (non - local) drivers who have not been exposed to previous or current media campaigns. Constraints on times for cycle lengths and main street green times may force some drivers to be faced with a yellow indication at or near the point where it is difficult to choose between stopping and going. However, all yellow times are consistent for all timing plans at an intersection and are in compliance with the current standards for minimum yellow change intervals set by NCDOT in the Design Manual published by the Signals and Geometric Section. Finally, it may be the case that an outstanding civil citation of a $5o fine is an acceptable penalty to some drivers and is not enough to alter driver behavior. This is further shown by the repeat violator report provided by Peek Traffic and summarized in Table 4. The August 2004 K3mley -Horn and Associates, Inc. ii report states that over 3,000 vehicles were issued multiple citations over the 19gend__a,ltem 2, 105 �@ ry 22, 2005 period. Page 27 of 94 Table 4. SafeLight Duplicate Violators Summary # of Citations* # of Vehicles 6 21 4 57 6 2 2,657 TOTAL 3,111 *From February 15, 2002 to September 30, 2003 as provided by Peek Traffic While overall citation rates are falling for the program, Table 4 above illustrates the fact that there are still habitual offenders. With more than 3,000 repeat citations out of a total of 65,000 citations issued during that time frame, the statistics indicate that 5% of the violators may not be affected by the cameras. 2.2 SAFETYANALYsls Evaluating the change in crash rates over time is a method to express the safety of a location over time. This section will present the various methodologies available for analyzing crash statistics; discuss the method chosen and how the evaluation was undertaken. Next, the results of the evaluation are presented and discussed. At the inception of the study, the expectation was that crashes would have decreased over time during the photo enforcement program indicating a rise in safety in the area. 2.2.1 CRASH EVALUATION METHODOLOGY There are numerous ways to evaluate the crash history of the 18 SafeLight intersections in Greensboro. Of the many methodologies used, each has benefits and drawbacks for analyzing crash statistics. To begin the crash evaluation for this program, it is important to provide an overview of the various ways of approaching the analysis. 2.2.2 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Analysis of highway crashes originated with laboratory experiments. Unlike the sterile environment of a laboratory, however, highways full of traffic are uncontrolled, non - sterile environments. "Experiments" on "treated" versus "control' populations are not possible in the field of highway safety. In the highway safety business, specific treatments typically are applied to specific locations due to a perceived safety deficit at that location. To be a true experiment, locations would have to be randomly chosen; but safety engineers do not install safety countermeasures such as guardrail and traffic signals randomly. So for the treated sites, the recent crash history should be higher than that of the comparison sites. It should be August 2004 Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. 12 A n a I em No. 10E difficult to find untreated comparison sites because not treating locations with s`" 22, 2005 high recent crash histories would be considered irresponsible. Page 28 of 94 Also in laboratory -type experiments, control populations are untouched and unaffected by the particular treatment. While some spot safety improvements, such as traffic signals and guardrail, are specific to a particular site and other nearby sites would be unaffected by the treatment, this is not true for other types of treatments. Public campaigns to improve safe driving practices - such as the popular "click it or ticket" and "booze it and lose it" - target the drivers rather than specific locations, thereby affecting all areas where motorists drive. Red light photo enforcement programs are a hybrid of the spot safety type projects and the public campaigns. Cameras are installed at intersections chosen specifically for their crash and violation histories, but the application of a photo enforcement program on a community has a much larger impact than each of the individual cameras. If the program includes a strong media or public relations campaign including a large blitz -type advertisement or constant advertisements in various markets during the entire course of the program, or even if there are numerous monitored intersections on heavily traveled commuter corridors, the drivers in Greensboro are likely to react differently to red lights at all intersections in the city, not just the monitored ones. For this reason, there may not be true control locations within the city limits. If the reviewer were to choose a "treatment and control" type of crash evaluation, sites in a similar city (one not subject to monitoring by red light cameras) would be recommended over sites within Greensboro. Besides the laboratory-based treatment versus control evaluation method, another method of evaluation in statistical analysis is to compare a "before" treatment time frame to an "after" treatment time frame. The major fallacy with this type of evaluation is a phenomenon called regression to the mean. Regression to the mean is the tendency of numbers of crashes to fluctuate around an average, or mean, number. So for a particular location, if the number of crashes is exceptionally high, or exceptionally low, the odds'are that they subsequently will tend back toward "normal," or mean. Often, locations are identified as having a safety issue at the peak of the curve of crashes plotted over time. What sometimes goes unrecognized is that this trend is not usually a straight line, with crashes increasing ad infinitem and the location continuing to become more and more dangerous over time until safety engineers intervene and apply the appropriate treatment. In reality, the location is on a rising line of a curve that will likely soon trend downward on its own. This fact does not mean that we cease trying to correct known safety deficiencies at locations. The caveat is that when the effects of the treatment are studied, the natural effects of regression to the mean must be recognized as contributing to the decrease in crashes along with the treatment itself. By failing to recognize this regression, safety engineers can overstate the benefits of a particular treatment. Similarly, when deciding or planning to apply a tested treatment to other locations, the exact same treatment will have different effects at different locations. Because highway safety experiments do not occur in a laboratory, but on highways, even if one were able to choose the right methodology and determine a percent reduction in crashes at a August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 13 particular location, the same percent reduction could not be guaranteed by app enda to 2c2o 5 treatment at other locations. Page 29 of 94 Mith before- and -after studies, several factors affecting locations over time can have an impact on crash experience at a location. These factors include traffic volume variations; driver behavior; weather; vehicle mix (percentage of trucks); and other countermeasures, treatments, or changes implemented at the location. In addition, changes to the way crashes are reported over time may affect before - and -after crash rates. The third method is a mix of the two — a before- and -after with comparison sites. Here the after period is compared to the before period for the treatment sites and the comparison sites. Again, the comparison sites should be unaffected by the treatment. Comparison sites should be chosen for their physical similarities to the treatment sites and for their similar "before" period crash experience. If the before periods are relatively similar, it could be assumed that the after periods would be also, all things being equal. Because both populations would be equally susceptible to regression to the mean during the before- and -after periods, the effect essentially cancels out in the comparison. The differences in the crashes between the comparison and the treatment sites can more likely be attributed to the treatment than anything else. It is important to note that crash statistics are merely a reflection or an indication of the total crashes at a location. First of all, not all crashes that occur are reportable according to the laws of minimum thresholds of property damage for crash reporting. Of those that meet the reporting threshold, not all are actually reported for a variety of reasons. Finally, of the crashes that are reported, documentation errors can cause some of the crash records to be attributed to an incorrect time or place. Because these circumstances exist everywhere, the crash histories of various locations are comparable to each other even though they may not be completely accurate. Reviewers must be wary when making assumptions attributing the cause of declines in crashes. For instance, is a declining fatal crash rate in the United States the cause of better roads, better drivers, safer vehicles, or advances in lifesaving medical practices? Or could it simply be a change in the manner in which crashes are recorded as fatalities? Finally, another method of analyzing crash statistics that is coming into favor is the Empirical Bayes method, which attempts to account for and correct the shortcomings of the other methodologies of crash analysis. Ezra Hauer, author of several books and papers on highway safety analysis, defines safety as "the number of accidents (crashes) or accident consequences, by kind and severity, expected to occur in the entity during a specified period." Since something expected can never be measured or quantified exactly, the validity of an estimation technique is gauged by its accuracy when tested against historical actual results. The benefits of using the Empirical Bayes method are that the level of accuracy of estimated safety is better than other methods and it is able to account for regression to the mean. The Empirical Bayes method estimates expected safety at a given location using the crash history of that location and the expected crash frequency at other similar sites determined through an equation called the Safety Performance Function (SPF). August 2004 14 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. The SPF estimates the number of crashes at locations based on attributes of tdi Fe enda Item 105 February 222, , 2005 location. Page 30 of 94 For this analysis of the improvement to the safety of the intersections in the Greensboro SafeUght program, the simple before - and -after study was chosen based on the data that was readily available and the fact that selection of treatment sites was not based solely on highest ranking by crashes. 2.2.3 PROGRAM SAFETY ANALYSIS The crash data used for the before- and -after study of the red light photo enforcement program in Greensboro was prepared by the NCDOT from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System ( TEAAS). The installation dates of each of the cameras were provided by Peek Traffic through the Greensboro program manager. The before -and- after analysis includes a brief lag between the installation date and the beginning of the after period. The purpose of this lag time is to enable drivers to adjust to the new devices and signing in the field. To include the initial weeks after a new camera is installed would be to include non - typical crash data. It is standard practice to allow an adjustment period before the after period begins. Because NCDOT prepared the crash analysis, the last available crash data from the Department of Motor Vehicles in TEAAS is through September 30, 2003. To create the longest study period possible, NCDOT analysts determined the length of the after period for each intersection to be the length of time between the end of the adjustment period and September 30, 2003. The before period mirrors the after period in length so that the before - and -after crash statistics can be compared. NCDOT's standard practice is to include all crashes within 150 feet of an intersection on all approaches as being at the intersection. The average daily traffic (ADT) for the median year was used to generate rates for all years so they can be compared to each other. Table 5 lists the before -and- after periods used for the analysis. Table 5. Gnash Analysis Periods Site Intersection Activation Analysis Before Amer Number Date Time Period Period Frame 6ol Holden Road & 2/2/2001 2 Years, o8/ol/98 - o4 /ol /ol - Spring Garden 6 Months 01 /31/01 09/30/03 Street 602 Wendover Avenue 2/15/2001 2 Years, 08/01/98- 04/01/01- & English Street 6 Months 01/31/01 0 0 0 603 Battleground 3/12/2001 2 Years, to /ol/98 - o5 /ol /ol - Avenue & 5 Months 02/28/01 09/30/03 Brassfield Road 604 High Point Road & 5/9/2001 2 Years, 02/01/99- 07/01/01- Pinecroft Road 3 Months 04/3 0 01 0 0 0 605 Wendover Avenue 5/4/2001 2 Years, 02/01/99- 07/01/01- & Church Street Months o 0 0l 0 0 0 6o6 Holden Road & 4/19/2001 2 Years, 12/01/98- o6 /ol /ol - Wendover Avenue Months 03131101 0 0 0 6o7 Randleman Road 4/20/2001 2 Years 12 of 8 - o6 o1 o1- August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 15 Site Intersection Activation Analysis Before rua Number Date Time Period Period'ag Frame & Florida Street 4 Months .03131/01 0 0 0 6o8 Randleman Road 4/26/2001 2 Years; 12/01/98- o6 /oi /oi - & Creek Ridge 4 Months 03/31/01 09/30/03 Road 6o9 Battleground 6/22/2001 2 Years, 04/01/99- o8 /oi /o1- Avenue & Pisgah 2 Months 05/31/01 09/30/03 Church Road 610 Holden Road & 5/31/2001 2 Years, 02/01/99- 07/01/01 - Pinecroft Road Months 04/3 of o 0 0 611 High Point Road & 5/24/2001 2 Years, 02/01/99- 07/01/01 - Merritt Drive i Months 04/30/01 0 0 0 612 Cone Boulevard & 7/3/2001 2 Years, o6/o1/99 - o9 /o1 /ol - Church Street 1 Month o6 0 o1 0 0 0 613 Battleground 7/25/2001 2 Years, o6/o1/99 - o9 /o1 /o1- Avenue & Cone 1 Month o6/30/01 09/30/03 Boulevard 614 Wendover Avenue 11/13/2001 1 Year, 02/01/00- 01/01/02- & Big Tree Way Months 10 1 01 0 0 0 615 Freeman Mill 9/18/2001 1 Year, 10/01/99- 11/01/01 - Road & Coliseum 11 Months 08/31/01 09/30/03 Boulevard 616 Friendly Avenue & 9/21/2001 1 Year, 10/01/99- 11/01/01- Spring Street 11 Months o8 1 o1 oqjjojo3 617 Wendover Avenue 8/17/2001 2 Years 08/01/99- 10/01/01- & Hill Street 07131/01 0 0 0 618 Wendover Avenue 8/10/2001 2 Years o8/o1/99 - 10 /o1 /o1- & Bridford 07/31/01 09/30/03 Parkway A simple before- and -after study does not eliminate the effect of regression to the mean (i.e., the trending of crashes over time toward a mean, or average rate). If crash rates are on an upward trend, or at a historical high, the expectation is that the crash rate would begin to decrease over time, regardless of a treatment being implemented. This regression to the mean often causes reviewers to overstate the effectiveness of treatments because crash reductions can be attributed to this tendency in addition to the benefit of the treatment. One way to account for the effects of regression to the mean is to find a set of comparison sites with similar characteristics, particularly similar before period crash histories, and then compare the after crash rates of the comparison sites to the after rates of the treatment sites. For this program review, a simple before- and -after study was conducted on the 18 SafeLight intersections. While the 18 SafeLight intersections were in a top tier of signalized intersections in Greensboro in terms of safety concerns, they were not the 18 most hazardous locations. Of a list of 75 signalized intersections based on four previous years of high accident rankings by the City of Greensboro police department, City staff worked with Peek August 2004 i6 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. o. 10E 2, 2005 1 of 94 A-�e�na a Item No. 10E Traffic to select the final 18. Because their selection was not based solely on lugruary 22, 2005 ranking of crash history, as was the original list of 75, one could argue that regressionlqe 32 of 94 the mean may not have a strong effect on the after treatment crash results because these locations are not the locations expected to see the sharpest natural decline in crashes without a treatment. In the before- and -after crash analysis, the measures of effectiveness (MOEs) examined include total crashes, angle crashes, rear end crashes, the equivalent property damage only number (EPDO), and the severity index. The reported angle crashes in the summary table include crashes coded as angle crashes, left turn different road, and left turn same road. Rear -end crashes include those coded as rear -end, slow or stop, and rear -end turn. The EPDO equation has coefficients that equate, in comprehensive costs, the fatal and injury crashes to property damage only (PDO) crashes. The equation used by NCDOT is as follows: EPDO = 64(K +A) + 19.1(B +Q + PDO Where K is the number of fatal crashes, A, B, and C are the number of crashes for each injury class, and PDO is the number of property damage only crashes. A, B and C classifications for injury classes correspond to the responding officer's interpretation of the severity of the injuries at the scene of the crash. The most severe of all of the injuries sustained by all persons involved is the injury class reported for the crash. The following injury classifications are defined by the National Safety Council in "ANSI D16.1 -1996 Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, Sixth Edition ". A possible injury accident, which corresponds to injury class C on the North Carolina crash reports and in the above equation, is one where the victim is complaining of pain, limping, or has nausea or hysteria or other action but has no visible evidence of injury. A non incapacitating injury, which corresponds to injury class B, is one where the victim has a visible injury such as a lump, abrasion, cut or bruise, or other injury that is evident to observers at the scene of the accident. An incapacitating injury, corresponding to injury class A, is one where the person must be transported from the scene because injuries sustained in the accident prevent them from driving or walking from the scene. A fatal crash, noted by the letter K in the equation above, is one where the injury from the accident ultimately results in death. The coefficients in the equation are derived by dividing the costs associated with the combination of fatal and class A crashes and the combination of B and C class crashes by the average costs associated with a property damage only crash. In other words, fatal and injury crashes cost society 64 times the amount that a property damage only crash does. Likewise, a crash involving a less severe injury costs more than 1g times a property damage only crash. It is evident that reducing either the number or severities of crashes has a positive impact on society. For intersection 6o1, Holden Road at Spring Garden Street, in the before period there were eight class B injury crashes, 36 class C injury classes, and 48 PDO crashes for a total Of 92 crashes. The EPDO is as follows: EPDO = 64(0) + 19.1(8 +86) + 48 = 417.6 August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 17 The severity dex is the EPDO divided b the total number of crashes. In this enda_ {tem No. 105 tY � Y �llry 22, 2005 417.6 / 92 = 4.54• The severity index normalizes a location so that it can be compareddge 33 of 94 another location regardless of the total number of crashes at each location. Table 6 and Table 7 show the before - and -after MOEs for each of the 18 intersections, with the last row being the sum of all intersections. Table 8 illustrates the percent change from before to after. A negative number, shown as shaded on the table, indicates a decline in crashes or crash rates from the before period to the after period. Table 6. Before Period Gush Analysis Results Sits ID Site Name Before Total Before Rats Before Angle Before Rearend Before Si Before EPDO 601 Holden & Spring Garden 92 136.80 42 39 4.54 417.80 802 Wendover & English 51 150.64 25 19 7.27 371.00 603 Battleground & Bressfleld 34 110.45 19 9 426 145.00 604 High Point Rd. & Pinecroft 47 117.45 18 22 5.29 248.80 605 Wendover & Church 42 78.56 15 22 5.23 219.80 606 Holden & Wendover 55 170.33 9 30 4.90 269.80 807 Randleman & Florida 27 99.97 14 7 9.56 256.20 808 Randleman & Creek Ride 53 184.59 24 17 3.65 193.80 609 Battleground & Pisgah Church 38 106.88 10 23 3.34 126.80 610 Holden & Plnecroft 5 23.27 2 2 2.48 12.40 611 High Point Rd. & Merritt 59 154AO 26 24 4.01 236.80 612 Church & Cone 27 91.44 9 13 4.56 123.20 613 Battleground & Cons 30 75.09 10 18 4.95 148.40 614 Wendover & Big Tree 57 129.09 22 30 3.86 219.80 615 Freeman MITI & Coliseum 32 97.96 17 10 6.84 218.80 816 Spring & Friendly 29 126.90 20 4 5.08 147.40 617 Wendover & Hill 46 87.89 5 38 4.54 208.80 618 Wendover & Briciford 52 121.81 22 20 5.02 261.00 TOTAL 778 309 347 4.93 3826.40 Table 7. After Period Crash Analysis Results Site ID Site Name After Total After Rate r Angle After Rearend After SI After EPDO 601 Holden & Spring Garden 69 96.77 27 30 5.42 374.20 602 Wendover & English 53 147.34 20 24 6.06 321.20 603 Battleground & Breufleld 37 112.95 16 16 5,85 216.40 604 High Point Rd. & Plnecroft 55 129.42 23 27 4.50 247.40 808 Wendover & Church 65 114.11 23 36 5.24 340.60 606 Holden S Wendover 44 128.15 9 23 5.92 260.40 807 Randleman & Florida 24 83.84 12 8 5.62 135.00 608 Randleman & Creek Ridge 42 137.70 17 19 4.52 190.00 809 Battleground & Pisgah Church 24 63.61 3 16 2.23 53.60 610 Holden & Plnecroft 9 39.38 4 4 10.24 92.20 611 High Point Rd. & Merritt 39 101.81 17 16 5.17 201.80 612 Church & Cone 28 89.42 12 12 4.17 116.80 613 Battleground & Cone 41 96.85 14 23 3.89 159.40 814 Wondover & Big Tree 51 108.91 15 29 2.89 147.20 815 Freeman Mill & Coliseum 19 55.02 8 7 3.73 70.80 616 Spring & Friendly 22 90.96 17 1 10.58 232.80 617 Wendover & Hill 66 122.57 2 62 4.48 304.80 818 Wendover & Brldford 55 121.52 26 23 5.17 284.40 TOTAL 745 265 376 5.03 37 . August 2004 18 Kimley -Morn and Associates, Inc. Table 8. Percent Differences from Before to After Periods Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 34 of 94 811* ID aft Her" Toted Rab M M Rearend 81 on 601 Holden & Spring Garden •26 - -38% -23% 19% -10% 602 Wendover a English 4% ` -2% -20% 25% -17 %' -43 803 Sailloground a BraeeAeld 9% 2% -18% 76% 37% 49% 604 High Point Rd. a Pinecrolt 17% 10% 28% 23% -15% 0% 005 Wondovor a Church 551 46% 53% 64% 0% 55% 008 Holden a Wendover -2096 0% 23%. 21% -3% 607 Randleman 6 Florida AM -16% -14% 14% 41 48% 608 Randleman a Creek RI -21.%, -25% 12% 24% -2% 609 Battleground a Pisgah Church -3 -40% - 733% -68% 610 Holden a Plnecrolt 80% 69% 100% 100% 313% 844% 611 High Point Rd. & Merritt 4%_ . .34% -35% 43% 29% ,' -15% 012 Church a Cone 4% -2% 33% 48% -9% -5% 613 Baffle round -& Con* 37% 29% 40% 28% -21% 7% 614 Wiandover a Big Tree .11% .1 .. -25 -33% 615 Freemen Mill a Coliseum 41% 44 -53% 30% 45% -88% 616 Spring a Friend -24% -28 r15% -75% 108% 58% 017 Wendover a Hill 48% 39% �60% 63% _1% 46% 616 wermover & Orldford 6% 0 18% 15% 3% 9% 6 2 2.2.4 RESULTS The results of this crash analysis and most before- and -after study results, as Ezra Hauer notes in his book — Observational Before A, fter Studies in Road Sq fety, Estimating the Effect of Highway and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety—are likely affected by many factors, not just the single cause being studied. Here, the changes in safety as measured by number of crashes may be the effect of traffic volumes, weather, planned and unplanned special events, driver behavior, and other applied countermeasures. Fifteen of the 18 intersections saw reductions, or improvements, in at least one MOE from before to after. While the statistical significance of such results may be debated due to the small number of locations and the small number of crashes at each intersection, the total number of crashes at all 18 intersections went down by 4% with a standard deviation of 0.049 from 776 to 745, and the number of angle crashes — usually the more severe crash type —went down by 14% with a standard deviation of o.o7i from 309 to 265. By analyzing each of the intersections individually, it is apparent that some locations experienced more improvements than others. This fact is to be expected since the highest accident locations were not always chosen for the red light photo enforcement program. There is a potential for the intersections with the highest number of angle crashes to benefit from these cameras as well. The City of Greensboro may receive added benefits by changing or adding signalized intersections to the program in the future with a history of angle crashes and with characteristics of intersections that saw great reductions in crashes during the Safel ight program. Suggested future research is to choose comparison sites in another jurisdiction — most likely Durham, North Carolina — to further evaluate the impact of the cameras on the safety of the intersections by attempting to account for regression to the mean. Durham is far enough away from Greensboro that the public campaign and posted signs at the August 2004 Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. 19 - SafeUght intersections would not affect the drivers in Durham; yet is close eno%1&tem No. 10E share weather events and a4 growth trends that affect traffic volumes. Page 35 of 9e 35 of 94 2.3 INVENTORYAND OBSERVATIONS OFEUSTING CONDITIONS As part of this project, field inventories were conducted at all 18 intersections. Photos were taken and sketches and observations were recorded, including speed limits, approximate approach grades, significant signage, presence of street lighting, pedestrian accommodations, sight distance, and other relevant observations. Additional information about each project intersection was gathered after the field inventory. Greensboro personnel provided electronic copies of each signal plan. Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for the intersections, which include traffic on all approaches, were obtained from the City website. Yellow and all-red clearance times were obtained from the Greensboro Department of Transportation signal system manager. In addition, Peek Traffic provided records indicating when the cameras had undergone maintenance. The camera maintenance logs are contained in the project database. Photos of each project intersection and the field data collection sheets are included in Appendix G and Appendix H. Table 9 summarizes the existing characteristics of each intersection in Greensboro's red light photo enforcement program. In general, the authors have not observed frequent or blatant violations of red light running in the City. If the numbers of red light runners before inception of the program were mainly inattentive drivers, the presence of each individual red light camera may not change the behavior of those drivers because they are only as likely to notice the red light cameras and warning signs as they are to notice the traffic signal and advance warning signs. The 18 chosen intersections appeared to be well distributed across the city covering various socioeconomic areas but the locations are limited mainly to three main facilities in Greensboro. Several of the camera monitored approaches do not have left turn lanes or have restrictions on the ability to make left turns. One could hypothesize that this lane configuration is confusing to drivers causing them to be distracted and make driving errors such as running a red light, but there are no facts currently to support this idea. August 2004 20 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Table 9. Intersection CharacIlerisdca Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 f 94 Site Intersection Phases ADT Monitored Monitored Speed Thru Grade= Yellow - No. (Year)' Approach Phase Limit Lanes Time Red (mph) (see) Time sec 6oi Holden Road & 6 75,791 Southbound 6 35 3 1% 4.0 1.8 Spring Garden (2001) Street 602 Wendover Avenue 6 40,582 1 Westbound 2 45 3 1% 4.7 1.0 & English Street 200 603 Battleground 6 38,235 Northbound 2 45 2 0% 4.7 1.2 Avenue & (2003) Brassfield Road 604 High Point Road 4 45,969 Eastbound 2 35 3 -1% 4.0 2.3 & Pinecroft Road (1 998) 6o5 Wendover Avenue 3 71,392 Westbound 2 45 3 -2% 4.7 1.2 & Church Street 200 6o6 Holden Road & 6 41,577 Northbound 2 35 2 0% 4.0 1.9 Wendover Avenue 200 607 Randleman Road 5 30,759 Northbound 2 35 2 1% 4.1 1 14 & Florida Street (1999) 6o8 Randleman Road 4 36,957 Northbound 2 35 2 0% 4.0 1.8 & Creek Ridge (2003) Road 6o9 Battleground 6 46,313 Southbound 2 35 2 -1% 4.2 1.5 Avenue & Pisgah (2001) Church Road 610 Holden Road & 4 26,198 Southbound 2 45 2 2% 4.7 2.0 Pinecroft Road 2002 611 High Point Road 6 46,644 Eastbound 6 35 3 -1% 4.0 1.4 & Merritt Drive 2002 612 Cone Boulevard & 8 38,750 Westbound 2 35 2 0% 4.0 1.9 Church Street 2000 613 Battleground 6 62,445 Northbound 6 35 3 0% 4.0 2.0 Avenue & Cone 200 August 2004 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Site Intersection Phases ADT Monitored Monitored —Speed Thru Grade- Y ' No. (Year), Approach Phase Limit Lanes Tune et P 7 (mph) (see) Time Boulevard sec 614 Wendover Avenue 6 71,219 Westbound 6 45 4 -4% 5.0 1.3 & Big Tree Way 2001 615 Freeman Mill 6 45,171 Northbound 6 45 2 0% 5.0 2.0 Road & Coliseum (1999) Boulevard 616 Friendly Avenue 2 23,597 Southbound 2 20 3 1% 4.0 1.3 & Spring Street 200 617 Wendover Avenue 3 71,738 Eastbound 2 45 3 -3% 4.7 1.2 & Hill Street 200 618 Wendover Avenue 8 61,628 Westbound 6 45 3 -2% 5.0 1.7 & Bridford (2003) Parkwa Average Daily Traffic (ADT) values obtained from the Greensboro Department of Transportation website http://www.ci.greensbom.nc.us/gdot/business/safelight/ Grades obtained from traffic signal plans and field observations —IS—L 4, 4 Kin ley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 22 IOE )05 '94 Z4 LrrmUT,uREREVIEW Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 94 As part of this program review, other studies published on Greensboro's and other's red light photo enforcement programs were reviewed. In addition, books and papers written about traffic engineering evaluations on safety were reviewed to determine the most appropriate methods to evaluate the impacts of the red light photo enforcement program in Greensboro on public safety. 2.4.1 NC A&T STUDY In January 2004, Dr. Mark L. Burkey forwarded a copy of a report to the City that he published in September 2003 with Dr. Kofi Obeng on behalf of the Urban Transit Institute at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T) entitled, "A Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas ". The Greensboro SafeLight program is the focus of the study. The following is a summary of the methodology and findings contained in that report as well as comments regarding the researchers' approach. The authors of the report state in the executive summary that their research stemmed from claims asserted in other studies about the effectiveness of red light photo enforcement programs that they felt was based on insufficient accident data or based on too few locations. The NC A&T researchers developed negative binomial time- series regression models to relate signalized intersection characteristics to crash types and severities. The data used in their analysis was obtained from the City Traffic Engineering Department and from NCDOT the data was not verified by the safety engineers at NCDOT for accuracy or completeness. In the project approach section of the report, the investigators reported that yellow clearance intervals were too low at several intersections. NCDOT published revised yellow clearance interval guidelines in the summer of 2002. According to the City, 4 of the 18 SafeLight intersections had yellow times that were o.1 to 0.2 seconds below the new standards and were promptly corrected. The yellow times complied with the previous NCDOT standards and did not compromise the safety of the intersections. The title of the study refers to "small urban areas ". In 2000, the population of Greensboro was 223,891. Nationally Greensboro's population is much smaller than other metropolitan areas but in North Carolina, Greensboro the third largest municipality in the state behind Charlotte and Raleigh. The NC A&T report addresses different classifications of crash severity and the subjectivity of reporting by the responding officer. A table in the report illustrates that the 2001 comprehensive costs used by NCDOT are higher than the comprehensive costs published by the Federal Highway Administration when expressed in 2002 dollars. The study also notes that the true number of crashes at an intersection cannot be known because all crashes are not reported. Those with an estimated value less than $1,000 are not considered reportable. Because no crashes with damage valued below $1,000 are reported anywhere, the number of crashes between locations are still comparable. On a pure crash number basis, though, the authors note that the reporting threshold may cause certain types of crashes with low costs to be chronically underreported. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. IN Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 On the discussion of red light running, the authors raised points concerning Page 39 of 94 unintentional red light running and dilemma zones. According to the authors, if a stop line is located in front of a curb line, a driver who stops at the line on red has entered the intersection and has essentially "run" the red light. By the definition of the intersection contained in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD), a stop line would not be located within an intersection because this is the area at two cross streets where vehicles traveling in the street may come in contact with each other. If a curb line is set away from the travel lanes, it is not used as an intersection boundary and therefore a vehicle stopped at a stop line in front of a curb line is still not within the accepted bounds of the intersection. Committees are currently working to reword the definition in the UVC and the MUTCD to clearly state that it is the area within the stop lines or crosswalks. The authors assert that "at some intersections, it has been found that so- called 'dilemma zones' exist" but do not state for which intersections they are making that claim. A dilemma zone is the length of roadway where a driver given a yellow indication cannot safely stop or go through the intersection before the light turns red. If the driver had been a bit farther away, stopping would have been the obvious choice; closer, the driver would have known proceed past the stop line on yellow. NCDOT and the City use clearance calculations to determine yellow and all -red times that attempt to eliminate the dilemma zone. The calculation determines the exact time it would take a vehicle, traveling at the posted speed, to comfortably stop at the stop line or to clear the intersection traveling at the posted speed. This clearance time corresponds to a distance from the stop line on the approach. The calculation assumes a i.o second perception reaction time, a vehicle length of 20 feet and a deceleration rate of io feet per second squared. All of the SafeUght intersections in Greensboro have sufficient clearance times according to the NCDOT equation and guidelines for attentive drivers traveling at the posted speed limit to be able to stop or safely clear the intersection when faced with a yellow indication. The closer a vehicle is to the exact point at which it makes more sense to go than to stop, the less sure he is as to which is the right choice. This can be referred to as the decision zone. The goal of signal design and signal timing is to minimize the numbers of drivers who are presented with a yellow when they are in the decision zone. The evaluators collected data on signalized intersections in Greensboro, but omitted the intersections at highway exit ramps. The report did not state why they determined these particular traffic signals to have different characteristics than all other traffic signals. The crash data used in the study was obtained from the NCDOT crash database, referred to as the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEARS). The NCDOT data is collected in a more robust database compared to City data. The time period used for the crash analysis of all intersections, including the SafeUght intersections, was from 1/01/99 to 9/30/02. As of September 30, 2002, some of the cameras had only been active for a year. The simple before - and -after study showed little change to the monthly rates of crashes per million entering vehicles. The after period was much shorter than the before period, which may have skewed the resulting numbers. In addition, the after period encompassed the adjustment period for each camera where construction and fine August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 24 A da Item No. 10E tuning would have been taking place, as well as drivers becoming accustomed tt� ', 22, 2005 roadside device. The numbers of crashes used and the average daily traffic (ADT) wMage 40 of 94 not included in the study, therefore the results cannot be verified. The researchers used a negative binomial regression model to evaluate the impact of red light cameras on crashes at intersections, which was determined to be a better model for intersection characteristics than the Poisson regression model. An explanation of their methodology could be expanded to help the reader follow this decision. For these models, each trait or variable selected should be independent and have no correlation to the others, which is debatable for this study. Interestingly, the evaluators indicated that the presence of a "no left turn" sign had a positive coefficient in the model, indicating an increasing effect on the number of crashes. The presence of red light cameras also had a non - negative coefficient in the model. Again, it is not clear how these coefficients were derived or the extent of correlation between variables, which are presumed to be independent variables. Results of coefficients for various variables on total crashes at 302 intersections in Greensboro as well as various crash types were reported. The model attempts to take into account the crashes at the red light camera locations versus other signalized intersections in Greensboro, but fails to acknowledge the impact the photo enforcement program may have had on the other locations. Addressing accident severity, the NC A&T study reports Poisson model results for severe crashes, crashes resulting in possible injury and crashes resulting in property damage. Presence of a red light camera had a positive coefficient for each of these crash types. In the summary of findings section Burkey and Obeng state that "various road signs and road characteristics are associated positively with types and severity of accidents at signalized intersections." It is unclear how the authors have associated the presence of the signs with the numbers or severity of crashes. The same is true for the presence of red light cameras. Burkey and Obeng conclude that increases in traffic volumes lead to increases in accidents. They also conclude that locations with longer yellow times have fewer angle crashes and more rear end crashes. Because the change in yellow times was not measured, it is difficult to conclusively state that the yellow times accounted for the crash rates. The authors also did not define "longer" yellow times so the reader is unsure about its meaning. A longer yellow time could be defined as being longer than other intersections' yellow times, but appropriate for the intersection, or actually longer than the minimum for that particular intersection. The results seem to be a product of the chosen data set, because other studies show that crashes have decreased at Greensboro SafeLight intersections over different time periods. Whether crashes have decreased at a rate more or less than expected is yet to be studied. The NC A&T study, however, indicates that crashes at red light camera intersections increased while crashes at other signalized intersections in Greensboro decreased over the same time period. In general, the report is heavy on conclusions and light on data. The SafeLight intersections were not looked at individually to determine if red light cameras are August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 25 effective at some locations but not others. It is also unclear how the results p A en a Item 2, 105 this report can be applied to other programs. Page 22, 2005 Po PP � P >� Page 41 of 94 2.4.2 NCHRP SYNTHEBIs The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recently published Synthesis 310, "Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience." As with other synthesis reports, this is a compilation of previous reports — no new research was performed aside from a survey sent to 5o US municipalities with red light photo enforcement programs. This synthesis, in addition to investigating crash rates and severities at intersections monitored by red light cameras, specifically aimed to identify factors of the red light camera intersections or programs that could be attributed with changes in safety. Also, the synthesis noted the methodologies by which the safety analyses were performed. The report is an excellent compilation and summary of red light photo enforcement programs and studies. The synthesis was undertaken because red light running has become a national safety issue with 26o,000 red light running crashes resulting in 85o deaths and 1.4 million injuries annually. The study acknowledges that while the camera operation is similar from city to city, there are varying factors from site to site and program to program that will cause the effectiveness of the cameras and the programs to vary. Included in the synthesis were summaries of international studies of red light cameras in Australia, Great Britain, and Singapore, as well as domestic studies in Oxnard, CA; Polk County, FL; Mesa, AZ; San Diego, CA; and San Francisco, CA. Lastly, results of a meta - analysis of programs in Howard County, MD and Charlotte, NC are included which show a 26% reduction in rear end and angle crashes for those two programs. A second part of the NCHRP synthesis was a survey sent to 50 municipalities in the United States with red light photo enforcement programs; of which 26 of the 50 municipalities responded to the survey. Crash statistics are provided in the synthesis for Baltimore County, MD; Charlotte, NC; Howard County, MD; and others. All programs reporting crash statistics saw a decrease in crashes, but the true effectiveness of the cameras cannot be reported without accounting for other factors including traffic volumes and regression - to-the -mean. The synthesis includes constructive comments from the returned surveys and a discussion of the procedures to evaluate the safety of red light photo enforcement programs. The report states that because photo enforcement programs are considered controversial in the United States, studies with positive, justifiable results are important to the continuation and expansion of these programs. The synthesis notes that two types of evaluations have occurred — one where a municipality attempts to determine the effectiveness of its cameras on its jurisdiction, and the second where a reviewer attempts to define the effect that red light cameras have on the number of crashes at signalized intersections in general. The second has a much broader scope than the first and requires more data and a more complex evaluation. The synthesis lists red light violations, conflicts or near - collisions, and crashes as accepted measures of effectiveness (MOE). A selected MOE for a study is dependent on August 2004 26 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. available data. The evaluation methodologies discussed in the synthesis focusA enda em 2,200E as the MOE. Page 42 of 94 In an ideal before-and-after study, each of the crash reports would be reviewed directly for accuracy, a significantly long after period would exist, and the study could be updated annually. In addition, sufficient data would be available to examine crashes by approach, type, severity, and violation charged. Designs for an effective study include simple before - and - after, before- and -after with central group, before -and -after with comparison group, cross sectional, and trend analysis. Each study type has benefits and drawbacks. To determine the effectiveness of a red light camera, the results of the study can be compared or statistically analyzed using several accepted methods including Empirical Bayes, Chi - squared, Poisson Regression, paired t -test, or z -test. Some issues to weigh when reporting the results of a study are the impacts of clearance interval times, varying traffic volumes, spillover or halo effects, and other applied engineering countermeasures. The synthesis was not able to determine factors that impact crashes at red light camera intersections from available studies. Available research presented in the synthesis has shown that reductions in crashes have been seen following the installation of red light cameras, but the results are sometimes statistically insignificant due to small sample size and flaws in the analysis, such as failing to account for regression -to- the -mean. Overall, the synthesis report found that photo enforcement can be an effective tool to counteract red light running and associated crashes. More systems must be deployed and more time must pass with the existing systems before the benefits can be definitively quantified. 2.5 OBJECTiw Y FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the crash analysis, the SafeLight program appears to have met the City's first objective of enhancing safety. Total crashes have decreased 4% and angle crashes have decreased 14% in the after period of the study. Further analysis including comparison sites could yield a clearer picture. With a decrease of 17% in average annual monthly citations from 2001 to 2004, the citation history also indicates that the objective of enhancing safety is being met. The main concern from the traffic engineering and safety field study is that some locations may have seen problems with red light running due to factors that cannot be overcome with the red light cameras. In particular, locations with a high percentage of unfamiliar drivers, such as around the coliseum and along the restaurant area on Wendover Avenue at I -40, may not see improvements in driver behavior due to the cameras. Unfamiliar drivers may be inattentive due to unfamiliarity with the area, which the cameras alone cannot remedy. Likewise, unfamiliar drivers had not been exposed to the companion public service campaign in the community. Geometry that causes poor August 2004 Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. 27 visibility of the traffic signal is not being overcome with the presence of a red liggenda Item 105 � bruary 222, , 2005 camera. The additional signing for the camera may help to alert motorists to the Page 43 of 94 upcoming traffic signal. Also, the presence of a photo enforcement program in the community may heighten driver's attention to traffic signals in the area. Providing a strong media and public service campaign promoting safe driving practices in conjunction with a photo enforcement program may urge drivers to be more attentive when driving. Likewise, word of mouth about the cameras and the $50 citations may cause drivers to be more cautious. For this reason, it is good to install cameras on main corridors and distributed across communities in the city. The program maybe better served by further dispersing the locations based on need. Recommendations to improve the ability of the SafeLight program to enhance safety include: • Performing a more detailed crash evaluation using comparison sites or the Empirical Bayes method. • Selecting SafeLight locations where cameras are more likely to impact driver behavior than other measures. • Addressing geometric concerns at some locations. August 2004 28 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 3 OBJECTIVE 2 -- PROVIDE ADDITIONAL Page 44 of 94 . ENFORCEMENT The second objective of Greensboro's SafeUght program is to provide photo enforcement as an additional method of violation enforcement. The benefit to Greensboro Police Department (GPD) traffic enforcement officers would be that they could use their limited resources elsewhere to make the City safer. 3.1 GREBNsBoRo POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES Between 1998 and 2004, the GPD underwent several reorganizations and leadership changes. For this reason, it is difficult to definitively quantify the effects of the photo enforcement program on GPD's typical operations over time because their standard practices have not been uniform over time. GPD currently has eleven traffic enforcement officers. Four of those officers are assigned to patrol the highways, while the remaining seven officers patrol city streets for moving violations. In the past 5 years, the number of officers has remained essentially the same through decentralizing and recentralizing the traffic enforcement officers unit. During those shifts their focuses and priorities have changed, but their essential tasks have remained the same, that is, enforcement of the motor vehicle code and investigating accidents. 3.2 GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT CITATIONS Because the citations issued for red light running from the photo enforcement program are civil citations and not moving violations or classified as infractions to the motor vehicle code, the GPD is not actively involved with the program. The GPD exercises no authority over civil citations issued for red light running. To prevent double jeopardy for violators and to allow the GPD to benefit from the presence of photo enforcement, traffic enforcement officers as a practice do not monitor photo enforced intersection approaches for red light running violations. This allows these officers to focus more time on monitoring the other approaches at these intersections or at other intersections and monitoring for other types of violations. GPD noted that the 18 red light running cameras in Greensboro provide a complementary enforcement resource by aiding the officers in monitoring approaches at intersections and enforcing traffic laws. GPD likes the fact that the cameras are able to clearly record motorists who are breaking the law. In some cases, the police have used the camera images to identify hit and run vehicles. The City and GPD maintain a list of the 4o highest crash intersections in the city. This list is updated quarterly based on crash history. GPD reviews the crash history and identifies types of motor vehicle code infractions that may be contributing to the crashes at each location that they can target for enforcement to try to reduce the number of crashes. Traffic enforcement officers are committed to spending a portion of each of their shifts at one of more of the intersections on this high crash list. If one or more of the 18 SafeLight intersections appear on the list, the officers do not spend time August 2004 29 Kimley- -Born and Associates, Inc. A end It No. 10E monitoring the photo enforced approach for red light running violations and cal�ipps'22 2005 allocate their time and resources to the other intersections. Page 45 of 94 If an officer takes io minutes to issue a citation, as reported by the GPD, the 89,000 citations issued by the Safelight Program since inception would have taken nearly 15,000 hours of officers' time. This would equate to 2 -3 additional officers doing nothing but issuing red light running citations full time for 3 years. At a reported cost of $21.13 per hour for a law enforcement officer's salary and benefits, it would have cost the city over $300,000 to have officers issue the same number of citations. As a side note, had the citations been issued by a law enforcement officer rather than through the SafeUght program, they would have carried points and a fine and court costs of $125, which also would have resulted in additional costs to the citizens of Greensboro. In 2000, the year before the red light cameras were installed in Greensboro, GPD issued 1,446 red light running citations between January 1 and December 31. In 2003, the most recent calendar year in which all 18 cameras were operational, GPD issued 1,043 red light running citations. This is a reduction of 403 citations or a 28% decrease in citations issued from 2000 to 2003. While this reduction in citations is significant, it is not possible to state definitively the degree of impact the photo enforcement program had on this statistic. 3.3 OBJECTIVE 2 FINDnvGS AND RECUMm ENDATIUNs The Safelight program in Greensboro has met the objective of providing additional enforcement of red light running violations. Both the City and GPD agree that the red light cameras have provided additional enforcement during the time they have been in operation. The GPD traffic enforcement officers use the presence of the cameras for full red light enforcement at the 18 approaches to intersections allowing them to use their resources toward other objectives and other locations while on duty patrolling the City. GPD also uses the camera images to identify hit and run vehicles and feels that the program has raised community awareness of the issue of red light running. Involving GPD in decisions concerning the placement of cameras could yield greater benefits from the cameras. Previous year's high crash location lists were used in the initial selection of candidate intersections but GPD involvement ceased after the initial selection. GPD suggests that the City consider adding new locations and taking over full operation of the system from the contractor. August 2004 Kinley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. 30 Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 4 OBJECTIVE_ 3 — RMS19 AWARIENES3 Page 46 of 94 The third objective of Greensboro's SafeLight program is to raise awareness of safe driving practices in Greensboro. To evaluate the degree to which the program is meeting this objective, it is necessary to investigate the methods employed by the City to educate the public and how the program has been perceived in the media and surveys. 4.1 PROGRAM OUTREACH Before the first camera was installed, the City of Greensboro had begun a planned outreach campaign to educate the citizens about the SafeUght program. The campaign focused on reaching the public both through the media and through direct contact. The City issued press releases that introduced the SafeLight program and then issued a press release when each red light camera was activated. Many local media outlets picked up on the press releases and reported on the SafeUght program status. In addition, the City used its own community access Channel 13 to reach the public. In cooperation with the SafeUght Charlotte program, a fifteen minute video was produced that explained the SafeUght program and its operations. In 2002, as the cameras were being installed, this video was shown eight times a day on Channel 13 over the course of six months. The City also went directly to the citizens to educate them on the SafeUght program. A flyer (shown in Appendix C) explaining the program was distributed with water bills mailed to citizens in 2002. This reached approximately go,000 citizens in Greensboro. In addition, the program provided about 5,000 SafeUght brochures (shown in Appendix D), io,000 SafeUght bumper stickers, and 1o,000 children's flashing Safelight buttons for distribution to Greensboro citizens. Finally, City staff attended approximately 25 civic group meetings and City Hall in the Mall events to present the SafeUght program to the public. 4.2 MEDL4 REWEW Appendix J includes summaries of articles collected concerning red light cameras in Greensboro, the Triad Region, North Carolina, and other states that provide an indication of the attitudes toward red light photo enforcement programs. For the reasons mentioned in the legal review (Section 5), there are citizens, elected officials, and government workers on both sides of this issue. Individual citizens and some elected officials have taken issue with red light photo enforcement programs across the country and the media has aired or printed their viewpoints in several instances. A primary theme throughout several articles is the perception that government agencies are providing a mechanism for private companies to profit at the expense of its citizens and that the point of the programs is to generate revenue rather than to improve safety. Some imply that system operators have chosen locations and adjusted clearance times to maximize revenue. The right to due process, violation of privacy, the presumption of guilt, and the fining of vehicle owners without proof of driver identification are other themes seen in news August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 31 A e a Item No. 10E articles critical of photo enforcement programs. Municipalities have been refer, 22 2005 "big brother" who is watching over all with the cameras. Page 47 of 94 Articles portraying the benefits of red light camera programs report the reduction in crashes and decreases in citations issued during the programs. Articles also report what other safety improvements have benefited the community with revenues from the paid citations. While articles have been published reporting the benefits of programs, few point out that the vast majority of those who are photographed and fined are guilty of an action that jeopardizes the safety of others. Many, if not all, systems have been portrayed positively and negatively by the media at one time or another. in the Triad region, many news reports have centered on the issues raised by the High Point lawsuit. As this report shows, there are not enough systems or evaluations of systems to definitively state all the benefits of a system. Until those evaluations are completed, and perhaps after, there will be questions by the media about red light photo enforcement systems. Because it is a new and different type of traffic safety initiative in this country, it is not surprising that there are both supporters and detractors. When first introduced, even seat belt laws were not well received by everyone. A complete copy of each article summarized for this media review is included in Appendix K 4.3 PUBLic OPnvroN SURVEY In 2001, MarketWise, Inc. conducted a statewide survey of cities in North Carolina. This consisted of telephone interviews with residents in Greensboro, High Point, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Wilmington, Asheville, and Raleigh. At the time, some of the cities had active SafeUght programs and some did not. The survey results show that statewide: • 62% of residents believe that traffic violations are a problem. • 57% of residents believe that running red lights is a problem. • 98% of residents are aware of operational SafeLight programs. 0 82% of residents believe SafeLight is beneficial to the community. • 74% of residents support the Safel fight program. • 33% of residents agree that the SafeLight program has changed their driving behavior. In addition, the survey found that residents learn of the SafeLight program most often from television news stories, newspaper articles, and intersection warning signs. A citizen research survey conducted in May 2003 by AH HA! polled 75o residents from across all five districts in Greensboro. Citizens responded that red light running was their third highest traffic safety concern behind aggressive drivers and speeding. Approximately 6o% of the citizens surveyed support the red light camera program and feel that it is effective. 4.4 OBJECTIVE 3 FINDnvGsAND REcolvrlvl wDAnoNs The City of Greensboro has undertaken a planned public awareness campaign. Survey results show that citizens are definitely aware of Safelight and most are supportive of the August 2004 32 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. A n aLJtem No. 10E program and view it as being beneficial to the community. However, it appears 22, 2005 program is not causing citizens to change their driving behavior to the same degree wage 48 of 94 programs in other cities. The survey findings and the results from the citation analysis in Section 2.1 support this claim. While the number of red light running citations issued by SafeLight has decreased, it is possible that the program outreach could be increased to make a larger impact on driver behavior. Some additional methods used by other red light photo enforcement programs to promote the program and educate drivers include: • Regular spots on local television networks. • Distribution of flyers and brochures to schools and driver education classes to target teenage drivers. • Program annual reports. • Advertisement on billboards. Annual reports are currently being developed by Wilmington and Charlotte successfully. The important aspects of the annual report should provide citation and crash information as well as basic information on the program and its operations. However, the report should also provide information on revenue and highlight how the money was spent and how it has benefited the public. Also, the report should provide information on customer service and address specific complaints that were received and any changes that have resulted from feedback. This would have been the place for the City to publicize that the due date for citations was increased from 21 to 28 days. Ideally, the annual reports would also be kept on a regularly updated SafeUght webpage maintained by the City. To date, the media reaction to the SafeLight program has not been overly positive, focusing on revenue issues, claims of increased crashes, and lawsuits. The positive aspects of the program, including how the revenue is being spent on additional safety actions, have not been reported to the extent that the High Point lawsuit has been reported. The City should continue to work with local media outlets and cultivate a relationship where the positive aspects of this and other safety programs will be touted by the media. Although shifting perceptions in media markets is difficult, it should be a priority and focus of the City's further program outreach. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 33 Agenda Item No. 10E 5 LEGAL REVIEW February 49 of 94 Page 49 of 94 The legal review conducted for this report examines the current laws, state statutes and local ordinances governing red light running and photo enforcement and how the Greensboro program complies with these laws. The recent lawsuit filed in High Point against the photo enforcement system there was researched and discussed as well as the overarching legal issues for red light camera programs across the nation. 5.1 RED LIGHT R UNNING REGULATIONS The North Carolina General Statutes specifically prohibit red light running in all locations at signalized intersections. Section 20 -158 (part of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1937) states that "vehicles facing a red light controlling traffic passing straight through an intersection from a steady or strobe beam stoplight shall not enter the intersection while the steady or strobe beam stoplight is emitting a red light controlling traffic passing straight through an intersection." The Motor Vehicle Act also specifies the penalty for red light running. According to Section 20 -176 (Penalty for Misdemeanor or Infraction), violations of the red light running provision are defined as infractions. In addition, persons found responsible for infractions may incur a penalty not to exceed $loo. The Judges Council sets and publishes annually the fines for infractions. Currently, the violation fine is $25 with an additional mandatory court cost of $loo. Finally, the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles has the authority to assign three points to an individual's driving record for convictions related to the offense of running a red light. Insurance points may also be assessed for a red light running conviction; generally one point is assigned in North Carolina for this violation. 5.2 PHOTO ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS For contractors to operate photo enforcement systems and issue citations, the red light running that occurs at monitored intersections has been classified as a civil violation rather than an infraction of the motor vehicle code. The legal basis for the Greensboro Red Light program is found in the North Carolina General Statutes and the City of Greensboro Code of Ordinances. The applicable portion of the NC Statutes is Chapter 16oA- 300.1. It can be viewed in its entirety in Appendix E. The statute is titled "Use of traffic control photographic systems" and defines a photographic system that is used to record vehicles violating a traffic control ordinance. The major points of the statute include: • Any photographic system must meet local and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requirements and standards. • Any photographic system must be identified by advance warning signs posted no more than 300 feet from the location. • Municipalities may adopt ordinances for civil enforcement and fine collection with the following restrictions: August 2004 JUmley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. 34 A end Item No. 10E o The vehicle owner is responsible for the violation unless they ca�p� 22, 2005 the name and address of the driver or prove that the vehicle_ was beingpage 50 of 94 used without permission. o The violation is a civil penalty of $5o and no points will be assigned to the owner's driving record or insurance. If a citation is not paid, the person may be assessed a late penalty not to exceed $10 o. o The citation shall clearly state the appeals process and the municipality should have non judicial administrative hearing to review citations. The prevailing City of Greensboro ordinance is Section 16 -58. This ordinance, titled "Traffic control photographic systems," can be viewed in Appendix F. This City ordinance defines a red light running violation as a vehicle crossing the stop line at an intersection approach while the traffic signal is emitting a steady red light. Any citation issued from a photographic system is issued to the vehicle owner, and the fine assessed is a civil penalty of $50. If the penalty is not paid within 21 days after the notification, then the vehicle owner loses the right to contest the citation and a late penalty of $5o is added to the fine. Finally, the ordinance states that the City of Greensboro Department of Transportation will administer the red light program and will establish an administrative process to review citations and appeals. Originally, an appeal had to be requested within 21 days and required a $5o bond. Since the program has been in operation, the ordinance has been amended to remove the bond requirement. The rationale for eliminating the bond for an appeal was that it may be perceived as restricting due process. Furthermore, the 21 -day requirement was extended to 28 days by City staff. The language on the citations instructing citizens how to pay or appeal reflects these changes. To summarize, if a motorist is ticketed for a red light violation by a police officer they are subject to fine and court cost of $125, three points assigned to their driving record, and insurance points assigned that may raise their insurance premiums. If a motorist is ticketed for a red light violation by automated photo enforcement, they are subject to a maximum penalty of $5o and no points are assigned to the driving record or insurance coverage. 5.3 LEGAL CHALLENGES To date, there have been a number of legal challenges to red light photo enforcement programs across the country. In 2003, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a report titled Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras that included a significant review of previous and pending lawsuits related to red light camera operations and citations. Their review found that a number of cases have challenged the constitutionality of photo enforcement of red light running violations, but the decisions handed down tended to be based on procedural grounds. To date, there has not been a binding decision that addresses the constitutionality of red light cameras. The FHWA report provides potential issues with red light photo enforcement programs that have been raised in past cases or may be raised in the future. Some procedural issues raised include: • Authentication of photographs • Chain of evidence of photographs August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 35 • Misuse or dissemination of photographs • Equipment reliability • Proper use of advance warning signs • Compliance with enabling statutes • Municipal drafting • Compliance with applicable state rules for service In addition, the FHWA listed some substantive issues that include: • Due Process rights (14th Amendment) • Confrontation rights (6th Amendment) • Right to remain silent (5th Amendment) • Search and seizure rights (4th Amendment) • Equal protection • Privacy • Revenue generation and distribution • Presumption that the registered owner is the driver of the vehicle Agenda Item No, 10E February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 94 Overall, red light cameras are a relatively new enforcement technique in the United States and there isn't a significant case history to build upon. The cases to date appear to uphold the procedural aspects of red light photo enforcement programs and the governing legislation. Future cases will likely deal more with constitutionality issues and may affect how violations are recorded and citations are served. Greensboro needs to continue to be aware of the potential legal issues that exist nationally and continue to plan and operate the SafeLight program in light of these legal concerns. 5.4 HIGHPomTLAwsvrr In May of 2001, a High Point citizen received a citation in the mail for a red light running violation in the City of High Point (part of SafeUght Piedmont) that was recorded by camera enforcement. The citizen did not appeal the citation and paid no money to SafeLight Piedmont. In June of 2001 the citizen filed suit in North Carolina state court against the City of High Point, Peek Traffic (the contractor operating the SafelAght Piedmont program), and EDS Corporation (a subcontractor to Peek Traffic). The suit made seven claims for relief as listed below. i. Violation of State and Federal Due Process Rights — The citizen claimed that his due process rights were violated because the citation was mailed to the vehicle owner and presumed guilt, the appeals process is not a fair process and denies the opportunity to confront and cross examine witnesses, the photographic technology used is not reliable and fails 59% of the time, and other similar issues. 2. Violation of State and Federal Equal Protection Rights — The citizen claimed that his equal protection rights were violated because he was presumed to have committed an illegal act and denied a trial by jury, and persons charged with red light running at non -photo enforced intersections are granted a trial. The citizen claimed that this creates two classes of offenders for the same violation and thus denies equal protection of the laws. 3. Violation of the North Carolina Constitution — The citizen claimed that the North Carolina statute that authorizes red light photo enforcement provides an appeals process that is in direct violation of the North Carolina Constitution. August 2004 36 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. A a Item No. 10E 4. Violation of United States Code — The citizen claimed that laws to preveRR Vary 22, 2005 disclosure of personal information obtained from a department of motor vehi d* 52 of 94 records were violated. The citizen claimed that the City of High Point is an authorized recipient of DMV information, but not Peek Traffic and EDS since the citizen claimed they are not an agent or employee of the City. 5. Unlawful taxation by the City of High Point — The citizen claimed that the contract between the City and Peek Traffic constitutes an illegal use of police power for the sole purpose of generating revenue. 6. Violation of the North Carolina Constitution — The North Carolina Constitution states that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government should be separate. The citizen claimed that the statute authorizing red light photo enforcement violates this by giving municipalities the combined power to issue citations (executive power), establish an appeals process (legislative power), and to hear appeals (judicial power). 7. Unconstitutional diversion of fines and penalties (Alternative Claim for Relief) — The citizen claimed that the City of High Point is not entitled to keep proceeds from the citations, but instead this money should be given to the Guilford County Board of Education since the North Carolina Constitution states that all "clear proceeds" of penalties and fines be given to the local school system. This case was eventually moved to federal district court by the defendants. In addition, the Guilford County Board of Education answered the complaint and filed a cross -claim saying they were entitled to the proceeds from the program. In July of 2003, the district judge granted judgment in favor of the defendants (City of High Point, Peek Traffic, and EDS) on the federal claims (numbers x, 2, and 4 above) and deferred the state claims (numbers 3, 5, and 6 above) back to the state court. The federal judge did make a ruling on the final claim, defined as a state claim, and ruled that the City of High Point was entitled to the red light photo enforcement program proceeds and not the Guilford County Board of Education. This decision by the district court was not appealed by the citizen. However, the school board did appeal the decision. In June of 2004, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the district court did not have subject -matter on the school board's claim and vacated their decision that the City of High Point is entitled to keep the program's proceeds. The court also ordered that the claim be remanded to the state court. The result of this string of claims and appeals appears to be that the citizen's rights were not violated by the red light photo enforcement program and the governing laws and ordinances are legitimate. However, the major legal issue has become whether the City of High Point can retain the proceeds from the citations or if the money should be given to the school system. This claim has not been ruled on by the state court as of yet. The effect of this lawsuit on the red light program run by the City of Greensboro is only directed at how the proceeds are distributed. The fact remains that the goal of the program is to enhance public safety instead of earning revenue and that the City does not expend any capital or operational budgeted funds to operate or maintain the program. If the court rules that the program proceeds must be distributed to the school system, the impact on the program operations will be negligible. The City will not have the additional funds currently generated by the program to supplement their safety program August 2004 37 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. budget. The City is currently holding the majority of the funds awaiting the ou'g eg nda It ry 222, , 105 this lawsuit. Peg 2005 _ Page 53 of 94 5.5 PROGRAM COMPLIANCE VMW STATEAND LOCAL LA" The operations of Greensboro's SafeLight program are fully compliant with state and local laws. In fact, the program has extended the due date for citations from the period stated in the Greensboro ordinance. In January 2003 the City made a policy decision to extend the period for an individual to pay or appeal a citation from 21 to 28 days. The purpose of this change was to be more consistent with other City payment processes and hopefully increase the collection rate for penalties. In addition, generally for citations to be upheld in court, the yellow and red clearance times should have a reasonably accepted engineering justification. In North Carolina, the amendment to the General Statutes requires the clearance times to comply with times and calculation methods that are contained in the Design Manual published by the Signals and Geometric Section of NCDOT. The yellow change and red clearance intervals are used in traffic signals to allow motorists approaching the intersection to have sufficient time to clear the intersection at the termination of the green before displaying a green indication to the conflicting traffic. The amount of time given is a function of the posted or average speed, the grade of the approach, and the width of the intersection that vehicles must traverse. At the beginning of the SafeUght program in Greensboro, the times and methodology needed only to be adequate and defensible. In July 2001, the North Carolina General Assembly amended the red light camera legislation to require that the clearance intervals at monitored intersections be no less than the clearance intervals specified in the Design Manual. In March 2002, NCDOT revised their practice for determining yellow change and red clearance intervals. At that time, the City of Greensboro examined the SafeLight intersections to determine if they met the new standards published in the manual. The four following intersections were found to have yellow clearance intervals shorter than the new NCDOT standard and were changed. • 602 Wendover Avenue at English Street • 605 Wendover Avenue at Church Street • 617 Wendover Avenue at Hill Street • 618 Wendover Avenue at Bridford Parkway The old clearance times were adequate and did not compromise the safety of the intersection but did not meet the new standards established by NCDOT, which is required according to the amendment to the legislation. Citations that were issued between the legislative amendment and the implementation of the new clearance times were dismissed if appealed. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 38 6 PROGRAM OPERATIONS REVIEW Agenda Item No..10E February 22, 2005 Page 54 of 94 This section of the report presents summaries of operations of SafeLight programs in three cities in North Carolina: Fayetteville, Rocky Mount and Wilmington. All three cities had programs operational at the same time as the Greensboro SafeUght program. This section also addresses the Federal Highway Administration guidelines for operating a photo enforcement system and notes how the Greensboro system complies with these guidelines. 6.1 NORTH CAROLINA RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS Currently, there are eight red light photo enforcement programs in the North Carolina cities of Cary, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greensboro, High Point, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, and Wilmington. Chapel Hill terminated their program and Knightdale is installing cameras at a single intersection. Each program uses the SafeUght name, but is operated by the individual municipality. Table io lists the red light programs and general information about each. Table io. North Carolina Red Light Programs City Program Initiation Number of Cameras Contractor Cary 200 will expand to 16 Redflex Charlotte 1998 20 ACS Charlotte 200 second contract 20 Peek Traffic Fayetteville 2000 8 ACS Greensboro 2001 18 Peek Traffic High Point 2001 10 Peek Traffic Kni htdale 200 2 at one intersection Redflex Raleigh 2003 7 ACS Rocky Mount 2002 6 Peek Traffic Wilmington 2000 10 Peek Traffic In general, all of the programs in North Carolina are very similar in development and operations. In fact, there is significant communications and resource sharing among all of the municipalities in the state that have red light photo enforcement programs. The municipalities hold biannual SafeLight conferences to coordinate efforts and develop consistent approaches and exchange success stories. This level of cooperation and sharing has resulted in SafeLight programs that operate similarly throughout the State. All programs have the primary goal of reducing traffic accidents and improving safety at signalized intersections. The intersections chosen for photo enforcement were selected by the municipality and contractor based on accident rates, red light running violations, citizen complaints, and other similar factors. All programs have similar camera operations where inductive loops in the pavement are used to detect vehicles running a red light. The camera takes a picture of the vehicle at the stop line with the red light visible and then of the vehicle in the intersection (past the stop line) with the red light visible. All cameras take pictures of the rear of the vehicle; none of the programs in North Carolina take a picture of the vehicle occupants. All August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 39 photos are time stamped A egda Item No. 10E p ped and include other information such as yellow clearanc r y 22 2005 red interval time, and the vehicle's detected speed. Page 55 of 94 All programs use the same sign alerting drivers to the presence of a camera at the intersection. It is a black -on -white regulatory sign that reads "RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCED" with a color graphic of a three - section traffic signal head. This sign is posted on all approaches of an intersection regardless of the number of approaches that are actually enforced with cameras. Citations are handled similarly by each municipality in the state. North Carolina law dictates that the penalty for being caught running a red light by photo enforcement is a civil penalty with a fine not to exceed $50. The citation does not result in drivers license points or increases in automobile insurance. After a camera records a violation, the photographs are reviewed independently by multiple parties of the contractor and municipality before a citation is issued. For each program, the citations are mailed to the vehicle owner according to DMV records. Persons cited are entitled to an appeals process for each program. An independent hearing officer reviews each appeal to either uphold or repeal the original citation. The operation of the Greensboro SafeLight program was discussed in Section 1.i. Next, the program is compared to programs in three other cities in the state: Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, and Wilmington. 6. 1.1 FAYETTEVU.0 SAFELIGHT PROGRAM The City of Fayetteville implemented the SafeLight program in 2000 by hiring ACS and has expanded to eight cameras at seven intersections. According to Rusty Thompson, program manager for the City, the program averages about i,000 citations per month for all seven intersections. After two years of operation, a preliminary study was completed on the enforced intersections (which numbered five at the time). The study found that angle accidents decreased at two locations, increased at two locations, and remained the same at one location. The program is similar to the Greensboro program, but with a few distinguishing characteristics. First, the site selection process included a large committee of stakeholders. Each stakeholder prepared a list of the top ten intersections they felt would benefit from red light cameras based on their particular criteria. These lists were combined to form the committee's top 30 intersections for red light camera installations. The contractor then surveyed each location for red light running violations, and five locations were initially chosen for camera installations. Second, Fayetteville uses a longer grace period before the cameras will record a violation. The cameras have a grace period of three - tenths of a second compared to the two- tenths of a second used in Greensboro. Theoretically, this increase in the grace period would reduce the number of violations recorded at the same intersection. But the extent of this reduction is not expected to be of a significant magnitude. Different grace periods are used in other programs because of varying philosophies of perception- reaction times for drivers. august 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 40 A ends Item No. 10E Third, unlike Greensboro, the cameras deployed in Fayetteville are not digital c,ry 22, 2005 but rather conventional "wet film" cameras. These cameras store the photos on rolls I9ge 56 of 94 film that must be manually retrieved from the camera and developed. Wet film, once the industry standard, has been replaced by digital technology as the standard installed in new systems. Finally, SafeLight Fayetteville has an overwhelmingly positive perception among the residents. According to the program manager, the citizens are openly supportive of the program, and the local media has not questioned the program or its processes. This appears to be distinctive for North Carolina and also the U.S. where opposition to red light cameras is more typical than support. The City is considering expanding their system into newly annexed areas to the west of the city. 6.1.2 ROCKY MOUNT SAFELIGHT PROGRAM The City of Rocky Mount began red light photo enforcement in 2002. Their program, managed by Jonathan Boone with the City, now consists of six cameras and averages close to four citations per camera each day. One year into the red light photo enforcement program, City staff conducted a before - and -after study of the number of crashes. This study did not address the issue of regression to the mean but did report reduction in all of the measures of effectiveness (MOE) including total crashes, angle crashes and rear end crashes for the monitored approaches as well as a decrease in citations. The program is operated by Peek Traffic, the same contractor used in Greensboro. Thus, the two programs are similar in operation. The system uses the same two- tenths of a second grace period being used in Greensboro. The cameras operate in a similar fashion, and violations are subject to the same multiple review process. 6.1.3 WH2A1NGT0N SAFELIGHT PROGRAM The City of Wilmington began red light photo enforcement at a single intersection in March of 2000. The program has since expanded to ten locations. The intersections to be enforced were chosen by project manager Jim Flechtner, the City Engineer, and staff after identifying locations with high levels of accidents and red light violations where conventional engineering improvements were not possible or effective. During its second year of operation, a study showed that the total number of accidents at enforced intersections decreased 21% from a similar time period before the cameras were installed. Similarly, it was reported that angle accidents decreased 23% and rear -end accidents decreased 5 %. One area of the Wilmington program that distinguishes it from others in North Carolina is public information. Before implementing the program, the City developed a detailed marketing and public information strategy with assistance from business students at UNC- Wilmington. The City has worked alongside the local media to educate and inform them on the program and its benefits. One local news program features a popular "photo of the week" segment that shows actual red light running violations. The City's information strategy has resulted in overwhelming support for the program with one survey reporting that 85% of City residents believe the program is beneficial. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 41 Agenda Item No. IOE February 22, 2005 In terms of camera operations and citation processing, the Wilmington program is page 57 of 94 similar to Greensboro's program. Both systems also have the same contractor, Peek Traffic. 6.2 FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS The 2003 FHWA report Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras was in response to the rapid deployment of red light photo enforcement programs in the United States and the often inconsistent implementation of these programs. The FHWA presented proven and effective practices to provide guidance in addressing red light runners and how to implement a red light photo enforcement program if deemed beneficial. The guidelines were published by the FHWA two years after Greensboro had a red light camera installed and operational. However, Greensboro's red light photo enforcement program adheres to and follows the majority of the guidelines. For example, the guidelines call for a detailed process for early planning and startup that includes: • Establishing an oversight committee including many stakeholders • Establishing program objectives that are clearly defined, address the reduction of collisions at signalized intersections resulting from red light running, and address specific operational needs • Identifying the legal requirements of implementing a red light photo enforcement program • Developing a public awareness and information campaign that uses non- technical terms to describe the program's objectives, operations, advantages, and use of revenue In terms of site selection, the guidelines outline a process based on actual crash data and red light violations data. Other criteria to consider are recommendations from law enforcement and traffic safety professionals and citizen complaints. According to the guidelines the final sites selected for red light cameras should be historically unsafe intersections based on available data and intersections where an engineering study has concluded that engineering improvements and other countermeasures would not be effective in reducing crashes due to red light running. Greensboro's red light photo enforcement program also follows the federal guidelines related to processing violations and issuing citations. The FHWA guidelines call for this process to be comprehensive, clearly documented in writing, and followed without exception. There must be a specific definition of a red light running violation and a citation must be reviewed for compliance with the guidelines by two independent persons before it can be issued. Greensboro has a total of three reviews: two by Peek Traffic personnel and the final review by City staff. Finally, the guidelines discuss a continuous analysis of violation and crash data to determine how the program is meeting its goals and objectives. The one area where the Greensboro program deviates from the FHWA guidelines relates to system procurement and contracting. The guidelines present many options for procuring red light camera systems ranging from the agency to a private contractor August 2004 42 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E taking full responsibility for construction and operations. Regardless of the February 22, 2005 arrangement, the agency should have complete oversight of the program's operatioruPw 58 of 94 final recommendation for procurement is that when a private contractor is responsible for processing citations, the contractor's compensation should not be based on the number of citations issued (i.e., receiving a percentage of the citation fines). The FHWA feels that this type of payment arrangement can be a conflict of interest and may impair judgment on the installation and operation of the red light camera system. In Greensboro's agreement with Peek Traffic, the contractor receives a portion of each citation fee. This method is legal and similar to all red light programs in the State with the exception of Raleigh, a fairly new program that began operations in 2003. Raleigh's red light photo enforcement program pays a flat fee to the contractor to provide the equipment, maintenance, and operations of the system. To avoid the potential conflict of interest as identified by FHWA, the programs that pay a portion of fines to a contractor have set up the citation process where the final decision for issuing a citation rests with the agency and not the contractor. In addition, Greensboro's payments to Peek Traffic are on a scale that pays a smaller portion of the $5o citation to Peek as the total revenues rise. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 43 7 PROGRAM FINANCIAL REVIEW Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 59 of 94 According to the City, the revenue collected from the over 89,000 citations issued during the three year SafeLight program has exceeded $3.4 million. During this time, Greensboro paid Peek Traffic approximately $2.3 million to operate the program according to the payment schedule in the contract. Greensboro spent nearly $15o,000 on adjudication for those who appealed the citations and paid over $8,000 to the Department of Motor Vehicles to allow Peek Traffic to access vehicle registration records. With the remaining funds from the citations, the City has contributed to safety programs. The City helped to fund the Neighborhood Speed Watch and Pace Car program. These programs attempt to lower speeds in the City through various initiatives. Specifically, some of the photo enforcement revenues were spent purchasing radar /display units for citizens to use in their neighborhoods to help combat speeding. The City also purchased 30 portable generators to power traffic signals during power outages that can occur due to storm events. Providing temporary power to signals in critical areas will help maintain order and minimize congestion and crashes during prolonged power outages. Lastly, the income from the citations paid Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., to perform this study and prepare this report. After the SafeLight costs and the funded safety initiatives, the City retains a balance of nearly $1 million. The City has chosen to be conservative with spending the funds until the current legal issues are resolved to avoid any perception by the public of misuse of funds. The funds, when spent, will be allocated to special safety initiatives and to supplement funds budgeted for safety improvements. Necessary safety improvements are not being postponed by delaying spending the SafeLight funds. Table 11 illustrates collections and expenditures of the program from its inception in 2001 to June 2004 Table ii. SafeLight Financial Summary, 2001 -2004 Item Revenue Expenditures Citation Collections $3,535,000 Peek Traffic Contract $2,310,905 Adjudication Costs $143,600 Safety Program Costs $20,410 Program Review $49,948 DMV Look Up Char es $8,120 Misc. Adjustments $2,900 TOTAIS $39535,000 $2,5359883 BALANCE 0999,117 August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. M W $ PROGRAM CON'T'RACT REviEW Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 60 of 94 By the end of 2000, the City had contracted with Peek Traffic to install and maintain the red light camera system with EDS Corporation to serve as the system provider and coordinate citations and fine collections. Originally, the City signed a three -year contract with Peek Traffic to develop and maintain the program. During the contract, Peek Traffic terminated their agreement with EDS and took over all operations of the system. The contract expired May 15, 2004 and the City has renewed on a monthly basis with the contractor. It should be noted that even though the contractor is responsible for the equipment and system processing, the red light program is administered by the City of Greensboro, which is responsible for overseeing Peek Traffic's system operations. The City has a program manager and staff that reviews violations and acts as final decision makers on the issuance of citations. The original contract between the City and Peek Traffic was signed on October 13, 2000 and a change order dated June 26, 2002 set the effective date of the contract to be May 15, 2oo1. The contract details the products and services that will be provided by each party to create a program of traffic signal violation photo enforcement. According to the contract, the role of Peek Traffic is "the obtaining and integration of all necessary equipment, computer hardware and software, related infrastructure, citation processing services, and collections." It also states that all equipment will remain the property of Peek Traffic. In addition to processing citations, Peek Traffic also coordinates the appeal hearings including scheduling, review, and document processing. The City contracts directly with the attorneys who serve as hearing officers and pays them for each appeal heard from the revenue generated by the citations. The contract establishes the administration of the red light photo enforcement program. Peek Traffic is given the responsibility of overall management of the program, at the direction of the City of Greensboro. The City also retains the right to provide an employee to observe the operations of Peek Traffic and be housed in their offices. This employee also acts as the City's representative and liaison. In terms of customer service, the contract is fairly explicit about what the City expects from Peek Traffic. Peek Traffic is expected to receive and respond to all public inquires. Peek Traffic also must keep a record of all citizen complaints and actions taken in response. Peek Traffic notes citizen complaints on their individual citations, as well as the resolution to the issues. However, Peek Traffic does not keep a unified list of all complaints over time and does not keep a record of general feedback that is not related to a specific citation. The City states in the contract that all Peek Traffic employees involved in the program must serve the public in a "courteous, helpful, and impartial manner." The contract establishes the payment schedule and terms for Peek Traffic. All of the money collected from citations is deposited in a City designated account and all expenses are paid from this account. For each $50 civil penalty collected, Peek Traffic receives: 0 $35 up to a total of $i2o,000 for the collection year. $30 when Peek Traffic's collection has exceed $12o,000 but below $210,000 for the collection year. $27 when Peek Traffic's collection has exceeded $210,000 for the collection year. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 45 For each $50 late fee that is submitted by the vehicle owner (in addition to the �enda item 105 �2 222, , 2005 penalty that is distributed as stated above), Peek Traffic will receive $28. For each $SMge 61 of 94 late fee that is collected through legal action or collection agency, Peek Traffic will receive $49 in addition to the associated court costs. Finally, should the City request that _ Peek Traffic relocate a camera and housing to another location, Peek Traffic will receive $13,500 per location from the City. The contract also spells out conditions for the termination of the contract. If the contract is terminated prematurely by the City, Peek Traffic is entitled to liquidated damages of • $ioo,000 per camera location if terminated in year 1. • $75,000 per camera location if terminated in year 2. • $50,000 per camera location if terminated in year 3. All liquidated damages are not to exceed the cap of 8o% of the net share of revenue from citation collections. Finally, Peek Traffic also has the option to renegotiate the contract terms if the number of citations falls below 12 citations per monitored approach per day when averaged over 90 days for all locations. The City of Greensboro made no up -front payments to Peek Traffic to cover their start- up costs. The money is paid to the City from the citations, and Greensboro pays Peek based on the above contract terms. Red light camera contracts between municipalities and contractors can have many variations. A critical portion of such contracts is the language addressing collection or revenue and payment. There are generally two ways a contractor can be paid by a municipality. The first is a lump sum payment agreement, whether the negotiated fee is for the total program or whether it is per location or per year. The FHWA recommends this type of payment method in red light program contracts because it reduces the perception that the contractors are operating the program to maximize revenue rather than improve safety. A drawback to this method is that the municipality may overpay for the program, because the costs may not be known before implementation and the payments to the contractor are not tied in any way to performance. The second way that contractors can be paid is on a per- citation basis. The split of revenue generated from citations between the contractor and the municipality varies from city to city according to their contracts, but are typically heavily weighted toward the contractor. This is because the operation is not intended to be a revenue generating program for the cities. The goal of the program is to improve safety. The funds generated above the costs of the program are used by cities or county school districts to fund other traffic safety initiatives. Contracting for payment on a per - citation basis encourages contractors to keep the systems well maintained and operational. Because of the checks and balances in the system and the right of citizens to appeal, contractors will only be paid from valid issued citations. A drawback to the per - citation payments is the perception that contractors may make questionable decisions affecting system operation to increase the number of violations and boost their revenue. August 2004 46 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. A s da Ite No. 10E In Greensboro, which has a per- citation payment contract, the City selected the%' $'22, 2005 set the clearance times. The system includes a grace period after the light changes fi*oge 62 of 94 yellow to red before a violation is considered to have occurred. Finally, the percentage of payment to the contractor from each citation decreases as the number of citations increases. The contractor has little ability or incentive to make changes to increase the numbers of valid citations issued. As the City considers a new contract for the Safelight program, there are a couple of options for moving forward: • Consider the lump sum contract as recommended by FHWA rather than the per - citation payment schedule. • Consider removing the contract language allowing the contractor to renegotiate, or get out of, the contract if citations fall below a certain number. August 2004 Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. 47 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 63 of 94 The City of Greensboro is achieving each of its three objectives with the Safel fight program. Violations are decreasing; crashes, particularly the more severe type, have decreased over time; police are able to spend their time on other issues; and the public has been made aware of the danger of red light running. The results of the citation analysis reveal a 17% decrease in monthly citations at the 18 Greensboro SafeUght intersections from 2001 to 2004. Some locations saw greater reductions in violations than others. The greatest reduction was seen at the intersection of Wendover Avenue and Bridford Parkway with a nearly 68% decrease in citations. Some intersections saw increases in monthly citations. Overall, 13 of the 18 intersections saw significant reductions in citations (greater than 1o% decrease), two intersections saw significant increases in citations, and the remaining three intersections saw little effect in citations from photo enforcement. Intersection selection may have contributed to the results. Other programs around the world have reported reductions in violations ranging from 20% to 8o %. The average citations per month for many of the intersections were higher in the first part of 2004 than averages from other years. A greater reduction in the average monthly citations may be seen later in 2004 by including months of the year with traditionally lighter traffic. Traffic is typically lighter during the summer when schools are on break, resulting in fewer violations. During the course of the study, each intersection was visited, photos were taken, and field observations made. It appeared that some intersections have good sight distance and no congestion or speed issues that would cause red light running. These intersections had the lowest numbers of citations (and therefore were the lowest revenue generators) but did experience a decline in red light running. The addition of the camera had an impact on drivers at these locations, which include Cone Boulevard at Church Street, Wendover Avenue at Bridford Parkway, and Spring Street at Friendly Avenue. Other locations that appeared in the field to have other factors for driver inattention (as discussed in Section 2.3) saw little or no reductions in citation rates after the first year. Examples are Randleman Road at Creek Ridge Road, Holden Road at Merritt Drive, Battleground at Cone Boulevard, Wendover Avenue at Big Tree Way, and Wendover Avenue at Hill Street. It may be that certain factors at these locations are leading to the red light violations more so than the drivers themselves. If this is the case, the cameras will not have as much impact as other measures. Holden Road at Pinecroft Road saw a steady increase in monthly average citations each year although the approach was straight and level with normal traffic volumes. Battleground Avenue at Brassfield Road also had a straight and level approach, but did not see reductions in annual citations. The crash analysis results show that total crashes at the 18 intersections reduced by 4 %. Angle type crashes were reduced by 14% during the program analysis period. In addition, the EPDO index fell slightly from the before period to the after period of the crash analysis. Further study is necessary to compare the crash history of these locations with other locations to reveal a clearer level of safety but the preliminary numbers are encouraging. To further study the program, crash histories at comparison sites must be obtained and compared to the program locations. These comparison sites should be August 2004 - 48 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. unaffected by the SafeLight Greensboro program. Also, crash rate trends for Agenda FebruItem ary 2,2 06 intersections in the City of Greensboro should be examined to reveal the overall levelFdige 64 of 94 safety for the City over time. The red light photo enforcement program is providing a benefit to the City at a much lower cost than that of traditional enforcement, although the improvements appear to be incremental. It is believed from research conducted that greater benefits can be achieved with this program with a few adjustments and additions. Further study and analysis of the numbers of crashes and citations and annual updates to the study could provide additional insights regarding the program's success. Results from analyses of other photo enforcement systems across the country have been based on different data sets during longer or shorter time periods using various evaluation techniques that this study on the Greensboro Safel.ight program. Regardless of the variations, most available reports indicate reductions in crashes from other systems in the double digits. For this reason, it is believed that the Greensboro system is also capable of creating these same results, which are greater than the reductions already seen during the program to date. Public awareness and support are important to the success of red light photo enforcement programs, as seen in other cities such as Wilmington and Fayetteville. Investing more money and effort in public awareness and media campaigns may decrease citations at the SafeLight intersections and reduce red light running violations at other intersections in Greensboro. The City should revisit the initial list of candidate locations for the cameras or generate a new list based on more recent crash histories and consider adding locations or moving cameras from less effective to potentially more effective locations. Several of the candidate locations were not chosen because of construction issues that may have resolved themselves during the past 4 years. The program details are in line with other programs in the area and the federal guidelines with the exception of payment to the contractor. While the federal guidelines recommend against payment per citation because of the impression that it encourages contractors to make choices to maximize revenue, the Greensboro SafeUght contract decreases the revenue from each citation to Peek as the number of citations increases, which reduces the bias. When renewing the SafeLight contract, it is worth considering a lump sum payment schedule or other contracting mechanism. There does not appear to be an issue with payment of citations by the citizens because the percentage of citations paid annually is high (over 75%), the rate of appeals is small (approximately 3% of all citations issued) and level over the course of the program indicating general support of the SafelAght program. August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 49 10 - CITATIONS Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 65 of 94 10.1 RFJ7ER1WCEs Hauer, Ezra. Observational Before -After Studies in Road Safety, Estimating the Effect of Highway and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety. Oxford: Pergamon,1997• ANSI D16.1 -1996 Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, Sixth Edition Telephone interview with Rusty Thompson, City of Fayetteville, May 11, 2004. Telephone interview with Jonathan Boone, P.E., City of Rocky Mount, May 11, 2004. Hauer, Ezra, Harwood, Douglas W., Council, Forrest M., Griffith, Michael S., "Estimating Safety by the Empirical Bayes Method: A Tutorial," August 14, 2001. 10.2 BimroGR"Hy Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras (2003). Safel fight Program, http: / /www.charmeck.nc.us/ Departments /Transportation /Special +Programs /SafeUght .htm (accessed April 14, 2004). Flechtner, P.E., James R Managing Automated Enforcement Programs, 2003. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Synthesis 310 — Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience, A Synthesis of Highway Practice, 2003. Urban Transit Institute (UTI), Transportation Institute, A Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas (2003), 1 -52. McGee, Ph.D., P.E., Hugh W. and Kimberly A. Eccles. "The Impact of Red light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience." ITE Journal (2003): 44 -48. Lum, Ph.D., P.E., K. M. and Y. D. Wong. "A Before- and -After Study on Red light Camera Installation." TTE Journal (2003): 28 -32. "City of San Diego Enforcement System Review Final Report," PB Farradyne Inc., January 14, 2002, Chapter 6 (Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements ", pages 74 -94• University Transportation Center for Alabama (UTCA), Executive Summary Report, Pilot Study of Automated Red Light Enforcement, UTCA Report 00470 -3 (2003), 2 -15. City of Rocky Mount,l year study of SafeLight program. August 2004 50 Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 66 of 94 Appendix A. Sample SafeLight Citation (2 MeS) August 2oo4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. A -1 City of Greensboro da I m 10E RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM � 005 4915 Piedmont Parkway, Suite 108, Jamestown, NC 27282 Of 94 (336) 834 —9555 d�'t�ir CN7 NOTICE OF CITATION MAIL DATE: Citation Number 633885 Internet Password: Payment Due Date: 07/26/2004 Amount Due: $50.00 r- ---- -� If paid after due date Amount Due: 5100.00 Amount Paid: MW Eoit.atCion act us on the Internet for City of Greensboro nformation and payments at: 4915 Piedmont Parkway, Suite 108 Greensboro, NC 27401 Jamestown, NC 27282 neviolation .co m /greensborone -- — - - -- Detach here and return the above portion with your payment - -- - - - - -- Citation Number: 633885 Plate: �NC MEN On 06/23/2004 at 12:59 PM your vehicle was photographed (copies are shown to the right) entering an intersection in which the traffic signal was red, in violation of Greensboro City Code Section 16.58. The civil penalty for this violation is $50.00. No points will be assessed against your driving record or insurance as a result of this violation. Please see reverse side for payment options and for a description of the information in the Data Block shown above the photographs. This program has been initiated to increase roadway safety, reduce red light violations and prevent injuries. If you have any questions regarding this citation, please visit our Internet site or call the office at (336) 834 — 9555 Important Notice: Failure to pay the civil fine by the due date shown above will result in an additional late penalty of $50.00. Request for appeals and transfer of responsibility must also be received by the due date above or your right to appeal will be waived. For your convenience, you may pay or appeal your citation via the internet at https:// onlineviolation .com/greensboronc. Please be sure to use the internet password provided above to access your citation. Amber Time Red Time Vehicle Tag No 4.00 .20 Date/Time Location of Violation 06/23/2004 12:59 PM I BATTLEGROUND AND CONE FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY STOP ON RED o7,130 /2M4 Reprint �" _ii_._. APPEAL REQUEST An appeal request must be ec companleat by an explanation for contesting the citation. You will be scheduled for an Administrative Hearing before an Independent Heading Officer. If the Hearing Officer upholds the citation, a civil penalty obligation of $50 will be due 30 days from the hearing date. If the citation is dismissed, no further action will be required. Basis for contesting citation (Only those reasors stated in this appeal request may be argued at an administrative hcadng.. You may attach a separate document stating the basis for contesting the citation if Die space provided is not suffrcienl.) Your Signature Tag No. _ Phone (_} AFFIDAVIT TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY" I ........ ---- ----- -._._— .__........__.._.__. — — (print or type name), being duly sworn, state that I was not driving the vehicle identified in this Notice of Citation at the time of the violation. The name and address of the person or company who had the care, custody and control of the vehide at the time of the violation is: Name Address I understand that a now Notke of Citation will be issued to fire person 1 have iderdifred. Your Signature AFFIDAVIT REPORTING VEHICLE STOLEN* I (print or type name). being duly sworn, state that the vehicle Identified in this Notice of Citation was, at the time, stolen. (You must attach supporting evidence, such as a Copy of an insurance or police report). Your Signature " Submission of a false affidavit constitutes perjury punishable as a Class F felony. Questions & Answers Regarding This Notice G, Why did I get this notice of cilallon? A. A vehicle registered or leased to you was photographed running a red light by a traffic control photographic system. Q. Is this notice a moving violation infraction? & No, this citation is not considered to be a •'traffic infraction ". Instead, 11 to a non- crimtool violation for which civil penalties are assessed. No points will be assessed for this violation Rrxi It will not affect your Insurance, Q. What are my optlons7 A. You have the following four options: (1) You may accept responsibility and pay the civil penalties (see "Payrnant Options "); (2) You may contest (appeal) the citation by providing an explanation for contesting the citation and requesting an administrative hearing (see "Appeal RequesI (3) If you were not driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, you may submit a notarized affidavit stating that you were not driving and identifying the Individual who had possession or was driving at the time. If you choose this option, a new citation will he issued to the individual that you identify (see "Transferring Responsibility"); or (4) If the vehicle was stolen at the time of the violation, you may submit a notarized affidavit stating that the vehicle vans, at the time, stolen and supporting information such as an Insurance or police report (see "Reporting Vehicle Stolen "). It you do not exercise one of the four options within thirty (30) days from the dale of the citation, you will be assessed an additional $50.00 Into peyrnort penalty. Q. How do 1 arrange for accommodations for persona with disabilities? A. Any reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities will be made. Requests should be made prior to visiting the facility by calling (338) 834 -9555. PAYMENT OPTIONS Agenda Item No. 10E Checks or money orders should be madi @Ud 4, 2005 City of Greensboro. Do not send cash. ifim �"f 94 payment or contest the citation within 30 days of the date of the citation, a penalty $50.00 will be added to the total amount due. Make sure your name, address, license number and citation number are on your check or money order. TO PAY BY MAIL Send Check or money order to*. City of Greensboro 4915 Piedmont Parkway Suits 108 Jamestown, NC 27282 WALK-IN PAYMENTS Within 30 days of the date of the citation, bring this notes along with your payment to: SatvJnlgt�d_Offica 4915 Piedmont Parkway Suite 108 Jarnostnwn, NC 27282 (MasterCard & Visa accepted) or Graansbor Clty Hall 300 W. Washington Street Greensboro, NC 27402 (Mastercard, Visa, Discover & American Express accepted) For further information about the SafeLight Program. Telephone: (336) 834 -9555 Write: 4815 Piedmont Parkway Suits 108 Jamestown, NC 27282 Internet: htip:11www,ssfelightpoidmont gov E- Mail: E21elicib at,9LRQ4 4r� :tt4 us Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 69 of 94 Appendix B. Citation Trends Graphs (9 Pages) August 2004 A-4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No, 10E February 22, 2005 Page 70 of 94 Feb '01 0 0 i 0 i o Np O N o W a o May '01 - t t Apr'01r May 101 Jun 101 Aug '01 Sep '01 Oct '01 Ncv'01 Dec '01 i Jan 102 0 Feb '02 Mar '02 1� Apr '02 aar ■ May 102 O Jun 102 Jul 102 Vr Aug 02 O Sep '02 Oct '02 Nov'02 Dec '02 Jan 103 ..� ■ Feb '03 Met 103 Apr '03 May 103 Jun '03 Jul 103 Aug '03 Sep '03 Oct '03 Nov'03 Dec'03 Jan '04 -4 n, Feb '04 Mar '04 ►K Apr '04 x M z H 0 x M v r n a M a 0 0 Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 71 of 94 SAFE LIGHT INTERSECTION o �{ o` .o` o` o` o` -& .0%. & -oti oti oti ds o� cA dy o� o� cp oa peP Qom pQ� VP p41, O °` pp Qm'O 4Q� ��° pa0 Oc` ptP �otl 4� Agenda Item No. 10E February 22. 2005 Page 72 of 94 GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM Count by Location TKANS 14000-- 12000- loom - U 2001 02002 8000- (61000 El 2003 El 2004 4000 ■ ITD PORTA,nam J 2000 0 WA 601 602 1503 604 605 606 6D7 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 Wednesday, July 14, 2004 All Locaflons 3:20:21 PM GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM Citations by Month TRANalOaRA Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 73 of 94 & e4 y _ Fr¢uuev ; I K, 2001 ■ 2002 ❑ 2003 ❑ 2004 All Locations Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:20:38 PM Agenda Item No. 10E February 22. 2005 Page 74 of 94 GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM Citations by Day of Week - 1�sNYORTatION ,, 7R All Lx tlws 3:2112 PM Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 75 of 94 GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM t� Citations by Hour of Day Saf4 "AWNWAMN WI LmMrs Wednesday, JWy 14.2004 3:21:27 PM GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM Citations Appealed V. Not Appealed 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 76 of 94 w.an..mr DATA FOR ALL 18 SAFE LIGHT INTERSECTIONS , July 14, 3:21;48 PM PM Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 77 of 94 GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM Appeals: Overturned v. Upheld 1.000 812 900 875 800 E3 Overturned 700 ■ Upheld 600 5w 490 400 300 288 ,w, 241 200 "tl i 116 Ana+ ' 100 ���+'.. 19 28 33 4I 2001 2002 2003 2004 FrowaN DATA FOR ALL 1S SAFE LIGHT INTERSECTIONS Wednesday, July 14,2004 3:22:03 PM GREENSBORO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM Citations: Paid v. Due DATA FOR ALL 1S SAFE LIGHT INTERSECTIONS Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 78 of 94 Fine Due ® Fine Paid MAIgPORMTION ;, PrraxCnr Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:38:15 PM Agenda Item No. 10E _February 22, 2005 Page 79 of 94 Appendix C. SafeLight Flyer (2 pageS) August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. A- meda Item No. 10E bruary 22, 2005 Page 80 of 94 PIEDMONT "FOR SAFER COMMUNITIES STOP ON RED"' Fast Facts • Over 50% of the accidents occurring at intersections with traffic signals are caused by motorists running red lights. • 56% of local motorists have run red lights and 92% believe accidents are a problem in the Piedmont area. • .Running red lights, stop signs or yield signs are the most frequent causes of urban crashes. • At one intersection in the Piedmont area, over 195 violations were recorded by the local Police Department in a four day period. Safety Tip. • Always wear a seat belt, even in the rear seats. • Keep a sate distance from the vehicle in front of you. • Allow ample time to reach your destination safely. • Don't speed to compensate for lost time. • Be cautious during twilight hours. • Don't drive when tired or fatigued. • Never drink and drive! • Speed kills! • Drive defensively. Is Red. Light Running A Big Problem? )rivers who run red lights are responsible for an e4timated 260,000 crashes each year, of which approximately 750 are fatal. On a national basis, fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals increased 24 percent between 1992 . and 1997, . far outpacing the 6 percent rise in all other fatal crashes. Running red lights and other traffic controls like stop and yield signs is the most frequent type of urban crash., Institute research shows. In 2000, the Greensboro Police Department wrote 1,445 tickets for red light running. Studies show that motorists are more likely to be injured in crashes involving red light running than in other types of crashes. Occupant injuries occurred in 45% of the red light running crashes studied, compared with 30 0/, for other crash types. ❑ How Often Do Drivers Run Red Lights? A study conducted over several months at a busy intersection in Greensboro indicates that motorists frequently run red lights. During 1999, in Greensboro, there were 498 traffic accidents caused by red light running which resulted in 274 personal injuries. ❑ isn't Conventional Police Enforcement Sufficient? Enforcing traffic laws in dense urban areas by traditional means poses special difficulties for police who in most cases must follow a violating vehicle through a red light to stop it. This can endanger other motorists and pedestrians as well as officers, and police can't be everywhere at once. Communities don't have the resources to allow police to patrol intersections as often as would be needed to ticket all motorists who run red lights. Consequently few reel light runners actually receive tickets, which is why light running has become such a big problem. The cameras allow police to focus on other enforcement needs. ❑ What Safety Benefits Do Red Light Cameras Provide" They have been shown to reduce red light violations and intersection crashes. A recent institute study in Oxnard, California shows that red light running violations dropped a total of 42% after cameras were introduced at nine intersections including a similar decline at intersections that were not previously equipped with them.. Another study showed violations declined about 40% in Fairfax, Virginia after one year of camera. enforcement. ME lA'P!:',R I - 0 40 I-120-r1l *j SafeLight.'s goal is to de- crease the number of motor- ists who run red lights and the accidents they cause. Cities in the Piedmont area, beginning with Greensboro and High Point, will install cameras at high- accident intersections to monitor and record motorists running red lights. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 81 of 94 What is red light running? A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection after the traffic signal has turned reef. Motorists already in an intersection when the signal changes to red when waiung to turn. aren't considered red light runners. [low does SafeLight work? Safelight cameras help communities enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing the license places of vehicles whose drivers run red lights. The camera systems are installed at high incident intersections and will provide 24 -hour traffic surveillance. When a violation ocetws, the camera records flue date, time, speed of the vehicle, and the time elapsed sine.- the beginning of the red signal. A citation showing a photo of the violation is then sent to the registered owner. Where will the SafeLight cameras be located? The City's SatcLight cameras will he located at intersections where chronic red light running causes frequent accidents. The locations of the SafeLight systems will be expanded in the future as warranted. Signs will clearly mark which intersections are enforced by Safe- Light. When a violation occurs, who receives the citation? SafeLight citations are mailed to the registered vehicle owner. What if the registered owner was not driving the vehicle? The owner is responsible for retuminb the citation to the SafeLight Program with information regarding who was driving the vehicle (name, number. address). If the car was reported stolen at the time of the violation, the Owner must submit a copy of the tiled police report. What is the SafeLight citation fee? The fine for running a St*.Light traffic signal is $50 (set by the State Legislature). If the citation is not paid or appealed within 21 days alter the mail date of ttte citation, then a $50 luxe penalty is added to the total cost. How do l appeal a SafeLight citation? Appeals arc heard through an administrative process coordinated by the SafeLight Program. Instntctions for tiling an appeal are posted on the back ofthe citation. Where can 1 get more information on SafeLight? Call the SafeLight office at 883 -9402 or write to SafeLight at 3925 Sedgebrook Street, Suite 103. High Point. NC: 27265, Appendix D. SafeLight Brochure (4 Pages) August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 82 of 94 ! d., ! " Ig 1'� !IIIII, S if Greensboro No. 10E 22, 2005 84 of 94 Motorists are more likely to be injured in crashes involving red light running than in any other types of urban crashes. Haw SafeLight works SafeLight detects and automatically photographs cars and trucks that run red lights. If a vehicle enters an intersection while the signal is red, sensors in the pavement trigger nearby cameras to collect three essential photos: 1. The first photo, taken of the car outside the intersection, shows that the signal was red as the motorist approached the light. 2. The second photo, taken of the car in the intersection, shows that they did not legally stop. 3. The third photo, taken of the license plate, distinguishes the vehicle. SafeLight cameras are engaged only when the +rnf Rr c.nnni ic rod __thir;nn the areen and v Llow sionaL No. 10E Q, 2005 85 of 94 Q &A Frequently Asked Questions & Answers About Red light Enforcement Q: What is red light running? A: A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection (often deliberately) some time after the signal light has turned red. Motorists inadvertently in an intersection when the signal changes to red — when waiting to turn, for example — aren't red light runners. 0: Is red light running a big problem? A: Red light running has been identified by many taw enforcement agencies as a preventable traffic safety concern. Red light camera programs have provided one positive solution to this problem. In 2001, the Red Light Camera Program issued over 29,000 citations for the City of Greensboro. Our police department issued 1104 tickets for red light running as well as 441 tickets for accidents related to red light running. Nationally, drivers who run red lights are responsible for an estimated 260,000 crashes each year, of which about 750 are fatal. Q: Isn't conventional police enforcement sufficient? . A: Greensboro, like most major cities, roust make a conscious effort to place its manpower where it is needed the most and supplement areas with unique alternatives. As with the case of red tight running, the presence of red tight cameras at. critical intersections allows valued resources to be moved to other sensitive police matters without a loss in service and effectiveness. 0. Do the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection? A: No. The cameras are set so only those vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red are photographed. Vehicles that enter on yellow and are still in an intersection when the tight changes to red aren't photographed. SafeLight catches vehicles driven by motorists who enter an intersection after the signal has turned red. 0. Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy? A: No. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules - -- to obey traffic signals, for example. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers shouldn't be observed on the road or have their violations documented. In addition, our red light camera systems photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate — not the vehicle's occupants. Only the vehicles driven by motorists who are violating the law are photographed. IteKn roar o. 10E 2, 2005 Page ,6 of 94 #k #nf Q M- M sVIMr d61�I,.oE�BiIINYii•.{ M Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 87 of 94 Appendix E. North Carolina General Statutes: Chapter 16oA -300.1 (2 P$geS) August 2004 A -22 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E S 160A- 300.1. Use of traffic control photographic systems. February 22, 2005 (a)A traffic control photographic system is -an electronic page 88 of 94 system consisting of a photographic, video, or electronic camera -- and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic control device to automatically produce photographs, video, or digital images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control statute or ordinance. (b) Any traffic control photographic system or any device which is a part of that system, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, installed on a street or highway which is a part of the State highway system shall meet requirements established by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Any traffic control system installed on a municipal street shall meet standards established by the municipality and shall be consistent with any standards set by the Department of Transportation. (bl)Any traffic control photographic system installed on a street or highway must be identified by appropriate advance warning signs conspicuously posted not more than 300 feet from the location of the traffic control photographic system. All advance warning signs shall be consistent with a statewide standard adopted by the Department of Transportation in conjunction with local governments authorized to install traffic control photographic systems. (c) Municipalities may adopt ordinances for the civil enforcement of G.S. 20 -158 by means of a traffic control photographic system, as described in subsection (a) of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 20 -176, in the event that a municipality adopts an ordinance pursuant to this section, a violation of G.S. 20 -158 at a location at which a traffic control photographic system is in operation shall not be an infraction. An ordinance authorized by this subsection shall provide that: (1) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a violation unless the owner can furnish evidence that the vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody, or control of another person. The owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if the owner of the vehicle, within 30 days after notification of the violation, furnishes the officials or agents of the municipality which issued the citation either of the following: a. An affidavit stating the name and address of the person or company who had the care, custody, and control of the vehicle. b. An affidavit stating that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen. The affidavit must be supported with evidence that supports the affidavit, including insurance or police report information. (la) Subdivision (1) of this subsection shall not apply, and the registered owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation, if notice of the violation is given to the registered owner of the August 2oo4 A -23 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. vehicle more than 90 days after the date of the violation. (2) A violation detected by a traffic control photographic system shall be deemed a noncriminal violation for which a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be assessed, and for which no points authorized by G.S. 20 -16(c) shall be assigned to the owner or driver of the vehicle nor insurance points as authorized by G.S. 58- 36 -65. (3) The owner of the vehicle shall be issued a citation which shall clearly state the manner in which the violation may be challenged, and the owner shall comply with the directions on the citation. The citation shall be processed by officials or agents of the municipality and shall be forwarded by personal service or first -class mail to the address given on the motor vehicle registration. If the owner fails to pay the civil penalty or to respond to the citation within the time period specified on the citation, the owner shall have waived the right to contest responsibility for the violation, and shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00). The municipality may establish procedures for the collection of these penalties and may enforce the penalties by civil action in the nature of debt. (4) The municipality shall institute a nonjudicial administrative hearing to review objections to citations or penalties issued or assessed under this section. (d) This section applies only to the Cities of Albemarle, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Greensboro, Greenville, High Point, Lumberton, Newton, Rocky Mount, and Wilmington, to the Towns of Chapel Hill, Cornelius, Huntersville, Matthews, Nags Head, Pineville, and Spring Lake, and to the municipalities in Union County. (1997 -216, ss. 1, 2; 1999 -17, s. 1; 1999 -181, ss. 1, 2; 1999 -182, s. 2; 1999 -456, s. 48(c); 2000 -37, s. 1; 2000 -97, s. 2; 2001 -286, ss. 1, 2; 2001 -487, s. 37; 2003 -86, s. 1; 2003 -380, s. 2.) August 2004 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 Page 89 of 94 A -24 Agenda Item No. 10E February -22, 2005 Page 90 of 94 Appendix F. City of Greensboro Ordinance: Section i6 -58 (2 PageS) August 2004 A -s5 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. AMENDING CHAPTER 16 Agenda Item No. 10E February 22, 2005 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE GREENSBORO CODE OF page 91 of 94 ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC CONTROL PHOTOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREENSBORO: Section I. That Sec. 16 -58(d) of the Greensboro Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting the sentence in subsection (d) as follows: "An individual desiring a non judicial hearing must post a bond in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) before a hearing will be scheduled ". Section 2. That Sec. 16 -58(d) of the Greensboro Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following sentences at the end of subsection (d) to read as follows: The decision of the hearing officer shall be hand delivered or mailed to the owner or driver of the vehicle. Whenever the decision of the hearing officer upholds the civil penalty violation, the owner or driver of the vehicle shall pay the civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) within thirty (30) days after the final determination as indicated by the date on the determination ". Section 3. That all laws and clauses of laws in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. Section 6.3 Greensboro City Code AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE GREENSBORO CODE WITH RESPECT TO MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREENSBORO: Section 1. That Section 16 -1 of the Greensboro Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the following definitions in their respective alphabetical order: 'Traffic control photographic system is an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work In conjunction with an official traffic control device and to automatically pry photographs, video or digital Images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control statute or ordinance. In operation means operating in good worldng condition. System location is the approach to an Intersection toward which a photographic, video or electronic camera Is directed and Is In operation. Vehlcle owner is the person Identified by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles as the registered owner of a vehicle.' Section 2. That Chapter 16 of the Greensboro Code of Ordinances is hereby further amended by adding a new section following Section 16 -57 to read as follows: "Sec. 16-58. Traffic control photographic systems (a) Administration The City of Greensboro shall implement a system for capturing traffic control violations, as defined under G.S. 20 -158, with a traffic control photographic system that will use the photographic August 2004 A -26 Rimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. TA en a tem No. 10E Images as prima facie evidence of the traffic violations and will authorize the Greensboro Department of raq 22 2005 or an agent of the Department to issue CM citations. Page 92 of 94 -- The City of Greensboro Department of Transportation shall administer the Traffic Control Photographic Program and shall maintain a list of system locations where traffic - control photographic systems are installed. Any citation for a violation of G.S. 20 -158 or other traffic violation, issued by a duly authorized law enforcement officer at a system location shall be trotted, pursuant to G.S. 20 -156, as an inaction so long as the system photographic images are not used as prima facie evidence of the violation. The citation shall clearly state the manner in which the violation may be reviewed. The citation shall be processed by officials or agents of the City of Greensboro and shall be forwarded by personal service or first -class mail to the owner's address as given on the motor vehicle registration (b) Offense: (1) It shall be unlawful for a vehicle to cross the stop line at a system location when the traffic signal for that vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red light, or for a vehicle to violate any other traffic regulation specified in G. S.20 -158 (2) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a violation under this section, unless the owner can furnish evidence that the vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another person at the time of the violation, as described in erection (3). (3) Notwithstanding sub section (2) the owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if, within twenty-one (21) days after notification of the violation, the owner furnishes the officials or agents of the City: (i) The name and address of the person or entity who leased, rented, or otherwise had the care, custody, and control of the vehicle at the time of the violation; or (ii) An affidavit by the owner stating that at the time of the violation, the vehicle Involved was stolen or was In the care, custody, or control of some person who did not have permission to use the vehicle. (c) Penalty. Any violation of this section shall be deemed a non - criminal violation for which a civil penalty of fifty dollars (550.00) shall be assessed, and for which no points authorized by G.S. 20 -16(c) shall be assigned to the owner or driver of the vehicle, nor insurance points as authorized by G.S. 5 &36.65. Failure to pay the civil penalty or to respond to the citation within twenty-one (2 1) days shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest responsibility for the violation and shall subject the owner to a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($ 100.00). The City shall establish procedures for the collection of the civil penalties and shall enforce the penalties by a civil action in the nature of a debt. (d) Non-judicial administrative raring: The City of Greensboro Department of Transportation shall establish an administration process to review objections to citations ex penalties issued or assessed. A notice requesting a hearing to review objections shall be file within twenty-one (21) days after notification of the violation. An individual desiring a non judicial hearing must post a bond in the amount of $50.00 before a hearing will be scheduled. The determination of the hearing officer will be final." Section 3. That this ordinance shall become effective on March 1, 2000. Section 4. That all laws and clams of laws in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. August 2004 A -27 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. r-r- { SARASOTA COUNTY "Dedicated to Quality Service" =a. + o. January 11, 2005 UT f H TH F( BOARD OF COUr4TY`COMMI SIO S S en a em o. 1 Sarasota, ): orlda 34236 February 2, 2005 Telephone 941 -861 -5344 Pale 93 Fax 941-861-5987 �r y1l i SUBJECT: Red Light Camera Legislation Dear Chair and Commissioners, Running a red light at an intersection is aggressive driving behavior that can seriously injure or kill others. Collisions resulting from red -light Winning are more severe than other intersection collisions because they usually involve at least one vehicle traveling very fast. The most serious red-light running collisions, side - impact collisions, may cause severe injuries sometimes leading to death. As local government public officials, the safety of our streets is one of our primary concerns. There is technology available that we do not have the authority to use and that can create safer streets in our communities — photographic enforcement systems, i.e., red light cameras. Running a red light is not only dangerous to the driver of the car, it also endangers the life and property of other innocon t individuals both drivers and pedestrians. Our primary method of persuading drivers to pay attention and obey traffic lights is punishment for violations. Yet, numerous violators go without detection because our police force is limited in size, and cannot be at every intersection. Red light cameras have been shown to provide both efficient and effective punishment for violators without an invasion of privacy, as well as deterrence from future violations. Public awareness of red light cameras reduces aggressive driving behavior. Studies have shown that red light violation rates can decrease as much as 42 percent within a few months of camera installation. The benefits of improved driving habits even spread into intersections without cameras, The constant and vigilant eye of the camera at intersections acts as a gentle but persistent reminder thereby changing old habits and actually making the roads a safer place. It's time for Florida to authorize using cameras to, catch drivers who rim red lights. The effort to obtain . statutory authorization for local governments to use photographic enforcement mechanisms in the State of Florida must be renewed. The Sarasota Board of County Commissioners has adopted a resolution urging the 2045 Florida legislature to pass a bill providing this authorization. We hope that each of our counterparts in local government will do the same, saying to our legislators in a unified voice that local ,governments need red light camera authority to help us make the streets m our communities safe. Attached is the Resolution adopted by our Board. Thank you for joining us in this effort. Sincerely, PAUL H. MSRCIER, C.C.C. Chairman Attachment c: Bill Broughton, Lobbyist, Sarasota County Government Paul H. Mercier, District 1 • David R. Mills, District 2 • Shannon Staub, District 3 • Nora Patterson, District 4 • Jon Thaxton, District 5 pmercier@scgov.nel dmills @scgov.net sslaul>iQscgov.net npalters4Dscgov.net jthaxton ®scgov:net �AradWP BOARD Ht:UuhuO FILED FOR "RF• �,)�D Agenda Item No. 10E RESOLUTION NO. � 0D.5 �� February 22,'2005 • Page 94 of 94 2 JAN 13 Aft 9' 0RESOLUTION.OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY V,'.PEN E KjS'O- ?4AWSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA "� TA'ObJUMLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, URGING THE Zt)tIS FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT LEGISLATION DURING THIS SESSION WHICH AUTHORIZES LOCAL GOVERNMV11TS TO USE PHOTOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS IN TIIE ENFORCEMENT OF RED UGHT RUNNING VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, running a red light is aggressive dining behavior that can seriously injure or kill others and is not only dangerous to the driver of the car, but also endangers do life and property of other hwocent individuals both drivers and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, driven usually increase their speed whin running a red light; therefore, collisions resulting from red light rnnnmig are more severe them► odw intersection collisions and, especially in the case of side- impact 'collisions, may cause severe m1uories sometimes lea ft to doad:; And WHEREAS, red light camera technology, avai*le and in use by many local governments in . other states for many years, has been shown to provide both efficient and effective punishment for violators without an invasion ofpnvacy, as well as deterrence from flare violations; and WHEREAS, it is time for local governm in Florida to be statutorily authorized to use photographic traffic control systems in adbrcement of red light running violations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY I= BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: That Sarasota County " Government urges the 2045 Florida looslaturelto adopt legislation during #& session which audwd2w local governments to use photographic t mff c 'control *l mns in the enforcement of red light Winning violations. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA,this / / of 2005. ..:,..,_,. ATTEST: KAREN'E. RUSffiNG, Clock of trio Circuit Court and Ex- OPQido rk of the Boayf of County ConpL 0 BY: Clerk emu: BOARD OF COUN.�Y' MRS OF SARASOTA J� ; . 4i V.. 8•I L OF FLORIDA �o �' OF SAkA,'iOTA) s~ 9'_705S_ 400,P ,.. _Community Redevelopment Anencv Executive Summary Of • of • � • 11 Recommendation to approve and execute the impact fee assistance grant agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Objective: To approve and execute the Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant agreements between the Community Redevelopment Agency and grant applicants within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Considerations: On April 30, 2002 the Community Redevelopment Agency approved the creation of Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant programs for the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. The purpose of these grants is to revitalize the area by providing a matching grant that will encourage the private sector to invest in the area. The grants require at least a 50% match from the applicant and will be funded by tax increment funds. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Advisory Board approved the following Site Improvement Projects from the following applicants: 1. Sharon King, Residential Rehab, Grant Amount $5,152.50 2. Echo, LLC, Commercial Rehab, Grant Amount $8,000.00 Total Site Improvement Grant money awarded this cycle: $13,152.50. Fund 187 fiscal impacts: The Site Improvement Grant may provide up to 50% of the cost of improvements, up to a maximum grant amount of $8,000. A maximum of $13,152.50 will be funded for the approved Site Improvement Grant projects. The Impact Fee Assistance Grant may provide up to 50% of the total impact fees for a project, there are no Impact Fee Grants pending approval at this time. Advisory board recommendation: To approve and execute the Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant agreements between the Community Redevelopment Agency and grant applicants within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Prepared by: Tammy Williams Date Secretary Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency -1- Agenda Item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 8 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 14A Item Summary This item continued from the February 8, 2005 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve and execute the site improvement grant agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Tammy Williams Administrative Assistant Date Community Redevelopment Bayshore- Gateway Redevelopment 219/2005 2:53 PM Agency Approved By Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 2/10/2005 7:29 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:34 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112005 1:59 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 2/11/2005 2:49 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 8 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CRA AND OWNER FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT FOR BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA THIS AGREEMENT ENTERED thi day off by and between the 'er County Community Redevelopment Agency, r referred to as "CRA") and , i (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in Collier County Ordinance No. 2002 -38, the Board of County Commissioners delegated authority to the CRA to award and administer CRA grants including contracts with owners for CRA grants; and WHEREAS, Owner has applied for a site improvement grant in the amount of S/S:2 dollars; and WHEREAS, the CRA has determined that Owner meets the eligibility requirements and was approved for a grant award in the amount of S15<2 ,5V dollars on - ^_, It, o ( "CRA Approval "), which is i % of the costs to construct t thcr site improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Owner acknowledges to the CRA that Owner has received a copy of the Collier County Community Site Improvement Grant Program (hereinafter referred to as " Gmt Program`% that Owner has read the Grant Program, and that Owner has had ample opportunity to discuss the Grant Program with Owner's counsel or advisor. Owner further acknowledges to the CRA that Owner understands and agrees to abide by all of the terms and conditions of the Grant Program. Owner agrees to the terms and conditions of the Grant Program, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 2. Owner is the record owner of property described as 33 C':2 la 3. Owner has agreed to make certain ' vements to the property pursuant to the grant application submitted to the CRA dated��h, r , -, 4 (the "Site Improvements") 4. Owner agrees to complete the construction of the Site Improvements within one (1) year of CRA Approval. Owner also agrees to fund at least 50% of the costs of the Site Improvements. Agenda item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 8 5. CRA has approved a grant to Owner in the amount of to be administered pursuant to the terms of this Agreement based on an estimated cost of S. Qv - If the actual costs are less than the estimated costs to construct the Site Improvements, the grant amount shall be reduced to equal the percent of the Site Improvement costs approved for funding by the CRA. 6. Unless prior disclosure is included in the grant application, no Owner, or any immediate relative of Owner, shall serve as a contractor or subcontractor for the construction of the Site improvements and no Owner, or any immediate relative of Owner, shall receive compensation for labor for the construction of the Site improvements. An immediate relative of Owner shall include mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle and cousin or family member by marriage to include mother - in-law, father-in-law, brother - in-law and sister-in-law. 7. Owner agrees to obtain all necessary permits and submit any required plans to the County's Community Development and Environmental Services Division. Upon completion of the work, Owner shall submit to the CRA staff a project summary report, two (2) 8 x 10 after photos, a list of materials and construction techniques used, a list of architects and/or contractors, and any other information specific to the project or requested by the CRA staff. The CRA, though its staff, shall confirm that the Site improvements were constructed pursuant to the berms of the application approved by the CRA. 8. Within forty -five (45) days after confirmation that the Site Improvements were aonsanscted pursuant to the terms of the approved application, Owner shall be issued a check in the amount of the grant However, if Owner fails to make the improvements pursuant to the terms of the approved application, or if the project is not completed within one (1) year of CRA approval, or if Owner fails to fund at least 50% of the cost of the Site Improvements, the grant shall be deemed revoked and Owner shall be entitled to no funding. 9. This Agreement shall be governed and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. 10. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and their representatives and agents, and incorporates all prior understandings, whether oral or written. No change, modification or amendment, or any rep=Mtation, promise or condition, or any waiver, to this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized officer of the party to be charged. 11. This Agreement is personal to Owner, and may not be assigned or transferred by Owner or to Owner's respective heirs, personal representatives, successors or assigns without the prior written consent of the CRA. Agenda Item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. 1) C witness Printed! ed Name (2) imess Sig�me Printedirryped Name ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and leo sufficiency. Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney OWNER Mnte&Typed Name COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DONNA FIALA, Chairman Agenda Item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 8 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CRA AND OWNER FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT FOR BAYSAOREIGATE'WAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA THIS AGREEMENT ENTERED this ;, /1�'day of 1-I .>Z �` � by and between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter referred to as "CRA ") and Niy (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in Collier County Ordinance No. 2002 -38, the Board of County Commissioners delegated authority to the CRA to award and administer CRA grants including contracts with owners for CRA grants; and WHEREAS, Owner has applied for a site improvement grant in the amount of {f d oyj ° 4{ dollars; and WHEREAS, the CRA has determined that Owner meets the eligibi�ty requirements and approved for a grant award in the amount of DliU • dollars on X20 CCRA Approval "), which is, _% of the costs to construct the ite improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Owner acknowledges to the CRA that Owner has received a copy of the Collier County Community Site Improvement Grant Program (hereinafter referred to as " Grant Program'), that Owner has read the Grant Program, and that Owner has had ample opportunity to discuss the Grant Program with Owner's counsel or advisor. Owner further acknowledges to the CRA that Owner understands and agrees to abide by all of the terms and conditions of the Grant Program. Owner agrees to the terms and conditions of the Grant Program, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 2. Owner is the record owner of property described as �S ') , / sh y r-e Dl--.. 3. Owner has agreed to make certain impro,,vgm to the property pursuant to the grant application submitted to the CRA dated d1/l�' � r#9& �, , A owy (the "Site Improvements ") 4. Owner agrees to complete the construction of the Site Improvements within one (1) year of CRA Approval. Owner also agrees to fiord at least 50% of the costs of the Site . , improvements- Agenda Item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 8 5. CRA has approved a grant to Owner in the amount of L((-?(l . to be administered pursuant to the terms of this Agreement based on an estimated cost of ff 600. d" . If the actual costs are less than the estimated costs to construct the Site Improvements, the grant amount shall be reduced to equal the percent of the Site Improvement costs approved for funding by the CRA. 6. Unless prior disclosure is included in the grant application, no Owner, or any immediate relative of Owner, shall serve as a contractor or subcontractor for the construction of the Site Improvements and no Owner, or any immediate relative of Owner, shall receive compensation for labor for the construction of the Site Improvements. An immediate relative of Owner shall include mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle and cousin or family member by marriage to include mother -in -law, father -in -law, brother -in -law and sister -in -law. 7. Owner agrees to obtain all necessary permits and submit any required plans to the County's Community Development and Environmental Services Division. Upon completion of the work, Owner shall submit to the CRA staff a project summary report, two (2) 8 x 10 after photos, a list of materials and construction techniques used, a list of architects and/or contractors, and any other information specific to the project or requested by the CRA staff. The CRA, through its staff, shall confirm that the Site Improvements were constructed pursuant to the teams of the application approved by the CRA. 8. Within forty -five (45) days after confirmation that the Site Improvements were constructed pursuant to the terms of the approved application, Owner shall be issued a check in the amount of the grant. However, if Owner fails to make the improvements pursuant to the terms of the approved application, or if the project is not completed within one (1) year of CRA approval, or if Owner fails to fund at least 50% of the cost of the Site Improvements, the grant shall be deemed revoked and Owner shall be entitled to no fimding. 9. This Agreement shall be governed and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. 10. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and their representatives and agents, and incorporates all prior understandings, whether oral or written. No change, modification or amendment, or any representation, promise or condition, or any waiver, to this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized officer of the party to be charged. 11. This Agreement is personal to Owner, and may not be assigned or transferred by Owner or to Owner's respective heirs, personal representatives, successors or assigns without the prior written consent of the CRA. Agenda Item No. 14A February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have cxcctrted this Agreement on the date and year first written above. (1)L' —' witness Signature Printe&Typed Name ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and {e at sufficiency: Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney lxwr.s 511M. WA COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: DONNA FIALA, Chairman Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 14 Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Hold Harmless Agreement between Collier County and Bayvest, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board of County Commissioner (Board) approval of a Hold Harmless Agreement between Collier County and Bayvest, L.L.C., the property owner of lands depicted on the Plat of "Heritage Bay Commons." CONSIDERATIONS: On January 11, 2005, the Board approved for recording the final plat of "Heritage Bay Commons" (Plat), a subdivision of lands, with the condition that a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements (CMA) consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC) be reviewed by the Office of the Collier County Attorney and accepted by the Engineering Services Department. A CMA implements LDC Sections 10.02.04 and 10.02.05 by requiring a property owner to construct infrastructure improvements to specifications and by requiring the County to accept such required improvement after maintenance by the property owner for a specified period of time. The Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements and accompanying performance security documents are now under review by the Office of the Collier County Attorney and the Engineering Services Department. Recording of the Plat is to occur shortly after the approval of the CMA and performance security documents. Previously, on September 30, 2004, litigation ensued between the property owner, Bayvest, L.L.C. ( Bayvest) and a contract purchaser, Destin Retail, Inc. ( Destin), which caused Destin to file a lis pendens in the public records of Collier County. To allow the County to accept the required improvements under the terms of the CMA and to eliminate any exposure to the County for having done so, the Attorney for Bayvest and the Office of the Collier County Attorney have negotiated the attached Hold Harmless Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. Bayvest will pay all fees associated with the recording of the Hold Harmless Agreement. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Office of the Collier County Attorney has opined that the lis pendens is not a lien or other encumbrance on the property and that regardless of the outcome of the litigation between Bayvest and Destin, there is little to no exposure to the County for accepting infrastructure improvements under the terms of the CMA and Hold Harmless Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board approve the attached Hold Harmless Agreement between Collier County and Bayvest, L.L.C. and authorize the Chairman to execute same on the Board's behalf. PREPARED BY: John Houldsworth, Engineering Review Services Agenda Item No 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 14 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 18A1 Item Summary Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Hold Harmless Agreement between Collier County and Sayvest. L.LC., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation. Meeting Data 2!22!2005 9:00,00 AM Prepared By Dale John Houldsworth Senior Enginear 211120 0 5 7:13:31 AM Community Development Environmental Services Engineering Services Approved By Sandre Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Development & Comnwnity Develupmmtt & 2,71005 10:10 AM Environmental Servmes Environmental Sery ices Admin. Approved By Jennifer A. Belpedio Assistant County Attorney [)ate County Attorney County Attorney Office 2x12005 1:31 PM Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development & 217!2006 2:06 PM Env ronmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Community Dcvolopment & Date Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Adminstrator Community Development & Community Development & 21712005 8:06 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/0/2005 10:64 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date Ceumty Managers Office Officer of Managmnent Y Budget 2/812005 12:35 PM Approved By Thomas E, Kuck, P,E. CDES Engineering Services Director Date Community Develnpmnnt d CDES Engineering 5rtrvices 2 +0!2006 4:07 PM Environmental Services Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 21112006 8:35 AM Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 14 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THIS HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT, dated , 2005 ( "Agreement "), is between BAYVEST, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation ( "Bayvest ") and COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ( "County "). WHEREAS, Bayvest is involved in a pending lawsuit with Destin Realty, Inc. ( "Destin ") concerning a contract for sale of land; and WHEREAS, Bayvest intends to turn over certain utilities ( "Utilities "), to Collier County, which as described in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, Destin has recorded a Lis Pendens on the property within which the utilities will be constructed; and WHEREAS, County requests to be held harmless and indemnified for any potential claims that may arise out of the aforementioned lawsuit pertaining to the turnover of utilities; and WHEREAS, County agrees to accept the utilities, subject to all other county requirements, once Bayvest holds the County harmless and agrees to indemnify the County as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this agreement. 2. County agrees to effectuate the turnover of utilities outlined in Exhibit "A ", subject to all County requirements governing the turnover of utilities to the County. 3. In exchange for the acceptance of the Utilities, Bayvest agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County from any and all liability, loss or damage the County may suffer as a result of claims, demands, costs or judgments against it arising from Destin as to the decision of the County to accept the Utilities. 4. Bayvest's obligation to indemnify under the terms of this Agreement will commence immediately upon turnover, and will continue in full force until the pending lawsuit is concludes. Agenda Item No, 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 14 5. This Agreement is binding upon all present and future property owners, their heirs, subsequent purchasers, successors in interest, and assigns. 6. There shall be no modification or change in the terms of this agreement without the written approval of all parties. IN WITNESS of the above, this Agreement is executed by these parties. BAYVEST, LLC Witness By: Printed Name Printed Name: Title: Witness Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this —day of , 2002 by as of , a Florida corporation on behalf of the corporation. He /she is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Signature of Notary Printed Name Title Serial Number, if any Seal COLLIER COUNTY, Florida By: Printed Name: Title: ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 14 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of County Attorney F:IWPDATAICMICLIENTS%U.S. Home1BAYVES -RHOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT.doc Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 14 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS entered into this day of 20---, between Bayves4 LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Developer ", and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "The Board". REiCITAIS: A.. Developer has, simultaneously, with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: Heritage Bay Commons B. Section 10.02.04 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Developer to post appropriate guarantees for the construction of the improvements required by said subdivision regulations, said guarantees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of the required improvements. NOW, THEREFORIE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will cause to be constructed: The paving, drainage, potable water, irrigation water, sanitary sewer and street lighting improvements for Heritage Bay Commons within twenty -four (24) months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat, said improvement hereinafter referred to as the "required improvements." 2. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof) in the amount of $2,201.6995-0- Dollars which amount represents ten percent (100/6) of the total contract cost to complete construction plus one hundred percent - (100%) of the estimated cost of to complete the required improvements at the date of this Agreement. 3. In the event of default by the Developer or failure of the Developer to complete such improvements within the time required by the Land Development Code, Collier County, may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion of the required improvements. 4. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 5. The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60) days of roeeipt of the statement of substantial completion, either. a) notify the Developer in writing of its preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of its refusal to approve improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval of the improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 6. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one -year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release the remaining ten percent (10 0/6) of the subdivision performance security. The Developers responsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 7. Six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement and once within every six (6) months thereafter the Developer may request the Development Services Director to reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis of work completed. Each request for a reduction in the dollar WMAW 34M wr Ot l-GRWO CUM ww��vsm i- 6sewF a�ro Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Coosaaction and Wi6nt nsnmc Ape m mt Page 2 Page 7 of 14 Heritage Bay Commons amount of the subdivision performance security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by the Developer's Engineer together with the project records necessary for review by the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may grant the request for a reduction in the amount of the subdivision performance security for the improvements completed as of the date of the request. S. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, upon certification of such failure the County Administrator may call upon the subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory completion, repair and maintenance of the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to constrict and maintain, or cause to be constricted or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance of bids, the improvements required herein. The Developer, as principal under the subdivision performance security, shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board, upon completion of such construction, the final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the Board may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this day of , 20 DEE3iH' Signed, Sealed and Delivered Bayloci ited ' ility Corporation in the presence of By: Its A Member. Sign-- �4cel� ll�, Printed or typed name 0 ",�a �f A '- - 44tJE7 L /lli�p,9cs Printed or typed name ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Jennifer A. Belpedio Assistant Collier County Attorney AMMM& MM VW ou -aiwer wr Mpman wF -moan Printed or typed name Senior Vice President Title BOARD OF COUNTY CObMSSIONERS OF COLLIER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA 0 Chairman OUR REFERENCE NO. FGAC -05038 Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 14 PAGE THIS CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (1993 REVISION) INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION NO. 500. FIDELITY GUARANTY AND PTA CE CORP. WILLIAM D. GUNTRUM, VICE PRESIDENT Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 14 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY DATED: FEBRUARY L 2005 THIS DOCUMENT IS TO CERTIFY THAT WILLIAM D. GUNTRUM, VICE PRESIDENT, HAS THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE $2.201,699.50 IRREVOCABLE BANK LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER OF FGAC- 05038, ISSUED FEBRUARY 1. 2005, ON BEHALF OF LEE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, AND FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE BAYVEST, LLC, FOR FIDELITY GUARANTY AND ACCEPTANCE CORP. FIDELITY GUARANTY AND ACCEPTANCE CORP. BY: _ _ STEVEN E. L VICE PRESIDENT CORPORATE SEAL Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 14 Heritage Bay Commons (Ma. Heritage Bay Commercial Tract) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost, 7/04 WilsonMiller, Inc. Drawing File No. D- 0d4245 Summary Potable Water Wastewater Drainage Paving & Grading Survey (Installation of PCPs) Lighting PPL- 2004 -AR -5877 REV:2 Project: 2004020069 Date; 7/30/04 DUE: 8113/04 $175,395 $276,149 $157,282 $259,119 $1,000 $132,600 Bridges $1,000,000 Total $2,001,545 ti1 9,rt- Joshua,R- Evans Lice'ose #57436 7=2 4 - 028W7, - GFUPO 0375"oc -m-ssw Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Heritage Bay Commons {f.ka. Heritage Bay Commercial fractl }1 of 14 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost, 4/04 WilsonMiller, Inc. Drawing File No. D- 0442 -85 Potable Water Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price 8" PVC Water Main 1,669 LF $12.20 $20,361.80 8" Temporary Valve/Blow -off 1 EA $1,180.00 $1,180.00 8" Gate Valve 1 EA $665.00 $665.00 10" PVC Water Main (C -900, CL -200) I89 LF $21.60 $4,082.40 10" PVC Water Main 1,333 LF $20 -00 $26,660.00 10" Temporary Valve/Blow-off 5 EA $1,690.00 $8,450.00 10" Gate Valve 2 EA $1,118.00 $2,236 -00 16" PVC Water Main (C -900, CL -200) 45 LF $32.00 $1,440.00 16" PVC Water Main 2,869 LF $30.00 $86,070.00 16" Temporary Valve/Blow -off 1 EA $ 2,100.00 $2,100.00 16" Gate Valve 3 EA $1,600.00 $4,800.00 16" Not Tap Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,000 -00 $3,000.00 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point, Complete 7 EA $1,050.00 $7,350.00 Fire Hydrant, Complete 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000.00 Chlorination & Testing I LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Potable Water Total $175,395.20 7/21a0a4 - #iese7, - GRIPO 03754 - 000-005 -ESBM Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 14 Heritage Bay Commons (f.k.a. Heritage Bay Commercial Tract) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost, 4/04 WilsonMiller, Inc. Drawing File No. D- 0442 -85 Wastewater Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price 4" Force Main 1,781 LF $9 -00 $16,02900 4" Plug Valve 1 EA $830.00 $830.00 12" Force Main 1,595 LF $25.00 $39,875.00 12" Force Main (C -900, CL 200) 103 LF $27.00 $2,781.00 12" Plug Valve I EA $3,100 -00 $3,100.00 Air Release Valve 4 EA $1,680.00 $6,720 -00 12" Hot Tap Existing Force Main I EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Television Inspection and Report I LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Manhole (8' -10' cut) 5 EA $3,500 $17,500 Manhole (10' -12' cut) 5 EA $4,000 $20,000 Manhole (12' -14' cut) 7 EA $4,430 $31,010 Manhole (14' -16' cut) 2 EA $5,960 $11,920 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer (0' -6' cut) 733 LF $23 $16,859 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer (6-8' cut) 691 LF $27 $18,657 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer (8' -10' cut) 528 LF $31 $16,368 Pump Station I EA $70,000 $70,000 Wastewater Total $276,149.00 7121/2004 - *2S597, - GRIP0 03754. 000. 005 -CSBM Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 age 1 of 14 Heritage Bay Commons (Ma. Heritage Bay Commercial I ract Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost, 4/04 WilsonMiller, Inc. Drawing File No. D- 0442 -85 Drainage Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price 15" RCP LF 97 $22.00 $2,134.00 24" RCP LF 685 $30.00 $20,55000 30" RCP LF 125 $45.00 $5,625.00 36" RCP LF 1,343 $55.00 $73,865.00 48" RCP LF 136 $78.20 $10,635.20 15" Mitered End EA 1 $600.00 $600.00 24" Mitered End EA 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 30" Mitered End EA 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 42" Mitered End EA 1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 Curb Inlet EA 20 $1,100.00 $22,000.00 Junction Box (4' x 4') EA 4 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 Control Structures LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Swale LF 2,478 $3.50 $8,673.00 Drainage Total mi/2W4 - 9285aT -GRIPO 037544*0- 005 -E58M $157,282.20 Agenda Item No. 16A1 February 22, 2005 1A of Heritage Bay Commons (Ma. Heritage Bay Commercial i ract) 14 Engineer's opinion of Probable Cost, 4/04 Wilsonlbliller, Inc. Drawing File No. D- 0442 -85 Paving & Drainage Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price 18" Solid White Stop Bar LF 48 $3.50 $168.00 Type A Curb LF 488 $5.75 $2,806.00 Type F Curb LF 10381 $6.25 $64,88125 1 1/2" Asphaltic Concrete (Type S -III) SY I5,634 $4.30 $67,226.20 8" Limerock Base (LBR 100) SY 15,634 $550 $85,987.00 12" Stabilized Subgrade (LBR 40) SY 20,619 $1.10 $22,680.90 Sod (Bahia 1' Back of Curb) SF 10,869 $0.25 $2,717.25 Blue -Blue Reflector EA 2 $6.00 $ 12.00 Signage LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Sidewalk SY 313 $18.00 $5,639.96 Striping (thermoplastic) LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Paving & Drainage Total mif2w4- 029597 -GRIPO NCZZ9- - W1 -ESBM $259,118.56 Agenda Item No, 16A2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase 1A7, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the final plat of "Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase 1A ", a subdivision of lands located in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, following the alternative procedure for approval of subdivision plats pursuant to Resolution 99- 199. CONSIDERATIONS: Engineering Review Section has completed the review of the construction drawings, specifications, and final plat of "Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase 1A". These documents are in compliance with the County Land Development Code and Florida State Statute No. 177. All fees have been paid. Security in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the required improvements, and 100% of the cost of any remaining improvements, together with a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, shall be provided and accepted by the Engineering Services Director and the County Attorney's office prior to the recording of the final plat. This would be in conformance with the County Land Development Code — Section 10.02.04. Engineering Services Department recommends that the final plat of "Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase 1A" be approved for recording. FISCAL IMPACT: The project cost is $1,304,187.66 (estimated) to be bome by the developer. The cost breakdown is as follows: a) Water & Sewer - $592,213.33 b) Drainage, Paving, Grading - $711,974.33 The Security amount, equal to 110% of the project cost, is $1,434,606.43 The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Community Development Fund 131 Agency: County Manager -- Cost Center: 138327 -- Engineering Project Review Revenue generated by this project: Total: $38,352.12 Agenda Item No. 16A2 February 22, 2005 - Fees are based on a construction estimate of $1,304,187.66 and were paft4a 2 of 4 November, 2003 and April, 2004. The breakdown is as follows: a) Plat Review Fee ($1,000.00 + $5./ac) -$ 1,815.00 b) Construction Drawing Review Fee Water & Sewer (.75% const. est.) -$4,441.60 C) Drainage, Paving, Grading (.75% const. est.) -$4,692.68 d) Construction Inspection Fee Water & Sewer (2.25% const. est.) - $13,324.80 e) Drainage, Paving, Grading(2.25 %const.est.) - $14,078.04 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The developer must receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities prior to issuance of the construction plan final approval letter. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: There are no outstanding environmental issues. HISTORICAVARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: There are no historical or archaeological impacts. If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney's office has reviewed the plat and associated documents and found same to be legally sufficient. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat of "Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase 1A" for recording with the following stipulations: 1. Approve the amount of $1,434,606.43 as performance security for the required improvements; or such lesser amount based on work completed, and as is approved by the Engineering Services Department. 2. Approve the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement, and a. That no Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. b. That the plat not be recorded until suitable security and an appropriate Construction and Maintenance Agreement is approved and accepted by the Engineering Services Department Director and the County Attorney's office. I -- PREPARED BY: John Houldsworth, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Department Agenda Item No. 16A2 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16A2 Item Summary Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of'Regection Lakes at Naples Phase 1 A', approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security Meeting Date 212212005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Jahn Hould —rth Senior Engineer 2,7!2005 0:54:20 AM Community Development 8 Engmeering Services Environmental Services Approved By Thames E. Kuck, P.E. CDES Engineering Services Director Date Community Dervetopu -nt & CDES Engineering 5erviees 2012006 7:64 AM Environmental Services Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Data Community Development & Con -unty Deveioprment & 21712005 2:53 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Can :taaco A. Johnson Operation. Anuty.t Date Community Development & Community Development & 2 ,712005 3:24 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By C.—vt ity Development & Date Joseph K. 5chmtt Environmental Services Adminstrator Cormmunity Development & Cr— runily D.velapmmtt & 217/2006 9:03 PM Environmental Services Environmental 5erv47es Admin. Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management 6 Budget 21912005 10:51 AM ..... Approved By Michaai Smykowski Manalement & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2' &200612:33 PM Approved By James V. Mudd Gounty Manager Dot. Boarel of County Commies i.ners County Munagci s Office 2/11,12006 10:36 AM a 4 Agenda Item No. 16A2 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 4 917 E LOCATION ��`\�•� MOrocFC #r:tcibl ,ruts \ j /.T WF— J \4 LE LOCATION MAP SITE MAP REFLECTION LAKES AT NAPLES Agenda Item No. 16A3 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Torino S Miramonte ", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the final plat of "Torino & Miramonte ", a subdivision of lands located in Section 25 Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, following the alternative procedure for approval of subdivision plats pursuant to Resolution 99 -199. CONSIDERATIONS: Engineering Review Section has completed the review of the construction drawings, specifications, and final plat of "Torino & Miramonte ". These documents are in compliance with the County Land Development Code and Florida State Statute No. 177. All fees have been paid. Security in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the required improvements, and 100% of the cost of any remaining improvements, together with a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, shall be provided and accepted by the Engineering Services Director and the County Attorney's office prior to the recording of the final plat. This would be in conformance with the County Land Development Code -- Section 10.02.04. Engineering Services Department recommends that the final plat of "Torino & Miramonte" be approved for recording. FISCAL IMPACT: The project cost is $1,947,552.33 (estimated) to be bome by the developer. The cost breakdown is as follows: a) Water & Sewer - $ 290,921.33 b) Drainage, Paving, Grading - $1,656,631.00 The Security amount, equal to 110% of the project cost, is $2,142,307.56 The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Community Development Fund 131 Agency: County Manager Cost Center: 138327 -- Engineering Project Review Revenue generated by this project: Total: $59,611.56 Agenda Item No. 16A3 February 22, 2005 Fees are based on a construction estimate of $1,947,552.33 and were paftM 2 of 4 September, 2004. The breakdown is as follows: a) Plat Review Fee ($1,000.00 + $5./ac) -$ 1,185.00 b) Construction Drawing Review Fee Water & Sewer (.75% const. est.) -$2,181.91 C) Drainage, Paving, Grading (.75% const. est.) - $12,424.73 d) Construction Inspection Fee Water & Sewer (2.25% const. est.) -$6,545.72 e) Drainage, Paving, Grading(2.25 %const.est.) - $37,274.20 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The developer must receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities prior to issuance of the final construction plan approval letter. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: There are no outstanding environmental issues. HISTORICAUARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: There are no historical or archaeological impacts. If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The county attorney's office has reviewed the plat and supporting documents and have found these items to be legally sufficient. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat of "Torino & Miramonte" for recording with the following stipulations: 1. Approve the amount of $2,142,307.56 as performance security for the required improvements; or such lesser amount based on work completed, and as is approved by the Engineering Services Department. 2. Approve the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement, and a. That no Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. b. That the plat not be recorded until suitable security and an appropriate Construction and Maintenance Agreement is approved and accepted by the Engineering Services Department Director and the County Attorney's office. PREPARED BY: John Houldsworth, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Department Agenda Item No. 16A3 February 22;2005 Page 3 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16A3 Item summary Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Torino & Miramonie', approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. Meeting Date 2.22,12005 9:00:00 .AM Prepared By Outs Jahn Houldsworth Senior Enginrer 273I2005 3:35:26 PM Community Development b Engmeenng Services Envimnmental Services Approved By Thomas E. Kuck, P.E. CDES Engineering Services Director Date Community Drrvolopmant & COES Engineering Services 2!412005 8:34 AM Environmental Servleex Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Developmenl & Community Development & 2/412005 9:34 AM Environments! Services Environmemal Services Admin. Approved By Constance A. Jon- Operations Analyst pate Community Development & Community Development b 214120059:38 AM E—r—n eal Servicea m Environmental Services Adrnin. Approved By Commanity Development & Joseph K. 5rhmitt Environmental Services Adminstrstor Dute Community Development& Community Development 217/2005 tl:07 PM Em�ironrnental Servi— Environmental Services Admin. Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Dale County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2181200510:53 AM Approved By Michael Smyk —ki Management & Budget Dimon, Date County Manager's Office Office of Manageneni & Budget 219,12005 1d0 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Dote Boars! of County Cowtty Matager's Oftice 2l1112005 10:23 AM Cm nissinmrs LOCATION MAP Y �I TORMO AND HPAHONTE 81TE LOCATION a+EV aua mrz rr SITE MAP Agenda Item No. 16A3 February 22. 2005 Page 4 of 4 low 1p plit spa rnnpar�i aa� tr aM i ipVm PROJECT LOCATION ao� pme�a�xwwpwr un+ a i � ..n a Cff OF w KAJ N °gym nwrum It � opa .c sue` iw.av i �e weo.> 2 wjwa Npp Mp paW.� e p Ip 11 1 mapwp PO QaD LOCATION MAP Y �I TORMO AND HPAHONTE 81TE LOCATION a+EV aua mrz rr SITE MAP Agenda Item No. 16A3 February 22. 2005 Page 4 of 4 Agenda item No. 16A4 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation permit No. 59.920 'Bristol Pines Commercial Excavation", located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East OBJECTIVE: To issue an excavation permit to Waterways Joint Venture IV for the project known as " Bristol Pines Commercial Excavation" in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 22 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The project is bounded on the north by Tree Farm Road and land zoned PUD (Nicaea Academy), on the west by Collier Boulevard (CR 951), on the south by land zoned agricultural being used as a single family residence and nursery, and on the east by vacant land zoned agricultural. CONSIDERATIONS: The Petitioner proposes to excavate one lake with a surface area of 2.30 acres( + / -) to a depth of 20( + / -) feet below Control Elevation. The resultant 35,000 ( + / -) cubic yards of fill will be used on -site for infrastructure construction and pad fill. Since the fill will be stockpiled on site, there are no traffic concerns. Bristol Pines was approved by the Board of County Commissioners as Ordinance 04 -10. , " I FISCAL IMPACT: The Community Development Fund, Development Services (131) has or will receive $4,900.00 in revenues broken out as follows: Application Fee $2,000.00 Yardage Fee 500.00 Inspection Fee 2,400.00 $ 4,900.00 TOTAL FEES Security in the amount of $25,000 must be posted prior to permit issuance, and reporting and inspection fees will be paid annually. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None. 1 Agenda Item No. 16A4 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 6 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners may grant a commercial excavation permit if the permit application requirements and excavation permit criteria of Section 22, Article IV, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances are met. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the issuance of Excavation Permit No. 59.920 to Waterways Joint Venture IV for the project known as 'Bristol Pines Excavation" with the following stipulations: 1. No fill is to be removed from the site. 2. Depending on the proximity of the single - family homes, blasting of parts of the excavation may not be allowed. The petitioner's surveyor will need to delineate any such areas on the ground prior to drilling. 3. Proper bonding must be in place prior to issuance of any permits. 4. This excavation is limited to a maximum depth of 20 ft. below Control Elevation. 5. If groundwater is to be pumped during the excavating activity, a South Florida Water Management District Dewatering Permit must be obtained. PREPARED BY: Stan Chrzanowski, P.E., Engineering Review Manager, Engineering Review Services Agenda Item No. 16A4 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 6 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16A4 Item Summary Recommendation to approve Commercal Excavation Permit No. 59.920 "Bristol Pines Commercial Excavation'. located m Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00.00 AM Approved By Thomas E. Kuck, P.E. CDES Engineering Services Director Date Cornrnun lty De -lop —t & CDES Engineering Snrvioes 2`712005 9:25 AM Environmenlat Services Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Development a Community Development& 2/912005 9:30 AM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Sandra Lea E— xffive Secretary Date Cru nnunity Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental 5ervires Adrnin, 219120059:49 AM Approved By Laura A. Roys Environmental Specialist Date Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services 2!9!2005 10:01 AM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Date Env! rtuurrenad Services AAminsLetor Community Development & Community Development & Envitornmem.1 Services Environmental Services Admin. 2110200 5 8:59 PM Approved By OMS Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager'. Office Oftice of Manog'?ment & Budget 2/1112005 9:58 AM Approved By ~ Mark I ... keno Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112 00 5 1:29 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Oimdor Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112 08 5 1:53 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 21142005 9:20 AM Commissioners LOCATION MAP R Agenda Item No. 16A4 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 6 SITE MAP 817E LOCATION auk wo PROJECT LOCATION .wrm�araaiou '� '1@' 1YM MIYblNW ne�fon n u n°a°wo 1° 14 T tan 13 °a°a�afouro �1. o. LOCATION MAP R Agenda Item No. 16A4 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 6 SITE MAP 817E LOCATION Agenda Item No. 16A4 February 22. 2005 Page 5 of 6 I- It kv— —1 —11 1-11 j WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IF BRISTOL FINES ANAL SUBDIVISION PI-ANS MASTER SITE PLAN WATER SEWER AND SHEET INDEX ri �ws+•.u..r.•ar z,.v #nMa �.r..y,. +.a-t <,.,.a. Agenda !tern No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petition CARNY- 2005 -AR -7164, Mr. Benny Starling, Executive Director, of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, requesting a permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta on February 24 through March 6, 2005, at 110 North 15t Street in Immokalee. OBJECTIVE: Mr. Benny Starling, Executive Director of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve a permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta from February 24 through March 6, 2005, on property located at 110 North 1st Street in Immokalee. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Surety Bond. CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Benny Starling, Executive Director of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, has made application to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to conduct their annual carnival and has presented sufficient evidence that all the criteria has been met for the issuance of a carnival permit other than the waiver of the Surety Bond. Staff does not take issue with the request for a waiver of the Surety Bond, as there have been no previous problems related to clean up of the site after this annual festival. The required ^' insurance amount of $1,000,000.00 has been purchased and the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce named as additional insured. LEGAL CONSIDERTIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based and has determined that it meets that criteria, specifically Article 11 Sections 10 -26 through 10 -50 of the Collier County Administrative Code. These sections refer to the application process, duties of sponsors and owners, waiver of requirements, and approval of permit. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this petition would have no fiscal impact on the County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta and waive the surety bond. PREPARED BY: Cecilia K. Martin, Planning Tech Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Agenda Item ND, 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 27 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 15A5 Item Summary Petition CARNY- 2005 -AR- 7164, . Mr. Benny Starling. Executive L'ireMnr. of the Immokelee Cbarnbelr of Commerce; requesting a permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta on February 24th through March 5, 2005, at 110 NmYh 1 st Street in Immokalee. Meeting Date 2 +22.!2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Cecilia Martin Planning Teoh 2MM2005 1:42:39 PM Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Date Community Devaloparent a Community Development & Environmental Sorvfcas Environmental Services Admin. 211012005 5:49 PPA Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Cofmunity Development'& Connounrly Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Adrnin. 21110/2006 3:63 PM Approved By So::an Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Deveopment Director Date Community Development & Envi -n-1A Services zoning &. Land De.- I.prnent Review 210:2005 6:22 PM Approved By f.arnmunity, Devtrlopmunt & Joseph K. Schmitt Date En virmtmentat Services Adminstrator Community Develaprnen[& Cormnunify Development& En—onmental Servicas Environmental Se.ryicaz Admin. 211 1 95 9:16 AM Approved By OMB Cooniinator Administralive Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 1111:1005 9:31 AM Approved By .,--.. Mark tsarkson Budget Annly!;t Dade County Mamagee. Office Office of Management & Budget 21412005 9:44 AM Approved By Michael Smykowaki Maiiage—irt & Budget Director Dute County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211 41200 5 11:08 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2/1412005 7:04 PM Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Permit No. Page 3 of 27 PERMIT FOR CARNIVAL EXHIBITION STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF COLLIER: WHEREAS, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, has made application to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for a permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta; and WHEREAS, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta, set forth in Chapter 10, Article II, Amusements and Entertainments, of the Collier County Code have been satisfied and that such carnival exhibition will be conducted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and WHEREAS, said Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, has requested a waiver of the Surety Bond; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY GRANTED TO IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta from February 24th through March 6, 2005, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application and all related documents, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the following described property: (See attached Exhibit "A ") The request for waiver of Surety Bond is hereby approved. WITNESS my hand as Chairman of said Board and Seal of said County, attested by the Clerk of Courts in and for said County this day of 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: BY: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: VI Je fer A. Bel io Assistant Coun ttorney Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22. 2005 Page 4 of 27 Legal Description of land used for the event: Block B -Lots 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17 -18 -19 Less South 20' of Lot 9 thru 16 — Immokalee Sub Division M Folio # 5119012001 x s =- Block B- Lots 17 & 18 Less Roadway v Folio # 51190160003 Block B- Lots 19- 20- 21- 22 -23 -24 Less South 20' Roadway Folio # 51190200002 Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 27 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt I Trans Number I Date I Post Date I Payment Slip Nbr 1543985 12/9/2005 10:05:25 AM 2/912005 1 AR 7164 1 Appl Name: IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. 1 /PENDING Address: 720 N. 15TH ST. IMMOKALEE FL 34142 Proj Name: IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COUNTRY FAIR Type: TAZ:252/25 Subdiv Nbr: 919 Project Nbr: 2003020008 Payor : IMMOK. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Fee Information Payments Payment Code I Account/Check Number Amount CHECK 14672 $275.00 Memo: Total Cash Total Non -Cash Total Paid $0.00 $275.00 $275.00 Cashier /location: MCCAULEYKATY / 1 User: WILLOUGHBY C Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed:2 /9/2005 10:05:54 AM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT NOTE: Pleas.; read reverse side before completing this Petition. Agenda Item No, 16A5 February 22, 2005 Copy: Zoning Director Page 6 of 27 Copy: Petitioner Copy: (4) County Administrator CARNIVAL OPERATION PETITION 0 PETITION NO. DATE: a-r PETITIONER' S NAMEZIjpj. l�� P F &Immw eaELEPHONE:.X3* 4-9" 7-323 7 j�'ETITIONER'S ADDRESS: /A�7 API, Cye, ( (YLETITIONER "S E -MAIL ADDRESS: DA /S%5.5 � PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: /&4,-J2 CA-'TrDOJ TELEPHONE: PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: .&0 /)/ OWNERS'S E -MAIL ADDRESS: FAX# LEGAL DESCRITPION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 011- GENERAL LOCATION: /1% )5-r f CURRENT ZONING: NATURE OF PETITION: jfApW) jh+L� THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THIS PETITION. (FOR EXPLANATION, SEE NEXT PAGE.) 3.a. 3.e.1) 3.e.4) 3•e•7) 3.b. 3.e.2) 3.e.5) 3.e.S) 3.c. 3.e3) 3.e.6) 3.e.9) 3.d. Comments: SIGNATURE OF PETITI DATE REVIEWED by Board of County Commissioners: Approved: ❑ Disapproved: ❑ Conditions of Approval: 'ARNY -05-AR -7164 immokalee Chamber of Commerce Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta SIGNATURE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 27 CARNIVAL OPERATION PETITION TO BCC (EXCERPT FROM: Ordiance No. 75 -11, Filed Secretary of State 3/6/75) 3a. Letter enclosed 3b. Letter enclosed ,0e'.*' Check made to BCC for $ 275.00 3d. Permit enclosed ($125.00 Tolve Presentations, Inc.) 3e (1) Tolve Presentations, Inc/ Owner of Carnival 269 Orient Way Lyndhurtst, N.J. 07071 305 -975 -8249 Stephen Tolve Immokalee Chamber of Commerce / Sponsor of Carnival 720 North 15th Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 239 - 657 -3237 Benny Starling / Executive Director of ICOC Fred Gadston dba / Fred's Drive -Thru / Land Owner for Carnival 110 North 1st Street (Corner of Main Street -Hwy 29) and North 1st Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 Fred Gadston 239 - 657 -2381 (2) Carnival Event (3) Stephen Tolve — 135 -60 -2350 Fred Gadston — 445 -40 -4718 Benny Starling — 261 -70 -1300 Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 27 (4) Tolve Presentations said lighting is not a problem with the lights they provide with the Carnival. Public water will be furnished by Owner of the land, Fred Gadston / Fred's Drive -Thru. Parking will be provided by land North of designated site. Sanitary facilities will be provided from T & M Port -o -let Service, Labelle, Florida. The units will include 1- Handicap, 5 Men and 5 Women. (Sheet is included in this report) (5) Application is not required from ICOC. Tony Posa 0- 800- 226 -7356) from H & R in Ft. Myers said the Chamber does not have to have a Temporary Food Service Permit. If inspected he said that each vendor at the fair will have to buy a permit ($105.00) or Tolve Presentations, Inc. will purchase one for all the operations at the Carnival. (6) Ed Gilman from Florida Department of Health (239 -403- 2499) said the ICOC did not have to have a permit, only Tolve Presentations if they were holding sewage. Im- mokalee Disposal will be taking care of the garbage pick up service for the ICOC. Enclosed you will find a copy of what has been ordered. (7) Lt. Mike Dolan of the Immokalee Sub - Station will (8) provide traffic thru the local department. Sgt. Robert Asbel, Jr. and Mike Taylor will be the rep. from the ICOC to the Sheriffs Department in Immokalee. Ag- Watch Security will provide the security for each evening of the carnival. Don Crabtree — 239 - 657 -3404. Letter enclosed from Fire Marshal Leo Rodgers. (9) The Tolve Presentation, Inc. Carnival will operate as follows: Feb. 24....6 to midnight...... Thursday Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 27 Feb. 25....6 to 1 a.m ........... Friday Feb. 26....noon to 1 a.m ...... Saturday Feb. 27....noon to 1 a.m ...... Sunday Feb. 28....6 to midnight...... Monday Mar. 1....6 to midnight...... Tuesday Mar. 2....6 to midnight...... Wednesday Mar. 3....6 to midnight...... Thursday Mar. 4....6 to 1 a.m ........... Friday Mar. 5....noon to 1 a.m ...... Saturday Mar. 6....noon to 1 a.m ...... Sunday (10) Letter included from property owner, Fred Gadston / Fred's Drive Thru to use his property for ICOC Carnival — 2005 Harvest Festival Fiesta. (11) Legal Description of land used for the event: Block B -Lots 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17 -18 -19 Less South 20' of Lot 9 thru 16 — Immokalee Sub Division Folio # 5119012001 Block B- Lots 17 & 18 Less Roadway Folio # 51190160003 Block B- Lots 19- 20- 21- 22 -23 -24 Less South 20' Roadway Folio # 51190200002 Agenda item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 27 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and submit to the Addressing Section for Review. Not all items will apply to every project Items in bold type are required. 2 3. Street address or addresses (as applicable, if already assigned 4� rl 4. Location map, showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right -of -way (attach) 5. Copy of survey (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTIES)_ 6. Proposed project name (if applicable) ,v ref- CARNY -05 AR -7164 7. Proposed Strdet names (if applicable) Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta 8. Site Development Plan Number (FOR EXISTING PROJE1-, jL .3, &jx x.. . A SDP - 9. Petition Type — (Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) 11. Please Check One: ❑ Checklist is to be Faxed Back ❑ Personally Picked Up 12. Applicant Name Phone Fax 13. Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project an or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Section. Ai ,4- FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number Address Number Address Number Address Number Approved b - Date 52 y ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ SDPI (SDP Insubstantial Change) ❑ FP (Final Plat) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SIPA (SIP Amendment) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ ROW (Right -of -Way Permit) ❑ Vegetation/Exotic (Veg. Removal Permits) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ Land Use Petition (Variance, Conditional Use, ❑ VRSFP (Veg. Removal & Site Fill Permit) Boat Dock Ext., RZne, PUD rezone, f Other - Describe: rryi VG� � , Ar'V4c 7 l� -i ✓G� 10. Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if applicable; indicate whether proposed or existing) 11. Please Check One: ❑ Checklist is to be Faxed Back ❑ Personally Picked Up 12. Applicant Name Phone Fax 13. Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project an or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Section. Ai ,4- FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number Address Number Address Number Address Number Approved b - Date 52 y Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 27 FRED'S DRIVE -THRU 110 NORTH 15' STREET IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA 34142 239- 657 -2381 January 28, 2005 Immokalee Chamber of Commerce 720 N. 15'h Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 Dear Benny, This is a letter to inform the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce of the charge for the property from February 24th thru March 6th at a rate total of $1,750.00. The property that is being used from me is Block B Lots 5 thru 16 of Immokalee Sub Division. Also Block B — Lots 17 thru 24 of Immokalee Sub Division. The address of the said property is 110 N. 1t Street and Corner of Main Street. Tolve Presentations, Inc. will provide a carnival for a 11 day period and the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce will be the sponsor for the event. Insurance will be provided by Tolve Presentations and the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. Sincere , Fred Gadston/ Fred's Drive -Thru CARNY -05 -AR -7164 Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 . Page 12 of 27 PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS, INC. 201 NORTH 1' STREET IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA 34142 January 28, 2005 Immokalee Chamber of Commerce 720 North 15th Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 Dear Mr. Starling, On behalf of Pace Center for Girls we would like to inform the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce that you may use our property for parking during the Fair and Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta event, February 24t'' thru March 6`h. Our property is located just north of Fred's Drive -Thru where you are having the Country Fair for 11 days. The North end of our property is at Oak Street and runs down North Vt Street to Fred's Drive -Thru. I understand that the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce has insurance that will cover anything that happens during the Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta on our property. We wish you all the very best on your 40th Harvest Festival "Fiesta 2005". Sincerely, hreasa Miller Executive Director Pace Center for Girls, Inc. we'Sr - yw� ;t,? Agenda Item No. p6Ai5 February 22, 2005 m G Page 13 of 27 0 y 0 0 /� �lq /2 ttw� ,j - g ,i sr , su u-W u;) va: o IF ut.z$u - iau February 04, 2005 eju -s57-5708 Agenda Item i''o. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 27 *f f part COIlier County Sheriff's Office 3301 Tamiarni Trail East Building "J" Naples, Ft. 34112 Telephone (AC 941) 774 - 4434 Immokalee Chamber of Commerce 720 North 15`h Street Immokalee. FL 34142 Dear Mr. Starling, This letter is to inform the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce and Harvest Festival Committee that the Immokaloc District of the Collier County Sheriffs Office will have extra persommel ou duty during the hours of the Harvest Festival Block Party. You will need to arrange for special contract deputies or outside security for full time dedication for this event. For farther inforrnartion on conUvat deputim you may contact our Special Services Bureau and speak with lu Sgt. Mike Jones at 239 - 774- 4434. As time permits_ deputies will also be visible at the fair, however, it would be advisable to inform vendors that security measures for their property is their msponsibility. Please be advised that fair personnel need to adhere to county and state compliance on all local Collier County Ordinances anti Florida State Statutes. Please call me if we can be of any further assistance. Sint ly, 0 Lt. MiA64 L. Dolan Collier County Sheriffs Office Immokalee Subs-tation Lieutenant 239-657-6168/ Fax 239 - 657 -57118 MI.D /vr Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 27 Immokalee Disposal Company, Inc. 120 Jefferson Avenue Immokalee, Florida 34142 (239) 657 -2729 (239) 657 -7478 Fax January 28, 2005 Immokalee Chamber of Commerce 720 North 15m Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to verify that garbage pick up service will be provided for the following event: Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Fair February 20 thru March 6th, 2005 Location: Corner of Main Street & 1" Street Immokalee, Florida Container type & frequency: 20 Yard roll-off containers liners for I" thru 6`h Street — Pick up upon request If you have any questions, please contract me at the number shown above. SiniWrely, Linda Collins asei °KALES Immokalee Fire Control District 9 502 E. New Market Rd., Imrnokalee, FL. 34142 February 3, 2005 Reference: Chamber of Commerce Harvest Festival Fair. 110 N. I" St. February 20 through March 6", 2005 H. B. "Benny" Starling Immokalee Chamber of Commerce 720 N. 15th St. Immokalee, Florida 34142 Dear Mr. Starling, I have reviewed the above referenced event location. The property is within the Immokalee Fire Control District's boundaries. Fire protection and inspection services will be provided in this area to the best of our ability. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (239) 657 -2111. Sincerely, Leo F. Fire Marshal General Office 239 - 657 -2111 Fire Prevention 239.657 -2700 Fax 239 -657 -9489 11JL YG Agenda te'5 • February . 2 05 Page 17 of 27 T461*0 Praftft"O= INC. CON71MCc 1. INS, n 0, et mode WA attend we this„ ft — ..X0 fty Of f� rjoD., by Team lweoetaimm lac., !rq' of taa pan ad �Crc oCr of rr ck, ar .,� of, ,�pyrgr of the aeosed pmt 2 1�w eftrc flit Poet apwr a peweat ammo mu I" is to eft ! - sbret of ,. for PWW of `_mp am ttipbto, a 1. -- - - OR&A .Zvs I Tbw, pwq atd w mwmw rR %wa tv , --al a6 yemna sat } rewiea tot >a4' be NOW by Mr. weetr, pelloe pe+eeaeliea4 —Wig" saw bomm Oipm A rsn s d�pate� OX w � rZ i � * ,. Thu ai *ews% rA t do be wkkr aseeeyeea 1 Wed �aretre atporly ofdr 60 pW. 3. 710 t* a eammm"ift k do Awn aw � , dw patio Of ft So pot Owe t0 m pm Y dos weal" pot r. mw of a ,_,�Ilt lw/ ate* pm la *m Gala rklee a0d AlYov o per cm orad " a.k ticket. OW lAYNENT ?o BE MADE AT TOE Cl ME OF EACH DAYS WXNM, 6. Thw.. PWJ oftlr im a be pmOW aetiW iMC p *diets a mahcdaa vg— fOMM errdy. mom M* wpm% Icy► teed "&* so ate a we" wed and an . 7. 'no it Is aaete * speed br"p rms b"O thm *= is an odw oaatract of 11 16 t, eider wr" w veebd wiiti b*mft done. tad that Ilia tAalrut n tttbjeat to dtt MPPWAd of #0 +bona attend *A BOW by *lies bt btw. !. 1*oeoe of ototaeas w dealt of afar pafas ncr, tb.a peaty of tbs Let rot"Imle a {weoe■— Jw & eftbw os vq*w eacaad w pbrtttat. h wets s[ta ka d eocidm ut dOW, Wlmk lee. 6@4 ayt leas, *19mic er aw udwm as s wv � ow whirls tie peesr acre leaf part aa. aO eeatas4 ttie. eLer ars aOt is be bait !Yr 4�eegoak by patty of r4.. Tf* oa�iee aatiewd ieO sad sipOd sdep dte dty of M^ vw'./a 'r- saw of 40 . Ups dw dw of ♦ by dos dalr wetaoei+ad >tgiaane wim Brae+ P"m isreo: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS! •�' Orr -rW of 6rpcws -L m6e R P W* Pp Oft"- se.CLA R; D ro �GD 3 ,*- wwn C,r.r ✓r.• -win s 1-0 p�•�� " � 1� Rrrcovlvi of ri 5/5; AD fvlc rn s L C. ?l,..o �T73•oo 2 ST S s �4, ,goo S' s . /ra h' sN OIUWT WAY LVWDNMgW N i_ al -- ---- - -v - Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 TOLVE PRESENTATIONS page 18 of 27 269 ORIENT WAY LYNDHURST NJ 07071 Phom 201- 933 -3388 Fax 201- 933 -5857. TO: FROM• ( Oct/(. W-,�C AT10JS WC DATE- FAX NUMBER: Z�� 1 5 Q • +.+sv sa + NUMBER OF SHEETS TO FOLLOW - - - ` -,.- ------ .....�. - -.- MESSAGE: 1A!(3 15 rU'I�RC 1 yUU �G C- Ru C'ArJ as ��� pc,C- 3 3 33 �� ...� , 72LPEeO&M Agenda tern No. 16A5 a' NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY Feb.try 22, 2005 OMAFtA. NEIM"KA Page 19 of 27 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY - DECLARATIONS 72LPE69'1091 c,,w Mwmd Woumd and Addnw: oft.. Street. Tama . c w CNy. rft, 9ufe zip) Preece« IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GWENDOLYN RAULE 4SON (A215534) ATTN: BENNIE STARLING SPOONER INSURANCE AGENCY 720 N 15TH STREET 806 N 15Th STREET IMMOKALEE. FL 34142 IMMOKALEF, FL 341 POLICY PERIOD: Polley coven FROM 04/26/04 To 04/26/05 12.01 AM. 9tandmd Tmw at the Ahrtws! kwired' Address slated above. TAe named wmmd m ❑ "Odn,W ❑ Paru+enhlp ❑ Cofoora*m ❑ jaim Vem. ® Oktw: _ T aisirrass or Vm n mad inw W is: v mmaw) Airut F* kW: Arw%W cuss.0 turwas . MWMR ao i)" CMC AND LEASED TO CHURCH PER90N5 NeAN EW BY SUfiP< A LINES C.71W#M DO NOT HAVE THE PAOTE;TION OF THE FLORIL141145 MNCE t3U KTdE ACT TO THE EXTENT �� LiIES 'THE OBLIGATION OF AN INSOLVENT, UNL Nlgt1RER TW$ NVSURANCE IS 91iAED Pt1RSttANT TO THE t Mlm OF p*umm0E GUMUft AGWiEGATE LWAT (OTHERTMAN PRODUCTCOMPLETED OPERAATIONBj f _ t _0pp_0p0 PFOOU(+`TS-OOMMETEO OPEMTLONS AA MWGATE U MIT i E> t] Wets PERSONALAADVERTf MtfVIUwI.IAt1T = EACH OCCUFVVMM UMIT = We DAMAGE OMIT i 5040W ANYONE FIRE MEDK'.AL DEFENSE L mrr i S'000 ANY ONE pEpd ON C WEPAGE +mom PREN m COMMIS OAL GENERAL L PJ3LHY OOVEFUGE (6E£ SCHEDULE FORM MW7M S -- 1-759- - L7THERCOVERAGEO)ESCFyBE) &MPS+s Lk..e F..: s 33.00 Wkiws» Arwwd Premium 1,70D.00 Surplus Mess Tax: i auz5 TOTALADVANBE PFLW M i 1,730.W WNnknurn Ppmken"Earned 4N.OD FSLSO Santos Fw: i 4.47 1 ECT TO AUDIT FVTFOACTNE DATE (CO 00 02- WP*Ebls 10 dobw muds onversos tom only) poveraye A of this bmNarxe does no apply to 'bodily b*,)r a -property dunapa• wtlldl 00mn Mort ft RttroUS" Drts, N any. I NMOw. Asfrosetiv. va: t I Leeches Of Al Pnmwas You Own, Rumor Oefwptr: 1.9D7 ROBERTS AW A tOKA1.EE. FL 33934 2- 720 N /STH STREET, IMMOKALJEE, FL 34142 -- v.. v raver lmavcu r v r rm.% r vu1'T: I FNFY1384e (54W, FM.4565 JS* W141(83 M -3706 (11497), M-3797 (}p4), M3792b 1122)W3795 (3487). M4M4 (3-50), (4 -02), �I&Wj, , t M -5DSBa (1D -01). M-W73 (,2 -0,), M -5075 (12 -01), W5076 (12.01), M -5077 (1201). M-512Y 112-02) M -5131 [34)3j, M-5149 ID-M), i CGt M 00-01). CaMM (D1 -6). CG2ab2 p f -a,), Cia�V64 f 11-x), W2738 [Trio). M147 (07.0 i -POMW .lmdW M3141' I Cour+.eelgrn.d: 0SO5OS Sh.fy. MiddWwwks i Ot ewy. Im. Q r P.Q Box 20ra JealOenvale, FL 32M3,WM A FWV" P/o) NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY NOTICE OF SERVICE OF SUIT Agend a Item No. 16A5 FE bruary 22, 2005 2�7 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POUCY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. In the evedt you feel Out we h we taffed to pay a dadm a0=dkV to the terms d the policy. you may nt suit agairrst us. We will obey the order of ttre Coot of Competent jurtsdtction wfifNn due United States and win comply al t KpWemeKs neceseary to give the Court Jurisdiction, and all such matters shad be deterrninpd according to the taw COWL Practice of the In any suit brougN agahmt uo sance"*Ig your policy, we will abide by the final decision of the NrdudkV any Appellate Coot In the woo of an appeal. Swvka d Suit may be made upon Donald F. Wurdw. President. Nstional Hied, fMwine fnSrJrance � 3424 Hamey Street, Omaha, Nebraska. 66131. He Is &UMorkred and directed to accept So n&* of Strk on our and /or provide written notice drat we w/n appear In Court N a* is instituted. B required by your state statures. we hereby designate the ConenVMloner of Irradiance, or any other w specified by tits rastute, or his suooesso's in office. an our true and lawful attorney for Service of Suk sn Oxited by you, orlon your behalf, or on bet>alf d your benefkiary, In regard to your poky. and designate finer such pmoees should be m61ed to DorWd F. WursW, President, at the Comparrll Homo Office address. ` All otharterrns, conditions and agreements d the Pd" shah rprnsi n unchanged. NATIONAL FIRE 4k MARINE INSLVANIM COMPANY Ponigr Wunbt 7"Eamolat tr4amonsm t5rn.cri.. 04/20/04 Mon" nnwmd WMOKAt.EE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CAN 010 by 00 Ila,**V CIS MW ba winpneud any whw Vft WldoQWMne fe iYwd wb" qWW ro V%Pa s*w off "p RSA -ppeNt (61aP1 �.+ .. .. .... v.. v.r ...a ••• ••i 1tCU .7/JW%.AUL1. ,y 111 J41J0107VV GAG Agenda Item No. 16A5 GoF.r� , ')') )nnr_ CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 2 03 os PRwwMAl led Specialty Insurance, Inc TM6CE§ MFICATE13183UEDASA ■ATTIROFMIFORKATIOM 10451 Gulf Blvd. ONLY AND COWN" NO RIGHTS UPON THi= CERTIFICATE Treasure Island, FL 33706 HOLDER THM CIKI ICA1E DOES UW A , MITEND OR 800/237 -3355 WSURCRS AFF 00! ERA ffm # mum Tolve Presentations, Inc. mummL T.K.E. Insurance Ccmpany DBA: Third Generation 8628 Constitution Drive — Homestead FL 33034 THE POUCIES OF INSURANCE LLSTEO BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIDD INDWATED. NOTN[THSTANDING ANY REOLARFMENT. TERM OR OONOM ON OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUhENT WTH RESPECT TO UMICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY SE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDM BY THE POl1CM DES( HEREIwI IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSRONS AND CoMmTIONB OF SUCH _POUCIES. ACGRWATE UNITS IMRYHAVE DMI1 REDUCEDBYPND CLANS. ~ Mslt r6ucr wurrort M4MF2582 mwx= 04/17/04 rOL1GY[NPIW1TInN 04/].7/0 - .__..-- ►w ,tJg�newea aArACeTOr<FR" S 2,000,000 CAI LYYttfY X MalU7Y MAW "Am X ocaAr 5 50,000 PENKM&ANN"U" 6 1,000,000 14,000,000 AdOWAM UNIT Nft M4 I lux _ - 1,000,000 Junoroe6� —. rlMer LARLrr JWrAUTO ALLOORCOAUM 6CalUX&MAUT06 NOMAUim M0k4)W 1'AAL f02 Beer letiLiYtT »se 6 eoo�r rLArcr I P > s VOW ON" 6 POM DAMAGE s c AUTO ASSWORr.6AJCCMDEUT s OTRIEA TwAN Avroorir. 6 TM X om" U CtAmso o6 aenucrmc M4XF2583 04/17/04 04/17/05 wna�6ccuaR6wra 6 1,000,000 .R s 1,000,000 6 6 R1�oRe�LSOOrOaaATaw wnor �Ar Awn rRr AMr 0141�IEf11pBi ElfLt1J0!'a7 Y OaeOe�mWr we srcLlAi�a otH- C.L. OlifiAti • iA RNALORGG / i UTwM o6fdtVTtOw Of OPNtATgMS JCOCATLON� /t1Qlp!! JQpJI!<flIY1 AOnf6 �Y db011Y1 �PiC1AL ►ApYgMNt ,EVENT:2 /24/05 - 3/07/05 FIESTA 2005 ADDITIONAL INS: IMMOICALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS RESPECTS TO THE OPERATION OF THE NAMED INSURED ONLY IMMOKALEE CHAMBER2 OF COMMERCE FAX 239 657 5450 sloaeAwrorn+ e�wovleo�soRr�rowis�uwcwiwner�oRrtnnon oATaTw ftw'Twe1INlMwatwiURM "LL WIWAVOR 119MA I 10 emwwrm wo1RCn ToT>+e ClIR7lICA7L' wOL6Nt wrreo 70 7/C LIFT, aurrARUwE 7006!6 iNALL PX OKM6 OtLO09"M ORLOOLM OF MY RaOL"M THE 0MOWK IIS AGE M OR ABIRENEMWE AVAAW zs iZNTM? p ACpRD COWURAT10M 11 N IC,I J V I W7VV V- ALLIED CIL -00 February 3, 2005 IMMOXALLZ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FAX 239 657 5450 RS: certificates of lusuraence, 1/6 Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 27 Dear BENNY STARLING, 239 657 5450 Enclosed is an original and /or a duplicate Certificate of Insurance.. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me anytime. i Sincerely, David Gallace Account Executive Enclosure ALLIED SPECIALTY INSURANCE. INC. 10451 Oulf HoalavUd, TMAMM esland, FWds 33706.72,7 367 - 6900.1 800 237 -3335 • FAX 727 367 -1407 COLDER COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX LICENSE NUMBER: 002085 COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR- 28DD N. HORSESHOE DRIVE • NAPLES FLORIDA 341FN - (179) 4012477 VISIT OUR V*8SITE AT: w~-cOiFenazcom THIS LICENSE EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30, 1005 DISPLAY AT PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION LOCATION. 26SORiENT WAY FAILURE TO Im SO IS CONTRARY TO LOCAL LAWS. ZONED. 8U5'NESS PHI 201.973 -9786 LEGAL FORM CORPORATION NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. TRAVELING SHOW.CAFUVIvALS CUISSIFICATIONCIRCUS. CARNNAL SIDE SHOT! CLAWPICA71ON CODE. ttiwooJt .. This 00&?nerd is ar- Ocu/PsScrat 4cernte tax oniv. Ths m r!o! ce!Yhcaliw.. that i;pens4t is auettied, It does 001 pemm 1ht kensee to rewr acry a mlmy re0uiixory zcrnng IswS O Mt atata, Count)• Or uAWS noe Ooes A exempt the ticenset'lOM any omer I¢erae W MfflaS Mal maybe ieyured by Faw. TOLVE PRESENTATIONS, INC TOLVE. JOHN M 269 ORIENT WAY LYNDHURST N! QT-.71 DATE 09/iwO04 AMOUNT IDD00 RECEIPT �f 35519111 L Agenda Item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 2.3 of 27 #T M a r r Agenda Item"T*,,VA5 February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 27 Totvv Pmmtledm Inc. LYNDRVWI iii C'ON UCY' 1. '[I& -, 91e -t =6 e d OMW iw title„ 1lte _d! of .7�"' 2qe„�(► D., by TWw hem tae ew r., Pow offtla poet wi pwy of dw -- p peA. t 7)re of�e �iQt pm KW M p "M na WWO 1*& it *0 - ill Some of f« pe4od of &" Od »lam I altaaaao16 a ft&A .J, I no /M4' o+f dw teooad ptet tpaeil• w" as aaft x I" iwmw that am be rq i' a' %Y r. ws" p6mw per• , todot 9 aiM imp 0 Ow aim allkaw 4. TU ed dte+ai, rA ft - Is ae=0os r mimO **W4w dWR iw wskr e11�ea�a1� Iwi att�ei otpphr of the 5trt S I'm fer *W dlM d1e pry► of the W pet +r1R" a p q pmi of to me. pA eam O erM sf tlN ywae s 011 rfdea and OM K,A =,- aak ti AM " PAYMp4T TO HE MADE AT TIM CAOU OF EACH DAY'S 1tl UMM. & Ties: Aft erse *U as bt rmoad r'Ri. *1 Pei ft to aeadwedoa amaw (emm m*, polpwq� 4w* *pow, per• at dift* is amok aea vdr) ad MW alt. 7. Tr k b aelw* apaad by be* pml w bwsW NM Noes it no *list et c or ploNtiR, emm wrOmm a r vaaW rims batwaaa omm ad that >lra . O i 1. t is 1 j*d to 9. for appawd of tied abors rmrd ata►wR eaitllar b Min of lean. 1l. i:� oeee of etobw at t>eodt otacq parwener, tb.a Nelr of tbt iM poet a1Mli lae+�v a n+rteaoaii lar�tll oftiwt a espitee eadM sst or peaiotolts. Le aaer o�'atiMlnd aair or d�eltg►. tttrlw, iw:llrM„ ayroloat.spidaric a aasr 1lahrwant oonr�woe owr orb t>ft t� d the !ew � r ae►a�laaet� tr1 they erc riot r tae Wd nr ebr�ps dx Ha�fr of 1>Mr T"�� st■t a�i this cis clap oi' • D.. 20 r"L� � �f�- wtkoeisd rge�eaawatirteKtirTaelisrarr: VECML ARRANOF.MFJ M: 1RY _ ar apw 4F brcd5 • L M.rJ► 4*4 . F Hof' pp " K - S et OmTy !12 7-0 tICeV �S i wArG+s.. ?cohd vi6 -mr. s G /w/ -,-A- DY �,ratr. r v'Pi'Oort 4 -r 0 pa'11 54� ' - - !a[�a1u rntt %rcl L<- —0 i s s t C DD i i ' �ynou of s, t 2004 /rPd j-o *, 04 bins 20 t7RIVwr WAY LVNDNR)=T Mi. 17Av!1' AA-r—V � 0 ^ Agenda item No. 16A5 February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 27 Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Immokalee Community Development Corporation 720 North 15"' Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 239 - 657 -3237 239 - 657 -5450 Fax We would like security for the following dates for our Harvest Festival Fair and Block Party 112004 Fiesta" COUNTRY FAIR: February 24 ...... Thursday ....................................... ............................... February 25 ...... Friday .............2 hours — 8 to 10-------------- Security February 26 ...... Saturday ......... 3 hours — 8 to 11-------------- Security 8 Hours February 27 ...... Sunday ............ 3 hours — 8 to 11-------------- Security February28 ...... Monday .............................................................. ............................... March1........... March 2........... Tuesday ......................................... ............................... Wednesday ......... ............................... March 3 ........... ....................... Thursday ...................................:.... March 4........... ............................... Friday ..................2 hours — 8 to 10--------- Security.....2 Hours March 5........... Saturday ...............2 hours — 8 to 10 ---------- Security .... 2 Hours March 6........... Sunday...... hours — 8 to 11 ---------- Security .... 8 Hours Total 20 Hours for Country Fair: C& $12.50 per hour .... $250.00 - 2 security men $200.00 TOTAL: $450.00 BLOCK PARTY: March 5 ........... Saturday evemng.....11pm to loam Sunday morning.....11 Hours Total 11 Hours for Block Party: 0 $12.50 per hours .... $137.50 - security men 137.50 137.50 TOTAL: 412.50 GRAND TOTAL FOR BOTH EVENTS: ............... $ 412.50 Block Party 450.00 Fair $ 862.50 TOTAL Agenda� item No. 16A5 72�IrI MAIrIntNA l PIRF A YOAINF INSURANCE nf)MPAW FefirM -- 2 c 2005 FW1��V �N1r.• •.��-y, -�. ...�a� ..���.�...�� �� .. v� NEOR 1KA fplJG tV VI 41 COMMERCIAL. GENERAL l ABUTY - DECLARAMONS 72LPES91091 Nafned Vowed &-A Aiddren: ft. Skewt. Town W Cat. OmMy. 91MM, Zip) Produtef IMMOKAREE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GWYENDOLM RAULE SON (A215534) &TTN: BENNIE 2STARUNG SPOONER IN AGE 720 N 15TH STREET 808 N ISTH STREET IMMOKA EE. FL 34142 IMMOKALEE. FL 341 POLJCY PERIOD: Policy aovara FROM 04/26/04 TO 04/25/05 12'01 A M. SModard Tint M 1hs Named koweds Addmew *Wed above. The darned in umd Is: ❑ kxK4d4W ❑ Pwwwrship ❑ Capoiadon ❑ JaW Venture 5D OMw: MMI&TIM 8aakieea aR the nomad i WA*d ie: 00M MELD" AJdit Pviwd: Annual ur*m anwwiet stuftc. tewym asm" CIVIC AND LEASED TO CHURCH PER90NS NaUFM By SURPLUS LINES CAIiIIERS DO NOT HAVE THE PROTEC" OF THE FLOFIVA IMSIJRNYI ACT TO THE EXTD OF ANY RIL9HT OF REOONEW FOR 'fHE OBL.IOATION OF AN WSOLVEW. UNtJCEN= WaXWF . THIS INSURANCE IS PURSLAAW TO TH FLOMM SURPUM U MM LAW. Rah t ' UMR3 O! W9KMANM GE1.WW AGORMiATE L MHNT (OTHER THAN PROOUCTZ0MPLETM OPEMTMJ 04 a "y 1 Pft0C S4QMPiAM OMMIOMS ABORMTE UWT t M.{ M PEASOWL AAUMVISQM(i MNJURY UNT i EACH OCL:11MO CE G MrNT s FNV-; OAMAt.E UM i 000 ANY ONE FM MEO C,AL EXPENSE LET 9 5 000 ANY ONE PEABON COVERAGE COMMMOAL GENERAL L ML" CMERAGE FEE SCHEDULE FORM hOn" ; AMC" rfwdm IM OTHER COVERAGE Q)ESORM tli T Sulpkre Lk+ew Few: S 33M I Kfiininram AnnuiW Premium 1.7MOD Sun*n LJnws Tax: $ Wn TOTALADVANCE PMAIUM 8 _ 1—M.00 8JEE:T TO AL101T W nkmm Prtn k m"reeved 43e.00 FSLSO SwMw Fee: B 4.47 S AM IDACTM DATE OM 00 02 - appMoetlle 10 aiakns rnadt oorara9 fawn **) 00"w ge A of piss ftrsurmce does not aPPhf t0 -MdMy k1)urlr' CO "PropaRy daff"I' which oocnls before r& Hlfroae" Dar, H & ft. #Wwn below. I pAbv wo ads, I Lomdon a AN ftwribws You Own, Rant or ONW, 1.807 iiOKATS AVE, NIMMMOKAt.EE, FL 339134 2 720 N 1STM STREET, IMMOKALFE, FL 34142 4 1 i ENO OPiSEMENTSATTACHED TO TMG POLICY: FM-29M (5.0, FMAM 15A5 . M-5141 j8 )), M-377f% (1187), M-3707 OmW), MI1WM (12 -M), W3795 M4359b M4Ma(603), M- 505Bf1(10-01), M-W73 (12-01), (3487). M40M (3.90), (4.02), M-5075 (12.01). *W76 (12.01), WW77 (12 -01). M- 512'2' (I12.02). *513113-w , M-5149 1D i CGM (1001), CGWM (01-". CC2W2 (11-864. CG2104 (11-85), 0GO36 (104f . CGZ147 98) 'Policy JaakM *5141' COUet-eipnad: 05454A ShWv. %ddWx90ks A OlAWy, kp. ' P.O. Box 2=..laalnonv *, FL O, 0%sary Aliw= '" FM-V" Plan Item No. 16A5 ruary 22, 2005 PPMEk NATIONAL FlRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY NOTICE OF SERVICE OF SUET THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POUCY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. in the event you teal that we have failed to pey a claim according to the terns d the policy, you may rt sult against us. We will obey the order of the Court of congwatt ptsdiction wee the United States and will comply all requirements necesewy to give the Cow Jurisdiction, and al such matters shall be detem* ed assuming to the law practice of the In any suit bnptW t against us concerning your Policy, vra will abide by the final derision of the Cc LwL including any Appellate Cotnt In the event of an appeal. Senrloe of Suit may be mode upon Donald F. Wurster, Preasiderat, National Fire b Marine insuxa m , 3024 Harney Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 66131. He Is aulb"hed and directed to accept Service d Suit on our beh 0 afyd /ux provide written notioethat we wIll appear in Ooun If suit le irrstkutW. It required by your state statutes, we hereby designate the Cornninloner of Imiumnclk or any other specified by the statute, or tus suocesaom in office, as our true and lawful attorney for Service of Sum kwdcuted by you, or on your behalf, or on beta f of your beneficiary, in regard to your pofky, and designate that such process should be lied to Donald F. Wutrster, President, at the Company Home Office address. I All ottter terms. conditions and agreements of the policy beat rernaln uncharged. PQhwNwTdw NATIONAL FIRE d MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY 7APEogiog1 04/25/04 taw" ftwnd C04M-dWMd by IMIAOKM_EE f.HWBER OF 00WEAC E "AftW V Clause need be oompfeud any were fhb wx msem*M lR iwrd wlwo" m to PVWvftft of do FM-29M (5/10 Agenda Item No. 16A6 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petition CARNY- 2005 -AR -7177, Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, of the Golden Gate Community Center, requesting a permit to conduct the annual Golden Gate Community Festival on February 24 through 27, 2005, at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. OBJECTIVE: Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, of the Golden Gate Community Center, requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve a permit to conduct the annual Golden Gate Community Festival from February 24 through 27, 2005, at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Surety Bond. CONSIDERATIONS• Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor of the Golden Gate Community Center, has made application to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to conduct their annual carnival and has presented sufficient evidence that all the criteria has been met for the issuance of a carnival permit other than the waiver of the Surety Bond. Staff does not take issue with the request for a waiver of the Surety Bond, as there have been no previous problems related to clean up of the site after this annual festival. The required �-° insurance amount of $1,000,000.00 has been purchased and the County named as additional insured. LEGAL CONSIDERTIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based and has determined that it meets that criteria, specifically Article II Sections 10 -26 through 10 -50 of the Collier County Administrative Code. These sections refer to the application process, duties of sponsors and owners, waiver of requirements, and approval of permit. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this petition would have no fiscal impact on the County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the permit to conduct the annual Golden Gate Community Festival and waive the surety bond. PREPARED BY: Cecilia K. Martin, Planning Tech Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 1 Agerda Item No 163A6 February 22, 2705 Page 2 of 18 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16A6 Item Summary Petition CARNY- 2006 -AR -71 "i 7, Mr, Keith Larson, Supervisor, of the Golden Gate Community Center, requesting a permit to conduct the annual Golden Gate Community Festival on February 24 through 27, 2005, at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. Meeting Date 2!222006 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Cecilia Martin Planning Tech 2111:2005 9:2S:OO AM Cummuniry Development & Zoning &Land Oavelopment Review Servi Enviranmen fal ces Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Secretary Darn Community 0eveloPment& Community Development& 2111!2005 9:36 AM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Developmenl & Community Development & 211712005 9:44 AM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Cnmrnunity Development & Zoning &Land Development Review 2!111200510:T1 AM Environmental Services Approved By Carmnuntry Develop —ml & Joseph K. Schmitt Environmentat Service:: Adminslnrtor Dale Coman....4 Development & Cwnmunity Development & 2.7 112005 11: 58 AM E— ironmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By OMB Cnnrdinatnr Administrattve Assistant Dare County Manager's Doi— Offico of Pdanagn —tot & Budget 2!11!2005 1:34 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2114.12005 8:49 AM Approved By Michael Smykosski Manugurne.nt & Budget Dire<:tnr Date County Mamrciai s office Oflice+ of M.magement & Budget 2!1412005 8:56 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 2i14!2D05 6:40 PM Commissioners 02/1-0/2005 08.21 f- 7---L� 2394559556 GGCC Agenda ItepA&D. 10M6 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 16 COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Parks and Recreation Department Golden Gate Community Center • 4701 Golden Gate Parkway • Naples, Florida 34116.6901 (239) 455 -2343 • Paz: (239) 455 -9556 • hIrP://www.coMerpvnet Memorandum CARNY -05 -AR -7177 Golden Gate Community Center To: Collier County Development Services Front: Keith Larson, Conunumity Center's Supervisor Collier County Parks & Recreation Re: Carnival Operation Petition Date: February 10, 2005 Attached is the Carnival Operation Petition for the Golden Gate Community Festival. This festival will be held at the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Pkwy, beginning on Thursday, Fcbrnu►ry 24, and za p through Sunday, February 27, 2005. The hours of operation arc as follows: Thursday 2/24, 5:00 —10:00 pna, Friday 2/25, 5:00 —11:00 pm, Saturday 2/26, Noon —11:00 pna, Sunday 2/27, Noon — 10:00 pm. Z am also requesting that the $2,500 surety bond be waived. The Golden Gate Community Center as staff & volunteers lined up to handle all aspects of gmu nds maintenance and Clem up. Please process the interoffice transfer of funds for the Carnival Operation Petition payment of $275. Golden Gate Community Center's account number is 130-157710 - 649010. K 'th Larson Community Center's Supervisor Collier County Parks & Recreation 0 H « 6 Y GGCC Agenda IfM4ENo.@%A6 02/09/2005 12:18 2394559556 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 16 CARNY -05 -AR -7177 Golden Gate Community Center Ow $CtAt Cgpy: PatwareQ CW. (4) Cotutty "nkbfth* CARNIVAL OPERA'T'ION PE'TPx'XON MI'x` ON No. � 1c. N J` K" '+� DA.TV... 2 f3„ C� 5 .. PFTPkUrTRR't9t P1CJU- 1101T='jS ADDRESSI 2.ror Otz, -r. ,r �&J F'`ET't'ITQ1�I�t"5 r- 11�A►iL ADDRE�a „ M 4 n VAX# P R'T Y V�VI'�iER'S Nom: C=a` c,t Ott. Co , Win- '19-r- TZUWIR+OM -. -1:t; L4'_ `� Y'ROMTV OVIT IS ADDRI : 33og ;A�arA 'aAaA%:aa,-,,a 3<4tt LEGALDEK9ft1'rMM OFMUBTA=MOMM. 3,q CVRR,TNT T� B�gL��iV[►D+rG IPFYI)�A�[)!'Q' IB i�'i'�GLUDLU �N TR�P�'�TC'1'�1�. 34- Ctttmemewt DATE lVgVZWRD by DO&W of County C'NmUO olosm! A,pprawdi 0 Disspprovedt ❑ CA"Mm of Approval: S,t'GNATORIt: of COUNTY ADBUNWIRATOR 02/09/2005 12:18 2394559556 GGCC Agenda PWNo8l6A6 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 16 - "nom Name Of Boade Peftm in Charge of Typo of Food or DerermV to be Sa rte#: �b ,-�c:� � ►� G, -t-�, , �� Y Flgrida motive- Caeca, tkapftr 19I3 -�3 3'egainsi %4d to type f1'o'm an apprWed sawft Al{ feed SOM22% P'wPm3Vdft and mew deaur;ed for *U event $igdi 044' be deans in private hOMOL 1ecages of advanced food prspiwsetion; Now WM f od be ttrtop mud to awe* lewWu? -t',, �z MtUW of laeepfottg food k of 40"r coo at er"m ohm Metimd oftnaidn food at the toealiau: C—.; *—Asts t i,,� v , r Food wnd be prrtemed %war dark bmwtl4 fikk c0r ,+eASOeaA Ebw WM yam pronride tms pre twftn? De scribe NM of strumare: o r. is c =air % ►._p 0&-. x t r- Ade>$nate iadl" and mppka AM be peroviidea for empioyem bmewm&*g, Mow WW 7" provide For wormatiw and Ase wA aee ao+stact: Evri�tai $e*A & FMOMMM D ga>tOMt - (%1) 41134-9" GGCC Agenda %W- No0g6A6 02/09/2005 12:18 2394559556 February 22, 2005 Page 6of16 FiOure I* comply wa apo"bu food w4ce reqv&meft IN a OMMIM"wide Cbso ar 10-M Fuaida Admwiobwei v Codej mw remb to embreamtent await. Do you aaede staead th% com,.plett*? YE$ E NO I eft- y Mutt to dw best of my knowledge aAd bdia:f Q of die sfttam wmb eoeetabowd bereft end ou my attaaTmmmty macs + ante, eac mek cxtnetple* tend mach is good twit. I aadarstad that then regait dow indado food is ka ded for eetv%x to the pobFe reprdlem of whet& then h a dWult for the fond. I agm to swam rwlpmsibMty fig t'lo co mtbbA mat and I certify dkxt saeid b*Amae tN bo coaedaeted In emmpiemcm whb the FbiOn AAnmJ@tmtivt Cade., Chapter IWIS. Iva, m CAtMAL PWTfM AMLWA FOOf SWUM - 05 02/09/2005 12:18 239455955E GGCC Agenda �*OfNo0�6A6 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 16 NOTMOATION FONM FOR TVMVRARY EVE Name Ometat ��� cw > lY+` Co.►.- m u o , -r :z 1±� t Addrmm of $vemt: '-i'70 ti) O'eo �"� Z� —Z? , ?,5 o L�{ - fo -tp�►+ µrote .• L IPA rs o fOPW7l�:_Zj/as AddremofSmamrr: 33 �. nurn [3ti:zt .zJ� �o Penes its C6xtp ofFood Srvtae: Nmabor of NOW WO B*KTApe Booths:_ 1 R9011111011611 tnmkbetr of atteedM aqW&wd Ot fit .Heart at oat time± - ckx> N+iambar of togeb to be provk1ad i T-~ rinum; Mak (S) Feaoe ( g ) Pox amemb hfxu ( L) Femme ( 2 ) b eaw ors Wass a dispose; Dqer;bo art W of Hgabf idtejm a wwmte dfq"& : Lcyr,�stgn AAwr Down -be mWW m m wed mtm.od of eoiid wasee dkpMW (gerbagt): Lt,7 A �r'-- titc� r Nember of m aaa4 diapoW tuxabWn provided: Z banibe sad Melba* oFhum1wroNtc;- - Soay , k-,6,c Cam.. c, ;-O A c4=,L DomrSe *Anise and matbod of RtmA wmwm& Amber trod l --far- - Qti-n.. Sans Ssaatt+cr a�'palObk tA�A6er: p ►� �"„ T-..,C Far 1H&rn &GM sad *N11StWaae, Coat% EaviroxdfateSW KO ft & Lagmraft eg nopattnmt - (9141) 403 -24M GGCC Agenda lid Jo.076A6 02/09/2005 12:18 2394559556 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 16 As the sponsor Of this eymt you are ropowlWo to aA fond vsndm 0(the tomFormy food mt'vice lwpirana4866 'FARM to tomuply may sa>bjed the booft to be aotaed for pmablie bah rra sus. Do you nWantmuad this eemap'%W YES [3". No [] I aatW Out to the best of my h ambdge so;d Wef A of the its eentMaed hcvW and on say stt Blum me aft UvA warm t, congim* mid made in mod (aft. Z tam dW them resnl"m iatciade feud iiatemdtsi for se via to the p iblic rep rdiem of wbetbw thm is s dmwp for the hod. I agree by saaame mponslbflity for this eaa�tabiisbuorlaait and I that add bma lmm wM be mWaeted in eamplaaft with the grids. AdwWx&&dn Co t, ab apfx IWI3. � vt&poswr's wgset b ?'amm1Y[i27T+3c4mWiraltli om7EWOWraYOM D- D. 7 cut - ------------ c2Gt3 -c TT 7 ?I L q=-, it lab es� II Agenda Item No. 16A6 February 22. 2005 Page 9 of 116 COLLIER COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX LICENSE NUMBER: 002085 COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR • 28W N. HORSESHOE ORIVE • NAPLES FLORIDA 34104 • (13%403.24TP VIS17OUR WEBSITE AT:ve*v Wlierlvxcoln THIS LICENSE EXP0tE5 SE97EMBER 3q 2005 DiSPU1Y A7 PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR PUBLIC iNSPEC7iON LDCAAON: 2690RIENT WAY FA4URE TO 00 SO IS CONTRARY TO LOCAL LAWS. ZONED. BUSINESS PHONE: 201.93 }3388 LEGAL FORM CORPORATION NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: TRAVELING SHOW CARNIVALS CLASSIFICAYIONOIRCUS, CARNIVAL. SLOE SHOW CLASSIFICATION CODE.. 016W001 This docL maht is an occupHional tKMsa MS ontr. This is no CmI"llon Mal licensee is CILW. led. h does not pemrl the +;ranee to WOWS arty exisfmy regulatory zoning bw$ of IM state, Couhly Of ellies not aces it easmot the licensee Iiom any Whet IKense or petmss that maybe Iequked by few. 7OLVE PRESENTA7NM. INC TOLVE. JOHN M 269 ORIENT WAY LYNDHURST N! 71015 DATE 09l16f1004 AMOUNT 100.00 RECEIPT 3518.15 Y Agenda Item No. 16A6 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 16 R f3 t 1 t 9 02/10/2005 12:01 2394559556 February 10, 2005 GGCC 67i�PZtff Pon 'unfer Collier County Sheriff's Office 3301 Tamiami Trail East Building "I" Naples, FL 34112 Telephone (AC 941) 774 -4434 Keith Larson Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gage Parkway Naples, Florida 34116 Dear Mr. Larson: Agenda IterFoAtE, 106 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 16 CARNY -05 -AR -7177 Golden Gate Community Center All arrangements have been made to provide the Golden Gate Festival the adequate coverage for the safety and security of citizens attending the event. Following please ;Find the dates, times, and the nun7tber of deputies assigned for the event: February 26a' — 2 deputies — 8:00 am to 12:00 pm February 270'— 2 deputies — 8:00 am to 12:00 pm February 2e — 2 deputies — 8:00 am to 12:00 pm Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or Sergeant Dave Kaye at the Golden Gate Substation. Sincerely, timothy Gucrretue, ieutenant Patrol Division Golden Gate Substation TG:ajc Cc. file Sergeant Dave Kaye 02/10/2005 12:01 2394559556 GGCC Agenda IterPME 1W February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 16 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT 4741 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116.6901 (239) 348.7540 - FAX (239) 343 -7546 CAR NY -05 -AR -7177 Golden Gate Community Center February 9, 2005 Keith Larson community Center Supervisor Collier County Department of Public Services Collier County Parks and Recreation Department 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 Subject: Special Events in Golden Gate Dear Mr. Larson: Thank you, for your letter informing the Golden. Gate Fire District of your plans to bold the Golden Gate Community Festival at the Golden hate Community Center. Prior to their opening the Fire District will require inspections of these events. However, please be aware that any vendors that do deep fat t7rying must have a UL 300 compliant hood system if they arc cooldng in a concession stand. If during the inspection or later the fire district finds a vendor in violation, they will be required to stop all deep frying operations. Please let this letter serve as conformation that we have been notified of your intent to have these special events. If you have any questions, please feel free contact me at (239) 348 -7540. Sincerely, William T. Silvester Fire Marshal VAUao MILVESMwcxkTMjextktt"$\K ?FOOCF02M5.doa ' Agenda Item No. 16A6 02/10/2005 013:21 2394559556 GGCC Ftary;2005 • -•.vv., V 4 : vv c-m nA t 1@a apec ia.l ty in 7273676900 Page 1: 'Bf 16 ALUM C`TT, - o a February 9, 2oaS BOM QF COt3NW CaVUSGIOMMS 3901 TAMLUI TttAm mjST ,STAPLES PL 34112 RR: Certificates of Iusumuce Dear K[TR LAw80DT, 239 455 9556 E=I,osed is an original and /ox a duplicate C rti.ficate of Irmuranae . Thank you fox' the oyportuanity to sezvu you. If you have away queati.cros please feel fret to contact me anytime. Si cerely, David +Gallace Acct?13L1t EX@C1 tj)re Enclosure Feb -09 -2405 Oi!00 Ph Allied Specialty In 7273676900 ACORO R71F CA 0 =1_ °z o9 0� MMUM a cialty ��a� elsaD As A UATTMt QF Os'Cf4M7�M 10451 011f Blvd. i to URN TM CERTe ATB Tread9�b� ;d i< . 337W EXTM OR 80a�237-33SS llAW- Tolve #' es lYta off, sac, ABA: Third Caneration 8628 Coutituti= Drive Rcwr4 P t-s==tR Vr- "3:r A".4 2/2 Agenda Item No. 16A6 GGCC Fe 2005 B��1g/2005 06:21 2394559556 ge of 16 M4MP'25 B2 1 04/17/041 04/171 =Awl LWAM i AW^M tMW AUM wpMrresdow�oi AN'llflr� M4XP25W 0471773 i ovouK winswstxr mom" hr gxpm�uxoarri x ohm pe�anv�ptrrraraarvmas rcach�rr�.e,rr Mmu AY rin4rmxewTr �M�d RVR;`T: PUS 24 - 27, 2005 YBSTTVA7, ADM ]NS: COLL= COMM B or S 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL FAST NAMRS FL 34112 000 1 �x� x Iwr� s �onauntaxu�a .auaa.rr+M.m�a+e�oGMaaa�+� a�ahraism�e++na+ et�elf�m'.n�r�.w.aa�t..i.row� ,�.maa►.Q�a 1100dR1p11i �ll�l�l W'aI�LMr�i wYt71M1ANItVOYOiAMW.L. x�rgapIJRARIpp Q11�I�LriT41�AUrymIRi�1INIM�IY�IR .1llA�MtIROR ACCM U (MMW 9 AL. w CQFAQRJ T" iw Permit No. PERMIT FOR CARNIVAL EXHIBITION STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF COLLIER: Agenda Item No. 16A6 February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 16 WHEREAS, Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, Golden Gate Community Center, has made application to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for a permit to conduct a carnival; and i WHEREAS, Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, Golden Gate Community Center, has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct a icarnival as set forth in Chapter 10, Article II, Amusements and Entertainments, of the Collier County Code have been satisfied and that such carnival exhibition will be conducted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and WHEREAS, said Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, Golden Gate Community Center, has requested a waiver of the Surety Bond; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., to conduct a carnival from February 24, 2005, through February 27, 2005, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application and all related documents, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the following described property: (See attached Exhibit "A ") The request for waiver of Surety Bond is hereby approved. WITNESS my hand as Chairman of said Board and Seal of said County, attested by the Clerk of Courts in and for said County this day of , 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: BY: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN proved as to Form and WN-rte— Assistant County Attorney CARNY- 05 -AR -7 f 77JSM/CWsp OWNER NAME COLLIER CNTY OWNER ADDRESS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3301 TAMIAMI TRL E BLDG F NAPLES, FL78COX 341124902 FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION GOLDEN GATE UNIT 4 BLK 115 UNDIVIDED AND THAT PORTION OF VACTED R/W RES. 2000 -192, LESS OR 343 PG 311 -12 Collier County CD -plus for Windows 95/98/NT Agenda Item Na. 16A6 February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 16 PREVIOUS OWNER BOARD OF COUNTY COMM Exhibit "A" Agenda Item No. 16A7 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development- related review and processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2 -11. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development - related review and processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2 -11. CONSIDERATIONS: The majority of operations within the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division (CDES) are funded by fees paid by those engaging CDES' services. CDES fees were last amended on December 14, 2004. This Executive Summary is requesting the approval of two fee reductions. One fee reduction relates to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fee (item C) 4) in the CDES Fee Schedule), and the other reduction relates to the re- naming of the un- platted street name or project name change fee (item K) 22) in the CDES Fee Schedule). The EIS fee was originally approved by the BCC on November 16, 2004. At the December 14, 2004 BCC meeting, the BCC requested staff to review the EIS fee and determine if the I" and -- 2nd submittal fees were in fact relative to the level and costs of effort required for the two submittals. A staff review of the calculations that provides the basis for the fees suggests that staff should combine the 1 �` and 2nd submittals and lower the fee from $3,100 for the two submittals ($1,600 for the I" review, and $1,500 for the 2nd review) to $2,500, which combines the 1 st submittal and 2nd submittal if applicable. The calculation consists of a combined average time for a 1' and 2nd submittal at 50 hours (this includes time for site inspections, document review, report preparation, and staff participation at the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)). At $50 per hour, the combined fee for I' and 2nd submittal is therefore $2,500. The fee for re- naming a street or changing a project name is presently $500. A review of the effort level associated with these requests suggests that a reduction of the fee is appropriate. Staff is recommending that requests for un- platted street name or project name change be charged a fee of $100.00 per application fee plus $50.00 per additional hour or partial hour of research required to process the application, not to exceed $500. Included with this Executive Summary are: 1. Attachment "A" - Resolution with Exhibit "A," Fee Schedule (Fees in bold) 2. Attachment "B" - CDES Fee Schedule — showing the additions and deletions. Note that the additions are depicted by an underline, the deletions are depicted by a strike - through, and established fees are depicted by bold. 3. Attachment "C" — Summary of Fee Changes FISCAL IMPACT: This Executive Summary requires no budget changes and/or reallocation of funds. These fee changes have no significant effect on the FY 2005 budget as presented to the Board on September 23, 2004. Agenda item No. 16A7 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 24 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no growth management impacts with this Executive Summary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed Resolution to amend the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule, provided for by Chapter 2 -11 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, is internally consistent, complies with all applicable constitutional and general law, and is legally sufficient for Board consideration and approval. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the enclosed resolution and attached Exhibit A, which adopt the proposed changes to the Administrative Code for the Fee Schedule. PREPARED BY: Michael S. Levy, Administrative Assistant, Financial Administration and Housing, CDES Agenda Item No 113A7 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 24 - COLLIER COUNTY - _ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16A7 Item Summary Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development - related review and processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2 -11. Meeting Date 212212005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Dot. Michael S. Levy Adnarnatrative Assistant 2/412006 2:35:55 PM Community Development R Environmental Services Financial Admin. 6 Housing Approved By William D. Lorenz, Jr., P,E, Environmental Services Director Data Community Dinmlopawnt R Environrn¢nwl 5.rvitas Environmantal Services 217120063:51 PM Approved By Barham S. Surge ian Principal Environmental Specialist Data Common ily Development R Environmental Services Environmantal Services V712110S 4:42 PM Approved By Slav Wallace CDES Operations Director Date Community Development S Environmental Services CDES Do ... tlens 21ID12DOS 4:69 PM Approved By Patrick 0, White Assistant County Attorney Date County At omey County A ttomoy Office 2110120067:36 PM Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Data Community Development d Community Development R Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 211112005 6:34 AM Approved By Sandra Lea Executive Sociatiry Date Community Devetopment R Community Development R Environmental Semi.... Environmental Services Admin. 211112005 9:43 AM Approved By Garrett Mull.¢ Financial Operations Manager Date Commuefly D.vaaprnerl. R Environtantal Services Financial Admin, R Heusing 2111/2006 9:46 AM Approved By Dent- Baker Financial Admin R Housing Director Date Community Development R Environmental Services Financial Admin. R H ... Ing 2/11/2005 9:66 AM Approved By Joseph H. Schmid Community Dovolnpmunt R Environmental Services Adminstmtar Date Community D-0opm—t R Community Development R Environmental Services Environmantal Semicos Admin. 211112 00 5 12:13 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management R Budget 2/111006 1 :39 PM Approved By Mirhaol Smyknwskl Management R Budget Director Dot. County Manager's Office Office of Management R Budget 211112005 4:53 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manngor Dm. Board of County Cnmmisalaners County Manager's Office 2114120 0 6 10:29 AM Agenda Item No. F6A7 February 22, 005 Page 41of 24 RNS{OLUTION NO. ZM A RZ80LUT[ON OF THE 90AND OF COUNTY CO1MIIIt MOMM OF COLLIaM COUNTY, FLORIDA, AM UNNG TEM COLLIUM COUNTY ADllMll8'I'MTIVE CODE I= SCMaMS OF DEVZWP1Yl M RZLATZD RLVIZW AND PROC986IDG IM INCLUDING: PROVIDING Ka RZVEM y= MTAVMG TO THE ENVIROMWZNTAL IMPACT STAT1CMFf OM AND UNPLATTED sivixT NAws AND PAOjw= NAtltdd CBANGZS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLUM COUNTY ADPADMMATIVZ CODZ PMUA14T TO CODE OF LAWS SZC71ON 2-11; SU TRSEMG RESOLUTION NO. 2094 -311; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE VAT& WBEUM, the Collier Comfy Cods of Laws agd 0ahma ea. Suction 2-11 pevvWw that sesumbnaots ID the Collier County Admemakwave, Cods may be adopted by rasohakw, and WHMU AS, the Board of Comfy Cto m ostoeers previously had approved Rcsoh*m No. 2004- 391, estabhobing a fee achednk of development related review and proceoWng rocs on December 14,2004; and WHMEAS, the mvWam and okModkm is the fee schedule for EIS, m platted street names or project name changes, and misted admiWatralive prooeaaiog (items C) 4� and Iq 22)) are reflective of lho actual test of padonuft those tasks. NOW, TAEREPORE, BE rr RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY The Board of C000ty Cocnisdooars hereby dec4res that the foes set forth ss dWdwd beasts god. incorporated by refarenoe harem m "Estnbit A." ass all fair and rommoblo sums to be sasoaod to those wbo receive the bmeflita of the services, review% and moos req= pamum to to Land Devebpmeot Cads said do CooWs oorrapoodn g devdapmaot review surd pe�ag processes BE IT FUIMM RESOLVED that this Resolution, relaoog to fees aulbonzed by the Colhar Comfy Admbeiatrative Code fa all fm changes, be teoorde I is 8m minutes of this Board with as immediate effective date upon the Board of County Comm uoners sppcvval, and teat Resolution No. 2004.391 is bereby superseded by do adoption of this Re kdm effective a stated above, and dad the Exb bit at edW to this Ro oh don be included m, and be made a past of, to Collier County Administrative Code. Thia Rachaim ndapbd agar madm wooed and m ja * voce. Dona dda day of .ZOOS. ATI'BST: DWIM E BROar, CLERK DgxdY Cbari Approved as b >= and lqW aoffido . Patrick tc Asslaaw CMO Aftmay Agenda Item No, 16A7 February 22, 005 Page 5 f 24 :'; T •• «• February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 24 a T C. o It it t y ATTAMONT B STRIKE- THROUGHS AND UNDERLINES COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE BCC Proposed version, Irebruary 22, 2005 Contents: A) ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................2 B) BLASTING PERMITS & INSPECTION ............................................................................................................................................. ............................... C) ENVIRONMENTAL/LANDSCAPING ................................................................................................................................................ ..............................3 D) EXCAVATION PERMITS ..................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................3 E) FIRE CODE REVIEW FEES ................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................4 F) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ............................................................................................................................................................. ..............................A G) SUBDIVISION ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................5 toENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES ................................................................................................................................................... ..............................6 1) TEMPORARY USE PERMITS ................................................................................................................................................................ ..............................6 J) WELL PERMITS /INSPECT70NS ......................................................................................................................................................... ..............................7 K) ZONING/LAND USE PETITIONS ................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 7-8 L) MISCELLANEOUS ................................................................................................................................................................................. ..............................9 M) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE ...................................................................................................................................... ............................... t0 N) BUILDING PERMIT FEES ................................................................................................................................................................. .............................11 O) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES ............................................................................................................................................................. .............................11 P) PLUMBING PERMIT FEES ................................................................................................................................................................ ............................... 12 Q) MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES ........................................................................................................................................................... .............................12 R) FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PERMIT FEES...., ............................................................................................................................................ 13 S) MOBILE HOME /OFFICE TRAILER AND OTHER TRAILER PERMIT FEES .......................................................................... ............................... 13 T) CHICKEES AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES ...................................................................................................................................... .............................13 U) POOL OR SPA PERMIT FEES .......................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 13 V) SCREEN ENCLOSURE PERMIT & PAN ROOF FEES ................................................................................................................. ............................... 13 W) SIGN PERMIT FEES .......................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 X) CONVENIENCE PERMIT FEES ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 Y) REVISION AND AS BUILT PLAN REVIEW FEES; CORRECTIONS TO PLANS ................................................................... ............................... 14 Z) PERMIT EXTENSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 AA) DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PERMIT FEES ............................................................................................ ............................... 14 BB) PRE -MOVING INSPECTION FEES ............................................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 CC) INSPECTION FEES ............................................................................................................................................................................ .............................15 DD) REINSPECTION FEES ................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 15 EE) FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT ................................................................................................................................................ ............................... 15 FF) LI CENSING ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................... 15 GG) DUPLICATE PERMIT CARDS ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................15 HH) CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTORS ........................................................................................................... .............................15 11) PERMIT FEE REFUNDS ...................................................................................................................................................................... .............................15 JJ)- RECORD RETRIEVAL ........................................................................................................................................................................ .............................16 KK) COPY FEES ......................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................16 LL) RESE ARCH .......................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................16 MM) SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................................. .............................16 NN) ELECTRONIC DATA CONVERSION SURCHARGE ................................................................................................................ ............................... 16 00) REGISTRATION OF RENTAL DWELLINGS ............................................................................................................................. ............................... 16 PP) CERTIFICATE TO BOARD BILLING ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... 16 QQ) ADDITIONAL FEE REFUND PROVISIONS ................................................................................................................................. .............................17 RR) REFUND PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................. ............................... 17 SS) ADDITIONAL FEE PROVISIONS ................................................................................................. ............................... TT) PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE FEES ................................................................................................ .............................17 UU) "PAYMENT IN LIEU OF" FEE FOR PATHWAYS (SIDEWALKS, AND BIKE LANES) ................................. .............................18 Proposed fee or wording changes — Underlined Previous fee or wording being changed — Strike - through Established Fees -- Bold CDES Financial Adntiniatration, rev 2/11/05 mal Page 1 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 24 FEES ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION, AND CANNOT BE WAIVED OR SUSPENDED WITHOUT AN ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF FEES SHALL BE CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPROPIATE DEPARTMENT, AS APPLICABLE. WHERE AS PART OF A REZONING, PLAT OR SIMILAR APPLICATION TYPE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECTS APPROVAL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS DIFFERENT FROM THE STANDARD TYPE OF APPROVAL PROCESSES REQUIRED, THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT SHALL DETERMINE THE FEES TO BE APPLIED TO THE PROCESS NECESSARY TO MEET THE BOARDS REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICABLE FEES SHALL BE THOSE WHICH MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLE THOSE CHARGED FOR SIMILAR PROCESSES INCLUDING EXTRA FEES FOR ADVERTISING AND THE LIKE. A) ADMIMSTRATION 1) Official Interpretation Request of Land Development Code (LDC), Growth Management Plan (GMP), or Building Construction Administrative Code (Administrative Code). Based on staff hours: Less than 20 hours $1,500.00, 20 to 40 hours 53,000.00, more than 40 hours $5,000.00 2) Interpretation request submitted in conjunction with a land use petition or requested during site development plan review process. $250.00 3) Determination of Vested Rights. $100.00 (plus the County's out -of- pocket expenses associated with hearing officer and hearings) 4) Appeal of Vested Rights Determination. $100.00 5) Amendment to Land Development Code. $3,000.00 6) Appeal of an Administrative Decision (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC). $1000.00 (non - refundable) 7) Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Boani of Adjustments and Appeals (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC). 51,000.00 (non - refundable) B) BLASTING PERMITS & INSPECTION 1) 30 day permit fee, non - refundable payable upon application. $250.00 2) 90 day permit fee, non - refundable payable upon application. $600.00 3) Yearly permit fee, non - refundable payable upon application. $1,500.00 4) Renewal permit fee, non - refundable payable upon application. $200.00 5) After- the -fact fee, due to blasting without a permit. $10,000.00 6) Fine fee, per detonated shot with after- the -fact permit. $200.00 7) Handler fee, for handler who assists the user or blaster in the use of explosives. $100.00 8) Blasting Inspection Fee. $200.00 (per inspection) 9) Inspection fees shall be paid upon issuance of a blasting permit based on the estimated number of blasts. Upon completion, fees will be adjusted to reflect actual number of blasts. CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 2 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 24 C) ENVIRONMENTAULANDSCAPING 1) Site Clearing Permit, first acre or fraction of an acre. $250.00 Each additional acre or fraction of an acre. $50.00 ($3,000.00 maximum) 2) Agricultural Land Clearing a. Land Clearing Notification $250.00 b. Land Clearing Permit $250.00 each additional acre or fraction of an acre. $50.00 ($3,000.00 mazimum) 3) Landscape Tree Removal Fee $250 4) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS 2$ .500.00 for 1 st submittal and tad submittal if applicable, $1600.00, 2nd subrai 61's , 3 submittal $1,000.00, 4th and subsequent submittals $500.00 each. 5) Landscape Re- inspection 1" $50.00, 2ad $75.00, every inspection afterward $100.00 6) Vehicle on the Beach Permit Application. $250.00 (Permit fee shall be waived for public and non- profit organizations engaging in environmental activities for scientific, conservation or educational purposes). 7) Beach Nourishment Permits - $400 8) Special Treatment Review a. First five acres or less. $400.00 b. Each additional acre, or fraction thereof. $50.00 ($5,000.00 Maximum) 9) Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL): a. CCSL Permits $400.00 b. Variance - Petition. $1000.00 10 Sea Turtle Permit - a. Sea Turtle Handling Permits. $25.00 b. Sea Turtle Nesting Area Construction Permit. $200.00 c. Sea Turtle Nest Relocation. $100.00 11) Vegetation Removal Permit a. First acre or fraction of an acre less. $250.00 b. Each additional acre, or fraction thereof. $50.00 ($3,000.00 Maximum) 12) After - the -fact Environmental or Landscape Permits a. CCSL Variance Petition. 2a normal fee b. All other Environmental or Landscape Permits. 4z normal fee D) EXCAVATION PERMITS 1) Annual Renewal. $300.00 2) Application (Private). $400.00 3) Application (Commercial). $2,000.00 4) Application (Development). S400.00 5) $150.00 per inspection paid in advance for 12 months 6) Reapplication: $300.00 plus $200.00 per month inspection fee 7) Cubic Yardage Review Fee: 5200.00 first 5000 cy, plus 510.00 per additional 1000 cy with a maximum of $20,000.00 CDES Financial Administration, nw 2/11/05 msl page 3 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 24 8) Time Extension. $150.00 plus $200.00 per month inspection fee 9) After- the -fact Excavation Permit. 4z application fee E) FIRE CODE REVIEW FEES 1) Fire Code Review fees associated with each of the following processes: a. SDP - Site Development Plan $200,00 b. SDPA - Site Development Plan, Amendment $150.00 c. SDPI - Site Development Plan, Insubstantial $100.00 d. SIP - Site Improvement Plan $150.00 e. SIPI - Site Improvement Plan, Insubstantial $100.00 f. PSP - Preliminary Subdivision Plans $150.00 g. PSPA - Preliminary Subdivision Plans, Amendment $100.00 h. PPL - Plans & Plat, Subdivision $100,00 i. FP - Final Plat $100,00 j. CONSTR - Construction Plans, Subdivision/Utilities $100.00 k. ICP - Construction Plans, Insubstantial $100.00 1. DRI - Development of Regional Impact $200.00 m. DOA - Development Order, Amendment $150.00 n. PUDZ - Planned Unit Development, Rezone $150.00 o. PUDA - Planned Unit Development, Amendment $150.00 p. PDI - Planned Unit Development, Insubstantial $100.00 q. RZ - Rezone, Regular Zoning $100.00 r. CU - Conditional Use $150.00 F) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS 1) Site Development Plan Review (SDP). $5000.00 a. plus $40.00 per DIU b. plus $100.00 per residential building structure; c. plus S.10 per square foot for non - residential d. plus $200.00 per building for non - residential. e. Additional fees for 3" review $1,000.00, 0 review $1,500.00, 5th review $2,000.00, 6* and subsequent reviews $2,500.00 2) Pre - application fee. $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) a. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at the applicant's request shall not be credited towards application fees. b. Second and subsequent pre -app meetings at staffs request will be held at no charge to the applicant. c. 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. 3) Simultaneous Review Fee (planning review of simultaneous building permit applications) $100.00 per building permit application 4) Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change a. Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change. $400.00 for first sheet, $100.00 for each and every additional sheet submitted. b. Additional fees for 3"i review $1,000.00, 4th Review $1,500.00, 50' and subsequent review $2,000.00 5) Site Development Plan Conceptual Review $750.00 CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 4 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 24 6) Site Improvement Plan Review (SIP). $1000.00 (plus Engineering review fees) 7) Utility Plan Review & Inspection Fees - a. Construction Document Review. 0.75% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs b. Construction Inspection. 2.25% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs c. Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification, submit as insubstantial change. $150.00 for first sheet, $75.00 for each additional sheet S) Engineering Site Plan Review Fee a. Construction Documents Review Fee 0.75% of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction b. Construction Inspection 2.25% of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction 9) Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) $2,500.00, a. Plus $40.00 per DIU plus $100.00 per residential building structure b. plus L10 per square foot c. plus $200.00 per building for non - residential d. Additional fees for 3rd review $1,000.00, 4th Review $1,500.00, 5th and subsequent review $2,000.00 10) SBR Fees a) Pre - Acquisition Meeting $500.00 (no refunds or credits) b) Pre - application fee. $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) (all normal pre - application provisions apply) c) SBR Fee $5000.00 with hourly reconciliation at project completion for hourly variation greater than 10 %, final project charges at $100.00 per hour for all associated staff hours 11) Violation of the conditions of approval of the SDP /SIP or installation of improvements, clearing, or other land alteration not depicted on, or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved SDP /SIP. 41 the SIP /SDP application fee 12) Request for alternative architectural design $500.00, no separate or additional fee for appeals to, or requests for assistance from, the Architectural Arbitration Board. G) SUBDIVISION 1) Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) $250.00 2) Subdivision Review Fees (PPL), (PPLA) - a. Construction Documents Review Fee 0.75% of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping and any other appurtenant cost of construction b. Subdivision Inspection Fee 2.25% of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction c. Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification - Submit as Insubstantial Change $150.00 for first sheet, $75.00 for each additional sheet d. Subdivisions — 3rd and subsequent additional reviews - $500.00 e. Subdivisions — Substantial deviations from approval construction documents $500.00 3) Subdivision, Preliminary Plat (PSP)- a. Petition Application $1000.00 plus $5.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) for residential, plus $10.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) for non - residential; (mixed use is residential) 4) Subdivision Final Plat (FP) $1,000.00 plus $5.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) for residential, $1000.00 plus 510.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) for nonresidential; (mixed use is residential) ODES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 5 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 24 5) Additional review of construction plans for phased construction of subdivision improvements. $1000.00 per phase 6) Two-year Extension $150.00 7) Water and Sewer Facilities Construction Document Review 0.75% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs 8) Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification 0.25% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs a. 3rd and subsequent re- submittals - $500.00 9) Water and Sewer Facilities Construction Inspection Fee 2.25% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs 10) Violation of the conditions of approval of approved construction plans or installation of improvements, clearing, or other land alteration not depicted on, or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved construction plans or permit. 4x the PPL, PPLA, PSP, CNSTR or Final Plat Review Fee (FP). 11) Administrative Amendment $250.00 10 ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES 1) Engineering Inspection Fee $150.00 per residential dwelling unit (single or duplex only), charged at time of building permit issuance. 2) Re- inspection Fees: la re- inspection $75.00, 2°a re- inspection $100.00, 3'd and thereafter re- inspection $125.00 1) TEMPORARY USE PERMITS 1) Beach Events Permits - a. Individual Permit $100.00 b. Block of 25 calendar days $2,250.00 C. Block of 50 calendar days $4,500.00 (L Block of 75 calendar days $6,750.00 e. Block of 100 calendar days $9,000.00 f. Block of 125 calendar days $11,250.00 g. Block of 150 calendar days $13,500.00 2) Temporary Use Permit Special Sales & Events. 5200.00 3) Model Homes and Sales Centers $500.00 4) Construction and Development, Mobile home, Agricultural Zoning, and Temporary use for "Coming Soon" sign $125.00 5) Residential and Non -Profit Garage and Yard Sale Permits No Charge 6) Temporary Use Amendment. $100.00 7) Renewals or extensions requested after the expiration date $200.00 CDES Financial Administration, rev 2111/05 mal page 6 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 24 8) Temporary Use Permit for Special Events requiring BCC approval, including Circus and Carnival Permits. $275.00 9) Political Signs (Bulk Temporary Permit) $5.00 10) Fees for Temporary Use permits issued After the Fact, ATF: 2x normal fee J) WELL PERAGTS/INSPECTIONS 1) Hydraulic elevator shaft permit $300.00 2) Test hole permit (including 1 st six holes) $300.00, each additional hole $20.00 3) Well permit (abandonment) $50.00 4) Well permit (construction, repair, or combined construction and abandonment at one site) $300.00 5) Well permit (monitoring) $150.00 6) Well Permit (modification of monitor/test well to a production well) $75.00 7) Well Reinspections a. First Reinspection $75.00 b. Second Reinspection $100.00 c. Third Reinspection $150.00 8) After the fact well permits 4x normal fee per violation. NOTE: Multiple wells may be allowed on one permit, but each well must be accounted for and the appropriate fee shall be charged for each well in accordance with the above listed schedule. K) ZONING/LAND USE PETITIONS 1) Pre - application meeting fee $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) a. Second and subsequent pre -app meetings at the applicant's request shall not be credited towards application fees. b. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at staff s request will be held at no charge to the applicant. c. 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. 2) Alcoholic Beverage or Service Station Separation Requirement Waiver $1000.00 3) Boat Dock Extension Petition $1,500.00 4) Conditional Use Permit $4,000.00 ($1,500.00) when filled with Rezone Petition) 5) Conditional Use Monitoring Review: S750.00 6) Conditional Use Extension $3,000.00 7) DRI Review (In addition to cost of rezone) $10,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) 8) DRI/ DO Amendment $6,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) 9) DRIABN — DRI Abandonment $1,500.00 10) Flood Variance Petition $1000.00 11) Interim Agriculture Use Petition $350.00 CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 7 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 24 12) Non - Conforming Use Change/Alteration $1,500.00 13)Parldng Exemption $1,500.00 14) Parking Reduction (Administrative) $500.00 15) Rezone Petition (PUD to PUD): $8,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) 16) Property owner notifications: $1.00 non - certified mail, $3.00 certified return receipt mail (Petitioner to pay this amount prior to advertisement of petition) 17) Planned Unit Development Amendments (substantial) $6,000 plus $25.00 an acre (or faction thereof) 18) Planned Unit Development Amendment (Insubstantial) $1500.00 19) Rezone Petition (Regular) $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) 20) Rezone Petition (to PUD) $10,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) 21) Street Name Change (Platted) $500.00 plus $1.00 for each property owner requiring notification of proposed street name change. 22) Un- platted street name or proiect name change: $100 00 ver application fee plus $50.00 per additional hour or partial hour of research required to vrocess application not to exceed $500 23) Variance petition: $2,000.00 residential, $5,000.00 non- residential 24) Variance (Administrative) $1,000.00 25) Zoning Certificate: Residential: $50.00, Commercial:$125.00 26) PUD Extension — Sun Setting: $1000.00 27) Sign Variance Petition: $2000.00 28) Stewardship Receiving Area Petition (SRA): $7000.00 per SRA plus $25.00 per acre for. Stewardship Sending Area Petition (SSA): S9,500.00 29) After - the -Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee 30) Land Use Petition Continuances a. Requested after petition has been advertised $500.00 b. Requested at the meeting $750.00 c. Resultant additional required advertising charged in addition to continuance fees. 31) PUD Monitoring Fee (one -time charge at time of building permit pick -up) a. $75.00 per dwelling unit for residential construction within a PUD, ($3,000.00 maximum fee per building permit application) b. $0.10 per square foot for non - residential construction commercial or industrial construction within a PUD, ($2,000.00 maximum fee per building permit application) 32) Any legal advertising required during any CDES activity or approval process will be charged in addition to stated fees, at actual costs. CDES reserves the right to charge an estimated amount with the initially required CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 Mal page 8 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 24 project fees, and will reconcile and adjust such charges against actual legal advertising billings at the completion of the project. 33) Administrative Review (minor changes to PUD Master Plan) $1,000.00 L) NUSCELLANEOUS 1) Reserved 2) Reserved 3) Official Zoning Atlas Map Sheet Publications, maps, and reports shall be copied at actual cost. $.50 as set forth in Resolution 98 -498, as amended. 4) Reserved 5) The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of 1 hour. 6) The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not a part of regular standard reports shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of 1 hour. 7)CD Burning: $1.00, floppy disk: $.50 8)Complete sets of Official Zoning Atlas Map Sheets $100.00 per set. 9)Photocopies of documents less than 11x17 inches: $0.15 one sided, $0.20 two sided, other sizes at cost of production a. Certified copy of public record $1.00 each . 10) Property Notification Address Listing: a. MS Excel spreadsheet on Disc $70.00 b. Print out on Paper $75.00 + $0.05 for every record over 1500 c. Mailing Labels $80.00 + $0.06 for every record over 1500 d. Print out on Paper + Mailing Labels $85.00 + $0.11 for every record over 1500 11) Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review a. CU's $300.00 b. Rezonings $750.00 c. Pud's or PUD Amendments: $2250.00 d. Letter of GMP consistency to outside agencies: $250 12) Plan Review Fee (for planning review of all building permit applications) a) Long forms: $75.00 per building permit application b) Express pennits: $15.00 per building permit application 13) Project Meetings: Active applications under review for the following project types will be afforded one inter- departmental meeting at no charge: Planned Unit Development re- zonings and Site Development Plan applications (except for conceptual site plan approval and insubstantial change approval). Meeting requests for all other application types and additional meetings will be subject to the following fees: a. Meetings with Departmental Project Approval Staff member per applicant request, reviews and petitions in progress, $150.00 per one hour minimum, $75.00 per 1/2 hour thereafter. CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 9 February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 24 Additional Department staff attending meeting per applicant request $75.00 per %2 hour per staff member. b. Inter - Departmental Project Meeting per applicant request, site plan reviews and land use petitions in progress, $500.00 per one hour minimum, $250.00 per'' /: hour thereafter, 14) Adequate Public Facilities a. Planning Applications requiring COA process review (such as FP's, PPL's & SIP's, SDPs) $200.00 + 25.00 per residential dwelling unit or + 25.00 per 1000 sq ft commercial ($5000.00 maximum) b. Building permit applications requiring COA process review not covered under 12.a above $100.00 per building permit application. 15) Zoning Confirmation Letters a. Standard Response $100.00 (includes up to 1 hour research) b. Extended Research $100.00 per hour (any response with research in excess of I hour) 16) Zoning Letter Appeal $250.00 17) CDD a. Community Development District $15,000.00 b. Chapter 189 Special District, Independent or Dependent, $15,000.00 18) GMT Amendment a. Small Scale $9000.00 b. General $16,700.00 c. Legal advertising in addition to sub - sections a and b fees, and subject to applicable fee schedule provisions. d. Pre - application meetings for GMP consistency for development orders and zoning/land use petitions: $250 e. Pre - application meetings for GUY amendment petitions: $250 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal) 19) Application for issuance TDR, $250 (non- refundable);plus $25 per TDR issued and recorded (total fees not to exceed $2750) 20) Engineering Services a) Vacation of Easements: 51,000 21) Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals $250.00 M) WELDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE 1) A permit application fee shall be collected at time of applying for a building permit. The permit application fee shall be collected when the plans are submitted for review. The fee shall be applied toward the total permit fee. The applicant shall forfeit the application fee if the application is denied or if the application is approved and the permit is not issued within the time limitation as stated in Section 103.6.1.1 of the Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -56, as amended. 2) Application fee will be computed as follows: a. Single family and duplex S.05 per sq ft with minimum of $100.00 b. Multi- Family & Commercial S.05 per sq ft up to 10,000 sq ft, S.025 for over 10,000 sq. ft. 3) Maximum application fee shall NOT exceed $5,000.00, CDES Financial Administration, rev 2111/05 met page 10 February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 24 4) Minimum fee of $50.00 for each of the following: plumbing, mechanical (A/C); electrical; fire; and building, when applying for additions/alterations. Minimum fee for all other applications = $50.00. 5) The balance of the total permit fee will be collected at the time of issuance of the permit and will include any fee adjustments necessary. N) BUILDING PERMIT FEES 1) The fee for a building permit shall be computed as follows: Such fees shall be either based on the contractor's valuations of construction cost or based on calculated cost of construction as set forth on the attached Building Valuation Data Table *(Exhibit B), whichever is greater. Valuation of construction costs of less than $750.00 - No permit or fee is required, but construction must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. If inspections are required by the Building Official or requested by the applicant, the appropriate fees shall be paid. *SBCCI Building Valuation Data Table, produced March 31,2002 EXCEPTION: All work involving structural components and/or fire rated assemblies requires permits and inspections regardless of construction cost, signs must secure permits as stated in Collier County Ordinance No. 2002 -01, as amended. a. Valuation of construction costs of $750.00 through $4,999.99 — With one or no inspections $50.00, With multiple inspections $100.00 b. Valuation of construction costs of $5,000.00 through $49,999.99 — With one or no inspections - $30.00 plus $6.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $2,000.00. With multiple inspections - $80.00 plus $5.50 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $2,000.00. c. Valuation of construction costs of $50,000.00 through $1,000,000.00 —$250.00 plus $2.40 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $50,000.00. d. Valuation of construction costs over $1,000,000.00 - $2,800.00 plus $2.40 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $1,000,000.00. O) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES 1) The fees for electrical permits for new structures or placement or relocation of structures shall be computed as follows: a. $0.40 per ampere rating of all single-phase panel boards. b. $0.15 per ampere rating for switch or circuit whichever is greater, if item #1 above does not apply. c. When not a complete installation, all switch and circuit breakers ahead of panel boards shall be computed at $0.15 per ampere. d. Permit fees for any change in electrical installation shall be computed at the above rates for that portion of new and/or increased fees in existing electrical facilities. e. The minimum for any electrical permit shall be $50.00 per unit or tenant space. f. Fifty percent (50 %) in additional fee costs shall be added to all above fees for three phase installations. CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 11 February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 24 EXCEPTION: Ordinary repairs limited to a $200 value or less may be made without a permit. Repairs must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. If inspections are required by the Building Official or requested by the applicant, the appropriate fees shall be paid. P) PLUMBING PERMIT FEES 1) The following fee calculations shall be applied separately when the permit involves mixed occupancies. a) Residential occupancies: The fee for a plumbing permit shall be computed at the rate of $50.00 to be charged for each living unit with one to three bathrooms. An additional fee of $10.00 will be assessed for each additional bathroom. b) Nonresidential occupancies: The fee for a plumbing permit shall be computed by the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest fee: a) The rate of $3.00 per 425 square feet of floor area, or fraction thereof; or b) Institutional facilities, hospitals, schools, restaurants and repairs in any occupancy b) classification shall be charged at the rate of $1.00 per fixture unit or c) Minimum of $50.00 for each occupancy or tenant space. 2) Crease traps: An additional fee of $50.00 shall be assessed for each grease trap. 3) The cost for retrofit piping shall be computed at the minimum fee of $50.00 per floor for each main riser. 4) The cost of a permit for lawn sprinkler systems shall be computed using the dollar valuation as shown under Section M of this Resolution. 5) The minimum plumbing permit fee shall be $50.00 Q) MECHANICAL PERNHT FEES 1) The following fee calculations shall be applied separately when the permit involves mixed occupancies. a. Residential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall be computed at the rate of $50.00 for each living unit up to three tons of air conditioning. Each additional ton or part thereof shall be $3.00 per ton. b. Nonresidential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall be computed by one of the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest fee: The rate of $50.00 for the first three tons or three horsepower of air conditioning or other mechanical systems per tenant space, each additional ton of air conditioning or horsepower shall be $3.00; or The rate of $3.00 per 425 square feet of floor area, or fraction thereof. 2) The cost of retrofit piping shall be computed at the minimum fee of $50.00 per floor for each cooling tower, or $50.00 for the first 3 horsepower and $3.00 for each additional horsepower, whichever is greater. 3) The minimum mechanical permit fee shall be $50.00. 4) A permit for the change out of components shall be calculated at the above CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 12 February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 24 mechanical permit fee rate or the minimum fee whichever is greater. R) FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PERMIT FEES 1) The fees and exemptions set forth in the "Exhibit B" affixed hereto and made a part of this Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees shall apply to Fire Prevention and Control Permits for both the independent and dependent fire districts. S) MOBILE HOME/OFFICE TRAILER AND OTHER TRAILER PERMIT FEES 1) The permit fee shall be $50.00 to set -up a single -wide trailer or mobile home on an approved site plus electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire protection fees as applicable. 2) The permit fee shall be $75.00 to set -up a double wide or larger mobile homes on an approved site plus electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire protection fees as applicable. T) CHICKEES AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES 1) The permit fee will be based upon a calculated cost of construction of $4.00 per square foot under roof or the contractor's estimated cost of construction, whichever is greater. The fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. Additional permit fees for electric, plumbing, mechanical, fire, etc., will be charged when applicable. U) POOL OR SPA PERMIT FEES 1) For construction of each public pool or spa the fee shall be — a. Valuation of construction costs of up to $4,999.99. $100.00 b. Valuation of construction costs of $5000.00 through $49,999.99: $80.00 plus $7.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $2,000.00. c. Valuation of construction costs of $50,000.00 through $1,000,000.00: $333.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $50,000.00. d. Valuation of construction costs over $1,000,000.00: $3474.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $1,000,000.00. 2) For construction of each private pool or spa the fee shall be: $100.00 V) SCREEN ENCLOSURE PERMIT & PAN ROOF FEES 1) Construction costs shall be calculated as follows: a. Screen Roof. $2.00 per sq. ft. of floor area. (Screen Walls Only) b. Pan Roof. $3.00 per sq. ft. of floor area. (Screen Walls Only) c. Existing Roof. $2.00 per sq. ft. of floor area. (Screen Walls Only) 2) The screen enclosure or roof fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11105 msl page 13 February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 24 W) SIGN PERMIT FEES 1) Sign permit fees will be calculated in accordance with all applicable Building Permit Fees and Electrical Permit Fees outlined in this document, the Collier County Development Fee Schedule The minimum building permit fee for sign shall be $75.00. 2) Multiple signs of the same type (i.e., wall signs) and for a single project maybe allowed per one permit, however an appropriate fee shall be charged for each sign in accordance with the schedule set forth in the above subsection l of Sign Permit Fees. X) CONVENIENCE PERMIT FEES 1) Convenience permits are issued in blocks of 10 each. Only licensed contractors are eligible to purchase convenience permits. Convenience permits are limited to the use specified on the permit. The fee for a book of 10 convenience permits is $400.00. Y) REVISION AND AS BUILT PLAN REVIEW FEES; CORRECTIONS TO PLANS 1) PERMIT AND PLAN REVISIONS The fee for each permit revision submitted after permit issuance shall be calculated using fee schedules outlined in Sections N through R above. The minimum permit fee for revisions to permitted projects shall be $50.00. 2) AS BUILT PLANS The fee for "As Built" plan review shall be ten (10 %) percent of the original building permit fee or $150.00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing amended building plans in the office to determine that change orders and various field changes are in compliance with the minimum construction and fire codes of Collier County. The following are required for as -built drawings review: a. An itemized list of all changes made after permit plan approval. b. As -built plans that have all changes made after permit plan approval "clouded". c. As -built plans and changes shall be signed and sealed by the engineer and/or architect of record. 3) CORRECTIONS TO PLANS a. First Correction to Plans. No charge b. Second Correction to Plans. $75.00 c. Third & subsequent correction to plans. $100.00 Z) PERMIT EXTENSION 1) The filing fee for each permit extension shall be equal to 10% of the original building permit fee or $100.00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The filing fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing existing or amended building plans to determine and verify code compliance AA) DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PERMIT FEES 1) The permit fee shall be $50.00 for the demolition of any building or structure. BB) PRE - MOVING INSPECTION FEES 1) The fee shall be $150.00 for the pre - moving inspection of any building or structure. CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 14 February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 24 CC) INSPECTION FEES 1) A charge of S20.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections for which a permit is not necessary. 2) A user fee of $40.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections on a time specified basis. 3) A user fee of $120.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections requested after normal working hours. (Normal working hours for inspections are Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM, excluding holidays.) 4) First Partial inspection for single- family & tenant buildout. No charge 5) Second & subsequent partial inspections for single- family & tenant buildout. $25.00 DD) REINSPECTION FEES 1) Re- inspections for any type of building permit, or required Engineering re- inspections, shall result in an additional fee of $75.00 per inspection for the first re- inspection, $100.00 for the second re- inspection and $125.00 for the third and each successive re-inspection. EE) FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT 1) Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit, the fees herein specified shall be four times the regular fee not to exceed $1,000.00 for permits costing $250.00 and less. The penalty for failure to obtain a permit when one is required having a cost greater than $250.00 shall be two times the regular amount. The payment of such fee shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of any applicable construction code or ordinance in the execution of the work, or from any penalty prescribed within any construction code, law or ordinance of Collier County. IF) LICENSING 1) The fee for licensing items is as follows: a. Letters of Reciprocity. $3.00 b. Contractors Change of Status. $10.00 c. Voluntary Registration of State Certified Contractors. $10.00 d. Pictures. $2.00 e. Laminating $1.00 (per license) GG) DUPLICATE PERMIT CARDS 1) The fee shall be $5.00 for the issuance of a duplicate permit card for whatever reason. HH) CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTORS 1) To record a change of contractor or subcontractor, on a permit that has been issued, the fee shall be $50.00. This fee includes the issuance of a new permit card. m PERNUT FEE REFUNDS 1) If requested, in writing by the owner or his authorized agent, 50% of the fees charged, other than the application fee, may be refunded provided that a permit has been issued, construction has not commenced, and the refund is applied for prior to the cancellation of the permit. CDES Financial Administration, rev 2111/05 msl page 15 February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 24 JJ)RECORD RETRIEVAL 1) No charge for retrieving records from inactive or remote storage including microfilmed documents W COPY FEES 1) The fee for blueprint and miscellaneous copying shall be as follows: a. Microfilm copies, of documents less than I 1 x 17 inches: $0.15 other sizes at cost of production. f. Microfilm or Blueprint copies: 18 X 24 $1.25 per page 30 X 36 52.50 per page 30 X 42 $3.25 per page 34 X 44 $5.00 per page g. Community Development self-service copier, public access and not related to public record retrieval or public record copies: documents less than 14x8.5 inches $0.15 per page inclusive of sales tax. LL) RESEARCH 1) The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of 1 hour 2) The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not part of the regular standard reports shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of 1 hour. MM) SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE The fee for one -year subscription service to be mailed quarterly shall be $15.00 per year. The subscription year is from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. NN) ELECTRONIC DATA CONVERSION SURCHARGE 1) A surcharge in the amount of 3% of the building permit application fee, with the minimum surcharge being $3.00 and the maximum being $150.00, will be applied to every building permit application submitted. A flat fee of $3.00 per permit will be charged for those permits for which an application fee is not required per item (Iv>) of this Schedule. 00) REGISTRATION OF RENTAL DWELLINGS 1) The fee for registration of rental dwellings is as follows: a. Initial Registration Fee - $30.00 b. Annual Renewal - $20.00 c. Late Fee - $10.00 per day 2) Rental Inspection a. Rental Inspection - $200.00 per unit b. Re- inspection Fee - $50.00 per re- inspection PP) CERTIFICATE TO BOARD BUILDING 1) Initial Boarding Certificate - $0 2) Boarding Certificate Extension - $150 CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 16 February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 24 QQ) ADDITIONAL FEE REFUND PROVISIONS 1) Requests for fee waivers may only be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Waiver requests for development review and building permit fees shall be submitted in writing directly to the appropriate Community Development & Environmental Services Division Staff, who will prepare an executive summary for consideration by the Board. Such requests shall include a statement indicating the reason for the fee waiver request and, if applicable, the nature of the organization requesting the fee waiver. RR) REFUND PROVISIONS 1) PAYMENT OF FEES: Full payment of fees is required for a complete application. Department policy requires full payment of fees at the time of application submittal. No work will begin on staff review of the application until all fees are paid in full. If full payment of fees is not received within 14 calendar days of application submittal, the application will be considered void. At this point, a new application and full payment of fees will be required to proceed with a project. 2) There will be no refund of Planning, Environmental, or Engineering related fees, except those applications which have been deemed not sufficient for staff review and are withdrawn within 30 days of notification will be entitled to a 50% refund. After 30 days from such notification, there will be no refund of submitted fees. 3) In no cases will there be refunds for pre - application fees, data conversion fees, appeals of administrative decisions, or appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board of Adjustment. 4) If staff error causes the inappropriate or unnecessary filing of an application and payment of fees, 100 percent of all inappropriate fees, shall be refunded upon written request and with the concurrence of Department management. SS) ADDITIONAL FEE PROVISIONS 1) In those cases where alternative methods or timing of payments for CDES services and / or fees listed in this schedule associated with SBR reviews are deemed to best serve the public good, the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator will have the authority to approve such alternatives. Such alternative must be in writing and signed by all principals involved. In no case shall final C.O. or such certifications of project completeness be issued until payments due CDES are received in full. 2) All hourly fees are computed and charged from actual Divisional time tracking records. 3) All acreage totals used in fee calculations will be rounded up to the nearest whole acre. 4) When deemed essential for project review or approval, there will be no additional charge for any meetings requested by CDES staff. TT) PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE FEES 1) The following fees shall be assessed for the Public Vehicle for Hire Program: a. Initial Application fee (new Companies) - $200 b. Certificate to Operate - $250 CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 17 February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 24 c. Vehicle Decal - $50 per vehicle d. Temporary Vehicle Decal - $5 per vehicle e. Driver Identification Card - $50 per driver f. Replacement Identification card. $10 per card g. On -site Vehicle Permitting - $15 per vehicle UU)KPAYMENT IN LIEU OF" FEE FOR PATHWAYS (SIDEWALKS, AND BIKE LANES) 1) Calculated using the current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) construction costs or an engineering estimate not to exceed twenty-five percent (25 1/6) of the submitted application request's total project cost. This is the last page of the CDES Fee Schedule CDES Financial Administration, rev 2/11/05 msl page 18 Agenda Item No. 16A7 February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 24 Atpdwwt C - BummvY d propowd Mnpr to the CDES he khadub FAN -md updsW 217/2006 Agenda Item No. 16A8 'February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An update to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a previous request made by David E. Bryant, Esquire, to forgo the Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment process in order to reduce density for the previously approved A.D. Development PUD. OBJECTIVE: To update the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regarding a previous request by attorney David Bryant acting on behalf of the developer, for the Board to consider the developer's request for the Board to grant permission to allow for the H.D. Development PUD development standards to be modified in such a way that will result in a decrease in density and an increase in green space, without proceeding through the PUD amendment process. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject development is known as the H.D. Development PUD. The PUD currently permits development of single family and multiple family dwelling units on 46.64 acres at an approved density of 2.23 dwelling units per acre for a maximum allowable dwelling unit count of 104 units. At the January 11, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting, Mr. Bryant approached the Board and stated that his client wished to make some changes to the development standards of the approved PUD. Mr. Bryant stated on the record that he did not think it was appropriate to have to go through an extensive PUD amendment process to amend the development standards of the PUD in order to build 29 dwelling units less than what was authorized by the approval of the original PUD ordinance. At that meeting he stated that they wish to reduce the required minimum lot size for single - family dwellings from 12,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet for one section of the development, utilizing the land area as a result of that reduction to increase green space and lake area. Furthermore, Mr. Bryant stated that the applicant wished to decrease the density by 29 dwelling units. The Board directed staff to go back and discuss the request with Mr. Bryant. Staff met with Mr. Bryant and explained that the changes to the development standards (text of the PUD document), as proposed, would be required to proceed through the PUD amendment process, advertised and considered during the public hearing process as required by the County's Land Development Code. In order to expedite the required process, staff finther agreed that the developer could submit plans for a subdivision plat to the County for review and approval, utilizing the proposed development standards, concurrently with the PUD amendment process. Approval of the plat could be granted once the PUD amendment was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The PUD amendment process was explained to Mr. Bryant and all parties agreed on a planned course of action to accomplish the applicant's goals while still meeting the requirements of the Land Development Code. SE -04-AR -5494 1 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22; 2005 Page 2 of M FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact. The applicant will have to pay fees associated with the various development review processes including application fees, permit fees and all associated impact fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This request will have no impact on the Growth Management Plan. Impacts on the Growth Management Plan will be considered during the review of the PUD amendment, once an official application is received. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Collier County Land Development Code mandates the process for amending text of an approved PUD development ordinance. All text changes to approved PUD ordinances are required to go through the standard PUD amendment process as outlined by the Land Development Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No staff recommendation is needed nor does the Board of County Commissioners require a decision. The purpose of this report was to advise the Board on the status of the issue per their direction given at the January 11, 2005 meeting. The outcome of the meeting is described above and all parties appear to be satisfied. Prepared by: Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Zoning Department February 8, 2005 SE -04 -AR -5494 2 Agenda Item ND. 16AS February 22, 2005 Page 3 Of 35 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS iHam Number 16A8 Item Summary An update to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a previous request made by David E. Bryant, Esquire. to forego the PUD amendment process in order to reduce density for the previously approved M.D. Development PUD. Meeting Date 2122!2005 9 DDAC AM Prepared By Dole Susan Murray, AICP Zoning t Land Development Director 210=05 2:40:D5 PM Community Development d Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review Approved By Constance A. Johnson Opeotiona Analyst Date Community Development& Community Developnurnt& Environmental Services Environmental Service. Atlmm. 219120068:11 AM Approved By Sandra Loa Executive Secretary Data Community Development d Cemrnunny Development& Environmenul Services Environmental Services Admin, 219/2005 8:09 AM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development 8 Environmental Sell... Adminatratm Date Community Development & Community Development & Euvlrarlrnenul Survh:ua Environmental Services Admin, 2110/2005 9:02 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrettve Assistant Date County Manager's [dike Offlce of Management & Budgrn 21114005 9:58 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Dfgce of Management & Budget 211112006 11:36 AM Approved By �..... Michael Srnykowaki Management & Budget Dharaor Date County Manager's Dtfice Office of Munagement & Budget 2111/200612:05 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Data Board nt County Commissioners County M:unrgers oft" 211112005 12:44 PM Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 35 MR. BRYANT: Oh, excuse me. MR. MUDD: -- she's going to ask the board to do some things. So, ma'am, this is your item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, yes. I spoke with David. David, do you want to give any presentation here or -- MR. BRYANT: I'll just be glad to give a synopsis if you'd like for me to, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please. MR. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, David Bryant, representing Empire Builders. Before I start the synopsis, I'd just like to commend Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas for their selection by their colleagues in their respective positions today, and I'm sure it's going to be great working with all of you. The reason we're here today is basically what we believe is a win -win situation. We've got an existing approved PUD, and what we'd like to do is make a very minor modification to it, and something that is totally novel, especially after today's long discourse. Weare here asking to decrease, decrease density and increase the Page 157 January 11, 2005 green space area and increase the surface water area in a particular small section that Empire is doing within the Olde Cypress PUD. This unit was -- or this PUD was approved for 26 more units than what we want to build. We want to decrease those. The homeowner associations, everybody's in favor of it. It's what we feel is a win -win, not only for the people that live in the community, but for the community as a whole. It decreases traffic, it decreases the need for parks and rec. It does everything that this board has been a leader in doing in working with the modification of density and the improvement on what has happened in the past. And if that answers your question, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so what you -- what you would really like to do Is have our approval so that you don't have to go through the entire process again, is that what you're asking for? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. We want to build 29 less units. That's the whole key to it. It's just a very minor modification. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this mean that we have to put this on a future agenda for approval, or can we go and give you the approval today? Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 35 Staff, can you assist us on this? MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record, zoning director. No approval is necessary by you or by this board to not build to the maximum allowable density. I guess it's within the PUD, and I have not reviewed the PUD. If there -- so in other words, if they were approved for 100 units and they want to build 50, there's nothing in the PUD that says they have to build 100. That is the maximum they're allowed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, why would -- why would this gentleman be here then today? MS. MURRAY: I'm not really sure. MR. BRYANT: Commissioner Halas, it's the same discussion Page 158 January 11, 2005 that was held with Ms. Murray's office. The project was approved for one section at 12,000 square foot units and the other for 6,000. All we want to do is blend those two and have the two sections at 9,000 square foot each for the particular product that's going In this particular area. So we're going from a 12,000 square foot footprint in one section of the development area to a 9,000, and we are going to have 9,000, which is the approved in the other section. So it ends up with a reduction of 29 units. Ms. Murray's right, we don't have to build all the units that we're approved for. But we can. But we are saying we don't think it's appropriate for us to have to go through an extensive PUD amendment to accomplish what this board has wanted to do, which is decrease density. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So they have to go through and make a -- go through a whole array of paperwork just to decrease the density? MS . MURRAY: No. And I think, if I understand what Mr. Bryant is saying, it sounds as if there is a dimensional requirement, a minimum in the PUD, that he wishes to go below. That -- I'm just repeating what I think I'm hearing. And, in other words, if there's text in the PUD that says, for example, you have to build a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and he wishes to build a 5,000 square foot lot, then that is considered a text change and that is required to go through the duly advertised public hearing process in front of the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners as a PUD amendment, much like an Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 35 LDC amendment. If you have a minimum established in a zoning district for a lot size, for example, and you wish to change that, that is handled through an amendment process to the LDC through the duly advertised public hearing process. It's the same with the PUD. And if I'm incorrect, I'm sure -- Page 159 <w_ N -N - >. "January 11, 2005 MR. BRYANT: No, Ms. Murray is totally correct. We do not want and we don't have the product to put to 12,000 square foot footprints. We want to decrease that to 9,000. We meet the 9,000 on the second section, which ends up with a net decrease of 29 units. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. MR. BRYANT: So that's why we felt, and that's why we've shared these thoughts with you, that we thought this is what the board wants to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm done, okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, would you mind if I ask a question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, go ahead. You're chair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is -- yeah, but you were in line next. I just wanted to show you the courtesy of going first or last. The -- this is theoretically an insubstantial change to a PUD. MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir, that's exactly what we feel. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that requires CCPC approval. MR. MUDD: They can approve It, but that does not go to the board. . CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it doesn't go to the board at all. We don't have an approval process to do that. What I think we do have, however, is a pending change to the process which permits you to get that accomplished very quickly, and that pending change Is coming to us, I think, pretty quickly; is that true? MR. MUDD: In the next two months, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the next two months. Now, I don't know if that meets your time frame, but my concern right now is, that Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 35 based upon what I understand, there is no procedure to permit us to jump in and make a decision that is currently authorized only by the CCPC. And so I just want to say that and then go on with Page 160 January 11, 2005 Commissioner Henning's question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can do that based upon law change in the works. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've done that before. MS . MURRAY: Actually, Commissioners, I feel, and I've just discussed it with Marjorie, that we can do that now. We've- - COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: -- established the fee for it. Again, if you remember, we came back through the fee resolution and re- established the fee for the PUD amendment process and an abr -- and the argument was that It was an abbreviated review process rather than -- the PUD to PUD rezone in cases just like Mr. Bryant is presenting, that they could just go through the PUD amendment process. Now, the public hearing and the advertising is all the same, but the staff review time is significantly -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Less. MS . MURRAY: -- different because you're just amending minor sections of the PUD and not readopting an entire -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why would that not serve your purpose? MR. BRYANT: Well, I think it's time frame, Commissioner, because supposedly it's going to take anywhere from six to nine months if we have to go through a formal PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we're saying is you can go through the same process of what you're asking now. Ms. Murray just addressed it. She can do it now -- MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and it's only a limited scope. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, I'm viewing this request of the PUD a minor amendment myself. And, you know, it's going to -- it can happen today. You don't have -- you won't have Page 161 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 35 January 11, 2005 to come back to the board. MS. MURRAY: Oh, no. They do have to come back through the board through the public hearing. MR. BRYANT: It's almost like a regular PUD amendment, Commissioner. It's not that very streamlined. And Ms. Murray can tell you, but I believe she's going to tell you, it's going to take some time to do that to try to accomplish what this board has said it's wanted to do for years, for the last, at least three years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. I guess the question is, can we legally do this request? Because to me, reviewing what they're asking is what we all want. And from my understanding, there's -- and you have a very tight neighborhood there that has really no obj ection to it, so can we do this? MS. STUDENT: Not really. For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I suspect he can reduce -- not build to the density -- or excuse me, density or number of units in the PUD without a PUD amendment. But If there are any other performance standards that may need to be changed in the PUD -- and Ms. Murray hasn't reviewed the PUD for us to know that. I heard Mr. Bryant talk about, was it some lake areas or some other areas? But if -- and then he also talked about, I believe, some minimum requirements of square footage. Our code says that any text change to a PUD has to go through the amendment process. That is the law in Collier County. And I dare say that's law in Florida because zoning changes have to go through advertised public hearings. The attorney general has opined that you can't automatically rezone, in other words, put a time limit on a zoning thing and say it automatically reverts to Its prior -- say it's agriculture, you can't do that because that bypasses the public hearing process. And these are quasljudicial matters in nature, and as such, have to Page 162 January 11, 2005 go through the public hearing process, by virtue of that as well as by virtue of state law. So my point is, if there's a text change involved in that PUD, it's going to have to go through the amendment process. If it's a -- just a master plan change, that is an abbreviated procedure that goes to the Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 35 planning commission and doesn't necessary have to come back here. But I think staff needs to evaluate the PUD and coordinate with Mr. Bryant to see exactly what the changes are that are required in the PUD. And then if it's a text change, it will have to come back through. . MR. BRYANT: I'll agree with one thing Ms. Student said, it is a text change in the sense that it is a reduction in the 12,000 -foot footprints to a 9,000. But the other section -- there's two sites within that particularly approved PUD. Those stay the same. We take that square footage that we've reduced from the 12 to 9 and put that into green space and lake surface area. That's why, as Commissioner Henning says, the people that live in the area are very supportive of it. Now, when she's talking about rezonings and things like that and agricultural to commercial, that has nothing to do with why we're here today. That is something that, I agree, you've got to advertise, you've got to have full -blown hearings. All we're trying to do Is accomplish something in a timely matter In trying to accomplish what this board has said over and over that It wanted to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The land is within the PUD, so it's not agricultural two. MR. BRYANT: Absolutely. It's an approved PUD today. We could go out and build all of these units, including 29 more. But we don't want to do that and we don't want to build that product. We think that the community is aesthetically (sic) and it's going to be more attractive with the increased surface area and the lakes, increased Page 163 January 11, 2005 green space. And that's why we felt frustrated when we tried to do this, because Empire went to Ms. Murray and talked to her about that and she said, no, you can't do it. You've got to go through the full -blown PUD amendment process. And I can understand and appreciate her position. But we thought when we sat down and looked at It and we discussed what this board's direction has been to developers, that's why we wanted to come share with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Would it be possible if the Agenda item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 35 petitioner could get with staff and look at what needs to be done, and if it's something that can be readily addressed, bring this back maybe at two meetings from now or three meetings from now so we can get this -- MR. BRYANT: We'd be glad to do that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sit down with them and look. And if there is a problem, then they realize that they may have to go through a long process. But if it's not, maybe we could put this on the fast track just to see what's going on, and bring it back in, say, three meetings, is that -- MR. BRYANT: Whatever's convenient for the board. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, before you go down there. Joe, you have this new cycle that's coming up to try to get the line through amendment issue locked in. When does it start and when does it go before the planning commission and things like that? Because if you're going to use the legislation and process issue to get him resolved, you want to have that included in that process. And if three meetings from now, a, month and a half, pushes you out of that time frame, then he's stuck till another cycle, okay, so it could be six months again. So, Joe -- Page 164 MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development /Environmental Services Administrator. What Jim's referring to -- but you -- I think you're referring to, Jim, what was passed -- this board in the last meeting approved the PUDA process where we, through a simple strike through and underline, go into the code, go into the PUD, without going through the extensive staffing process. If you recall at the last meeting, Mr. Bill Klohn came before the board and talked specifically about Arrowhead, which was really the first proj ect to go through this reinvigorated process of the PUD amendment process, so it's a simple dealing with the text change. And we've already got that PUD scheduled for our planning commission and scheduled for board meeting. Unfortunately the law compels us to go through that rather linear process. I think what we're asking for here is something completely different, which would be somewhat of an administrative process. We don't have that authority. And if the county manager -- if your direction to the manager that we explore some way of creating another vehicle to go through these type of administrative changes -- but I Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 35 think what the county attorney has opined, that there is no other way to do this. Just the -- I will call it the abbreviated method, which is the PUD amendment process, which is -- in fact, I guess I would have to refer - we had some difficulty getting that through, but It Is a process to deal with things exactly like this that we can go in, and with very little staffing and bureaucracy, get through it, but we still are forced to go through that -- those public hearings through the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, when are you going to have that proposal -- MR. SCHMITT: You already approved it, and we already have -- I already have -- in a previously- approved fee schedule, you already Page 165 January 11, 2005 approved that process, and the board approved that at the last meeting. So that is now In effect, and the Arrowhead project is the first - project to go through that. So we are doing that right now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that is the Insubstantial change? MR. SCHMITT: No, that -- Commissioner, no. An insubstantial change is an administrative change. That is something different, or -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know, but I thought that's what the county manager asked. When are you going to have that particular proposal ready to be approved? MR. SCHMITT: I already have an insubstantial change process. Now, if it's an insubstantial change, it's something that was changed -- Is a change in the master plan, it just goes before the planning commission, but that still requires a public hearing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how long will it take you to get that MR. SCHMITT: This process, this modified process, because of the advertising and the planning commission and the -- probably 90 days, 90 to at least -- 90 to 100 days, at minimum. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How's that fit your time frame? MR. BRYANT: Well, it's better than going through a full -blown PUD amendment. I really appreciate your discourse on that, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas. But could we potentially look at this as something, as Commissioner Halas suggested, that we set this off for like three Agenda Item No. 16AS February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 35 meetings? We have a chance -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. BRYANT: -- to sit down with Ms. Murray and see if we might be able to even avoid that process, if she feels that is beneficial to the community and it's what this board wants to accomplish? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Either that or just direct the Page 166 January 11, 2005 county attorney, stating that we feel this is a minor amendment and we shouldn't have to go through the whole process. I think with Commissioner Halas's comments and then if county attorney can assist, it would be better off for everybody. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd like to hear -- I'd like to hear whether or not we really have the authority to do this. I heard that we don't have the authority to do it. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd like to respond, and that is, right now I don't see the authority for the board to direct the development services staff or the county attorney to create a document for you to approve. don't see that, notwithstanding that the desire of Mr. Bryant and his client are allocable and, perhaps, conform with the policy of the board at this time, that less density is better. It sounds to me like less density is just part of what he has in mind here. There is a change in format of construction, which has become a requirement of the PUD. And if it weren't a requirement of the PUD, he wouldn't be here to have it changed in the first place. Remember that a PUD is hybrid zoning. And so the discussion about going back to go ago or something doesn't carry the picture very well to you. But what we do know is that the PUD in its finished form that you finally approve at any point in time is based typically upon negotiation and desires of you and potentially any other people that have come and commented to you both outside and at the hearing itself. And so this particular requirement which Mr. Bryant, on behalf of his client, would like to have changed, was agreed to and is, in essence, the zoning -- part of the zoning itself, and that's why it makes it very difficult for staff and Susan Murray or anyone else, DE -- Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 35 CDES because this is beneficial, that she can make a change. She can have her own thought about whether it's beneficial or not, as we all can, but she has no authority to make a change just based because it's the better thing to do. Page 167 January 11,2005 In fact, employees of the development services department have made rather independent decisions years past that they thought were good and came back to haunt them and the county and the county attorney and everybody. Now, in this case at least we have a head start to know what the desire is, and it's not merely at the staff level. It's before the board. If we come back in three weeks and we can do so, what I would suggest is a package of one or two forms, one, we come back and tell you what we think can be done. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. WEIGEL: I have a -- but I do not think at this point -- but we may find out that we can -- ask you to, in fact, do something yourself. But that may not be the case, and I would tell you that right now. There may be nothing that you can do at that meeting that finishes this request off at that point in time. We may have investigated every which way we can and come back to you and say, however, ultimately, development services, county manager, county attorney, counsel you that there is a procedure in place, albeit a shortened procedure, which Mr. Bryant may have to go forward to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, you have a motion to make on this issue? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make a motion that presenter here this afternoon get with staff and see what can be done, and as you said, the county attorney said, there may not be anything, but, again, it may not be that difficult, that it's something that we can make a change as long as we aren't in violation of any rules and regulations within Collier County. Does that sound fair enough to everybody? MR. BRYANT: That sounds fine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We'll do that in three weeks. DAVID E. BRYANT Attorney At Law 215 wsarosrr RMAD soirrx 'cs:.srHOets X"KAS, FUNUnw 941 -788 -0550 84104 February 2, 2005 Susan Murray, AICP Director, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: My Client: Empire Builders HD Development Planned Unit Development Dear Susan: Agenda Item No. 16AB February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 35 941- 486.0467 RECEIVED FFR 4 ZONING DEPASTMENZ I write to express my appreciation for your participation in the meeting last week with Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering, Marjorie Student and myself. I especially appreciate your assistance in helping to create a resolution to my client's dilemma with it's changes to the existing planned use development. I want to especially thank you for your help in working toward an understanding that will be acceptable to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review, the Office of the County Attorney and my client. The dialogue toward a resolution of this matter could not have been accomplished without your involvement and your appreciation of the facts and the policy position of each of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. With kind personal regards, I remain Very truly ours, DAVID E. BRYANT, ESQUIRE DEB/f cc: Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services Division Client ms- 0202.115 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 35 H.D. DEVELOPMENT PUD A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT R • • • • • I r � - il, i - ITri • r - r • TRkDCR Ir�L�s PREPARED BY: WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP HOOVER PLANNING S DEVELOPMENT, INC. 3785 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE B -1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 and DAVID WILLEMS, PE JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. 2158 JOHNSON STREET FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33901 ,J � ,ENGIN�EERIN ' STAFF ' RD ►QUIRT P ES FL;:'3.41'0-4 DATE FILED April 19.2002 DATE REVISED April 11, 2003 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC June 24.2003 ORDINANCE NUMBER 03-30 EXHIBIT "A' TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS ii Agenda Item No. 16AB February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 35 PAGE ii 1 2 4 7 12 13 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 35 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT "A' PUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "B" PUD CONCEPTUAL UTILITY/WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN iii Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 35 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 46.64± acres of property in Collier County, as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the H.D. Development PUD, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The residential facilities of the H.D. Development PUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons: 1. The subject property's location, in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services, permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 2. The project development is compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 3. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element. 5. The Project is located within an Urban Residential Mixed Use designation of the Future Land Use Element. The projected density of 2.23 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: Base Density Maximum Permitted Density 4 dwellinga units /acre 4 dwelling units /acre Maximum permitted units = 46.64 acres x 4 dwelling units/acre = 186 units. Requested dwelling units = 104, which results in a requested density of 2.23 dwelling units /acre. 6. All final local development orders for this Project are subject to Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 35 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the Project name of the H.D. Development PUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 46.64± acres, is comprised of 3 separate parcels that are located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and are fully described as: A. The West half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, less the south 100 feet thereof, Collier County, Florida. B. The West half of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. C. The East half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to existing restrictions and reservations of record. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP A. The subject - owned b ■ Island GeuFt, Naples, ReFida • 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1.25 miles east of Oakes Boulevard, unincorporated Collier County, Florida. B. The entire Project site currently has Agricultural Zoning and is proposed to be rezoned to PUD. 2 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 35 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the Cocohatchee River Canal drainage basin according to the Collier County drainage atlas. The proposed outfall for the project is the Cocohatchee Canal located north of Immokalee Road. The peak discharge rate from the design storm will be limited 0.04 cubic feet per second /per acre in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -10. Natural ground elevation is approximately +12.0 to +14.0 NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA flood Zone X with no base flood elevation specified. The water management system for the project proposes the construction of the perimeter berm with crest elevation set at the 25 -year, 3-day flood stage. Water quality treatment is proposed in on -site lakes, swales and detention areas prior to discharge to the Cocohatchee Canal. Per Collier County's soil surrey dated 1998, there are three types of soil found within the limits of the property: No. 17 — Basinger fine sand. No. 25 — Boca, Riviera, limestone sub stratum and Copeland fine sand, depressional No. 27 — Pompano fine sands, depressional. The site vegetation consists mainly of pine and palmetto flat woods with mixed cypress and a cypress canopy with wire grass understory. The proposed plans are to preserve the high quality cypress slough area through the project and have two independent development tracts in the upland and lower quality wetland areas of the project. The site has been impacted by melaleuca and other exotics that will be removed as part of the proposed site improvements. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The H.D. Development PUD is a Project comprised of a maximum of 104 residential units. Recreational facilities and other facilities and services will be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, quality screening /buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "H.D. Development Planned Unit Development Ordinance." SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 35 The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the Project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the Project, as well as other Project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the H.D. Development PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, PUD - Planned Unit Development, and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan (SDP), excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise required, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All applicable regulations, unless specifically waived through a variance procedure or separate provision provided for in this PUD Document, shall remain in full force and effect. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 104 dwelling units shall be constructed in the Residential Areas of the project. The gross project area is 46.64± acres yielding a residential density of 2.23 units per acre. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS 4 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 35 A. The general configuration of the land uses are illustrated graphically on Exhibit 'A," PUD Master Plan, which constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the PUD Master Plan, Division 3.2, Subdivisions, of the Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. The provisions of Division 3.3, Site Development Plans, of the Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division 3.3 in effect prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 MODEL UNITS AND SALES FACILITIES A. In conjunction with the promotion of the development, residential units may be designated as models. Such model units shall be governed by Section 2.6.33.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Temporary sales trailers and construction trailers may be placed on the site after site development plan approval and prior to the recording of subdivision plats, subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.3 of the Land Development Code. 2.6 PROVISION FOR OFF -SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation of earthen material and its stock - piling in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted, in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.6 of the Land Development Code, as amended. Off -site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: A. Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a "Development Excavation" pursuant to Section 3.5.5.1.3 of the Land Development Code, whereby off -site removal shall be limited to 10% of the total volume excavated but not to exceed 20,000 cubic yards. B. All other provisions of Division 3.5, Excavation, of the Land Development Code shall apply. Agenda Item No. 16A6 February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 35 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Residential Areas as shown on Exhibit 'A" PUD Master Plan, as may be amended pursuant to Section 5.3. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the PUD shall be 104 units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single- family dwellings in Tracts 1 and 2 2. Single- family dwellings including attached and zero -lot line units in Tract 2 only. 3. Multi- family dwellings in Tract 3 only (includes townhouses and garden apartments). 4. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 5. Gatehouse. 6. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses of this PUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 6 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 35 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 4. Water management facilities. 5. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses of this PUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the H.D. Development PUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a public or private right -of -way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a non - platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive. STANDARDS Minimum Lot Area (per unit) Minimum Lot Width Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story Rear Yard Setback Principal Structure Accessory Structure PUD Boundary Setback TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6' 7.5' NA 20' (30' adjacent to Olds Cypress PUD) 10' (20' adjacent to Olds Cypress PUD) 0' &12'orboth 6' 0'& 15' or both 7.5' NA 20' (30' adjacent Olds Cypress PUD) 10' (20' adjacent Olds Cypress PUD) Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 35 MULTI - FAMILY ON TRACT 3 NA NA NA 15' 7.5' 10' 12.5' to 20' M-111111me Principal Structure NA NA 20' Accessory Structure NA NA 10' Lake Setback (3) 20' 20' 20' - Wetland Preserve Area Setback 25' 25' 25' Distance Between Structures Main /Principal 1 -Story 12' 12' 15' 2 -Story 15' 15' 20' 3 -Story NA NA 25' Accessory Structures 10' 10' 10' Maximum Height Principal Building Accessory Building Minimum Floor Area 35' with a maximum of 2 stories 20' /Clubhouse 35' 2400 Sq. Ft. 35' with a maximum of 2 stories 20' /Clubhouse 35' 1600 Sq. Ft. 42' with a maximum of 3 stories 20' /Clubhouse 38' 650 Sq. Ft. for 1 Bedroom 900 Sq. Ft. for 2 Bedrooms 1000 Sq. Ft. for 3 Bedrooms (1) May be reduced on cul -de -sac lots and lots on the inside part of curved streets by 25 %. (2) The front yard setback for side- loaded garages may be reduced to 18', with the home remaining at 23', where the applicant demonstrates that 2 vehicles can be adequately parked on a double -wide driveway without overhanging onto the sidewalk located at the edge of the right -of- way. (3) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 35 B. Off - Street Parkina and Loading Requirements: Parking regulations shall be as required by Division 2.3 of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. Open Space /Natural Habitat Preserve Area Reauirements• 1. A minimum of sixty (60) percent open space, as described in Section 2.6.32 of the Land Development Code, shall be provided on -site for any residential project. 2. A minimum of 11.52 acres, 25% of the viable native vegetation, shall be provided on -site, including both the under -story and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. D. Landscaping and Buffering Requirements: If landscape buffers are determined to be necessary adjacent to the wetland preserve areas, they shall be separate from those preserve areas. 2. A twenty (20) foot Type "D" Buffer shall be provided within the Residential Areas adjacent to Immokalee Road, a ten (10) foot Type "A" Buffer along the western PUD boundary, a ten (10) foot Type "D" Buffer adjacent to Treeline Drive, a ten (10) foot Type "A" Buffer adjacent to the single- family home on the east side of Treeline Drive, and a fifteen (15) foot Type "B" Buffer along the eastern side of Residential Area - Tract 3. 3. Remaining landscaping and buffering shall be provided per Division 2.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. E. Architectural Standards 1. All buildings, lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and fences /walls to be erected within the Residential Areas. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the Residential Areas. 2. All pole lighting, internal to the Residential Areas, shall be architecturally designed and limited to a height of thirty (30) feet. 9 Agenda Item No, 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 35 F. Sis�ns Signs shall be permitted as described within Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 10 Agenda Item No. .16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 35 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit 'A" PUD Master Plan. 5.2 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering within the Natural Habitat Preserve Areas, may be approved after Environmental Staffs review. All supplemental plantings within the Preserve Areas shall be 100% indigenous native species. 6. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses of this PUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 11 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 35 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this Project. 6.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans, final subdivision plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD, in effect at the time of final plat, final site development plan approval or building permit application, as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this Project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor or assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the PUD Master Plan and the regulations of this PUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee, is subject to the commitments within this Document. 6.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed Development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, 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 final platting or site development plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code,. amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the Project. 12 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 35 6.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT /MONITORING REPORT A site development plan shall be submitted per County regulations in effect at time of site plan submittal. The project is expected to be completed in 1 or 2 phases. A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time limits pursuant to Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. An affidavit of the owner of the property within the PUD shall be submitted with the report stating that the contents of the report are true and correct. 6.5 ENGINEERING A. This Project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for Development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 3.2., Subdivisions, and Division 3.3., Site Development Plans. 6.6 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permit, permit modification or waiver shall be provided to Collier County at the time of construction plans review. B. If the project is proposing construction impacts within a Big Cypress Basin maintained easement, the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved SFWMD Right -of -Way Permit to Collier County during the review of the construction pans. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code and SFWMD Rules. All road impact fees must be paid prior to removal of material from the site. 6.7 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and /or sewage treatment facilities to serve the Project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 01 -57, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. 13 Agenda Item No, 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 35 6.6 TRAFFIC The development of this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the following minimum stipulations. A. All traffic control devices and design criteria used shall be in accordance with the Minimum Standards, as amended, and as adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as required by Florida Statutes - Chapter 316, Uniform Traffic Control Law. B. All traffic speed limit postings shall be in accordance with the minimum standards as adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) - Speed Zoning Manual, as amended, as required by Florida Statutes - Chapter 316, Uniform Traffic Control Law. C. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress. Said lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent Certificate of Occupancy (CO). D. External and internal improvements determined by Collier County Transportation Staff to be essential to the safe ingress and egress to the development will not be considered for impact fee credits. All such improvements shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. E. Road Impact Fees will be paid in accordance with applicable Collier County Ordinances. F. Any and all points of ingress and /or egress as shown on any and all plan submittal(s), are conceptual in nature and subject to change as determined by Collier County Transportation Staff. Collier County Transportation Staff reserves the right to modify, or close any ingress and /or egress location(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues, roadway capacity problems. G. Any and all median opening locations will be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy, as amended, and Land Development Code, as amended. Median access and control will remain under Collier County Transportation Staffs authority. Collier County Transportation Staff reserves the right to modify or close any median opening(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues, roadway capacity problems. 14 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 35 H. Nothing in any development order will vest the right of access over and above a right in /right out condition. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, egress and /or median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). The development shall be designed to promote the safe travel of all users including pedestrians and bicyclists. The following shall be the minimum requirements: 1. Pedestrian travel ways: a) On local roadways sidewalks shall be a minimum of six feet in width. b) On collector and arterial roadways sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet in width. 2. Bicycle travel ways: a) On local roadways bike lanes are not required. Travel lanes shall be a minimum of twelve feet in width so as to accommodate bicyclists. b) On collector and arterial roadways, in addition to the vehicular travel lanes, bike lanes shall be provided. The bike lanes shall be a minimum of four feet in width when there is curb and gutter and five feet in width when there is no curb and gutter. 3. The pedestrian and bicycle travel ways, and their interconnections, shall be separated from vehicular traffic by a minimum distance of three feet. J. The developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), will be responsible for the cost of any and all traffic signal(s), at any and all development entrance(s), when determined warranted and approved by Collier County Transportation Staff. When warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn -in period, and final approval /acceptance of any and all traffic signal(s), said traffic signal(s) shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by Collier County Transportation Operations Department. Any negotiations relevant to "fair share" payment(s), or reimbursement(s), from any and all other neighboring developer(s) /property owner(s), that directly benefit from said traffic signal(s), will be determined based upon percentage of usage /impact. K. The developer(s) shall provide any and all site related transportation improvement(s) including, but not limited to, any and all necessary turn lane(s) 15 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 35 improvement(s) at the development entrance(s) prior to the issuance of the first permanent CO. Said improvements are considered site related, and therefore, do not qualify for impact fee credits. When said turn lane improvement(s), whether left turn lane(s) and /or right turn lane(s), are determined to be necessary, right-of-way and /or compensating right -of -way, shall be provided in conjunction with said improvement(s), as determined by Collier County Transportation Staff at the time of site development plan or final subdivision plat. L. All work within Collier County right- of-way shall meet the requirements of applicable Collier County Ordinances. M. All internal access(es), drive aisle(s), sidewalk(s), not located within County right -of -way, will be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). N. Joint/shared access(es) may be required by Collier County Transportation Staff as a condition of site development plan approval. O. Frontage, midpoint and/or reverse frontage (backside) interconnection(s) may be required by Collier County Transportation Staff as a condition of site development plan approval. P. Prior to development of any and all portion(s) of any and all development(s), site development plan approval shall be obtained /received from Collier County Transportation Staff. Q. If a gate is proposed at any and /or all development entrance(s) the gates shall be designed so as not to cause vehicles to be backed up onto any and all adjacent roadways. The following minimum requirements shall be: 1. The minimum throat depth from the nearest intersecting roadway edge of pavement shall be no less than a minimum of 100 feet to the key pad /phone box for the proposed gate(s). 2. A turn - around area of sufficient width and inside turning radii shall be provided between the aforementioned key pad /phone box and the proposed gate(s). R. The Tract 3, Multifamily Residential Area, shall not access to or from Treeline Drive. 16 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 35 6.9 PLANNING A. If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. Furthermore, the procedures of Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code shall be followed. B. Sidewalks six feet in width shall be provided on both sides of local streets and shall connect on -site residential buildings to a sidewalk within a public roadway, or, if no sidewalk exists, it shall connect to the right - of-way line. Should a two - directional shared -use path be utilized, the minimum paved width shall be 10 feet. C. All sidewalks and bike lanes shall be constructed in accordance with design specifications identified in Section 3.2.8.4.14 and Division 2.8, respectively, of the Land Development Code. D. If interconnections to existing and future developments are provided, the interconnection shall include sufficient right -of -way to accommodate the roadway, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Sidewalks and bike lanes shall be constructed concurrently with the roadway. E. For multi - family tracts, sidewalks, six feet in width, must be provided on both sides of local streets within a dedicated public right -of -way or roadway easement. Where there is no public right -of -way or roadway easement, sidewalks must connect on -site residential building(s) to a sidewalk within a public roadway or, if no sidewalk exists, to the right -of -way line in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.17 of the Land Development Code. Should a two- directional shared use path be utilized, the minimum paved width must be 10 feet. 6.10 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Section Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. B. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation /preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the 17 Agenda Item No. 16A8 February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 35 plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Setbacks and buffers shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.2.8.4.7.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. In the event the Project does not require platting, all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation /preservation tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to the project's homeowners' association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or as per Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. C. Buffers shall be provided around any wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty -five (25) feet from the landward edge of the wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Environmental Staff. D. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation /preservation areas, shall be submitted to the Current Planning Section Staff for review and approval prior to final site development plan /construction plan approval. This plan shall include the methodology and a time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within the conservation /preservation areas. E. This PUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species on -site. F. The flow - way /cypress slough (FLUCCS Code 621) shall be preserved as shown on the PUD Master Plan. 6.11 FIRE A. All improvements shall be in accordance with all applicable fire codes and ordinances. 18 Agenda item No. 1681 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the use of transportation disadvantaged funds (126) to purchase a para- transit bus in the amount of $57,002 under State contract #FVPP -02 -CA 1. OBJECTIVE: To acquire Board approval to purchase a para- transit bus utilizing transportation disadvantaged funds (126). CONSIDERATION: The Collier Transit system's current service level requires an additional bus to provide transportation services to the elderly and disabled residents of Collier County. Staff requests approval to purchase one para- transit bus from First Class Coach & Equipment at a cost of $57,002 under state contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1. The bus will be purchased utilizing County transportation disadvantaged funds. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost for the para- transit bus is $57,002. The purchase will be funded from Fund 126, Project 31126. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with Object 12 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve: (1) the purchase of a pars- transit bus through First Class Coach & Equipment under State contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1. The total amount of this expenditure is $57,002; and (2) approve any budget amendments required. Prepared by: Lisa Hendrickson, Senior Planner, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes lo- Agenda Item No. 16B1 February 22. 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS +w. Rem Number 16131 Item Summary Recommendation to app,o. lee use of t.,v,pnn.tion disadvantaged funds (126) to p —hiole A perA-transit 0115111 the anwunt of $57.002 under State contract/IF/PP- 02 -CA-1 Meeting Date 2722/2005 9'.00:00 AM Prepared By Date L.ISa Hehdrlcksan 1.1.nagemanf1Lludget Analyst 211/2005 3:10:01 PM Tran.parrion Services Traffic Operations! ATM Approved By Lisa Hendrickson Manag— rillB.dget Analyst Date T—itportian S.,yicea TWIG Ori— li ... I ATM 211120053:21 PM Approved By Barbara L.aPiorro Management /BudgM Analyst D.in I.".portlon S.-... Transportation Operation 11112.1116 3:55 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Oats Transportion Services Transportation 6erv1c.. Admin, 2/0/2005 11:18 AM Approved By Brand. B61h.n Purchasing Agent Dale Admml.trat- Services Purchasing 2.91200510:22 AM Approved By Director of Allernotive'rran.prnt.tion Oixne B. Flagg Made. ATfA Dirsotnr Dxte 1'rao.portion Service. Alternative ' rrenspurtat -1 Mudee 21912005 11:51 AM Approved By Pat Leonhard Executive 5a1etary D.te Transportation 5erv1ces Transportation Service. Admin 2.912005 2:11 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Ad mn i.h.tive As.ietant Date County Manager's off'.. Offion of Mnnagnmdut & BudgM 21920D5 3:12 PM Approved By Michael Stnyk —li, Management & BudgM Director Dxfe County Manager's OfOce Office of Management IS Budget 21142803 5:26 PM Approved By .tame. V. Mudd County Manager gate Boar oFco.hly Colnmiaeioners county Manager's Office 2115!200+ 5:13 PM Agenda Item No. 16B2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the use of transit enhancement funds (313) to purchase a para- transit bus under State contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1 and trolley decal wrap in the estimated amount of $64,000 OBJECTIVE: To acquire Board approval to purchase a para- transit bus and trolley decal wrap utilizing Transit Enhancement Funds (313). CONSIDERATION: The Collier Area Transit system's current service level requires the use of spare buses. Collier Area Transit plans to replace a service van with a para- transit bus that has wheelchair capability. Currently, -the vans used on bus routes do not have wheelchair liftslor seats. Staff requests approval to purchase, through state contract, one para- transit bus from First Class Coach & Equipment under state contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1. The bus and trolley decal wrap will be purchased utilizing County Transit Enhancement dollars. The trolley wrap replicates that of current buses and is copyrighted by Stan Mitts, and hence this component of the project constitutes a sole source acquisition. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost for the para - transit bus and trolley decal wrap is estimated at $64,000. The purchase will be funded from Fund 313 Project 61010 Gas Taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with Objective 12 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve: (1) the purchase of a para- transit bus through First Class Coach & Equipment under State contract #FVPP- 02 -CA -1; and (2) waive formal competition and authorize the purchase of the trolley decal wrap through Stan Mitts, who owns the copyright to these designs. The estimated total of these expenditures is $64,000; and (3) approve any budget amendments required. Prepared by: Lisa Hendrickson, Senior Planner, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Agenda Item No. 1662 February 22 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Rom Number 1662 Rem Summary Recommendation to approve the use of iransd enhancement funds (313) t0 purchase a Fare - transit bus under Slate r.nlmQt#FVPP- 02 -CA -1 and trolley decal wrap in the estimated An—rat of $64,000. Meeting Date 2/22i2005 9:00.00 AM Prepared By Date Usx Hendrickaun Management1BUdge1 Anctyst 216/2005 1:55:50 PM 1'ranaponion services Traffic Operatlon.I ATM Approved By Lisa Handrickacn ManagamemlBudget Analyse Date Transpertion Services Traffic Operatwa.s ATM 218120051:56 PM Approved By Brenda Bdlhart Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 219120051015 AM Approved By Barbara LaPierre ManagementiSudget Analyat Data Tranapartion Services 1'ransportatlurr Op-111.1— AM Approved By Director of Anern ative Transportation Diana B. Flagg Mndx ATM Oireclnr Dare Tranapodion Services Alternative Transportation Modes 21972005 4:05 PM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date 'fransportion Services Transpndxlion Adrninlstratian 2MI20057:34 P14 Approved By Norm l=. radar. AIDP Tranarortatinn 111A. nn Adminlatrator Dale Trunuportion Services 7'ranupnrtntion Services Adrni, 2110(20051:30 PM Approved By Pat Lehnhard Executive Secretary Date Transportation services Transportation Services Admen 2110/2005 1:30 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Datc County Manager's Office Office of Management a Budget 2110120115 4:23 PM Approved By Mechael Sagla wski Manayarnent 8 Budget Uiractof Date County ManageYs Office Office of Management d Budget 2115/2005 6:13 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manoger Date Board of County County hlanngcr'e Office 2/15/2005 5:2.6 PM C.ornam inners Agenda Item No. 16B3 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of $222,450 to Aquagenix for the 2005 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project No. 51501) under Contract 03 -3568, and approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $59,100. OBJECTIVE: To receive Board of County Commissioners' approval of a Work Order for the 2005 Australian Pine Removal Project to Aquagenix in accordance with the Annual Contract for Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal, Contract No. 03 -3568. CONSIDERATIONS: For several years the Stormwater Management Section of the Transportation Services Division has defined and supported the need to maintain an annual effort to eradicate exotic vegetation growing along numerous miles of County maintained drainage canals, ditches, and lakes. When growing along a canal bank, Australian pine trees have a tendency to out -grow the support provided by their root system. This situation can pose a threat of personal injury and property damage, as these trees are prone to topple over in moderate to high winds. These trees have the potential to block flows in the drainage system if they were toppled into the ditches or canals. Some Australian Pines have purposely been planted, however most of these trees have established themselves along the high water line adjacent to the secondary drainage system. Removal of these trees will improve properties by reducing the risk of personal or property damage should these trees topple over in high winds. Australian pine trees are declared a public nuisance by Collier County Ordinance 99 -51 when located in or adjacent to right(s) -of -way, canal(s), and easements. They are also designated "Prohibited Aquatic Plants" by the Department of Environmental Protection as referenced in Chapter 62C -52, Florida Administrative Code. Throughout the County hundreds of locations contain thousands of trees that should be eradicated. Five (5) work site locations were chosen for eradication sites. Quotes were received for all five sites, but budget constraints reduced the number of areas to be cleared. This year's project is comprised of one (1) work site location. The site is located oft' of Coronado Parkway in Golden Gate City. The site is adjacent to canal and ditch banks located within County drainage easements. This proposed work will also target any other exotic vegetation found among the Australian pine trees at each site such as Brazilian Pepper and Melaleuca. Pursuant to completing this project, staff solicited price quotes from each of the three firms pre - qualified under the "Annual Contract for Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal". The following is a summary of the quotes received: Executive Summary 2005 Australian Pine Removal Project Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 1683 February 22, 2006 Page 2 of 4 SUMMARY OF QUOTES WORK SITE NO 3 Name of Company Amount of Quote Flora uatics, Inc. No Quote Aquatic Weed Control, Inc. No Quote Aquagenix $222,450 FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $163,350 is available in Fund 301 Australian Pine Removal Program (Project No. 51501). A Budget Amendment is needed to transfer $59,100 from project 51801 into the Fund 301 Australian Pine Removal Program (cost center 172945) to finance the entire 2005 phase of this project. The source of funding is ad valorem taxes. The project has been awarded a $170,000 Grant through the Cooperative Water Resource Projects Funding Program of the Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD). Upon final completion, $170,000 of the County's total project cost will be reimbursed by SFWMD and be returned to reserves. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Australian Pine Removal project is in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Drainage Sub - element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: (1) Approve issuance of a work order to Aquagenix, in the amount of $222,450 under contract 03 -3568. (2) Direct the Board Chairman to execute Contract No. 03 -3568 with Aquagenix. (3) Approve the necessary budget amendment. PREPARED BY: Margaret Bishop, Project Manager, Transportation Services Division, Stormwater Management Department. Agenda Item No. 1683 February 22. 2005 Page 3 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 1683 Item Summary Rerommendation to sword 9 contract in the amount of $222.450 In Aquagenix for the 2005 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project No. 515011, and approve a Midget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $59,100. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Ricardo Valera Director Dale 7ransportion Services Road Maintenance /Sinrmwatn. 2,712005 3:00 PM Approved By 01.66 Herrera Mnnagnmentleudget Analyst D.Ic 7'ransportion Service. Transportation Ope"llors 21212005 3:13 PM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportlon Services I— pnri.tion A6.1.1.1, I—, 210724052:00 PM Approved By Rhonda Rnmbert Contract Sperialiat Datc Administrative Service. Purchasing 2191200510:54 AM Approved By Steve Carvell Pu rcha.mg,'General Svcs Director Dale AdminisVetw. 5crvicec Purchasing 2191200510:58 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transport—a Division Administrator Date 1- run.portion S—i... irvnap.n.d n Service. Admm, 2!1012005 9:23 AM Approved By Pat LahnhaN Executive Secret.ry Date Transp.n.tiar Service. Transportation Service. Adn im 2.1101200, 1D:09 AM Approved By DMa Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date Cnuoly Manager'. Ofryca r... Office of Management a audall 2!1012005 4:18 PIA Approved By Michael Smyft —W Managamtmt a audgnt Dirertnr Dsle County Manager's Of- Office of Management & Budget 21112005 8:53 AM Approved By .lame. V. Mudd County Manager Wt. anard of County County Manager's Office 2Hf12005 9:41 AM Commi..loner. Agenda Item No. 1683 COLLIER COUNTY Page '4 of 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROJECT No. 515011 AUSTRALIAN PINE REMOVEAL- CORONADO CANAL AREA PROJECT LOCATION MAP 17TH AVE SW M -17TH AVE SW 17TH AVE.SW CEDAR TREE.GN 17THPL -SW y 17THPL -SW m y 18TH SW h TAHITI CARf�� a ►- 18TH CT 18THCTSW 9TH AVE SW ''19TH AVE SW - WESTPORT W _ 19TH CT SW 19TH PL SW 2OM PL -SW SEA GRASS LN K 9� -21ST PL SW Zl J, 3 -22ND AVE SW 49S a Z Q. -22ND PL SW ti 23RD AVE SW nxh3 vii � co W 23RD PL SW D _._ PROJECT LOCATION 23RD -CTSW -- -23RD CT SW 1 I _. 24TH AVE SW _ ... . CORONADO PKWY 25THAVESW - -__...... CORPER LEAF. L N __ 25TH CT SW 28T14 AVESW �9kt "Q }c ( .Y' `� 'S JJ , '}7 __. PAINTED LEAF.LN y PROPOSED BY: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ROAD MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION HORSESHOE SQUARE, SUITE No. 214, 2665 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE 0 500 1,000 NAPLE S-FLORIDA 34104 (232) " I I PROJECT MANAGER: MARGARET BISHOP DATE: NOVEMBER,2004 Feet Agenda Item No. 16B4 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Bid #05 -3754 for annual contract for "Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operations" to American Boring and Trenching, Inc. OBJECTIVE: Award Bid #05 -3754 "Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operations" to American Boring and Trenching, Inc. as an annual contractor for these services. CONSIDERATIONS: The county requires an annual contract for Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operations for the installation of piping and/or sleeving under roadways. On December 10, 2004 the Purchasing Department sent out one hundred twenty —five notices for the Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operations. On January 13, 2005 one bid was opened. Staff reviewed the unit pricing. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached Staff recommends the award of Bid #05 -3754 for "Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operations" to American Boring and Trenching, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: Use of this contract will be on an as needed basis and the using department will provide funding. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #05 -3754 "Jack & Bore and Directional Bore Operation" to American Boring and Trenching, Inc. as an annual contractor for these services. PREPARED BY: Bob Petersen, Project Manager, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes ATTACHMENT: Bid #05 -3754 document Agenda Item No, 1664 February 22. 2005 Pape 2 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ttem Number 16B4 Item Summary Reccon,ondatlon to A14a111 Bid e05 -3754 for oo-1 rant —t fb! "J8 ^.k & Brre, end Dirodionnl Bore operations" to Amodcan Boring and Trolictiing. Inc. Meeting Date 2,22!2005 9 00:00 AM Prepared By Date Bob Petersen Pmje.1 Manager 2RI2005 6:52:47 AM Tr an.partien Services Traftic Operational ATM Approved By Bob Petersen Project Manager Date Transponion Services Traffic Operational ATM 2f8/100511,21 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transpnrtalinn Division Administrator D.W. 1'ranspomon Services 1'ran rportatlon Services Admi, 2/8200511:31 AM Approved By Brenda 8rilhart Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purrhasing 2/912005 t:46 PM Approved By Director of Alternative Transportation Uiane B. Flagg Made%ATM Dire<dur pate Transpnrtion Services Alternative Transportation Modes 219/2005 3:47 PM Approved By Stave Carnal! Purchasing!Oaneral S— Director Oat. Administratve Services Purchasing 2110/2005 9:36 AM Approved By Pat LeflotlA f E .... rile S —erary Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 2110/200510:12 AM Approved By Michael Smyk —.kl Management 9 Budget Director Date .a.. county Msnagnr'z off- Dffic. of Management a Budget 21112005 8'.48 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Adnu,ii ,0ve Assistant D.fe County Manager's Office Office of Management a Budget 2/1112005 8:51 AM Approved By J.... V. Mudd County Manager Wt. Hoard of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 211tI208510:58 AM Agenda Item No. 16134 Bid EGS-3754 Project Manage am Petersen February 22, 2065 "Jack Bore and Directional Sm operations' Does Posted: DecenAw to. 20M January 13. RWOMW 1 Due: Janta 13, 2005 Page I of 3 Amedcan Boring 11, Jack & L3mOpsriltlons SPECIFICATION 01 CAswig O.D. 4'_1 PI[q 51/4- Uq4CqwtLM No Bid Unit Cost (FT) No Bid 0 D _ @'!-jAlckmsa_ 1/4• Unit Cost No Bid _wn40.D._12"/Th — 114" -- Unit COO No Bid Unit Cost (ED 140 Bid Casing R D _ link Coot No Bid P.D. M 11132" Yr�kqqLt LFT No Bid I Thickness I U3 2' C05 FT) No Bid ss IIJ3?7 Unit Coat (M No 8 Ca OM. 427_lTtOqkqw& 6119' t LFT)i —48"77h--ness Na Bid — asktg ODD 9116" Unit Cast (FT T.W WA $D.00 —So.-011 C@MV O.D. 4"l Thtk;itss Sct*dLAs 40 Unit Cost Fq No Bid qMmg_9M_Tl �lcV—ScheduleQ_ Unit Cqjt (M No Bid VThl Schedule 40 WrdCCqt(FD__ NaBIL_ i Unit goat (M No Bid G"%O,D.14'/ ickrme Class 2OO Unit Cost (FT) ODAW/Th Close 200 Ceeifyt , Unit Cost (FT) No Bid Casing O.D. 24"1 Thickness Class 200--- Unit cost (Fq No Bid 7— Casing O.D. 30'1 Thickrwns CAssa 200 Unit Cost (FTI No Bid CatiftN O.L): 351 Thickness Clas 200 Casing 27 —42' Mk.k Unit Coat FT) .... No Did qa.pi)g 0.p.48^!:14q twOes Class 230 Total I NIA 30-001 s0.00!, SO.DDI Page I of 3 Bid 906-3754 'Jack Bore old DimciJonal Bore Operations- .. January 13, 2005 Profed MnaW. Bob Paterson Date Posted December 113, 2DO4 Pop 2 013 Agenda Item No. 16134 February 22, 2005 rpawsfi.qf,2� PaduGes, Received: I American Bodnv III, Tfenchinc- Op—d---AG-- #PECQ1F 2 — CesuMLO-D. 21j/Thickn"9 114" Unit c99LM pasipRO.D. @" 1 Thicimus 1W No .Bid Unit Cost - NoBld Cos O.D. O"IThickness 1/4' jqLt Cost (Fr) No Bld Casing O.D 12'1 Thickness 1X' UnN Cost AM No Bid @seinWO D 14'J TIiRkq-s W3T Urift Cod (F!) No Bid Casing D.C. 1 Ir / Th knees 8/3r Cost flM No Bid Casing O.D. 24/Thrlo�IV327- YrA�Mffrj_ Casing O.D. 30"M.LC!T-G�Mir No Did Unit Cost No BW q&$L qO.D.47 '1ThIckn6ss 9116" Unit Cost (M No Bid Ca" 0,g,48"/Thickness 8118*­­ Total NIA res"Rory —EOd Unit Cost (Fr —Thmimess No gasing L3,g.-_ Ff Scmdule- 40 Un8 Cost (Fn No q—"—Mo D. �rr / Thicime" Sotleduts 40 ------- Unit Coat (FD No Bid Cjj-inq O.D. t7jCla- 200_ Unit Cost f.FT), No Bid Rllno p P. 14'1 Glass Unit Cost (FT) No Bid gpEing O.D. 18" /Gass 200 gnRC F 71) ( _ No 1W .!!inp DO. 24"1 Chas 200 CFD! No Bid Cueing 31Y. / Clara a Unit Cost W.P!d Unit CoM.LF71 Bld ��-O.D.42r'/Chas 200 Urlit Cost (Fr) _No No Bid Ae—/0239200 Ung Cost No Bid Total NIA l000 110.01111 $0.00 Pop 2 013 Agenda Item No. 16134 February 22, 2005 rpawsfi.qf,2� PaduGes, Received: I Agenda Item No. 16134 February 22. 2005_ 131,1005-3754 Pmjecl Mmnsper Bob Psleraen t�pp "Jack Bore WW DirxBonal Bore Operaliona" Date Postaa: December 10, 2004 Ns1 S f 135 Due: January 13, 2005 Packspes Received: 1 Directional Bon O ons PVCC�syrpO.D.jScMaubsOlC!teywl' _._ American Bory i Ina _ _. -� - .___ -.__ -_ _._�._______ ___._Speraficefort 01 Unit Pna 58.78 511.00 -- - SpeafcationV Uj)t Price (FTj - Specfication 01 Una Prica S Wation Y2 Unit Prue f .," — _- 015,00 - �— -__ Specalcatlon /1 Unll Price (FT) .. $23.511 _ _ SperAiea6on i2 Unit Price 525.00 - .... _. ON Sped5cs8on 51 Unit Price ___— _ —__.. �flcBSan !l UnilUnil PrVCe� Tolal SpaciScadon 0l $35.00 ;38.00 - 183.25' 50.00 Total estlort02 $80.00 __. S eQ,tlfiralbn 01 Unk Prfa $11 .DD S SW 02 UUnk PnRtjffL SptlrJ8ca5an01UnAPrice(Fr $15.80 � 10.00 - - -- 50.00 _ _ SpedBcatbn 02 Uml Pace jFi] _ - 8 $18.50 _ $0.00, - 00 uc (_� - �eol8calmn i1 Ilnil Pe ---. _._ $27.001 $38.00 40.00 580.05 594.50 .__T.i0. - - S 5caeon i2 lMk Price fFTi Specifxalion Al Unit Pace (FTj - -- __ -- $0.00 .. - -- �ficadon Total $pstlBtAtion 01 ToW Spacltleatlon ;0.00 - "- - A�enl &enda Briklart 1Mlnesa: Pape 3 of 3 Agenda Item No. 1685 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement for the conveyance of right -of- way required for the construction of improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road between Polly Avenue and Collier Boulevard, and constructing new entry wall features and signage for Wing South, Inc. at the southern end of Skyway Drive (off Rattlesnake Hammock Road (Project No. 60169). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $74,415.00 OBJECTIVE: To obtain from Wing South, Inc. the right -of -way required for the construction of four -lane improvements (within a six -lane configuration) to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and to approve the construction of new entry wall features and signage for Wing South, Inc. at the southern end of Skyway Drive (off Rattlesnake Hammock Road). CONSIDERATIONS: On October 28, 2003 the Board of County Commissioners approved the acquisition of the above right -of -way (Gift and Purchase Resolution No. 2003 -371). Construction of the road improvements is scheduled to commence later this year. There are existing entry wall features and signage on either side of the southern end of Skyway Drive, a private road owned by Wing South, Inc. which serves as an entrance road to both Wing South and Shadowood Villas (adjacent and to the west of Wing South). These entry wall features and signage are within the right -of -way required from Wing South, Inc. for the construction of the road improvements and will be demolished when construction commences. As part of the road improvements, County is required to construct a noise attenuation wall along the road frontage and a small portion of the eastern side of Shadowood Villas. The best place to affix the new Wing South signage is on the wing wall section of the noise attenuation system and it makes sense for County to do this work simultaneously with construction of the noise attenuation wall; furthermore, for the sake of uniformity in color and design, it makes sense for County also to construct the entry wall feature and signage for Wing South on the opposite side of the entrance when County constructs the noise attenuation wall. The construction of the entry wall features and signage will be partly in lieu of compensation for the right -of -way required from Wing South, Inc. for the roadway improvements. The value of the right -of -way, excluding the cost of constructing the new entry wall features and signage, has been estimated by a County approved appraiser at $66,700.00. The cost of constructing the new entry wall features and signage has been estimated by staff to be $7,400.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $74,415.00 are budgeted in the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund and Impact Fee Funds for this payment. This amount includes recording fees of $315.00. Source of funds are Gas Taxes and Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: As part of the County's Capital Improvement Element, the construction of four -lane improvements (within a six -lane footprint for future expansion) on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, this agreement is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Agenda Item No. 16135 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 21 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County: 1. Authorize its Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board; 2. Authorize staff to close the real estate transaction, and to record the conveyance instruments and any curative instruments in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; 3. Accept the right -of -way instruments; and 4. Authorize any and all budget amendments which may be required to carry out the will of the Board. PREPARED BY: Robert Bosch: Property Acquisition Specialist, TECM — Right -of -Way Acquisition Agenda Item ND, 1685 February 22, 2005 Prage 3 of 21 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 1665 Item Summery Recommendation In approve a Purchase Agreement for the conveyance of dgh4nf -Way required forthe construction of improvements to RaftlesnaKe Hammock Road Oelween Polly Avenue and Collier Boulevard, and constructing new entry wall features and signage for Wng South, Inc. at the. southern end of Skyway Drive (Off Rattlesnake Hammock Road (Project No. 60169), Estimated Fiscal Impad. $74.415.00 Meeting Date 2!22.12005 9:OD:00 AM Prepared By Datrz Robert Bosch Property Acquisition Speci.h.1 2 1612OOS 11:59:35 AM Transponation Engineering and Transp.m- Services onstruction Approved By LWT.ylor Manall-- tiBudget Analyst Date Transponlon Servines Transparlation Administration 2/0/2005 3:52 PM Approved By Gary Puteansuu Sevier Project Manager Data Transportation Engineering and Transportiuu Se-... 2W2005 4:03 PM Con::trudian Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 2!9!2005 5:11 PM Approved By Kevin Hendricks Right Of Way Acquisition Manager Date Transportation Engineering and T ransporrinn So—... f.,on xtrutfion 2110120059:17 AM Approved By Dale A. Bathon. P.E. pn—ipal Project Manager Date Transportation En0lnevrin9 and Transportinn Serviroa 2 /1 0120 0 5 a.22 AM G on.trucilntt Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Adrninistrator Date Tran.p.M.. Sarv— Transportation Services Admi, 211012005 9:31 AM Approved By Pat 1- hnhard E:xacufivn Secretary D:nc Transportation Services Trensportehon Service. Admin 2/1012 0175 10:14 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date C..ruy Managers Office. Df - of Management 8. Budget 2!1072005 4 20 PM Approved By Michael Smykrrvski Mana9ament a. Budget Diru for Date Courrty Manager's Office Offlce of Management & Budget 211112005 4:19 PM Approved By J.n— V. Mudd County Manager Date Boats nr County Commiseioners County Manager. Office 21111200 5 10:55 AM Agenda Item No. liBE February 22, Ow Page 4 21 PROJECT: Rattlesnake Hammock Road PARCELS No.: 114,714,714-A, 115,715 & 815 FOLIOS No.: 82941520007 (as reference) and 00425960000 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of 2005, by and between WING SOUTH, INC., a not for profit Florida corporation, whose mailing address is 3952 Skyway Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser "). WHEREAS, Owner is the condominium association for that certain condominium known as Wing South Airpark Private Villas, a Condominium (hereinafter referred to as "the Condominium ") according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded in OR Book 476, Pages 304 et seq., and as amended and restated by Certificate of Amendment, recorded in OR Book 2042, Pages 768 et seq., Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, Purchaser has requested that Owner convey to the Purchaser a) a Perpetual Non - Exclusive Road Right -of -Way, Drainage and Utility Easement over, under, upon and across the lands described in Exhibit "A ", b) a Temporary Driveway Restoration Easement over, under, upon and across the lands described in Exhibit "B ", c) a Temporary Construction Easement over, under, upon and across the lands described in Exhibit "C ", d) a Fee Simple Interest over, under, upon and across the lands described in Exhibit "D ", e) a Temporary Construction Easement over, under, upon and across the lands described in Exhibit "E ", and f) a Perpetual Non - Exclusive Drainage Easement over, under, upon and across the lands described in Exhibit "F ", all of which are attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (which premises referred to in Exhibits "A" to "F" inclusive are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property "); and WHEREAS, in compliance with Section 9.10 (A) of foresaid Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium, the affirmative vote of three - fourths (3 /4ths) of the unit owners of the Condominium has been obtained in favor of conveying the Property to Purchaser, subject to the terms and conditions more fully set out herein; and WHEREAS, partly in lieu of compensation, Purchaser has agreed to construct new entry wall features and signage for Owner at the southern end of Skyway Drive, as generally depicted in Exhibit "G ", attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Works "), with no obligation or responsibility for maintenance; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the mutual benefits to be obtained, Owner desires to convey the Property to Purchaser for the stated purposes, and Purchaser has agreed to compensate Owner for conveyance of the Property, and desires to carry out the Construction Works, on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby mutually acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: Agenda Item No. 1 B5 February 22, 05 Page 2 Page 5 121 All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below, and all Exhibits referenced herein are made a part of this Agreement. 2. Owner agrees to grant the Temporary Construction Easements for the purpose Of constructing public facilities adjacent to and carrying out the Contract Works in this area. The Temporary Construction Easements shall commence upon their recording in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and shall expire on December 31, 2008. Owner agrees to grant the Temporary Driveway Restoration Easement for the purpose of filling, grading and placing concrete, asphalt or rock, on the Grantor's lands for the purpose(s) of constructing, with materials of like kind, a driveway /turnout and /or to provide for continuous transition between the existing driveway and the newly constructed road, sidewalk, and drainage improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This Temporary Driveway Restoration Easement shall commence upon its recording in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and shall expire on December 31, 2008. Said construction shall be at County's expense and in accordance with County's standards. 4. Owner agrees to grant the Perpetual, Non - Exclusive Road Right -of -Way, Drainage and Utility Easement for the purpose of road right -of -way and for the purpose of entering upon and installing and maintaining drainage structures and facilities, and utilities in this area. 5. Owner agrees to grant the Perpetual, Non - Exclusive Drainage Easement for the purpose of entering upon and installing and maintaining drainage structures and facilities in this area. 6. Owner shall convey the Property to Purchaser for the sum of $66,700.00 (Sixty -Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) subject to the apportionment and distribution of proceeds pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Agreement (said transaction is hereinafter referred to as the "Closing "). Said payment to Owner, payable by County Warrant, shall be full compensation for the Property conveyed, including all landscaping, trees, shrubs, improvements, and fixtures located thereon, and for any damages resulting to Owner's remaining lands, and for all other damages in connection with conveyance of said Property to Purchaser, including all attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs as provided for in Chapter 73, Florida Statutes. 7. Prior to Closing, Owner shall obtain from the holders of any liens, exceptions and /or qualifications encumbering the Property, the execution of such instruments which will remove or release such encumbrances from the Property upon their recording in the public records of Collier County, Florida. Owner shall provide such instruments, properly executed, to Purchaser on or before the date of Closing. 8. Both Owner and Purchaser agree that time is of the essence in regard to the closing, and that therefore Closing shall occur within forty -five (45) days from the date of execution of this Agreement by the Purchaser; provided, however, that Purchaser shall have the unilateral right to extend the term of this Agreement pending receipt of such instruments, properly executed, which either remove or release any and all such liens, encumbrances or qualifications affecting Purchaser's enjoyment of the Property. At Closing, Purchaser shall deliver the County Warrant to Owner and Owner shall deliver a properly executed Warranty Deed in respect of the fee simple interest and properly executed easement instruments in respect of the easement interests to be acquired, to Purchaser in a form acceptable to Purchaser. Agenda Item No, February 22, Page 3 Page 6 Owner represents that the Property and all uses of the Property have been and presently are in compliance with all Federal, State and Local environmental laws; that no hazardous substances have been generated, stored, treated or transferred on the Property except as specifically disclosed to the Purchaser; that the Owner has no knowledge of any spill or environmental law violation on any property contiguous to or in the vicinity of the Property to be sold to the Purchaser, that the Owner has not received notice and otherwise has no knowledge of a) any spill on the Property, b) any existing or threatened environmental lien against the Property or c) any lawsuit, proceeding or investigation regarding the generation, storage, treatment, spill or transfer of hazardous substances on the Property. This provision shall survive Closing and is not deemed satisfied by conveyance of title. 10. Owner shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the Purchaser against and from, and to reimburse the Purchaser with respect to, any and all damages, claims, liabilities, laws, costs and expenses (including without limitation reasonable paralegal and attorney fees and expenses whether in court, out of court, in bankruptcy or administrative proceedings or on appeal), penalties or fines incurred by or asserted against the Purchaser by reason or arising out of the breach of Owner's representation under Section 9.. This provision shall survive Closing and is not deemed satisfied by conveyance of title. 11. Purchaser shall pay all fees to record any curative instruments required to clear title, all Warranty Deed and Easement recording fees, and any and all costs and /or fees associated with securing and recording a Release or Subordination of any mortgage, lien or other encumbrance recorded against the Property; provided, however, that any apportionment and distribution of the full compensation amount in Paragraph 6 which may be required by any mortgagee, lien- holder or other encumbrance - holder for the protection of its security interest or as consideration for the execution of any release, subordination or satisfaction, shall be the responsibility of the Owner, and shall be deducted on the Closing Statement from the compensation payable to the Owner per Paragraph 6. 12. If the Owner holds the Property in the form of a partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust or any form of representative capacity whatsoever for others, Owner shall make a written public disclosure, according to Chapter 286, Florida Statutes, under oath, of the name and address of every person having a beneficial interest in the Property before the Property held in such capacity is conveyed to Purchaser, its successors and assigns. (If the corporation is registered with the Federal Securities Exchange Commission or registered pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, whose stock is for sale to the general public, it is hereby exempt from the provisions of Chapter 286, Florida Statutes.) 13. Purchaser shall carry out the Construction Works at its expense, including design costs, as part of the expansion of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (Collier County Project No. 60169) (hereinafter referred to as "the Project "). The new entry wall features will be constructed on the east and west sides of the entrance to Skyway Drive and will incorporate sign panels. The parties will coordinate and cooperate with each other and with Shadowood Villas to agree upon the color and design of the entry wall features and sign panels. If the parties do not reach agreement on the color and design of the entry wall features and sign panels by April 30, 2005, then Purchaser shall use its best efforts to match the color and design of the existing entry wall features and sign panels. The entry wall feature on the west side of Skyway Drive will tie into and match the noise abatement wall which Purchaser will be constructing along the Shadowood Villas frontage on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The entrance signs will be skewed as shown in the plan view attached hereto and construction will be of the post and panel type. A drainage swale will be constructed along the end of the Owner's runway as part of the Project. The 21 Agenda Item No. February 22, Page 4 Page 7 Swale will direct flow to the canal at the east edge of the runway. The shoulder of the road will be constructed such that runoff within the road right -of -way will be directed towards the roadway. 14. Conveyance of the Property by Owner is contingent upon no other provisions, conditions, or premises other than those so stated herein; and this written Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, shall constitute the entire Agreement and understanding of the parties, and there are no other prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreements, undertakings, promises, warranties, or covenants not contained herein. 15. Owner is aware and understands that the 'offer" to purchase represented by this Agreement is subject to acceptance and approval by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 16. This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof shall be effective as of the date this Agreement is executed by both parties and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, successor trustees, and /or assignees, whenever the context so requires or admits. 17. This Agreement is governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this day of 2005. AS TO PURCHASER: DATED: ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk AS TO OWNER: DATED: z 71 Witness (Signature) W MuIZZ4�'J Name (Print or Type) Witne (Signature) Name (Print or ybe) Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney BY: Fred W. Coyle, Chairman WING SOUTH, INC., a not for profit Florida corporation BY: � Roy ers, Pr ident B5 05 21 Agenda Item No. 1 February 22, Page 8 c SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL NO, .111 PROPERTY OWNER: WNG SOUTH AIRPARK REFERENCE: CoNDOIaiHtuu p.e. a. pG AR SCALE. 1" = 80' STRAP NO.: 50251 61 8 4o0a5eis t AREA OF TAKE. a.o52 AcREs AREA OF REMAINDER: x.xx ACRES n+ I SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST I N n 1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT D.E., U.E t<r A.E. << W N NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB PLAT BOOK 33, PAGES 7 THRU 15 1p c In i� aW T91/NAPLES UNITED PARTNERSHIP g '2 STRAP /' 506900 FD 15815 + mir la+E or saunt'*ST WA=TER SECT M t5. nw. Sa S. WE Tr E •3170 H 007r'IY w t]SIJr saw k EAS, umr GF sw7w -Asr aum h r� C OF SOUTHEAST WMRF A8¢x SECWN t5, W. SO S, xx 13 f lay f r. y I ti I W W = W <�o rce i c I N i I b OW Fit Rn s J� d I yNN ;oaO�� ysg� U 1 O 3 In Ro i 4 1 �U�o a� i3 3lZ� I o IS Z� tiny ai �v �4 nj N(S p yy 2 ` n �l�a�yp W W �du } 40ypyppyppps6� §{i.�Ix'S�' w �..1•� �¢p7 xg9< W { 2 22 4 w o CL a .ta37 � I gig o aoN a {aa� �§ _ N 8a� _o N � IE Q. �dI J g I • zl8 Q � Ir J g ,OGaD U PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE { ROAD RIGHT-OF-My, DRAINAGE I E AND UTILITY EASEMENT a HI6IT f� + a9e.�._o— f a ! K -- P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT I P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R.O.W. = RIGHT —OF —WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 1 OF 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 114 UNNE CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DIVISION no, NOIS Mae: sou mews■ RHBR 'k BY: n0"• • 1 /15/04 owns" GEORGE-W. ACKN Y, P.S.M. N0. 5606 PrOfs"■ RUNOsem, 7/27/04 C.0- C on�l a "Qx". ? t— A..t k land 311T►3IL SCALE: 1' = 80' DATE: SEPT. 29. 2003 C.0- e...p wd,. ur. " lk d.7 w-L N. tWl... n = rupn -n„ DRAWN BY: ,3,, lwr ...b 3t...1, r.n �... n unt ruW+ -uu JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 e..us..,..r bN►rLWw x... V so" W Y MM r..:.uy.. -oes ACAD NO: 8668 —SD13 FILE NO: 8668 f21 Agenda Item No. YSBE February 22, DOE Paqe 9 If 21 SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 114 ALL THAT PART OF SKYWAY DRIVE ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 46, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; THE SOUTHERLY 17.50 FEET OF SKYWAY DRIVE; CONTAINING 0.040 OF AN ACRE OF LAND MORE OR LESS; EXHIBIT A Page _of 2,_ PERPETUAL, NON - EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT- OF-MY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 2 OF 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 114 CLIENT: COWER COUNTY 75ANSPORTATION 01 SION ::::V NotJ . .s.. i�iisi HER 'k BY: ons GEORGE­ . HA KNE , ...M. NO. 5606 ii RUNDAGEA". 7/27/04 Pmfesslonal enjlneen, planners, k land surveyars SCALE: N T. S. DATE: sEPT. 29. 200; e.m.r 0—tn mw sN, +ass r—A w mu. )1 . 1 n.sl.., n wN NI n -ul' DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 I.. W—ir 0Y1. 101, Aug 1w4+ Olrrl, lw1 W.r.. 11 ONN �Nl�s7 -0111 a.anaaa .r ewn..ur x.. W 8644 r0 is u1{ an 041 0-1001 ACAD NO: B668 —SD13 FILE N0: 8666 Agenda Item No, February 22, Page 10 SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL ND. 714 PROPERTY OWNER: tntrc scum AIRPARK SCALE: 1" = 80' REFERENCE: CONDOMINIUM P.B. 4, PC 46 STRAP NO.: 302616164.000SBIB 4� 6 1 + b 1 SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST I N n I N .1 FUTURE DEWLOPMENT D.E., M.E. & A.E. NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB PLAT BOOK 33, PAGES 7 THRU 15� 9 Q L R du TBI/NAPLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP °p I $ I lx STRAP 0 506900 FD 15815 HEST U$ Of SOURIaEST QUARTER N Fiz SEC710N 13, 7NP. SO S, ROE. 20 E ♦OS03 ♦0170 30.01' 3p, H OO'1017 W ISJ130 EAST LME K SOUTHEAST OUANMR ^7 W OF SWTWAST WARIER m d I N SECRON 10, nW. SO S. ROE. 30 E. f3 w :e � � i y� y11 4 4 y� I ^ U v$ tYYY7>ri 11zK. h� < 4>lg a15 I 3 1 io88�$ .d SW �0 K� I Q 1 nzxzzx B oa gi 0 > z i C {5 I \ V W A96.00 rc ti 4— a Qtiayb CE (Z 1JI.00 y h IL � I o n Q -„ I � « N u u Q oNp of Q U i S 4p Q ffff GC ° 3[ u x TEMPORARY DRIVEWAYN� RESTORATION EASEMENT o U i I F-XF IBIT,___ a p I Pao z p W N Itl w i3 I . P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT I 1 P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R, O. W. = RIGHT —OF —WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 1 OF 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 714 ■rr■ CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY T DIVISION Room GNQLI ION: I ruu ■rar■ urr■ ER •k BY: rrrr■ 1/15/04 EORGE W. H CKNEY, P.S.M. NO. 5606 iiiiii RUNDAGE, —. PEOtrealonal anrineere, plannan, k land surlayon 7/27/04 SCALE: 1" 80' DATE: OCT. 6. 2003 I- C c.aap, 946 . M, 7490 i a ft 4W, r..11,; M.y.., fl, N/N 641pn -01H DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 W G,r� arl. {al, ww r.ae.l aw.4 1.M1 rl.n, R clew 641) "1 -1111 C.M— .1 Arta. .r IM. nl dw W O ww I— (((641µw-49" ACAD NO: 8672 -SD15 FILE NO: 8672 B5 05 21 Agenda Item No. February 22, Pape 11 SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 714 ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING PART WING SOUTH AIRPARK (SKYWAY DRIVE) PROPERTY LYING NORTHERLY OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R. 864) AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SKYWAY DRIVE SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SHADOWOOD VILLAS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGES 86 AND 87 PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD A DISTANCE OF 20.33 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LWE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 17.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED: THENCE SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST ALONG A LINE 17.50 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 67.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 13.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'15'45" WEST ALONG A LINE 31.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 72.31 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 20'44'22" EAST A DISTANCE OF 14.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 940 SQUARE FEET OF LAND MORE OR LESS; TEMPORARY ORNEWAY WTORATM EASEMENT �Ci1 Nola 1.11 i ER k mill RUNDAGE,- ProlaDDlanal anglnsen, plannen, k land mrrDporD a.lyw c. " wa W. 1N1 irL�i ir.14 MwYi ayW. R NIN NI D7 -Dlll V� G"elr w" lot, am IWbr D 0. llu/ Ws�. R DNN NI f41 /l CNIW.b f lsawlrar f.. 121 NN W 111 DDN rm MIND -uN EXHIBIT S page ,... 1.,of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 2 OF 2 'SCRIPTION: PARCEL 714 8Y: E GE W. HAC NEY, P.S.M. N0, 5606 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE:_ OCT. 6. DRAWN BY; JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 ACAD N0: X72 -SO15 FILE NO: 8672 21 Agenda Item Na. 16BE February 22, OOF Page 12 If 21 SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL NO, 714 —A PROPERTY OWNER: wNG SOOTi AIRPARK REFERENCE: CONDOMWIUM P.B. 4. Pc 46 STRAP NO.: 502616164.0005816 AREA OF TAKE: 512 S.F. AREA OF REMAINDER: x.xx s.F. i SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST FUTURE DEVELOPMENT D.E., M.E. & A.E. NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB PLAT BOOK 33, PAGES 7 THRU 15 �i �o In v j � Iv �ti § °o l: + IN �. N W I ai h� I ^� I W I V I � I e I 5 of s NI ti9 1� ti o t�SMitl D �^ bbl � a I W h 1\ �1.SS 0 TEMPORARY S N0 CONSTRUCTLpN EASEMENT ' iE ilia L) F� 9 I g I� N H d --Z:—z- -Q SCALE: 1" = 80' � I R�$ I � l 121 7B11WAPLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ' STRAP 4 506900 FD 15915 Y yy, HEST IRE Of SOUM" WAR/ER ce � I SECRON ids TW.. 50 1, ROE N C I y N 009517 W 1 � W N FAST tYlE I SOU MEAST OUARIFR rsa ij � OF SQIRIEAST OUARMt WWW3 In�.I �A i SECTION 1S. TIP. SO 1. ROE Is E yy W 8�B = 8 t1•iN2 � zz v3 IS �, I IR I I�pp •. In in I I EXAMIT ; nT t Of a 3 Ali it i �i �o In v j � Iv �ti § °o l: + IN �. N W I ai h� I ^� I W I V I � I e I 5 of s NI ti9 1� ti o t�SMitl D �^ bbl � a I W h 1\ �1.SS 0 TEMPORARY S N0 CONSTRUCTLpN EASEMENT ' iE ilia L) F� 9 I g I� N H d --Z:—z- -Q SCALE: 1" = 80' � I R�$ I � l 121 5 1.4, yyak K I g I `• i� ' f I Y yy, ce � I I y � W N I rsa ij � sZ WWW3 In�.I �A <��yyyy77 yy \ 1L = 8 t1•iN2 zz v3 IS �, I IR I d U in I I EXAMIT 5 1.4, yyak K I g I `• �n07n f I ce � I I y � W N I rsa ij � sZ I <��yyyy77 yy \ 1L o 8 zz v3 IS �, I IR I d U in I I EXAMIT c Pagb t Of a P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT I P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R.O.W. = RIGHT —OF —WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 1 OF 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 714 -A ■au CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPOR ATION D(\ASION ""1111 VGNIOU S . BY: wasoBSR k GEOR E W. HAP NEY, P.S.M. NO. 5606 ����van UNDAGE,- Protndon(1 Oaslne ni, plane+, k land C11r vyon SCALE: 1" — 80' DATE: JULY, 27, 2004 Cw.. O 10` .. M. ?w wWW t.w. R..IM R.fI.., n ".0. lwI� n -"I DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 1.. C". r 5.n. 101, 1w 2-07 91-04 fw y1..., n owl INf) ia» -.w C.."A -w N A.t►..1..u.. > 10 YN W L 1M1 V— NI h1.0 ACAD NO: 9672 —SD26 FILE NO: 8672 Agenda Item No. February 22, `—Pficle 13 SECTION 76, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 714 -A ALL THAT PART OF SKYWAY DRIVE ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 46, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SKYWAY DRIVE SAID CORNER LYING ON THE NORTH. RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SHADOWOOD VILLAS; THENCE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SKYWAY DRIVE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SHADOWOOD VILLAS A DISTANCE OF 2.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 205.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY AND EASTERLY LINES THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4'12'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 15.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY AND EASTERLY LINES THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8'37'41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY AND EASTERLY LINES SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 13.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20'44'22° EAST A DISTANCE OF 32.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'15'45" WEST A DISTANCE OF 20.89 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED WESTERLY LINE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 512 SQUARE FEET OF LAND MORE OR LESS; TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT we'd jr NOLI G • �w BR d i�an NDAGE,- Protaaatonal englnaan, planners, A land sur yon C". e o.eatr sen. ass. ys® I_ww r w. r.,w a.µw n wes tw n -a„ �. e.say: sw" us, tM a- &y nr..l* nn i= n ssw iw wraus e.,ua.,w w A ih w.u.. w.. u "" w sa nu 1— sit -seas EXHIBIT C Page 2�Of LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 2 OF 2 -SCRIPTION: PARCEL 714 -A B Y: FOR E W. FfACK T�) P.S.M. NO. 5806 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: J11I Y 27 2004 DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 ACAD NO:A672 -SD26 FILE NO:_ 8672. B5 21 Agenda Item No. BE February 22, If OE Page 14 21 SECTION 76, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL NO. 1 i 5 PROPERTY OWNER: WING SOUTH AIRPARK REFERENCE: O.R 59J. PG JOI I w STRAP NO.: soze1e1b40005ele �IW I I° n N AREA OF TAKE. ..102 6CRE5 ! n>e N AREA OF REMAINDER: X,xx ACRES t i 6W I �� U SCALE. 7" SECIION 15, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST + 43 In 4 1 ra IOU �+ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT D.E., M.E. t A.E. NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB r o $ I N- PLAT BOOK 33, PAGES 7 THRU 15 I r "o w Y I � o 7B1/NAPLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STRAP 1 506900 FO 15815 f Z z U I N ilk a Tlyl I ci F P.O.B. 1 aW2IX t w KST LINE a SOUTOME51 auAR-11-\ .es.ss seem. ls, Twv. so s., Ham' -'i•IT w I EAST am OF SOUn1EAST GOARTER OF SOUTHEAST OUARTI91 M W SECTION 16. nV. Se S. ROE. 26 C t (,T ytl Si N CL: 3 I LpS "1 W O I'j G� �� QN._ q;r w 3 ■ I 94'9'• N V w �s W �Oc eo (� c�a G o � z e o h v u U j 8p SI � t 8 It X2 \`` 1— N (J �v$ � ,, g � � _ ,last — � I ? w 6 4p u N iNa� U��jNo /y, lie l0 1 h C H� y I%iI� ' "cp p FEE SIMPLE I G '' Z INTEREST N l +9 1 11W N I � FOLIO NO. C�i� -�[oC< o� i�F Hf Bl Of P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT a Iy P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R.O.W. = RIGHT —OF —WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 1 OF 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 115 ■ ■ ■■■ CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DIVISION iiii GNOI1 sm ii=i RBER• k BY: ■ ■. ■ ■■ 1/15/04 GEORGE W. HACKNEY, P.S.M, NO. 5606 RUNDAGE,— Profsaslo■►1 en4lnesn, planners, k land suraeyors SCALE: 1" — 80' DATE: SEPT 29. 20U w1u.r r.asV. W4 410, 7441 TwWl Tr W. R.rlal 11y1o, n "1" (941 n -eu1 DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 L. 0. Ir amt. 141, 1418 ■ &a W-L Vr Xy r K 41861 (141 , -.I e.r01■u1" t A.1ld."a.a 11— 111 8694 —4 0 4194 1— .41 86 -041 ACAD NO: 8668 —SDI 4 FILE NO: 8668 Agenda Item No. 16B5 February 22, 005 Page 15 If 21 SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 115 ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF TIIE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE NORTH 0'19'17" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 16 A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF A RUNWAY AND TAXI EASEMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 593 PAGE 301 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 69'15' 45" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT A DISTANCE OF 255.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID EASEMENT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT A DISTANCE OF 2.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'40'36" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 15.08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST ALONG A LINE 17.50 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 255.19 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE SOUTH 0'19'17" EAST A DISTANCE OF 17.50 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE AFORESAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 0.102 OF AN ACRE OF LAND MORE OR LESS; FEE SIMPLE INTEREST EXHIBIT D page 'of 2 FOLIO NO.,W''4 ,�51 `'ti1) LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 2 OF 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 115 CLIENT. COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPOR7ATlON DIVISION iiii 'NOId ■s• BY: iiiii RRBR'k wage. 1/15/04 GEORGE W. H C EY, P.S.M. 140. 5606 f1■ ■/ wiu RUNDAGB,e SCALE: N T.S: DATE:,,FPT. 29. 200 Prelaulood englnaere, planner., k lend {urvayon -- Ginn G.uM emu �• rlb L.m1ul YY.tI. Yvu1 Ye.l.e, n {170{ euMer -{tu DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 4. Golr. em,. lel, ,et{ am4r e,r..�. Int Wna n Neet ell tat - {tll lulu -eau ACAD N0: 8668D14 FILE NO: 8668 PA i CF� ° _ 6z eaa E Pg o a YZ� R 9s fly; �EE» 6_a D D VI m >>> 0mj o >2 A . m O m o� Z O Z o U� w Kw m zvM � 000 FAi AP n o m 2 V n (T WMC SOUTH A6TPARK m O O PRIVATE WLLA!� WC. =zz » O.R. 2203, PG 76 it v 0 z I 000 I r n n 0 Q) C o I m z ➢ ; GmO {Zm M i Z z -Zj n � � � m � rn z m 0 SHADDW000 WlIAS PUT 600K 23, —t PAGES 86 THRU 87 0 n' TRACT A' M �I➢ y r z O I LA LA D n � A Zort _I rvr1.1¢ cn j Z ID O N A to N 233+00 PARCEL 714 PavOga s0. =� uro'ra�r ugro„ — — — _ G!lLERI Tae K brTl, ur � waMAtr an.=la �— — Taenw rwaw�rASwr oweTTS Tr nzASr = rr ,w»c,s, aweRR -� z w¢ m c w0. � �r aT,.TTR tTrea, rr. s A¢ n c FAi AP n o m 2 V (T WMC SOUTH A6TPARK PRIVATE WLLA!� WC. i » O.R. 2203, PG 76 it v L STRAP / 625800.15816 I r 6 �n2 O of y � N n 0 Q) C SHADOWOOD PLAT BOOR 19, 1 rG PACES 78 THRU 79, r it SECT70N 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, � I`I RANCE 26 EAST t try v 1 PARCEL 815 239 +00 n s � � r QD �♦: STA AHEAD.' 2J7+66.SB ?i A Z RUNWAY AND MOWAY EASSONT TTl O.R BOOK 583 (� � AP GE PA JO/ CONOOWWUY —]0' 1 aCWA¢ FwYrEllr fa=. . rc ors-mq PLAT BOOK 4. PAGE 46 1 1 ONO SOUTH AIRPARK STRAP / 1 STRAP 502616r61.OD058f6 502816I6a.0005816 1 PARCEL 774 -A PARCEL rcc 23 00 1� PCEL 715 - ri►.sa � :¢:r�.ary rt� Big' rur4YDAxr rN�.�7 .7— r r m �°'^Er °"sue Trcwx urc 1r��6r ie°¢ m � J i �_ }• RATTLMAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (r-R. 864) (100' R.O.W.) 6`°"O..�m"� •` ASSOCA TED REAL EsTA TE sW, INC. ra.o rrr nna O.R. BOOK 1134, PAGES 936 THRU 936 M'Q�Adf uomAAwr / m� STRAP / 5028210pf.0(DS821 V7E MX9d1 661mIG I tr �rs6 x wViY6' F SECTION 21, TONPTSWP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST fT i. ,F.so H w+.nr r � 1 , I.s am s anrlr r Agenda Item No. 1685 February= 22, 2005 Page 16 of 21 a m � �m FAi AP n o m 2 V (T it v 6 �n2 O of y � N n 0 Q) C CmR G n q � I`I i J v PARCEL 815 239 +00 - {� xb.r r ar Awsuv rt awn QD �♦: STA AHEAD.' 2J7+66.SB ?i A Z K�rnrTi="s a srcnorl rzJ TTl COLLEt'E PARK HOLDWGS LTD O.R. BOOK 2443, 234962YM 2350 (� � AP SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP So SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Agenda Item0. 1 B5 February 22, 2 05 Pap 17 o 21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF t.C.e. PARCEL 715 ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING PART OF WING SOUTH AIRPARK PROPERTY LYING NORTHERLY OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R. 864) AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SKYWAY DRIVE SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SHADOWOOD VILLAS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGES 86 AND 87 PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD A DISTANCE OF 87.33 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 17.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 13.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'15'45" WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0'44'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 16.5D FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 234.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0'19'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 30.01FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'15'45" WEST ALONG A LINE 17.50 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 230.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 0.160 OF AN ACRE MORE OR LESS; EXHIBIT ---r. �?�o' E Pa TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 2 OF 2 AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: I DESCRIPTION; PARCEL 715 a,", uuv l: IiiII.- NOLI ■o all!i RRER & 2/6i .-s .- .-H RUNDACE,.a 7 27 proteaelol anp n naars, planners, k land . ayon na f+ww Caaatn edu 800. 7N ra. nw. kom p pN.. R moo (0u10n -ells 4. Gaeta "t. 101, son N.Nq W.I. rest ryes, rt 01x01 (40p7 -illl GsUSe.4 .t "w d*.Uw Nu. 4 4101 u1 = 4114 rui 041)&01 -am BY: 'DECK -GE W. HACKN", P.S.M. NO. 5606 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: OCT. 6. 2003 DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 ACAD NO:8672 -5016 FILE NO: 8672 Jt(-IIUIV rb, IUWN. H/P 5U SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY Ft nRlnQ A- PARCEL NO. 615 PROPERTY OWNER: "NG SouTH AIRVARK REFERENCE: 6.R 583. PG 3m STRAP NO.: 5o261o164 0005818 SCALE: 1 " = 80' SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST FUTURE DEVELOPMENT D.E., M.E. do A.E. NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB PLAT BOOK 33, PAGES 7 THRU 15 T8111YAPLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STRAP / 506900 F0 15815 NEST LIRE OF SOUTHWEST (VARIER SECIM Iq rep. So 1. ROE. )T E. O W U FOB 4.4' wuvwEHT (1 11 ! � �d if + I I N It l� b -n < I� { + Iz a 1'I ^Wv r N N 1z In IA N 7 W IJJJ. JS Rn CAST LWE OF SWg1U5T WARIER (! 1WINEASr WARTEq N SECnON le, rWP. 501, ROE. Se E W 3 4 =d a Ic a� h Uk cc �N I a I Oa U) b � � �2 <01 In d FOB 4.4' wuvwEHT (1 11 ! � �d if + I I N It l� b -n < I� { + Iz a 1'I ^Wv r N N 1z In IA PERPETUAL, NON - EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOLIO NO. [��)-062lr(�`�> P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R.O.W. = RIGHT -OF -WAY �CO CO N m l0 U THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY MONO N 1 iiiii BSR'k in MAIN RUNDAGE,wc. Professional engines-. planner, k land surveyors C.W.r C.-te, s"U too, 9100 T. dNaJ 7, q..1►; Wqh., R lelle �T01�077 -till I.. C.W p W4 101. 1W U-47 Z..R T S My. 6level e{I 09 -eliI C.'UH.0 .r d.a..L.ou X.. le 0Ul ..e as NON ).n III M / -eele z" 01 � I d I I 0 I N IN a b wa 19 a a Ap �f S Februart Pag w W Cj N"l O z� Y � (L a N4N F m N a I UWJ I In Rn 101: � N -. If 3 4 =d a Ic a� h Uk cc �N I a I Oa >_ �' � y�N K � o <01 In d k� n a A 4d µpill z PERPETUAL, NON - EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOLIO NO. [��)-062lr(�`�> P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R.O.W. = RIGHT -OF -WAY �CO CO N m l0 U THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY MONO N 1 iiiii BSR'k in MAIN RUNDAGE,wc. Professional engines-. planner, k land surveyors C.W.r C.-te, s"U too, 9100 T. dNaJ 7, q..1►; Wqh., R lelle �T01�077 -till I.. C.W p W4 101. 1W U-47 Z..R T S My. 6level e{I 09 -eliI C.'UH.0 .r d.a..L.ou X.. le 0Ul ..e as NON ).n III M / -eele z" 01 � I d I I 0 I N IN a b wa 19 a a Ap �f S Februart Pag w W Cj N"l O z� Y � (L a N4N F m N a I UWJ I In -. If 3 4 _Il4 O O,n � h 3r PERPETUAL, NON - EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOLIO NO. [��)-062lr(�`�> P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCMENT P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING R.O.W. = RIGHT -OF -WAY �CO CO N m l0 U THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY MONO N 1 iiiii BSR'k in MAIN RUNDAGE,wc. Professional engines-. planner, k land surveyors C.W.r C.-te, s"U too, 9100 T. dNaJ 7, q..1►; Wqh., R lelle �T01�077 -till I.. C.W p W4 101. 1W U-47 Z..R T S My. 6level e{I 09 -eliI C.'UH.0 .r d.a..L.ou X.. le 0Ul ..e as NON ).n III M / -eele z" 01 � I d I I 0 I N IN a b wa 19 a a Ap �f S Februart Pag w W Cj N"l O z� Y � (L a N4N F m N a I UWJ I In LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET t OF 2 _SCRIPTION: PARCEL 815 B Y: 12 GEO GE W. HACKN P.S.M. NO. 5606 SCALE: 1" = 80' DATE: MT. 7. 2003 DRAWN BY; JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 ACAD NO:8672 -SD17 FILE N0: 8672 22,105 18 21 -. If 3 4 zzg]xhn2 � I I LO � y�N K 1 <01 In n a A µpill z 1 41n >0 1 I � ROf N a z o a W �8 G CHiBIT_. 'aael I of LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET t OF 2 _SCRIPTION: PARCEL 815 B Y: 12 GEO GE W. HACKN P.S.M. NO. 5606 SCALE: 1" = 80' DATE: MT. 7. 2003 DRAWN BY; JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 ACAD NO:8672 -SD17 FILE N0: 8672 22,105 18 21 �t �.rrvry rv, Ivvvly -)III - ✓l1 JVUII -1, nmivur- LU CM31 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Agenda item 0. 1 B5 Februa 22, 05 ,acl 19 21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 815 ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LYING NORTHERLY OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R. 864) (100' RIGHT OF WAY) AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE NORTH 0'19'17" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 0'19'17" WEST At_ONG SAID EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 17.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 0'19'17" WEST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; -THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 89'15'45" WEST ALONG A LINE 37.50 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 36.89 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 0'19'17" EAST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'15'45" EAST ALONG A LINE 17.50 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID RIGHT OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 36.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF 8EGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 738 SQUARE FEET OF LAND MORE OR LESS; PERPETUAL, NON - EXCLUSIVE ]DRAINAGE EASEMENT EXHIBIT F PS9 _e? ,of- FOLIO NO.c�O��1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH SHEET 2. OF 2_ DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH PREPARED BY: I DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 815 CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY 1HANSPORIA]IUN Ul VI51UN III ai;l NOW : Blii RHER & 8Y: ■ 2/6/04 G 0 s iACKNE P.S.M. N0. 5606 mass RUNDAGE,.a Proteaefonel engineer., planner•, k lend mrrgoro SCALE: N T S. DATE: OCT 7: 2003 c.Ul. c.o.tr, Wt. a00, 7400 T-9-9 71.u, x..tn: x.*w, n eeYae 916 9n -atii DRAWN BY: JAN PROJECT NO.: 8315 U. C.eeq: adi. set, 1689 7 47 Mot, hn 7y.n, n 16901 �9u3a7 -1616 coud..r .1 n.a.n..u.. s... u ae4 w n 0064 rm ut 64 -e+0t ACAD NO: 8672 -SD17 FILE NO: 5672 \ \ Agenda Item No. 16135 \ February 22. 2005 1 Page 20 of 21 PROPOSED TCE r - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - /' \ PROPOSED TORE EXIST WALL PROPOSED R/W EXIST R/W 234 +00 235 +00 236 +00 -- - - -- CD - L------- - - - - -J 0 � N M I HXa Agenda Item No. 16135 February 22, 2005 0--- ')1 of 91 NEW= Sam in�glig -all rME Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve, sign and execute a coordination agreement between Collier County, as Community Transportation Coordinator, and the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. OBJECTIVE: To acquire Board approval to execute a coordination agreement between Collier County, as Community Transportation Coordinator, and the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. CONSIDERATION: David Lawrence Mental Health Center has requested that Collier County, in its role as the Community Transportation Coordinator, enter into a coordination agreement to support their 5310 grant application for vehicles for the purpose of transporting individuals who have been determined to be disabled. David Lawrence Mental Health Center represents that if the funding is approved, the funding will be utilized solely in the manner set forth in the grant application and in accordance with all applicable lawful requirements. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact for Collier County Board of County Commissioners. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with Objective 12 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the execution of the agreement between Collier County, as Community Transportation Coordinator, and the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Prepared by: Lisa Hendrickson, Senior Planner, Alternative Transportation Modes Attachments: Coordination Agreement Exhibit A: 5310 Application Agenda Item No. 16136 February 22, 2005 Page 2 Of 35 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16B8 Item Summary Recommendation In appmve. sign a!-,d e-We a cuordln.tion agreement between Collier Cmlmy. as Comm -fty TranSponabon Cocminator, and the David Lawrence Mental Health Cente, . Inc. Meeting Date 2i2212005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Oate Lisa Hendrickson Manayem.artifiudgei Analyst 11812005 12:04:27 PM T'runsportlon Srrvlcns Traffic Opexetionsi ATM Approved By Lisa Hendrickson Manapementilludgcf A.idysl Date Transpnrtion >pNlnC.s Traflir. Operati... f ATM 2181200512:04 PM Approved By Jeff Itlatrk— Assistant County Attorney Date County Attnrn.y Coumy Attorney Office 21912005 4:08 PM Approved By !)—,clor of Ahe —tive Transpmtatior, Diane B. Flagg Dalc Modes ATM nirector 1,,— ponion Sers— All .... tiae Tranup-TA.nn Modes 2/912005 5:27 PM Approved By Nnrrn E. Feder, AMP 7runspnrfatian Oirvkian Adn,m slralor Gate. Transportion Services Tranappnation Services Admin. 2110(2005 6:72 AM Approved By Pat Lellnitard Executive Secretary Date Transf— tat,nn S.rvu:as 'I'ranspnrtanpn Services Admin 2:1012005 10:16 AM Approved By OMB Caordi-wr Admimatr.h- Assistant Daic County Manager's Or— Office of Management R Budget 2/1012005 4:22 PM Approved By Mlchaet Srnykuwski 8 Budget Oileclor Oat. County Manager's Office Office of Management K Budge 2111!2005 4:71 PM Approved By Jnmes V. Mudd County Manager Date Basud of County fommissinn.rs Cnnnfy Off—. 2114(2005 3.40 PM Agenda Item No, 16B6 February 22, 2005 Pagg 3 of 35 COORDINATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, AS COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR AND DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. WHEREAS, Collier County, in its role as the Community Transportation Coordinator for Collier County (hereinafter referred to as "CTC ") has initiated a program to provide community transportation service for social service clients, agencies, and organizations, provided such service complies with Chapter 427, Florida Statutes and Chapters 41 -2 and 19 -90, Florida Administrative Code, and; WHEREAS, David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Agency) is a bonafide not - for - profit private agency operating in Collier County which has submitted an application with the State of Florida Department of Transportation for a Section 5310 Program Grant (hereinafter referred to as "Grant Application "); and WHEREAS, for the purpose of making the Grant Application the Agency has requested that County as Community Transportation Coordinator enter into this Coordination Agreement, which County is willing to do based on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration exchanged amongst the parties, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and shall be fully incorporated herein and form a substantial part of the basis for this Agreement. 2. The Agency hereby represents to the CTC that all statements set forth in the Grant Application are true and correct and may be relied upon by the CTC in entering into this Agreement. A copy of the Grant Application is attached as Exhibit "A ". 3. The Grant Application requests funding for two mid -size, 4 door sedans for the purpose of transporting individuals who have been determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration throughout all of Collier County, including Everglades City and Immokalee. The Agency represents to the CTC that if the funding is approved, the funding will be utilized solely in the manner set forth in the Grant Application and in accordance with all applicable lawful requirements. 4. The Agency will keep a log for each vehicle detailing all trips made by the vehicles, on a form acceptable to the CTC. The Agency shall provide CTC with a copy of each log on a monthly basis, or within 5 business days following CTC's written request. 5. If the CTC determines that the vehicles are not being fully utilized by the Agency for the purposes set forth in the Grant Application, at CTC's written request Agency shall make the vehicles available to the CTC for the transport of qualified disabled individuals within Collier Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 35 County. The CTC shall compensate Agency for such trips according to the Fee Structure set forth in Exhibit `B ". Failure by the Agency to substantially abide by this provision shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement. 6. The Agency shall operate the vehicles in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Among other requirements, prior to commencing such operation, the Agency will: (a) develop, implement and abide by a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP); (b) obtain and then maintain at all times $1,000,000.00 in liability coverage and $1,000,000.00 in comprehensive coverage for each vehicle; (c) conduct a criminal background screening, pre- employment drug screening, and pre - employment physical for all drivers. The Agency will provide training to include safety, vehicle operations, and passenger sensitivity in accordance with Florida Statutes 427. 7. The Agency will submit an Annual Operating Report, Certifications of Compliance, Federal Transit Administration Drug and Alcohol Reports and quality assurance report to the CTC at each annual anniversary of the date of this Agreement, or within 10 business days following written demand by the CTC. 8. The Agency shall indemnify and hold harmless Collier County, its employees, officers, agents and volunteers from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, fees, fines, penalties, defense costs (including attorneys fees and court costs, whether such fees and costs are incurred in negotiations, collection of attorneys' fees or at the trial level or on appeal), suits or liabilities which may arise out of any actual or alleged negligent act, error, omission, or any default of the Agency (or Agency's officers, employees, agents, volunteers and subcontractors, if any) performance or failure to perform under the terms of this contract. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 9. This Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with all relevant existing State or Federal laws, as well as any applicable State or Federal laws enacted after the execution of this Agreement. No changes to this Agreement or the performance contemplated hereunder shall be made unless the same are in writing and signed by both parties hereto or by their successors in interest. This Agreement sets forth all the agreements, terms conditions and understandings, between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein, and there are no agreements, customs, terms, conditions or understandings either oral or written, expressed or implied, between the parties, other than are herein set forth. 10. This Agreement is personal to the Agency. Accordingly, the Agency shall not be allowed in any way to assign, transfer or subcontract any of its rights, duties, and obligations pursuant to the Agreement without the prior written consent of the CTC, which consent may be freely withheld. If approval for assignment is obtained, it shall not release the Agency from any liability or obligation under this Agreement. 11. In the event of a dispute under this Agreement, the parties shall first use the County's Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure as described in Exhibit "C ". Any party to this Agreement shall have the ability to file an action for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 PaQp 5 of 35 Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, said remedy being cumulative within any and all other remedies available to the parties for enforcement of this Agreement. The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida and the venue for any legal or judicial proceedings in connection with the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement shall be in Collier County, Florida. 12. An annual review and audit of performance under this Agreement may be performed by the CTC to determine whether or not there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If the Collier County Board of Commissioners finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement may be revoked or unilaterally modified by the CTC. 13. The Agency will promptly notify the CTC whether the Grant Application has been approved, and this Agreement shall become effective on that approval date. This Agreement shall be in effect until such date that the Agency notifies the CTC in writing that it is no longer utilizing the vehicles in the manner set forth in the Grant Application. 14. Any notices, invoices, reports or any other type of documentation required by this Agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties postage paid in the United States mail, postage paid to the addresses listed below: Agency's Authorized Representative: Name: David Schimmel Title: CFO Address: 6075 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 Telephone: (239) 354 -1425 Fax: (239)455 -6561 CTC's Authorized Representative: Name: Norman Feder Title: Transportation Administrator Address: 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Telephone: 239) 774 -8192 Fax: (239 774 -9370 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written. Attest:. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, By: By: Deputy Clerk Legal Form and Sufficiency: ❑ty Attorney Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 35 WITNESSES: DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC. Print Name: Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER By: Print Name: Print Title: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by , as of David Lawrence Mental Health Center Inc. He /She is [ ] personally known to me, or [ ] has produced driver's license no. as identification. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC Name: (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: Agenda Item No. 16136 February 22, 2005 Pag§ 7 of 35 EXHIBIT A GRANT APPLICATION (to be attached) 1 Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 35 EXHIBIT B FEE STRUCTURE The CTC has established the compensation schedule, which is included in the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP). The Collier County Board of County Commissioners has authorized submission of applicable sections of the TDSP to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The compensation schedule in the TDSP may be updated on an annual basis with its annual submittal. The Agency will be reimbursed at a rate as follows: 1. Ambulatory Random Trip Ambulatory Group Trip Wheelchair Random Trip Wheelchair Group Trip Stretcher Trip Hourly Rate Out of Area Trip Escort 2. Medicaid Billings $ 17.75 $15.00 $27.50 $27.50 $2$.50 +1.50 /mile $45.00 Base Rate plus 1.50 /mile $5.00 1. Copies of all operator Medicaid billings shall be submitted by the Agency to the County weekly. Passenger billing must coincide with the assigned trips. Operators will be paid for only those trips assigned by the CTC. 2. Medicaid will not reimburse for no- shows. 3. There will be a ($ ) charge, to be paid by the individual passenger, for each Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) passenger trip within Collier County. The total amount collected for all one -way TD trips shall be retained by the and deducted from the weekly invoice. Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Pagt 9 of 35 EXHIBIT "C" COLLIER COUNTY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES 1. INTRODUCTION: Florida law provides that written arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable and enforceable. Unless otherwise provided for herein, the provisions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 682.01 et seq. shall be controlling. These provisions provide a mechanism to resolve claims or disputes that could potentially lead to litigation in construction contracts. The object is to attempt to settle claims by mutual agreement or to make a good faith effort to settle claims and disputes prior to litigation in court. The methods involve binding arbitration and pre -suit mediation. Arbitration is a quasi - judicial approach in which a dispute is resolved by a trier of fact after presentations by opposing parties. Its purpose is the speedy and economical resolution of disputes. Arbitration is traditionally a less formal process than court litigation. Mediation is a method used to settle disputes using an impartial person who listens to presentation by both sides and facilitates settlement negotiations between the parties. Collier County will utilize the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court Mediation and Arbitration Program (hereinafter "Court Program "), to facilitate these procedures. 2. DEFINITIONS: 2.1 Claim: A demand by either party to a contract for an equitable adjustment of payment under a Collier County construction contract. A claim should cover all unresolved disputes existing at the time of presentation to arbitration or mediation. 2.2 Evidence: Oral testimony, written or printed material or other things presented to the arbitrators] or mediator[s] as proof of the existence or nonexistence of a pertinent fact. 3. JURISDICTION: 3.1 A claim that does not exceed $250,000.00, excluding interest claimed, shall be submitted w binding arbitration The parties may, by mutual consent, agree to a one - person or single arbitrator panel. Aggregate claims may total more than $250,000.00 for binding arbitration, but no single claim may exceed that amount. 3.2 A claim in excess of $250,000.00 brought pursuant to a construction contract with the county shall be submitted to mediation or binding arbitration if voluntarily agreed to by all parties. All claims less than $250,000.00 and all non - monetary claims brought pursuant to a construction contract with the county must be submitted to binding arbitration. 3.3 Prior to the institution of any litigation in a circuit court against Collier County, this Dispute Resolution process must be initiated. 3.4 Once the dispute resolution procedure has been initiated, a court of law may not consider the issues involved in the claim(s) until the dispute resolution process has been completed. 3.5 The claim must be a dispute between the County and the prime contractor. 3.6 The claim must be related to issues in dispute, which have been previously submitted in good faith to the County pursuant to this procedure and could not be resolved by negotiation. 3.7 Pendency of a claim or arbitration or mediation of a dispute shall not be a basis for delay of the contractor's performance under the contract. 4. INITIATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE: Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Pagegl0 of 35 4.1 Either party shall initiate a request for mediation or arbitration within thirty (30) calendar days after a denial of the claim after negotiation by County staff or no later than forty-five (45) calendar days after knowledge of a claim by claimant. In any event, no claim shall be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claims would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 4.2 Upon request, the County will make available to any party wishing to initiate arbitration or mediation, a procedural package containing the necessary forms. The forms shall include a Notice of Claim, a Request for Negotiation, a Request for Arbitration and a Request for Mediation. The County's Purchasing Department shall have these forms available and they will be included in the County's bid package. 4.3 Either party to the contract may initiate arbitration or mediation of a claim by submitting a Request for Arbitration or a Request for Mediation Claim Form to the Purchasing Department The initiating party must indicate on the form whether or not they will be represented by counsel during the hearing and may indicate a desire to resolve the claim based solely on a submittal of documents by the parties with no hearing. 4.4 The Claim Form shall be accompanied by: a. A brief summary of the nature of the dispute involved in each part of the claim. b. The amount of compensation being requested for each part of the claim along with supporting information. c. Copies of additional written information, not previously submitted under Section 3 including exhibits, intended to be used during the hearing to support the claim, excluding the contract documents. It is suggested that information be assembled in a tabbed notebook for ease of reference. V d. Contract Time analysis if a Release of Liquidated Damages is included in the claim. e_ No new or different claim, other than a change in the amount claimed, will be allowed once the time and date for the hearing has been set. f. If the arbitration panel or mediator determines that information known to a person not in attendance at the hearing or the mediation is essential to arriving at its decision or for the fair exercise of the mediation process, he or she may obtain a written affidavit from that person and enter such statement into the record. ADMINISTRATION OF ARBITRATION: 5.1 The respondent shall prepare a rebuttal to the claim and furnish a copy to the party requesting arbitration and to each of the members of the panel so that it is received at least 14 calendar days prior to the date scheduled for the hearing. 5.2 The County shall set a time and date for an arbitration hearing within 21 calendar days after receipt of the Request. In scheduling the time allotted for a hearing for complex claims, consideration will be given to the need for the greater amount of testimony or other information required in order for the arbitrators to gain a complete understanding of the issues, and if a party requests additional tithe, the arbitrators selected may continue the matter in 7- calendar day increments. A request for a continuance must be submitted to the arbitrators no later than 48- hours prior to the commencement of the hearing. Once arbitration has begun, it may only be continued in 24 -hour increments. 5.3 The parties are expected to cooperate fully with each other in exchanging information prior to the hearing. In general, it is expected that the parties will have exchanged all documents relating to the claim during negotiations between them prior to arbitration being initiated. In any event, a full exchange of documents shall be completed no later than 7 calendar days prior to the date set for the hearing. Generally, introduction of documents will not be allowed during the hearing which have not been previously been revealed to the other party. 5.4 Depositions and interrogatories will not be allowed except upon an order from the arbitrators to take sworn Agenda Item No. 16136 February 22, 2005 Page911 of 35 testimony of an unavailable witness. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS IN AN ARBITRATION HEARING: Counsel or another person who has sufficient authority to bind that party at any hearing may represent a party. A court reporter will be present, unless waived by both parties. a. The hearing will be informal and involvement of attorneys, if desired, is expected to be minimal. b. The parties shall have full opportunity to offer such evidence as is relevant and material to the dispute. C. Unnecessary extensive examination or cross - examination or extensive argument of Iegal points by attorneys representing the parties will not be permitted. The arbitrators may limit examination and argument, as they deem appropriate. CONDUCT OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN ARBITRATION: 7.1 The County or court reporter if present shall administer an oath to all persons who are to testify during the hearing. 7.2 Documents will be accepted and identified for the record. 7.3 Distinct and severable parts of a claim may be dealt with separately. 7.4 The order of proceeding will be for the party initiating arbitration to first present evidence to support their claim. At the beginning of their initial presentation, a party shall present a succinct statement of the issues and a position on each issue. Orderly discussion between the parties as evidence is presented will be allowed. 7.5 Reasonable attempts will be made to assure that all relevant evidence necessary to an understanding of the disputed issues and of value in resolving the claim is heard and that each party has the opportunity to adequately rebut all arguments and evidence submitted. The arbitration panel will be the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of evidence offered. 7.6 Conformance to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary. 7.7 Members of the arbitration panel may ask questions of the parties for the purpose of clarification. 7.8 If substantial new information is submitted during a hearing, which the arbitration panel deems places the other party at a severe disadvantage because of inability to develop an adequate rebuttal, the panel may elect to extend the hearing to a later date as previously set forth herein. a. A stenographic record of any hearings by a Certified Court Reporter or any previously recorded testimony or document prepared under oath, such as an affidavit is admissible. b_ Each party shall bear an equal share of the cost of the arbitration panel. C. Each party shall pay its own costs and attorney fees. d_ All arbitration shall be concluded within one -half (1/2) day and all mediation shall be conducted within one (1) day unless continued pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2 herein. S. ADMINISTRATION OF MEDIATION: 8.1 The respondent shall prepare a mediation summary regarding the claim and furnish a copy to the party requesting mediation and to the mediator so that it is received at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the date scheduled for the mediation. Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Pa"12 of 35 8.2 The County shall set a time and date for the mediation within 21 calendar days after receipt of the Request. In scheduling the time allotted for complex claims, consideration will be given to the need for a greater amount of information required in order for the mediator to gain a complete understanding of the issues, and if a party requests additional time, the mediator selected may continue the matter in 7- calendar day increments. A request for a continuance must be submitted to the mediator no later than 48 -hours prior to the commencement of the mediation. Once mediation has begun, it may only be continued in 24 — hour increments. 8.3 The parties are expected to cooperate fully with each other in exchanging information. In general, it is expected that the parties will have exchanged all documents relating to the claim during negotiations between them prior to mediation. In any event, full exchange of documents shall be completed no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the date set for the mediation. 8.4 Each party shall bear an equal share of the cost of the mediator. 8.5 Each party shall pay its own costs and attorney fees. 8.6 All mediation shall be conducted within one (1) day unless continued pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2 herein. 8.7 If a party fails to appear at a duly noticed mediation without good cause it shall bear the costs of the mediator, attorneys' fees and other costs. The County or any other public entity required to conduct its business pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 286, that party shall be deemed to appear at a mediation conference by the physical presence of a representative with authority to negotiate on behalf of the entity and to recommend settlement to the appropriate decision- making body of the entity. 8.8 A party is deemed to appear if the party or its representative having full authority to settle without further -- consultation, the party's counsel or a representative of the insurance carrier who has full authority to settle up to the amount of the claimant's last demand or policy limits, whichever is less, without further consultation, 8.9 The mediator shall at all times be in control of the mediation and the procedures to be followed in the mediation. 8.10 Counsel shall be permitted to communicate privately with their clients. In the discretion of the mediator, mediation may proceed in the absence of counsel. 8.11 The mediator may meet and consult privately with any party or parties or their counsel, if any. 8.12 If a partial or final agreement is reached, it shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their counsel, if any. 8.13 If the parties do not reach an agreement as to any matter as a result of mediation, the mediator shall prepare and distribute to each party a report indicating the lack of an agreement without comment or recommendation. With the consent of the parties, the mediator's report may also identify the outstanding legal issues or other action by any party that, if resolved or completed, would facilitate the possibility of a settlement. 9. COMPENSATION OF THE ARBITRATION PANEL. OR MEDIATOR: Arbitrators and Mediators shall be paid at the rate of $150.00 an hour, or the current rate for the Court program. An additional fee of 25% shall be payable to the Court Program for administration of any arbitration, but shall not be assessed for a mediation. The parties shall equally share all costs and shall remit all charges to the Court Program upon the conclusion of the ADR Process. 10. MEMBERSHIP: Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 PaV 3 of 35 10.1 The Arbitration Panel will consist of one member selected by the County and one member selected by the Contractor, unless the parties agree to utilize the Court Program's arbitrators. The Court Program will select the third member of any panel and the third member will act as Chairman for all panel activities. Any single arbitrator will be selected through the Court Program. 10.2 All mediators and the Chair of any arbitration panel shall appear on the Court Program's list of persons approved to serve as mediators and arbitrators. 10.3 It is desirable that all arbitration panel members have experience with the type of construction involved in this project. 104 It is imperative that mediators and arbitration panel members show no partiality to either the Contractor or the County, nor have any conflict of interest. 10.5 The criteria and limitations for mediators and arbitration panel membership is as follows a. The person[s] selected will not have any direct or indirect ownership or financial interest in the Contractor awarded the project, the CEI consulting firm selected for the project, in any subcontractor or supplier of the project, nor in other panel members. Each panel member shall provide a statement of no known conflict. b. No arbitrator or mediator shall have had any prior involvement in the project of a nature that could be construed to compromise his/her ability to impartially resolve disputes. c. No arbitrator or mediator will be employed by the Contractor awarded the project, the CEI consulting firm selected for the project or by any subcontractor or supplier of the project during the life of the Contract, except as a panel member or mediator. d. The Florida Rules of Court Rules 10.200 et seq., Part II of the Rules for Mediators and Part II of the Rules for Court Appointed Arbitrators shall apply, except Rule 11.110 and Rules 10.870 through 10.900. e. Rules 1.720(c), (d), and (e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure governing mediation are incorporated herein. 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: Arbitrators and mediators shall be agents and employees of the County for purposes of tort immunity resulting from any actions taken while conducting the hearings] or the mediation as long as these procedures are followed. Such status shall not create a conflict of interest. TRYIE CHART FOR ADR: Within the Following Time Periods Following the Notice of Claim or the Date of the Occurrence Underlying the Claim, Whichever is First, the Following Matters Must Occur, [All days are Calendar Days]: Up to 14 days after occurrence or Notice of Claim,[whichever is first]: The matter must be negotiated with County Staff. Within 7 days of receipt of Notice of Claim: Staff shall prepare a written rebuttal. Within 15 Days of Notice of Claim: Negotiation of dispute with County staff must be completed. Within 30 Days after Negotiations with County Staff ends or Within 45 days of the date of the occurrence: a Request for Arbitration or Mediation Must be Filed. Agenda Item No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Paff214 of 35 After a Request for Arbitration or Mediation is Filed: Within 21 days: The Mediation or Arbitration shall be set including the names of the participants and all relevant claim documents forwarded to the Mediator or Arbitrators. No Later Than 14 days prior to date of Mediation: A written rebuttal to any claim must be served on opposing party and Mediator or Arbitrators. No Later Than 48 Hours Prior to the date of the Mediation or Arbitration: Any request for a continuance must be filed with the Arbitrators or Mediator with a copy to County Staff. Once Mediation or Arbitration begins it may be continued for only 24 hours at a time with the consent of the Arbitrators or Mediator. Within 14 days of conclusion of Arbitration or Mediation: Written decision must be issued indicating that a certain conclusion has been reached or an impasse entitling claimant to proceed to court litigation. Both parties must undertake all ADR proceedings in good faith. 01/2012005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item I,1 B February 22; 2DO, Page 15 of 35 Checklist for Application Completenn$ Name of Applicant David WEM99 11 ROM Health Center Inc. Check one: F10*6-firne ApPgcant Pravloue Applicant The foikmAng must be included In the Section 5310 grant application in the following order: This checklist. Applicant's cover letter and 2 copies of the governing bowd's Resniution. Application for Federal Assistance (Form 424, Cale 20.513) Operating and Administrative Expense and Revenue Form 'X Current Vehicle and Transportation Equipment Inventory Form Capital Request Form Exhibit A: Current System Dewription Exhibit X4-1: Fact Sheet Exhibit M Proposed Project Description Exhibit C: Public Bearing Notice and Publisher's Affidavit (for public agencies only.) Exhibit D: Coordination X ExhN* E: N/A Exhibit F: Federal Certifons and Assurances Exhibit G: Certfif=&n of Equivelent Service (if grant is for non-ectessr'ble veticles) 4 Exhibit H: Applicant Certificetion 8nd Asstxance to FDOT. Date application was submitted to Local Clearinghouw: Auditioned dock mquMsd for fkat -Um applicant (if a private- n"on-PrOft 89encY) Copy of Certificate of Inoorporation 23 gQ ;1 6B6 01/28/2005 16:81 2394556561 � Agenda Item � February 22, V05 Page 16 of 35 COVEN LETTER STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT APPLICATION David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. submits this Application for the Section 5310 Program Grant and agrees to oomply with all assurances and exhlbits attached hereto and by this reference made a part thereof, as itemized In the Checklist for Application Completeness. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc, further agrees, to the extent provided by levy (0 case of a government agency in accordance with Sections 129.07 and 768.28, Florida Statutes) to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Department and all of its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss, damage, cost, charge, or expense arising out the non - compliance by the Agency, Its officers, agents or employees, with any of the assurances stated in this Application_ This Application Is submitted on this day cf 24 ° with two (2) original resolutions or certified copies atths original resolution authorizing David C. Schimmel, Chief ExecuUve Officer to sign this Application. David Lawrence Mental Heatth Center Inc Title -�l M& �-� 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item NQ30613� February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 35 RESOLUTION FORM A RESOLUTION of the David Lawrence Mental Health Center Inc. Board of Dirdom, authorizing the signing and submission of a grant appk;ation and supporting documents and assurances to the Florida Department of Transportation, and the acceptance of a grant award from the Department, WHEREAS, David C. Schimmel, Chief Executive Officer of David Lawrence Mental Health Center Inc. has the authority to apply for and accept grant awards made by the Florida Department of TransporUition as authorized by Chapter :341, Florida Statutes and /or by the Federal Transit Adminirstration Act of 1984, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE David r awronce Mental Health Canter Inc Board of Directors lotted in Naples, FLORIDA: 1. This resolution applies to Federal Program(s) under U.S.C. Sections) 5310. 2. The submission of a grant application(s), supporting documents, and assurances to the Florida Department of Transportation is approved. 3. David C. Schimmel, Chief Executive Officer is authorized to sign the application and accept a grant avrard, unless specifically rescinded. DILLY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS AfCA,*Aoi 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item 22;05 Page 18 of 35 RESOLUTION FORM A RESOLUTION of the David Lawrence Mental Health Center Inc. Board of Directors, authorizing the signing and submission of a grant application and supporting documents an.- assurances to the Florida Department of Transportation, and the aoceptanee of a grant award from the Department. WHEREAS, David C. Schimmel, Chief Executive Officer of David Lawrence Mental Health renter Inc. has the authority to apply for and accept grant awards made by the Florida Department of Transportation as authorized by Chapter 341, Florida Statutes and /ol by the Federal Transit Administration Act of 4984, as amended; NOW, THEREPOM BE IT RESOLVED BY THE David t.aNUre = Mental Health Center Irn Board of awecoors iocowd in Naples, FLORIDA: 1. This resolution applies to Federal Programs) under U.S.C. Sections) 5310. 2. The submission of a grant applica bon(s), supporting documents, and assurances to the Florida Department of Transportation is approved. 3. David C. Schimmel, Chief Executive Officer is authorized to sign the application and accept a grant award, unless specifically rescinded. DULY PASSED AND ADDED THUS ,� f�'a�A"ie .� 3' , 200 13y: (signature} to WWV Kra w ovt"M ftomm.xa ms 28 S1 Fro , 01/20/2005 16:01 KIM Agenda Item 6aGOBQ February�T, 2005 Page 19 ~.. ` EalkwCuummm" -, Legal Noma: ownissiumlial unit'. kwohdng this applicaticd SW area street coumr 6. EMPLOYER 111DENTIMATION NUNKER (Effio., Phow Numbw (give ams owe) Fax Number (give area co T. TYPE OF APPLIM TYPE OF APPLICATION- gas back of form for 0aacr(ption of kdw&) n Dtw (Specify) OA 10. CATALOG OF FEMRAL DOMMG XWWWANCE NUMBER: 11. DI1%XIPTrVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT: b. Apiplicard PROCE85 FOR REVIEW ON b. m. in. PROGRAM 15 NOT COVERED SY F. O 12372 11 OR PROGMM HAS NOT BEEN StLeCTED By dw Local a. cow f, Pirogram Incom 17. IS THE PAYCLAMUNTUDELINIQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL 01 Yes if -Yes- saah an ex*nvdm. 81N, g. TOTAL DOCUMENT HAS OWN I)ULY Ati"GIUM BY THE GOVERNING DOW OF THE APPLICANT AND T"E APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WrT+ AkrtACHED ASSURANCE111 IF THE ASSISTANCE 18 AWARDED. Fw*t Name No" - -- ' -- -'-- - — - --' m. - -_ - —~ u nvE �--_ F-__ �p - -- ----' - -- - -- Stwaardpvv"wU '��v� *wm**KWm«Load Rmmomuction Pmmfi"du,oMocwL o ',.� 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 January 19, 2005 DLC Agenda lterp. 16B6 February , 2065 Page 20 of 35 DAVID LAWRENCE Restoring & Rebuilding Lives Southwest Florida RPC 1926 Victoria Avenue Ft Myers, FL 33901 Attn: Ms. Nicole Gwinaett Dear Ms. Gwinnett Enclosed is a copy of our U.S.0 Section 5310 Capital Assistance (ira»t which is being made available for review pursuant to state executive cadet' #12372. If you should b m any questions regarding our application, pleue contact me at (239) 354 -1412. Sincerely, Rim Olson Contract Accountant DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER & FOUNDATION 6075 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida 34116. voice (239) 455 -8500 Fax (239) 455.6561 • www4avidlawrencecentmorr 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Name of Applicant. David Lawrence Mental Heafth Center Inc. Fiscal period from: 2008 to 2006 Agenda Item ff��G 6B6 .. February 22, 005 Page 21 of 35 TRANSPORTATION - RELATED OPERATING and ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES EXPENSE CATEGORY EXPENSE $ Labor (601) $10.000 ringe and BeneM (5M) 2,500 Services (503) MaWals and Supplies (504) $ Vehicle Maintenance (604.01) 4,000 utirttiee (505) Insurance (5W) 2t000 Licenses and Taxes (507) 200 Purchased Trandt Sefvloe (508) NiscellarmMus (509) Sao Leases and Rentals (512) Deeprec:ia m (513) 6,000 TOTAL EXPENSE 1$25,200 TRANSPORTATION - RELATED OPERATING and ADMINISTRATIVE REVENUES OPERATING REVENUE REVENUE $� Passenger Fares 1br Transit Service (401) Special Transit Fares (402) Other (403 — 407) (iden ft by apptopdw a code) TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $ OTHER REVENUE SOURCES Tares Lftied DiraCUy by t?te Transit System (40$) Local Cash Grants and ReIrnbureafno is (409) Wool Spedlal Fare Assistance (410) State Cash Grards and Reimbursements (411) State Special Fare Assistance (412) Federal Cash Grants & Reimbursements (413) Intend Inoorne (414) -" Contributed Services (430) Contributed Cash (431) Subsidy ttbm outer Sectors oti operations (440) 23,200 TOTAL OF OTHER REVENUE 25,200 GRAND TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1$26,200 12 0112072005 16 ;01 2394556561 DLC Agenda {tenl 1666 .. February #2005 Page 22 of 35 CAPITAL REQUEST FORM VEHICLE REQUEST Gum R or E Number Description (b) (c) Eatims4od Cods (n) requeeW Cast Cn+l oolumn for FDOr use ONLY 11.__ R 2 Mid4Wwx0Dr Medan, pasolinw emirs, 5 amb. Soft wlside air begs $25,009 11. i1. 11. , 11. Sub -local $26,000 KWIPMIEKT REQUEST (c) 11. 11. 11. 3ub�otal $ (a) Replacement (R) or ExInralon (E)_ (b) Provide a brief descripl M including the I wq* and type vehicle, type of fuel, oft or ramp, . number of seats and wheelchair poeigons. Do not show the Make. For wompie, 22' die" but with Nk 12 arnb. saats, 2 wic positions, (c) Show mobile radios, compuisr hardwar eleathmn3, eft. under NEqulparent Request" VEHICLE 8UBTOTAL s.ZS „t EQUIPMENT MMT40TALS 0 = $ AM (x). (x) X 80 % s # 16,0110 [Show this amount on Form 4241n block 1 %*)] 15 01/20/2005 16: 01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item N€ A(16B6 r: February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 35 CURRENT VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT INVENTORY (a) Name of Applicant: David Lawrence Mortal Health CeaW Inc. Daft of Inventory: 12J31104 Model Yr. (b) (0) FDor 00"trol 6 or VIN (d) Ramp ar wt (sDacif!►) Seats a W1C peeltion s (IAL I K+ Avg. ffise ttr. Currant M9sage End netirent+arrt deb 00wer equipment (e) Funs 9 Soot (f) 92 Ford Club 89788 NIA 11+0 7,888 2008 as 98 Mayen AMhtw 7207 WA 17,329 103,977 2000 Equit •95 Toyole Cwwy WA 117678 99,Ba1 2005 Equit+ Dodge CanMn 27976 WA 7+0 10,850 34,07 2807 Equit 04 -No-n& Ckric 82110 WA 5+0 12 2014 Equity 04 Honda r*, 88977 WA 5+0 12 7014 Equit 05 Honda Civic 10888 NIA 5+0 14 2015 Equit 95 Fad Nan 08334 NIA 11+0 10,112 91,010 2006 Equit 98, Dodge Caravan MW WA 7+0 16,176 129,410 2006 Equit Dodge Caravan 74543 WA 7+0 10,921 85,529 2007 Equit 98 S CAra�n 74.549 WA 7 8,1'34 45925 2078 EgLA Dodge Caravan+ 74US WA 7+0 7,007 42.041 2010 EquA "9B oyota Corolla 10821 WA 5+0 19.138 153.012 2005 Equit 00 T(*&a-1Eajo 72768 WA 5+0 28,528 106.111 2006 Equit, 98 Ford escort 88968 WA 5+0 7,119 64,071 2005 Equity 02 "!a Accent 12924 WA 5 ,848 70.943 2007 Equit, ndia ACCSnt 67516 WA 5+0 18,475 55,426 2010 Equit, 02 Hyundia Acowd 12614 WA 5+0 52,887 58,000 2005 Equil, 03 Chevrolet Van 1 2+0 7,8% 43,523 2009 Equit, 03 MWndia Aorxntt IMSM WA 5+0 --37W- 18,205 2009 !Equit, 03 *undla Aawent 71708 NIA 123 22,2 2011 Equtt; 03 Hyundia Accent WA ,021 18, 1 1 Equity NOTE: Thass rvquesting replacement vehftlea, please kkty ft the year the vehicle(s) were purchased. 1995 Toyota€ C.amary was purchased in fiscal year 97-98 19W Toyota Corolla was purchased in fiscal year W97 14 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agendalte" E16�6 Februarys, 2005 Page 24 of 35 ' `�„� , ' lllnsos vll�la�. nn �rll plw>yi N6lRl tan &"BW gredAatlen b rtI aMo Yr dnlw F h need in cx&m ~ YAM 01=dMOm of Me TOWM4 'IWA WM%. S"Nom M [tAEND6D USR VACD Fpll QlNUAL MFIM10"AT10N 71IXM A749 FRCQtWNT TRARROWAT ON CW IW TO POOIt I?VMII DUAL-4. w 70 !o �IYIQAI oa oaf ii gnd�n!!Fa Atw.d �1vlerA41 dFlmFiia+w�ap.oeR �nrrw mmmzm td w.ORa DfMda ' UsA67DUTi7' MOVE � GltL ppm 4S87AMIN" 33 DhCht ' CONTRACTOR DISCOUNT moo OII>D MY WWR aIrRAWSW Cr llA Dmmvt4 MOD Mll 6 DOOM LLC. RDR11 SIt, 4irNa . CONTR iBJDt3 PRlC Ili LLC. n84 i1L!lIdN1 vglli WHOM '! w SUM IN (PLY . ar AwF n�lred� of erlK art IM bw Mw"w Dwom ux- us Dwe ' . CwmQ=!!ft(c6l Rumm )ic-M OP !h !ql IMinMioN�nwM�rwrRrYaAirouweirtdeGti ..ww6�7�elWMdxrFlwlocFar tl gal A—lb- n IM COUN RF•I; !1 �sfafl tiOflZ wee F►� s. gWWLM cm reRa rrw (C11 GXX i'AJ wC cm leln) nnt• Hic ! 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item N .1686 FebruaV , 2005 Page 25 of 35 ea..aidvdmwR's NOV v...q a*wkinK4A sy..a �IwNiiNetreaowi z+eN avr CO � un cr�1 (No PRIC Sf, 11aw6euwrs v q.w�a�q.amn�.re�.sr eor itir�6yraat�O.oA �rre r�ce�siYa, tPd (oa) "Wig (ND) COW;MCEi10ri fm FPJCEI 5MI1 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Cunrent System Description Exhibit A Agenda !tqMktp. 116B6 February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 35 David Lawrence Mental Health Center Is Collier County's only not- for -profit . community -based provider offering a continuum of menial health and substenc e abuse services for chiMmn and adults. The Center's Mission is to focus on mstoring and rebuilding litres by providing compassionate, highly skilled, affordable mental health and sybetance abuse service that are available to ail. We currently employ more than 350 employees and operate with an annual budget in excess of $17 million. Our nwrly 60 program and services are positioned at 10 kx:ad= throughout Collier County and dinx.*. impact 15,000 lives a year. including the lives of children in need, adults in crisis and those with persistent mental Illness. Approximately 1000 individuals of these recipients suffer from severe and persistent mental ilinese. David Lawrence Center Is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organi2a' ns and is supported in part by the Mate of Florida Department of Children and Families and the Departrnent of Juvenile Justice. All Board members of David Lawrence Center are volunteers and receive no compensation for their services. David Lawrence Center Is a sole 501 (c) (3) -- provider and not under the direction or supervision of any other corporation or entity. The Center's Board of Directors sets poky and with the Center's Executive staff Implements polky and procedures with the values that have been espoused by the volunbser Board of Directors. On an annual basis, a strategic plan is developed and is reviewed continually to ensure that targeted goals and objectives are achieved and to reinibrce the reeds of the community for which the Center is dedicerbed. The individuals served by the Adult Community services unit are among the most psychiatrically and to some extent physically challenged inciNklusis in Collier County, Florida. These are individuals whose problems are multai4boeted and pervasive. These are individuals with multiple psychiatric hospital admissions. In the interest of civil rights and economies of service provision, the Sue of Florida has returned numbers of these individuals to the community from the sheltered environment of a state hospital or group home. It is a sad and unfortunate reality of our healthcare delivery system that due to the same symptoms for which they are seeking help, otfeatimes this population is either excluded from either utilizing existing transportation disadvantaged services or other public transportation to access needed rehabilitative services. This identlffed high -risk group is the target population served by the Adult Community Services Unit. The Adult Community Services unit is presently oonprlsed of 8 mental health cam managers, 5 psychosoolal rehabilitative ewsrviaes staff as well on 5 additional staff providing speeialb*d services in the 91/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC area of geriatrics, forensics, vocational vices and work with homeless populations. A Servioe Director and a supervisor provide oversight of the provision of services. Agenda It o. 656 February 2, 05 Page 27 of 35 The ridership almost entirely consists of individuals who have been determined to be disabled by the Social Security Adminiatratian. Other ind'nriduals acre assisted who are in the process of having their disability and benefit stsrtus deierrAned. The David Lawrence Center Adult Community Services unit serves all of Collier County to include Immokelee and Everglades City. EMIBIT A-1 -- FACT SHEET CURRENTLY IF GRANT IS AWARDED 1. Number of one-voy trips provided to elderly and persate wAh disebllities (E&D) PER YEAR 4,830 4,830 2. Number of individual E&D served (unduplicated) PER YEM 250 250 3. Perms of EM needing wheeldtair ns AVERAGE <I0/0> 4. Number of vehicles used to previde seer Ave AMAGE 3 3 5, Number of ambulMory seats per vehkle AM 5 5 S. Number of wtwekhair posborw AVERAGE 0 0 7.Vehkie aties traveled fbr 3 vehicles PER YEAR 54,000 54,000 s. Avg.vehidle miles for 3 vehicles PER DAY 225 225 9. Normal number of days in operation PER WEEK 5 5 YO.Normal hours of vehicle operation PER DAY pw vehicle 6 6 If Trip length in miss AVERAGE per vehicle I 1 1 � 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 Dt.0 Agenda Itell o. 1686` February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 35 Exhibit B The vehicles requested far the Adult Community Services projed will be utilized to provide in- person connection and linkage to the project services described below in detail which will maintain and support severely and persistently mentally 11 individuals in the community. 98% of the individuals served have been deemed completely disabled by the Social Security Administration, the remainder of the individuals the unit serves are individuals who are functionally disabled yet still in the process of applying for disability beneft. The individuals served by the Adult Community services unit are among the most psychiatrically and to some extent health- challenged Individuals in Collier County, Florida. The vast majority of the individuals who have met the State of Florida criteria for the assignment of a mental health case manager, exhibit significant cognitive impairments in terms of short and k og-ta n memory defich, a loss of orientation to plow and time, as well as considerable impairment in concentration And an ability to follow sequential directions. In addition, when psychiatric syrrlptomotology such as hallucinations or delusions are present, these symptoms typically intet%e in a most negative manner when negotiating a destination with a bus,dri ver, fbilowing social norms when riding public transit or even planning far enough ahead to make amarrgements for transportation. It is a sad and unfortunate fact of our healtheare deltvery system that ironically due to the same symptoms for which they are seeking help, aRentimes the severe and persistent mentally lit population i+s either excluded from or unable fo utilize existing transportation disadvantaged services or other public transportation to access needed rehabilitative services. Severe and persistent mentally ill Individuals we stigmatized and usually viewed as too unreliable and as requiring more Individual aftntion than the public and transportation disadvantaged system driver can offer. This is where the David Lawrence Center Adult Community Services Unit enters. It is the assigned undertaking of the Adult Community Service Unit mental health cease managers located in Southwest Fkuide to assertively insure the connection of the severe and persistently mefftiiy M Individuals (who are now for the most part Inring in their own apartments in the community) with the unique combination of supportive services and program that will pmmote their dieW independence and mental stablilly. In most cases, to accomplish this mission. the severe and persistently mentally ill person must aentvs In person to access the needed service. Examples of supportive services to which the cam managers and other rehabilitative staff would be bringing their clients to are: ongoing psychisetriic and medical services, piddng up Individuals who have been discharged from a psychiatric hospital, transportation to the pharmacy for medication pickup, rehabilitative services tnsining aimed at strengthening their independent living skills such as medication education, food banks, grocery shopping and 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item UC-�EB6 L February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 35 budgeting, fob interviews and training, Social Security and other eligibility programs, etc, In some cases transportation for those in need of important socialization programs would also be provided. It should be fairly dear that a skilled individual such as a case manager is the designated person to help the severe and persk0ently mentaly III person transition among as well as access these environments. The objective of the rase manager is to fink the severely and persistently mentally Ill individual with the service needed to maintain them in the community, It must be understood that although the vehicles are generally In use throughout the day, the vehicle is necessarily Inactive during the time the severe and persistently mentally ill person Is being assisted to aooess the needed service, e.g. psychWft or medical appointment, grocery shopping trip, etc. Thus, due to this neoese ated period of inactivity, Exhibit A-1 FACT Sheet might not MW as high a degree of usage as another service whose singular purpose Is transportation. The requested vehicles would be utilized far service to approximately 250 severe and pemislandy mentally 11 Individuals residing in all of Collier County to include Immokalee and Everglades City. Transportation to the rural armors of Collier County involves a significant amount of dally travel. Clients in the mental health programs redly on a continuity of came. Our existing vehicles are showing the sign of the wear and tear of nearly daffy and constant use, and are approaching a key point when the more economical course is to replace the vehicle rather than incur additional repair charges. Downtime of the feet vehicles disrupts services that are provided to our clients. It is not uncommon for the Adult Community Services staff to utilize their awn personal vehicles to carry out their job functions when they are planning to transport a client to a needed service. It is hoped that this award will diminish the safety risks of transporting people in their own vehicle and trautsfer more of this viability on a regular basis to David Lawrenoe Center. By maint edning our awn fleet of Cuter vehicles, we are able to service, properly maintain and keep the vehicles in service with fewer interruptions to clients. The flrW of David Lawrence Center vehicles Is maintained by the feafities director. The director oversees the monthly safety checks and logs the inspections in the vehicle rn *finance Mes. If any problems are noted during the sa" inspection, the vehicle is either serviced in-house or with an outside vendor in accordance with the manufactures instrucfirons. Alf work performed on a vshfde is fogged in the maintenance records. Any maintenance issues that arise between monthly inspections are reported by the drivers to maintenance staff for corrective action. Although we redeW funding for a portion of the treatment services we provide to this population, we do not receivee funding for large budget items such as, 01/20/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item WEI 6B6 February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 35 transportation or capital expansion. The grant award to purohase two vehicles for the transportation of the disabled would allow us to utilize our revenuer for growth of services. David k awreeroe Center is currendy working on a 12 million dollar expansion to our eAding facilities to beer serve the community by mating new programs that are in demand and to serve the present,cliesntal more efficiendy. 01/20/2005 16: 01 2394556561 DLC Agenda itetf9eVE 16B6 February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 35 �n>p'.>QST a`ttD["Ai,YI�At�00sFI'ACCAT!< ♦�crt7aAN['?��_S�PAG.E (Res} vvd of all Appliame& far PTA assistant and 011 PTA Grantees wills an active eapird or formula project) A1+FiRMATION OF APPLICANT )dame of Applicant: David Lawrence Maria] Health Center Inc. Name and Relationship of Autharized RePmsw ive_ David C. Schitmnel, Chief Executive Officer BY 3YGNINo BELOW, on behalf of the Applicant, I declare that the Applicant has duly mOorized me to make these certification and sisaaarances and bind the Applies nfs compliance. Thus, the Applicant agrees to comply with al! Fedora] mah tes, regulations, executive orders, and Federal requirmnents applicable to each egVIjeation it makes to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in Federal Fiscal Year 2005. FTA intends that the certifications and assurances the Applicant selects at the other sick of this document, as repreaeuWve of the eeetifieadons and asstatmces in Appendix A, should apply. as required, to eacb project for which the Applicant seeks now, or may law, seek FTA aysidance doing Federal Fiscal Year 2005, The A,pplicaut afiia'ms the bmthfuhum anti accuracy of the eertiftcautions and assurances it bas made in the statements submitted harem with this doemnent and any other submission made to FTA, and wknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 19%, 31 U.S.C. 3601 at seq., as implemowod by U.S. DOT regulations, " Progrmu Freud Civil Revw ies " 49 CF'R part 31 apply to any certification, assurance or submission made to FTA. TM criminal hand provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001 apply to amy certifioation, assurance, or submission made in. connection with a Federal Transit program authoritxd in Chapter 53 or any other statute to signing this docunleru, I declare under penalties of perjury that the *r egoing oamfkstiors and assurances, and any o&er statements made me on bdWf of the Applioant arc true and conaot. Simm1w, jV e E — ,1 -r—/2 Date: /-20/A0 4 Notne David C. 3chhomel, Chief Executive Officer Aatlr n=d RqX" ntabve of Applicant AFFIRMATION OF APPLICAN'T'S ATTORNEY For (Name of Applu alt): David Lawrence Meats] health Canter lac. As the undersigned Attorney for the above narned Appl*wd, I hereby affirm to the Applicant that it has authority under state and local law to maim and comply with the oertificadons and assracarices as indicated on the foregoing pages I further affirm *K in ray opinion, the certifieWom and assurances have been legally made and constitute legal and bunting obligativna on the Applicant I fratba affirm to the Applicant that, to the isest of my knowledge, there is no legislation or litigation pending or itnaiineut that might adversely etf%d the validity of those certifications and assurances, or of the performance of the project. t .. /1 /7 Die: � e D Ar S%* Applicant for IFTA ftnanoial assiwocc (etroW 49 U.S.C. 530(b) aseistsm) and air FTA Gmaec with m salve apitsl or formula pnfjeae erI I proviac an At MKbon of ApplisOCS Attorney PlIdnieg eo 1110 Applicaat'e teed QqM0kY. The Appttawtt mar slim its signat im In lice of rho AW-nWs sipmalvrq prow" dic Appliomrt has on ft this Mimed^ *Wmd M Sic Wore my and dated this Federal fiscal year. 25 01/20/2005 16: 01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item MtcO6B61. February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 35 EXH1131T G CERTIFICATION FOR AGENCIES REQUESTING NOWACCESSIBLE VEHICLES. CERTIFICATION OF EQUIVALENT SERVICE w The g, vid Lawrence Mental Hearth Comer Inc. certifies that Its demand responsive service offered + individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wh"rhaaitirs, i$ equivalent to the level and quality of service offered to Individuals without disabilities. Such service, when v**,ed in its entirety, i provided in the most integrated setting feasible and is equivalent with reaped to: 1. Response time; 2. Fares; 3. Geographic service area; 4. Hours and days of servioe; S. Restrictions on trip purpose; 6. Avaaallabllity of information and reservation capability; and 7. Constraints on capacity or rrerAn avallabiitty. In scoordaanoe with 49 CFR Part 37, public entities operating demand responsive systems for the general public which receive financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311 of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds must file this cettifioMion with the appropriate state program office= beforo procuring any inaccessible vehicle. Such public entities not receiving FTA funds shall also file the certification with the appropriate state office program, Such public entities receiving FTA funds, under any other section of the FTA programs must file the cwtiffication with the appropriate FTA regional office. This dertificaaation is valid for no longer than one year from Its date of filing. Executed this -day of -2�e r? . e" - DAV[d S Schimmel Chief F..xegutiy+e Office (Npnx and Ift of auihoeee nwrNm rdative) (81g.ohn ofa►drwramea nxxfteraNWY*) 21 91120/20(35 16:01 2394556561 DLC Agenda Item ftCA6136 1; February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 35 EXMBIT H APPLICANT CERTIFICATION AND ASSURANCE TO MOT To be compleftd and signed by an individual authorbed by the governing board of tthr applicant agency and subfnitftd with the grant application. The David Lawrenoe Mental Health Center Inc. certifies and assures to the Florida Department of Transportati - h . in regard to its Application for Assistance under U.S.C- Section 5310 dated 1) it "I adhere to all Certificadons and Assurances made to the federal goven'mment in its Application. 2) It shall comply with Seaton 341,M Florida Statutes and Chapter 1473 Fbrida Administrative Code 3) It has the fiscal and rrmasgeria l capability and fugal authority to Ills the application. 4) Local matching funds will be avallabie to purchase vehidta/wWoment at the time an order is placed. 5) it vAll carry adequate insurance to maintain, repair, or replace project vehclWequipment in the event foss or damage due to an accident or casually. 5) ft will maintain project vehickm/equipment In good working order for the useful fife of the vehicles/aquipment. 7) It will return project vehioirar/equipowt tti the Department if, for any mown, they are no longar neetde or used for the purpose intanded. 8) . It recognizes the Departmenre auB►o* to remove vehideslequipment from its premises, at no cost tt the Department, if the Department de6Bmmines the vehidestaquipment are not used for the purpose intended, improperly maintained, uninsured, or operated unsafefy, 9) n will not enter into army lease of project vehideslequornant or contract for transportation services with any third party without prior written approval of the Department 10) It will noldfjr the Department within 24 hours of any accident or casualty involving project vehicle&*uipment, and submit related reports as required by the Departrmment. 11) It will submit an annual finanaal audit report to, the Deperinwt if required by the Depeferment. r Date^, C Signature: r I] avld� ._Sctmimmel._Chie€Fxecutive OMcar Typed name and title 22 01120/2005 16:01 2394556561 DLC State of. Florida Deparrmertr of srare Agenda Item id8(,-,.16B6 February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 35 I certify from the records of this office that DAVID LAWRENC1 MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, filed on April 3. 3, 1982. The document number of this corporation is 762852. I further certify that said co oration has paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2005, that its most recent annual report was filed on January 5, 2005, and its status is active. I further certify that said corporation has not filed Articles of Dissolution. Given nn&r �ty hand and the Greet Seal of j%rfde, at TaIJ'arha�asee, tht 084 Ae ztiv Axy of jax=q, 20 AatlmWeatiem M. 20004861472- OU".5.762M TO UCKMUM ft ceetilirrin,viOt the follawbug site, erker brie M, mid flM fonow In hdmcdaw displayed, www4mnbiz.orglauffi Atmi 01/26/2885 16;81 2394556561 DLC of AFluri�}� l3�rrte#arg of $#� #r 9 dg4gFn No. 1686 February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 35 J, 5om Adams, Secretary of State of f6e State of 31orida, Do Hereby Certify Mat the following 4; a true arul, correct copy of Certificate of 9neorporation of COLL33R CO= MNTAL HEALTH CLINIC, INC. a corporation not for profit organi3ed and existing under f6e ,Caws of the State of 3lorida, filed on f6e 17th day of June, A.D., 1968, as shown by the records of this office, co.p•44 3 -66 Given under my hand and the great Seal of f6e State of 31orida, at 1ialla6assee, the Capital, this the 20th day of June, A.D. i9 68. Secretary of state Agenda Item No. 16137 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for Transportation Disadvantaged and Transit Planning Activities for FY 2004/05. OBJECTIVE: To obtain BCC approval of the Collier MPO's Transportation Disadvantaged and Transit Planning operating budget for FY 2004 /05. CONSIDERATIONS: This request is consistent with the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) adopted by the MPO Board on May 4, 2004 and the endorsement of a grant application by the MPO Board on September 10, 2004 for the Transportation Disadvantaged funds. In FY 04/05 $21,865 is available from the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. Also in FY 04/05, $52,267 has been made available in Section 5303 to the MPO for transit planning activities through a roll - forward from FY 03/04 as part of a multi -year Joint Participation Agreement, between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Collier MPO. FISCAL IMPACT: These funds are available through reimbursable planning grants from the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and the Department of Transportation. A Budget Amendment, is needed to account for these grant receipts. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This request is consistent with Collier County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the BCC approve the MPO's FY 2004/05 Transportation Disadvantaged and Transit Planning operating budget and any necessary budget amendments associated with these funds not to exceed $74,132. PREPARED BY: Eileen Webster, Planning Technician, Department of Transportation Planning. Attachments: Budget Amendments (2) Agende item No. 16B7 February 22. 2005 Pape 2 of 2 Approved By COLLIER COUNTY Pal L.hnhsM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER$ Ditto Rom Number 1687 2111/2005 1:20 PM Nam Summary Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for Transportation Disadvanlagn l and Transit Planning Activities for FY Data 2004/05. Ottioe of MenagomentS, Budget Meeting Dab 2122/2005 6:00:00 AM Approved By Michael Smykowakl Managemant a Budget DIMr:ipr Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Tranepnrtton SOrvioss 7ranaPortatinn AAmlMS<ratfon 211 U200510:26 AM Approved By James V. fdudd County Manager Norm E. Feder, AICP Transp.dallnn Division Adminiafralnr Date Tranvportion Servioee Tneneportetion Services Admin, 2/1112005 1:11 PM Approved By Dona id L. Scott Transportation Planning Director Data Tranaportion 6e,vi -. Trnnsportmfon Planning 2/11/2009 1:14 PM Approved By Pal L.hnhsM F.XanU1IVIP aenfetary Ditto 'TUneportatlun Servioes '1'hanapor1atlon Sarvlosa Adnon 2111/2005 1:20 PM Approved By OMB Cuurdlnator Aotninistiative Assistant Data Coumy Manager's Ortloo Ottioe of MenagomentS, Budget 2/11/2006 4:00 PM Approved By Michael Smykowakl Managemant a Budget DIMr:ipr Date County Manager's oftl- Office of Maoegumenl a Budget 211412006 10:62 AM Approved By James V. fdudd County Manager outs Board of County Commisalonar. County Menauor's office 2/1412006 12:32 PM Agenda Item No. 16138 February 22, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 18 Recommendation to enter Into a contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan and Park & Ride Study OBJECTIVE: To acquire Board approval to enter into a contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan and Park & Ride Study. CONSIDERATION: As the Community Transportation Coordinator, Collier County is responsible for the production of the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP), Transit Development Plan (TDP), and Park & Ride Study. The TDP and TDSP are policy documents that integrate transit and para - transit goals and objectives with those of other local plans, including the Long -Range Transportation Plan. Florida State Statutes 287.057(3)(f)13 allows procurement of services from academic entities such as the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) without competitive bidding. Collier County's purchasing policies also require BCC waiver of the formal competitive process. CUTR wrote Collier County's previous major update to both the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP). Use of CUTR for these major Plan updates will be more cost effective and efficient. CUTR is recognized nationally and the tasks CUTR will complete for Collier County will fulfill the critical elements of the policy documents that include the Transit Development Plan, Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan, and the Unified Planning Work Program. FISCAL IMPACT_ Funding for this project will be allocated as follows: $12,000 will come from the MPO Grant 711104- 6130/05 Project (35002), $10,000 will came from the TD Planning Grant 03 -04 Project (45041), and $70,000 will come from the 5303 04105 Grant project (35083) The allocated funding will be budgeted in Fund 126 under the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) FY2005 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The cost estimation is $92,000. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with Objective 12 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board: (1) waive the formal competitive process (section V.A.3 of the County Purchasing policy) and execute the contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan, and Park & Ride Study; and (2) approve any necessary budget amendments that are required to appropriate the funding into these projects. Prepared by: Lisa Hendrickson, Senior Planner, Alternative Transportation Modes Attachment: Scope of Services Agenda Item No. 1888 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 18 - COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16BB _ Item Summary Recommendation to enter into a umtrad with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research tCUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Dovelopmerd Plan and Perk 6 Ride Study Meeting Data 2122/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Dot. Lisa Hendrickson Management/Budgat Analyst 2/91200510:51:01 AM TranspoKlon aervle.. Tndfic Operational ATM Approved By W.a Hendrick... Man.g.— WOudg.t Am.1ys1 Dote Transpohlon Some.. Traffic Operationsl ATM 2RI2006 10:61 AM Approved By Director of Alt.m t... Tranepanation Diane S. Flagg Made. A'rM bliactor Dare Tranap.rd -Sell— Aharnetive Tranaponerion Made. 219/20065:69 PM Approved By Ell... W.b.t.r Pianning Technician Data Tmnaporhan Sell— Transpanation Planning 2110/2005 4:00 PM Approved By Brand. 061h.K Purchasing Agent Data Administrative Services Purchasing 2/11!2006 9:43 AM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Trott rtiorl S-1-is TranapaKMlan Adminlaeration 2111/2005 9:57 AM Approved By Nona E. Feder, AICP Trenapartation Division Administrator Dale. 1'ranvpoKlon S.'O... 1'run.por1atan Servlce. Admin, 2111;2005 1:77 PM Approved By Pat Lshnhanl Eaecutive S..—Wy Data Transportation Service. Transportation Service. Admin 2/11120051:10 PM Approved By Steve C.m.0 Pumhasing1r3en.ra1 S— Oiroetor Date Adminian.VVe Servlce.. Purch.sing 2/1112006 2:53 PM Approved By OMS Ceordlnator Administratt" A..istant Data County Manager's Office Office of Monagamerd a Budget 2/11/2005 4:00 PM Approved By Michael Smykaw.kl Management a Budget Director Date County M ... get. OHIc. Office of Management a Budge] 2/142005 10:60 AM Approved By .lamer V. Mudd Cavoty M ... 0.r Dar. Board of County County Manager'. Office 2/102005 4:15 PM Commtsalan.rs Agenda Item No. 1668 Scope of Services February 22, 2005 Collier County Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update, Page 3 of 18 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP)', and Park - and -Ride Study According to Task 3.2 in the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) adopted Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), Collier County is responsible for producing a Transit Development Plan (TDP) for Collier Area Transit (CAT). A TDP is a five - to ten -year plan required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) that calls for a description of the transit agency's vision for public transportation, along with an assessment of transit needs and a staged implementation program to set priorities for improvements. One of the reasons FDOT requires a TDP is to maintain eligibility for state Block Grant funding. TDPs also relate directly to the State Transit Strategic Plan as the Florida Transportation Plan's transit element, and also to community and regional planning. This Scope includes tasks for a Major Update to the TDP, per Chapter 14 -73, Florida Administrative Code. As the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC), Collier County is also responsible for the production of a Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP). The TDSP is a strategic plan for the provision of services under the local Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) program. The TDSP is required by law (Ch. 427, F.S., and Rule 41 -2, F.A.C.), and is a five-year plan that coincides with the contract between the CTC and Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), with annual updates in years two through five. This plan is used to guide, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the local TD program. The TDP and TDSP are policy documents that integrate transit and paratransit goals and objectives with those of other local plans, including the Long -Range Transportation Plan and comprehensive plans. FDOT strongly encourages a strategic approach to the planning process and emphasizes the importance of public participation in the preparation of the TDP. This Scope of Services has been prepared by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida (USF). CUTR produced the previous major TDP update and TDSP update for Collier County. This Scope defines the tasks CUTR will complete for Collier County, which will fulfill the critical elements of the Transit Development Plan Manual. I- Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Update/Amendment Procedure shall be used for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan development. These directions can be drawn down from the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged web site. Agenda Item No. 16138 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 18 -- TASK I. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Subtask 1.11: Establish a Review Committee for the TDP2 A Review Committee will be established by Collier County with input from CUTR to monitor and provide input to the project and to review deliverables. The Review Committee will be comprised of five to eight members. It is anticipated that the Alternative Transportation Modes (ATM) Director or designee will chair this committee. Members of the committee will be selected by the Collier County, and will include representation by CAT, the Collier Local Coordinating Board, FDOT, Collier County MPO, and the Workforce Development Board, among others. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council will also be invited to participate. The Review Committee will evaluate each deliverable (specified in the individual tasks) provided by CUTR and will aid in the public involvement process. CUTR will respond to all comments provided by the Review Committee. Subtask 1.2: Compile Base Data Demographic, economic, and transportation data for the study area will be collected by CUTR with assistance from the MPO and CAT. CUTR will conduct interviews with local elected officials and participate in local meetings. 1. CUTR will update the demographic and economic data collected by CUTR for the prior combined major TDP/TDSP update to provide historical background and a description of the area. Information from the 2000 Census will be used, where available, with supplemental information provided by the Bureau of Economics and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. Other resources include the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Florida Research and Economic Database. Data to be collected include the following: 2 - 41- 2.009(4) In consultation with the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) and local Coordinating Board (LCB), each Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency shall develop and annually update, a TDSP. The TDSP shall be developed, in a manner which assures that local planning agencies, responsible for preparing comprehensive plans, have the opportunity to review and comment on it, and shall not be inconsistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans, MPO long range comprehensive plans, transit development plane, and other local, regional, and state transportation plans. The TDSP shall be reviewed for final disposition by the LCB and the Commission. 41- 2.011(2) States "...the CTC shall develop, implement, and monitor an approved TDSP." The Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged recommends that the CTC be part of the Review Committee. • Physical description of the area • Population by age and income • Population density • Housing density • Income information • Labor force and employment • Auto ownership • Tourism Agenda Item No. 16B8 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 18 • Major trip generators • Area roadway and traffic conditions including level of service and capacity deficiencies • Current and planned transit routes 2. CUTR will design, coordinate, and analyze a written survey of fixed -route and paratransit bus operators to obtain their views of the existing system. Operators are in direct daily contact with transit riders and their observations are extremely useful. I CUTR will assess users and non - users' perceptions of fixed -route transit by meeting with local groups. Although not intended to provide, a statistically valid sample, local group meetings are an excellent tool for revealing attitudes of a particular group, because of their open -ended nature. CUTR will participate in three local group meetings. One group should consist of members of the MPO Citizen Advisory Committee and will be used to identify issues and opportunities. A second meeting will be held with a group of persons representing both users and potential users of Collier County's paratransit system. An additional meeting will be held, per Collier County's direction, representing another local interest group. 4. CUTR will assess attitudes of local elected officials regarding current transit service and funding. Policy issues of greatest local concern will be identified and discussed. Appropriate officials will be selected with assistance from Collier County. CUTR will conduct a maximum of 12 interviews. S. CUTR will develop an on -board survey designed to capture demographic, travel behavior, and rider satisfaction data and purpose of trip (relating to economic benefits of public transit) information from CAT fixed -route bus riders. This information will enable Collier County to focus on relevant transit needs and issues such as modifying bus schedules, locating bus stops, modifying fare structure, planning, marketing, and trends. The survey will be available in Spanish. A Item CUTRwill administer Weekda survey. The survey will be erforma CAM&W Q2005 within the system. A surveyorwill hand out surveys to all riders. Surveyors W °f is -° available to assist with filling out the surveys as necessary, for those riders with vision or other mobility impairments or who are not literate in English or Spanish. The number of completed surveys will be weighted to Weekday average ridership, representing the total ridership by route and for the system as a whole. A matrix will be developed by CUTR which reflects the results from the on -board survey. Cross - tabulations will also be completed. Deliverable: Chapters 1 and 2 will summarize demographic, economic, and transportation data, and results of the driver survey, group meetings, and interviews with local elected officials. Results will be presented by CUTR to the Review Committee. Subtask 1.3: Identify Goals, Objectives, and Policies With assistance from Collier County and the Review Committee, goals, objectives, and policies for CAT and the TD program will be developed by CUTR. These will be consistent with community goals. It is recognized that findings from later tasks may occasion revisions to the goals and objectives developed at this stage. CUTR will also work closely with staff" in delineating a vision of transit in Collier County over the next five to ten years. This step is implicit in each task outlined in this Scope of Services, but is specifically mentioned here in conjunction with the goals and objectives. 1. Local plans and documents, including comprehensive plans, previous transit plans, the Long -Range Transportation Plan, and the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, will be reviewed to identify, compile, and update community goals and objectives relating to public transportation and mobility. 2. Results from previous tasks, particularly the interviews with local officials and community leaders, will be analyzed and incorporated to gain a better understanding of community goals and objectives relating to transit and mobility. 3. Draft goals and objectives will be developed by CUTR, with assistance from staff. 3 - 41- 2.011(3) FAC Pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement, the CTC shall develop, implement, and monitor an approved TDSP. This plan shall be approved by the LCB and forwarded to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged recommends that the CTC be directly involved in the development of the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies. Deliverable: Chapter 3 will outline oals and objectives for CAT and dem�e s& Item No, 16B8 P _ 9 J � �I�r�l���, 2005 connection with goals specified in other planning documents. Draft goals and objedWe7sof 18 will be presented by CUTR to the Review Committee. Subtask IA Identify Existing Transit Services Staff will assist CUTR in developing an inventory of the major existing public and private transportation services operating in Collier County. These include providers of service to the transportation disadvantaged, taxis, agency services, and community bus operators. The following information will be collected for each provider, to the extent possible: • Name of operator • Type of service • Service area • Users of the service • Vehicle inventory Subtask 1.5: Evaluate Existing Transit Service A profile of CAT's operations will be provided, using existing CAT data as well as any available recent information submitted to or compiled for the National Transit Database (NTD). CUTR will conduct an analysis of existing transit service. A review of Collier County's fixed -route service will be undertaken to assess the system, using measures falling into three major categories: system performance, effectiveness, and efficiency. (See Table 1 for measures that might be used.) CUTR will compare Collier County with other similar transit systems, using current and historical data from NTD reports and the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS). The Review Committee will have input into the peer selection for this task. The performance review (both trend and peer analyses) will be used to assess the extent to which CAT is meeting its stated goals and objectives. Table 1 Agenda Item No. 16138 - February 22, 2005 Performance Evaluation Indicators and Measures Page 8 of 18 (based on the National Transit Database) Performance Indicators Effectiveness Measures Efficiency Measures Passenger trips Vehicle miles per capita Operating expense per capita Passenger miles Passenger trips per capita Operating expense per passenger Vehicle miles Passenger trips per revenue mile trip Revenue miles Passenger trips per vehicle hour Operating expense per passenger Vehicle hours Revenue miles between Incidents mile Route miles Revenue miles between service Operating expense per revenue Operating expenses interruptions mile Capital expenses Revenue service Interruptions Farebox recovery ratio Operating revenues Revenue miles per vehicle mile Total employees Revenue miles per peak vehicle Vehicles available for maximum Revenue hours per employee FTE service Passenger trips per employee FTE Vehicles operated In maximum Vehicle miles per gallon service Average fare Fuel consumption Deliverable: Chapter 4 will provide a performance review including a trend analysis and peer comparison. An appendix will contain information on transportation providers in Collier County. Subtask 1.6: Estimate Demand and Assess Need CUTR will project ridership for fixed -route and paratransit, for the five -year planning period, assuming current service levels are maintained. CUTR will then project demand for transit service in Collier County over the same period assuming changes in the level of service (i.e., frequency of service). Demand will be projected using several approaches. For example, ridership rates from peer systems with different levels of service and per- capita transit spending will be applied to the Collier County service area. Price and service elasticities will also be used to estimate the impact of changes in fares or service levels on ridership. Demand estimates will be compared to transit ridership at current levels of service. There will not be a demand forecast using computer network simulation; however, CUTR will utilize the guidance provided in the document "Transit Development Planning Tools," prepared by CUTR for FDOT in 2001. Demand eligibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) will be estimated using standard, appropriate techniques. The needs assessment will take into account travel origins and destinations, geographic areas served by the transit system, frequency and hours of service currently provided, and demographic characteristics of Collier County residents. Goals and Ob a ite No. 1608 ty � �Td�r�i?292o05 Subtask 1.3 will be considered in assessing the need for improved transit service PmR%-§of 18 with results from the interviews and discussion groups. Potential target markets for new or expanded transit service will be identified and assessed. The needs assessment will also include an examination of possible intermodal connections and coordination of service with other operators. Deliverable: Chapter 5 will contain ridership and demand projections and an assessment of need. Results will be presented by CUTR staff to the Review Committee. Subtask 1.7: Identify and Evaluate Transit Operation Alternatives CUTR will review and analyze alternatives for transit operation in Collier County. Alternatives may range from maintaining the current level of service to a thorough restructuring of public transportation service, and will include consideration of special event services and transportation demand management, including commuter assistance techniques and strategies, or a commuter assistance program. Attention will be paid to the need for Collier and Lee Counties to coordinate theirTDPs and other planning efforts. These alternatives will be developed in conjunction with staff and the Review Committee, and will support community vision and plans. The results of all previous tasks, particularly the needs assessment, will be considered in developing service delivery options for Collier County. Alternatives will be identified and analyzed without regard to costs, in line with the strategic intent of the TDP. The Review Committee will meet to consider service alternatives presented by CUTR. Deliverable: Chapter 6 will identify and evaluate alternatives for public transportation service in Collier County. Public Input: A public meeting will be held to elicit public comment on all deliverables prepared up to this point in the project. Meritorious suggestions will be reflected in revising the goals and objectives, needs assessment, and alternatives. This meeting will be held in accordance with the MPO's public involvement process. Subtask 1.8: Transit Center Siting and Analysis Agenda Item No. 1688 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 18 �- CAT currently operates a temporary transfer center at Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology on Estey Avenue. There is a need to secure a permanent location to build a transit facility, including amenities. At the present time, CAT and MPO staff are in discussions with the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) regarding the possible siting of the transfer center at Naples Municipal Airport. Additionally, there may also be a need for other smaller transit centers. The benefits of creating multiple transit centers include enabling CAT to develop shorter routes that have less running time and greater frequencies. Benefits to customers include having a greater number of travel options and travel directions by accessing one of many transit centers in the region. Also, it should be noted that, as part of this TDP, CUTR will explore the need for maintenance, operations, and /or administration facilities. In this task, CUTR will prioritize locations for transit centers. Primary and secondary sites will be selected and initial contacts with private property owners will be commenced to determine level of interest in on -site transit service. Contacts with private property owners will be informal and will attempt to determine conditions under which property owners might be willing to consider transit improvements and circulation on their respective properties. As an outcome of this task, prioritization for deployment of new transit centers will be based on overall service priorities for the region (timing, staging, development, deployment, etc.). When and if it is deemed practical by Collier County, preliminary site plans will be developed for a transit center site(s) to include bus capacity and site circulation. Subtask 1.9: Formulate a Ten -Year Transit Development Plan CUTR will prepare a ten -year TDP, based on the results of Subtasks 1.2 through 1.8, resulting in the development of Chapters 1 through 6, with ample input from the Review Committee. The first five years of the ten -year plan will be more detailed than the second five years. CUTR will prepare a draft TDP and present it to the Review Committee. In addition to Chapters 1 through 6, the draft TDP will also include a financial plan which shows funded and unfunded recommendations, capital and operating costs, and identifies new funding sources. Deliverable: CUTR will submit twenty-five (25) copies of the draft TDP to the Review Committee for review, comment, and acceptance. Aqen a Item.No. 16138 Following presentation, review, and acceptance of the draft TDP by the Revie�w@ tJ2e2005 and the MPO, CUTR shall prepare and submit the final TDP. Page 11 of 18 Deliverable: Twenty-five (25) copies of the final TDP will be prepared by CUTR and provided to the Collier County and its local governments. CUTR will also provide Collier County Government with electronic copies of the TDP in Word and PDF formats. TASK 11. TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SERVICE PLAN UPDATE CUTR will prepare a TDSP, using pertinent findings of Subtasks 1.2 through 1.5, along with information provided by the Collier County CTC and their official planning agency. The following components will be included in the TDSP: • Development Plan • Service Plan • Quality Assurance • Cost /Revenue Allocation and Rate Structure Justification CUTR will prepare and present the draft TDSP, including the components listed above, to the Local Coordinating Board. Deliverable: CUTR will submit twenty -five (25) copies of the draft TDSP for review, comment, and acceptance. Following presentation, review, and acceptance of the draft TDSP, CUTR shall prepare and submit the final TDSP. Deliverable: Twenty-Five (25) copies of the final TDSP will be prepared by CUTR and provided to Collier County for consideration and adoption. 4 - Annual updates are required of the Plan component addressing Section I.D. — Goals, Objectives and Strategies as well as Section I.E. — Implementation Plan. Service changes, organization changes and policy changes may also occur from time to time and require an update to the TDSP. When an update is needed, the CTC will be responsible for advising and submitting information to the Commission for approval at least 30 days prior to the MOA designation date (Collier's designation date is October 1). Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Update /Amendment Procedure instructions are available on the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged's web site. TASK III. PARK - AND -RIDE STUDY Agenda Item N 1688 February 222 ; 2005 Page 12 of 18 The intent of park- and -ride facilities is to provide a common location for individuals to transfer from a low- to a high- occupancy travel mode. The purpose of this task is to identify potential sites in Collier County for the development of formal and informal Park - and -Ride facilities to be used by CAT bus patrons and van /carpoolers. Park - and -Ride sites may include purchased land, leased facilities, or joint use of property. Envisioned sites include vacant property, available right -of -way, church land, and shopping center parking lots. Further, this effort will gather park -and -ride joint development /land -use agreements from other systems, and develop a generic agreement to be used where necessary. Conceptual site plan drawings will be developed showing the general characteristics of the site, and potential layout of a park- and -ride facility. General "rule -of- thumb" costs will be presented. Subtask 111.1: GIS Plotting of Origi n/Destl nation Data, Identification of Park - and -Ride Corridors Using any available data supplied by Collier County or the MPO, CUTRwill plot the origins and destinations of current van and carpoolers in Collier County using GIS software. From this information, corridors will be established where there is a high likelihood to use park - and -ride facilities. Subtask 111.2: Identification of Sites Using county aerial maps and through on -site surveys of the corridors, an initial set of park- and -ride locations will be developed. Sites will be prioritized based on the following criteria: • Available right -of -way • Zoning • Estimated cost • Security • Site size • Visibility • Access • Proximity to transit service Agenda tern N . 16B8 Initial contact will be made with property owners to explore* their willing r�ep &bVQA J e,2oo5 lease or interlocal agreement for use of the property. Page 13 of 18 Subtask 111.3: Site Plan Development /Cost Estimation CUTR will develop conceptual site plans for the recommended alternative sites determined in Subtask 111.2. Photographs will be taken and conceptual site plans will be developed showing the general characteristics of each site. These site plans will show the approximate location of the proposed parking facilities and related amenities. These plans will be used to aid in generating "rule -of- thumb" development costs and will not take the place of engineering analysis and drawings. Subtask 111.4: Sample Interlocal Agreements Sample Interlocal Agreements from other transit systems will be collected to aid in developing a generic agreement forCollier County. This Interlocal Agreement can be used where Collier County chooses to develop a park- and -ride facility as a joint use with the existing property owner (churches, shopping centers, other governmental ROW). The agreement will include such items as type of use, days /hours of use, maintenance, site improvements, utilities, insurance, etc. Deliverable: A final report will be developed summarizing Subtasks 111.1 through 111.4. The final report will first be submitted to Collier County in draft form. Once finalized, CUTR will submit twenty -five (25) copies of the final report toCollier County. An electronic copy will also be provided. 11 STAFFING Agenda Item No. 16138 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 18 A brief description of the principal staff persons assigned to the project and their responsibilities is provided below. Victoria Perk, Senior Research Associate, will be the project manager for all three major tasks of this effort. Ms. Perk has managed the development of many TDPs for transit systems in Florida, including the most recent major updates for Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT), the City of Key West, and the City of Tallahassee (TalTran). She also has been active in transit research projects for Miami -Dade Transit, in the evaluation of the performance of state transit systems for FDOT, and in projects for CUTR's National Center for Transit Research (NCTR). Ms. Perk will be responsible for the day -to -day management of the project. Her areas of expertise include transit service planning, operations planning, statistical analysis, transit performance analysis, the National Transit Database, and transportation economics. Ms. Perk's costs are included in the Salaries line item in the budget tables (see pages 15 and 16). Holly Carapella, Senior Research Associate, has representative experience in transportation and land use planning, capital programming, policy analysis and public involvement. She has worked on several TDP and TDSP projects while at CUTR, including the previous Collier County major TDP/TDSP update, Manatee County, and the City of Key West. Ms. Carapella will assist Ms. Perk with all tasks of the TDP, and will be responsible for the TDSP task. Prior to working at CUTR, Ms. Carapella spent time working for two metropolitan planning organizations. She has expertise in transportation and land use planning, and has managed several other TDPs for Florida agencies, including the previous Collier County major update. Ms. Carapella's costs are included in the Salaries line item in the budget tables (see pages 15 and 16). Chris DeAnnuntis, Senior Research Associate, brings expertise in transit operations. Mr. DeAnnuntis will be involved with the on -board survey and park- and -ride tasks. He is primarily responsible at CUTR for providing operations planning /service planning and scheduling services to Florida transit systems. Prior to joining CUTR in 1998, Mr. DeAnnuntis was a Transit Planner at Sarasota County Area Transit and a Scheduling coordinator at HARTline in Tampa, Florida. He has redesigned, realigned and developed new bus route networks, reallocated revenue hours and equipment, and recommended new services as part of his work. He has also developed bus schedules and run -cuts for 12 transit agencies too small to do their own computerized scheduling. frig d Item NQ.,16i38 Item 2005 costs are included in the Salaries line item in the budget tables (see pages 15 arid$ %p5 of 18 Graduate and Undergraduate Student Research Assistants employed by CUTR will be used to assist the project team with data collection and compilation; survey administration, data entry and analysis; and graphics production. The Program Assistant for CUTR's Transit Research Team will assist the project team with coordination of meetings and interviews, and report production. Costs for the Student Research Assistants and Program Assistant are included in the Other Personnel line item in the budget tables (see pages 15 and 16). 13 SCHEDULE" (THE TDP WILL BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 30, 2005) - Agenda Item No. 1688 February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 18 MONTH I �Task/Subtask 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 (TASK 1) TASK 11 111.1 111.2 111.3 111.4 (TASK 111) "'ASSUMES START OF PROJECT BY END OF FEBRUARY 2005. 14 Agenda Item No. 16138 BUDGET` February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 18 TDP Total Salaries (including fringe at 32 %) $36,960 Other Personnel 9,180 Miscellaneous Expenses Printing /Photocopying 2,800 Travel 3,800 Long Distance Telephone Charges 150 Supplies 943 Survey Expenses 4,500 Subtotal $58,333 Indirect Cost @ 20% $11,667 TOTAL for TDP $70,000 TDSP Total Salaries (including fringe at 32 %) $ 7,518 Other Personnel 270 Miscellaneous Expenses Printing /Photocopying 200 Trave 1 200 Long Distance Telephone Charges 50 Supplies 95 Subtotal $ 8,333 Indirect Cost @ 20% S 1,667 TOTAL for TDSP $10,000 *The project team will include faculty, students, and secretarial and other support staff who will work directly on the project and whose costs are included in the direct costs of the project. 15 BUDGET (CONTINUED)* Park -and -Ride Study Agenda Item No. 1688 February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 18 Total Salaries (including fringe at 32%) $7,320 Other Personnel 1,680 Miscellaneous Expenses Printing /Photocopying/Travel /Phone 1.000 Subtotal $10,000 Indirect Cost @ 20% $2,000 TOTAL for Park - and -Ride Study $12,000 TOTAL for TDP $70,000 76% TOTAL for TDSP $10,000 11% TOTAL for Park - and -Ride Study $12,000 13% TOTAL for TDP, TDSP, and Park - and -Ride Study $92,000 100% *The project team will include faculty, students, and secretarial and other support staff who will work directly on the project and whose costs are included in the direct costs of the project. 16 Agenda Item No, 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 34 1--- . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a Contract Amendment to RFP 93 -2121 with Hale Montes, Inc. in the amount of $185,000, and an Amendment to RFP 93 -2121, Work Order MP- FT -01 -1, with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in the amount $106,284, for the South County Water Reclamation Facility 16 MGD Expansion Project 73949 OBJECTIVE: To initiate the close out of the South County Water Reclamation Facility Project by implementing this first phase that includes amending contracts for professional engineering and construction engineering inspection services during construction. The public purpose of this project is to meet the growing sewer service demand in the South Service Area. CONSIDERATION: On October 9, 2001, Agenda Item 10D the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved and awarded the following amendments: a Amendment 13 to the March 15, 1994 agreement with Hole Montes, Inc. for professional services pursuant to RFP 93 -2121 related to services during construction of the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) -16 MGD Expansion Project. • Amendment 1 to Work Order MF- FT -01 -1 with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for services during construction of the SCWRF -16 MGD Expansion and includes inspection services that are consistent with RFP 00 -3119, dated April 10, 2001. • Amendment 1 to Contract 00 -3171 with MWH Americas, Inc. (formerly Montgomery ,— Watson Americas, Inc) for construction management —at -risk services. This Amendment established the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GNP) for construction of the South County Water Reclamation Facility -16 MGD Expansion Project. A change order was administratively approved to MWH Americas, Inc. to add 200 days (current final completion date- February 28, 2005) to the contract time due to jurisdictional permitting delays that impacted construction of the equalization tank. This change order was included in the Purchasing Administrative Change Order Report approved by the Board in December 2004. This construction time extension has impacted the Hole Montes and Malcolm Pirnie contract amounts. The original estimated construction time to complete this project was 31 months from the Notice to Proceed. Hole Montes based their lump sum fee for contract administration on 136 weeks or 34 months. Hole Montes received a Notice to Proceed on November 5, 2001. Hole Montes is requesting additional time and a total of S185,000 as follows: • $125,000 (lump sum) to provide an additional 5 months of administrative services to complete this contract. • $25,000 (time & materials) to cover inspection and administration services during construction of the SCWRF Wetlands Restoration Project. • $35,000 (time & materials) for technical assistance and warranty inspections during the first year of operation. The special wetlands permit requirements for this project exceeded the originally anticipated work for wetland restoration. Executive Summary SCWRF Expansion Project - Page 2 Agenda item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 34 The original Amendment request from Hole Montes was in the amount of $307,520. After discussions and negotiations with Staff this amount was reduced to $185,000. Malcolm Pirnie reviewed the Hole Montes proposal and is of the opinion that the proposed additional fees represent a fair and equitable compensation for the services provided (letter attached). A summary of total consultant fees to Hole Montes, Inc., related to the SCWRF Expansion Project 73949, previously approved and proposed under RFP 93 -2121 are as follows: Amendment 10 $ 995,000 Expand to 12 MGD MMADF Amendment 11 640,000 Expand to 16 MGD MMADF Amendment 13 1,786,000 Services during 16 MGD Expansion Amendment 15 (proposed) 185,000 Additional Services during 16 MGD Expansion Total (Amend. 10, 11, 13, 15) $3,606,000 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. is requesting Amendment 3 to MP- FT -01 -1 to increase the authorized contract amount by $106,284 (Time & Materials) and additional time. The services to be provided are as follows: • To provide resident observation during the extended construction period of the SCWRF facilities including final completion inspections- $31,468. • To provide assistance during closeout of the construction contract, and other related professional services as required - $36,366. • Assistance with inspection and contract administration of the new SCWRF entrance road relocation and the related Wetlands Restoration Project - $38,450. A portion of the Malcolm Pimie funds (currently estimated at $60,000) was depleted for additional overtime work during construction. These funds will be recovered from MWH during final reconciliation of the project. Amendment 2 to Work Order MP- FT -01 -1 was approved administratively to reallocate funds between tasks. A summary of the total fees to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. related to Work Order MP- FT -01 -1 is as follows: Original Agreement Amount $ 26,741 Amendment 1 1,062,978 Amendment 2 0 Amendment 3 (proposed) 106,284 Total $1,196,003 Expand to 12MGD MMADF Resident Site Inspection Reallocate funds between tasks Additional Services — Contract administration and inspection Staff has negotiated the proposed scope and compensation as provided in Amendment 3 to Work Order MP- FT -01 -1, and determined that that the proposed fees represent fair and reasonable compensation for the services to be provided, and are consistent with the Fixed Term Utility Engineering Services Agreement RFP 00 -3119. The information contained in Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Executive Summary Page 3 of 34 SCWRF Expansion Project Page 3 this Executive Summary and corresponding attachments, was reviewed by the Clerk of Courts, Finance Department. As a follow -up to approval of this executive summary, staff along with the consultants and MWH will continue compiling the final documentation necessary to close out this project. The final cost of work will be established and funds remaining in the GMP will be split with MWH. The final contract reconciliation of costs and additional time will be submitted to the BCC for approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $291,284 are available in the FY05 budget for this action in Project 73949, SCWRF Expansion. Source of funds is User Fees (Fund 414) and Impact fees (413). Funds for this project are included in the fiscal year 2005 Capital Budget for the Wastewater User and Impact Fee Funds, approved by the Board on September 23, 2004. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The project is included in and consistent with the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan Update as adopted by the Board on May 25, 2004, Agenda Item 10C. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District: 1. Approve Amendment 15 to Professional Services Agreement 93 -2121 Montes. 2. Authorize the Chairman to sign the Amendment. 3. Approve Amendment 3 to Work Order MP- FT -01 -1 to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc 4. Authorize the Public Utilities Administrator to execute Amendment 3 tc Pirnie, Inc. PREPARED BY: Alicia Abbott, Public Utilities Engineering Project Manager Ex- officio with Hole Malcolm Agenda Item No 1601 February ?. ^., 2005 Page 4 of 34 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS hem Number 16C1 - Item Summery Recuntmm dation in approve s.ontmn intendment W Nnle Mnnlea in the ar,ourlt at $185 , 000 and a work order Amendment to Molrulnl Plmm In the a.mmmt S106.2B4 hn the South County Water RedribrA lOn I6Cility 16 MrSD E%panelOn Prcjcd 73945. Meeting Dam 2122(2005 5 00 00 AM Prepared By Date Allr:m Abbott, E.I. Project Manaper 112120066.07:43 PM Public Utilities 0.1,11. Utlliner Engineering Approved By Roy S. Anderson. P.E. Public Utllltles Engi —hig Director Data Pudic Utilities Public UUlld.. Engin —Ing 1127120067:16 AM Approval By WMlem D. Mullin, PE Prinelpal Protect Manager Dare Public Utlgle.1 Public titiildes Englnecnng 1127!20066:16 AM Approved By Juseph 6. Clleemant West. —wr Director Dace Public thillcleu WastoWeblr Trnatmnnt 1127120066:36 AM Approved By &eltlur Purrha Mng uld Contre6ta Re4aey Ward Agent pale Adminlutrativp Swi.ea Purchaaing 11271200511;36 AM Approved By Steve Cornell Purchiungile...1 Svcs Director pate Adminlatmtive g-1— Pulehasing 112712006 3:32 PM . Approved By Thomas Wide, Operation, Director Dete Public Utilities Public lhllities Operations 1127120054.32 PM Approved By JaroeF W. Oal.ony Public U1111ncc Adn11.1t. natal Dale Public Utilises Public. UNllbec Adminlst .0- 211012006 6:43 PM Approved By CM Conrdinator AdminI.PruN. Aaoirtunt Onto County Manspers office Omcn of Managemem & Budget 2//112006 6:63 AM Approved By Micheal Smyk —M M-0 —col & Budget Dlmcmr D61e county Manager's Oln.e Omce ut Mansgsnrent & Budged 2/1612005 8:21 AM Approved By James V. Mudd Counry Manager Date Board or County County Manager's ORrce 2/1512006 12:38 PM L'ommissloners Agenda Item No. 1601 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 34 H LE MONTES ' U. E. D. ENGINEERS- PLANNERS - SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way - Naples, Florida 34110 • Phone: 239.254.2000 • Fax: 239.? 9"JAN 2 1 AN 11: 17 January 20, 2005 VvJJ J Ms. Alicia Abbott Collier County PLIED 3301 Tamiami Trail East Building H Naples, FL 34112 RE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION SOUTH COUNTY WRF EXPANSION TO 16 MGD HM File No.: 2001.102 Dear Alicia: Professional construction services for Hole Montes for the South County Water Reclamation Facility expansion was authorized by Contract Amendment 13 and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 9, 2001. The Notice to Proceed for these services was issued November 5, 2001 under Purchase Order 202328. The schedule contained in Contract Amendment 13, Attachment C, provided for 31 months of contract administration. However, the Notice to Proceed dated November 2, 2001 indicated a 32 month period for these services. Early during the construction phase of the project it was mutually agreed to extend the time period to 34 months beginning October 2001 for a completion of construction in July 2004 for no change in lump sum fee. The original construction period has been extended, and a change order to the contractor has been approved which extends the construction period to 41 months, or final completion by February 28, 2005. This completion date represents a total time extension of 275 days or nine months. The contractor has requested that final completion of construction to be considered to have occurred during the later part of December 2004. This revised completion date represents an extension of our construction administration services for five months, from the original completion of July 31, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Our lump sum fee for Contract Administration is $1,250,000. Since review of technical submittals is very limited at this time, the monthly contract administration services during this period has been less than the average rate during construction. The enclosed spreadsheet identifies the work -hours estimated at the time the original lump sum fee was developed along with the proposed additional services provided due to the extension of five months. Accordingly, we are requesting a supplemental Contract Amendment in the lump sum amount of $125,000 for five months of extended contract administration. Additional professional services have been requested by the County, specifically assistance with the construction warranty inspections and technical assistance during the first year of operation of the expanded facility. This service will be provided as Additional Services on an as- requested basis with compensation based on time and expenses and a budget of $35,000. Naples - Fort Myers - Venice Ms. Alicia Abbott Collier County PLIED HM File 2001.102 January 20, 2005 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 34 A second additional service relates to the existing wetlands area that is located on the South County Water Reclamation Facility's property. During the project permitting, Florida DEP required extensive work within this wetlands area, which was not anticipated. They also required the Board of County Commissioners to designate this area as a Conservation Easement, which stipulated certain restoration work and County maintenance in perpetuity. In response to the permitting requirements, Hole Montes prepared a separate set of construction drawings and specifications for this work inside the Conservation Easement. This project, identified as Wetlands Restoration, is currently in the bidding phase. The construction services associated with this four month project is expected to commence in March, 2005 and will involve specialized inspections and contract administration. Therefore, we are requesting the supplemental Contract Amendment include an additional $25,000 to cover time- and - expense services related to the administration and inspection of the Wetlands Restoration project. We have prepared the enclosed Contract Amendment No. 15 for your further processing. Please contact Clifford Pepper or me with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, HOLE MONIES, INC. Ronald E. Benson Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President/Principal REB/HCP:IIk cc: H. Clifford Pepper III, P.E., Hole Montes W:\200112001102\C I (Collier Crnrs)120050120•aa -const sere amend- Itr.doc SOUTH COUNTY WRF EXPANSION TO 16 MGD HOLE MONTES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Attachment to Hole Montes Letter December 27, 2004 A.6 Contract Administration (Odainal Fee) Total $1,258,240 A.6 Contract Administration (Additional Fee to add 34 weeks) # Wks hrsMrk Rate/hr Amount Principal Engr VI 136 4 $135 $73,440 Engr V 136 16 $125 $272,000 Engr IV 136 48 $105 $685,440 Engr III 136 8 $90 $97,920 Environ Ops Spec 20 16 $70 $22,400 Engr Tech V 8 60 $70 $33,600 Tech IV 136 12 $45 $73,440 Total $1,258,240 A.6 Contract Administration (Additional Fee to add 34 weeks) Total $125,510 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22. 2005 Page 7 of 34 Comment same level of effort per weak during this phase of construction same level of effort per week during this phase of construction reduced hours from 48hveek to 25/week no additional hours during this phase of construction no additional hours during this phase of construction no additional hours during this phase of construction same level of effort per week during this phase of construction # wks hrstwk Rate/hr Amount Principal Engr VI 22 4 $135 $11,880 EngrV 22 16 $125 $44,000 Engr IV 22 25 $105 $57,750 Engr 111 0 8 $90 $0 Environ Ops Spec 0 16 $70 $0 Engr Tech V 0 60 $70 $0 Tech IV 22 12 $45 $11,880 Total $125,510 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22. 2005 Page 7 of 34 Comment same level of effort per weak during this phase of construction same level of effort per week during this phase of construction reduced hours from 48hveek to 25/week no additional hours during this phase of construction no additional hours during this phase of construction no additional hours during this phase of construction same level of effort per week during this phase of construction Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page S of 34 SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment No. 15 to the Agreement dated March 15, 1994 (hereinafter "AGREEMENT ") is made and entered into this day of , 2005, by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER ") and Hole Montes, Inc., a Florida corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida whose business address is 950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 34110 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT "). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT currently have a valid professional services agreement for the provision of professional services for the South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion (hereinafter referred to as "PROTECT "), said services more fully described in said AGREEMENT; and WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications to the services being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessary; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that he has the expertise and the type of professional services that will be required for completion of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions contained herein, parties agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE 1.1 CONSULTANT shall provide to OWNER professional engineering services in all phases of the project to which this Amendment applies. 1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide professional services in addition to those as outlined in said AGREEMENT as noted in Schedule A of this Amendment, as attached hereto. ARTICLE TWO 2.1 OWNER agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder as prescribed in Schedule B, entitled 'Basis of Compensation ", as outlined in said AGREEMENT with the modifications to Attachments A and C to said AGREEMENT which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. AMENDMENT NO. 15 page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 34 ARTICLE THREE 3.1 The schedule for said Project, shall be as shown in said agreement with modifications as shown in the revised Schedule C as attached hereto. ARTICLE FOUR 4.1 All articles of said AGREEMENT, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be modified by this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for professional engineering services for the South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion the day and year first written above. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Cowassiomm By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: b h� Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT. FRED W. COYLE, Chairman February 8, 2005 HOLE MONTES, INC. Y: Ronald E. Benson, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President (CORPORATE SEAL) AMENDMENT NO. 15 page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 1601 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 34 SUPPLEMENT NO. 15 TO SCHEDULE A SCOPE OF SERVICES HM FILE NO. 2000055 This serves as a supplement and clarification of Schedule A, Scope of Services as provided in the Professional Services Agreement dated March 15, 1994. This project amendment consists of work that is necessary to provide extended services during the extended construction of the expansion from 8 MGD to 16 MGD of the South County Water Reclamation Facility. The scope of services is described as follows: Phase IV EXPANSION TO 16 MGD — EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD The schedule contained in Contract Amendment 13, Attachment C, provided for 31 months of contract administration. Early during the project it was mutually agreed to extend this to 34 months (October 2001 through July 2004) for no change to the lump sum contract amount. The original construction period has been extended, and a change order to the contractor has been approved which extends the construction period to 41 months, or final completion by February 28, 2005. This completion date represents a total time extension of 275 days or nine months. Construction was completed in December 2004. This revised completion date represents an extension of our construction contract administration services for five months, from the original completion of July 31, 2004 to December 31, 2004. A.6 Contract Administration A.6.1. Consult with the OWNER and contractors as reasonably required and necessary with regard to construction of the Project, including but not limited to attendance at pre - construction conference and monthly coordination meeting with OWNER and contractor. A.6.2. Any deviations from the Contract Documents which may come to the CONSULTANT's attention will be reported to OWNER. Make recommendations to OWNER to reject items not meeting the requirements of the Contract Documents. A.6.3. Recommend to the OWNER in writing that the work, or designated portions thereof, be stopped if, in CONSULTANT's judgment, such action is necessary. Such stoppage to be only for a period reasonably necessary for the SCHEDULE A page 1 of 4 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 34 determination of whether or not the work will in fact comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. A.6.4. Issue interpretations and clarifications of Contract Documents during construction, and evaluate requests for substitutions or deviations therefrom. Notify OWNER of any such requested deviations or substitutions and when reasonably necessary provide OWNER with a recommendation concerning same. Prepare work change orders as directed by OWNER. A.6.5. Submit to OWNER, in a format acceptable to OWNER, weekly progress and status reports, including but not limited to manpower, amount of work performed and by whom, equipment, problems encountered, method to correct problems, errors, omissions, deviations from Contract Documents, and weather conditions. The OWNER's Inspector will provide information upon which CONSULTANT will rely in preparing progress and status reports. A.6.6. Review shop drawings, diagrams, illustrations, catalog data, schedules and samples, the results of laboratory tests and inspections, and other data which contractors are required to submit for conformance with the design concept of the Project and compliance with the provisions of the Contract Documents. A.6.7. Monitor all required Project records, including but not limited to delivery schedules, inventories and construction reports. Based upon the Project records, as well as reports provided by OWNER's Inspector based on observations at the site and evaluations of the data reflected in contractor's application for payment, CONSULTANT shall render a recommendation to OWNER concerning the amount owed to the contractor(s) and shall forward the contractor's application for such amount to OWNER. Such approval of the application for payment shall constitute a representation by CONSULTANT to OWNER, based on information provided by OWNER's Inspector that: (a) the work has progressed to the point indicated; (b) the work is in substantial accordance with the Contract Documents; and (c) the contractor(s) is (are) entitled to payment in the recommended amount. A.6.8. Receive and review all items to be delivered by the contractor(s) pursuant to the Contract Documents, including but not limited to all maintenance and operating instructions, schedules, guarantees, warranties, bonds and certificates of inspection, tests and approvals. CONSULTANT shall transmit all such deliverables to OWNER with CONSULTANT's written comments and recommendations concerning their completeness under the Contract Documents. A.6.9. Negotiate with the contractor(s), the scope and cost of any necessary contract change orders, using as a basis for such negotiations data or other information SCHEDULE A page 2 of 4 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 34 emanating from the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the bid sheet, technical specifications, plans, shop drawings, material specifications, and proposed material and labor costs. Prepare, recommend and submit for Owner's approval such change orders. A.6.10. Upon receiving notice from the contractor advising CONSULTANT that the Project is substantially complete, CONSULTANT, shall schedule and, in conjunction with OWNER's Inspector, conduct a comprehensive inspection of the Project, develop a list of items needing completion or correction, forward said list to the contractor and provide written recommendations to OWNER concerning the acceptability of work done and the use of the Project. For the purposes of this provision, substantial completion shall be deemed to be the stage in construction of the Project where the Project can be utilized for the purposes for which it was intended, and where minor items need not be fully completed, but all items that affect the operational integrity and function of the Project are capable of continuous use. A.6.11. Perform final inspection in conjunction with OWNER, and assist OWNER in closing out construction contract, including but not limited to, providing recommendations concerning acceptance of Project and preparing all necessary documents, including but not limited to, lien waivers, contractor's final affidavit, close -out change orders, and final payment application. A.6.12. Prepare and submit to OWNER upon completion of construction of the Project, five (5) sets of record drawings and one CD containing the drawings in electronic format of the work constructed, including those changes made during the construction process, using information supplied by the contractors and other data which can reasonably be verified by CONSULTANT's personnel. A.6.13. Prepare and submit to OWNER upon completion of construction of Project a final report of variations from the construction Contract Documents, including reasons for the variations. Warranty and Support Services: Additional professional services have been requested by the County, specifically assistance with the construction warranty inspections and technical assistance during the first year of operation of the expanded facility. This service will be provided as Additional Services on an as- requested basis with compensation based on time and expenses and a budget of $35,000. Wetlands Restoration: During the project permitting, Florida DEP required extensive work within this wetlands area, which was not anticipated. They also required the Board of County Commissioners to designate SCHEDULE A page 3 of 4 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 34 this area as a Conservation Easement, which stipulated certain restoration work and County maintenance in perpetuity. In response to the permitting requirements, Hole Montes prepared a separate set of construction drawings and specifications for this work inside the Conservation Easement. This project, identified as Wetlands Restoration, is currently in the bidding phase. The construction services associated with this four month project is expected to commence in March, 2005 and will involve specialized inspections and contract administration. Therefore, we are requesting the supplemental Contract Amendment include an additional $25,000 to cover time- and - expense services related to the administration and inspection of the Wetlands Restoration project. SCHEDULE A page 4 of 4 SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT A Amendment No. 15 SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR BASIC SERVICES Current Budeet PHASE II -A WWTP Disinfection System Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 34 Amendment No. 15 A.2 Design Report $2,800 $2,800 A.3 Preliminary Design $10,300 $10,300 A.4 Final Design $3,900 $3,900 A.5 Bidding Services $1,600 $1,600 A.6 Contract Administration $9,700 $9,700 PHASE H -A Royal Palm Irrigation Pump System A.2 Design. Report $500 $500 A.3 Preliminary Design $5,600 $5,600 A.4 Final Design $1,600 $1,600 A.5 Bidding Services By Owner By Owner A.6 Contract Administration By Owner By Owner PHASE H -A WWTP Design A.2 Design Report $290,000 $290,000 A.3 Preliminary Design $750,000 $750,000 A.4 Final Design $150,000 $150,000 A.5 Bidding Services A.5.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg - Equipment $10,000 $10,000 A.5.2 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg - Construction $15,000 $15,000 A.5.3 Phase I Improvements $30,000 $30,000 A.6 Contract Administration A.6.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg - Equipment $20,000 $20,000 A.6.2 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg - Construction $120,000 $120,000 A.6.3 Phase I Improvements $355,000 $355,000 SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT A page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 34 PHASE II -C RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM UPGRADES TO SERVE LAKEWOOD A.2 Design Report $9,000 $9,000 A.3 Preliminary Design $52,000 $52,000 A.4 Final Design $29,000 $29,000 A.5 Bidding Services $6,000 $6,000 A.6 Contract Administration $44,000 $44,000 PHASE II -D EFFLUENT STORAGE EXPANSION A.2 Design Report Not Required Not Required A.3 Preliminary Design Not Required Not Required AA Final Design Not Required Not Required A.5 Bidding Services Not Required Not Required A.6 Contract Administration Not Required Not Required PHASE III EXPANSION TO 12 MGD A.3 Preliminary Design $600,000 $600,000 A.4 Final Design $200,000 $200,000 A.6 Contract Administration Not Required Not Required PHASE IV EXPANSION TO 16 MGD A.3 Preliminary Design $300,000 $300,000 A.4 Final Design $300,000 $300,000 A.6 Contract Administration $1,250,000 $1,375,000 i PHASE V FLOW EQUALIZATION A.3 Preliminary Design $120,000 $120,000 A.4 Final Design $80,000 $80,000 SCHEDULE B — ATTACHMENT A page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 34 SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT B CONSULTANT'S EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Principal Engineer VI ............................................................ ............................... $135.00 per hour $125.00 per hour Environmental Engineer V .................................................... ............................... $105.00 per hour Environmental Engineer IV ................................................... ............................... Environmental Engineer III ................................................... ............................... $ 90.00 per hour Environmental Engineer II .................................................... ............................... $ 75.00 per hour Environmental Engineer I ...................................................... ............................... $ 60.00 per hour Environmental Operations Specialist .................................... ............................... $ 70.00 per hour EngineerTech V .................................................................... ............................... $ 70.00 per hour EngineerTech IV ................................................................... ............................... $ 65.00 per hour EngineerTech III ................................................................... ............................... $ 60.00 per hour EngineerTech II .................................................................... ............................... $ 55.00 per hour EngineerTech I ..................................................................... ............................... $ 45.00 per hour Contract Administrator ( P. E.) ................................................ ............................... $ 85.00 per hour Contract Administrator ......................................................... ............................... $ 70.00 per hour Construction Field Representative IV ................................... ............................... $ 65.00 per hour Construction Field Representative III .......................... .......................................... $ 5 5. 00 per hour Construction Field Representative II ..................................... ............................... $ 45.00 per hour Construction Field Representative I ...................................... ............................... $ 35.00 per hour SeniorPlanner ........................................................................ ............................... $105.00 per hour Planner................ ............................... $ 70.00 per hour ............................................................... $100.00 per hour SurveyorV ............................................................................. ............................... SurveyorIV .......................................................................... ............................... $ 85.00 per hour SurveyorIII ............................................................................ ............................... $ 65.00 per hour SurveyTech IV ...................................................................... ............................... $ 55.00 per hour SurveyTech III ...................................................................... ............................... $ 50.00 per hour SurveyTech II ....................................................................... ............................... $ 45.00 per hour $ 40.00 per hour SurveyTech I ......................................................................... ............................... $ 85.00 per hour 2 Man Survey Crew ............................................................... ............................... 3 Man Survey Crew ............................................................... ............................... $100.00 per hour GPSOperator ......................................................................... ............................... $ 65.00 per hour TechnicianIV ........................................................................ ............................... $ 45.00 per hour TechnicianIII ........................................................................ ............................... $ 40.00 per hour TechnicianII .......................................................................... ............................... $ 35.00 per hour TechnicianI ........................................................................... ............................... $ 30.00 per hour This Fee Schedule is effective for one year from date of the LETTER AGREEMENT. SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT B page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 34 SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C Amendment No. 15 CONSULTANT'S ESTIMATE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES (INCLUDING DETAILED OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION) Phase I Phase II -A WWTP Disinfection System A.7 Detailed Observation $3,700 Phase II -A Royal Palm Irrigation Pump Station A.7 Detailed Observation By Owner A.8 Investigation/Evaluation $6,500 A.9 Design/Permitting - Pump Station $22,000 A.10 Design/Permitting - Building $25,000 A.11 Bidding Services $4,000 A.12 Cont. Admin/Detailed Observation - Pump Station $18,000 A.13 Cont. Admin/Detailed Observation - Building $16,000 Phase II -A WWTP Design Amendment No. 15 $172,000 Incl. Above Incl. Above $25,000 $33,000 $35,000 $3,700 By Owner $6,500 $22,000 $25,000 $4,000 $18,000 $16,000 A.7 Detailed Observation A.7.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec. Bldg. - Construction $90,000 $90,000 A.7.2 Phase I Improvements $265,000 $265,000 Phase II -B Deep Injection Well A.8 Data Review and System A.9 Design and Construction Permit Applications A.9a Add 2nd Deep Well Design & Permitting A.10 Well Construction Observation and Testing A.II Report A.12 Operating Permit Application SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C page 1 of 3 $43,000 $90,000 $25,000 $370,000 $36,000 $18,000 $43,000 $90,000 $25,000 $370,000 $36,000 $18,000 Current Budeet A.1 Preliminary Services A.1.1 Preliminary Engineering Report $172,000 A.1.2 Review of Odor Control Incl. Above A.1.3 Review of Effl. Disinfection Incl. Above A.1.4 Capacity Analysis Report $25,000 A.1.5 Conditional Use Applic. ' $33,000 A.1.6 Odor Control Committee $35,000 Phase II -A WWTP Disinfection System A.7 Detailed Observation $3,700 Phase II -A Royal Palm Irrigation Pump Station A.7 Detailed Observation By Owner A.8 Investigation/Evaluation $6,500 A.9 Design/Permitting - Pump Station $22,000 A.10 Design/Permitting - Building $25,000 A.11 Bidding Services $4,000 A.12 Cont. Admin/Detailed Observation - Pump Station $18,000 A.13 Cont. Admin/Detailed Observation - Building $16,000 Phase II -A WWTP Design Amendment No. 15 $172,000 Incl. Above Incl. Above $25,000 $33,000 $35,000 $3,700 By Owner $6,500 $22,000 $25,000 $4,000 $18,000 $16,000 A.7 Detailed Observation A.7.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec. Bldg. - Construction $90,000 $90,000 A.7.2 Phase I Improvements $265,000 $265,000 Phase II -B Deep Injection Well A.8 Data Review and System A.9 Design and Construction Permit Applications A.9a Add 2nd Deep Well Design & Permitting A.10 Well Construction Observation and Testing A.II Report A.12 Operating Permit Application SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C page 1 of 3 $43,000 $90,000 $25,000 $370,000 $36,000 $18,000 $43,000 $90,000 $25,000 $370,000 $36,000 $18,000 Phase II -C Reclaimed Water System Upgrades to Serve Lakewood A.13 Detailed Observation A.14 Surveying/Easements A.15 Permitting A.16 Startup Assistance Phase II -D Effluent Storage Expansion A.17 Detailed Observation A.18 Surveying/Easements A.19 Permitting A.20 Startup Assistance Phase II Additional Services Surveying Permitting/Approvals Reuse Master Plan Reimbursable Expenses Geotechnical Site Investigation Progress Photos Startup Assistance O &M Manual Operational Support Services Warranty Inspection FDEP Operation Permit FDEP SRF Management Structural Analysis of Reuse Tank Phase III Expansion to 12 MGD A.7 Detailed Observation Phase III Additional Services Citizen Advisory Committee Surveying Permitting/Approvals Reimbursable Expenses Geotechnical Site Investigation Support Services Coordination with C/M SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C page 2 of 3 $10,900 $23,100 $6,000 $5,000 Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required $30,000 $40,000 $100,000 $10,000 $2,000 $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 $55,000 $18,000 $10,000 $103,696 $60,000 It Not Required $140,000 $15,000 $25,000 $15,000 $20,000 $45,000 $60,000 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 34 $10,900 $23,100 $6,000 $5,000 Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required $30,000 $40,000 $100,000 $10,000 $2,000 $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 $55,000 $18,000 $10,000 $103,696 $60,000 Not Required $140,000 $15,000 $25,000 $15,000 $20,000 $45,000 $60,000 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 34 Phase IV Expansion to 16 MGD A.7 Detailed Observation $185,000 $185,000 Phase IV Additional Services Surveying $10,000 $10,000 Permitting/Approvals $45,000 $45,000 Geotechnical Site Investigation $10,000 $10,000 O &M Manual $100,000 $100,000 Startup and Training $95,000 $95,000 Phase V Flow Equalization A.6 Contract Administration $60,000 $60,000 A.7 Detailed Observation $40,000 $40,000 Phase V Additional Services Surveying $3,000 $3,000 Permitting/Approvals $10,000 $10,000 Geotechnical Site Investigation $5,000 $5,000 O &M Manual $8,500 $8,500 Startup and Training $5,000 $5,000 Operational Support $7,500 $7,500 Reimbursable Costs $10,000 $10,000 Other Assistance $25,000 $25,000 Construction Warranty and Technical Assistance $0 $35,000 Wetlands Restoration - Conservation Easement $0 $25,000 Phase VI Deep Injection Well A.8 Data Review /System Analysis $19,000 $19,000 A.9 Design and Construction Permit $54,000 $54,000 A.10 Well Construction/Testing $359,000 $359,000 A.11 Data Analysis/Report $27,000 $27,000 A.12 Operational Approval $13,000 $13,000 A.13 Operation Permit $10,000 $10,000 SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C page 3 of 3 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 34 SCHEDULE C Amendment No. 15 PROJECT SCHEDULE PHASE I Preliminary Engineering Report Complete Conditional Use Application Complete Capacity Analysis Report Review Meeting Complete Draft Report Complete Final Report Complete Odor Advisory Panel Complete PHASE II WWTP Disinfection System Design Report Complete Preliminary Design Complete Final Design Complete Bid Services Complete Construction Contract Admin. Complete Detailed Observation Complete Permitting/Approvals Complete Royal Palm Irrigation Pump System Design Report Complete Preliminary Design Complete Final Design Complete Permitting/Approvals Complete WWTP Design Report Review Meeting - Immediate Actions Complete Review Meeting — Phased Expansion Complete Preliminary Draft Report and Draft Permit Application Complete Final Report and Final Permit Application Complete SCHEDULE C page 1 of 4 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 34 PHASE H Reuse Master Plan Preliminary Draft Report Not Required Final Report Not Required Deep Injection Well Data Review & Design Analysis Complete Design & Construction Permit Appl. Complete Well Construction Testing Complete Reports Complete Operating Permit Appl. Complete Reclaimed Water System Upgrades Design Report Complete Preliminary Design Complete Final Design Complete Bid Services Complete Construction Contract Admin. Complete Detailed Observation Complete Surveying/Easements Complete Permitting Complete Startup Assistance Complete Effluent Storage Expansion Design Report Not Required Preliminary Design Not Required Final Design Not Required Bid Services Not Required Construction Contract Admin. Not Required Detailed Observation Not Required Surveying/Easements Not Required Permitting Not Required Startup Assistance Not Required WWTP Design Preliminary Design Reclaimed Water PS/Elec. Bldg. Complete Phase I Improvements Complete Final Design Reclaimed Water PS/Elec. Bldg. Complete Phase I Improvements Complete Surveying Complete Geotechnical Site Investigation Complete SCHEDULE C page 2 of 4 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 34 PHASE II Complete WWTP Construction Phase Services Complete Bid Services Complete Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg Complete Phase I Improvements Complete Construction Contract Administration Complete Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg Complete Phase I Improvements Complete Detailed Observation Complete Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg Complete Phase I Improvements Complete Startup Assistance Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg Complete Phase I Improvements Complete PHASE III WWTP Design Complete Preliminary Design Complete Final Design Complete Surveying Ongoing Geotechnical Site Investigation Complete Citizen Advisory Committee Complete Permitting/Approvals Complete Support Services Complete Coordination with C/M Complete WWTP Construction Phase Services Construction Contract Administration Not Required Detailed Observation Not Required PHASE IV WWTP Design Preliminary Design Complete Final Design Complete Surveying Complete Geotechnical Site Investigation Complete Permitting/Approvals Complete WWTP Construction Phase Services Construction Contract Administration 1,170 days after Notice to Proceed Detailed Observation 1,170 days after Notice to Proceed Warranty and Support Services 365 days after Notice to Proceed Wetlands Restoration 180 days after Notice to Proceed SCHEDULE C page 3 of 4 PHASE V Flow Equalization Basin - Design Preliminary Design -Phase I Complete Preliminary Design -Phase II Complete Final Design -Phase I Complete Final Design -Phase II Complete Surveying Complete Geotechnical Site Investigation Complete Permitting/Approvals Complete O &M Manual Complete Startup and Training Complete Operational Support Complete Other Assistance Complete Flow Equalization Basin - Construction Phase Services Construction Contract Admin - Phase I Complete Detailed Observation - Phase I Complete PHASE VI Data Review and System Analysis Design and Construction Permit Well Construction/Testing Data Analysis/Report Operational Approval Operation Permit Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 34 Complete Complete Complete Complete 270 days after Notice to Proceed 360 days after Operational Approval SCHEDULE C page 4 of 4 Agenda_ Item No. 1601 February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 34 MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS. SCIENTISTS & CONSULTANTS January 21, 2005 Alicia E. Abbott, Project Manager Public Utilities Division, Engineering Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building H Naples, FL 34112 RE: South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Hole Mantes Fee Proposal for Additional Services Dear Ms. Abbott: At your request, Malcolm Pirnie has reviewed the revised proposal for additional Contract Administration services related to the referenced project. The additional fees identified include: 1. Additional Contract Administration services related to the extended construction time resulting from permitting delays for the referenced facility in the lump sum amount of $125,000. 2, Additional services related to Warranty Enforcement and Technical Operations Assistance during the first year of operation of the new facilities on a time and expense basis not -to- exceed $35,580. 3. Additional services related to Construction Administration of the Wetlands Restoration portion of the new roadway access project from Wildflower Way on a time and expense basis not -to- exceed $25,000. Malcolm Pirnie has reviewed the proposed fees as shown above, and is of the opinion that they represent fair and equitable compensation for the services provided. It continues to be a pleasure working with you and the other County staff on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. L til - 1—� Robert H. French, P.E. Associate n3+1 mF,rRa PARKbVAY S011F 52p F:')R7 PAYERS, FI_ 33B16 ?39.332. —Znl) fax 239 -332 -1789 h;;p ;- 'mww.{.WNP: r.•OM -f "II`CLE D ;1r1lrC;1 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 34 MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. INDEPENDENT ENVIAONMIENTAL FROINEERS, SCIENTISTS A CONSULTANTS January 21, 2005 Alicia E. Abbott, Project Manager Public Utilities Division, Engineering Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building H Naples, FL 34112 RE: South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Hole Montes Fee Proposal for Additional Services Dear Ms. Abbott: At your request, Malcolm Pirnie has reviewed the revised proposal for additional Contract Administration services related to the referenced project. The additional fees identified include: 1. Additional Contract Administration services related to the extended construction time resulting from permitting delays for the referenced facility in the lump sum amount of $125,000. 2, Additional services related to Warranty Enforcement and Technical Operations Assistance during the first year of operation of the new facilities on a time and expense basis not -to- exceed $35,580. 3. Additional services related to Construction Administration of the Wetlands Restoration. portion of the new roadway access project from Wildflower Way on a time and expense basis not -to- exceed $25,000. Malcolm Pirnie has reviewed the proposed fees as shown above, and is of the opinion that they represent fair and equitable compensation for the services provided.. It continues to be a pleasure working with you and the other County staff on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Robert H..French, P.E. Associate A3' 5 M, F TRC PARKOJAY S(ii "r 52?, FOP.7 N4Y =RS, F1, 33A1 6 239 -33 ?- ;;jp0 fax 239 -13? -17:9 NIP ; Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 34 CONTRACT MODIFICATION CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT NAME: SCWRF 18-mad Expansion PROJECT C _ 7_3,9,8___,_, BID/RFP #I: .93-9121 MOD #: 15 AMOUNT OF THIS CHANGE $_5185.000__ PO #E: 4500003242 Work Order: CONTRACT AMOUNT: ORIGINAL $ ,247.000_ _ ___ CURRENT $ _ 8_242.896___ ($TAR'n POINT) ONCLUDING TN 8 14 GE ORDER) Last BCC Approved Amount $ ,S 8,Q57,896 (LAST TOTAL AMT. REQUIRING BCC APPROVAL) Date of Last BCC Approval - June 25.2002 Agenda Item # 16 Q11, Cumulative Dollar Value of Change Orders to this ContracNWork Order: 7,995,896 Percentage of the change over /under current contract amount 2,296 % Formula: (Current Amount / Last BCC approved amount) -1 Results and Actions: if the change exceeds 10% BCC approval is required; under 10% reported to BCC on Purchasing report. For specific Information regarding work order thresholds, please refer to the Contract Administration Procedures, Section III.C.4. CURRENT COMPLETION DATE (S):ORIGINAL: June 2004(Prolect 73201 _„CURRENT: add 12 months. from NTP SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGE (S): Identity the changes. To provide: additioai services during comnletio of the cons ction M=gement at risk co t. inspection and administrytion services during construction of the SCWRF Wetlands Restoration project. JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE (S): PARTIES CONTACTED REGARDING THE CHANGE: Bill Mullin, Malcolm Pimig. gg Cheatham IMPLEMENTATION STEPS (Verify each before proceeding with change using Y, N or NIA) �. Proposed change is consistent with the scope of the existing agreement X Proposed change Is in fact an addition or deletion to the existing scope Change is being implemented in a manner consistent with the existing agreement The appropriate parties have been consulted regarding the change Proposed prices, fees and costs set forth in the change are reasonable PROJECT N APPROVED REVIEWED Revised 12/23/04 Irm is to be signed and dated. Date: i -as - os Date: — L j70 t' February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 34 Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 To Steve:, 1/25/05 To. Bonnie: BCC Report: NA THIS ITEM IS IN NOVUS — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IS ATTACHED. And will be presented together with CO #3 to Work Order MP- FT -01 -1 under contract 00 -3119 RE: Contract Number: 93 -2121 Contract Name: Professional Services During Construction South County WRF Expansion to 16 MGD Project Number: 73949 Project Name: SCWRF 16 MGD Expansion Change Order Number: No. 15 Contractor /Consultant: Hole Montes Change Order Amount: $185,000 Last BCC Approved Amount $ 8,057,896.00 Revised Agreement Amount- $ 8,242,896.00 Cumulative Change Order Amount $ 7,995,896.00 Percentage Increase/Decrease: 2.296% Overview of change: Hole Montes has requested this increase to allow for an additional five months of administrative services to complete the contract; to cover inspection and administration services during construction of the SCWRF Wetlands Restoration project; and for technical assistance and warranty inspections during the first year of operations. (Ex is attached) Contract Specials F* Date: ZS Steve's Acknowledgeme Date: 6 Scanned Date: Data Entry Information: Type of Change: Project Manager: Department: Scanned copies of the back up documentation may be located on the Purchasing G drive: G: /Current- Changes to Contracts G:1 Current — Changes to Work Orders Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 34 MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS 6 CONSULTANTS January 21, 2005 Alicia E. Abbott, Project Manager Public Utilities Division, Engineering Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building H Naples, FL 34112 RE: South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Purchase Order No. 106856 Contract No. 00 -3119, Work Order No. MP- FT -01 -1 including Amendment 1 Proposal for Amendment 3 Dear Ms. Abbott: In accordance with the "Notice to Proceed" dated October 29, 2001, services under the referenced work order were to commence October 30, 2001 with final completion of the - work considered as June 30, 2004. Due to permitting difficulties for certain portions of the work, the construction time for the basic project was extended. Additional work requested by the County and an extremely active hurricane season in 2004 will result in an additional time extension still under negotiations. Finally, a portion of the original work (construction of a new access road from Wildflower Way) was removed from the contract with the CM @Risk and bid in two separate, additional construction packages- directly by the County to save both time and money with the CM@Risk. The County has requested that Malcolm Pirnie provide additional professional services related to periodic inspection of the progress of the work and continue to assist the County with project management assistance for this additional work over the next six months (four months of construction plus two months for close -out). At your request and with the full knowledge of the County, Malcolm Pirnie has continued to provide professional services on this project beyond the June 30, 2004 final completion date. This work clearly falls under Section H of the Scope of Services for the referenced Work Order as follows: Paragraph 18. Provide additional Resident Project Representative man -hours in addition to that shown in the Basic Services, including overtime worked in excess of the 50 hour per week allowance budgeted. Paragraph 19. Provide additional home -office support services if the CM contract final completion time is extended beyond the original 915- canendar day final completion time. 4315 METRO PARKWAY SUITE 520 FORT MYERS, FL 33916 239- 332 -1300 fax 239- 332 -1789 http: /iwww.pirnie.com RECYCLED PAPER iii Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Alicia E. Abbott, Project Mane 28 of 34 January 21, 2005 Page 2 of 3 In addition to these additional services, Malcolm Pirnie, at the County's request, has played an active role in the on -going close out negotiations and meetings between the CM@Risk, the Design Professional, the Clerks Office, and the County Staff. These meetings have been time consuming and at times, tedious; but productive from the standpoint of assisting the County with an equitable, timely, cost- effective close -out of the Project. During this past week, Malcolm Pirnie was made aware that some of the continued and additional services described above would require an amendment to the referenced work order. This work order is intended to apply to any services provided for the completion, closeout, commissioning and initial operation including warranty assistance or other such related services for the referenced project. It should be noted that the County is entitled to recover "overtime" charges from the CM@Risk under separate agreement. This proposed amendment to the referenced work order is made as follows: Fees for Services: Time and material services provided on the project beyond the final completion date of June 30, 2004 but within the original amount of the work order will be billed in accordance with the rates established in 2001 up to the total amount of the original work order including Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 through December 3, 2004. Hourly rates for services provided after December 3, 2004 and services provided in this Amendment 3 will be in accordance with the current rates approved under this Contract No. 00 -3119 on file with the Purchasing Department. Monthly fees for "Quality Management" services will remain at the flat monthly rate of $1,054 established in Amendment 1 for the additional period beginning June 30, 2004 and ending February 28, 2005 (8 additional months only). Our records show that Invoice Number 34 for services through December 3, 2004 indicates total services to that date of $1,082,008.22 leaving $7,710.78 unspent in the original work order including Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. The following is the estimated budget amount for each task in this proposed Amendment 3: Quality Management (6/30/04 - 2/28/05) 8,432.00 Resident Observation/Re- inspection 23,036.00 Construction Administration/Close -out Activities 36,366.00 Resident Observation (Roadway/Wetlands) 33,410.00 Construction Administration/Close -out (Road/Wetland) 5,040.00 Total 106,284.00 RECYCLED PAPER Agenda item No. 1601 February 22, 2005 Alicia E. Abbott, Project Mane 29 of 34 January 21, 2005 TIRMNIr Page 3 of 3 All fees are to be on an hourly rate basis except Quality Management which is lump sum. Professional services provided after December 3, 2004 will be charged at the rates currently approved under Contract 00 -3119, the approved, negotiated schedule is attached hereto and made a part hereof. It continues to be a pleasure working with you and the other County staff on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. `-�L 17(- ..._._..._ Robert H. French, P.E. Associate RECYCLEO PAPER Agenda Item No. 16C1 AMENDMENT 3 - February 22, 2005 WORK ORDER # MP- FT -01 -1 Page 30 of 34 Agreement for Fixed Term Utilities Engineering Services Contract #00 -3119 Dated April 10, 2001 This Work Order is for professional engineering services for work known as: Project: South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion, Construction Engineering Inspection Services, The work is specified in the proposal dated January 21. 2005 , which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order #MP- FT -01 -1. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order #MP- FT -01 -1 is assigned to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Scone of Work: Task 1 - To attend a one day 'Partnering" exercise. Task 2 - Review 90% design plans and specifications, and the guaranteed maximum price (GNP). Task 3 - Assist the County with negotiating the final GMP AMENDMENT 1: Task 7 Project Management Task 8 Pre - construction Tasks Task 9: Construction Administration Task 10: Resident Observation AMENDMENT 2: Adjust funds between two tasks Task 4 - Review Final Documents Task 5 - Quality Managettient Task 6 - Reimbursables. Task 11: Project Start Up and Closeout Task 12: Quality Management Task 13: Reimbursable Expenses AMENDMENT 3: Additional inspection and administration time are required for close out activities related to this Project. The Changes include increases to Tasks 9, 10 and 12, and adds two additional tasks that relate to contract administration and inspection of the Entrance Road and Wetlands Restoration Projects. Task 14: Resident Observation (Entrance Road/ Wetlands) Task 15: Construction Admin/ Close out (Roadway/Wetland) Schedule of Work: AMENDMENT 3 - Complete work within 12 months from Notice to Proceed. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with the negotiated time and material sum amount indicated in the schedule below (if a task is time and material, so indicate and use the established hourly rate(s) as enumerated in Schedule "A" of the Agreement). Original Task 1 $ 2,460 Task 2 12,980 Task 3 8,200 Task 4 940 Task 5 1,476 Task 6 685 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Task 11 Task 12 Task 13 Task 14 Task 15 Sub -total Total AMEND 1 AMEND 2 AMEND 3 -3,915 39,920 6,600 3,915 5,100 123,920 36,366 802,160 23,036 34,200 28,728 8.432 22,350 33,410 5,040 $1,062,978 0 $106,284 $26,741 $1,089,719 $1,089,719 $1,196,003 TOTAL $ 2,460 12,980 4,285 940 1,476 685 39,920 10,515 5,100 160,286 825,196 34.200 37,160 22,350 33,410 5,040 $1,196,003 Any change within monetary authority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of the Agreement. rl PREPARED BY: kb,J Ktja C Alicia Abbott, PUED Project Manager I Dat REVIEWED BY: & ( �f [,-A � I s "- Roy Anderson, PUED Director Date AUTHORIZED BY: (� QkAt_-, `.,Jy- 0rAgenda Item No. 1601 Jos B. Cheatham, Wastewater Director Date February 22,'2005 Page 31 of 34 APPROVED BY: James DeLony, P.E., Public Utilities Administrator Date Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: /" liqw% 1 EPTED BY; Assistant County Attorney Name of Firm ATTEST: (Corporate Secretary) By: Signature a w n 13 ro wrt , �� cc nc'f"a n i Type Name and Title Fund: 413 Cost Center: 263611 Object Code: 631400 Project Number:73949 Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 34 CONTRACT MODIFICATION CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT NAME: . SCWRF 16-mod Exoanslon PROJECT #: 73949 SID/RFP #: 00-3119. MOD M. 3 AMOUNT OF THIS CHANGE $_106.284 PO #: 106856 Work Order #:_MP- FT -01 -1 CONTRACT AMOUNT: ORIGINAL $ 26,741 CURRENT $_1.196.003 - (STARTING POIMr) (INCLUDING THIS MANGE ORDER) Last BCC Approved Amounts 1.089.719 (LAST TOTAL AMT. REQUIRING BCC APPROVAL) Date of Last BCC Approval October 9. 2001 Agenda Rom # 1 OD Cumulative Dollar Value of Change Orders to this Contract/Work Order: s 1.169.262 Percentage of the change over /under current contract amount 9.75 % Formula: (Current Amount / Last BCC approved amount) -1 Results and Actions: If the change exceeds 10% BCC approval Is required; under 10% reported to BCC on Purchasing report. For specific information regarding work order thresholds, please refer to the Contract Administration Procedures, Section III.C.4. CURRENT COMPLETION DATE (S):ORIGINAL: June 2004 CURRENT: 12 months after NTP JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE (S): What value or benefit do these chano w provide to the orotect? This PARTIES CONTACTED REGARDING THE CHANGE: Bill Mullin. Joe Cheatham. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS (Verify each before proceeding with change using Y, N or N/A) CL Proposed change is consistent with the scope of the existing agreement X Proposed change is in fact an addition or deletion to the existing scope X Change is being implemented in a manner consistent with the existing agreement X The appropriate parties have been consulted regarding the change X Proposed prices, fees and costs set forth In the change are reasonable PROJECT MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: This form is to be slaned and dated. APPROVE e REVIEWED Revised 12/23/04 Date: L ` Z5 -OS Date: February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 34 Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 To Steve: 1/25/05 To. Bonnie: BCC Report: NA THIS ITEM IS IN NOVUS — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IS ATTACHED. And will be presented together with CO #15 to Contract 93 -2121 RE: Contract Number: 00 -3119 Contract Name: Fixed Term Utilities Engineering Services Project Number: 73949 Project Name: SCWRF 16 MGD Expansion Change Order Number: No. 3 Work Order Number: MP- FT -01 -1 Contractor /Consultant: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Change Order Amount: $106,284.00 Last BCC Approved Amount $ 1,089,719.00 Revised Agreement Amount -. $ 1,196,003.00 Cumulative Change Order $1,169,262.00 Amount Percentage Increase/Decrease: 9.75% Overview of change: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. will be providing additional and extended support services required for the completion of the qco c 'on Contract Specialis Date: 2 C/ U� Steve's Acknowledg : Date: t t <(. �0 Scanned Date: Data Entry Information: Type of Change: Project Manager: Department: Scanned copies of the back up documentation may be located on the Purchasing G drive: GXurrent- Changes to Contracts G: / Current — Changes to Work Orders Agenda Item No. 16C1 February 22, 2005 Page 34 of' 4 NO MENEM 0 Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve component and service purchases totaling $256,804.00, with total Project Costs totaling $307,143.00, and authorize a Budget Amendment in the amount of $115,000.00 for the installation and systems programming of nutrient monitoring equipment at the South County Water Reclamation Facility, Project 725081. OBJECTIVE: The public purpose is to improve reliability of the South County Water Reclamation Facility through the addition of nutrient monitoring equipment, and to enhance operational efficiencies by utilizing direct measurement instruments that enable instantaneous, real -time control and treatment decisions. Additionally, a dependable and accurate system of measurement and recording of plant media composition at this facility is required to stay in compliance with state and federal guidelines. CONSIDERATIONS: The South County Water Reclamation Facility has recently completed an Expansion Phase to extend its treatment capacity. Although the treatment process is highly automated and incorporates advanced control and monitoring equipment, it has been identified that the addition of ammonia/nitrate analyzers and suspended solids meters would greatly enhance system control capabilities, operational decision - making, and overall treatment process efficiency. Staff identified this work addition in late 2003 (as the construction phase of the Expansion work was approaching its completion). Accordingly, Staff planned to pursue this work independently, , as an important component of Facility Continuous Improvement, rather than as a change in scope to the existing Expansion work. The 2003 Wastewater Master Plan Update, as adopted by the Board on May 25, 2004 as Agenda Item 10 C, identifies this need within the context of Project 725081 SCWRF Reliability Improvements. On January 27, 2004, subsequent to the approval of Work Order HM- FT -04 -01 authorized under Fixed Term Contract #00- 3119, Hole Montes, Inc. was issued a Notice to Proceed to commence Engineering Services for Project 72508 South County Water Reclamation Facility — Reliability Improvements. Task 2 under this Work Order identifies the scope of engineering services as related to Process Monitoring Equipment, with a lump sum cost of $18,743.00. Engineering services required to fulfill project completion included Design, Bidding, and Construction Phase services. Per the Final Design issued by Hole Montes for Task 2 — Nutrient Monitoring Equipment, as approved by County Staff, the implementation phase work for this project includes provision of Ammonia/Nitrate Analyzers, Suspended Solids Meters, electrical and mechanical installation, and control system integration. On October 25, 2004, subsequent to approved Final Design from Hole Montes, quotations for South County Water Reclamation Facility Process Monitoring Equipment were solicited via Request- for - Quotation ( "RFQ") from contractors under County Fixed Term Contract #04 -3535 "Underground Utility Contracting Services." On December 1, 2004 quotes were received for this project, with the low quote offered at $343,000. Executive Summary Approve Purchases SCWRF Nutrient Monitoring Page 2 Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 21 The quoted price tabulations were scrutinized by Public Utilities Engineering leadership and Hole Montes. Upon examination, it was jointly deemed by the Public Utilities Engineering Department Project Manager and Hole Montes that the fees offered in the quote were not commensurate with the Engineer's estimate or budgetary requirements. Thus, it was recommended that the low submitted quote not be accepted. Alternate procurement channels were then sought. County Staff and Hole Montes entered negotiations with E.B. Simmonds, authorized under Contract #04- 3580 "On -Call Electrical Repairs and New Installation." After several rounds of negotiation, a multi - faceted procurement strategy was established. The resultant total cost for the construction/installation phase under this procurement strategy is $256,804. A description of each procurement strategy is provided in the attached "Procurement Strategies Overview" document. Supporting justifications are established for special procurements as identified by Hole Montes, as outlined in their attached Memorandum dated January 26, 2005 (Subj: Procurement of Project Materials). Additionally, in a letter dated January 26, 2005 (Subj: Evaluation of Quotes for Construction), Hole Montes makes overall recommendation for procurement and approval of work, with procurements itemized as tabulated above. A copy of this letter is also attached. With approval of the installation per the above - recommended procurement strategies, the County stands to save over $85,000 over its previous (but not elected) procurement avenue. Within this substantial cost savings, over $15,000 is saved through individual, direct procurements, as vendor sales tax and Contractor mark -up are avoided. A budget amendment is necessary to procure all necessary construction and installation services to fulfill the implementation phase for Task 2 - Nutrient Monitoring of this project, and to continue through to Task 2 completion. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $173,400 are available in Project 725081 South County Water Reclamation Facility Reliability Improvements. A Budget Amendment is needed to transfer funds in the amount of $115,000 from Project 730711 Wastewater Energy Enhancements to Project 725081. This Budget Amendment is solicited to cover all costs that are anticipated for Project 725081, including engineering fees, construction and installation fees, and direct procurements. The cost implications and their relationship to the solicited Budget Amendment is explained in the attached Table 1: Funding and Expense Summary, Project 725081 (Task 2 — Nutrient Monitoring). With approval of this Budget Amendment, the necessary funds are available for this project in the Sewer Capital Fund 414 in Project 725081 South County Water Reclamation Facility Reliability Improvements, and the scope of work is consistent with Wastewater Capital Budget funds budgeted in FY 05, as approved by the Board on September 23, 2004. The proposed procurements are consistent with the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan Update as adopted by the Board on May 25, 2004 as Agenda Item 10 C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact resulting from this action. Executive Summary Approve Purchases SCWRF Nutrient Monitoring Page 3 Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 21 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Ex- officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, administer the following approvals and authorizations: 1) Waive the $25,000 Competitive Threshold in accordance with Section V (A). 1 and V (A). 3 of the Purchasing Policy with justification as both a single Source Purchase and in the best interests of the County to do so and authorize the purchase of ammonia/nitrogen analyzers as described in Paragraph (A) of the attached "Procurement Strategies Overview" document; 2) Waive the $25,000 Competitive Threshold under Purchasing Policy V (A). 1, with justification for Single Source Purchase, and authorize the purchase of suspended solids meters as described in Paragraph (B) of the attached "Procurement Strategies Overview" document; 3) Authorize the procurement of electrical /mechanical construction and installation services and the procurement of control system programming and integration services as described in Paragraphs (C) and (D) of the attached "Procurement Strategies Overview" document; and 4) Approve the necessary Budget Amendment in the amount of $115,000.00 to appropriate funds for Task 2 Project completion. PREPARED BY: Dennis McGee, P.E., Instrumentation/SCADA Manager, and PUED 16G2. pa= ^w2 1 cOLuERcuUNTV BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~_ Item Number 11�1-2 It.. Summary "~~"=~=~° 111:~°,~F: =W~"$2.-, ; 894,CU,~~ .^.". fl, "°~C,q;^.,."".o°,^,,^CC. ,idmitrlorl,. a B,d(j,' ir; tl,p ;j,,""'^ ".°``"=^""�,*~.=.".­°~°~=.= ~"~^­1°~�~* �q,:P—°~mS-t, R-!—mi-r—J,y Pmrd 7�SDV, Meeting Date =2i,00�11=""°° Prepared B) "°. "~.~.°.^~ ,,.i~t=~.".' =,,",",",^,° "°~~ ~."~"=l^=°^°^g Approved By '~~*"ch~ffi.rn wo,=~~.ot~"~ °~ fttC."'lirl- WasteWater I reatmen` 219.'200^,°I'M Approved By R.,"_^.~~RE- ,_~""""~"."~~.."".~°~' "= P."~°tfil_ P."~=~=~"."_~~" ZJ1012001 10^9 ^" Approved By rl.ft,"�h.l. ~~-t °~~~ == =^".liti"°~. ,_~"`""-^",g ..~...~ ".""00^.".",^° Th.ro~=~~ "p—l~.~~°". ~— P.1,11.=""~ ,llhl~"°."~"_"^^ 2fl112006835 "° Approved By °~.~~,ol s~^~"., =~ =~~"=,we. ".'~"~ ~"."~°"" "~,"^^``"^'M Approved By "~~^X D"�~ ,.^".=._^^^-..^"^..' Ow" "°-^ "-~thi^"~°d~^.1~ =120="°= Approved By ~^" ~~~~~" .^w-= v~~ =~v°~,Ig~^"�. "�~~"~~ge -"&°dq0 -111120053,=PM Approved By —_ °~~~^~k.—"' "=19-111.""~~0 =.�~ ".".., "ffl.~ off" ., Management ^°""".. ,"^"00"^°^"^° Approved By J.~.,rvl�dd °~°..".°' C~° Oft~ VI== ".'=M Lazenby & Associates, Inc. 1219 Cleburne Drive Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Phone. (239) 275 -0347 Fax: (239) 275 -8455 I Contact / Address I Collier County Utilites Project: South WWTP WTW IQ Network Ammonia & Nitrate Attn: Dennis McGee Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 21 Quotation Original Date Quotation # 8/9/2004 595 UPDATED TERMS FOB PROJECT DELIVERY 1/13/2005 Net 30 Ship Point Contractor Collier ... 4 - 6 weeks ARO QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 471000 2020 Controller for IQ sensor net 1 480005 Power supply (IQ) PS + (AVAIL Aug 2004) 1 480004 Power Supply Module IQ sensor net 2 480015 Output module NO RELAYS 6 analog outputs 2 480002 Display terminal for 184 or 2020 4 107002 Ammonia Armature - housing for ammonia. Requires reference and measuring electrode and air cleaner. 4 900107 CH Cleaning Head - mounts on WTW on line sensors 4 900109 Valve control module for WTW cleaning head 8 107004 Ammonia reference electrode - IQ - quote reflects yearly usage for 4 sensors based on 2 reference electrodes per unit per year - Typical usage 1 - 2 per year 24 107006 Ammonia measuring electrode - quote reflects yearly usage for 4 sensors based on 6 measuring electrodes per unit per year — Typical usage (3 - 6 per year) 1 107010 Standard - ammonia 1 mg /L for AmmoLyt / 1000 ml bottle 1 107012 Standard - ammonia 10 mg /L for AmmoLyt / 1000 ml bottle 1 107014 Standard - ammonia 100 mg /L for AmmoLyt / 1000 ml bottle Total FEID No. for Lazenby & Associates, Inc. 65- 0819457 Page 1 Lazenby & Associates, Inc. 1219 Cleburne Drive Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Phone: (239) 275 -0347 Fax: (239) 275 -8455 I Contact /Address I Collier County Utilites Project: South WWTP WTW IQ Network Ammonia & Nitrate Attn: Dennis McGee Agenda Item No, 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 21 Quotation Original Date Quotation # 8/9/2004 595 UPDATED TERMS FOB PROJECT DELIVERY 1/1312005 Net 30 Ship Point Contractor Collier... 4 - 6 weeks ARO QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION 4 107 022 NitraLyt armature for ISE nitrate sensor - DOES NOT INCLUDE CLEANING SYSTEM. Cleaning system is 900107 and 900109. 4 900107 CH Cleaning Head - mounts on WTW on line sensors 4 900109 Valve control module for WTW cleaning head 8 107024 Nitrate Reference Electrode (10) quote reflects yearly usage for 4 sensors based on 2 reference electrodes per unit per year - Typical usage 1 - 2 per year 24 107026 Nitrate Measuring Electrode (IQ) quote reflects yearly usage for 4 sensors based on 6 reference electrodes per unit per year - Typical usage 3 - 6 per year 1 107030 Standard - nitrate 5 mg /L NO3 -N / 1000 ml bottle 1 107032 Standard - nitrate 50 mg /L NO3 -N / 1000 ml bottle 1 107034 Standard - nitrate 500 mg/L NO3-N / 1000 ml bottle 8 480042 25' Cable - IQ sensor with connector 1,000 Cable, int... Cable for IQ system Used to connect components 4 109323 Two sensor holder with handle permits mounting of two IQ sensors on a single mounting bracket. Requires 109272 and 109279. 4 109279 Pipe mounting of boom or pendulum, with pivot Total FEID No. for Lazenby & Associates, Inc. 65 -0819457 Page 2 Lazenby & Associates, Inc. 1219 Cleburne Drive Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Phone: (239) 275 -0347 Fax: (239) 275 -8455 Contact / Address I Collier County Utilites Project: South WWTP WTW IQ Network Ammonia & Nitrate Attn: Dennis McGee Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 21 Quotation Original Date Quotation # 8/9/2004 595 UPDATED TERMS FOB PROJECT DELIVERY 1/13/2005 Net 30 Ship Point Contractor Collier ... 4 - 6 weeks ARO QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION 4 109272 SensoClean Swing Mounting Fixture Boom length 1.5 m 4 559350 Sunshield plus rail mount fitting for IQ 4 480014 Output module - IQ - Relay used to actuate the cleaning function Includes 3 analog outputs and 3 relays - Rail mount at sensor location Shipping Shipping 2 Startup Startup & training for equipment (per day) 1 T & L Travel & Living Expenses Total Lazenby & Associates, Inc. 1219 Cleburne Drive Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Phone: (239) 275 -0347 Fax: (239) 275 -8455 I Contact /Address I Collier County Utilites Project: South WWTP WTW IQ Network Ammonia & Nitrate Attn: Dennis McGee Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 21 Quotation Original Date Quotation # 8/9/2004 595 UPDATED TERMS FOB PROJECT DELIVERY 1/13/2005 Net 30 Ship Point Contractor Collier ... 4 - 6 weeks ARO QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION NOTE: This quote has been updated from November 30, 2004 quote. It now has one each of 480 004 and 480 005 power supplies instead of two 480 004 this provides 48 watts of power, the system as configured requires just over 43 watts. It has also bee amended to add a display terminal for a total of two. The junction boxes have been removed, they should be replaced with the 480 014 relay modules which are required to operate the valves for the air cleaning. Additional savings can be had by using WTW for the Suspended Solids application. The WTW system was evaluated on site and worked well as far we were able to learn. The suspended solids sensors would add only $2130.00 per sensor plus cable and possibly an additional power supply module. The measuring electrodes for the ammonia and nitrate sensors have a six month shelf life. Based upon a reported requirement for a year's supply of consumables we will provide a credit for the sensors and will supply sensors to either the contractor or the county on an as needed basis beginning with a startup supply of 8 of each sensor and then followed by replacement until the quantity purchased has been reached. Note: Cable length and pricing are based on a roll of 1000' cable, cable should be installed in conduit. I would recommend that the power supplies and output modules be mounted in the building housing the PLC to which the outputs will be connected. The terminal display(s) can be mounted on any component of the system and 1 additional terminal display can be added if desired. Keep in mind that the IQ system has the flexibility to add other sensors to the network as needed or desired. Sensors include: DO, pH, ORP, conductivity, suspended solids, TSS, ammonia, nitrate and UV with TOC option. Sales Tax Total $53,503.00 ov INV. wr Lazenoy a Associates, Inc. b,)-Ud1 V451 Page 4 WTW Measurement Systems, Inc. February 1, 2005 Dennis McGee Inst. /SCADA Mgr Collier County Utilities Public Utilities Div. Engineering Dept. 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Sole Source Supplier Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 21 1735 Brantley Rd. # 708 Ft. Myers, Florida 33907 Phone: 239 - 476-8870 800 - 645 -5999 Fax: 239 - 278 -7901 E -Mail info @WTW- inc.com Internet http;/ /www.wtw- inc.com Dear Mr. McGee, WTW Measurement Systems, Inc., a division of Nova Analytics Corp. is the manufacturer and sole source supplier of the IQ Sensor Net system and all of its sensors, modules, associated components and replacement parts. WTW is exclusively represented in the state of Florida by Lazenby Associates, 1219 Cleburne Dr., Ft. Myers, FL 33919. Sincerely, Frank Sicurella On -line Sales Manager WTW Measurement Systems Instrumentation for Water Testing Worldwide Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 21 AtALUFACTUn EY"S AEPNFSEKt At tE O WATER AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT EaU!PMEA r CGL,� ,(, rN�L ►t • COM ►ANY TO: Collier County Utiltites DATE: 01/17/05 SUBJECT: MONITORING EQUIPMENT We are pleased to offer the following equipment. Flow Splitter Box - immersion MLSS Meter (1) Cedic Suspended Solids Meter, Model BB2/ITX,ITX sensor, 31OSS construction with integral flushing nozzle, 33' sensor cable and 33' of 1/," flushing hose complete with B132 can trot box. Nema 4X, 110 /1/60 power, ! "npt connections, generates 4 -20 mA isolated output signal, solenoid valve for flushing is prewired to control box, flexible SS handrail mounting bracket, telescoping fiberglass rod (5'-1 35 ) for sensor aluminum handrail mounting plate with opaque sun shield screen with B82 control box and solenoid valve mounted at the factory and'!." y- strainer on solenoid suction. Reference: Drwg 109 of rod assembly & drwg 104A -1 of BB2 with mtg. plate. PIN 24021 Waste Activated Sludge Lines - Inline Solids Meters (2) Certic tnline Suspended Solids Meter, Model BB2ItTXII_, ITXIL Inline sensor, 31CSS construction with integral flushing nozzle, 90 psig design, 33' sensor cable and 33' of'/" flushing hose complete with 882 control box, Nema 4X, 11011/60 power, YS' npt connections, generates 4-20 mA isolated output signal, solenoid valve for flushing is praew)red to control box, and aluminum handrail mounting plate with opaque sun shield screen with BB2 control box and solenoid valve mounted and wired at the factory, 1 %s " 316SS isolation valve with 134" npt female nipple for your 7 ' /z" npt pipe connection, sensor body with mechanical stop and solenoid valve mounted at the factory and A" y- strainer on solenoid. P/N 24030 Start-up & training - 3 days per sperm cations PRICE: 27,965.00 . plus taxes, F.O.B. factory, with freight allowed to jobsfte. THIS PROPOSAL WILL EXPIRE IN THIRTY (30) DAYS UNLESS EXTENDED IN WRITING BY ELLIS K. PHELPS $ COMPANY. NOTE: WE DO NOT SUPPLY PIPING, VALVES, GUIDE BARS, PRESSURE GAUGES OR SPARE PARTS EXCEPT AS INDICATED ABOVE. TERMS: SUBJECT TO CREDIT APPROVAL NET 30 DAYS AVER DATE OF INVOICE OR 100% PAYABLE BEFORE START -Up OF EQUIPMEt4T M141CHEvER COMES FIRST). A SERVICE CHARGE OF 1.5% PER MONTH WILL BE ADDED TO ALL BALANCES UNPAID 30 HAYS AFTER, ANVOiCE HATE. FAILURE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THESE TERMS WILL VOID ALL WARRANTIES. CONDITIONS: (1) Price Is firm based tin our reoekring compte% approval and release For production four (4*eeks after dravfts heve been submAled by Ellis K. Ptaelps & Company. (2) PARTIAL BILLING WILL BE MADE ON ANY SPARTiAL SHIPMENT. 5777 COUAITRY 1 A K t S ORiYE FORT AiYERS. F>.OAIOA 33905 • 239 -693 -522a • FAX. 739 -693 -14$5 A P 6 P C A to F ?, mtrrk31 RttrtfAR &ZAtit (>S-AVAMMA�f I'd $a#rI C69 8cz S.dIa4d X 3 e-e-lraan go ai uer Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22; 2005 Page 11 of 21 i 11 A K L11 • C 1 17 R L A '. It 1 t It L -: l N I A I 1 V I C) W A I I It A N II W A 5 1 I W A I L' ! It t A I Y t N I I U 1! I I' Ll t N l fY4-• �. rMLYri \ COMf1M• We thank you for your interest in our equipment and look forward to being of service to you in the near future. A SIGNED FACSIMILE COPY OF THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE AS A BINDING CONTRACT. L hliIS K. PHELPS & COMPANY stoptler Stewart 5771 COUNTRY LAKES Oa1Vf - rORr AArEP.S A F 0 P K A f') F 7 M r E R S Z�d SBbT E69 BEZ Accepted By: Print Name: Company Name: Date: FtOR?DA 33905 - 239. 693 -5228 - FAX 239 691 -1485 R I V I C R A RE:.CH . SAVANNAH S°rT a4d )1 3 ebb c 80 Go 131 uer 1 Feb. 5, 2404 Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 21 Cerlic Environmental Controls, Inc. P.O. Box 420097, Atlanta, GA 34342 Phone (404) 256 -3097 Fax 256 -3094 Reference: Ccrlic — Representative Letter for Sales & Service To Who it May Concern, Please be advised that Ellis K. Phelps & Company of Apopka, FL is the only authorized supplier of Cerlic Products and repairs in the State of Florida (East of the Apalachicola River) and South Georgia Their staff have been trained to provide sales and start -up service assistance. Thank you for your interest in Cerlic Products. Do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding distribution or any other matter. Yours very truly, Jim Radaey, President CC: EK Phelps File: Jim1EKP Sole Source letter for rem Z'd SSiT C69 see SdTa4d A 3 di.Z:ZO So Co qaj 4106 Exchanga Avenue 9105 Naples. Florida 34104 -7024 6 E. B. SIMMONDS . Electrical, Inc. STREET L.tG"WG - UTtLMES - GEMRATOAS )MDUSTR}AL.AND COAA111ERMAL Estimate and Contract TO: Collier County Gov Lt Pttb& UaTtm amming Department Naples, FL 34112 l' wnc: (239) 530-5347 C ll* 877 -8286 R= (239)-530-5378 Attcntion. Daanis McGee We hereby submit specTmadous and estimates for South County Water Re dwmation Ftteil'ety, Process Mn140ring Equ4mant Agenda item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 21 Phone (239)643 -2770 Fax (239) 6d3 -8873 January 14, 2005 Quote 8Qt)410497 Ftunish and install electrical and plumbing bock -up for pnx=s monitoring cquipazat Total Material and Labor: S272.024= Less. For Collier County p vAdmg sbese hears: 1) Cerlic equipment - E11is K Phelps 532,160.00 Less 2) WTW Fqu*== - Lazenby S61,S28.30 Less 3) Program and Integration - ACT 123,000.00 mess Na Total (based on Collier County prvt uhng items 1. 2, and 3 above): S.�? 3 * Based on the use of Schedule BO PVC Conduit throughout the project. SubstantW c omplet i m date 90 days is posmbk based on Collier County provided items being in place. Note: This figure is far budget purposes only. Invoioe will be base an tune and material and will be it,cmiax d per Anonol Cookeet. We hereby propose to furnish is aecordtutce with the above specifiMons for the sum of (Sec above) Payment to be made as foliaws: Upon .submittal of Draw Rewest It is the r sibiiity of the p=basedo -na to provide adequate aocecc to the job sits If diumg the c of fhe job k beeomEs neom"ry to traverse sidewalks, driveways. grass or sod, fla vesbeds, ;sQruglats, ctc. Every effort vnil be made to avoid err. damage. Should breaks occur as a direct nsuit of'our maclunery. rzpws tray be made at addiborW cost to the owner. All material used in this contract is guaranteed to be as specified, and the ontim job is to be done in a neat and suhstmi ial maantx. Any alteration or deviatiatr Elam lute sP=fiCatt=v trm= shod upon Mvolvmg extra con of labor and material vii U be executed upon either a wnam or verbal order for same, and wilt beeotne an extra charge cover lire sum M ancfncd in this tract Purchaser agrees to Tony' charges of 1 1.12% per month which is an annual rate of I Via. In the event psyment is not made sea agrees to pay all costs and axparses of colieadort mclu&ng uxu rest and attorneys feess. n Signed by ACCEPTANCE OF ESTTMATE The foregaig term, specifiC36005 and conditions are satisfwtorv. and the same arc hereby aooeo. and aRreed to and hereby 8UdWriza YOU to cacxum the Sartre. Ice Sigacd by Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 21 AMER Y0 P U f k TECHNOLOGIES FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Dennis McGee Victor Smeenk ext. 314 CELL: 321- 228 -4214 COMPANY: DATE: Collier County Public Works Engineering JAN. 17, 2005 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 239- 530 -5378 1 PHONE NUMBER: 239 - 530 -5347 RE: Collier County -SCWRF Instrumentation and Controls - QUOTE ❑ PLEASE REVIEW AND RESPOND ® FOR YOUR INFORMATION NOTES /COMMENTS: Dennis, As requested, here is our quote for the South County Water Reclamation Facility Process Monitoring Equipment Project. The scope of our quote covers the work described in Addendum #2 Section 16850 of the Bid Specs. A summary is as follows: • All submittals and shop drawings for the PLC /HMI system package • Updates to the existing plant OaM manuals for the modifications performed in this project • PLC 1/0 modules • All necessary PLC and HMI programming • Analog 1/0 surge suppressors and isolating transmitters • Terminations at the PLCs and associated field instruments TOTAL BID COST: $20,000.00 Including Taxes Please note that this quote DOES NOT cover the following: • Field wiring and conduit • Field installation of instrumentation If you have any questions, please call. Regards, Victor Smeenk Process Control Engineer Office: 407- 875 - 1188 x,314 Cell: 321 -228 -4214 2200 Lucien Way • Suite 195 • Maidand, Florida 32751 407.875.1188 800.ACT.7185 • Fax 407.875.2058 IRM HOLE MONIES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS To: Dennis McGee, P.E. From: Clifford Pepper Date: January 26, 20 Subject: PROCUREMENT OF PROJECT MATERALS PROCESS MONITORING EQUIPMENT Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22, 2005 MEMORANMIJII�Ifz1 SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY cc: Lyn Wood, Joe !Goetz The purpose of this memorandum is to identify special procurement issues related to two potential suppliers for this project. The proposed procurement process for this project involves issuance of purchase orders to the following firms, subject to the County's terms and conditions: 1. WTW Measurement Systems Inc, c/o Lazenby & Associates, Inc. for nitrogen measurement equipment in the amount of $53,503.00, and 2. Cerlic Environmental Controls, Inc. c/o Ellis Phelps & Co for suspended solids measurement equipment in the amount of $27,965.00. WTW Measurement Systems has been specified as the only qualified bidder for this equipment in order to provide consistency with the same equipment that is already installed at the North County WRF. This standardization will provide enhanced maintenance, reduced spare parts inventory, equal reliability and reduced training. We recommend the County use WTW as the sole supplier for the nitrogen measurement equipment. Cerlic Environmental Controls has been specified as the only qualified bidder for this equipment due its unique abilities to measure suspended solids. The technology of the manufacture is of unique design, and the means of measurement is different than those of other manufacturers. This manufacturer offers suspended solids analyzers that are capable of extremely low range measurement, which are unique in the industry at this time. Further, Cerlic is the only manufacturer to have gained approval by Florida compliance regulators for true suspended solids measurement in pprn units. Accordingly, we recommend the County use Cerlic as the sole supplier for the suspended solids measurement equipment. 1 of 1 W:\2003\2003153\Cl Client CoRespondence\20050204- dm- Procurementlssues- memo.doc �A� HOLE MONIES ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS February 4, 2005 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 34110 • Phone: 239.254.2000 • Fax: 239.254.2097 Mr. Dennis McGee, P.E. Collier County PUED 3301 Tamiami Trail East Building H Naples, FL 34112 RE: EVALUATION OF QUOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION PROCESS MONITORING EQUIPMENT — SCWRF HM File No.: 2003.153 Dear Dennis: Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 21 We have reviewed the quotation from E. B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc dated January 14, 2005 received by the Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department for the above referenced project. This quotation has been analyzed and compared to the two previous quotations received by the County on December 1, 2004 from contractors under annual contract. The following table reflects this analysis. Work Description Piping and Electrical Work Nitrogen Analyzers (WTW) Suspended Solids Meters (Cerlic) Software and Integration (ACT) _TOTAL E. B. Simmonds $155,336 $53,503 $27,965 $20,000 $271,804 D. N Higgins included included included included $343,000 Mitchell & Stark included included included included $386,597 As noted above, the E. B. Simmonds proposal does not include all materials, and the purchase of three additional material items is required. It is anticipated these three items will be purchased by the County. A copy of the three proposals for these items is enclosed. Refer to the Hole Montes memorandum dated January 26 for further information on the procurement of these materials. Naples • Fort Myers • Venice Mr. Dennis McGee Collier County PLIED HM File 2003.153 February 4, 2005 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 21 The pricing noted above for E. B. Simmonds and the thee material suppliers is fair and equitable under the current market conditions. Procurement of the project in this manner will save the County significant funds, and this approach neither places the County at any material risk nor affects the quality of the work in any way. In addition to the preceding project costs, we recommend an additional project contingency budget of $15,000 to address unforeseen conditions in the existing facility as well as any enhancements that may be requested by the County. E. B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc., has constructed several County projects, and we understand this experience has been positive. Hole Montes recommends issuance of the Work Order to E. B. Simmonds for $155,336.00. We also recommend County issue the following purchase orders subject to the County's terms and conditions: (1) American Computer Technologies for software programming and system integration in the amount of $20,000.00, (2) WTW Measurement Systems Inc, c/o Lazenby & Associates, Inc. for nitrogen measurement equipment in the amount of $53,503.00, and (3) Cerlic Environmental Controls, Inc. c/o Ellis Phelps & Co for suspended solids measurement equipment in the amount of $27,965.00. The scope of supply for these purchase orders should comply with the appropriate Contract requirements including startup, testing, training and O &M manuals. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely yours, HOLE M ES, INC. >< Pepper III, P.E. Direc of Project Management cc: Lyn Wood, Collier County Purchasing Joe Goetz, Hole Montes W:1200312 003 1 5 31C1 Client Correspondence120050204 dm- ContractAward ltr.doc Agenda item No. 1602 February 22, 2006 Page 18 of 21 Procurement Strategies Overview: Nutrient Monitoring Equipment South County Water Reclamation Facility A. Direct Purchase of Ammonia/Nitrate Analyzers Price quote was solicited for the specified equipment; four (4) WTW ammonia analyzers and four (4) WTW nitrate analyzers, from the distributor representative, Lazenby and Associates. Lazenby is the authorized distributor of WTW, the specified manufacturer. A copy of the Lazenby quote with distributor authorization (5 pages) is attached. Under Section V.A.I of the County's Purchasing Policy the Board may waive formal competition where the purchase is transacted with a single source. Section V.A.3 provides for a waiver of competition "where it is determined to be in the best interests of the County to do so." It is noted that similar ammonia/nitrate monitoring equipment at the North County Water Reclamation Facility is of the same manufacture and model (WTW). Accordingly, substantiation is made that purchase of like equipment for this project at the South County Water Reclamation Facility is in the best interests of the County. Support of this waiver and procurement is offered by Hole Montes in the attached Memorandum dated January 26, 2005 (Subj: Procurement of Project Materials). The Purchasing Department supports this justification for the waiver of formal competition under both provisions of the policy. Failure to approve the waiver will delay this project unnecessarily, which will in turn compromise the effectiveness of the Plant control system and limit operational decision - making capabilities. Also, some of the already - performed engineering and planning would have to be duplicated or otherwise re- worked at additional cost to the County. B. Direct Purchase of Suspended Solids Meters Price quote was solicited for the specified equipment, three (3) Cerlic Suspended Solids Meters, from the distributor representative, E.K. Phelps and Company. Phelps is the authorized distributor of Cerlic, the specified manufacturer. A copy of the Phelps quote with distributor authorization (3 pages) is attached. As with the ammonia/nitrate analyzers above, a waiver of Purchasing Policy V (A) is requested. Contrary to the procurement strategy of the above, however, the justification for waiver of V (A) is that this equipment meets the criteria for Single Source Purchases. The manufacture of the Cerlic suspended solids meter is of singular, unduplicated design, and the instrument is unique in its means of measurement. Support of the waiver of V (A). 1, based on Single Source purchase, is also contained within the aforementioned attached Memorandum (Subj: Procurement of Project Materials) from Hole Montes. The Purchasing Department also supports this justification for waiver of competition. Minus the approval of this waiver, the same consequences as mentioned above can be anticipated for this decision. C. Procurement of Electrical/Mechanical Installation For the physical installation of the equipment, a price quote was solicited from E.B. Simmonds. A copy of the Simmonds proposal for the installation work is attached. Under the terms of Fixed Term Contract #04 -3580, the proposal received for this installation is within the terms of Contract #04 -3580. Multiple competitive quotes are not required under this Contract. Additional procurement authorization for the Simmonds installation work is not, in and of itself, Agenda Item No. 16C2 February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 21 required — but is nonetheless solicited under this Executive Summary. PUED and Purchasing Staff, and Hole Montes, have examined the pricing from Simmonds and the PLIED Project Manager and Hole Montes jointly determined that the fees offered in this proposal are fair and reasonable. D. Procurement of Control System Programming and Integration For the control system integration associated with installing these meters and fulfilling the engineer's design requirements for the system, a price quote was solicited from American Computer Technologies ( "ACT"), authorized service provider under Fixed Term Contract #04- 3536 "Annual Contract for Instrumentation, Controls, Telemetry and SCADA Integration Services." A copy of the ACT proposal for these services is attached. As with the Simmonds proposal and procurement authorization requirements as stated above, under the terms of Fixed Term Contract #04 -3536, authorization of the work proposed by ACT does not require multiple competitive quotes, nor does it require Board authorization for the dollar amount of their quote. However, as with the Simmonds work, approval of this work by the Board is herein solicited. PLIED and Purchasing Staff, and Hole Montes, have examined the pricing from ACT and the PLIED Project Manager and Hole Montes jointly determined that the fees offered in this proposal are fair and reasonable. Financial Summary of Procurements A B C and D Above Procurement Items) Price Ammonia/Nitrate Analyzers - Direct Purchase from vendor $ 53,503.00 Suspended Solids Meters - Direct Purchase from vendor $ 27,965.00 Electrical/Mechanical Installation - Services Purchase Order $155,336.00 Control System Programming and Integration - Services Work Order $ 20,000.00 Total Installation Procurements Costs $256,804.00 Submitted By: Dennis McGee Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering Department Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 21 Table 1: Funding and Expense Summary, Project 725081 (Task 2 — Nutrient Monitoring) Existing Funds available, Project 725081 $173,400 Engr. Services, WO #HM- FT -04 -01 (prev. procured) $ 18,743 ($ 18,743) Associated Costs to be procured Direct Purchase: Ammonia/Nitrate Analyzers ($ 53,503) Direct Purchase: Suspended Solids Meters ($ 27,965) Construction/Installation Services — Electrical/mechanical ($155,336) Control System Integration Services ($ 20,000) Engr. Services, additional - Amendment #1 to WO #HM- FT -04 -01 ($ 11,817) Miscellaneous /Contingencies /Additional Services ($ 19,779) Budget Amendment Needs Amount Added to Project 725081 Budget per this BA SIL5 000 Totals $307,143 ($307,143) Submitted By: Dennis McGee, P.E. Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering Department Agenda Item No. 1602 February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 21 Project Name: SCWRF Reliability Improvements- Task 2 Nutrient Monitoring Capital F49Hct No. 725081 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08° 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 EVENT Cost QM Qtr2 0d3 0tr4 Ctrl Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qlrl Qtr2 Ctrl 012 Q1,31061 Land Acquisition i to Land Use/Zoning so Design /Permit S30Ae0 Construction riYaaea Inspection fo Project Totmi iMAU Recommend Action: Recommendation to approve components and service purchases and Authorize Budget Amendment for the installation and systems programming of nutrient monitoring equipment at the Sot lfh r- ,in # %# W�Car Reclamation Facility Plant Project 725081 Agenda Item No. 1603 February 22, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 5 Recommendation to Request Standardization and Approve Purchase of a TV Truck from Community Utilities Environmental Services, Inc., (CUES, Inc.) in the Amount of $198,300. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, Ex- Officio, the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, standardize TV Trucks with CUES, Inc. and approve a purchase to CUES, Inc. for a TV Truck for the purpose of viewing gravity sewer lines to inspect for infiltration and repair of broken lines. CONSIDERATIONS: L Wastewater Collections currently has three TV Trucks manufactured by CUES, Inc. and needs to replace one 15 -year -old vehicle, which has been deferred replacement for several years. The replacement of this vehicle is in compliance with Fleet Management directive. The truck is reaching an age where it becoming difficult to obtain parts for repair and the technology on -board the existing vehicle has become outdated. By viewing sewer lines to inspect for infiltration and repair of broken lines, the County will experience tangible benefits of reduced collections system maintenance and fewer sanitary sewer backups. It is part of our water reclamation facilities' permits to not have sanitary sewer overflows and the purchase of this replacement vehicle is a critical component to staying in compliance. 2. Efficiencies will be gained by purchasing a replacement TV truck from CUES, Inc. The cameras, onboard computers and other component parts are interchangeable between the trucks. If we were to purchase a TV truck from a manufacturer other than CUES, Inc., we could encounter compatibility problems. 3. Our quote is comparable to three invoices for recent purchases by other municipalities for similarly sized CUES TV trucks with slightly different on -board technology configurations. Based on a bid dated October 15, 2004, York County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors authorized the award of a contract to Cues, Inc. for a Sewer TV Inspection Van in the amount of $206,900. Orange County in Florida purchased four (4) Cues TV Step Vans with Lamp Systems for an amount of $206,070 for each vehicle in September of 2003. Thirdly, the City of Tacoma, Washington purchased one TV Cube Van with Lateral Launch for $206,345 on July 7. 2004. Additionally, the Wastewater Department staff recommends the approval of this purchase from CUES, Inc., as it is the exclusive representative of genuine CUES Parts and Service. 4. Wastewater Collections currently carries an inventory of parts for three trucks valued at $15,000, which would not increase if this vehicle were purchased. 5. There are currently eight employees trained on the use of these vehicles and training requires six months to one year. Upon completion of the hiring process, three additional employees will be trained on the use of these vehicles. 6. Wastewater Collections has the manpower to utilize three vehicles. Staff recommends the purchase of a replacement CUES, Inc., TV Truck. FISCAL IMPACT: Total expenditure for this purchase is estimated at $198,300 and will be funded from FY05 Wastewater Collection Budget in County Water /Sewer Fund 408. Agenda Item No. 1603 February 22, 2005 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact. Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, Ex- Officio, the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, approve a purchase order for one TV Truck from CUES, Inc. in the total amount of $198,300. PREPARED BY: Marisa Garcia, Operations .Analyst, Wastewater Department Agenda iwm 1 GC,3 February 2 2005 Page. 3 oF 5 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COLINTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16C3 Item summary RecnnvrrndaFOn to Req.cm 1 Will Aj1p11. Pig, ji4,• e.?{ j,'f V '­,ck, tjl'21-s Svr1iCel;. lr,i. ik'AjF S Inc. i if, the Amount r.! $198,300. -V Truck 11c.-cl-- Meeting Date 22224105 9 LI; 00 AV Approved By St,,Pl— L. 1jvqy ViN.t-1111 17-11itcV.- M.mhq ' Dat, Public thilitie, W—rew.c., 1129!20116 912 AM Approved By Sir- corl,11 S— Director Wo, 1128!20059:15 AM Approved By Thomas VAd- Public Willi Public utilities op—th— 1128ONS 10:52 AM Approved By Joseph B. Cheatham Wi.t.—tit,, Director Public Llbl,tl- Wasla.Water Treatment 21212005 12'63 PM Approved By James W. DO—V Public 1111111JI,ii Ad,ohii!,hilro, It- utilltic, Pohil. U11th— Ad-c-ir.om, 2;1112006 2:44 PM Approved By OMB C—dl-w Aidimm-laill. A-istim, Do" -.11Manager's otfi- Office of cl—g--t A Budget 2fl112005 3 ag Fill Approved By Michael S---k, rtanagametti & C.-ty Ma-thci`s Off— O?fi— of Mth..Yene"l a Budget it 112005 4,42 t'M Approved By ilm- V P4.0d hi.ri U,3v fl— '4 C.-'y Cc—"—cm— County OMr, 21102005 9:01 AM Feb 09 05 06:29p Collier County Wastewater l -M 9.2805 3:47PM February 9, 2005 Ref,, TV only Unit With LAMP in 15' Hi Cube Truck David Fitts Collier Co_ Utilities 6027 Shirley St Ntopies, FL 34100 239 - 591.0186 via FedF-x Dear David. � 941-581-1611 A Item Nop I kM3 No. 304 ruary 22, 2005 Page 4 of 5 K;a.'7ha Starxyoid or4x. induW�' Per Yur request, f have updated the component list on the TV-only Unit. This includes the LAMP Lateral Inspection system and the now Evolution interior The Lamp System allows you to inspect the service oonnections form the mainline without the need for a dean -out on the lateral, This Package also includea the OZ ti Zoom Pan and Tilt camera and the Granite XP data system. 1V only Hi Cube wifti LAMP system per the attached camponent list. Budget price $198,300.00 CUES is the sole manufacture and supplier of OEM JOH9 M Lqu4wnant Manufacture) produeWpwts for your existing CUES TV and TV Seat equipment. The mem tone6ts of CUES OEM purchases ■ra; • Continuation of Warranty • Life Time Loaner Policy on CUES Equipment Maintain Standarmization of Equtpnwnt • CUES has the only filly stocked pears and service facility located within the State of norida eliminetlng the need for the CRy to stock an expensive parts inventory or beingsu*wtW to tong periods of interrupted service slue to lack of s pare parts. CUES Is the largest suppiier of Nand TV/Sow equipment in the World, with over 3000 system in operation. More municipalities and contras ors use OMS' System than all other manufactuted brands combined. The World Headquarters and manufacturing plant is located In Orlando. Florida; with offices in Califomia, Canada arrd Europe. Please do not hesitate to call me N you need additional inforMatian. 1- 800. 327 -7791 wd 240 (WOO), 1 -800- 327 -7791 ma 439 (voice melt 24hrs) i-8WON -3741 (Paget) include vow area code Sincerely, r Danis Parker fkcrida Sales Manager Agenda Item No. 1603 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 5 °The Standard of the Industry' ;IEEE: E:! 3600 Rio Vista Avenue Orlando, FL 33ao5 September 9, 2004 Fax: 941 - 591 -1611 Rich Trove Board of Public Commissioners Collier Co: 6027 Shirley Street Naples, FL 34109 This letter is to advise that CUES in Orlando FL arid Montclair CA are the only authorized source of genuine CUES Replacement Parts and Service. We strongly recommend the use of genuine CUES Parts and Service due to potential, compatibility problems. We have recorded' instances where non standard parts resulted in major damage to the electronic system. We appreciate your interest in CUES Equipment and look forward to being of service to you. Best regards, 2reR Andre Agenda Item No. 16C4 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. OBJECTIVE: Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for residential account where the County has received payment in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. CONSIDERATIONS: Resolution No. 94 -668 adopted by the Board on September 13, 1994 provided for the recording of the list of 1992 delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment and a mailing of a written notice of the imposition of each residential unit lien. Resolution No. 94 -668 was recorded on September 19, 1994 in Official Record Book 1986, Pages 766 through 942 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain residential properties for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, provides that Satisfaction of Lien shall be approved by Resolution. The attached Resolution lists the one account that has been paid in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for recording the Satisfaction of Lien and the Resolution is approximately $20.00, which is to be charged to County Water /Sewer Operating Fund (408). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Resolution approving the one Satisfaction of Lien on the account listed in the Resolution and authorizing the Chairman to sign this one Satisfaction of Lien for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. PREPARED BY: Pam Callis, Revenue Supervisor, Utility Billing Customer Service Agenda Item Nra 16C4 February 22. 2005 gage 2 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16CA Item Summary Rrcnmrnerxl;rtlen to adopt a R- cwtion to approve. the SatiOrafl—, a /'� :.ien for i Sola1 Wavl& reside t:w account whermn the Courtly has le -,—,! payment argil acrd I.:en :P a;Nistied In hall I., the 1592 54:d and O.pceal Services Special Asseasment. Herat impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Loan. Meeting Date 2/ "22/211G5 Pi 0'1'00 4M Prepared By Uale Pa Callls Revenue Su Pervixor 2111 ^.006 1:13:27 PM Public Utilitie., Uncs Approved By Pam Call, Rlnenue Suparulsor Data Pu bite Utiiltie. UBCS 21312005 2:02 PM Approved By Thomas Wides DPerationx Direcrnt Dale P.Wic Ublties Public Utlanes Operations 2/4/2006 4:69 PM Approved By Teresa Mesen Revenue Manager Date Public Utlllti" UBCS 218/2005 210 PM Approved By Jahn A. Yonkaxky Utility Bluing Dlractor Date Public Utilities UBCS 2/612005 2:18 PM Approved By .lames W. Det.ony Public UUilees Admini.n.tcl Dale Public UtAlore Public utilities Administration 2.r1r1/2005 6:46 PM Approved By OMB COnrdtmWr Amil.l.bmroe A,i ... tanr Data Canty Mawgar's Omre 01111ce or Management S Budget 2111/2006 0:34 AM Approved By Randy Onm—ld M ... gerb-1BUdget Aludytl Dale County Manager's Orrice Office of Management 8 Budget 2111/2005 ID:02 AM Approved By Michael 6mykowskl Mana9emant4, Budget Director Date County Managers Office Omce,fM— Q—.nta Budget 21IV200611:23 AM Approved By .lames V Mudd Courtly Manager ()ale Board of Cnunty Gommlasloners County Managers Office 211112005 12A9 PM This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 Agenda Item No. 16C4 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Property Folio No. 00147960003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Quinn, David C =& Shiela T 2413 SW 5t" AV Camas WA 986070000 The Lien was recorded on the 19"' day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1986, Pages 766 through 942, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: 12 48 25 N1 /2 OF SE1 /4 OF NE1 /4 OF NW1 /4 5 AC OR 743 PG 1546 Folio No. 00147960003 Project No. 62000 Account No. 10252 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of .2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency David C. Weigel County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - Agenda Item No. 1604 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on September 19, 1994 adopted Resolution No. 94 -668 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1992; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records a Satisfaction of Lien on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1992 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessment for the following accounts numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 94 -668, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien individually in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 10252 This Resolution adopted this second and majority vote. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney day of , 2005, after motion, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 1605 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. OBJECTIVE: Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a residential account where the County has received payment in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. CONSIDERATIONS: Resolution No. 2000 -236 adopted by the Board on August 1, 2000 provided for the recording of the list of 1995 delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment and a mailing of a written notice of the imposition of each residential unit lien. Resolution No. 2000 -236 was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain residential properties for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, provides the Satisfaction of Lien shall be approved by Resolution. The attached Resolution lists the one account that has paid in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for recording the Satisfaction of Lien and the Resolution is approximately $20.00, which is to be charged to County Water /Sewer Operating Fund (408). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Resolution approving the one Satisfaction of Lien for the account listed in the Resolution and authorizing the Chairman to sign the one Satisfaction of Lien for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. PREPARED BY: Pam Callis, Revenue Supervisor, Utility Billing Customer Service Agenda Item Na . 16C5 Febn.lary 2.^., 2005 Page 2 Of 6 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ..a Item Number 150.1 Item summary RecOm.nendation t0 adopt a R- oiut,- tc approve the Satistacalon of Lien for a Solid W'asle IeslilenUal account wherein the County has 11elyell puylnent and sail b.-,. sati =..bed in full furthe t9'?5 Soll V -Ste i 011eclion a,M Olaposal Sr.Nires Special A9Geesment. F-iii impact is $20.01 to record the Sau9faction cf Llen. Meeting Date 2122r2005 9 0C, 01 AM Prepared By Date Pam Collis R—ri Dc Supcvisor 211!200C, 1:13:59 PM Public Utilities tlncs Approved By Pam Canis Rryenue SUpnrvlsar note Public utilities UBCS WWOS 2:05 PM Approved By Thomas Wldes Oporations Direct., Dale Public Utilities Public Ullllaes Dperalion, 214)2005 5:00 PM Approved By Jon., A. Yonkosky Utility Billing Director Date Public Utilities UBCS 21812DO5 2:20 PM Approved By Teresa these" Revenue Manager Date Public Will- UBCS 21&12095 2:23 PM Approved By Jame:: W. Dee_mly Public Utilldes Adnllnlsbatot Oate Public Utilities Public Utilities Administration 2!1012005 5:46 PM Approved By OMB C.onrdlnator Ad.,,niWoUve A- I,tant out. County Manager's Office Umce al Managem m &audget 2111P20059 :33 AM Approved By Randy Gmenwald Managamdll /Budget Analyst Dale County Manager's Office Office of Menagement & Burger 2111/2005 10'09 AM �..., Approved By Michael emykowski Management & Budget Utrector Dato County Managers Office Office of Management a Budget 2/11/200511:24 AM Approved By James v Mudd COD.ly Managnr Date Board of County Commissioners County Managers Office 211 u2005 2:52 PM This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Agenda Item No. 16C5 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Property Folio No. 52651240005 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Filostin, Louis Ocepha Polite PO Box 2049 Immokalee, FL 341432049 The Lien was recorded on the 8t' day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Five Dollars and Twenty Nine Cents ($105.29), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: JOYCE PARK BILK C LOTS 5 + 6 OR 1389 PG 571 Folio No. 52651240005 Project No. 65000 Account No. 17628 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this _ day of , 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency David C. Weigel County Attorney Agenda Item No. 16C5 February 22, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- Page 4 of 4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August 1, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 2000 -236 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1995; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2000 -236, was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain properties for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1995; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records a Satisfaction of Liens on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 90-30, as amended the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1995 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessment for the following account numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 2000 -236, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the account identified herein. The Satisfaction of Lien attached hereto referencing the account identified herein is hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and this Satisfaction of Lien in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 17828 This Resolution adopted this day of 2005, after motion, second and majority vote. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BY: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney Agenda Item No. 16C6 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. OBJECTIVE: Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a residential account where the County has received payment in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. CONSIDERATIONS: Resolution No. 2000 -237 adopted by the Board on August 8, 2000 provided for the recording of the list of 1996 delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment and a mailing of a written notice of the imposition of each residential unit lien. Resolution No. 2000 -237 was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain residential properties for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, provides the Satisfaction of Lien shall be approved by Resolution. The attached Resolution lists the one account that has been paid in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for recording the Satisfaction of Lien and the Resolution is approximately $20.00, which is to be charged to County Water /Sewer Operating Fund (408). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Resolution approving the one Satisfaction of Lien for the account listed in the Resolution and authorizing the Chairman to sign the one Satisfaction of Lien for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. PREPARED BY: Pam Callis, Revenue Supervisor, Utility Billing Customer Service Agenda item No 1FiCb February 22.'0115 flage. 2 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 1506 Item Summary Reccrnmendabon to ad-rt a Res;::t:non k, aPplove the Satic!acann of Lien in, a Soul Wade !eiuni noa'..',,count w, ;—,:n the ::nun!•; has lecetve.d pay!nent and iind I -, a; sah l!ed r, full for the 199E Solid Wavle r:Cll eci pn and ❑IS1 os a' Sery l re.. SPe rl al Al.- n, nm, Flacal Impact I6 SK D0 to record the ndtlefdullo^ 01 L!en. Meeting Date 42.2200. e 00 OD AM Approved By Pam Call It Revenue. Suparvlsm Date Public Utllities UBGS 21312005 2:05 PM Approved By Thomas Wide, Opnlutlon, ot—to! Date Public Utllities Public Utln Ges Operations 2!4!2005 6 of PM Approved By Teresa Riesen Revenue Manager Date Public Utllities USCS 215!2005 2:21 PM Approved By John A, Yonkosky Utiflly Billing Director Date Public U104'es Ow"s 2id120116 2:29 PM Approved By James W, DeLOny Pubtic Utlilee, Atlminlstrscu, Data Politic Ulifftie, Public fJlilnt- AdmlMStmtltm 211012003 5:a5 PM Approved By DP /B Cuurdinator AdhflhWralive Assi,olnt Date County MOnagar's Office Office of Mana0ement A Budget 211111005 9:12 AM Approved By Randy 61--ld ManagementlRUdget Avidly.,; nwe County Manager's OH!ee Ot1ke et Management M Budget 2A i 200510:12 A 1 Approved By Michael sthVkmuski Management K Budget Dir -lor Dal, County Manager's or11Ce office or Managements Budget 2111!2006 11:25 AM Approved By Janie, V l0odo County rl:lnagar Date Suald p1 County commissioners County Mithayi,", OfAce 2111 f20D51:54 PM This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Agenda Item No. 16C6 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Property Folio No. 56658280006 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Langley, Charles T =& Shirley M 225 Bald Eagle Dr Marco Island FL 341453563 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Fifty Two Dollars and Seven Cents ($52.07) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: MARCO BCH UNIT 1 BILK 12 LOT 9 Folio No. 56658280006 Project No. 66001 Account No. 3984 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this _ day of , 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency David C. Weigel County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2005- Agenda Item No. 16C6 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A CERTAIN ACCOUNT THAT HAS PAID IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August 1, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 2000 -237 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1996; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2000 -237, was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official ecord Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain properties for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1996; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in Official Records a Satisfaction of Lien on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1996 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessments for the following account numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 2000- 237, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the account identified herein. The Satisfaction of Lien attached hereto referencing the account identified herein is hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and this Satisfaction of Lien in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 3984 This Resolution adopted after this day of 2005 after motion, second and majority vote. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BY: FRED W. COYLE,CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney Agenda Item No. 1607 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal impact is $114.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. OBJECTIVE: Recommendation that the executes Satisfactions for the Agreement and/or Sewer System Impact Fees. Board acknowledges full payment, and To Extend Installment Payment of Water CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water Sewer District, is the owner and holder of the Notice of Promise to Pay and Agreement to Extend Payment of Water and/or Sewer System Impact Fees executed by: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Full payment and satisfactions of these agreements have been made. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the satisfactions. FISCAL IMPACT: Satisfaction of these agreements has increased the cash flow in the water impact fee (Fund 411) by $0.00 and sewer impact fee (Fund 413) by $10,960.15. The fiscal impact for recording the Satisfactions of Lien is approximately $114.00, which is to be charged to (Fund 408) the County Water/ Sewer Operating Fund Utility Billing cost center. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with these items. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to acknowledge full payment and the satisfactions of these agreements and to surrender the same as canceled. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfactions of Notice of Promise to Pay and Agreement. PREPARED BY: Pam Callis, Revenue Supervisor, Utility Billing Customer Service Agenda Item No 16137 February 22. 2005 Page 2 of 15 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 18C' (tern Summary Reonmmrr':datinn to aBproye . rxrruit and record 5'ilistactiona f"' retain Watfl an 1 /0, Sewer :rnp;lct Fre Payment Aq,et.menL F:nral impatd 105114.00 t0 rnalld ti:r. 4a'istidior0 cf U- Meeting Data 2/22/2005 5.00 00 AM Prepared By Dan, Pam Cellis R—run S.P —N.' 2/1/2005 1:15:11 PM Public Utilities UBCS Approved By Pam Celli. Rey..". Supervisor Date Public Uteltiea UBCS 2/3/2005 2:04 PM Approved By Teresa Met- Revenue Manager Date Public Uttfid- UBCS 21811006 2:25 PM Approved By Jon. A. Yonkosky Utility Billing Dlre for Date Public U011titu UBCS 2!8120052:25 PM Approved By Thomas Wide, Operation, Director Date Public Utilities Public W100's Opmatlons 218:2005 5:01 PM Approved By Jameu IN. 0.Lony Pubic Utillues AdmbnStratol Date Public Utilities Public Ullift s AdmiNSUauwr 2/10/2006 5:47 PM Approved By OMB C— dmator Adminittrair- A,eietant Date County Manager'. Office Omce or Management d Budget 21t1120059:47 AM Approved By Mlrhartl Smyknwaki Mnnegamont 8 Budget Oimcwr Dan, County Manager's Orr- Office of Management & Budget 2111,2005 11:18 AM Approved By Jamcs V. Mudd County Menage, Date Baafd o1 C—ly Commi.M.ncrc County manager-5 office 21112005 3:57 PM Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 15 EXHIBIT "A" 1. John L. Becraft and Cheryl A. Becraft, husband and wife, securing the principal balance of one thousand two hundred fifty nine dollars and sixty -six cents ($1,259.66). Folio #26581200002 2. Ronald G. and Mary Lou Bowers, securing the principal balance of One thousand one hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($1,180.00). Folio #48481520006 3. Gary J. and Joan A. Cafferelli, husband and wife, securing the principal balance of one thousand seven hundred dollars and no cents ($1,700.00). Folio #00735240009 4. Reid L. & Marjorie S. Elcessor, securing the principal balance of one thousand one hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($1,180.00). Folio #48485440001 5. Joe V. GiofFre and Mary Gioffre, husband and wife, securing the principal balance of one thousand one hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($1,180.00). Folio #48484800008 6. Jeffery B. Johnston and Nancy A. Johnston, husband and wife, securing the principal balance of one thousand one hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($1,180.00). Folio #48482040006 7. George S. Korakas and Melanie D. Korakas, husband and wife, securing the principal balance of one thousand one hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($1,180.00). Folio #81622200003 8. Rita R. Sanchez, a single woman, securing the principal balance of two thousand one hundred dollars and forty-nine cents ($2100.49). Folio #62101320009 Agenda Item No. 1607 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: John L. Becraft and Cheryl A. Becraft, Husband and Wife Whose mailing address is 1110 Coconut Cir. Naples, FI 33942 Bearing the date of the 5t' day of November 1991, recorded in Official Record Book 001660 Page(s) 001760, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine Dollars and Sixty-six Cents ($1,259.66) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK C, COCONUT GROVE, UNIT NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 69, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOLIO NUMBER: 26561200002 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florda, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of . 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN COUNTY ATTORNEY Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX -OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: Ronald G and Mary Lou Bowers Whose mailing address is 11008 Palmwood Cir Hagerstown, Md 21742 Bearing the date of the 7' day of September 1999, recorded in Official Record Book 2589 Page(s) 0903, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars and No Cents ($1,180.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GULF -WINDS EAST CONDO, UNIT 1 APT C -102 FOLIO NUMBER: 48481520006 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida, and as Ex -Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of 2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: Gary J. and Joan A. Cafferelli, Husband and Wife Whose mailing address 851 Manatee Road Naples, FL 34114 Bearing the date of the 18"' day of August 1999, recorded in Official Record Book 2582 Page(s) 2987, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($1,700.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 28, BLOCK B, RIVERWOOD UNIT NO. 2, AN UNRECORDED PLAT, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT A POINT BEARING NORTH 89 20'26" WEST AND A DISTANCE OF 189.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 14, BLOCK B, RIVERWOOD UNIT NO. 2, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, AT PAGE 90, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 39'34" WEST 110.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 31, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89 20'26" WEST 62.69 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 02 28 34" EAST, 110.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 20'26" EAST, 59.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE NORTHERLY 6 FEET RESERVED FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT. TOGETHER WITH 1978 ELDORADO MOBILE HOME I.D. NOS. 04869A AND 048698; TITLE NOS. 17355605 3 AND 173556086. FOLIO NUMBER: 00735240009 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of . 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 15 GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT Approved as to forth and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN COUNTY ATTORNEY Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: Reid L. & Marjorie S. Elcessor Whose mailing address is 400 Fox Haven Dr. Apt. 4109 Naples, FI 34104 Bearing the date of the 7"' day of June 1999, recorded in Official Record Book 2555 Page(s) 1188, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars and No Cents ($1,180.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: UNIT NO. G -302, OF GULFWINDS EAST, A CONDOMINIUM, AS RECORDED IN THE CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGES 153 -154, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH THE PRO -RATA INTEREST IN THE COMMON ELEMENTS, AND COMMON PROPERTY, OF THE CONDOMINUM AND LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS APPURTENANT THERETO, MORE PARTICULARLY DELINEATED AND IDENTIFIED IN THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM OF GULF WINDS EAST, A CONDOMINIUM, AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 508 AT PAGES 165 THROUGH 224, INCLUSIVE, AS COMPLETELY AMENDED IN O.R. BOOK 939, PAGES 1170 THROUGH 1236, AND AS AMENDED BY THE FINAL SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS THERETO. FOLIO NUMBER: 48485440001 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of . 2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 9of15 GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN COUNTY ATTORNEY Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 15 `rt Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: Joe V. Gioffre and Mary Gioffre, husband and wife Whose mailing address is 1821 E Cooke Rd Columbus, Ohio 43224 Bearing the date of the 27'" day of July 1999, recorded in Official Record Book 2574 Page(s) 2676, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars and No Cents ($1,180.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: UNIT NO. F -307 OF GULF WINDS EAST, A CONDOMINIUM AS RECORDED IN CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGES 153 -154, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH THE PRO -RATA INTEREST IN THE COMMON ELEMENTS, AND COMMON PROPERTY, OF THE CONDOMINIUM AND LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS APPURTENANT THERETO, MORE PARTICULARLY DELINEATED AND IDENTIFIED IN THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM OF GULF WINDS EAST, A CONDOMINIUM, AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 508 AT PAGES 165 THROUGH 224, INCLUSIVE, AS COMPLETELY AMENDED IN Q.R. BOOK 939, PAGES 1170 THROUGH 1236, AND AS AMENDED BY THE FINAL SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS THERETO. FOLIO NUMBER: 48484800008 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of 2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL COUNTY ATTORNEY Agenda item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 1607 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: Jeffery B. Johnston and Nancy A. Johnston, husband and wife Whose mailing address is 3645 Roberta Drive Toledo, Ohio 43614 Bearing the date of the 6'" day of October 1999, recorded in Official Record Book 2598 Page(s) 3033, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars and No Cents ($1,180.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: UNIT NO. C -301 GULF WINDS EAST, A CONDOMINIUM, AS RECORDED IN CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGES 153 -154, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH THE PRO -RATA INTEREST IN THE COMMON ELEMENTS AND COMMON PROPERTY OF THE CONDOMINIUM AND LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS APPURTENANT THERETO, MORE PARTICULARY DELINEATED AND IDENTIFIED IN THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM OF GULF WINDS EAST, A CONDOMINIUM, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 508, AT PAGES 165 THROUGH 224, INCLUSIVE, AS COMPLETELY AMENDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 939, PAGES 1170 THROUGH 1236, AND THE FINAL SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 942, PAGES 52 THROUGH 56 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLIIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOLIO NUMBER: 48482040006 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of 2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL COUNTY ATTORNEY Agenda Item No. 1607 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 1607 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX -OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: George S. Korakas and Melanie D. Korakas, Husband and Wife Whose mailing address is 150 Sugarloaf Ln Naples, FI 34114 Bearing the date of the a day of November 1999, recorded in Official Record Book 2608 Page(s) 2689, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars and No Cents ($1,180.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: UNIT NO. 55, WEST WIND MOBILE HOME ESTATES, A CONDOMINUM AS MORE FULLY SHOWN IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 630, PAGES 1883 THROUGH 1932, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; TOGETHER WITH ALL UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON ELEMENTS OR SURPLUSES ACCRUING TO SAID PROPERTY FOLIO NUMBER: 81622200003 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of 2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 16C7 February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 15 Prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX -OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Agreement with the following: Rita R. Sanchez., a single woman Whose mailing address is 5409 Martin Street Naples, FL 34113 Bearing the date of the 27"' day of June 1997, recorded in Official Record Book 2326 Page(s) 1865, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida, which Agreement imposes a lien on the subject real property. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars and Forty Nine Cents ($2,100.49) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 34, BLOCK 12, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THREOF, OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 67, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOLIO NUMBER: 62101320009 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of . 2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 16CB February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. OBJECTIVE: Recommendation that the Board acknowledges full payment and executes the Satisfaction of Claim of Lien. CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida as the Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water /Sewer District of Collier County, Florida, recorded the Claim of Lien in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Full payment and satisfaction of this lien have been made. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the Satisfaction of Claim of Lien. FISCAL IMPACT: Payment in full for this Claim of Lien increases the cash flow in the County's Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 413) by $2,500.00. The fiscal impact for recording this Satisfaction of Claim of Lien is approximately $18.50, which is to be charged to (Fund 408) the County Water /Sewer Operating Fund Utility Billing cost center. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to acknowledge full payment and the satisfaction of this lien and to surrender the same canceled, and to direct the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County to cancel the same of record. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Claim of Lien. PREPARED BY: Pam Callis, Revenue Supervisor, Utility Billing Customer Service Agenda Item No. 1608 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 6 Agenda Item No 1608 February 22, 20.05 Page 3 of 6 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 154-8 Item Summary Recorn..,rrdation t0 approve, execute arnl reco!<i a Se..a;actl;n o' a Nooee Uf Claim o' I.:rr to fieni'arr Sayer Sy %tern impact Fee F „cu. mpacl Lien to iecortl the Sati�!achor. of Meeting Date 21S2r'005 J DD 00 AM Prepared By Date P.. CMIN Revenue SUpervfsot 21V1U051:15'41 PM Public Utiial- UBCS Approved By Pam Callis Revenue Supervisor Da4• Public Utilities UBCS 213:2005 2'63 PM Approved By Thnmas Wider OperaUOnc Director Date Public Utgitin.s' Public 0111,11 s Opnratinnx 11412005 5:03 PM Approved By Jahn A. Yonkcsky Utility BIII1,1y Dlrectui Dale Public it iilides U CS 21812006 2.23 PM Approved By Teresa Ri exn Revenue Manayer Date Public Uttiitka UBCS 2W2005 2:25 PM Approved By James W. Delony Public Will.—Ad.,uu ratui Date Public Wiilties Public Udl,bes Adminlstratiun 2/10/2005 5:47 Phi Approved By OMB COOrdinatur Adi— ru- 1rallve Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management d Budget 2111/2005047 AM Approved By Michael Smykowskl Management b Budget Dimctor Dace County Manager's 011ice Ofhceot Management B Budget Li 1!200511: 34 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manapar Date Baard of co-ly Ocmmissioners County Manager's Office 2111/2006 266 PM Agenda Item No. 16C8 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT «A» 1. Edward R. Galli, Securing the principal balance of two thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($2,500.00). Folio #00254240001 Agenda Item No. 1608 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 6 This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX -OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Edward R. Galli P.O. Box 1222 NAPLES, FL 33939 The Lien was recorded on 27TH day of July 1999, in Official Record Book 2083, Page(s) 0908, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($2,500.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS: PARCEL E COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11, AS SURVEYED, NORTH 89 °25'20" EAST, 309.35 FEET FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 11, AS SURVEYED, NORTH 89 °25'20" EAST, 160.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 °10'36" EAST, 307.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 °25120" WEST, 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °10'36" WEST, 307.92 FEET TO THE SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 11, AS SURVEYED AND THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO AN INGRESS, AND EGRESS EASEMENT OVER THE WESTERLY 30.00 FEET AND THE SOUTHERLY 30.00 FEET. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, AS SURVEYED, AS BEING NORTH 89 °25'20" EAST. TOGETHER WITH AN 60.00 FOOT EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AS DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT RECORDED IN OR 1067, PAGE 493. AS DESRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT RECORDED IN OR BOOK 1067, PAGE 491 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FOLIO NUMBER: 00254240001 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Collier County Water -Sewer District, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full Satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. Agenda Item No. 1608 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 6 The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex-Ofr1c10 the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of _2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Agenda Item No. 16C9 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Contracts 05 -3681 "Fixed Term Instrumentation and Controls (I &C) Engineering Services" (Estimated annual amount $1,200,000) to four (4) firms. OBJECTIVE: To receive the Board's approval for award of professional services contracts to four firms in order to enable staff to procure specialty Instrumentation and Controls (I &C) engineering services in an efficient and cost - effective manner to the benefit of payers of Water, and Sewer rates and impact fees. I &C is an essential component for all public utilities infrastructures and process systems. The public purpose of this Contract is to negotiate agreements and procure engineering services. The procurement of solid, reliable I &C frameworks enables greater productivity among operational staff, allows personnel to perform their tasks more efficiently, and extends the life and effectiveness of machinery and equipment. CONSIDERATIONS: Request for Proposal (RFP) 05 -3681 was issued in accordance with Florida State Statute 287.055, Consultant Competitive Negotiation Act, and publicly advertised on October 13, 2004. Notices were sent to 177 firms with 19 vendors requesting full packages. Eight responses were received by the due date of November 5, 2004. A Selection Committee Meeting was held on December 15, 2004. After review, ranking and discussion, by consensus of the members, the following 4 firms were recommended for contract negotiations and subsequent award (in no particular order): Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. Carollo Engineers, P.C. RKS Consulting Engineers, Inc. Contract negotiations have been successfully completed by Staff for the four short- listed firms at this time. All four firms have agreed to a standardized fee schedule for their services, which staff believes will provide the opportunity for an equitable and fair distribution of work. This contract replaced a previous contract for these services, Contract 03 -3484, which defined the services as Minor, Fixed Assignments under County Purchasing Policy Section VII C 1, which had Work Order thresholds of $90,000 with a $500,000 annual threshold. Based on the department projections for upcoming work, it was determined that the existing contract limits would not meet their operational requirements. The new RFP referenced that Work Orders would be issued in accordance with the County's Purchasing Policy for Major Fixed Assignments, Section VII C 3, which have a maximum initial contract amount limit of $3,000,000. Because this Major Fixed Assignments category does not specify a specific individual Work Order limit, staff chose $300,000 based on forthcoming work assignments,. Assignments will be implemented with Work Orders reviewed and issued by the Contract Administration section of the Purchasing Department. The Work Orders are subject to a maximum annual contract amount of $3,000,000. Work Order assignments in excess of $90,000 will be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to issuance. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding for each work order that is assigned under the approved ,.—. contracts will come from each user Department. It is anticipated that the Water and Wastewater Departments will be the predominant users of this contract. Individual work order agreements are to be consistent with current Budget requirements, as approved by the Board on September 23, 2004. The anticipated individual work order assignments are to be consistent with the 2003 Award Contracts 05 -3681 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 1609 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 3 Wastewater and Water Master Plan Updates respectively, as adopted by the Board on May 25, 2004 as Agenda Items 10C and 10D. Sources of funds are anticipated to be Water Impact Fees (411), Water User Fees (412), Sewer Impact Fees (413), and Sewer User Fees (414). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: While these contracts have no direct growth management impact, they are consistent with the County's long -term growth plans. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as ex- officio the governing board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, award professional services agreements to the four firms listed and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the standard Professional Services Agreements with each firm subsequent to County Attorney approval. PREPARED BY: Dennis McGee, P.E., Instrumentation/SCADA Manager, PUED Agendo Item No. 16C9 Fe.bn.lary 22. 7005 Fags 3 n( 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- Item Number tfC5 Item Summary R. I..1: ridatlon to award Contracts n` -36el --d Term In5lrumen;alion and Con:r„Is it &Cl Eneineeriea Serv;cei (ES.ima:ed annum --t $1.200 00r) to fow IA) films Meeting Data 2!22'2005 s: DC,3C AM Prepared By Date [tennis McGee Prcj— Manager .. "!AI1005 2'.14.09 PM Public Utllities Public Utilities Engineering Approved By Roy B. Andnrrsml, P.E. Public ll0htiet Engineering Uir.rtnr Oat. Public Utilities Public 01111— Engineering 21912005':13 AM Approved By Pele.r Scha11 Senior Project Man.gof Hate Public Utlllti.a Public U11111ies Fnglo —Ing 21912005 7:511 AM Appr —d By stove Cameli Purchacing!Gen.ral s,cs Ulrector Date Administtati�. B.Nic.s Purchasing 24!20(15 5:51 AM Approved By aul Mattauacl, W.ter Dlleclor Date Public Ulifitlef: Willer 2!91200511:22 AM Approved By J—Ph B. Cheatham VJaetewaier Director Date Public Utilitlac W. —Water Treatment 210 :2005 2:23 PM Approved By Tl,.,ma:; Wtder: operatw— n vtol ome Public Utllides Pubrle utuibes ori—tial's 21101200510:18 AM Approved By Jam., W Dekonv Public Ubnaes Adlooll alot Date Pudic Utllities Publ- Utilitles Adminiztratlon 2110P2005 5:48 PM Approved By OUR<:oordinelol Adminirlmtive Ali,-Iaol Dal. County tAUnayer's 0111ce Office of Management B Budget 211112005 9:40 AM Approved By Michael Smykbwskl Management & Budget Director D.w County Manager's Omce Omce of Management d Budget 2111i2DM 11:40 AM Approved By James V. Mudd C—ty Manager Date B—d of f:n.lnty County hinnaget's Omcn 215/2005 4: 55 PM Commi— ...... Agenda Item No. 16C10 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve conveyance of an Easement to Florida Power & Light Company (FP &L) as required to provide power to new public water supply wells located at the North Collier Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) at a cost not to exceed $18.50, Project Number 710111. OBJECTIVE: The public purpose is to convey an Easement to FP &L to supply power to new public water supply wells located at NCRWTP. CONSIDERATION: Staff is continuing to move forward expeditiously to ensure our customers have a reliable supply of potable water. One strategy being implemented is the construction of additional public water supply wells at the southeast comer of the NCRWTP property on Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension (see Location Map). In order to supply electrical power to these wells, an easement must be granted to FP &L. The Easement has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and the Public Utilities Engineering Department. The intent of this action is consistent with the 2003 Update to the Water Master Plan, as adopted by the Board on May 25, 2004, as Agenda Item 1OD, because approving this Easement will further the process of enhancing public water supply reliability. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost will not exceed $18.50 to record the Easement. Funds in the amount of $18.50 are available for this project. The intent of the proposed work is consistent with the FY05 Water Capital Budget for FY05 for Project 710111, NCRWTP RO Wellfield Reliability, as approved by the Board on September 23, 2004. Source of funds is Water User Fees (412). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Projects funded with User Fees (412) have no impact on the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Approve the attached Easement; and 2. Authorize Chairman Coyle to execute the Easement on behalf of the Board; and 3. Authorize staff to record the Easement with the Clerk of Courts in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. PREPARED BY: Thomas A. Deusa, Property Acquisition Specialist Real Estate Services / Facilities Management Department Agenda Item Na. 1GC1G Februar• 22 ^., 2.005 Page ^ 015 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item NUmUar 16C1U Item Summary Rernrnr:rrxl;uiun to 0PPI011 to Florida Povrrr 6 L.', IN Cnrripar + + iFPdl.) ar. rr.lu: red to provnle p—, to rrew public xatei -F'ply wells Ioc:r.e.A at 01e North r:'.ollier Rep:onal %Nate' Treatmem plant (NxPvA i P) a! a cost not 10 -,F.ed $1E So, Prole.! Numbcr'10 111. Meeting Date 2LtX %005 9 0096 -M Prepared By L1W', Tllnmax De0sa Pruprtny Ac9u1410nu Sp- 1,114t 2;812005 10:39:54 AM Administrative Service.. Real Estate Services Approved By skip came, GF. It, Facliitlos Management Uilerior 0a1e Adminlstrafive services Facilltles f4 anagtment 2181200510:44 AM Approved By Tro A. Man Rael Preperty Sup —tsor Date Adminlatta0ve Setvicea Facilmes Manayemen[ 21x1200611:07 AM Approved By Peter schait samor P"-t Manager Date Public Ullitlies Publlc Uttlltles Engin -1119 21812D0S 2:10 PM Approved By Thomas Wides Operations Ulrector Date Public utilities Pubiir. UtHlb- Dpe-tlon 2110!2005 9:02 AM Approved By Roy B. Anderson• P.E. Public' UflilCles Enginaadnq Dlrtclor Date Puwj,; Udlltiea Publir. litilm- Engineering 2!10!2005 9:33 AM Approved By James W. DeLuny Publlc Utilllies Adminlitrator D:Ke Public U01i0e,4 Public UUlilias Administlatl- 2Mdr2005 5;48 PM Approved By OMB Coordinet0r Ad- rumpmvn Aasislam Data Gaunty Manager's Omce o lce of Management B Budget 211112005 9:45 AM Approved By Wthael Smykowski Management 8 Budgcr Director Gate County Manager's Oro- Omce of Management d Budget 2111120051:50 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County M—qa ., Dalc Unord of fnonty County Manage; s OM- 214 412 00 5 10'41 AM Gammissioners Agenda Item No. 16C10 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Location Map EASEMENT Form 3722 -A (Stocked) Pev.7 /94 Work Order No. Sec. 35, 'rwp. 48, Rge, 26, Parcel I.D. 00204800006 (Maintained by Property Appraiser) Agenda Item No. 16C10 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Prepared Fay: Name: Co. Name: FP &L Co. Address: 4105 S.W. 15`h.Ave. Naples, Eel. 34116 The undersigned, in consideration of the payment of 41,00 and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, grant and give to Florida Power & Light Company, its licensees, agents, successors, and assigns, an easement forever for the construction, operation and maintenance of overhead and underground electric utility faeaities (including wires, poles. guys, cables, conduits and appurtenant equipment) to be installed from time to time; with the right to reconstruct. improve, acid to, enlarge, change the voltage, as well as, the size of and remove such facilities or, any of then( within an easement 10 feet in width, described as follows: An FP &I., Company easement more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, Said easement prepared by Guy I'. Adams of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 'Together with the right to hermit any other person, firm or corporation to ataach wires to any facilities hereunder and lay cable and conduit within the easement and to overate the same for communications purposes: the right of ingress and egress to said premises at all times; the right to clear the land and keep it cleared of all trees, undergrowth and other obstructions within the easement area; to trim and cut and keep trimmed and cut all dead, weak, leaning or dangerous trees or limbs outside of the easement area which Wright interfere with or fall upon the lines or systems of communications or power transmission or distribution; and further grants, to the fullest extent the undersigned has the power to grant, if at all, the rights hereinabove granted on the land heretofore described, over, along, under and across the roads. streets or highways adjoining or through said property. IN WITNESS WHERE01,, the undersigned has signed and sealed this instrument on this (Jay of , 2005. Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida lM Fred W. Coyle, Chairman 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida .34112 Attest: Dwight E. Brock. Clerk 3301 Tamiami Trial East Naples, Florida 34112 Approved as to 16-7 and Legal sufficietrev- Eller. T. Chadr +elf, :assistant County Attorney, FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE NORTH 02'15'01' WEST 60.04 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (60' RA.W.)i THENCE NORTH 89'55'22' EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1234 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; SAID EASEMENT BEING 10.00 FEET WIDE LYING 5.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTEP,LINEi THENCE NORTI�/OD'30'57' EAST 21.40 FEET) THENCE NORTMi J3'31'11' EAST 18.03 FEET; THENCE NORT' ©2'15'01' WEST 8.58 FEET THE POINT OF TERMINUS OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESC 'BED; EASEMENT CO 480 SQUARE FEET OF LAND MORE OR LESS; SUBJECT TO ..�! EMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. r BY GUY P. AD!{ , P.L.S. NO. 4390 N �_- CONSERVAON~ EASEMENT SCALE- V = 30' PROPERTY LINE P.O. T. TI r � 5 PROPOSED 10' WIDE FP &L EASEMENT WELL HOUSE #'1 SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER (_J LL1 P.O.B. z N O { VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (60' R.O.W.) a P.O.C.° SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 35 SECTION LINE LINE TABLE GENERAL NOTES: LINE LENGTH BEARING i) DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. _1 12.94 N 89'55'22' E L2 21.40 N 00'30'57' E 2) R.O.W. = RIGHT -OF -WAY L3 18.03 N 33'31'11' E 3) P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. L4 8.58 N 02'1$'01' W 4) P.0.8- = POINT OF BEGGINING. 5) P.O.T. = POINT OF TERMINUS. NOT A SURVEY for: project HAZEN !ic SAWYER NCRWTP title: SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION OF A FP &L EASEMENT, PART OF SECTION 35, date: TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. I DEC. 29, 2004 monoP scale: book: ■000 Own■ GNOLI Certificele of Authorization Noe. LB 3884 end EB 3884 0 In Fa :: (239)566-2203 =30' page: mommo�ARBER & project view iiiiiiURi7NDAGE, tNC. I1 °' 8100 -24 Professional engineers, planners, & Land surveyors acad: file no: Collier County: Suite 200, 7400 Tamiami Trail, North: Naples, FL 34106 (239)597 -3111 Lee County: 9900 Coconut Road. Suite 103, Boalta Spring&, FL 34135 (239)948 -8883 8959 —SO 8959 Agenda Item No. 16010 February; 22, 2005 Page 5 of 5 ri Agenda Item No. 16C11 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Contract #05 -3767 to Gulf States, Inc. to construct the Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitations, in the amount of $438,400, Project 72504. OBJECTIVE: The public purpose is to improve the reliability of fourteen (14) Master Pump Stations within the Wastewater Collections System by upgrading Automatic Transfer Switches, Variable Frequency Drives, lightning and surge protection components, and other miscellaneous electrical improvements. CONSIDERATIONS: On March 31, 2004, subsequent to the approval of Work Order RKS- FT -04 -01 authorized under Fixed Term Contract #03 -3484, RKS Consulting Engineers was issued Notice to Proceed to commence Engineering Services for Project 72504 Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitation. Scope of engineering services, to fulfill project completion, included Design, Bidding Phase Services, Construction Services, and Site Visits /Start- up/Functional Testing. Per the Final Design issued by RKS and approved by County Staff, the implementation phase work for this project includes provision of Variable Frequency Drives at four (4) stations; replacement, modification or upgrade to the Automatic Transfer Switch at each station; replacement of obsolete or dysfunctional lightning and surge protection equipment at each station; and other electrical improvements at each station. On December 22, 2004, subsequent to approved Final Design from RKS, advertisement was posted for Bid #05 -3767 Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitation. A Mandatory Pre -bid Conference on January 7, 2005 was attended by County Staff, RKS, and three (3) potential bidders. On January 20, 2005 sealed bids were opened for this project. Two bid packages were received and are listed below: Bidder Amount Gulf States, Inc. $ 438,400 E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. $ 449,993 The bid tabulations are attached. The qualifications and bid price tabulations of the low bidder have been scrutinized by Public Utilities Engineering leadership and RKS. Jointly, the Public Utilities Engineering Department Project Manager and RKS have determined that Gulf States, Inc., is qualified, responsible, and able to perform the required work, and that the fees offered in their Bid are fair and reasonable. RKS recommends award of the contract to Gulf States, Inc., for the stated Bid Amount of $438,400. A copy of this endorsement letter from RKS is attached. The substantiation of this investment decision lies in examination of the Project's costs and ,... benefits. With this $438,400 Construction Cost, the per - station average for electrical upgrade and equipment replacement is $31,314 per station. With these upgrades, it is anticipated that the useful life at each of these older facilities is extended an average of 10 years without further need for electrical upgrade. So over this presumed 10 -year period, an Executive Summary Approve Contract 05 -3767 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 16C11 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 6 up -front capital improvement cost of approximately $3000 per station, per year is assumed. Alternatively, single- station, one -at -a -time retrofits typically have construction costs of $50,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. Further, the typical construction cost for a new Master Station will vary anywhere from approximately $125,000 to $750,000, depending on size and many other factors. Thus, the investment decision of executing volume- upgrades for the fourteen Master Pump Stations is more cost - effective than considerations of either single -unit retrofits, or replacing the Stations outright with a new Master Pump Station at each. Other benefits of this project include fewer emergency and repair service requirements; fewer man-hours of operation and maintenance; energy savings related to the implementation of efficient, technologically modern equipment; and a greater probability of staying in compliance with regulations, based on upgrades that improve system reliability. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $438,400.00 are available for this project in the Sewer Capital Fund 414 in Project 72504 Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitation. The scope of work is consistent with Wastewater Capital Budget funds budgeted in FY 05, as approved by the Board on September 23, 2004. The proposed contract is consistent with the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan Update as adopted by the Board on May 25, 2004 as Agenda Item 10 C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact resulting from this action. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Ex -officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, award Contract 05 -3767 to Gulf States, Inc. in the amount of $438,400 and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract after approval by the County Attorney. PREPARED BY: Dennis McGee, P.E., Instrumentation/SCADA Manager, PUED Agenda Item No 16011 February 2?, 211-35 Page 3 of "o COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 1ocll Item summary av+ald - ,,erAract MIS VS7 Ia GUI! S !ate ^. Ir.r, :o , nnl:HUrt the eNasirwarar i'.ellecho•tl. Master p,m,F. Station Faoli:y RehablliUNnns, In nle arnnunt if 5436,460. Pln;ec; ,2E01 Meeting Date 2192030E B JC.00 Art Prepared By Date Dennis McGee. PrnieCt M:ntagcr 214120051:14:07 PM public Utilities Public uour- Fngineering Approved By Roy B. Andertno, P.E. publ'm utillo- Engineering Director Date Public unities Public UtODies Engmeeneg 219;2005 7:17 AM Approved By Steen Carncil P.,el atilrennral Svcs Dlreclnr Date AdminisnaHve Services Pumhasirlg 219:2006 7:63 AM Approved By Peter S&Wt Senior Pro}ect IAanagel Date Publlr. Illilifie:: Public tJtdlOc: Engineering 2!812005 7.59 AM Approved By !ale Ph D. Cheatham Wast—tel Direetur Dat¢ Pahl.. Unlitins VyaxieWaler Tmatmenl 21912006 2:24 PM Approved By 7'h0rttas VJId<s Operawr. Direntta Daie PUbHc Utintles Pubi'rc Utillta- Operedon 211 i!2U05 8::10 AM Approved By Jambs W. Det,ony Public Utllibev Adminlstretnr Doe Publle Utllliey i uhhe Utilities Admimshatinn 2111.2005 2:45 PM Approved By OMB +:onrdlnator A,imao mWi, Asvistanl Date Gounty rAanage"s Office orrlee at Management a Budget 2111!2005 3:07 PM Approved By Michael 9myke —ki M xnagemnnt a Dodger Dlrecmr Date Cnunty Managet'v Difice Orr- of I4anagement & Budget 211412ODS ii :W AM Approved By James V. Model County Manager Date Flwn1 of Cnunty County htanayer's OHia• 2!14!200512:17 PM Commi »loners Sid 05 -3767 "Wastewater Collections Master Pump Project Manager: Dennis McGee Station Facility Rehabilitation' Date Posted: December 22, 2014 Due: January 20. 2005 Agenda Item No. 16011 Noti sft, 3222005 Packages RecA'ie" 6&i of 6 Page 1 of 1 Gulf States, Inc E.B. Simmonds Item Description 1 Mobilization/shop drawings, etc $5,000.00 $6,160.00 2 MPS -301 rehabilitation $51,500.00 $50,268.00 3 MPS -302 rehabilitation $109,100.00 $110,568.00 4 MPS -306 rehabilitation $65,700.00 $64,963.00 5 MPS -312 rehabilitation $117,800.00 $122,711.00 6 MPS -303, 304, 305, 308, 310, 313 & 321 Rehabilitation $84,400.00 $82,674.00 7 MPS -309, 316, 318 rehabilitation $3,900.00 $6,439.00 8 De- Mobilization/as buift documents etc. $1,000.00 $6,210.00 TOTAL BID PRICE $438,400.00 $449,993.00 $0.00 $0.00 MATERIAL MANUFACTURERS Y Y LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS Y Y STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE OF BIDDER Y Y _ TRENCH SAFETY ACT Y Y CONFLICT OF INTEREST Y Y BID BOND Y Y Adden0t#h Acknowledged /N Agent Witness Mandatory Pre -Bid Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 16011 RKS February of 6 Consulting Engineers,, Inc. Page ge 5 of 6 Electrical, Instrumentation & Control Design February 2, 2005 Mr. Dennis McGee, P.E. Instrumentation /SCADA Mgr. Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Dept. 3301 E Tamiami Trail Bldg. H Naples, Florida 34112 Reference: 'Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitation" Collier County Bid #05 -3767 Dear Dennis: Collier County Purchasing Department received and opened bids for the above referenced project on January 20, 2005. A total of two bids were received. According to the Bid Tabulation prepared by the Collier County Purchasing Department it appeared that both bids were responsive. The low bid was submitted by Gulf States, Inc. at $438,400. The low bid was within 3% of the engineers estimate. As such, we recommend that the Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitation project be awarded to the low bidder, Gulf States, Inc. We appreciate the continued opportunity to assist Collier County. Should you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RKS Consulting Engineers, Inc Don Williams, P.E. Principal /Senior Engineer R:IPROJECTSICCUD MPS VFD_AT5 ModslWordprocessinglbid recomendadon.DOC 15400 Shamrock Drive, Fort Myers, Fl. 33912 Phone (941) 481 -6775 - Cell (941) 851 -8311 Email: rks@klesengineers.com Agenda Item No. 16C1I February 22. 2005 Page 6 of 6 Project Name: (Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitation Capital Protect No. 72504 v Fros Fran 2004 2006 2006 1007 2016 EVENT ! Cost Ohl 0" Ohl OM Gtr? Otr2 Gtr? Ohs Otr1 Otr1 Olr1 OM OM Gtr2 Otr1 CW OW Otr2 Ati3 Gtr4 Land Acqulerdon M - Land GN 2on1 a NOW DOdan /Permit *KM Canotrucaon swat Inspection is INNUMOMMEN Project Totd Ws,Mt Recommend Action: Recommendation to award Contract #05 -3767 to Gulf States, Inc. to construct the Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility Rehabilitations, in the amount of $438,400, Project 72504. Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve budget amendments to reflect an overall decrease of $597 in the Older Americans Act programs and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida D/B/A Area Agency on Aging. OBJECTIVE: The execution of this contract and budget amendments is necessary to recognize a decrease in grant funding in the Services for Seniors program. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County Services for Seniors has been providing in -home support services to Collier County's frail elderly for the past 30 years through the Older Americans Act program. The Title III -B Homemaking program had a decrease of $4,068, the Title C -1 Congregate Meal program had an increase of $3,490, the Title C -2 Home Delivered Meal program had a decrease of $1,961 and the Title III -E Caregiver Support program had an increase of $1,942, resulting in a net decrease of $597 across all programs. The contract period is from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no growth management impact from this recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT: FY 0405 budget in the Older Americans Act cost center (155972) will '—' decrease by $597. No additional matching funds are required. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the contract and approve the necessary budget amendments. The contract has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Prepared by: Terri Daniels, Grant Supervisor, Human Services Department Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 12 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16D1 Item Summary Recommendation to approve budget amendments to reflect an overall decrease of $597 in Human Services Director the Older Americans Act programs and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between Public Services Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida 2/1112005 11:32 AM D /B /A Area Agency on Aging. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Terri A. Daniels Grants Coordinator 211112005 9:20:48 AM Public Services Human Services Approved By Barry Williams Human Services Director Date Public Services Human Services 2/1112005 11:32 AM Approved By Marla Ramsey Parks & Recreation Director Date Public Services Parks and Recreation 2/11/2005 11:49 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 1:39 PM Approved By Gary A. Vincent Management & Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/14/2005 8:32 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/14/2005 8:58 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2/15/2005 12:49 PM 12/2004 Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22; 2005 Page 3of12 Agreement Number QAA203.05 STANDARD AGREEMENT LEAD AGENCY Collier County Board of County Commissioners THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., d/b /a Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Agency ", and Collier County Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter .referred to as the "recipient ". This agreement is subject to all provisions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT executed between the Agency and the recipient, Agreement No. HM004, and its successor, incorporated herein by reference. The parties agree: I. Recipient Agrees: A. Services to be Provided: To plan, develop, and accomplish the services delineated, or otherwise cause the planning, development, and accomplishment of such services and activities, under the conditions specified and in the manner prescribed in Attachment I of this agreement. B. Final Request for Payment: The recipient must submit the final request for payment to the Agency no more than forty -five (45) days after the agreement ends or is terminated. Any payment due under the terms of this agreement may be withheld until all reports due from the recipient, and necessary adjustments thereto, have been approved by the Agency. U. The Agency Agrees: A. Agreement Amount: To pay for services according to the conditions of Attachment I in an amount not to exceed $854,139.00, subject to the availability of funds. B. Obligation to Pay: The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this agreement is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Lesislature. C. Source of Funds: The costs of services paid under any other agreement or from any other source are not eligible for reimbursement under this agreement. The funds awarded to the recipient pursuant to this agreement are in the state grants and aids appropriations and consist of the following: 12/2004 Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 12 Agreement Number QAA203.05 Program Title Year Funding Source CFDA# Fund Amounts Older Americans Act 2005 U.S. Dept, Of Health and 93.044-045 and Human Services 93.052 Title HIB Support Services 2005 U.S. Dept. Of. Health and 93.044 Lead Agency Operations Human Services $50,802,00 Spending Authority $287,878.00 III C1 Congregate Meals 2005 U.S. Dept, Of Health and 93-045 Lead Agency Operations Human Services $34,949.00 Spending Authority $198,043.00 Title III C2 Home Delivered Meals 2005 U.S. Dept. Of Health and 93,045 Lead Agency Operations Human Services $30,641.00 Spending Authority $173,632.(X) Title III E Services 2(X)5 U.S. Dept. Of Health and 93.052 Lead Agency Operations Human Services $11,729.00 Spending Authority $66,465.00 TOTAL FUNDS CONTAINED IN THIS 1854,139.00 The Legal Service allocation for Collier County is 1_21,578.00. PSA I & R is $18,659.00 These allocations are included in the Title 111-B spending authority allocation shown above. 111. Recipient and Department Mutually Agree: A. Effective Date: 1. This agreement shall begin on January 1, 2005 or on the date the agreement has been z' C� signed by both parties, whichever is later. 2. This agreement shall end on December 31, 2005. B. Termination, Suspension, and/or Enforcement: The causes and remedies for termination or suspension of this agreement shall follow the same procedures as outlined in Section III.B. and Section III.C. of the Master Agreement. C. Recipient Responsibility: Notwithstanding the pass through language contained in Section I.S. 1. of the Master Agreement, the recipient maintains responsibility for the performance of all subrecipients and vendors in accordance with all applicable federal regulations (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 45, Chapter XIII, Part 1321.25) and state laws. 2 1212004 Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Agreement Number OAA203.05 D. Notice, Contact, and Payee Information: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the grant manager(s) for the Agency for this agreement is: Leigh Wade, Executive Director Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. Agency -- d/b/a Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida 2285 First Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 332-4233 / SC 748-6947 2. The name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the recipient responsible for administration of the program under this agreement is: Barry Williams Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tarniami Trail Naples, Florida 3411.2 (239) 774-8154 Fax (239) 774-3430 3. In the event different representatives are designated by either party after execution of this agreement, notice of the name and address of the new representative will be rendered in writing to the other party and said notification attached to originals of this agreement. C� 4. The name (recipient name as shown on page I of this agreement) and mailing address of the official payee to whom the payment shall be made: Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 12 1212004 Agreement Number QAA203.05 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this 10 page agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duty authorized. COLLIER COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES BY; ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Date: ---December 31, 2004 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA By: Askista'nl Cadmy/ Attorney Roger Burngarner Board President Date: _._December 31. 2004 4 12/2004 I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 161D1 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 12 Agreement Number OAA203.05 ATTACHMENT I OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM The Older Americans Act (OAA) Program is a federal program that provides assistance to older persons and caregivers and is the only federal supportive services program directed solely toward improving the lives of older people. The program provides a framework for a partnership among the different levels of government and the public and private sectors with a common objective — improving the duality of life for all older Americans by helping them to remain independent and productive. To enhance the provision of services at the local level, the Department is charged with dividing the state into distinct planning and service areas (PSA's) and designating an Area Agency on Aging (AAA) for each of them, The AAA is responsible for designating a Lead Agency for each county within its PSA. The Lead Agency, the recipient, is responsible for assessing the needs of older persons within its respective county. The recipient fosters the development and implementation of comprehensive and coordinated systems to serve older individuals. Under current law, all service providers funded under part B of the Act must follow priorities established by the recipient and approved by the Agency for serving the elderly, providing assurances that preference will be given to those with the greatest economic and social need, with particular attention to low - income minority older individuals residing in rural areas. The Older Americans Act provides a framework for a partnership among the different levels of government and the public and private sectors with a common objective — improving the quality of life for all older Americans by helping them to remain independent and productive. II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED A. Services: The Agency's area plan for the calendar year 2005, and any revisions thereto approved by the Agency and located in the grant manager's file, are incorporated by reference in this agreement between the Agency and the recipient, and prescribe the services to be rendered by the recipient and prescribe the manner in which the recipient will meet the requirements of the Older Americans Act as amended in 2000. B. Manner of Service Provision: The services will be provided in a manner consistent with and described in the recipient's application for calendar year 2005, the Department of Elder Affairs Home and Community -Based Services Handbook dated 1103, the Department of Elder Affairs National Family Caregiver Support Program Guidelines, and the Department of Health Agenda Item No. 161D1 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 12 12/2004 Agreement Number OAA203.05 and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary, Administration on Aging, Program Aging, Instruction, AoA-PI-01-02. In the event the manual or guidelines are revised, such revision will automatically be incorporated into the agreement and the grant manager will send a copy to the recipient's contact person. The recipient agrees to perform the services of this agreement in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations and policies that pertain to Older Americans Act funds. 1,11. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The method of payment in this agreement includes fixed rates for all. services. The recipient must ensure all costs and fixed amounts include only those costs that are in accordance with all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations and are based on historical costs and audited historical costs when applicable. The recipient shall consolidate all requests for payment and all expenditure reports that support requests for payment from vendors and shall submit to the Agency on forms 106A, 105A and 106E. All sub-awards (agreements between the recipient and its sub-contractors who have been deemed by the recipient to be sub-recipients) are subject to those Federal cost principles applicable to the particular organization concerned. Thus, if a sub-award is to a governmental unit (other than a college, university or hospital), this Circular shall apply; if a sub-award is to a commercial organization, the cost principles applicable to commercial organizations shall apply; if a sub-award is to a college or university, Circular A-21. shall apply; if a sub-award is to a hospital, the cost principles used by the Federal awarding agency for awards to hospitals shall apply; if a sub-award is to some other non-profit organization, Circular A -122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," shall apply. B. The recipient shall maintain documentation to support payment requests that shall remain available upon request to the State Comptroller, the Department, the Agency or other authorized state and federal personnel. C. The recipient may request a monthly advance for administration and service costs for each of the first two months of the agreement period, based on immediate anticipated cash needs. Detailed documentation justifying cash needs for advances must be submitted with the signed agreement, approved by the Agency, and maintained in the grant manager's file. For-profit organizations cannot receive advance funds. All payment requests for the third through the twelfth months shall be based on the submission of monthly actual expenditure reports beginning with the first month of the agreement. The schedule for submission of invoices is ATTACHMENT 11 to this agreement. Reconciliation and recouping of advances made under this agreement are to be completed by the time the final payment is made. All payments are subject to the availability of funds. 6 1212004 Agenda Item No. 161D1 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Agreement Number OAA203.05 D. A final receipt and expenditure report (closeout report) will be forwarded to the Agency within sixty (60) days after the agreement ends or is terminated. All monies that have been paid to the recipient and not used to retire outstanding obligations of the agreement I being closed out must be refunded to the Agency along with the final receipt and expenditure report. E. Interest Earned on General Revenue and Federal Funds: Interest income earned on the advance of -creeneerall revenue and federal funds must be separately identified and returned to the Agency together with the payment and expenditure reports. Advances on federal funds must be maintained in interest-bearing accounts in accordance with 45 CFR 74.22(k). F. Any payment due by the Agency under the terms of this agreement may be withheld pending the receipt and approval by the Agency of all financial and programmatic reports due from the recipient and any adjustments thereto, including any disallowance not resolved as outlined in Section I.T. of the Master Agreement. G. The recipient agrees to implement the distribution of funds as detailed in the approved area plan and the Budget Summary, ATTACHMENT III to this agreement. Any changes in the amounts identified on the Budget Summary form require an agreement amendment. H. Financial Reports: The recipient agrees to provide an accurate, complete and current disclosure of the financial results of this agreement as follows: z1_ L To submit all requests for payment and expenditure reports according to the format, schedule and requirements specified in ATTACHMENT I. 2. The completed manual units of service portions of the Older Americans Act Annual Report, if applicable, are due to the grant manager on the date established by the Agency, The Agency will obtain the remaining Report sections from the Consumer Information, Registration and Tracking System (CIRTS). ZI IV. SPECIAL PROVISIONS A. Consumer Contributions and Co-payments for Services 1. The recipient assures compliance with Section 315 of the Older Americans Act as amended in 2000, in regard to consumer contributions. Subrecipients may charge co-payments to those persons able to pay part or all of the cost of services only for services not paid for with Older Americans Act funds. 7 12/2004 Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 12 .Agreement .Number OAA203.05 2. Voluntary contributions are not to be used for cost sharing or matching (see Title 45, Chapter X111, Part 1321.25, CFR). 3. Accumulated voluntary contributions are to be used prior to requesting Federal reimbursement (see Title 45, Chapter XIII, Part 1321.25, CFR). 4. Voluntary contributions and related interest earned are program income and must be used to expand services. B. Match The recipient will assure, through a provision in their sub-grant agreement, a match Z� requirement of at least 10 percent of the cost for all services funded through this agreement. The subrecipient's match will be made in the form of cash and/or in-kind resources. At the end of the agreement period, all Older Americans Act funds must be properly matched. C. Title III Funds The recipient assures compliance with Section 306 of the Older Americans Act Amendments as amended in 2000, that funds received under Title III will not be used to pay any part of a cost (including an administrative cost) incurred by the recipient to C> carry out an agreement or commercial relationship that is not carried out to implement Title Ill. D. Prioritization for Service Delivery The recipient shall develop and implement policies and procedures consistent with Older Americans Act targeting criteria. E. Service Cost Reports: The agency will require recipients to submit semi-annual service cost reports that reflect actual costs of providing each service by program. This .report provides information for planning and negotiating unit rates. 1.2 /2004 Report Number Agenda Item No. 16[71 February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 12 Agreement Number OAA203.05 ATTACHMENT II OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM AGREEMENT REPORT CALENDAR ADVANCE BASIS AGREEMENT Based On Submit to Department On This Date t January Advance* January 1 February Advance* January 1 3 January Expenditure Report February 10 4 February Expenditure Report March 10 5 March Expenditure Report April 10 6 April Expenditure Report May 10 7 May Expenditure Report June 10 8 June Expenditure Report July 10 9 July Expenditure Report August 10 10 August Expenditure Report September 10 i 1 September Expenditure Report October 10 12 October Expenditure Report November 10 13 November Expenditure Report/Jan. Adv. Recon. ** December 10 14 December Expenditure Report/Feb. Adv. Recon." January 10 15 Final Expenditure and Request for Payment Report February 10 16 Closeout Report March 1 Legend: * Advance based on projected cash need. ** Submission of expenditure reports may or may not generate a payment request. If final expenditure report reflects funds due back to the Department, payment is to accompany the report. Note # 1: Report #1 for Advance Basis Agreements cannot be submitted to the State Comptroller prior to January 1 or until the agreement with the Department has been executed and a copy sent to the Comptroller. Actual submission of the vouchers to the State Comptroller is dependent on the accuracy of the expenditure report. Note # 2: The last two months of the recipient's fiscal reports covering actual expenditures shall reflect an adjustment repaying advances for the first two months of the agreement, if advances have not been recouped. 9 Agenda Item No. 16D1 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 12 12/2004 Agreement Number QAA203.05 ATTACHMENT III OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY RECIPIENT: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Services Collier County Total Cost Reimbursement Rate Case Aide $20.68 $18.61 Case ManaLement 544.55 $40.10 Screening & Assessment $28.68 $25.81 Transportation - Group Cost Reimbursement Intake $25.43 1 $22.89 10 Agenda item No. 16D2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the FY 2005 Summer Food Service Program Grant in the Amount of $586,400 Objective: To provide free nutritious meals during the summer to Collier County children living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Considerations: The Summer Food Service Program is a grant funded by the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service and administered by the Florida Department of Education. This grant does not require an application and therefore did not require BCC permission to apply. The purpose of the program is to ensure that children can receive the same high quality meals during the summer as provided by the schools during the school year. The grant reimburses agencies that serve free meals to children eighteen years and under in neighborhoods that qualify. Neighborhood eligibility is determined by census income data or by the percentage of children who receive free and reduced meal service during the school year. All of Immokalee and Everglades City and many neighborhoods in the Naples area are eligible. Staff has successfully administered the Summer Food Service Program for the past twenty -one years in conjunction with the summer camp program. In 2004 the grant provided 107,268 breakfasts, 124,754 lunches, and 1,305 snacks for a total reimbursement of $448,312.26. This summer the program will provide an estimated 120,000 breakfasts, 120,000 lunches and 4,000 snacks. School personnel prepare and deliver the lunches under the supervision of County staff. The County will be reimbursed based on the number of meals served and the costs of administering the program. Fiscal Impact: The program is budgeted under the FY 05 Food Grant Fund in the amount of $586,400. The State will reimburse the County for 100 % of expenses. Growth Management Impact: No Growth Management Impact is associated with this action. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the Summer Food Service Program grant and authorize the chairman to sign the attached agreement. Prepared by: Amanda 0. Townsend, Operations Analyst, Parks and Recreation Department Agenda Item No. 16D2 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16D2 Item Summary Recommendation to approve the Summer Food Service Program Grant in the amount of $586,400. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Kathy McLarty- Carpenter Executive Secretary Date Public Services Public Services Admin. 2/8/2005 2:59 PM Approved By Murdo Smith Beach and Water Superintendent Date Public Services Parks and Recreation 2/1012005 11:46 AM Approved By Marlene J. Foord Grants Coordinator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 2/10/2005 2:09 PM Approved By Marla Ramsey Parks & Recreation Director Date Public Services Parks and Recreation 2/1112005 11:06 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2005 11:35 AM Approved By Gary A. Vincent Management & Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2005 12:36 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski . Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112005 1:42 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2114/2005 10:46 AM Agenda Item No. '161D2 February 22. 2005 nweementNumber: o4- 0804 Ft.OROA DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION Page 3 of 4 GTMCN OF SUPPORT SERV CE3 Named sponsor. Collier County FOOD AND NtnwrtcwM4NAGEMENT 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd_ SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN AGREEMENT Address.:Naples, ]?T. 3A l 6 N TRUC TK*,&' Cl) Ream two c, I of fss ape mars — Pup- .4,-me pnor a #w dsRriq of to VDV*m b Food and NWWaf Mes.0amset Sooner Food SeMce Program, 325 Wed Ganss Strest Room 11Yi2, TaNeheeses. sleet 3=00.04W 0 vyten is aQwnei% is sppo hod. One copy vA be reamed a se Sponsor In wdw b elfwWaY one p,,poae of ire Samar Food SWv*o Pwwn 1. ihiden, the Ronde Dperknent d Ewudm HawekutW M*md b ate 1M'Dep wVrWr) ad to :POOH n *Me name Wd edema apprr on to APPBCIS n for PWNMPdm ($FSP.Ft) C heftsw1 r rs Wmd to as We —*00600 etng n bad of wadi she flaw m to She k4wrna5on ShsK (5FSP -RZ cow tw* and sines, as koues. A The OEPARTi el%fy AGR,E£8 TO TW seal dkmtle awiebe fmm USDA. * ad m n bLum to spwew n aiodnlsm *0 applabe mputemrs snot legubdons of to S+emw Food Savka Pmpmr for Chidsn, and any mnwxknwb awab. 1. kr marbfwf win mss, saved b didwf only at approved as duskfp airy bca year tot spires appoved b wKwe to Srwenw Food SWAM Praprem. 2 The srowtoto stem mmbnww* for noose Wad not avAW the Weserot (a) An ,rind atMdt n #a bW wmba of mss,, by ty w mdt4ked by on raps attiow by sr Depapnenk w (b) .tan o erai,w caia neared by to spore,. 3. Tlw aaausdad,arboaM MnQreanw*for maw ace* rotanpsedsht fesaerot (0) An to fr %tW ,riser of mate. by type. MokoW by the tWa WOMW by Ile (b) Aural Y&MA bsOvw costs kwwmd byte pwror, or (C) ArtaanpradadnelW in feaporwors gpmwd ad,*bbww budget 4. Wooam Yuma souckV to a pcvaofs oepw odd be doftx*@d tom eltha oparatr0 w admitekaOvs mats. whb*A r Is;pligkk, bass a coo70wim k made %M ON nwdnum tabs wld so 8*Wrd tsWw bust B. The SPONSOR being to sdhodty for v4wywm wd ccnad owrto program wrradr tat k awspta fret Wanci l and WMrietraays npos6ikyr for to psups m wd ina krAt t. Op*0% a oopvfA bed serviro for dQd w on edvod vaoeton dump to mn fs of May tMpph SepbeAw a Bang IN morrto of May tsoug h Sspwaw sad at son a afwSmw w imes duwp is )war ice didraf m *fed vraratlM under • owdrarwns sdmd o0sndw %derr4 2 Fw acroat food atfrrfaws, fifer mss, Micfr mew the ragrtkernwft and pioAWore at bln In 7 CFR 275 swing twee aarpetad s tr mar aervbs paotla M to pwnw. and rive Oe woo tereek n at dterart for d mra pwewa, Mane coca Mel mss to ragdrearera rod pieveiors s# lontf In 7 CFR 7X dokrg roes tlaigirlad a lka mall aafwm pwfods by fe sppaw. Surd s w the aloe maw bat d#AVW. 3. Sarvw rata%hsftrod Cost b at dAdIM Wcq* 00 tared may chops, for mate served to chkkw eta as mtatplbb !ekes, a radruW pie seed mall 4. kru0sk"on"p0kyll0w eN naomdWlmwsh7CFR225; A MOWS.*. atp aga,WnW+%IW?A** Wahl Sr4d*Paeo+tetsrqukW~7CFR2W. e. Chem NAMNAsaaat d* for ft type w "M of rte% aparslad in M apaadad sod as 10 dips, a opp owe sis daft fo appnp hod mod as psaw 000 to mats ad down lodmw %ft Mtge* f Weow a mw'a typpsd Arad apwcitadnMa (seaivea rod adsVSd vrRdd doge Yconr ssndads wxebtded by she OopwMWC e. Maintain, in she donna, ,,us ft, sod sarvba of 10od, pope, w etion and heath Mandwo. in conbmwvoe wWh d appkMW see s d IoW tsws and ragaebo e; s. AODW Ord use, in as Wge Waned s may be ORdenty hWUed n the program, such foods se mey, be offered s dora W byte Deparmrmt 10. 11ew sows b bcftm nOasatytd 310 t, pnopOrnp and WvWq load; it. Makaan a irwhdal "w"silwt aymen, K presci by sat Depanmank 12 MsXSn on its ftwM nedM of We visM and rsvews In awpdanDs wth 7 CFR 125; 13. Man ain kA sod wumas - I d d program operations urderthls apewmas. Upon nequag make of swans, and NONds pw%ff*Q b to pnbgn om avalsbW to stse, f dwvd, or o0w stowmed Oficia, Nor abdt a adnkw4aaw re, iew. a a m"onable 4me eM pen. Such records shoe be robsI ed lot a period of tree yars anw the end of ris Fi DW yea, b ,Ankh fey pwlan, accept set t aut% &X*W few rat been resolved. ft rands dot be rained beyond M dose you Pw W as lap se tw*wW 1w to resoWden d"Issues; raised by to suet.. 14. Mairsn d%%Vw on oft whis mob ors oworned, C. The Spwww hereby opese tot It as canpywiln me w d ON Crd Rights Act d 1164 (Pubic Low "-35Z 42 U.S.C. 2000d a seq.) and d rquimmerw krpdsd by to eequletwe d se Depetelsm d Agroo0um (7 CFR Par t5). Demb wd of Aw0w US CFR Pare 42 ad WX and FNS t%rec*w a w regulstiwq Bard pMAM to that Ad end we Mvjwx ns, fo tfe erect dust no parson is, to Urdw Sew stmm an to Wound- d NOW COW. A*=W Wtpb% sot ups. a 0ORMNY be ",Ckm hod Aim percdpakn im be duffed the berreee d. or be owww ve arbledsd to Aernmksaon under awy, pnpram w adkAty fro vavdf the sponsor ,soaves %dWa 4naubat Asia wsce ten to DepwUr—a: sod rWeby givn swaanos that k wA krsnedssay eke any nnwunK nsmsary so effacedW ass egmament Tyke assurance ts pen in oww"abon d and for Os, pupos of obhning sny and an fodwa fnacw adamlm Pads ads I of !edam kids: roknbasabe arpendtmw grant or donubw of bdwel P umilymd hwvM In p qmy.. se dad Of bd" Parsowel: acrd she ssb NO hose d. and to pmniaaon to use, bdwa Popatya khlweW in such p vputy or se LRnot ing of servos wfdvout mnsku. ton w at a ,wand consWe Won, or at • owreusdbn v4wh is mduuoed kvr fo Purpose of aaabsrp Ve rocow t or n moor w of In Pubic oases b be wv4d by such sod, des, a fumithnp d swine b to r000iient, or arty kr wands nods w&n %dent i s,0W awnsh ram eawded a ere PoDtuh app•cai by to Dpwtmuft Ties O%kWw s^Y lwteral apewnsnt Ortargee ws a other consuct vahkh hs ate one or a pepows the pwAawf of wh 4edabllm for to p adwe d bed. and tsah ase%noe for pu dare or Arai of food wrAw a palWlt a wry ostler tiranawl asekbnce wounded Yn rehanco on the n@w v iltotlorw whd ap ernsw made in this aauraroa. by somo g Oft aaswunm Ins sponsor agfae b mnpls dos rnokttakr remrtla, and Suers repro% es rgJred. % perm* -Mach enbown rat of THe M rod punk w ftrirad USDA persweW dung rAmvd wwtalg hers fo awim, Upch rem, . boded, end amwarts a nee . to wwdan awnptisGe oath r*e Vl. s fea we shy vkWAore of Ws aarance, the Depsrwont of ApkWam Food and NtrWm SwAm std hoe to tW to seat judcsd aaforpnont dells aasveanee. Tttis sawn ce a bnArp on the sponw, Is svcwsws. barwbres, and eoapnews se k1V ate Rey veoeive wakens w roan Possession of any ss"W m tom to 09whew t The Paawt Or passe %"ode wands ss appose baow ate susarbed b agn cis sau nnew Date beW d f e spew. D. That lerms of On Awe~ std tla dewed kdernason wftw hod on rte Aypkmtioo for Pat7dpaton (SFSP.F1), and Or lift lnb alm Sow% (SFSP -F2). Wtidu was m cwfadwW a pat d hob Aamm6 . slat not be mbatW w dsngsd n"my oww Om by=rmwd n m ttg d both parse tomb. (Corded on Reverse) ESE 198 SFSP -F3 DOE Pape T of 2 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHR.DREN AGREEMENT r+� Agenda Item No. 16D2 Collier County Sponsor. Parks and Recreation Courrty_Collier RecontmandedtwApprovalby: Dept. My swature owwas that th bdwrnatlon submiltod an ttde fort and its attachments is true and correct. I am aware ttrat deffbomte misrepresentation or wiihholding of irfearnadon may result in Data: prosecution under applicable stale or federal statutes. Administrator, Food and Nutrition Management Pertod DfAgieement• Signature and TW* of Atd wvlzed Representative From: To: Date: k Approved lay. Commissioner at Education or Designated Representstl%* ate: � m & It -apt cot, 9c #estmy Calnta i; ttrxntlr - rearu�ry,cc, cuuo - i . ,The E. TNs AQlsamerd may be nmemld anmtely by dre Da *dWr0. and the Sponsor by onrbut aaleseartt In G Depo treat may Ww such afatiar, including proesatsat to f w under apPlenWe w*i RarsriM tr ll bs oontl gera on fit Spatsw tnWLg P alpttm nrpa4ert ewb n 1ds.1 B eaantd abkdm w' b" a retdairt if any Pori d Ma mashy mcalwad by ow spomw, Sew o b"Noper a aselgent two aebwd in part 225 of the Gods d Fadetel Rspebtlais and actor pwlinent ktabae60ea from the sdbn, Is dwitinlefp¢, kwok eieapplled, a d oolsod Oma Do program, This OaWRy So gift part d tits Sparw Depwbmt w the LAM abtac DepaMUnt d Agdwlwrs Sad" ponalri b pog to is under SponswY Shit maWn" in shad fdr ft applioahle pwlnde w 6m6rion n COW far by leer altar the a6acsara dab d I kabdNtatt lot twom aabmnbd s anal apglcallone and Said appl call" law newt ghnn De"rImatd taoalpx� at es Aysanvat SPpMvbI- N. Tut OSparerunishaO hdaaa Ur Spoaacrd b AQfit le rwpanst s tevleat d iadaiens made by site Deparlfnwq F, This Agrouued may be tatminafed upon a5 days wdt ui narios un Or part. M ilaw party herawdo, and the Match enact the pwthfp olbn of a sponsor in On pmIlraaa or um Spaalwe, dim for mimbummart DegNnent may1wr inde Oft Agmamwd iracedletely afoar rataipi of wtdeace Oral the fawns and wndaiona of ads Agrawnent and of Oro rsgAMfane govwMng VW PW rmn hSW not bean W oamplied WM by Ob I. a IS understood Sold Jpead by and bab~ the lospaaAetad and *w Spwaw, whaliw publk or pivals drat Spoaw Any twminotbi of On AweenwM by the Dapar ntam Stank be In Scoot! %tat applicable lerw and ew tOgulalms of Ora. Wiled Stabs Dapawmwa or Apdowbo a tebwig to eta Food and Nutrebn Sarvin:ee, g No em audit. are mgalsill a 4 Spwra, and S nor to maMtWh anted roW mmrft wW tsain such moons wallaabie for Te d Mds fetich bya36 d the bans uAlonh Ayroement for nbncompsance with Tara A d to C{v6 Rigrds Act of 1664 shah be m amordance wlh applicable Iwrs and raghdations. CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL SPONSORING AGENCY FLORIDA DEPARTMEM OF EDUCATION Collier County Sponsor. Parks and Recreation Courrty_Collier RecontmandedtwApprovalby: Dept. My swature owwas that th bdwrnatlon submiltod an ttde fort and its attachments is true and correct. I am aware ttrat deffbomte misrepresentation or wiihholding of irfearnadon may result in Data: prosecution under applicable stale or federal statutes. Administrator, Food and Nutrition Management Pertod DfAgieement• Signature and TW* of Atd wvlzed Representative From: To: Date: k Approved lay. Commissioner at Education or Designated Representstl%* ate: � m & It -apt cot, 9c #estmy Calnta i; ttrxntlr Agenda Item No. 16D3 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for County Sponsorship in the Amount of $50,000.00 for US Military Appearances During the Week of July 1 through July 5, 2005 OBJECTIVE: To provide the citizens of Collier County with an Independence Day Celebration that will include entertainment and performances by various US Military units. CONSIDERATIONS: Traditionally the Independence Day Celebration in Collier County has been funded by the Tourist Development Council and administered by the City of Naples. Due to the changes in the rules governing the use of TDC funds, this process is no longer viable. At the Board of County Commissioners meeting on February 08, 2005, John Elson and Herb Luntz, Collier County Independence Day Celebration Committee members, brought forth a public petition requesting that Collier County fund this year's celebration. The Board directed staff to bring back an Executive Summary to allow them to discuss and decide whether or not to approve the proposal. Funds provided by Collier County will be used to pay for per diem (meals), lodging, --- transportation for military entertainment and demonstration units, and ancillary travel expenses incurred by the event coordinator. While funds will be established, the Celebration Committee will continue to seek donations to lower the costs. All invoices will be presented to the Parks & Recreation Department for payment authorization. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs associated with the celebration will not exceed $50,000. Funds are available in general fund reserves. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No Growth Management Impact is associated with this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the expenditure of $50,000 for expenses related to the Collier County Independence Day Celebration and approve any related budget amendments. Prepared by: Peter Kraley, Veteran Services Director Agenda Item No. 16D3 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16D3 Item Summary Request for County Sponsorship in the amount of $50.000 for US Military Appearances during July 1 through July 5; 2005. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Maria Ramsey Parks & Recreation Director Date Public Services Parks and Recreation 211112005 11:13 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:41 AM Approved By Gary A. Vincent Management & Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1512005 11:12 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2115/2005 12:02 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2115/2005 12:52 PM Agenda Item No. 16E1 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05 -3765 "Annual Contract for Painting Contractors" for painting of County facilities to Service Painting of Florida, Cover -All, Inc., and Perfectly Painted of Collier County as a multiple award up to $350,000. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #05 -3765 to multiple vendors (Service Painting of Florida, Cover -All, Inc., Perfectly Painted of Collier County) for comprehensive painting services to all Collier County buildings and structures. CONSIDERATIONS: The Deparment of Facilities Management is responsible for painting and maintaining over 643 buildings and structures in Collier County. Due to the workload and current demands, award of this bid to multiple vendors, all located near the Naples area, is recommended This will allow more availability for painting services and alleviate scheduling conflicts. Painting services are utilized throughout the County for repairs, remodeling and new construction. Contractors will be used for the duration of the contract based on pricing and their ability to complete the work within the County's time frame. On January 6, 2005, the Purchasing Department solicited bids for painting services. The bids encompassed comprehensive painting services for all Collier County buildings including interiors to any height or size, exteriors of buildings, and ground areas. A total of three bidders responded (see attached tabluation sheet), of which all three (3) were selected Through multiple award, the County will receive competitive and timely service. Projects estimated to be over twenty -five thousand ($25,000) will be quoted by all three vendors to ensure competitive pricing. Staff recomends awards to Service Painting of Florida, Cover -All, Inc., and Perfectly Painted of Collier County as providers for painting contractors. FISCAL IMPACT: Painting expenses average $350,000 annually, based on approved building maintenance and capital budgets. Funds are budgeted in FY 2004 -2005 project and operating cost centers. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no impact on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #05 -3765 to Service Painting of Florida, Cover -All Inc., and Perfectly Painted of Collier County for comprehensive painting services to all Collier County buildings and structures. PREPARED BY: Daniel R. Rodriguez, M.B.A., Facilities Manager, Department of Facilities Management Agenda Item No. 16E1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16111 Item Summary Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05 -3765 "Annual Contract for Painting Contractors" for painting of County facilities to Service Painting of Florida, Cover -All, Inc., and Perfectly Painted of Collier County as a multiple award up to $350,000, Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Daniel R. Rodriguez, M.B.A. Facilities Manager 1/2612005 3:03:53 PM Administrative Services Facilities Management Approved By Skip Camp, C.F.M. Facilities Management Director Date Administrative Services Facilities Management 1/2612006 3:08 PM Approved By Daniel R. Rodriguez, M.B.A. Facilities Manager Date Administrative Services Facilities Management 112612005 3:11 PM Approved By Scott Johnson Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 112712005 1:06 PM Approved By .� Steve Carnell Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 112812005 8:22 AM Approved By Len Golden Price Administrative Services Administrator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 1128/2005 11:21 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 112812005 1:19 PM Approved By Michael Srnykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 113112005 8:48 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 113112005 1:27 PM Commissioners Project Title: Annual Contract for Painting Contractors Tabulation for Bid: 05 -3765 Opening Dale: December 29 2004 a] 2:30 p.m Project Mgr.:Dan Rodriguez CS 1 Notices Sent: 17 Agenda Iterp No. 16E1 hacilitics Management AF y 22, 2005 age 3 of 3 Date: 12/13/04 DESCRIPTION Service Painting or Florida Cover -All, Inc. Perfectly Painted of Collier County Exterior Painting Cost per hour per skilled worker for regular business hours Monday Through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 1.m. General Labor: S 30.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Skilled Painter: $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 Cost per hour per skilled worker for overtime and weekend hours. General Labor: $ 45.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 Skilled Painter: $ 45.00 $ 53.00 $ 52.50 Percentage of mark-up over actual cost of materials. 15% 10% 0% Interior Painting Cost per hour per skilled worker for regular business hours Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. General Labor: S 30.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Skilled Painter: S 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 Cost per hour per skilled worker for overtime and weekend hours. General Labor: S 45.00 $ 30.00 SEE BID Skilled Labor: S 45.00 $ 51OU $ 52.50 Percentage of mark-up over actual cost for materials. 15% 10% 0% Coy of Collier County Occupational License Attached? Y Y Y Rel'erences Attached? Y N No Response Prompt Payment Terms: 1 0 0 D Net 30 Days Net 30 Days Net 30 Days Opening Agent: Scott,fohnson Witness: Janice Vermillion Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Report and ratify staff- approved change orders and changes to work orders to Board - approved contracts OBJECTIVE: To enable the Board to oversee the execution of administrative change orders and changes to work orders, and promote accountability in the use of staff authority. CONSIDERATIONS: On April 22, 2003, the Board approved a recommendation to implement a plan to enable changes to BCC - approved contracts (Section XIV. C, Collier County Purchasing Policy) of not greater than 10 percent of the current Board approved amount or $10,000 (whichever is greater) to be authorized by staff. Also included in the report are changes to Work Orders. These include work orders issued under CCNA Contracts, which are less than or equal to $90,000 (Section VII.C, Collier County Purchasing Policy), and changes to work orders for all other contracts (Section XIV. G, Collier County Purchasing Policy) which are not greater than 10 percent of the current Board Approved amount or $100,000 whichever is greater. The Administrative report identifies the percentage changes to contracts or work orders that have occurred since the amount most recently approved by the BCC, which are below the threshold limits as referenced above. The plan calls for staff to submit a monthly report listing these change orders from the previous reporting period. Enclosed is the monthly report of the Administrative Change Order and Administrative Changes to Work Order Reports. These reports cover the period of December 28, 2004 through January 28, 2005. An additional request of the Board is also included in this Executive Summary, on July 27, 2004, the Board approved Contract No. 04 -3571, "Green Boulevard Extension Corridor Study", Agenda Item 16.8.19 in the amount of $277,058.00. Two line items were inadvertently omitted from the Executive Summary, which were included in the contract. Therefore, the dollar totals of these two items were not included in the Board approved amount, as follows: Direct Expenses $ 24,557.16 Traffic Counts $ 10,205.00 Correct Contract Amount $311,820.16 Staff recommends that the Board approve the corrected contract amount of $311,820.16. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact resulting from this action. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners 1. Accepts the enclosed Administrative Change Order and Administrative Changes to Work Orders Report; 2. Ratifies the listed change orders and changes to work orders and 3. Approve the correct contract amount of $311,820.16 for Contract No. 04 -3571, "Green Boulevard Extension Corridor Study". PREPARED BY: Brenda Reaves, Contract Technician, Purchasing Department Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16E2 Item Summary Report and ratify staff - approved change orders and changes to work orders to Board - approved contracts. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Steve Carneil Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/10/2005 2:33 PM Approved By Len Golden Price Administrative Services Administrator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 2110/2005 4:12 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator County Manager's Office Administrative Assistant Office of Management & Budget Date 2/1012006 4:27 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/14/2005 11:20 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211512005 5:22 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . RMIUMend8tion to Approve:Contrad for RFP #04-36712 &Creen Bouleviird Firtension Corridor Study," -(Pro ject Number 62024) in the Total Amount of $277,05g, OBJECVVE: Obtain Board approval to sign a coritra6twith -consuiting` professional services foe d Planning Corridor Study.. e Study. firm' PBS&J to provide will evaluate the transp6rtatior( Pacs of exte ndi ng men .Boulevard as a through:oad west 'to of Santa Baftm. Boulevard UAngston Road.- CONSIDER N& ThONeeft PlAh.'060 ning. "component of the Colfier.0dunty. Metr0politaft PLah Organization '(MPO Range Van ortaVon Plan Update: Long Ap (413T11) contains a Green Boulevard Extension between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Uvingst6m 146id. 'in addition, ."-. Collier County 5-Year Transoorwoh Work Program includes a Green Study for FY '2004. Extension A.Request for Proposals (RFP*o4.,3-571) was for the purpose of establishing a contact with a consulting, firm. capable of . providing professional services to the County for this study, The RFP was issued on O�iober 8 2003 i accordance with Florida Statutes, on 287-065, Competitive Negofiatio� n 8ectio Consultant Comp n Act Notices were - sent to i al firms, with 40 requesting. packages, and .-6fihnssub'mi.tbnj Pr Pposals'by the due date of October-31,2003, A Selection Committee meeting was held on November 19, .2003. The review, scoring, and discussion of the pooposals by the Selection Committee resulted in a three-way tie for highest- ranking fn in. The'three firmsted as h1dhest-ranking were". DRMP PBS&J Stanley Consultants These three firmS, gave . _ presentations to the Seledon Coi�mittee on December 10, --2=,. pre" Following review, -scoring, and0iscussoh of the presentations, a consensus of the members of the Selection Committee determined the- ranking of the top three firms as" follows: T. Pn&j :9. WIMP - 3. Stanley Consultants Neg6tiptions have sWor-sfully.conclojed with the top. ranked, firm, PBS&J, in the. amount of $2771,656. 0. .FISCAL IMP A budget amehdi-nent is needed in the zmount of $.280,000. This is to award the contract and allocate a small contingency for this project. Source of funds are Gas Tax Reserves. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: A potential Green Boulevard. Extension between Santa, Barbara Boulevard and Livingston Road is consistent with the Growth Management Plan tan and Long Range Transportation Plan. Agenda Item No. 161319 July 27, 2004 Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 11 RECOMMENDATION: 'That the Board of County Commissioners grant approval of the contrail with PBSW to provide professional services forth& Green Boulevard Extension Corridor Study, approve the, necessary budget amendment, and .authorise the Chairman to sign a standard County Attorney aroved contract. Agenda Item No. 161319 July 27, 2004 Page 2 of 3 FY 05 i Presented to the Board ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ORDER REPORT January 2005 February 22, 2005 Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22. 2005 Page 5 of 11 Item Receipt Vendor Name Department Change Previous BCC Change New % change No. Date Project No. Amount Approval No. Contract Since BCC Contract No. Amount Approval Project Name 1 01/05/05 Southwest Utility Systems, Inc. PUED $6,938.00 $845,415.00 2 $849.053.00 0.43 74034 03 -3529 Vanderbilt Beach Road Reclaimed Water Main Overview of change: This change order reflects a change to Vanderbilt Beach Road crossing from jack and bore to open cut and restore. Add bell restraints to unrestrained joints. Add diversions to cross 6" and 8" water mains. There is a landscaping credit for trees not replaced, and reconcile final quantities with estimated quantities. These were unforeseen field conditions. 2 01/12/05 MCM Engineers TECM $0.00 $35,397.385.35 1 $35,397,385.35 0.00% 60006 04 -3653 Golden Gate Grade Separated Overpass Overview of change: This change order adds subsoil excavation ( unsuitable material removal) and an increase to Quantity Floating Turbidity Barrier, Roadway Item Allowance will cover these additions, therefore, the dollar value of the contract does not increase. 3 01/19/05 Wilson Miller TECM $0.00 $3,735,963.00 5 $3,735,963.00 0.00% 62018 00 -3062 Santa Barbara Blvd. Overview of change: This change order extends contract completion date to October 8, 2005. Delays were due to an additional intersection geometry review done by an independent consultant- -11-cap- or uisnncoon Pelican Bay $0.00 $51,050.00 1 $51,050.00 0.00 511221 Services 05 -3737 Furnish and Install Live Oak Trees in Pelican Bay Overview of change: This change order extends completion date by 30 days. Contractor must take a competency test for licensing in Collier County. This extends the completion day to provide necessary time. The extension does not present a financial burden to Pelican Bay Services. 211 012 0 0 5 1:45 PM Agenda Item No. 16112 February 22, 2005 FY 05 Page 6 of 11 7 Item Receipt Vendor Name Department Change Previous BCC Change — — New %change No. Date Project No. Amount Approval No. Contract Since BCC Contract No. Amount Approval Project Name 5 01/26/05 Kraft Construction Parks and $53,602,645.00 3 $48,608,868.66 -9.65% 80602 Recreation 01 -3189 North Naples Regional Park Overview of change: Change order No. 3 is a deductive change order and represents action taken by the Parks and Recreation Department to utilize the Direct Material Purchase of materials by the County, thus saving 6% Florida State Sales Tax. Net savings to the County is $61,000. 6 01/26/05 Better Roads Transportation $0.00 $5,920,319.69 5 $5,962,726.17 0.00% 60027 03 -3552 Golden Gate Parkway Section A & B Overview of change: This change order adds a total of eleven ( 11) days to the contract; nine ( 9) days due to rain delays and two ( 2) days for plan revisions to replace a driveway. 7 01/26/05 Ajax Paving Transportation $68,001.16 $13,352,929.29 16 $13,583,799.37 1.73% ^" 60134 02 -3424 Goodlette Frank Road Widening Overview of change: The net results of Change Order 16 reflect removal, modifications, relocation and construction changes, which include removal of unsuitable materials, changes to drainage, manholes, roadway lighting, water main and farce main. These changes will facilitate the accommodation of off -site drainage, construction of a new road drainage inlet and resolve a utility conflict. 8 01/27/05 Vila & Sons Landscaping Transportation $21,578.09 $679,395.20 1 $700,973.29 3.18% 620713 04 -3654 Livingston Road Phase 3 Overview of change: The net results of this change order reflects a time and cost reduction for vegetation removal, soil preparation and an increase for optimizing the central irrigation system with the conversion of 2 -wire to multi -wire and to add 25 days to the contract due to a scheduling conflict with a concurrent contract contractor. 2/10120051:45 PM FY 05 1 Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 11 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO WORK ORDER REPORT Presented to the Board January 2005 February 22, 2005 Item Receipt Vendor Name Workorder No. Department Previous BCC Change New % No. Date Project No. Contract No. Approval Amount Contract change Change Order No. Amount Project Name 1 1/7105 D.N. Higgins UC -013 PLED $729,000.00 $5,550.00 $734,550.00 0.76% 73945 04 -3545 1 Pump Station Improvements Overview of change: This work order is to remove, replace and upgrade various pumps in the waste water collection system. The work amount was increased to make lay -out changes within pump station 107 that will serve to reduce the accumulations of solids and the build up of odor. The change also includes installing an emergency by -pass on the discharge line, which is a requirement of the FDEP. 2 1/11/05 Tampa Bay Engineering TBE- FT -05 -02 Transportation We 02 -3371 Planning $10,076.75 $1,600.00 $11,678.75 15.87% 1 Travel Demand Model Support Overview of change: This work order reflects significant problems with the network provided from FDOT to Lee and Collier Counties. It was necessary to review and revise part of the network on two occasions. This resulted in an additional 16 hours to offset the extra time related to the additional model network revisions. This change is under $10,000 and can be reported Administratively. 3 1/20/05 Tampa Bay Engineering TBE- FT -02 -08 Transportation $61,420.00 (- S86472) $0.00 - 100.00% 60109 02 -3371 Planning 4500021784 1 Traffic Modeling in Support of Transportation Concurrency Overview of change: This change was generated to close out the purchase order in SAP. The actual cost of this project was $60,555.28. 2/10/200512:57 PM FY 05 2 Agenda Item No. 16E2 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 11 Item Receipt Vendor Name Workorder No. Department Previous BCC Change New % No. Date Project No. Contract No. Approval Amount Contract change Change Order No. Amount Project Name 4 1/20/05 Aquagenix DAB- FT -05 -02 Stormwater $297,250.00 $600.00 $297,850.00 0.20% 51501 03 -3568 1 4500036635 2004 Australian Pine Removal Project Overview of change: This work order reflects tree and debris removal from project staging area. Additional funds are needed for removal of existing debris that private property owners have deposited on staging area, located in the 1700 block of 54th Terrace, City, after contractor completed phase of work 5 1/21/05 KCCS, Inc. KCS- FT -03 -02 Transportation $966,820.00 $0.00 $966,820.00 0.00% 60027 00 -3184 1 4500016368 Golden Gate Parkway Section A & B Overview of change: This work order is to extend Construction, Engineering and Inspection (CEI) services time in order to parallel the contractor's construction schedule extension. 6 01/21/05 Wlson Miller WMBP- FT -03 -09 Parks and $88,650.00 $0.00 $88,650.00 0.00% 80014 01 -3290 Recreation 1 4500011419 Eagle Lakes Phase II Overview of Change: The original completion date for the work covered under this work order was June 11, 2004: the project was delayed substantially due to design and Sight Development Plan (SDP) issues. The revised completion time will be December 11, 2005, which is 545 days more than originally anticipated. 2/10/200512:57 PM Agenda Item No. 16E2 FY 05 February 22. 2005 3 Page 9 of 11 Item Receipt Vendor Name Workorder No. Department Previous BCC Change New ^% No. Date Project No. Contract No. Approval Amount Contract change Change Order No. Amount Project Name 7 01127/05 Q. Grady Minor QGM- FT -D4 -02 PUED $81.685.00 $0.00 $81,685.00 0.00% 73160 -01 -A 1 01 -3290 4500020645 Rookery Bay Phase II (Manatee Road) Overview of Change: The contract time frame is being extended 400 days to accommodate additional services required of the consultant for the commencement of Phase 11 of the project. At the onset of the work, it was not possible to project the true length of work to be performed due to the unknown complexity of the project so the original date for completion was for Phase I only. 8 01/27105 Q. Grady Minor QGM- FT -04 -04 PUED $6,450.00 $O.DO $6,450.00 0.00% 73945 01 -3290 1 4500027617 Pump Station Improvements -107 Overview of Change: The contract time frame is being extended by 270 days to accommodate additional services required of the consultant. Q. Grady Minor has completed and submitted the design plans for the project: this extension is to allow them to proceed with the design and inspect the construction work. Due to the unknown complexity of the project, it was not possible to project the true length of the project at the onset of the contract. 2/10/200512:57 PM Agenda Item N 305 E2 February 2 Page 1 11 CONTRACT MODIFICATION CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT NAME: Livingston Road Phase 3 (PRR -VBR) PROrJECT#: 620713 BIDJRFP #: 04 -3654 MOD #: 1 AMOUNT OF THIS CHANGE $21,578.09 PO C 4500038097 Wont Order #: NIA CONTRACT AMOUNT: ORIGINAL $ 679.395.220 CURRENT $ 700.973.29 (STARTING POINT) (INCLUDING TfILS CHANGE OFWER) Last BCC Approved Amount 679 395.20 {LAST TOTAL AMT. REQUWNiG sac APPROVAy Date of Last BCC Approval. September 14, 2004 Agenda ttem # 16 iB16 Cumulative Dollar Value of Change Orders to this Contraatlftwk Order: $21_,578.09 Percentage of the change over /under current contract amount ja Formula: (Current Amount /Last BCC approved amount)- 1 Results and Actions: If the change exceeds 10% BCC approval is required; under 10% reported to BCC on Purchasing report. For specft information regarding work, order thresholds, please refer to the Contract Administration Procedures, Section II1.C.4 CURRENT COMPLETION DATE (S):ORIGINAL: March 16.2005 CURRENT: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGE (S): Item II Base revised. Item JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE PARTIES CONTACTED REGARDING THE CHANGE: Gloria Herrera: Bob Petersen, Jortae A- Freire. Michael A McGee, Diane. Flaw. and Pamela Lulich IMPLEMENTATION STEPS (Verify each before proceeding. with change using Y, N or NIA) Y Proposed change is consistent with the scope of the existing agreement Proposed change is in fact an addition or deletion to the existing scope Change is being implemented iri a manner consistent with the,eAsling agreement Y_ The appropriate parties have been consultedd regarding the change Y Proposed prices, fees and costs set forth in the change are reasonab(e PROJECT MANAGER R MENDATION: APPROVE: ,[ICU.- Date: f DtSAPPRO Date: COMMENTS: Revised 9 /14/04 Agenda Item No E2 February 22` "'11005 Page 11 of 11 CONTRACT MODIFICATION CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT NAME: _ Pump Station Improvements -107 PROJECT #: 73945 BID /RFP #: 01 -3290 MOD #: 1 AMOUNT OF THIS CHANGE $ 0.00 PO #: 4500027617 Work Order #: QGM- FT -04 -04 CONTRACT AMOUNT: ORIGINAL $ 6,450.00 CURRENT $ 6,450.00 (STARTING POINT) (INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER) Last BCC Approved Amount $ 6.450.00 (LAST TOTAL AMT. REQUIRING BCC APPROVAL) Date of Last BCC Approval Agenda Item # Cumulative Dollar Value of Change Orders to this ContractlWork Order: $ 6,450.00 Percentage of the change over /under current contract amount 0 Formula: (Current Amount / Last BCC approved amount) -1 Results and Actions: If the change exceeds 10% BCC approval is required; under 10% reported to BCC on Purchasing report. For specific information regarding work order thresholds, please refer to the Contract Administration Procedures, Section III.C.4. CURRENT COMPLETION DATE (S):ORIGINAL: May 27, 2004 CURRENT: February 27. 2005 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGE (S): Identify the changes. This is a change order to extend ti contract days for Q Grady Minor and Associates JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE (S): The contract days in the Original Work Order was for the Engineer to submit the design plans of the protect The Engineer turned in the documents with in the time and Budget. This time extension Is to empower the Engineer to design and inspect the construction work of the protect. It was not possible to envision the length of the contract because of the unknown complexity of this Project. PARTIES CONTACTED REGARDING THE CHANGE: Mr. Bill Mullin, Principal Proiect Manager. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS (Verify each before proceeding with change using Y, N or NIA) X Proposed change is consistent with the scope of the existing agreement X Proposed change is in fact an addition or deletion to the existing scope _2L Change is being implemented in a manner consistent with the existing agreement X The appropriate parties have been consulted regarding the change X Proposed prices, fees and costs set forth in the change are reasonable PROJECT MANAG REC MENDATION: This form is to be signed and dated. APPROVE BY: Date: Pr ct nager REVIEWED BY: Date: C`.nn t Cn r'�I' t Revised 12/23/04 Agenda Item No. 16E3 February 22, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of Recommendation to authorize termination for cause of Verizon Wireless under contract 03 -3551 "Cellular Communications Services and Equipment." OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval to terminate Verizon Wireless from contract number 03 -3551 Cellular Communications Services and Equipment. CONSIDERATIONS: On December 3, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners awarded contract 03 -3551 to three (3) vendors who supply cellular services. Prior to the award, Verizon Wireless offered the County a twenty -five (25 %) percent discount off their "published rate package(s)." Six months after award, and in conjunction with the contract terms and conditions, Purchasing Staff attempted to update the products and services listings of all three (3) vendors to provide more options for services under the contract. The same request was sent to all three (3) vendors. AT &T Wireless and Nextel Communications provided their information with changes and offered a deeper discount to the County along with all governmental agencies in Florida. As a result of attempting to obtain this information, Verizon Wireless informed the County that they will no longer honor their original offer. Purchasing Staff has spent several months working with Verizon to obtain the discount mutually agreed upon in 2003. All attempts to do so have failed. On December 30, 2004, Verizon Wireless received an "Intent to Terminate" letter from Collier County requesting them to provide their twenty -five (25 %) discount as previously agreed to in 2003. To date Verizon Wireless has not complied with that request. Therefore, it is staff s recommendation to terminate Verizon Wireless from the above referenced contract. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact resulting from this action. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no anticipated growth management impact resulting from this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approves termination of Verizon Wireless from contract number 03 -3551 for cause as provided in the contract. Prepared by: Scott D. Johnson, Purchasing Agent Agenda Item No. 16E3 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16E3 Item Summary That the Board approves termination of Verizon Wireless from contract number 03 -3551 for cause as provided in the contract. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Scott Johnson Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 21712005 2:00 PM Approved By Steve Carnell Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 211012005 9:43 AM Approved By Steve Carnell Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/1012005 9:43 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:33 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:37 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211412005 10:38 AM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 16E4 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4 Executive Summary Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05 -3787 "On -Call Plumbing Contractor" for plumbing repairs and maintenance of County facilities to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as primary and United Mechanical, Inc., and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. as secondary. Annual capital and maintenance expenses are estimated at $500,000. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #05 -3787 "On -Call Plumbing Contractor" to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as primary and United Mechanical, Inc., and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. as secondary for on -call plumbing and mechanical equipment repair and maintenance to provide plumbing services in various County facilities. CONSIDERATIONS: Plumbing maintenance is an integral part of building maintenance and helps ensure clean and well- maintained facilities. With over 643 County buildings, the use of contracted labor facilitates the repairs of sewer breaks, water line repairs, faucet replacements, and many other water fixture repairs. This added resource ensures competitive pricing and the needed manpower to keep up with the heavy demand in the Building Maintenance Section. On February 2, 2005, the Purchasing Department solicited bids to contract the purchase, repair, maintenance and installation of plumbing equipment. The selection of vendors was based on a pricing formula, taking into account cost of labor for specific trade categories and markup on parts. Those categories included: cost per hour for Foreman, Journeyman, Helper /Apprentice and general laborer. In addition, consideration was given for emergency response time, on -call non- emergency response time and markup over actual cost for materials. Three bidders responded and all are considered responsive bidders (see the attached tabulation sheet). Staff recommends an award to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as primary and United Mechanical, Inc. and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. as secondary providers for plumbing repair and maintenance contractors. Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. is being recommended as the primary vendor over United Mechanical, Inc. and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. based on their pricing and response time for on -call work. This method of award best serves Collier County by providing the lowest responsive bidder and making other contractors available in the event the primary vendor is unavailable. FISCAL IMPACT: Plumbing expenses average $500,000 annually for maintenance and capital improvements. Funds are budgeted in various Department cost centers. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no impact on the County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Collier County Commissioners award Bid #No. 05 -3787 to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, as primary vendor and United Mechanical, Inc. and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. as secondary vendors for the purchase, repair, maintenance and installation of plumbing equipment. PREPARED BY: Daniel R. Rodriguez, M.B.A., Facilities Manager Agenda {tern No. 16E4 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 4 Department of Facilities Management Agenda Item No. 16E4 February 22, 2005 Pane 3 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16E4 Item Summary Recommendation to approve award of Bid *05 -3787 "On -Call Plumbing Contractor for plumbing repairs and maintenance of County facilities to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as primary and United Mechanical. Inc., and First Class Plumbing of Florida. Inc. as secondary. Annual capital and maintenance expenses are estimated at $500,000. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Daniel R. Rodriguez, M.B.A. Facilities Manager 2/912005 3:39:20 PM Administrative Services Facilities Management Approved By Scott Johnson Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/10/2005 9:46 AM Approved By Steve CarnelI Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/1012005 10:02 AM Approved By Skip Camp, C.F.M. Facilities Management Director Date Administrative Services Facilities Management 2110/2005 4:33 PM Approved By Daniel R. Rodriguez, M.B.A. Facilities Manager Date Administrative Services Facilities Management 2/10/2005 4:35 PM Approved By Len Golden Price Administrative Services Administrator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 2111/2006 11:20 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:36 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/14/2005 10:32 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2/15/2005 5:45 PM Project Title: On -Call Plumbing Contractor Tabulation for: Bid # 05 -3787 n..o., n n.to- wnwrig 2.1n n_m_ Project Manager: Dan Rodreguez Posting Date:1 /18/05 Agenda Item No. 16E4 February 22. 2005 Page 4 of 4 Notices Sent: 15 Packages Sent: 6 Page 1 of 1 DESCRIPTION First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc. Shamrock Plumbing 8 Mechancial, Inc. United Mechanical, Inc. 1 Cost per hour per skilled worker for re ular business hours - Mondav throw h Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM COST COST COST Master Plumber $ 75.00 $ 40.00 $ 50.00 Journeyman $ 75.00 $ 40.00 $ 42.00 Helper/Apprentice $ 35.00 $ 22.00 $ 28.00 General Laborer $ 35.00 $ 22.00 $ 20.00 2 Percentage of mark-up over actual cost for materials: 10% 35% 20% 3 Response time for emergencies (hrs,): Less Than 1 Hr. 1 Hour 1 Hour 4 Res one time for on -call non-emergency work (hrs): 1 Hour 1 Hour 2 Hours Copy of Collier County Occupational License attached? Y SEE BID References attached? Y Y Prompt Payment Terms: Net 30 Days 1% 45 Days; Net 30 Da s 2% 15 Days; Net 30 Da s 1% 15 Days; Net 30 Days Opening Agent: Brenda Brilhart for Scott Johnson: Witness: Barbara Hecker Page 1 of 1 Agenda item No. 16F1 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 9 _L/ ► I /\ ��•� Recommendation to Approve a Grant Award and Agreement Articles for an Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District in the Amount of $225,000, Approve the Purchase of a Fire Engine utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Bid #04 -05- 0824 at a Total Cost of $250,000 and Approve the Necessary Budget Amendments OBJECTIVE: Approval of a Grant Award and Agreement Articles for an Assistance to Firefighters Grant and approval to replace a twenty (20) year old, outdated fire engine utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Bid #04 -05 -0824. Budget Amendments to recognize and appropriate revenue also need Board of County Commissioners approval. CONSIDERATIONS: On March 23, 2004 the Board of County Commissioners approved submittal of a grant application to the United Department of Homeland Security Office for Domestic Preparedness under the FY 04 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. On January. 28, 2005 notification was received that the grant was awarded in the amount of $225,000 with a $25,000 (10 %) local match. The period of performance is January 21, 2005 to January 20, 2006. The Isles of Capri Fire District has received a proposal from Hall -Mark Fire Apparatus totaling $265,000. The fire engine being replaced will be traded in for a $15,000 credit resulting in a final price of $250,000. The Board of County Commissioners has previously approved the use of the Florida Sheriffs Bid #04 -05 -0824 for the purchase of fire engines. On November 16, 2004 the Board approved the purchase of a separate fire engine utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Bid. FISCAL IMPACT: Budget Amendments are necessary to recognize and appropriate the grant proceeds of $225,000 and to transfer the local match of $25,000 (10 %) to Fund 118, Emergency Management & Fire Grants. The local match will be coming from the Isle of Capri MSTU Reserves, Fund 144. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this executive summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve a grant award and Agreement Articles for an Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District in the amount of $225,000, approve the purchase of a fire engine utilizing the Florida Sheriff's Bid #04 -05 -0824 at a total cost of $250,000 and to approve the necessary budget amendments. PREPARED BY: Alan McLaughlin, Assistant Chief, Isles of Capri Fire Rescue Agenda Item No. 16F1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 9 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16F1 Item Summary Recommendation to Approve a Grant Award and Agreement Articles for an Assistance to Date Firefighters Grant Program for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District in the Amount of 2115/2005 3:59 PM $225,001), Approve the Purchase of a Fire Engine utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Bid #04 -05- 0824 at a total cost of $250,000 and Approve the Necessary Budget Amendments, Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Date Approved By Office of Management & Budget 2/16/2005 9:46 AM Darcy Waldron Senior Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Emergency Management 2/14/2005 4:21 PM Approved By Board of County Marlene J. Foord Grants Coordinator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 2/1412005 4:30 PM Approved By Scott R. Teach Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 211412005 4:52 PM Approved By Bureau of Emergency Services Dan E. Summers Director Date County Manager's Office Bureau of Emergency Services 2114!2005 5:03 PM Approved By Scott Johnson Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/1512005 2:26 PM Approved By Steve Carnell Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 211512005 3:07 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Managers Office Office of Management & Budget 2115/2005 3:59 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/16/2005 9:46 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Comity Manager's Office V1612005 10:41 AM Commissioners ' Panel Review 4A r Mr. Alan Mclaughlin Isles of Capri Fire Rescue 175 Capri Blvd Naples, Florida 34113 -8678 Re: Grant No. EMW 2004 -FG -02525 Dear Mr. Mclaughlin: Agenda ltepnwo ?*S February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 9 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office for Domestic Preparedness Washington, D.C. 20531 Congratulations, on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office for Domestic Preparedness. Your grant application submitted under the FY 04 Assistance to Firefighters Grant has been approved. The approved project costs amount to $250,000.00. The Federal share is 90 percent or $225,000.00 of the approved amount and your share of the costs is 10 percent or $25,000.00. As part of your award package, you will find Grant Agreement Articles. Please make sure you read and understand the Articles as they outline the terms and conditions of your Grant award. Maintain a copy of these documents for your official file. You establish acceptance of the Grant and Grant Agreement Articles when you request and receive any of the Federal Grant funds awarded to you. The first step in requesting your grant funds is to confirm your correct Direct Deposit Information. Please go on- line to the AFG eGrants system at hftps:gportal.fema.gov and if you have not done so, complete and submit your SF 1199A, Direct Deposit Sign -up Form. Please forward the original, completed SF 1199A, Direct Deposit Sign -up Form, signed by your organization and the banking institution to the address below: Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (FEMA) Grants Management Branch 500 C Street, SW, Room 334 Washington, DC 20472 Attn: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program After your SF 1199A is reviewed and you receive an email indicating the form is approved, you will be able to request payments online. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the process to request your grant funds, please call 1- 877 - 510 -6762. Sincerely, C. Suzanne Mencer Executive Director Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Planning https: // portal. fema. gov /firegrant/j sp /fire_admin/awards/ spec /view_awardvackage.do ?agre... 1/28/2005 Panel Review AND S'EGJ Agenda ItAN01*4 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 9 Agreement Articles t U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20531 AGREEMENT ARTICLES ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM - Firefighting Vehicle program GRANTEE: Isles of Capri Fire Rescue PROGRAM: Firefighting Vehicle AGREEMENT NUMBER: EMW- 2004 -FG -02525 AMENDMENT NUMBER: Article I Article 11 Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Article VIII Article IX Article X Article XI Article XI Article I - Project Description TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Description Grantee Concurrence Period of Performance Amount Awarded Requests for Advances or Reimbursements Budget Changes Financial Reporting Performance Reports DHS Officials Other Terms and Conditions General Provisions Audit Requirements The grantee shall perform the work described in the approved grant application's Program Narrative. That narrative is made a part of these grant agreement articles by reference. The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire - related hazards. After careful consideration, DHS has determined that the grantee's project, as detailed in submitted project narrative and budget information, submitted as part of the grantee's application (and considered part of this agreement by reference), was consistent with the program's purpose and worthy of award. As such, any material deviation from the approved program narrative must have prior written approval. Article 11 - Grantee Concurrence https: / /portal.fema. gov /firegrantlj sp /fire _ admin / awards /spec /view award _package.do ?agre... 1/28/2005 Panel Review Agenda ItcPrff *Fo5MF- February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 9 By requesting and receiving Federal grant funds provided by this grant program, the grantee accepts and agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant as set forth in this document and the documents identified below. All documents submitted as part of the application are made a part of this agreement by reference. Article III - Period of Performance The period of performance shall be from 21 -JAN -05 to 20- JAN -06. The grant funds are available to the grantee for obligation only during the period of performance of the grant award. The grantee is not authorized to incur new obligations after the expiration date unless the grantee has requested, and DHS has approved, a new expiration date. The grantee has 90 days after period of performance to incur costs associated with closeout or to pay for obligations incurred during period of performance. Award expenditures are for the purposes detailed in the approved grant application only. The grantee cannot transfer funds or assets purchased with grant funds to other agencies or departments without prior written approval from DHS. Article IV - Amount Awarded The amount of the award is detailed on the Obligating Document for Award attached to these articles. Following are the budgeted estimates for object classes for this grant (including Federal share plus grantee match): Personnel $0.00 Fringe Benefits $0.00 Travel $0.00 Equipment $250,000.00 Supplies $0.00 Contractual $0.00 Construction $0.00 Other $0.00 Indirect Charges $0.00 Total $250,000.00 Article V - Requests for Advances or Reimbursements Grant payments under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program are made on an advance or reimbursable basis for immediate cash needs. When the grantee needs grant funds and has obtained a user account, the grantee fills out the on -line Request for Advance or Reimbursement. If the grantee has not obtained a user account, an account may be obtained by calling the help desk at 1- 866 - 274 -0960. Article VI - Budget Changes Generally, changes in the budget -line items are permitted, as long as the original program narrative is accomplished. The only exception to this provision is for grants where the Federal share is in excess of $100,000.00. In grants where the Federal share exceeds $100,000.00, the budgeted line items can be changed, but if the cumulative changes exceed ten (10) percent of the total budget, Changes must be pre - approved. Article VII - Financial Reporting The Request for Advance or Reimbursement mentioned above, will also be used for interim financial reporting purposes. At the end of the performance period, or upon completion of the grantee's program narrative, the grantee must complete, on -line, a final financial report that is required to close out the grant. The Financial Status Report, is due within 90 days after the end of the performance period. https : // portal. fema. gov /firegrant/jsp /fire_admin/awards/ spec /view award package.do ?agre... 1/28/2005 Panel Review Article Vill - Performance Reports Agenda Itcsrt p)61#'i February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 9 The grantee must submit a semi - annual and a final performance report to DHS. The final performance report should provide a short narrative on what the grantee accomplished with the grant funds and any benefits derived there from. The semiannual report is due six months after the award date. Article IX - DHS Officials Program Officer: Tom Harrington, Deputy Chief of the Grants Program Office, is the Program Officer for this grant program. The Program Officer is responsible for the technical monitoring of the stages of work and technical performance of the activities described in the approved grant application. Grants Assistance Officer: Christine Torres, is the Assistance Officer for this grant program. The Assistance Officer is the Federal official responsible for negotiating, administering, and executing all grant business matters. Grants Management Branch POC: Pamela Greene is the point of contact for this grant award and shall be contacted for all financial and administrative grant business matters. If you have any questions regarding your grant please call 202 -646 -4397. Article X - Other Terms and Conditions Pre -award costs directly applicable to the awarded grant are allowable if approved in writing by the DHS Program Office. Article XI - General Provisions The following are hereby incorporated into this agreement by reference: 44 CFR, Emergency Management and Assistance Part 7 Nondiscrimination in Federally- Assisted Programs Part 13 Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments Govemment -wide Debarment and Suspension (Non - procurement) Part 17 and Government -wide Requirements for Drug -free Workplace (Grants) Part 18 New Restrictions on Lobbying 31 CFR 205.6 Funding Techniques OMB Circular A -21 Cost Principles for Educational Institutions OMB Circular A -87 Cost Principles for State /local Governments, Indian tribes OMB Circular A -122 Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations OMB Circular A- Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With State and Local 102 Govemments Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application and Assurances contained therein. OMB Circular A- Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher 110 Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application and Assurances contained therein. Article XII- Audit Requirements https:ll portal. fema. gov /firegrantljsp /fire_adminlawardsl spec /view_award_package.do ?agre... 1/28/2005 Panel Review Agenda item` 0�TciF'T February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 9 All grantees must follow the audit requirements of OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. The main requirement of this OMB Circular is that grantees that expend $500,000.00 or more in Federal funds (from all Federal sources) must have a single audit performed in accordance with the circular. As a condition of receiving funding under this grant program, you must agree to maintain grant files and supporting documentation for three years upon the official closeout of your grant. You must also agree to make your grant files, books, and records available for an audit by DHS, the General Accounting Office (GAO), or their duly authorized representatives to assess the accomplishments of the grant program or to ensure compliance with any requirement of the grant program. Additional Requirements if applicable This grant award was reduced by $40000. The approved amount for the pumper is $250000 to $290000 as indicated in the initial application. The reduction has already has been made in the grant award and in the application as approved by the Asst Chief McLaughin via email on 1/0712005. The total project cost was reduced per the program office comments from $290000 to $250000. The federal share was reduced from $261000 to $225000. The applicants' share was reduced from $29000 to $25000. Approvsd as to for 8 legal sufficiency County A torney ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK. CLERK https : / /portal.fema.gov /firegrant/j sp /fire_admin/awards/ spec /view_award_package.do ?agre... 1/28/2005 Panel Review Agenda ItYrrRWi February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 9 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OBLIGATING DOCUMENT FOR AWARDIAMENDMENT 1a. AGREEMENT NO. 2. AMENDMENT 3. RECIPIENT NO. 4. TYPE OF 5. CONTROL NO. EMW- 2004 -FG -02525 NO. 59- 6000558 ACTION W397589N 0 AWARD 6. RECIPIENT NAME AND 7. ISSUING OFFICE AND ADDRESS 8. PAYMENT OFFICE AND ADDRESS ADDRESS ODPIFinancial and Grants Management ODPlFinancial Services Branch Isles of Capri Fire Rescue Division 500 C Street, S.W., Room 723 175 Capri Blvd 500 C Street, S.W., Room 350 Washington DC, 20472 Naples Washington DC, 20472 Florida, 34113 -8678 POC: Pamela Greene 202 -645 -4397 9. NAME OF RECIPIENT PHONE NO. 10. NAME OF PROJECT COORDINATOR PHONE NO. PROJECT OFFICER 239 - 394-8770 Tom Harrington (202) 307 -2790 Alan Mclaughlin 11. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 12. METHOD OF 13. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT 14. PERFORMANCE PERIOD THIS ACTION PAYMENT Cost Sharing From:21 -JAN- To:20- JAN -06 21- JAN -05 SF -270 05 Budget Period From:01 -OCT- To:30- SEP -05 04 15. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes) PROGRAM CFDA NO. ACCOUNTING DATA PRIOR AMOUNT CURRENT CUMMULATIVE NAME (ARCS CODE) TOTAL AWARDED THIS TOTAL AWARD NON - ACRONYM XXXX- XXX- XXXXXX- XXXXX- AWARD ACTION FEDERAL XXXX- XXXX -X + OR ( -) COMMITMENT AFG 97.044 20D5- 62- 0364RE- 63000000 - $0.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00 $25,000.00 4101 -R TOTALS $0.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00 $25,000.00 b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here. N/A 16 a. FOR NON - DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO FEMA (See Block 7 for address) Assistance to Firefighters Grant - Fire Prevention and Safety Program recipients are not required to sign and return copies of this document. However, recipients should print and keep a copy of this document for their records. 16b. FOR DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN This assistance is subject to terms and conditions attached to this award notice or by incorporated reference in program legislation cited above. 17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title) DATE WA NIA 18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title) DATE Pamela Greene 19- JAN-05 https: // portal. fema. gov /firegrant/jsp /fire_admin/awards /spec /view award _package.do ?agre... 1/28/2005 Agenda Item No. 16F1 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 9 lull rite. 1- 15VU-O24 -tlU /2 FM APPARATUS PROPOSAL DATE: January 25, 2005 This Proposal has been prepared for: Isla of Capri 175 Capri Blvd Naples, FL 33610 We propose to furnish to you one (1) F -One 0440 Rescue Pumper on a Typhoon chassis, to be custom built and equipped per the attached specifications. Delivery will be F,O.B. Naples, FL and will be made approximately 210 -240 calendar days after receipt of the order at Hall -Mark Fire Apparatus in Ocala, M Terms of payment shall be cash on delivery (C.O.D.). Pricing as follows from Florida Fire Chiefs' Association State Bid #04 -05 -0824 The current purchase price for the specified Tteseue Pumper is as follows: Bid per Fire Chiefs' State Bid: $199,604.00 Published & Unpublished Options 65,396.00 Cost of Apparatus 5 265,000.00 Less Trade In of 1985 E -1 Hurricane Pumper - 15.000.00 Total Cost of Apparatus S 250,000.00 This proposal shall expire unless accepted within 30 days aftor the date first set above. This expiration date nay be extended, in writing, providing chassis pricing and availability has not changed: This proposal is deemed acceptable by the undersigned. In witness whereof, The Company and the Purchaser shall execute an agreernent to this proposal with signatures from authorized representatives as of the date set forth by each. Compa By: \ 4M;S Typed/Printed: a Y k . ►1 Title: 5a { :s O�s�c.,.T..�s �oord�•�or Date: t ii ;L s 1 a 5 www.hall- markfire.com E -Mail: info @hall- munre.com Purchaser: By: Typed/Printed Title: Date: AUTHORIM0 DEALER 10/10 3E)Vd STIt NNVWIIdH ILVE6Z9ZSET Z£ :V1 S00Z /0T /Z0 Agenda Item No. 16F2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve the Purchase by the Department of Emergency Management of Two (2) Disaster Assistance Response Trailers and Five (5) Portable Generators for a total of $31,600 from Pro -Pac, Inc. utilizing Bid 004 -3617 and Approve the Necessary Budget Amendment OBJECTIVE: Approval to purchase additional Disaster Assistance Response Trailers (DART) and portable generators to increase the County's ability to adequately shelter evacuees during times of emergency, to reduce the County's shelter supply /equipment deficit and for use in fulfilling the County's mutual aid obligations. CONSIDERATIONS: The Department of Emergency Management is in its second year of addressing the County's shelter supply /equipment deficit. In Fiscal Year 2004, the Department purchased eleven (11) fully equipped and supplied DARTs from Pro -Pac, Inc., Bid #04 -3617. In the ongoing effort to reduce this deficit, the Department wishes to purchase two (2) additional DARTS and five (5) portable generators utilizing Bid #04 -3617 with Pro -Pac, Inc. While Bid #04 -3617 expired in January 2005, Pro -Pac, Inc has agreed to honor the bid pricing with the exception of the generators and free - standing air conditioners. The generator manufacturer, Honda, has increased its price to its distributors resulting in a slightly higher cost. e.. Emergency Management wishes to utilize the expired bid with Pro -Pac, Inc. in order to maintain standardization of supplies and equipment which facilitates the deployment and maintenance of the supplies /equipment. Standardization also facilitates the training of personnel, many of whom are volunteers, in the deployment and use of the DARTs. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are budgeted for FY -05 in Emergency Management Administration, Fund 001. A Budget Amendment is necessary only to transfer funds from an Operating line item to appropriate Capital line items. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase of two (2) Disaster Assistance Response Trailers and five (5) portable generators for a total of $31,600 from Pro -Pac, Inc. utilizing Bid #04 -3617 and approve the necessary Budget Amendment. PREPARED BY: Darcy Waldron, Sr. Administrative Assistant Department of Emergency Management Agenda Item No. 16F2 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 161`2 Item Summary Approval to purchase additional Disaster Assistance Response Trailers (DARTS) and portable generators for a total of $31,600 to increase the County's ability to adequately shelter evacuees during time of emergency, approve utilizing Bid #04 -3617, expired 1/30/05 and approval of a budget amendment transferring funds from an operating line item to capital line items. Meeting Date 2/22/2006 9:00:00 AM Approved By Darcy Waldron Senior Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Emergency Management 2/10/2005 5:01 PM Approved By Bureau of Emergency Services Dan E. Summers Director Date County Manager's Office Bureau of Emergency Services 211112006 9:56 AM Approved By Scott Johnson Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/11/2005 11:39 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Managers Office Office of Management & Budget 211112006 1:36 PM Approved By Michael Smykowskl Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112005 2:64 PM Approved By Steve Cornell Purchasing)General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/11/2006 3:16 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Otiice 2114120D5 3:59 PM Commissioners JAN -25 -2005 16:32 PRO PAC 843 Rgenda Me No '16F2 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 5 MallIng Address ' Mkt Enbanae/ Deureey Address 8801 Rivers Avenue SM Woodbine Avenue N. CFwleat ri, 8C 2040E USA N. CharleebDm $C 294os TO: Collier County Emergency Management ATTN: Mr. Dan Summers PHONE: 239 -774 -8000 FAX: 239 - 776 -5008 FROM: Harry Rollins DATE: January 25, 2005 Dan, Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional DART's and equipment to support your emergency response requirements: We can continue to honor the pricing on the 2004 Contract (submission attached) with the exception of the stand alone air conditioners and the Honda Generators. Our original source for the air conditioner is no longer available and costs from other providers is higher. With respect to the Honda Generator, Honda has increased pricing to its distributors and'significantiy limited pricing flexibility. We anticipate 4 - 6 weeks to produce, outfit and mark your DART's. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide an offer on this project. ?Y-1 I � t' J R" 9� Harry W. Rollins (843) MW9N-14W445 -3036 - FOX (843) 30"M -1 X88 4U-6M W W W.DMD&cU@8.COM Agenda Item No. 16F2 February 22, 2005 4of5 2Tpp��pp�l ash ail, Or qu ♦(Y {� +fi�PYAOLW aaaaaaaa ++ 3Q yyyy OVA{JI� �y ri �y X13 yl.l 00 +SS1Y+ + +� O Og11WN+ II _�•+ p g N ■ H S O x It IM N it III I Ij li t J + + 6070 NO 6 80 upip0l, 0N�0lp1Clj�NN p N��NyO � Zi$a�ii♦ Sa006''�gO41;61 NYy .i � y j�O m MM 25 iS iS2S �iS$o %7 30 eS (M� y� Qlsrallis �k+ Qft I"i'aNi nY;7S -3 Olilijols }}�� 8 8888 88N888888 888888888 Yd8g M 8SSl {MQ y V k�O .j yp Q NISSS y P a I M 8al 88 C �WqO p a ♦ � M8y �8O �!j NM O O I Q Sss�ss�a s8assss8 1 8N 8 88888 88 8 S i s •���� � ww �iw��w� -� 25�� � WQ� a ir 1 i I N m_ ' U U 01 W W W O W VV � I j��jjj!!�� 8888 a 88 apippp 88N MM MM $ 88 Mq 88 88 MM 8 >R 8 s nI S8 V N 1 8 y� 8 8 V p+ NS SN ~pl I�y� 1898 M N1»1 mp P� N M � m N 8 3Y 8 8 8 C 8888 88 88 88 88 8 8 �I C a I it t 7 i Agenda Item No. 16172 February 22, 2005 waidron d Page 5 of 5 From: SummersDan Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:32 PM To: JohnsonScott Cc: waldron_d Subject: Propec Order request Scott I am respectfully requesting your approval to move forward with the additional purchase from ProPac. Please be advised that a shift in vendor will cause a considerable hardship on us by having to re -train personnel on different equipment. This training issue is particularly difficult in light of the number of volunteer personnel who would have to be mobilized for any equipment changes or substitutions. Furthermore, one of our primary focus efforts has been to have standard equipment associated with all the evacuation shelter supplies to facilitate deployment and maintenance. Your assistance in this matter is sincerely appreciated.. Thank you Dan Summers Collier County EM Agenda Item No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 11 -•- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approval for the Department of Emergency Management to Purchase a Mobile Command Vehicle utilizing the Henry County, GA Bid #SB- 05 -21- 111204 -1, Contract #HC -05.21 for a Total Cost of $279,450 OBJECTIVE: Approval to purchase a Mobile Command Vehicle (MCV) to replace the existing 1989 Mobile Command Vehicle by piggybacking an existing Henry County, GA bid. CONSIDERATIONS: Emergency Management's MCV is an converted 1989 John Deere RV. The maintenance, for both the MCV and the attached generator, has become difficult due to age and availability of parts. The vehicle body needs extensive repairs due to significant deterioration and it is not economically feasible to bring the MCV up to the modern standards necessary for emergency operations. The Bureau of Emergency Services formed a Mobile Command Post Working Group that, along with staff, has researched products, manufacturers and made several manufacturer site visits to ensure a high quality and functional replacement MCV. Great effort and care have gone into the selection of a vehicle that meets our emergency response needs for the foreseeable future, and to allow for the transfer of communication systems to the new MCV with minimal to no down time. The working group has concluded through its research to formally request authorization to purchase a new MCV utilizing an existing bid from Henry County, GA. The Henry County bid: • Vehicle specifications and budget for both Collier County and Henry County, GA are nearly identical • The bid has been awarded to North American Catastrophe Services of Melbourne, Florida which has demonstrated excellent customer service, radio and data integration and superior field service • North American Catastrophe Services is one of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's prime suppliers of equipment, supplies and vehicles • North American Catastrophe Services had a chassis and cabin delivered in February that meets our requirements thus cutting 5 —7 months off the delivery date • Primary production site is in Melbourne, Florida which enables Collier County to take the current MCV to the Melbourne site for the transfer of communications and data equipment to the new MCV with minimal down time and cost savings. No third party is necessary to remove and transport the equipment for installation • North American Catastrophe Services has agreed to honor the Henry County, GA pricing with minor deviations. These minor deviations represent a less than 1% change from the existing bid • North American Catastrophe Services has post delivery field service and warranty programs with a response time of less than eight (8) hours during emergency situations Agenda Item No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 11 -. The Collier County Purchasing Department has been in contact with the Henry County Purchasing Department and validated their bid documents. North American Catastrophe Services will accept the current MCV as a trade -in valued at $3,500 which is acceptable and reasonable by the Fleet Management Director. Title to the current MCV will be transferred to North American Catastrophe Services. FISCAL IMPACT: Total budget for this project is $279,450 which breaks down as follows: Base Vehicle Cost $268,000 Options 950 Trade -in on existing MCV -3,500 Contingency 5% 14,000 Total project cost 1 $279,450 Funds in the amount of $239,450 were approved in the FY 05 Budget, Capital Fund 301 and $40,000 is budgeted for FY 05 in EMS Grants Fund 491. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissions approve the purchase of a -- Mobile Command Vehicle utilizing the Henry County, GA Bid #SB- 05 -21- 111204 -1, Contract #HC -05 -21 for a total cost of $279,450. PREPARED BY: Darcy Waldron, Sr. Administrative Assistant Department of Emergency Management Agenda Item No. 161F3 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16F3 Item Summary Board of County Commissioners approval to purchase a new Mobile Command Vehicle (MCV) to replace the existing 1689 converted John Deere RV utilizing an existing Henry County, GA bid #SB- 05 -21- 111204 -1, Contract #HC -05 -21 for a total cost of $279,450. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Darcy Waldron Senior Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Emergency Management 211112005 8:49 AM Approved By Bureau of Emergency Services Dan E. Summers Director Data County Manager's Office Bureau of Emergency Services 211112005 9:57 AM Approved By Scott Johnson Purchasing Agent Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2/1112005 11:41 AM Approved By Steve Carnell Purchasing /General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 2111!2005 11:54 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2006 1:33 PM Approved By Michael Smykowskl Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2005 2:42 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211412006 4:02 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 11 Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services — Department of Emergency Management Mobile Command Vehicle- Hendry County Piggyback Bid — Minor Technical Specification clarifications and amendments January 25, 2005 Revised January 26, 2005 2 -Pages Collier County makes the following minor changes or clarifications to the Hendry County Board of County Commissioners Bid Specification for a mobile command vehicle awarded 12.21.04 Hendry County Bid Reference Section Clarification or Amendment Net affect -+ t 23.13.1 Addition: Gauges: Hour meters are to be provided for the 250.00 each on -board generator at a location convenient for inspection for the driver or within the cabin location. Gauges: Level indicators are to be provided to illustrate the level of fresh water, gray water and black water at a location convenient for inspection for the driver or within the cabin location. 23.15.13 Clarification: Engine Service Access: No equipment or No Change hardware shall be mounted on the engine service access compartment to facilitate ease of service 23.21 Clarification: Floor Plan overview: The vendor will No Change coordinate and field engineer with Collier County cabinets, work surface and equipment mounting configurations to support the installation of a number of mobile radios to include dash mount or remote mount at various workstations. This radio configuration will include all wiring, wire management, speaker installation and other efforts to ensure all transferred or customer provided radio equipment is professional installed with all wiring to be properly labeled, protected and hidden. 23.30 (A) Clarification: Dry erase boards shall be magnetic and No Change installed at locations approved by Collier County. 23.30(G) Clarification: Remove or re- configure file storage drawers No Change to accommodate blueprint or map storage as requested by customer at final design meeting 24.2.1 Addition: Collier County will specify technical specifications 400.00 for internal server to meet Collier County security and comp bility requirements: Allowance provided if needed. Agenda Item No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 11 Summary of Clarifications, Additions, and Deletions: Base Cost of Vehicle per Hendry County Bid: Additional Items Deletions(Trade -in) Final cost of mobile command vehicle: Percentage Change from existing bid: 1 % $ 268,000.00 + 950.00 3.500.00 $265.450.00 2 24.4.1 Clarification: The vendor shall provide an operational No Change cellular handset within the drivers reach. 24.6.1 Clarification: The vendor shall provide an ACU -1000 No Change interoperability modules and coordinate with the County's for the installation of radios for configuration at time of delivery. 24.12.3 Addition: The vendor shall provide a wire or wireless $300.00 control rooftop mounted heavy -duly articulating spotlight of size, type and intensity approved by the county. The spotlight shall be controlled by the driver. Note: Roof mounted control stems that penetrate the unit roof are not acceptable. 24.13.1 Clarification: Weather station shall include instrumentation No Change and equipment to provide for wind speed, direction, temperature and relative humidity. The compass azimuth of the wind speed direction indicator shall be provided on or near the weather unit 28.00 Trade -in: The vendor shall provide a discount in the price ($3,500) stated to credit Collier County with a trade in of an existing mobile command post in the amount of $3,500. Title will transfer following the relocation of radio equipment from the old vehicle to the new vehicle, following acceptance and delivery of the new vehicle at the production facility. 29.00 Clarificatiol3: Vendor shall install all new antennas, No Change cables, do wiring, speaker controls, and accessories to accommodate the transfer of existing radio and computer equipment where applicable. The vendor will be provided two weeks with the current mobile command unit to decommission the current mobile command vehicle and transfer designated equipment to the new unit, immediately followed by training, inspection and delivery Summary of Clarifications, Additions, and Deletions: Base Cost of Vehicle per Hendry County Bid: Additional Items Deletions(Trade -in) Final cost of mobile command vehicle: Percentage Change from existing bid: 1 % $ 268,000.00 + 950.00 3.500.00 $265.450.00 2 Agenda Item No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 11 NORTH AMERICAN CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC. 864-B Washburn Roam, Melboame, FL 32934/604 College Ave. Daphnc, AL 36526 Office: 321- 259 -0888 Toll Flee: 688 -593 -6227 Fax 321 -259 -L505 E -Moil: nacsi@mindspring.com On the Web: www.NACSI.com January 26, 2005 Mr. Dan Summers Collier County EMA Dear Dan, I have reviewed your Revised add/deletes for your Mobile Command Center. NACS agrees to accept them as noted In addition to the items, please note that we have made provisions for a Federal Signal or Whelen siren with controls located at the driver's position and a Class IV trailer hitch for the vehicle. These are standard features on our vehicles. Would you please provide me with the parameters for taking over ownership of the current vehicle so that we can snake the necessary insurance arrangements. We prefer not to take possession until the new unit is competed and delivered. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and Collier County. Sincerely, Brian A. Dekle President NORTH AMERICAN CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC. 864 -B Wirshburn Road, Melbourne, FL 32934 ' Office: 321 - 259 -0888 ToA Free: SSS -595 -6227 Fax: 321. 259.1506 E -Mail: nacsi @mindspring.com On the Web: www.NACSI.com January 10, 2005 Mr. Dan Summers, CEM, Director Collier County Emergency Management Agency 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Bldg F Naples, Florida 34112 239- 774 -8000 Mr. Summers, Agenda Item No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 11 On October 21, 2004 the Henry County Georgia Board of Commissioners issued and Invitation to Bid, SB- 05 -21- 111204 -1, for a Mobile Command Center Vehicle. Bids were submitted and subsequently opened on November 12, 2004. Three builders submitted specifications and pricing to the County, and North American Catastrophe Services, Inc. was deemed the low bidder, All proposals and pricing went to the committee for a final decision. NACS was awarded the unit under Contract # HC- 05 -21. The specifications and the bid package along with our response have been forwarded to you for your inspection. Final pricing for the vehicle is $268,000.00. Under generally accepted purchasing regulations, NACS would like to offer the same vehicle for the same pricing to Collier County Emergency Management Agency. A bid tabulation may be requested from Mr. Glynn Purser, Henry County Purchasing Department. Mr. Pursers' contact information is as follows: Glynn Purser Phone: 770 - 954 -2411 Fax: 770 - 954 -2209 E -mail: gpurser ®co.henry.ga,us Thank you for the opportunity to do business with Collier County Emergency Management Agency. Please let me know if anyone at NACS may be of service to you or your staff. Sincerely, Brian A. Dekle Via e-mail with hard mail to follow. Brian A. Dekle President Jan 05 2005 6 :49PM HP LRSERJET 3200 Agenda Item No. 1piF32 NfNRV CO PURCHASING - fax:770- 954 -22D9 Doc 21 2004 10:32 Pe February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 11 HBm Y CouNry VAROSAOM December 21. 2004 North Anadcan Catwaophe Servicas, hw. Attu: Dwid V lfo% 864 -2 Washburn Road Melbourne, Plod& 32934 RE: Comaot Naaaber HC- 05 -21- projeot: Mobile Ca MMM d Veldcle Nam of A1VARDi ' Deer Mr. willfoew p"JI-MOMMM 11w Henry Comity Board of Commissioners bas awarded the above ntwanosd to North Arm edcau Cataseophe, lac is 04 amount of 3263.000.00, Mw Contract ism and dslivar one (1) each wtobile eomo mW vehicle complete per bid specilloatioas. Plow seance your Laauramwe CemliilLcato, Pwft cocci: Bond and Paymaeat eewh sbowips Henry Comity Board of Coaomis�iarmars at titre holder. These, doomments d= be bnw% ed to dw Remy Cotstmty ptmchoaiolg Djp"knant. Upon receipt of the inswance cad a Notice to Proosad wdll be ismd. Tbaak yoo far your assistance id this mattes. If you have may quesdams, plsas� contact mare at 770. 954 -1403. Si»oalrely, Pww Purchasing Asmut . Jan 05 2005 6:49PM HP LRSERJET 3200 FTNANCL+►L IPIWPOSAL (BID NO. sB-0S- 21- 111201 -1) Agenda Item NoP43 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 11 Vendor sbali furnish and deliver one (1) eseb Mobile Command Vabilde, coma left per bid speciticatloas. Total Bid Amount S 258, 000.00 (fie) Total Bid Amount Two Handred S:kzty Hilt Thouuazxi and 00!100 (WM*) Guaranteed delivery: 120 calendar days aftw receipt of order, Payment Terns: net 30 days !I'- Vendor (Finn) Name North American Catastrophe Searvi oes, Inp. Person Authorized To Sip For Vendor Rri an A _ rVkl is 0*=We) Title President Vendor Contract Administrator David W: ifcng (per now) RETURN THIS FORM IN ENVELOPE MARKED "SEALED BID NO. SB4�21- 1112041.1" 22 r- HENRY CO PURCHASING Fax:770 -954 -2209 Fab 11 2005 9 :59 Agen&'19dm No. 16F3 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 11 VIV • � G 10 In a'D L a s Agenda {tern No. 16173 -February 22; 2005 Page 11 of 11 c° er County Memorandum To: Dan Summers, Emergency Services Director l From: Dan Croft, Fleet Management Director Date: February 7, 2005 Subject: Replacement of Emergency Services Mobile Command Unit I totally support and recommend replacement of the current Emergency Services 1989 John Deere Mobile Command Unit (Asset #910061). The vehicle and the attached diesel generator are becoming very difficult and expensive to maintain due to age and availability of parts. The vehicle body has significant deterioration and needs extensive repair work. Bringing this vehicle up to the dependable standards necessary for emergency operations is not considered economically feasible. The NACS replacement vehicle with Ford chassis proposed by Emergency Services is acceptable to the Fleet Management Department. We have the trained mechanics and parts inventory to support this make and type of vehicle. Trade -in of the old vehicle for the new is an option that should be pursued in the purchase contract. Although the value of the old vehicle is difficult to determine, the $3500 offered by NACS is within reason. FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No, 16F4 February 22, -2005 Page 1 of 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to accept an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) County Grant Award from the Florida Department of Health in the amount of $112,672.82 OBJECTIVE: To receive acceptance of a grant award to improve and enhance the County's pre - hospital emergency medical services. CONSIDERATIONS: On December 14, 2004 the Board of County Commissioners approved submittal of a grant application to the Florida Department of Health under the Emergency Medical Services County Grant Program in the amount of $112,672.82. On January 11, 2005 notification was received that the grant was awarded. No matching funds are necessary. Funds cannot be used to supplant existing county EMS budget allocations. The funding will be used to improve Emergency Medical Services with training and medical/rescue equipment. Post submittal of the grant application, it was determined that funding could be used to contribute to the purchase of the Mobile Command Vehicle (considered under separate Executive Summary, item 16.17.5). Therefore, Staff submitted a modification request to the grantor to amend the grant budget. The modification request was approved by the grantor on February 11, 2005. r— The period of performance is October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005. The terms and conditions associated with this grant were not included with the original application and therefore need to be reviewed as part of the acceptance of the grant award. FISCAL IMPACT: $112,672.82 has been recognized and appropriated for Fiscal Year 2005 in Fund 491 EMS Grants, WBS 443021. No matching funds are necessary for this grant. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth impact associated with this grant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to accept a grant award and terms and conditions for an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) County Grant Award from the Florida Department of Health in the amount of $112,672.82; approve grant budget modification request and to approve all necessary budget amendments. Prepared by: Dan Bowman, Division Chief, Emergency Medical Services Agenda Item No. 16F4 Febmary 22, 2005 Page 2 of 13 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16F4 Item Summary Recommendation to accept an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) County Grant Award from the Florida Department of Health in the amount of $112,672.82. Meeting Date 2122/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Darcy Waldron Senior Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Emergency Management 2111!2005 11:08 AM Approved By Bureau of Emergency Services Dan E. Summers Director Date County Manager's Office Bureau of Emergency Services 211 112005 12:00 PM Approved By Marlene J. Foord Grants Coordinator Date Administrative Services Administrative Services Admin. 211412005 4:39 PM Approved By Scott R, Teach Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 211412005 4:50 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211 5/2006 10:46 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211612005 11:30 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211612005 12:46 PM Commissioners .Agenda Item No. 16F4 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 13 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS The EMS County grant general conditions and requirements are an integral part of the county grant agreement between the agency /organization (grantee) and the state of Florida, Department of Health (grantor or department). In the event of a conflict, the following requirements shall always be controlling: FINANCIAL FUND ACCOUNTING: All state EMS grant funds shall be deposited by the grantee in an account maintained by the grantee, and assigned an unique accounting code designator for all grant deposits and disbursements or expenditures thereof. All state EMS grant funds In the account maintained by the grantee shall be accounted for separately from all other grantee funds. USE OF COUNTY GRANT FUNDS: All state EMS grant funds shall be used between the beginning and ending dates of the grant solely for activities as outlined in the Notice of Grant Award letter, its attachments If any, and the application including its budget with Its revisions, if any, on file in the state EMS office. The grantee is not restricted to staying within the line item amounts within the approved grant budget. However, the grantee must adhere to the approved total grant budget. Any expenditures beyond this budget are the full responsibility of the grantee. ROLLOVERS Any unencumbered EMS county grant program funds as of September 30, of each year, including interest, remaining in the assigned grantee account at the end of a grant period shall be reported to the department. The grantee will retain these funds in the EMS County Grant account and include them in a budget revision request after receipt of approval of their next county grant application. 8 Agenda Item No. 16F4 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 13 DISALLOWED EXPENDITURES No expenditures are allowable as grant costs unless they are clearly specified as a line item in the approved grant budget, including approved change requests, or are clearly included under an existing line item. Any disallowed EMS county grant expenditure shall be returned to the EMS county grant account maintained by the grantee within 40 days after the departments notification. The costs of disallowed items are the responsibility of the county. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT The grantee shall own all items, including vehicles and equipment purchased with the state EMS grant funds, unless otherwise described in the approved grant application. The grantee shall clearly document the assignment of equipment ownership and usage; and maintain these documents so they are available to the department. The owner of the vehicle shall be responsible for the proper insurance, licensing and, permitting and maintenance. All equipment purchased with grant funds shall continue to be used for pre - hospital EMS or the purpose for which it was purchased throughout its useful life. When any grant- funded equipment is no longer usable, it may be sold for scrap or disposed of in the customary procedure of the receiving agency. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY A private organization owning any equipment funded through the grant program in whole or in part and purchased that equipment to provide services for a municipality, county or other public agency ceasing operation within five years of the ending date of a grant awarded to the organization shall transfer the equipment or other items to the local agency. There shall be no cost to the recipient organization. This provision is applicable when services cease operating due to a contract ending-as well as any other reason. REQUESTS FOR CHANGE After a grant has been awarded, all requests for change shall be on DH Form 1684C EMS Grant Program Change Request, June 2002. The grantee shall obtain written approval from the department prior to making the requested changes. The following changes must be requested: 1. Changes in the project activities. 2. Redistribution of the funds between entities or equipment approved. 3. Establishing a new line item in the budget. 4. Changing a salary rate more than 10 %. SUPPLANTING FUNDS The applicant cannot propose to use grant funds to supplant or replace any county or other funding source. Funds received under the county award grant program cannot be used to fulfill the matching requirement for the matching grant program. 0 Agenda Item No. 16F4 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 13 DEPOSIT OF FUNDS County grant funds provided to an applicant shall be deposited in a separate account. All Interest earned shall be documented on the required reports. REPORTS Each grantee shall submit two reports to the department. The due dates for the required reports shall be specified in the letter from the department notifying the grantee of the grant award. These reports shall include, at a minimum, a narrative of the activities completed or the progress of grant activities during the reporting period. A report shall be submitted by the due date whether or not any action or expenditures have occurred. . GRANT SIGNATURE The authorized individual listed on page one of the application shall sign each original application. Should this not be possible before the due date a letter shall be submitted to the department explaining why and when the signed application shall be received. RECORDS The grantee shall maintain financial and other documents related to the grant to support all revenue and expenditures. A file shall be maintained by the grantee, which includes a copy of the "Notice of Grant Award" letter, a copy of the application and department approved budget and a copy of all approved changes. FINAL REPORTS Within 120 days of the grant ending date a final report shall be submitted to the department. The final report shall at a minimum contain a narrative describing the activities conducted including any bid or purchasing process and a copy of all invoices, canceled checks relating to the purchase of any equipment and supplies. If the activity funded was for training a list of all individuals receiving the training shall be submitted along with the dates, times and location of the training. If the grant was for training to be obtained by staff then a copy of all invoices and payment documents for the training shall also be submitted. COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT The grantee shall have all communications activities, services, and equipment approved in writing by the Department of Management Services, Information Technology Program (ITP). The approval shall be dated after the beginning date of the grant. Any commitment to purchase the requested equipment and service shall also be dated after the beginning date of the grant. 10 Agenda Item No. 16F4 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 13 EXPENDITURES - No expenditures may be incurred prior to the grant starting date or after the grant ending date. Rollover funds may be used to most expenditures prior to receipt of current year funds. CREDIT STATEMENT The grantee ensures that where activities supported by this grant produce original writing, sound recording, pictorial reproductions, drawings or other graphic representations and works of any other nature, notices, Informational pamphlets, press releases, advertisements, descriptions of the sponsorship of the program, research reports, and similar public notices prepared and released by the provider shall include the statement: "Sponsored by [Your Organization's Name] and the State of Florida, Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services." If the sponsorship reference Is in written or other visual material, the words, "State of Florida, Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services" shall appear in the same size letter or type as the name of the grantee's organization. One complimentary copy of all such materials shall be sent to the department within three weeks of their reproduction and delivery to the grantee. If the proper credit statement is not included, or if a copy of each item produced Is not provided to the department within three weeks, the cost for any such materials produced shall be disallowed. Where activities supported by this grant produce writing, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, or other graphic representations and works of any similar nature, the department has the right to use, duplicate and disclose such materials in whole or in part, in any manner or purpose whatsoever and others acting on behalf of the department. If the materials so developed are subject to copyright, trademark, or patent, legal title and every right, interest, claim, or demand of any kind in and to any patent, trademark or copyright, or application for the same, will vest in the State of Florida, Department of State, for the exclusive use and benefits of the state. Pursuant to section 286.02 (1), F.S., no person, firm or corporation, including parties to this grant, shall be entitled to use the copyright, patent or trademark without the prior written consent of the Department of State. FINANCIAL AND COMPLIANCE AUDIT REQUIREMENTS This is applicable, If the provider or grantee, hereinafter referred to as provider, is any local government entity, nonprofit organization, or for - profit organization. An audit, performed in accordance with section 215.97, F.S. by the Auditor General shall satisfy the requirement of this attachment. STATE FUNDED This part Is applicable if the provider is a nonprofit organization that expends a total of $100,000 or more in funds from the department during Its fiscal year, which was not paid from a rate contract based on a set state or area -wide fixed rate for service, and of which less that 11 Agenda Item No. 16F4 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 13 $300,000 is federally funded. The determination of when a provider has 'expended" funds is based on when the adtivity related to the award occurs. The grantee agrees to have an annual financial audit performed by independent auditors in accordance with the current Government Auditing Standards Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Such audits shall cover the entire organization for the organization's fiscal year. The scope of the audit performed shall cover the financial statements and include reports on internal control and compliance. The reporting package shall include a schedule that discloses the amount of expenditures and/or receipts by grant number for each grant with the department in effect during the audit period. Compliance findings related to grants with the department shall be based on the grant requirements, including any rules, regulations, or statutes referenced in the grant. The financial statements shall disclose whether or not the matching requirement was met for each applicable grant. Ail questioned costs and liabilities due to the department shall be fully disclosed in the audit report with reference to the department grant involved. If the grantee receives funds from a grants and aids appropriation, the provider shall have an audit, or submit an attestation statement, In accordance with Section 215.97, F. S. The audit report shall include a schedule of financial assistance, which discloses each state grant by number and indicates which grants are funded from state grants and aids appropriations. The grantee has "received" funds when it has obtained cash from the department or when it has incurred reimbursable expenses. The grantee agrees to submit the required reports. SUBMISSION OF AUDIT REPORTS Copies of the audit report and any management letter by the independent auditors, or attestation statement, required by this attachment shall be submitted within 180 days after the end of the grantee's fiscal year to the following, unless otherwise required by F. S.: A. Department of Health Office of the Inspector General 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A03 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1704 B. Department of Health Bureau of Emergency Medical Services County Grant Manager 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C18 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1738 C. Submit to this address only those audits performed or attestation statements prepared In accordance with Section 215.97, F. S.: Office of the Auditor General Post Office Box 1735 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 12 Agenda Item No. 16F4 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 13 RECORDS RETENTION The grantee shall ensure that audit working papers are made available to the department, or its designee, upon request for a period of $ve years from the date the audit report is issued, unless extended in writing by the department. A oy as to 7)qrrn l egal sufficiency A"/ 1 County Attorn 13 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROOK. CLERK F R -11 -21005 12:37 P. e2/w Agenda Item No. 16174 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Department of Health EMS GRANT PROGRAM CHANGE REQUEST Name Of Qt'a ntse: Collier County EMS Grant !D Code: C4071 BUDGET LINE ITEM CHANGE FROM CHANGE TO Medical ! Re=e Equipment 54,000 00 14,000.00 Vatkie 0.00 40,000.00 TOTAL I x,000.00 JuStWication For Change, For the partial paR"nt of a rww Mobil Command Post The $40,WO.00 wig enable Confer County EMS partial control and interest in a now Mobil Command Post purchased thmu0h the Collier County Fji* wwy Services Bureau. This will enable Collier County EMS the AbRity to utilize the Post for department specific pee4hosphal EMS operations, drift, and incident management For d*esftent uae only !) IITi ►�1f1'� _ k- Approved Yes No �] Change No: Z t)j- G Department's Authatized Represen e DH Form 1684C, Rev. June 2602 D 171 I> 7DT.;L P.02 __ • g�a♦ {v`�� �a =0(3 °-®} i�■ ` ?n `o ` n ��a L1'Y, S'COUNTY URANT APPUCATIOR ��� FeJba f 2 0 'Ay' g 1 of FLORIPA MPARTAMO OF HEALTH _ Bureau of Emergency AwT ftel SaMbes -tiompiete sa items ID Code (The State Bureau of EMS will assign the ID Code - reeve tnrs Dfanx) 4 i 1. County Name: Business Address: 3301 TamiaMi TTaii EBSt . Nwples, P1 34112' I- Telephone: i39 - 32 -2584 Y i Federal Tax iD Number (Nine Digit Number). VF 9;9- (;ADnS';R - -- -- -_- i 2. Certification: (The applicant signatory who has auduxity to sign contracts, grants and other legal documents for the county)1 wrW that all Inbrmation and date In this EMS county grant application and Its attachments are true and My signature aftowledges and assures that the County shall comply fully with the condt fined in the Fl Grant ApPn• I' Si tune: Date: W -I Y- 0 3. Contact Person: (The individual with direct knowledge of the project on a day-to -day basis and has responsibility for the implementation of the grant activities. Thls person Is authorized to sign project reports and may request project changes. The signer and the contact person may be the same.) Name: Lug= Hamilton Position Titie: Address: ' Nowles. Telephone: 239-732-2584 J Fax Number. 239-775-4454 E-mail Address: 1mgqnehami1ton@gg1 I iergov. net 4. Resolution: Attach a current resolution from the Board of County Commissioners certifying the grant funds will improve and expand the county pre- hospital EMS system and will not be used to supplant current levels of county expenditures. 6. Budget: Complete a budget page(s) for each organization to which you shall provide funds. List the organization(s) below. (Use additional pages if necessary) Training Medical Total $112,672.82 UM roan iu114, KOV. JUF1® ZUUZ Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 3 fist nt County Attorney BUDGET PAGE A. satartes and Benefits: For each position title, provide the amount of salary per hour, hour, other fringe benefits, and the total number of hours. Agen ItQfn rij 101D rl e 1 IAmount 8. Expenses: These are travel costs and the usual, ordinary, and Incidental expenditures by an agency, such as, commodities and supplies of a consumable nature excluding expenditures classified as operating capital outlay see next category). List the item and, If applicable, the quantity Amount .2 rvJAL I * Z)oPV14.#j A. C. Vehicles, equipment, and other operating capital outlay means equipment, fixtures, and other tangible personal property of a non consumable and non emendable nature with a normal amaetad No of cne (1) year or more. Ust the:item and, If applicable, the quantity Amount ' $54,000.00 TOTAL $ 4.000.00 Grand Total $ 112,672.82 DH Form 1684, Rev. June 2002 4 Agendq FLORIDA DEPARTMENTOFHOLTH EMS GRANT PROGRAN - REQUEST FOR GRANT FUND DISTRIBUTION In accordance with the provisions of Section 401.113(2)(a), F. S., the undersigned hereby requests an EMS grant fund distribution for the improvement and expansion of pre - hospital EMS. DOH Remit Payment To: Name of Agency. rni 1 i or Camty ppard ! amt mf rmini ssioners Mailing Address: 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Federal Identification numbe/ d ID up 4-wansvig Authorized Official: ° ��• " - "' �� •� iansWrs Date Sign and return this page with your appikabon to: Florida Department of Hea#h BEMS Grant Program 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C18 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1738 Do not write below this line. For use by Bursae of Enomencf► Medical Services Grant Amount For State To Pay: $ Grant ID: Code: Approved By Signature of EMS Grant Officer Date State Fiscal Year WA N_ N2000 Federal Tax ID: VF_________ Obled cods T Grant Beginning Date: October 1, Grant Ending Date: September 30, DH Forth 1767P, Rev. June 2002 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 5 As stant County Attorney " of 13 Age e P 16F4 elm' ry�j,,�f 2005 P g of 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 - 377 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERTIFYING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR AND USE OF EMS COUNTY GRANT FUNDS WILL IMPROVE AND EXPAND PRE - HOSPITAL EMS DEPARTMENT ACTIVI'T'IES AND SERVICES AND WILL NOT SUPPLANT EXISTING COUNTY EMS BUDGET ALLOCATIONS. WHEREAS, EMS Department Paramedics and Paramedic/Firefighters provide basic and advanced life support care and highly technical service to the citizens and visitors of. Collier County; and WHEREAS, the purchase of equipment and provision of training classes shall greatly enhance the effectiveness of pre- hospital emergency medical care. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; The $1 12,672.82 in the EMS County Grant will be used to purchase medical/rescue equipment and training classes and these funds will not be used to supplant existing EMS Department budget allocations. This Resolution adopted this 11/ day of e , 2004 after motion, second and majority vote. ATTES;e. +' " "''•. '' BOARD OF UNTY COMMISSIONERS Dwighl'E, B�Qek'6kex Coll ounty, Florid _n Br By: a�rn�v Don a Fiala, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency; Auelini Hubbard Assistant County Attorney Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve an Out -of -Cycle FY2005 TDC Category "A" Grant Application, Budget Amendment and Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for the dredging of Doctors Pass Project #90549 in the Amount of $598,500 OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval of a TDC Category "A" Grant Application, Budget Amendment and Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for Doctors Pass Dredging in the amount of $598,500. CONSIDERATIONS: The City of Naples initiated the design and permitting of this project last summer and intends to dredge the pass this spring/summer. The dredging of Doctors Pass was previously included as a fiscal year 2005 project in the ten -year projections but no grant application was submitted during the normal cycle. This item was approved by the Coastal Advisory Committee on January 13, 2005 followed by the Tourist Development Council on January 24, 2005. The proposed Interlocal Agreement is scheduled to be approved by the City of Naples on February 16, 2005 The beach compatible sand will be placed on the beach south of Doctors Pass and will partially offset the volume needed for the County / City of Naples Beach Renourishment project this Fall. The cost of providing this sand by dredging the pass is less than the incremental cost for the additional volume brought from over 30 miles away. FISCAL IMPACT: The policy approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 16, 2003 requires that budgeted catastrophe reserves be set initially at $1,500,000 and increased incrementally by $500,000 during years between major beach renourishment projects. Funding the Doctors Pass Project will reduce budgeted reserves to $439,597. Current planning calls for financing construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage. Financing this project will free up tourist tax dollars to fund other beach and beach park projects and allow budgeted catastrophe reserves to be set at the initial policy benchmark of $1,500,000. Members of the BCC should also note that total tourist tax dollars for the first four (4) months of fiscal 05 exceed 05 budget projections by $321,500. TDC revenue received during the summer months will dictate whether this increasing trend will continue. Approximately 66% of total tourist tax dollars is applied toward beach renourishment and beach park projects. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve: 1) The attached Tourist Development Category "A" grant application 2) Budget Amendment and 3) Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples in the total amount of $598,500. PREPARED BY: Maria Bernal, Tourist Tax Coordinator Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 14 COLLIER COUNTY y- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 15F5 Item Summary Approve an Out -of -Cycle FY2005 TDC Category 'A" Grant Application, Budget Amendment and Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for the dredging of Doctors Pass Project #90549 in the amount of $598,500. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Maria E. Bernal Tourist Tax Coordinator 2/10/2005 10:23:29 AM County Manager's Office Tourism Approved By Jack Wert Tourism Director Date County Manager's Office Tourism 2110/2006 110:46 AM Approved By Ron Hovell Principal Project Manager Date Administrative Services Facilities Management 211012005 10:67 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2111/2006 9:01 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2114/2006 12:33 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/14120D5 4:66 PM Approved By Marla Ramsey Parks & Recreation Director Date Public Services Parks and Recreation 211612005 9:26 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Managers Office 2116!2005 8:36 AM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 16175 February 22, 2005 2005 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY Page 3 of 14 AND THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR PASS MAINTENANCE OF DOCTOR'S PASS. THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this — day of 2005 by and between The City of Naples, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTEE" and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY ". RECITALS: WHEREAS, CITY has submitted an application for Category "A" Tourist Development Tax Funds in the amount of $598,500.00 for the maintenance dredging of Doctor's Pass (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to fund a portion of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PREMISES PROVIDED HEREIN AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF WORK. GRANTEE prepared a detailed application and proposal outlining the pass management project to be accomplished, along with a project budget, as part of the grant application process, hereinafter referred to as "Proposal ", attached as Exhibit "A ". GRANTEE shall Provide the project activities outlined in the Proposal within the budgeted amounts provided in the Proposal. GRANTEE shall not be reimbursed for any expenditures not included in the Proposal nor be reimbursed for amounts in excess of those provided in the Proposal unless an amendment to this Agreement is entered into by GRANTEE and COUNTY. 2. PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT. The maximum reimbursement under this Agreement shall be Five Hundred Ninety -Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No /100 ($598,500.00). GRANTEE shall be paid in accordance with the fiscal procedures of COUNTY Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 14 -- upon submittal of an invoice and upon verification that the services described in the invoice are completed or that goods have been received. GRANTEE shall determine that the goods and services have been properly provided and shall submit invoices to the County Administrator or his designee. The County Administrator, or his designee, shall determine that the invoice payments are authorized and the goods or services covered by such invoice have been provided or performed in accordance with such authorization. The line item budget attached as Exhibit "A" shall constitute authorization of the expenditure described in the invoices provided that such expenditure is made in accordance with this Agreement. Each invoice submitted by GRANTEE shall be itemized in sufficient detail for audit thereof and shall be supported by copies of corresponding vendor invoices and proof of receipt of goods or performance of the services invoiced. GRANTEE shall certify in writing that all subcontractors and vendors have been paid for work and materials from previous payments received prior to receipt of any further payments. COUNTY shall not pay GRANTEE until the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners pre - audits payment invoices in accordance with the Iaw. GRANTEE shall be paid for its actual cost not to exceed the maximum amount budgeted pursuant to the attached Exhibit "A ". 3. ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES. Only eligible expenditures described in Section 1 will be paid by COUNTY. Any expenditures paid by COUNTY which are later deemed to be ineligible expenditures shall be repaid to COUNTY within thirty (30) days of COUNTY'S written request to repay said funds. COUNTY may request repayment of funds for a period of up to one (1) year after termination of this Agreement or any extension or renewal thereof. 4. PAYMENT REQUESTS. Payment requests for interim draws and final payment must be submitted to the County in the form of the Request for Funds form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "D ". All payments are on a reimbursement basis only after proof of paid invoices are 2 Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005, Page 5 of 14 presented to the County. County may withhold any interim draw for failure to provide the interim status report, and County shall withhold final payment until receipt of the final status report or other final report acceptable to County. 5. INSURANCE. GRANTEE is required to submit a Certificate of Insurance naming Collier County, and its Board of County Commissioners and the Tourist Development Council as additionally insured. The certificate must be valid for the duration of this Agreement and be issued by a company licensed in the State of Florida and provide General Liability Insurance for no less than the following amounts: Bodily Injury Liability - $300,000 each claim per person Property Damage Liability - $300,000 each claim per person Personal Injury Liability - $300,000 each claim per person Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability — Statutory The Certificate of Insurance must be delivered to the County Administrator, or his designee, mithin ten (10) days of execution of this Agreement by COUNTY. GRANTEE shall not commence activities which are to be funded pursuant to this Agreement until COUNTY has received the Certificate of Insurance. 6. CHOICE OF VENDORS AND FAIR DEALING. GRANTEE may select vendors or subcontractors to provide services as described in Section 1. COUNTY shall not be responsible for paying vendors and shall not be involved in the selection of subcontractors or vendors. GRANTEE agrees to disclose any relationship between GRANTEE and subcontractors and/or vendors, including, but not limited to, similar or related employees, agents, officers, directors and/or shareholders. COUNTY may, in its discretion, object to the reasonableness of the expenditures and require repayment if invoices have been paid under this Agreement for unreasonable expenditures. The reasonableness of the expenditures shall be based on industry standards. 3 Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 14 �- 7. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted bylaw, GRANTEE shall-hold harmless and defend COUNTY, and its agents and employees, from any and all suits and actions including attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments of any name and description arising out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement or work performed thereunder. This provision shall also pertain to any claims brought against the COUNTY by any employee of the named GRANTEE, any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed or authorized to perform work by any of them. GRANTEE'S obligation under this provision shall not be limited in any way by the agreed upon Agreement price as shown in this Agreement or GRANTEE'S limit of, or lack of, sufficient insurance protection. 8. NOTICES. All notices from COUNTY to GRANTEE shall be in writing and deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to GRANTEE at the following address: David Lykins, Director of Community Services City of Naples 280 Riverside Circle Naples, Florida 34102 All notices from GRANTEE to COUNTY shall be in writing and deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to COUNTY at the following address: Jack Wert, Executive Director Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, #218 Naples, Florida 34104 GRANTEE and COUNTY may change their above mailing address at any time upon giving the other party written notification pursuant to this section. 4 Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 14 9. NO PARTNERSHIP. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating a partnership between COUNTY and GRANTEE, or its vendor or subcontractor, or to constitute GRANTEE, or its vendor or subcontractor, as an agent or employee of COUNTY. 10. TERMINATION. COUNTY or GRANTEE may cancel this Agreement with or without cause by giving thirty (30) days advance written notice of such termination pursuant to Section 7 and specifying the effective date of termination. If COUNTY terminates this Agreement, COUNTY will pay GRANTEE for all expenditures incurred, or contractual obligations incurred with subcontractors and vendors, by GRANTEE up to the effective date of the termination so Iong as such expenses are eligible. 11. GENERAL ACCOUNTING. GRANTEE is required to maintain complete and accurate accounting records and keep tourism funds in a separate checking account. All revenue related to the Agreement should be recorded, and all expenditures must be incurred within the terms of this Agreement. 12. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS. GRANTEE shall maintain records, books, documents, papers and financial information pertaining to work performed under this Agreement. GRANTEE agrees that COUNTY, or any of its duly authorized representatives, shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement, have access to, and the right to examine and photocopy any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of GRANTEE involving transactions related to this Agreement. 13. PROHIBITION OF ASSIGNMENT. GRANTEE shall not assign, convey, or transfer in whole or in part its interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of COUNTY. 14. TERM. This Agreement shall become effective on June 1, 2004, and shall remain effective until sixty (60) days after completion of the project described in Exhibit "A ", but no later than April 30, 2006. 5 Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 14 15. AMENDMENTS, This Agreement may only be amended by mutual agreement of the parties and after recommendation by the Tourist Development Council. 16. RECORDATION. This Agreement shall be recorded in the public records of Collier County, Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTEE and COUNTY have each respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi F. Ashton 0) Assistant County Attorney 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED W.-COYLE, Chairman ATTEST: TARA NORMAN, City Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ROBERT D. PRTTT, City Attorney (corporate seal) 7 Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 14 GRANTEE CITY OF NAPLES By: BILL BARNETT, Mayor WITNESSES: (1) signature Printed/Typed Name (2) signature Printed/Typed Name EXHIBIT 66A" BUDGET (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring) Permit Fees Additional Permit Studies & Surveys Final Design and Bidding Construction Services Channel Dredging Preconstruction Monitoring TOTAL $ 8,500 $ 35,000 $ 30,000 $ 25,000 $425,000 75,000 Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 14 0� � • Agenda Item No. 16F5 • February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 14 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT' COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Doctor Pass Maintenance Dredging 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: The City ofNaples 735 Eighth Street South Naples Florida 34102 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: . Dr. Jon C. Steiger, Natural Resources Manager Address: 280 Riverside Circle Naples FL 34102 Phone: 213 -1031, FAX: 213 -7130 3. Organization's Chief Official and Title Bill Barnett, Mayor 4. Details of Project- Description and Location: The 1994 Doctors Pass Inlet Management Plan specifies maintenance dredging of a minimum of 40,000 cubic yards of beach - compatible sand from the Pass and the impoundment basin on a four -year cycle. The 40,000 cubic yard impoundment basin was excavated in 1996 and the second maintenance dredging event took place in 2001 and 2002. It is now time for another dredging project. The City has engaged a consulting engineer to obtain new 10 -year permits from the state and federal regulatory agencies. 5: EsBmated project start date: 01 May 2005 6. Estimated project duration: six months 7. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: S 598,500 & If the fuII amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a amaller award? Yes ( ) No (X). P9a°��° Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 14 DOCTORS PASS Doctors Pass Maintshance Dredging Long Range Budget Estimate Estimated . Y 2006 Cost Permit flees $8,500 Addtdonai permitting studies & surveys $35,000 Final design & bidding $30,000 Construction services $25,000 Channel Dredging $425,000 Pre- constructlon monitoring $75,000 3598,500 2006 12 -month environmental monitoring 565,000 studies EY 2007 :..� 24 -month environmental monitoring $87,000 studies EY3008 38 -month environmental monitoring $07,000 studies Final design & bidding $33,000 Construction services 528,000 Channel Dredging $470,000 $598,000 FY 2009 12 -month environmental monitoring $71,000 studies FY 2010 . 24 -month environmental monitoring 73,000 $ studies FY 2011 36-month environmental monitoring , $73,000 studies Final design & bidding $36,000 Construction services $31,000 Channel Dredging $515,000 Construction environmental monitoring $55,000 -$710,000 3 0 Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging Long Range Budget Estimate (Continued) FY 2013 -2014 36 -month environmental monitoring studies $78,000 Final design & bidding $41,000 Constnctton services $34,000 Channel Dredging $570,000 Construction environmental monitoring $60,000 $783,000 Assum pdons: November to,October fiscal year 3% annual Inflation 3-year maintenance dredging cycle 14,000 c.yJyr. shoaling rate $6.00 %..y. unit cost $175,000 mob/demob cost No environmental imacts found during monitoring No mitigation required P� Agenda Item No. 16F5 February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 14 Agenda Item No. 16175 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 14 Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Doctors EM Mgatenw= ELQUMBUDGET =GRAM EIMIENT A_it TDC Fumb Requoted $598,500 City/Taxing City/Taxing 1 s+ Shan $ TOTAL $ 590,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc) Permit fees $ 8,500 1 permitting studies and surveys $ 35,000 Final design and bidding S 30,000 Construction services S 25,000 Channel dredging $ 425,000 Preconstruction monitoring 5 75,000 TOTAL S 598,500 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beacb Funding Policy eovering beach renourMment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Offieial Date P1 5 0� � Agenda Item No. 16G1 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 I _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement #407953 -1 -94-01 for the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) at the Immokalee Airport and a budget amendment for $50,000 OBJECTIVE: To receive approval of an amendment to Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement #407953- 1 -94 -01 from the Florida Department of Transportation for the Environmental Resource Permit at the Immokalee Airport. CONSIDERATIONS: The Airport Authority has pursued the development of the Immokalee Regional Airport through the development of a Master Plan and submitting an ERP application for the entire airport. The ERP permit was submitted in December 2003. Subsequently, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) responded in October 2004 with a request for additional information regarding endangered species. The Airport Authority's, Consultants, Hole Montes, have amended their work order to address USFWS concerns resulting in additional expenditures of approximately $40,000. In connection with the Industrial Park development it is estimated that legal counseling and representation will be $10,000. The Airport Authority has received approval from the Florida Department of Transportation to add $40,000 in state funds to the ERP project budget in fiscal year 2007/2008, at which time the funds will be eligible for reimbursement. The proposed FDOT amendment will increase the level of grant funding from the grantor by $40,000, from $280,000 to $320,000. Funding for the local match funds is available under a previously approved budget amendment in the amount of $115,000 approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 11, 2005. FISCAL IMPACT:; A budget amendment is needed to increase expenses in the Conceptual ERP project 33343 by $50,000, recognize grant revenue of $40,000 and to move $10,000 from the Surface Water Management Design project 46010 to the Conceptual ERP project within the Collier County Airport Authority Grants Fund (496). GROWTH IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: To approve an amendment to the Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement #407953- 1 -94 -01 from the Florida Department of Transportation for the Environmental Resource Permit at the Immokalee Airport and to approve the necessary budget amendment. Prepared by Theresa M. Cook, Executive Director, Collier County Airport Authority Agenda Item No. 16G1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16G1 Kom Summary Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement #407953- 1 -94 -01 for the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) at the immokalee Airport and a Budget Amendment for $50,000. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Theresa M. Cook Executive Director 218120051:66:01 PM County Manager's Office Airport Authority Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/912006 9:19 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2116/2006 11:36 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 211612006 6:19 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No, 16N1 February 22, 2004 Page 1 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMISSIONER REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public purpose for a Commissioner to attend function/event and approve payment by the Clerk. CONSIDERATIONS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 99 -410, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that attendance at the functions of fraternal, business, environmental, educational, charitable, social, professional, trade, homeowners, ethnic, and civic association/organizations serves a valid public purpose, provided that said functions reasonably relate to Collier County matters. COMMISSIONER: Donna Fiala FUNCTION/EVENT: 40'h Anniversary of Marco Island - MI Historical Society "Marco Sarin PUBLIC PURPOSE: Support the Marco Island Historical Society DATE OF FIINCTION/EVENT: Saturday, February 26, 2005 FISCAL IMPACT: $100.00 Funds to be paid from Commissioner's travel budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with Resolution No. 99 -410, approve payment by the Clerk for Commissioner to attend function serving a valid public purpose. PREPARED BY: Kathy Highbaugh, Executive Aide to BCC APPROVED BY: Sue Filson, Executive Manager to BCC AGENDA DATE: February 22, 2005 Agenda Item No. 16H1 February 22, 2004 Page 2 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 161-11 Item Summary Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend Marco Island Historical Society - Marco 40th Anniversary - "Marco Sari" Auction on February 26, 2005 at the Marco Polo Restaurant; $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Kathy Highbaugh Executive Aide to the BCC 214/2005 9:31:56 AM Board of County BCC Office Commissioners Approved By Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC Date Board of County BCC Office 21712005 4:01 PM Commissioners Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 2/10/2005 6:20 PM Commissioners Members Of. American Museum Association Florida Museum Association United Arts Council Florida Anthropological Association Southwest Florida Archaeological Society Marco Island Chamber of Commerce Agenda Item No. 16H1 February 22; 2004 Page 3 of 3 95 ocia!f $ ` � � 4 :A7 �}my CJaia2e, `p a�ce!�x <1, J.-.T 34 145 Ab tFe alc+LCn�rL, Ii�fzsaas G�ieritc.�r�: (289) 894.6917, nui-d. ix osl. as C7 rwv "€ .rtea as 1. s g� r r� � 30.2005 � �BUSO i ✓' b r a .E j " -' ° Commissioner Donna Fiala 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 33962 Dear Commissioner Fiala, In honor of the Fortieth Anniversary of Marco Island, Norene Barnes, who in the 1960's inspired and created the elegant "Marco Sari," is assisting the Historical Society to achieve our goal of building a world -class museum by offering a collection of fourteen custom -made dresses of designer fabrics from Europe, modeled by local ladies. This will be your only chance to purchase an authentic "Marco Sari" as she does not plan to do this again. To secure the success of this one time event, Mrs. Bames has engaged entertainer Steve de Pass, "Americas Singing Poet" in a return appearance for the evening. We are sending advanced notice to you, as space is limited. This event will be held at the Marco Polo restaurant, "the island restaurant with a heart," Saturday February 26h with cocktails at 6 p.m., an elegant dinner and exotic wines, followed by the unique and crowd pleasing concert. It will be an evening you will long remember. Your price of $100 per person covers the event and $50 of that will be your charity donation to the historical societies worthy cause. Noreen has also generously contributed one hundred per cent of the proceeds that the dresses bring in auction to help build the museum. As the Marco Polo holds 75 couples only, we are contacting-special people early and need you to contact us right away regarding your reservation and ticket: ` Do this by calling Sandy at the Chamber of C rnmerce 394 -7549 r Cindy Anderson 393 -0656 of the Historical Society to make your reservation and pdfflia�se- -eoirt t cket. -­ ., I V 1, F rte' r f 4 Sincerely yours, 1tt. r,,.c.Fs Capital Campaign Director v) a 8ie 5lf'i7i tuijtfi' ihve, kis t a vya md, 4,& vita9,e1 o,( &t& v �evrrvxrvu� ii , 4i _f �J Agenda Item No. 16H2 February 22, 2004 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMISSIONER REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public purpose for a Commissioner to attend function/event and approve payment by the Clerk. CONSIDERATIONS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 99 -410, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that attendance at the functions of fraternal, business, environmental, educational, charitable, social, professional, trade, homeowners, ethnic, and civic association/organizations serves a valid public purpose, provided that said functions reasonably relate to Collier County matters. COMMISSIONER: Donna Fiala FUNCTION/EVENT: Collier County Republican Executive Committee Lincoln Day Celebration PUBLIC PURPOSE: Support Executive Committee & mingle with constituents & Congressman. DATE OF FUNCTION/EVENT: Saturday, March 12, 2005 FISCAL IMPACT: $75.00 Funds to be paid from Commissioner's travel budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with Resolution No. 99 -410, approve payment by the Clerk for Commissioner Donna Fiala to attend function serving a valid public purpose. PREPARED BY: Kathy Highbaugh, Executive Aide to BCC APPROVED BY: Sue Filson, Executive Manager to BCC AGENDA DATE: February 22, 2005 /11-1 Agenda Item No. 161-12 February 22, 2004 Page 2 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16H2 Item Summary Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Collier County Republican Executive Committee Lincoln Day Celebration on March 12; 2005 at the Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Kathy Highbaugh Executive Aide to the BCC 2/812005 10:42:36 AM Board of County Commissioners BCC Office Approved By Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC Date Board of County Commissioners BCC Office 219/2005 12:01 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2110/2005 6:15 PM Congressman ssman C Connie Mack-, k, Dkirict 14 and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, District 75 Please mark your ca tendars, far this special event! Date and Time: Saturcta i, March 12, 200 C'atektail Hour 6:00, - 7:00 pm Dinner Program Begins at 7.15 pin ( `o ktail `T3usiness Attire Cost ()J* 'vent S7 per person _ 125 per jvrson to a private " "Cet an Greet " wdh local and state dignitaries prior to dinner. Attorney General, C: "hariae C-.rj, t i k laws alreaa � ec�t3 cc7r fit`med to attend. Slay tune fbr C1if�re t�l'inoun("i'men {� {����'� �i� Page) NM A'T"T iSLUR"BIR-1 SE THQSE Item No.-16H2 "-Apnda F'br6 22,2004 e ary Page 4 of drals. 'Or.4�0 U"REC Fu� n' "ll. IrvVent ''0 s tur 4 0 CIeIlIlit WM NM A'T"T iSLUR"BIR-1 SE THQSE Agenda Item No. 1611 A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE February 22, 2005 FOR BOARD ACTION: A. Minutes: 1. Environmental Advisory Council — Agenda for February 2, 2005 Staff Reports for February 2, 2005 Meeting — Wiggins Pass Hotel and Spa and Coconillia PUD. Minutes of January 5, 2005 2. Collier County Airport Authority— Minutes of January 10, 2005. 3. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. — Agenda for February 3, 2005; Minutes of January 6, 2005. 4. Collier County Citizen's Corers Advisory Committee—Agenda for January 19, 2005,Minutes of August 25, 2004; Minutes of September 15, 2004;Minutes of October 20, 2004; Minutes of December 13, 2004 and Minutes of January 19, 2005. 5. Development Services Advisory Committee — Minutes of January 5, 2005. a) Development Services Advisory Committee Budget & Operations Sub - Committee — Minutes of January 12, 2005 6. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — Minutes of December 9, 2004. 7. Collier County Tourist Development Council — Minutes of May 24, 2004, June 28, 2004, September 27, 2004, and Minutes of October 25, 2004. 8. Pelican Bay Services Division — Agenda for February 2, 2005; Minutes of January 5, 2005. a) Budget Sub - Committee — Agenda and Minutes of January 19, 2005 b) Clam Bay Sub - Committee — Agenda for February 2, 2005; Minutes of October 6, 2004. 9. Collier County PIanning Commission — Agenda for February 3, 2005. 10. Collier County Library Advisory Board — Agenda for January 26, 2005; Minutes of December 8, 2004. H:Data/Format Agenda Item No. 1611A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 3 11. Golden Gate Estate Land Trust Committee - Minutes of October 25, 2004. 12. Forest Lakes Roadway & Drainage M S T U — Agenda for February 9, 2005; Minutes of January 12, 2005. 13. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. — Agenda for February 9, 2005; Minutes of January 12, 2005. B. Other: 1) Ethics Commission Form 4A- Relevant to Agenda Items 12A & 12B for February 8, 2005 BCC Meeting. H:Data/Format Agenda Item No, 1611A February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 1611 Item Summary Miscellaneous Items to File Record with Action as Directed. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Kathleen Martinson Administrative Aide to BCC 2/10/2005 1:45:30 PM Board of County Commissioners BCC Office Approved By Sue Filson Executive Manager to the BCC Date Board of County Commissioners BCC Office 2/1012005 4:18 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2110/2005 6:10 PM Agenda !tern No. 16K1 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, Bradley & Darryl Damico, for Parcel No. 134 in the amount of $16,330 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v Lichliter, et aL, Case No. 03- 2273-CA (Golden Gate Pkwy Project 60027). OBJECTIVE: To approve and authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Section 73.032, Fla. Stat., to Respondents, Bradley Damico and Darryl Damico ("Respondents "), in the amount of $16,330.00, as full compensation, excepting attorney's fees and costs, for the acquisition arising out of the condemnation of Parcel No. 134 in Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter, et al., Case No. 03- 2273 -CA. CONSIDERATIONS: On September 30, 2003, Collier County deposited $12,500.00 into the Court Registry and acquired title to Parcel 134 in accordance with the Order of Taking entered on September 19, 2003. The County Attorney's Office would like to make an Offer of Judgment in the amount of $16,330.00, as full compensation for the property taken, including interest and all damages. The proposed Offer of Judgment is attached. The making of the Offer of Judgment will require the Respondents to carefully assess their claims within 30 days. Respondents will have thirty days from the date of mailing the offer to accept. If the offer is rejected and Respondents fail to recover more.than $16,330.00 for Parcel 134, either through settlement or jury verdict, the County will not be required to pay any costs incurred by Respondents after the date of the offer's rejection. Should the Respondents accept, the County will be required to pay as follows: Additional Compensation for Parcel: $3,830.00 Statutory Attorney's Fees *: $1,032.90 TOTAL COST: $4,862.90 *Attorney's Fees are mandated by s. 73.092, F.S., and are based on 33% of the difference between any settlement amount and the initial offer, i.e., 0.33 x (16,330 - $13,200). FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $4,862.90 are available in the FY 05 adopted budget. Source of funds are Gas Taxes and Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Approve and authorize service of the Offer of Judgment; 2. Approve entry of a Stipulated Final Judgment and expenditure of the funds, slbould the offer be accepted. PREPARED BY: Heidi F. Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Agenda Item No. 16K1 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16K1 Item Summary Recommendation to approve and authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Section 73.032, Fla. Stat., to Respondents, Bradley Damico and Darryl Damico ( "Respondents "), in the amount of $16,330.00, as full compensation, excepting attorney's fees and costs, for the acquisition arising out of the condemnation of Parcel No. 134 in Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter, et al., Case No, 03- 2273 -CA. Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney 211/2005 11:04:18 AM County Attorney County Attorney Office Approved By Eugene Calvert Principal Project Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportations Services Construction Management 2lS12005 10:03 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin. 2/8/2005 11:14 AM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 2/8/2005 3:18 PM Approved By Lisa Taylor ManagementlBudget Analyst Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 218/2005 3:50 PM Approved By Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 219/2005 11.34 AM Approved By Kevin Hendricks Right Of Way Acquisition Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportion Services Construction 211012005 9:00 AM Approved By David C. Weigel County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 2111/2005 8:58 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator County Manager's Office Administrative Assistant Office of Management & Budget Agenda Item No. 16K1 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Date 211112005 9:15 AM Approved By Michael 5mykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 11:15 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 2111/2005 12:37 PM Commissioners Agenda Item No. 16K1 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 5 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Case No.: 03- 2273 -CA Petitioner, Parcel No.: 134 VS. TERRY L. LICHLITER, et al., Respondents. TO: Kenneth A. Jones, Esquire ROETZEL & ANDRESS '® 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 PETITIONER, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, pursuant to Section 73.032, F.S., and F1a.R.Civ.P. 1.442, does hereby make this binding Offer of Judgment in this action to Respondents, BRADLEY T. DAMICO and DARRYL J. DAMICO, for all compensation, including severance damages, business damages, statutory interest, costs to cure, together with the value of the taking, and any other claims of Respondents, BRADLEY T. DAMICO and DARRYL J. DAMICO, arising out of the taking of Parcel 134, in the total amount of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Dollars and No /100 ($16,330.00), which includes the amount of $12,500.00 which was deposited pursuant to the Order of Taking dated September 19, 2003. There are no non - monetary terms or other relevant conditions to this offer except that this offer does not include attorney's fees and costs. Agenda Item No. 16K1 February 22; 2065 Page 5 of 5 The construction plans and specifications for the project on which the offer is based have been previously and continue to be made available for the Respondent(s) review upon reasonable notice of such a request. Dated this day of , 2005. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MM 2 Harmon Turner Building 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 - Telephone (239) 774 -0225 - Facsimile HEIDI F. ASHTON, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0966770 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER Agenda Item No. 16K2 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 Executive Summary Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the County Attorney's Office to Make a Business Damage Offer to Settle a Claim for Business Damages by Circle K Stores, Inc. Associated with the Acquisition of Parcel 739 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v First National Bank of Naples, et al., Case No. 04- 3587 -CA ( Immokalee Road Project #66042). OBJECTIVE: Authorize the County Attorney's Office to make a business damage offer to settle a claim for business damages associated with the acquisition of Parcel 739 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples., et al., Case No. 043587 -CA. CONSIDERATIONS: On December 30, 2004, the County acquired a temporary easement from Circle K Stores, Inc. along Immokalee Road. On November 4, 2004, Collier County received a business damage claim in the amount of $2,373,600.00 from Respondent, Circle K Stores, Inc., in connection with Parcel 739. The claim is based on their claim that the building structure would need to be moved if the property is remodeled. By Statute, the County has a limited time to respond to this claim County staff recommends a business damage offer of Ten Thousand Dollars and No /100 ($10,000.00). If the property owner is awarded a business damage, then the County will be required to pay an attorney's fee based on the benefit equaling the difference between the offer of $10,000.00 and the business damage award. If no offer is made and a business damage is awarded, then the County will be required to pay an hourly attorney's fee for the time spent on the business damage claim. • Amount of Business Damage Claim: $2,373,600.00 • Proposed Offer from the County: $10,000.00 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $10,000.00 are available from the Transportation Supported Gas Tax and Impact Fee Funds. Source of funds are Gas Taxes and Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with Collier County Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney's Office to make a business damage offer of $10,000.00. PREPARED BY: Heidi F. Ashton, Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney Agenda Item No. 16K2 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16K2 Item Summary Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the County Attorney's Office to Make a Business Damage Offer to Settle a Claim for Business Damages by Circle K Stores, Inc. Associated with the Acquisition of Parcel 739 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples., et al., Case No. 04- 3587 -CA (Immokalee Road Project #66042). Meeting Date 2/2212005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Date Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney 21212005 9:13:22 AM County Attorney County Attorney Office Approved By Eugene Calvert Principal Project Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportations Services Construction Management 21612005 10:05 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin. 2/8/2005 11:15 AM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 21812005 3:30 PM Approved By Lisa Taylor Management/Budget Analyst Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 2/8/2005 3:51 PM Approved By Kevin Hendricks Right Of Way Acquisition Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportion Services Construction 2/10/2005 10:09 AM Approved By David C. Weigel County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 211112005 9:54 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112005 10:11 AM Agenda Item No, 16K2 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/1112005 11:32 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 211412005 9:10 AM Agenda Item No. 16K3 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Proposals of Settlement for Engineering Costs and Planning Costs as to Parcels 739 and 839 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v Nancy L. Johnson Perry, et ab, Case No. 03- 2373 -CA (Golden Gate Parkway Road Project 60027). OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Proposals of Settlement for Engineering Costs and Planning Costs as to Parcels 739 and 839 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Nancy L. Johnson Perry, et al, Case No. 03- 2373 -CA (Golden Gate Parkway Road Project 60027). CONSIDERATIONS: The parties reached a mediated settlement and a Stipulated Final Judgment was entered on September 23, 2004, by Judge Martin. The property owner has demanded $18,000 for fees and costs. The County Attorney's Office would like to make two Proposals of Settlement for Engineering Costs and Planning Costs in the amount of $5,900.00 and $3,900.00, respectively, for all engineering and planning costs and fees. See attachment. The making of the Proposals will require Respondent to carefully assess their claim within 30 days. Should the Respondent accept, the County will be required to pay as follows: • Engineering Expert Costs & Fees: • Planning Expert Costs & Fees: TOTAL COST: $5,900.00 $3,600.00 $9,500.00 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $9,500.00 are available in the FY 05 adopted budget. Source of funds are Gas Taxes and Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: Approve the separate Proposals of Settlement for Engineering Costs and Planning Costs . and ratify their service on Respondent; 2. Approve the expenditure of funds as stated, if the offer is accepted; 3. Approve Agreed Order awarding such costs based on an acceptance of the Proposal(s) of Settlement for Engineering and Planning Costs, and authorize payment accordingly. PREPARED BY: Ellen T. Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney Agenda Item No. 16K3 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 6 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 16K3 Item Summary Recommendation to approve the Proposals of Settlement for Engineering Costs and Planning Costs as to Parcels 739 and 839 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Nancy L. Johnson Perry, et al., Case No. 03- 2373 -CA (Golden Gate Parkway Road Project 60027). Meeting Date 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Approved By Eugene Calvert Principal Project Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportations Services Construction Management 2/6/2005 10:08 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin, 218/2005 11:28 AM Approved By Lisa Taylor Management /Budget Analyst Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 2/6/2005 3:51 PM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 2/812005 5:29 PM Approved By Ellen T. Chadweli Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 219/2005 9:38 AM Approved By Kevin Hendricks Right Of Way Acquisition Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportion Services Construction 2/1012005 9:08 AM Approved By David C. Weigel County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 2/11/2005 9:56 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 10:11 AM Approved By Michael 5mykowski County Manager's Office Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners Management & Budget Director Office of Management & Budget County Manager County Manager's Office Agenda Item No. 16K3 February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Date 2/14/2005 4:46 PM Date 2/14/2005 5:52 PM 0 Agenda Item No. 16K3 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 6 III THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. NANCY L. JOHNSON PERRY, Individually, and as Successor Trustee, et al., Respondents. Case No. 03- 2373 -CA Parcel Nos.: 739,839 PROPOSAL OF SETTLEMENT FOR ENGINEERING COSTS .� TO: Grace Bible Church of Naples, Inc. C/o Bella Y. Patel, Esq. 13026 Waterford Run Drive Riverview, Florida 33569 Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, pursuant to Section 73.032, Florida Statutes, and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, does hereby make this binding proposal for settlement, which supercedes and replaces any previous proposal of settlement in this action, to the Respondent, CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH, f/k/a GRACE BIBLE CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., ( "Respondent "), for all engineering expert fees and costs incurred in defense of this eminent domain action which relate to Parcels 739 and 839 in the total amount of Five Thousand Nine Hundred and No /100 Dollars ($5,900). There are no other non - monetary terms or other relevant conditions to this offer except that this offer does not include attorney's fees and costs. 1 Dated this Li p day of January, 2005. 2 Agenda Item No, 16K3 February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 6 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Hannon Turner Building 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 - Telephone (239) 774 -0225 - Facsimile BY: �ZC4t � ELLEN T. CHADWELL, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0983860 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIOINER 9 Agenda Item No. 16K3 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 6 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, V. NANCY L. JOHNSON PERRY, Individually, and as Successor Trustee; et al., Respondents. Case No. 03- 2373 -CA Parcel Nos.: 739,839 PROPOSAL OF SETTLEMENT FOR PLANNING COSTS TO. Grace Bible Church of Naples, Inc. C/o Bella Y. Patel, Esq. 13026 Waterford Run Drive Riverview, :Florida 33569 Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, pursuant to Section 73.032, Florida Statutes, and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, does hereby make this binding proposal for settlement in this action to the Respondent, CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH, f /k/a GRACE BIBLE CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., ( "Respondent "), for all planning expert fees and costs incurred in defense of this eminent domain action which relate to Parcels 739 and 839 in the total amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred and No /100 Dollars ($3,600). There are no other non - monetary terms or other relevant conditions to this offer except that this offer does not include attorney's fees and costs. Dated this day of 4 1 2005. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Harmon Turner Building 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774 -8400 - Telephone (239) 774 -0225 - Facsimile BY: �-�- ELLEN T. CHADWELL, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0983860 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER 1 Agenda Item No. 16K4 February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees as to Parcel 153 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v John F. Sudal, et aL, Case No. 02- 5168 -CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018). OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve an Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees relative to the acquisition of Parcel 153 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John F. Sudal, et al., Case No. 02- 5168 -CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018). CONSIDERATIONS: A Stipulated Final Judgment was entered on September 23, 2004, which compensated Respondent for the property rights taken as Parcel 153. Pursuant to §73.091, Fla. Stat., the property owner is entitled to all reasonable and necessary costs incurred in defense of the eminent domain proceeding. The property owner submitted invoices for appraisal fees totaling $5,300.00. Through negotiations, the parties have agreed to settlement for $4,600.00 If the settlement is approved, the County is responsible for the following costs: • Appraisal Fees: TOTAL: $4,600.00 $4,600.00 See attached Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $4,600.00 are available in the FY 05 adopted budget. Source of funds are Gas Taxes and/or Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Approve the Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees; 2. Approve the expenditure of funds as stated; and 3. Direct staff to pay the sum of $4,600.00 to Allied Appraisers & Consultants, Inc. PREPARED BY: Ellen T. Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney Item Number Item Summary Meeting Date Approved By Sharon Newman Transportion Services Agenda Item No. 16K4 February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 6 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16K4 Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees as to Parcel 153 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John F. Sudal, et al., Case No. 02- 5168 -CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018). 2/22/2005 9:00:00 AM Accounting Supervisor Transportation Administration Date 219/2005 4:25 PM Approved By Kevin Hendricks Right Of Way Acquisition Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportion Services Construction 2110/2005 9:14 AM Approved By Ellen T. Chadweii Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 2110/2005 9:40 AM Approved By Lisa Taylor Management/Budget Analyst Date Transportion Services Transportation Administration 211 012005 10:52 AM Approved By Dale A. Bathon, P.E. Prinicipal Project Manager Date Transportation Engineering and Transportion Services Construction 211012005 1:03 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportion Services Transportation Services Admin. 2/11/2005 9:10 AM Approved By David C. Weigel County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 211112005 9:58 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 2/11/2005 10:10 AM Approved By Michael Smykowski County Manager's Office Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners Management & Budget Director Office of Management & Budget County Manager County Manager's Office Agenda Item No. 16K4 February 22; 2005 Page 3 of 6 Date 2/1112005 91:36 AM Date 2111/2005 2:42 PM FEB, 8, 2005 9:50AM FAVESE, HAVERFIELD, DALTON - — NQj4 $IterrPtgo�16K4 February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 6 IN 7CJEIE Ctx+t: UY'T COLT OF TM 'I7Elmiman JUDIC.'IAL CDWMT j IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, VWRMA CIVU ACTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a polhical sabdivisiou of flu 5tats of Fiatida, Petitioner, V. JOHN FRANK SUDAL, at al., Respond" 7 CASs No.: 42.5168 -CA Pamel No.: 153 THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon joint motion oft to partial, Petitioner, COLLM COUNTY, and Raspandcat, NELLM WHITS[JRST, for emt:y of as Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal Fees, and flag Court. belag f dly advised in the pr=im, it w fmcmeby ORDERER AND ADJUDM that Re:epowlont, NELLIE 'GVIIiTFIURST, have and rawver from Petitimcil COLLIER COUNTY, tire= sum of Your Theuesnd Sh Hwsds'ed and NonOO Dol6n (S41600.00) for appmissi cervices wilb respect to Parcel 153, which includes all GXPW fan and costa recovamble by Respondent in Wx come; and it is .further ORDERM AND ADJUDLIED &a Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY, almU, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, pay the turn of Few ThOumd bin Hum&vd sad Nofi00 DoOm ($4,600.00) to Allied ApprWwn & Consultants, Im, 1642 Me&oal Lane, Ft, Myers, Florida, 33947- -1192. Except as provided hacb4 no other costs sleall be awax+ded in oom orlon with tier abo"led cause of action as it reWrs to Pamd 153. FEB. 6.2005 9:50AM PAVESE, NAVERFIELD, DALTON ►t �terrpNa,16K4 eb ruary 2 ,, 2005 Page 5 of 6 DUNE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Naplcs, Colrier County, Florida, this ._._. slay of 12005. DANIEL IL MONACO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Cou btmed copies to., Ellen T, Chadwell, Esq. Stephen E. Dalton, Esq. E. Man Tucker, Esq, Boommping mm MOT10N 1�R AGREED QpER AWARDILI�G '� TQ PARCEL 153 The Parties hereby respect Ully request this Court to s nata¢ the forcgomg Agreed Ordar as I53. L DALTQN, FSQ ;Flori& EY,LEN T. CHADWEL 4 ESQU= No.: 01.07663 Florida Bar No.: 0993860 W FIItIVi OFFICE OF THB COUNW A3TQMY 1625 Hendry Sheet, Suite 201 Marmon Tw r Building Fort Myers, Florida 33901 3301 But Tamiamni 'frail 1833 Hendry Straot Ngges, Flaida 34112 {239) 334 -2195 — Telephone (239) 774 -9400 - Talepb= (239) 3348523 — Facsimile (239) 774 -0225 — Facs MU8 ATTORMY FOR RESPONDENT ATTORNEY POR PETITIONER CATS I? _SERi�'iCE I la mby cart* dust a tree and correct copy of the fsn ph4 Asmed Osdet 16.woding Appraisal Foes has been fiodshed via U.S, Mail to Stephen E. Dalton, Esquire, Pavese Law FirM 1625 Hendry Sheet, Suite 201, Ft. Myere, FL, 33901 and Quy Carlton, Collieut County Tax Collector, c/o E. Glenn 'I udw, Foss;., MODES, TUCKER & 4ARRETSON, P. O, Box 887, Marco Idend, FL, 34146 on this day of - .2005. 9:50AM PAVESE, HAVERFIELD, DAL101 • NAAg92da • Item Na 16K4 February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 6 ELLEN T. CHADWEL4 ESQUIRE 3 Agenda Item No. 17A February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SE- 2004 -AR -6772, A Resolution amending Resolution No. 04 -326, the Lutgert Companies Parldng Exemption, by providing for an amendment to correct a scrivener's error due to the incorrect reference to the C -4 Zoning District in the Recitals and Operative sections of the Resolution and changing the references to the correct zoning district of RMF -6. OBJECTIVE:, Recommendation to have the Board of County Commissioners correct an error resulting from an incorrect reference to the C-4 Zoning District in the attached Resolution No. 04 -326 (the Lutgert Companies Parking Exemption). CONSIDERATIONS: On October 12, 2004, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 04 -326, which incorrectly references the C -4 Zoning District in the Recitals and the Body of the Resolution, when in fact the correct reference should be the RMF -6 Zoning District. The purpose of the Lutgert Parking Exemption was to allow the applicant to provide parking for a proposed office building located in the C -4 Zoning District, on a lot across the alley that is zoned RMF -6. However, the Resolution approving the Parking Exemption, incorrectly referenced the zoning for the office building and the parking lot as being zoned C-4. Therefore, the purpose of this Scriveners Error is to correct the reference to the zoning of the off site lot as RMF -6, rather than C-4, as it is currently referred to in the resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: It should be noted that this amendment is only to correct the Resolution that erroneously referenced the zoning classification of the lot providing off site parking that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Therefore, this change by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on the County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The original petition was reviewed for consistency and was found to be consistent with all the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Plan (GMP); this amendment is only to correct the language included in Resolution 04 -326 that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This petition was reviewed for consistency with all the applicable provisions of the GMP and it has been determined that the subject scrivener's error petition will not change the previous findings of approval. Development permitted by the approval of this project will be subject to a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, SE-2004-AR-6772 Agenda Item No, 17A February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 7 concurrency review under the provisions of Section 10.02.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code. RECOMMENDATION• That the Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution 5E- 2004 -AR -6772 to correct Resolution 04 -326. PREPARED BY: Robin D. Meyer, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, 5E- 2004 -AR -6772 Agenda item Na. 17A February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 7 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 17A Item Summary S.F. - 2004 -AR -6772. A Resolution amending Rosoluaon No 04 -32 6, the Lutgert Companies Parking Exemption, by providing for an amendment to correct -scrivener's error due to the incorrect reference 10 the C -4 Zoning District In the Recitals and Operative sections of the Resolution and changing the references to the —feet n -.ring distnet of RMF-e. Meeting Date 2122!2005 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Oefo Rotun D. Meyer PrfncipM Planner 2x112005 1:,73;38 PM Community Development & Environmental Services Laning R Land Development Review Approved By Sandra Lea Ex.came Secretary Date Community Development& vommunity Development& Envir- r-rtal Services Environmental 5ervicae Admhi, 2171200S 2:07 PM Approved By Constance A. eohnson Operations Analyst Date Community Dnveinp—M a community Daveton n—t R Environmental Sen•ices En ironmantal Services Admin. 21712005 3:29 PM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date ..o —iw Development & E mnMat Services Zoning I., Land nevelopment Review 2NQN.15 4:D6 P.M. Approved By Susan Murray, AICP 2—mg & L-d D*vnlopo, —t Du-lor Ram ,.ommiimiy 0evcloprnrM a ent.il Servir -es J.onlnq R Land nevelnpmnnl Review 217120054:23 PM Approved By tiummmlity Development & Joxeph R. 5rh milt E—uc n—Ul Services Adrninatratoc Date .. munity nevnlopmert R C. —.ratty Devrlopmenr & —'MM Srrvicr-s F m ni d.Services Adrnin. 2,,W2005 6:10 PM Approved By �.s OMB Caordlnator Administrative Assistant Date Colmt}• t +1anager'a Office Off!— n! R Fl udgel 21312005 10:51 AM Approved By Michael Srnykowski Management R Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management R Budget 21812 005 1 2:70 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Rtarlayer Darr Board of County Commissioners county Rfanagar's Office 2'1112005 10'08 AM Agenda Item No. 17A February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 04326, THE LUTGERT COMPANIES PARKING EXEMPTION BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE TO THE INCORRECT REFERENCE TO THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT IN THE RECITALS AND OPERATIVE SECTION OF THE RESOLUTION, CHANGING THE REFERENCES TO THE CORRECT ZONING DISTRICT OF RMF -6. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution Number 04- 326, on October 12, 2004, and; WHEREAS, following said action adopting Resolution Number 04 -326, staff determined that the recitals of the Resolution and operative sections of the Resolution included incorrect references to the C-4 Zoning District instead of the correct zoning district designation which is RMF -6 and, therefore, constitutes a scrivener's error. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO THE RECITALS OF RESOLUTION NO. 04 -326, THE LUTGERT COMPANIES PARKING EXEMPTION The Recitals of Resolution Number 04 -326, the Lutgert Parking Exemption, is hereby amended to read as follows: WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly constituted board for Collier County which includes the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice and has considered the advisability of a parking exemption as shown on the attached Plot Plan, Exhibit "A," in the C-4 RMF —6 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.3.4.11.2.C., of the Collier County Land Development Code [UDC 4.05.02.K.], for the unincorporated area of Collier County, and SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO OPERATIVE PORTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04326 THE LUTGERT COMPANIES PARKING EXEMPTION: The operative section of Resolution Number 04 -326, the Lutgert Parking Exemption is hereby amended to read as follows: Petition Number PE- 2004 -AR -6093 filed by Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC., representing THE LUTGERT COMPANIES, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, be and the same hereby is, approved for a parking exemption pursuant tD Agenda Item No. 17A February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 7 the LDC as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A," in the E4 RMF -6 Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of 12005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney SE- 2004- AR- 5772/RWsp tj RESOLUTION 04- 326 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER PE- 2004 -AR- 6093 FOR A PARKING EXEMPTION ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) recodified by Ordinance No. 04 -41, as amended which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the allowance of a parking exemption; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly constituted board for Collier County which includes the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice and has considered the advisability of a parking exemption as shown on the attached Plot Plan, Exhibit "A," in the C -4 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.3.4.11.2.c, of the Collier County Land Development Code, [UDC 4.05.02.K) for the unincorporated area of Collier County, and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting and the Board considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number PE- 2004 -AR -6093 filed by Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC., representing THE LUTGERT COMPANIES, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, be and the same hereby is, approved for a parking exemption pursuant to the LDC as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A," in the C-4 Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following condition: Free - standing parking garages are not permitted on this property. Page 1 of 2 Agenda item No. 17A February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 7 17E BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PE- 2004 -AR -6093 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of )e7 4,64.e- .2004. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. K, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: DONN FIALA-, CHAIRMAN .1.1 test is to ghat : z 1 �+P�#jil+tl4FiS� to�A ;`'r and LeL- PSiYfiiciericµi I PCZ-00.-White Assistant County Attorney PE- 2004•AR•60931FF d Page 2 of 2 Item # 1_ Data��� Dell 0 -13 -61 Agenda Item No. 17A February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 102 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petition PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 Seacrest School, Inc., represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting a PUD Rezone from "E" Estates and "E" Estates zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for expansion of the existing school facility." The property is located at 7100 Davis Boulevard, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.4+ acres. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the requested rezone is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and is in the best interest of the community. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a rezone from Estates (E) and Estates (E) zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. The project is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard and on the east side of County Barn Road. The existing school is on 9.84 +_ acres located approximately 1800 feet east of County Barn Road, south of Davis Boulevard (SR84). The Seacrest Country Day School was opened in the fall of 1982 and currently serves 450 students in grades from pre - kindergarten through eight. The school has purchased an additional 29.6+ acres adjacent to the existing facility for a total of approximately 39.4+ acres. A total of 39.4± acres is proposed to be incorporated within the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD rezone. In addition to the existing pre- kindergarten through eighth grade facility, the rezone requests a high school that will serve an additional 450 students. The PUD is proposing accessory uses incidental to the school and campus related uses. These uses include: recreational facilities (stadiums, athletic fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, track and field venues, basketball courts, and tennis courts), child day care services, and eating - places restricted to cafeterias. Construction for the new school would occur in a single phase with an opening date set for fall of 2005 and buildout capacity assumed for 2006. The subject property is surrounded by: Falling Waters residential PUD with a density of 4.95 units per acre, as well as a single- family house, Berean Baptist Church, Unity Church, and undeveloped parcels zoned Estates. The property to the east and north of the proposed site, comprising the five parcels of land at the southeast quadrant of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road intersection, is currently in the review stage for a PUD rezone request to be known as Davis Reserve RPUD. The 22.8+ acre proposed development is seeking a mixed residential development at a requested density of 7.25 units per acre. The same 22.8+ acre site of the proposed Davis Reserve RPUD is also the subject property within CP- 2004 -5, which the Planning Commission reviewed at the January 6, 2005 public hearing. CP- 2004 -5 is a petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a new "Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict." This new Subdistrict would allow a mixture of residential and commercial development. The developer of the Davis Reserve RPUD has indicated that if CP- 2004 -5 were approved, then the Davis Reserve RPUD would seek an amendment to add commercial to the development. The PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 102 intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, which the Seacrest project encompasses, and the higher land use intensities expected from the area, along with the surrounding non - residential institutional uses grants assurances that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and future character of the local area. The location of the proposed Seacrest School PUD will provide for direct frontage and access to two arterial roads, Davis Boulevard (SR84) and County Barn Road. As an existing facility, the development of the dimensional regulations contained in the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD was forced to factor two considerations: the existing structures and infrastructure design, and the current Land Development Code (LDC) regulations. At times these considerations conflicted with each other. As a result of this conflict, the proposed Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD document is seeking a number of deviations from the LDC. The rezoning request is seeking five deviations from the regulations provided for in the Land Development Code (LDC). Each deviation will be described with the justification to follow. 1. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.D., Standards for Retention and Detention Areas in Buffer Yards: A deviation is requested to allow for pedestrian pathways, water management systems, drainage structures, fences, walls and signs to be located within landscape buffer /easements per the LDC subject to review and approval by County staff at time of SDP review. The developer proposes to locate within the buffer areas only those drainage structures needed to intercept offsite flows at the perimeter and route them around the property, or for the outfall from the onsite water management system. Where water management systems share the buffer area, the developer agrees to maintain the minimum percentage of buffer area utilized for landscape as set forth in Section 4.06.02.D.2. The developer's request for this deviation is based on the site constraints presented by the amount of wetlands, and combining functions to minimize the development footprint in order to maintain the greatest amount possible of preservation areas. 2. A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.E., Fences and Walls: A landscaped berm along with a six - foot high wooden fence were previously installed between the Seacrest School and the Falling Waters PUD properties and are currently on site. The existing conditions provide adequate and appropriate buffering between the two properties. 3. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02, Sidewalks and Bike Lane Requirements: A pedestrian pathway network shall be established throughout the project and will serve to link the upper and lower school facilities and sports /recreation fields. This pedestrian pathway will be six feet wide and any required breaks in the pathway for vehicular crossing or access shall be identified through the use of pavers, signage, or other traffic calming techniques deemed appropriate to reduce the speed of vehicles and provide safe pedestrian movements throughout the site. The pathway will feature canopy trees or palms with ground level landscape plantings. Bike lanes will not be provided within the project. The developer shall construct one eight -foot wide pedestrian pathway from the County Barn Road east right -of -way line to the western edge of the "School/Campus" District designated "S" on the PUD Master Plan. The developer shall construct a six -foot wide pedestrian pathway on both sides of the internal driveway along the frontage of the "School/Campus" District within the Upper School Campus and designated as "S" on the PUD Master Plan. The developer shall construct one six -foot wide pedestrian pathway from the Davis Boulevard south right -of -way line to the main entrance of the existing administrative building on the Lower School PUDZ- 2004-AR -5611 2 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 102 Campus near the northern end of the "School /Campus" District designated as "S" as shown the PUD Master Plan. The width of the pathway from Davis Boulevard to the administration building may be reduced from six feet to the minimum width required by the Americans with Disabilities Act if site constraints such as existing trees, light poles or setbacks to preserves preclude the installation of a six - foot wide pathway. To the extent that sidewalks are required along the project frontage with Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road at the time of Site Development Plan application, a payment in lieu of constructing said sidewalks will be made by the developer in the amount of $23,940 for the Davis Boulevard frontage, and $24,300 for the County Barn Road frontage. 4. A deviation from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Setbacks to Right -of -Way Line or Easement Line: An exception is requested to allow the control elevation contour of a lake excavation within fifty feet (50'), but no less than twenty feet (20'), of the existing or future County Barn Road right -of -way line, access easement line or drainage easement line. The developer may locate a stormwater management facility near the County Barn Road right -of -way line and adjacent to the County's planned drainage ditch on the east side of County Barn Road. The ditch will create a forty -foot (40') separation between the County Barn Road travel lanes and the developer's property. Hence, adequate separation will be provided without the need for additional barriers or design analysis. 5. A deviation from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Setbacks to Side, Rear, or Abutting Property Lines: An exception is requested to allow the control elevation contour of a lake excavation to be set back no less than twenty feet (20') from a side, rear, or abutting property line. The developer will install a protective measure such as fencing (minimum four -foot chain link), berms, walls, or other engineered protective measure for the portion of the property line within one hundred feet (100') of the lake. A clarification of LDC Section 6.06.01, Street System Requirements: The internal vehicular area is a driveway; therefore, the requirements of this LDC Section do not apply. Each of the pertinent reviewing County departments has reviewed and supports the requested deviations based upon the existing school and the physical constraints present upon the property. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning of this PUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the property is rezoned, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. 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 Levels 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 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 3 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 102 Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows certain nonresidential uses including community facilities such as schools. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The application has been found by staff to satisfy the specific development requirements for the Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE.) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD document has been reviewed to ensure the most current environmental regulations have been incorporated within the document. The Seacrest Country Day School (Lower School) has already been permitted and built and the Upper School is the proposed project. As noted in the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) staff report (Exhibit "C "), the wetlands on the Upper School ~— site are impacted by a combination of altered hydrology and exotic plant infestation. The presence of Davis Boulevard and canal, County Barn Road and surrounding development has altered wetland sheet -flow and severed any significant wildlife corridors. Evidence of wildlife utilization on the site is minimal. The site is not currently inhabited or utilized by endangered, threatened or species of special concern. Given the infill nature of the property and poor quality of wetlands on site, it is a suitable location for the proposed project. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The petition appeared before the EAC on January 5, 2005. The EAC forwarded the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. The motion passed by a vote of 5to0. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPCI RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition on February 3, 2005. The CCPC forwarded the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7 to 0. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based. The legal considerations PLJDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 4 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 5 of 102 are reflected in the Collier County Planning Commission's evaluation of the listed criteria in Chapter 10.03.05 and Chapter 10.02.12 of the LDC. These evaluations are completed as separate documents that have been incorporated into the attached staff report. A summary of the legal considerations and findings are noted below: • The proposed change has been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMP. • The proposed land uses are compatible with the existing land use pattern. • The proposed change will not 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. This project has also been deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Element of the GMP. • The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private shall be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff analysis indicates that the proposed Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD is compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition PUDZ - 2004 -AR -5611 subject to the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. PREPARED BY: Mike Bosi, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning and Land Development Review PUDZ- 2004-AR -5611 Agonda Item No. 17B February 22. 2005 Page 6 of 102 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 17B Item Summary This item requires that all participants be swom in and ex -part, di .closure he provided by Commission members, PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 Seacrest School, Inc., represented by Richard Yovanovicn of Goodlene. Coleman and J9rms0n, PA, requesting a PUD Rezone from "E" Estates and "E" Estates zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for expansion of ?he existing school facility.- The property is located al 7100 D&VI. BouloWW in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.41 acres. Meeting Date 2172/2005 9'.00:00 AM Prepared By Date Mike Bnsi, AICP principal Planner 2/412905 9:45:42 AM Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review Environmental Servkres Approved By Mike Bosi, AICP Principal Planner Data Community Oovelopment & Zoning & Land Development Review 1113112005 11:11 AM Environmental Services Approved By Sandra Lea Executive 5ecratary Dale Community Development & Communty bavelopment & Environmental Servicna Envira+mental Services Admire. 274/2005 12:59 PM Approved By Constance A. Johnson Operations Analyst Date Community Dnvelnpmanl & Community Development& Environmental Services Environmental services Admin. 21412095 2:44 PM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & F..nvironm.nl'al Services ..nning &Land Development Review 21112906 4:09 PM Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date. Community Development & Envuoamentat Services 2—ria & Land Devrinpment Rwinw 2/7/2005 4:27 PM Approved By Donald L. Scott Transportation Plenning DO.O.r Date Transport— Sarvicea Tranaportutlorr Planning 26912905 2:12 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP T'ranaportmiun UWlaion Admmiatrutor Date Transportion Survicas Trsnsportation Servicna Admire. 269!2006 3:0a PM Approved By Patrick G. Whit. Assistant County Attorney Date ('.only Altornr-y County Attorney Office 2!1012005 7.45 PM Approved By Community Dnvelopmeni. & Joseph H. Schmitt Dntn Er—., mmrtal Services Adminstralar Cwnmunity UevcloPrnant & Community Development & Envlrannrontal SNVirea F',nvironmeninl Servicna Admire. 211W2005 8:52 PM Approved By OMB Coonfinabr Administrative Assistant Date County Manager's Office Office of Managerneal H. Budget 2111+20135 8:55 AM Approved By Mark I ... kaon Bud get Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211112005 315 Pfd Approved By Michael Smykowski Msnagement & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211412OD5 4:42 PM Approved By Jun— V. Mudd County Manager flute Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 2!1412005 6 :51 PM .. Goner County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2005 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 AGENT /APPLICANT: OWNER: Seacrest Schools, Inc. 7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, FL 34104 AGENT: Richard Yovanovich, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, PA 4001 Tamiami Trail North #300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application requesting a rezone from Estates (E) and Estates (E) zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. The proposed Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD rezone is being requested to expand the current primary educational facility to include a high school and related educational and recreational facilities. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 39.4+ acres, located on the south side of Davis Boulevard and on the east side of County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on following page) UDZ- 2004 -AR -5511, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item, No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 102 Ell --- - - 2 UDZ- 2044 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD CL LU E- 0 J i ,j � ' j� M, . lit 2 UDZ- 2044 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD CL LU E- 0 J 1 r Cade:. Agenda item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 9 of 102 a i It cou�itrsnue�avia .--- -- - --- -- -- - - -- ' 4 -- f - - - -- - - - - - -- PREPAliED FCFL EEACSFWSf 8K"IiOf3l..MC. 3 UDZ- 2004 -AR- 5611, Seacrest Lipper and Lawyer School PUD Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 102 PURPOSEMESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The application is requesting a rezone from Estates (E) and Estates (E) zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. The project is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard and on the east side of County Barn Road. The existing school is on 9.84± acres located approximately 1800 feet east of County Barn Road, south of Davis Boulevard (SR84). The Seacrest Country Day School was opened in the fall of 1982 and currently serves 450 students in grades from pre - kindergarten through eight. The school has purchased an additional 29.6+ acres adjacent to the existing facility for a total of approximately 39.4+ acres. A total of 39.4+ acres is proposed to be incorporated within the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD rezone. In addition to the existing pre - kindergarten through eighth grade facility, the rezone requests a high school that will serve an additional 450 students.. The PUD is proposing accessory uses incidental to the school and campus related uses. These uses include; recreational facilities (stadiums, athletic fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, track and field venues, basketball courts, and tennis courts), child day care services, and eating - places restricted to cafeterias. Construction for the new school would occur in a single phase with an opening date set for fall of 2005 and buildout capacity assumed for 2006. 4 UDZ- 2004 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 102 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: Existing Seacrest School zoned Estates (E) with a Conditional Use and Undeveloped Estates Zoning Surrounding - North: Berean Baptist Church, undeveloped parcels zoned E & E with CU; Bretonne Park PUD and Berkshire Lakes PUD are located north of Davis Boulevard R -O -W_ East: Undeveloped parcel and Falling Waters PUD, zoned E and PUD South: Unity Church and Single Family Residencies, zoned E with CU & E West: Undeveloped parcels zoned E with PUD zoning in progress; Multi - family rental apartments located west of County Barn Road R -O -W, zoned RMF -6(4) GROVVrH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows certain nonresidential uses, including community facilities such as schools. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Future Land Use Element: The application has been found by staff to satisfy the specific development requirements for the Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use maybe deemed consistent with the FLUE. UDZ- 2004 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 102 Transportation Element: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: evaluation of this project took, into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP and was found consistent, a statement advising that this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted with the PUD rezone application indicates that 220 AM peak hour trips will be generated by the addition of the 450 student high school. The PUD Master Plan indicates a new access point on County Barn Road for the project. The existing primary school gains access off Davis Boulevard (SR84). The primary intersections of County Barn Road at Davis Boulevard and Davis Boulevard at Santa Barbara Boulevard were analyzed along with the two driveways. Only the intersection of County Barn Road at Davis Boulevard shows a change in the level of service (LOS) going from a projected LOS of C to D resulting from a three- second increase in vehicle delay from 34.5 seconds to 37.4 seconds at the intersection. Open Space/Conservation: A minimum of thirty percent open space of the gross site area, as described in Chapter 4.02.01 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Policy 1. 1.6 of the GMP, will be required of the PUD. Section 2.11 of the Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD document requires that the minimum of thirty percent open space be maintained for the project. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Chapter 10.03.05 of the Land Development Code and required staff evaluation and comment. The Planning Commission to the BCC also used these criteria as the basis for their recommendation. Appropriate evaluation of petitions for amendments to PUDs should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision - makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted and are summarized by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non- compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report. (See Exhibits "A" and "B ") Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD document has been reviewed to ensure the most current environmental regulations have been incorporated within the document. The Seacrest Country Day School (Lower School) has already been permitted and built and the Upper School is the proposed project. As noted in the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) staff report (Exhibit "C "), the wetlands on the Upper School site are impacted by a combination of altered hydrology and exotic plant infestation. The presence of Davis Boulevard and canal, County Barn Road and surrounding development has altered wetland sheet -flow and severed any significant wildlife corridors. Evidence of wildlife utilization on the site is minimal. The site is not currently inhabited or utilized by endangered, threatened or species of special concern. Given the infill nature of the property, and poor quality of wetlands on site, it is a suitable location for the proposed project. The petition appeared before the EAC on January 5, 2005. The EAC forwarded the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. UDZ- 2004 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 102 Transportation Analysis: Based upon this analysis of the TIS, no off -site road improvements are required for the project. The project is proposing a left turn lane from southbound County Barn Road into the new access point. Utility Issues: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: water distribution, sewage collection and transmission, and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Zoning and Land Development Analysis: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows certain nonresidential uses, including community facilities such as schools. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer';natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD rezone is being requested to expand the current primary school with the addition of a secondary school. The subject property will be developed as a private school with education buildings, tennis courts, track, baseball, softball and soccer field, parking areas, and storm water management facilities. The existing Seacrest Country Day School provides access to Unity Church from Davis Boulevard. This interconnection is proposed to remain in place with the requested rezoning action. The subject property is surrounded by: Falling Waters residential PUD with a density of 4.95 units per acre, as well as a single - family house, Berean Baptist Church, Unity Church, and Undeveloped parcels zoned Estates. The property to the east and north of the proposed site, comprising the five parcels of land at the southeast quadrant of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road intersection, is currently in the review stage for a PUD rezone request to be known as Davis Reserve RPUD. The 22.8± acre proposed development is seeking a mixed residential development at a requested density of 7.25 units per acre. The same 22.8+ acre site of the proposed Davis Reserve RPUD is also the subject property within CP- 2004 -5, which the Planning Commission reviewed at the January 6, 2005 public hearing. CP- 2004 -5 is a petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a new "Davis Boulevard and County Bam Road Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict." This new Subdistrict would allow a mixture of residential and commercial development. The developer of the Davis Reserve RPUD has indicated that if CP- 2004 -5 were approved, then the Davis Reserve RPUD would seek an amendment to add commercial to the development. The intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, which the Seacrest project encompasses, and the higher land use intensities expected from the area, along with the surrounding non - residential institutional uses grants assurances that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and future character of the local area. The location of the proposed Seacrest School PUD will provide for direct frontage and access to two arterial roads, Davis Boulevard (SR84) and County Barn Road. As an existing facility, the development of the dimensional regulations contained in the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD was forced to factor two considerations; the existing structures and infrastructure design, and the current Land Development Code (LDC) regulations. At tunes these considerations LJDZ- 2004 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 178 February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 102 conflicted with each other. As a result of this conflict, the proposed Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD document is seeking a number of deviations from the LDC. The rezoning request is seeking five deviations from the regulations provided for in the Land Development Code (LDC). Each deviation will be described, with the justification to follow. • deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.D., Standards for Retention and Detention Areas in Buffer Yards: • deviation is requested to allow for pedestrian pathways, water management systems, drainage structures, fences, walls and signs to be located within landscape buffer /easements per the LDC subject to review and approval by the County staff at time of SDP review. The developer proposes to locate within the buffer areas only those drainage structures needed to intercept offsite flows at the perimeter and . route them around the property, or for the outfall from the onsite water management system. Where water management systems share the buffer area, the developer agrees to :maintain the minimum percentage of buffer area utilized for landscape as set forth in Section 4.06.02:D.2. The developer's request for this deviation is based on the site constraints presented by the amount of wetlands, and combining functions to rninirriize the development footprint in order to maintain the greatest amount possible of preservation areas. A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.E., .Fences and Walls: A landscaped berm along with a six -foot high wood fence were previously installed between the Seacrest School and the Falling Waters. PUD properties and are currently on site. The existing conditions provide adequate and appropriate buffering between the two properties. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02, Sidewalks and Bike Lane Requirements: A pedestrian pathway network shall be established throughout the project and will serve to link the upper and lower school facilities and sports /recreation fields. This pedestrian pathway will be six feet wide, and any required breaks in the pathway for vehicular crossing or access shall be identified through the use of pavers, signage, or other traffic calming; techniques deemed appropriate to reduce the speed of vehicles and - provide safe pedestrian movements throughout the site. The pathway will feature canopy trees or palms with ground level landscape plantings. Bike lanes will not be provided within the project. The developer shall construct one eight -foot wide pedestrian pathway from the County Barn Road east right -of -way line to the western edge of the "School/Campus" District designated "S" on the PUD Master Plan. The developer shall construct a six -foot wide pedestrian pathway on both sides of the internal driveway along the frontage of the "School /Campus" District within the Upper School Campus and designated as "S" on the PUD Master Plan. The developer shall construct one six -foot wide pedestrian pathway from the Davis Boulevard south right - of -way line to the main entrance of the existing administrative building on the Lower School Campus near the northern end of the "School/Campus" District designated as "S" as shown the PUD Master Plan. The width of the pathway from Davis Boulevard to the administrative building may be reduced from six feet to the minimum width required by the Americans with Disabilities Act if site constraints such as existing trees, light poles or setbacks to preserves preclude the installation of a six -foot wide pathway. ?UDZ- 2004 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 102 To the extent that sidewalks are required along the project frontage with Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road at the time of Site Development Plan application, a payment in lieu of constructing said sidewalks will be made by the developer in the amount of 523,940 for the Davis Boulevard frontage, and $24,300 for the County Barn Road frontage. A deviation from/clarification of LDC Section 6.06.01, Street System Requirements: The internal vehicular area is a driveway; therefore, the requirements of this LDC Section do not apply. A deviation from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Setbacks to Right -of -Way Line or Easement Line: An exception is requested to allow the control elevation contour of a lake excavation within fifty feet (50'), but no less than twenty feet (20), of the existing or future County Barn Road right -of -way line, access easement line or drainage easement line. The developer may locate a stormwater management facility near the County Barn Road right -of -way line and adjacent to the County's planned drainage ditch on the east side of County Barn Road. The ditch will create a forty -foot (40) separation between the County Barn Road travel lanes and the developer's property. Hence, adequate separation will be provided without the need for additional barriers or design analysis. A deviation from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Setbacks to Side, Rear, or Abutting Property Lines: An exception is requested to allow the control elevation contour of a lake excavation to be set back no less than twenty feet (20') from a side, rear, or abutting property line. The developer will install a protective measure such as fencing (minimum four -foot chain link), berms, walls, or other engineered protective measure for the portion of the property line within one hundred feet (100') of the lake. Each of the pertinent reviewing County departments has reviewed and supports the requested deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: Agents for the applicant held the required Neighborhood Information Meeting at the Seacrest Country Day School gymnasium on June 1, 2004 at 5:30 P.M. Approximately six persons other than the applicant's team and county staff attended. Dennis Cronin of Porter, Wright, Morris, and Arthur introduced representatives of the school /petitioner and WilsonMiller, Inc. Margaret Perry, project planner for WilsonMiller, Inc., presented an overview of the master plan and proposed building project. One audience member asked if future students of the proposed high school would be permitted to drive private vehicles to school, to which Ms. Perry responded yes. A property owner at Falling Waters PUD asked how high the proposed additional buildings would be. Again, Ms. Perry stated the proposed maximum height of the building(s) is to be 56 feet/three stories. The audience asked no further questions. There were no publicly stated comments of opposition to the proposed rezone to Planned Unit Development and the purposed use intended. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:50 P.M. However the applicant/petitioners made themselves available for informal discussion with the public. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of petition PLMZ -04 -AR -5611 subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated in the PUD document with the above deviations from the Land Development Code. LTDZ- 2004 -AR -5611, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 .Page 16 of 102 PREPARED BY: MIKE BOSL AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RAY BEqOWS, MANAGER . DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW )MJRRAY 6 SUSAN, AICP, DIRECTOR ( ) ATE ' DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOEPP K. SCHmff —r ADMINIStRATOR M rrY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the February 22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN 10 UDZ-2004-AR-561 1, Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Agenda Item No. 178 February 22, 2005 Page 17 of 102 FIMDMGS FOR PUD PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 Chapter 10.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 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. Public utility facilities and services are currently available in this area of Collier County. The location of this property with connections to Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road is optimal from a land use perspective in that there are limited residential neighborhoods to be impacted or adversely influenced. Also, the fact that the project will maintain a point of ingress/egress on both road segments will allow for the higher levels of AM peak hour trips associated with the project to better interface with the existing traffic levels. Additionally, the expansion of County Barn Road will further add capacity to the transportation systems to absorb the increased trips generated by the project. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the Planning Commission and the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GNP. 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. Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. EYMIT "A" Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 102 The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity is addressed in the Staff Report. 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. Staff analysis indicates that the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. The development standards and commitments contained within the PUD document will ensure that the proposed rezone will not negatively impact the surrounding developed and undeveloped neighboring properties. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by the PUD Document (thirty percent) is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. All development authorized by the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD is required to meet concurrency requirements at the time of Site Development Plan approval. The improvements proposed by the PUD Document indicate construction activity to complete within a single phase. 7. The ability of the. subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate' expansion. The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Ability to expand, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads which is available to this site. Infrastructure is in place in the vicinity and its adequacy will be determined at the time of SDP approval. EXHIBIT "A„ Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 102 S. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed PLTD document conforms to PUD regulations or requests deviations that staff analysis finds justified. Agenda Item No. 178 February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 102 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ -04 -AR -5611 Chapter 10.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 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 proposed development is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The proposal is an extension of the existing school, which has been expanded on the property to the south as part of a Site Development Plan. The expansion of the existing school has displaced the existing athletic facilities and necessitated the requested rezone to allow the facilities to be built on this adjoining property to the north. The proposal is consistent with the FLUE contained in the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern; North: Berean Baptist Church, undeveloped parcels zoned E & E with CU; Bretonne Park PUD and Berkshire Lakes PUD are located north of Davis Boulevard R -O -W. East: Single Family Residencies and Falling Waters PUD, zoned E and PUD South: Single Family Residencies and Unity Church, zoned E & E with CU West: Undeveloped parcels zoned E; Multi - family rental apartments located west of County Bam Road R -O -W, zoned RMF -6(4) 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; This is an expansion of an existing private school primary school for the addition of a secondary high school; both of these uses are consistent with the FLUE and with the surrounding development. The size of the project, 40+ acres, will ensure that the project does not create an isolated district and the predominate surrounding Estates zoning allows for schools on a conditional use basis, which offers fin -ther evidence that the proposed Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD will be compatible with the surrounding zoning.. It is also consistent with the expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 102 The proposed expansion of the existing Seacrest County Day school through the proposed Seacrest schools Upper and Lower school PUD is a logical extension of the original zoning action, and this use has been identified as consistent with the FLUE . Therefore, the proposed PUD district boundaries are logically drawn and they are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Collier County has seen substantial development and therefore is a corresponding need for more private and public schools in the area. As previously stated the existing school is expanding to meet the needs of the growing population of Collier County. The proposed PUD rezone with the addition of the high school facility is needed for the school to continue to provide a complete range of educational opportunities. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The location of this property between Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road is optimal from a land use perspective in that there are limited residential neighborhoods to be impacted or adversely influenced. The residential development in closest proximity to the proposed site is Falling Waters, which has shared a common boundary with the existing school since its inception. 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. Evaluation of the project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Traffic element of the GMPP and the project was found consistent. This consistency finding is a statement advising that this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion. The proposed change will result in an overall increase in daily trips within the school, however there is adequate capacity in the road system to accommodate it. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The LDC specifically provides the development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and above what would occur without development. In summary, this project has been reviewed for consistency the applicable regulations and required to mitigate all sub - surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. Agenda item No. 17B f February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 102 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The athletic facilities proposed as part of this development, will result in virtually no reduction of light and air to adjacent areas. In addition all projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; As noted, Falling Waters is the closest residential development to the proposed project and has shared a common boundary with the existing school since its inception. The proposed PUD rezone is not anticipated to alter the compatibility. The land value of the other land uses in the surrounding area, churches, single family residencies, and undeveloped land is not anticipated to be lowered by the proposed change. Staff is also of the opinion that this proposal will not adversely affect property values based on the projects consistency with the Growth Management Plan and surrounding uses. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The regulations contained within the proposed PUD document are required to be constructed to minimize the effect of the uses contained within on the surrounding properties. The proposed PUD rezone, with a requirement of thirty percent dedicated open space and limited hours of trip generation, is not viewed as a deterrent to the development or improvement of the 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 rezone to PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said plans. In light of this fact the proposed PUD zoning 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; There is no reason that the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning and a school is a use that is provided for on a conditional basis by the Estates Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 102 Zoning District. Rather, than requesting a new conditional use to establish the proposed high school addition, the proposed PUD rezoning action is being requested to create the regulatory fabric for the expansion to follow. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed rezone is being requested as an expansion of an existing school and is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan, and as such will be in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development. However, this proposal is a request to expand an existing facility that has been at its location for 22 years. 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. The surveyed spot topography for the site indicates that the elevations range from approximately 8.2 to 11.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The spot elevation data and Collier county aerial topographic features suggest that the site is hydrologically isolated and its contribution, if any, to the surface drainage of adjacent properties, is limited. Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road are the highest topographic features adjacent to the property boundary and have altered the historic wetland sheet -flow pattern on the site. The water management system will consist of two drainage basins, each with a storm sewer collection system draining into a wetland detention pond. Each pond will have a control structure that provides for the required water quality treatment volume, plus detention prior to discharge via a control structure. Based upon the physical properties of the land, a minimal degree of site alteration will be required to make the property unusable for the proposed Seacrest School project, or any of the other allowed uses contained within the estates Zoning District. 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. A multi- disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this petition and they have found it consistent with the G1v1P. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 102 adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. I. II. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2004 NAME OF PETITIONERIPROJECT: Petition No.: Petition Name: Applicant/Developer: Engineering Consultant: Environmental Consultant: LOCATION: Agenda Item No. 17B ,February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 102 Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ- 2004 -AR -5611 Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Seacrest School, Inc. WilsonMiller, Inc. WilsonMiller, Inc. Item V.I. The subject property is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard, and on the east side of County Barn Road in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include both developed and undeveloped parcels with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - R.O.W. Davis Blvd. Estates Undeveloped Estates Developed (Church) S_ Estates Developed (Unity Church) Estates Partially Developed (Single - family residences) E - PUD (Falling Waters) Developed Estates Developed (Unity Church) E3Q3rBIT "C" Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 EAC Meeting Page 26 of 102 Page 2 of 9 W_ R.O.W. County Barn Road Estates Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The application is requesting a rezone from Estates (E) and Estates (E) zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. The project is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard and on the east side of County Barn Road. The existing school is on 9.84+ acres located approximately 1800 feet east of County Barn Road south of Davis Boulevard (SR -84). The Seacrest Country Day School was opened in the fall of 1982 and currently serves 450 students in grades from pre - kindergarten through eight. The school has purchased an additional 29.6+ acres adjacent to the existing facility for a total of approximately 39.4+ acres. The 39.4+ acres is proposed to be incorporated within the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD rezone. In addition to the existing pre- kindergarten through eighth grade facility, the rezone requests a high school that will serve an additional 450 students. The PUD is proposing accessory uses incidental to the school and campus related uses. These uses include; recreational facilities (stadiums, athletic fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, track and field venues, basketball courts, and tennis courts), child day care services, and eating - places restricted to cafeterias. Construction for the new school would occur in a single phase with an opening date set for fall of 2005 and buildout capacity assumed for 2006. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows certain nonresidential uses, including community facilities such as schools. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The application has been found by Staff to satisfy the specific development requirements for the Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Agenda Item No. 17B EAC Meeting February 22, 2005 'I'g Page 27 of 102 Page 3 of 9 Conservation & Coastal Manazement Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards ". To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system ". This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it allempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons. Greater than fifteen percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on -site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Selection of preservation areas, are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 EAC Meeting Page 28 of 102 Page 4 of 9 within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts,. this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The project is Iocated within the Lely Canal Basin of the County's Lely Area -- Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP). The project proposes using a surface water management system consisting of two wet detention lakes that discharge into an on -site preserve with an ultimate discharge into the east roadside swale of County Barn Road. The allowable discharge rate is in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 90 -10, as amended. The site is designed for existing regional drainage conditions as well as future conditions after implementation of the LASIP. Calculation of the 100 -year floodplain encroachment/mitigation was included with this project. The implementation of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project will require a drainage easement along the entire County Barn Road frontage of this project. Discussions have been held regarding the required width of the drainage easement. Uncertainties in the 4 -lane design of County Barn Road have created a situation where the requested width will be within a range from forty (40) feet to slightly over fifty (50) feet. The required width will be determined prior to presentation to the Planning Commission. Also unresolved is a determination of the methodology for establishing a value for the drainage easement. As required in section 3.8.5.6(B) of the EIS, the applicant has provided a water quality analysis to evaluate potential water quality impacts at pre and post development. In the analysis the applicant demonstrated a 49% reduction in nitrogen and a 56% reduction in phosphorous at post development. (See Harper Water Quality Analysis in Appendix A of the EIS). EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 Environmental: Site Description: Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 102 The subject property contains of the existing Seacreast Country Day School (9.79 acres) and the proposed Seacrest Upper Campus site (29.64 acres), the latter of which is undeveloped. Native habitats on the proposed Seacrest Upper Campus site include pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411), cypress - pine - cabbage palm (FLUCFCS Code 624), and hydric pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 625). Approximately 1.8 acres of native vegetation are also found at the existing Seacreast Country Day School. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil map for the area identifies two soil types occurring on the site; Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14) and Boca fine sand (Unit 21). The undeveloped portion of the site consists mainly of Soil Map Unit 14, which is listed as hydric by the NRCS. The wet season high water table was determined by using site - specific hydrobiological indicators. Cypress trees on the property exhibited lichen lines and water stains at an average elevation of 8.95 feet NGVD. Three stakes were also installed at separate wetland/upland interface edges on the property, and the ground elevation at each wetland/upland interface stake later surveyed. The wetland/upland interface edge ground elevation ranged from 8.83 to 9.17 feet NGVD. An average elevation of 9.0 feet was used for control design purposes. The existing Seacreast Country Day School, and adjacent Florida Apartment Club, both have a permitted control elevation of 9.0 feet. Wetlands: The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) exerted jurisdiction over approximately 19.41 acres of freshwater - forested wetlands on the Seacrest Upper Campus property. These wetlands consist of 1.00 acre of exotic wetland hardwoods, 15.13 acres of cypress - pine - cabbage palm, and 3.28 acres of hydric pine flatwoods. Development of the project will result in direct impacts to 13.11 of wetlands. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands includes preservation and enhancement of the remaining 6.30 acres of wetlands and 1.09 acres of uplands on -site. Enhancement will include exotic and nuisance plant eradication, hydroperiod restoration and re- vegetation with indigenous wetland vegetation. The applicant has proposed the purchase 6.05 mitigation credits from a private mitigation bank to satisfy off -site mitigation credits for this project. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 Preservation Requirements: Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 102 The subject property consists of the existing Seacreast Country Day School (9.79 acres) and the proposed Seacrest Upper Campus site (29.64 acres), the latter of which is undeveloped. Approximately 1.8 acres of native vegetation have been set -aside as preserves at the existing Seacrest Country Day School facility. The undeveloped Seacrest Upper Campus site contains approximately 28.64 acres of native vegetation (approximately 10.3 acres of pine flatwoods, 15.1 acres of cypress - pine - cabbage palm, and 3.3 acres of hydric pine flatwoods). Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan requires that fifteen percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation be retained on -site and be set -aside preserve, and to be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. The native vegetation requirement for this site is based on the amount of existing native vegetation present on the Upper School Campus site and (since the existing County Day School is already developed) on the total acreage of the existing County Day School (28.64 acres + 9.79 acres = 38.43 acres x .15 = 5.76 acres required). The 9.1 acres of preserve identified on the PUD master plan exceeds this requirement. Listed Species: In August 2003, the consultant performed meandering listed species pedestrian transects through the various habitats on the subject property. Once the grid of meandering transects covered the site, additional. transects were performed targeting those portions of the site with the greatest potential for listed species. When performing pedestrian transects through appropriate habitats, particular consideration was given to looking for signs of red - cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) and gopher tortoises. No state or federally listed wildlife species or evidence of listed wildlife species was observed on the property. A RCW foraging area survey was conducted during the fall season (October 15 to December 15, 2003). The survey was performed during 15 consecutive working days (Monday through Friday). Weather conditions were favorable each day of the survey. No RCWs or cavity trees were observed during the survey. A RCW nesting season survey was also performed on the site between April 15 and June 15, 2004. No RCWs or cavity trees were observed during this survey. The listed species survey did result in observations of Florida Department of Agricultural (FDA) listed flora species. Table 5 in the EIS gives the scientific and common name of each of the listed plant species, vegetative community EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 102 association and listing status by the FDA. No plant species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was observed on the project site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ- 2004 -AR- 5611 "Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD" with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Create a Stormwater Management subsection in section VI of the PUD document and include the following stipulations in the new subsection. A drainage easement, up to fifty (50) feet wide to fully comply with the implementation of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project drainage improvements, adjacent to but outside the limits of the proposed County Barn Road widening eastern right -of -way line, shall be included in the PUD Master Plan document. The easement shall be dedicated to Collier County within ninety (90) days of the County asking in writing for the dedication, or prior to the issuance of the first C.O., whichever comes first. A twenty (20) foot wide lake maintenance easement shall be provided around each of the lakes without obstruction from littoral plantings. Additionally, a twenty (20) foot wide access easement shall connect each lake maintenance easement to the nearest roadway through the project unless the lake maintenance easement is contiguous to a roadway. Environmental• No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 .. � ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ROBERT C. VLEY, P.E., C.F.M. PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STEPHEN LENBERGER ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ��WOOMM���� MIKE BOSI, A.I.C.P. PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 102 Z9tloy O,,:�f DATE DATE ll1 k2Q0 Y DATE DATE Agenda Item No. 17B PAC Meeting ebruary 22, 2005 g Page 33 of 102 Page 9 of 9 REVIEWED BY: BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMEN AL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT kkzai`� /s -a6.6' IAM D. LORE , Jr., ., DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT SAN MURRAY, AICP, DtRECTOR, DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: i2 7 J H K. SC IT'T, ADMINISTRATOR, DATE O MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION V ORDINANCE NO. 05 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 0441 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR TEE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "E" ESTATES AND "E" ESTATES ZONING WITH APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL, FOR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATED AT 7100 DAVIS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 39.4+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Margaret Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., and Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, representing Seacrest School, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "E" Estates and "E" Estates zoning with approved conditional use to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. . The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ^ .2005. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney PUDZ• 2004-Alt-561 I/MB BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY. CHAIRMAN I Agenda ljem No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 102 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 102 EXHIBIT A SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL I_1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: Seacrest School, Inc. 7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, FL 34104 PREPARED BY: WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 and Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 DATE FILED: 3/18104 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: 2/3/05 DATE APPROVED BY BCC: ORDINANCE NUMBER: 1/112005133227 Ver: 091- MPERRY GK1 MM'If1M.mlt OG IR �a�a> Agenda Item No. 176 February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 102 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE iii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1 -1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2 -1 SECTION III SCHOOL/CAMPUS DISTRICT 3 -1 SECTION IV OPEN SPACE /RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DISTRICT 4 -1 SECTION V PRESERVE DISTRICT 5 -1 SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMMITMENTS 6 -1 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A ill V2005. 133227 Vw 091- MPERRY 04043 — .1,rvwrrci ed — I.— SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL PUD MASTER PLAN Agenda Item No. 17S February 22, 2005 Page 37 of 102 iii STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of Seacrest School, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 39.4± acres of land located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Seacrest Upper and Lower School, hereafter "Seacrest," and will include classrooms, school administration areas, and related educational facilities including sports fields and recreation areas. The development of Seacrest will be consistent with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The development will be consistent with the adopted Land Development Code (LDC) and other applicable regulations, unless otherwise provided, for the following reasons: 1. Seacrest is located within the urban residential subdistrict. Within the urban area, certain non - residential uses are permissible. Community facilities, including schools, are one of these non - residential uses. Therefore, the location of a school on this property is in compliance with the GMP. 2. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 3. Per policy 6. 1.1 of the CCME, within the project, a minimum of 15% of the native vegetation present shall be preserved. Areas that fulfill the required native vegetation standards shall be set aside as preserve areas, shall be identified as separate preserve tracts, and be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. These on -site preserve areas shall be part of and counted toward the open space requirements. 4. This project shall be subject to applicable sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval, except as otherwise provided herein. 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ". 1/11/1005- 133227 Ver.09!- MPERRY CAW Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 102 1 -1 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of the Seacrest PUD, and to describe the location and existing zoning of the property proposed to be developed. The Seacrest PUD is located within Collier County. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being a part of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida more particularly described as follows: The North Half (N Y2) of the North Half (N Y2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE' /) of the Northwest Quarter (Northwest'/). Less and except the West fifty feet thereof for road right - of -way; Also including: The South Half (S %Z) of the South Half (S 1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 7 /+) of the -- Northwest Quarter (Northwest'/ ). Less and except the West fifty feet thereof for road right - of -way; Also including: The West Half (W %) of the West Half (W %) of the Northwest Quarter (NW %) of the Northeast Quarter (Northeast %). Less and except the North seventy-five feet thereof for road right -of -way; Also including: The East Half (E %) of the West Half (W %) of the Northwest Quarter (NW %) of the Northeast Quarter (Northeast'/ ). Less and except the North seventy -five feet thereof for road right -of -way; Containing 39.44 acres of land, more or less. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The project owner and developer is Seacrest School, Inc., a Florida Corporation not for profit, whose address is 7100 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104. 1.4 GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISTING ZONING OF PROPERTY A. The total site area is 39.41 acres and is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard, and on the east side of County Barn Road. This property is located within Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 1/11/2005.133227 Vw 091 - MPERRY CAM 04017-M-000- PPUD. 28157 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 39 of 102 1 -2 B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD Document was "E- Estates." A portion of the property obtained prior conditional use approval from the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for the existing school facility. 7117/2005.133227 V- 091- MPERRY C "3 04017 -002 - 000 - PPU6 28107 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 40 of 102 2 -1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for Seacrest, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES Seacrest has an area of 39.4± acres and shall consist of school and related uses, recreational /sports facilities, and preserve and open space areas. The Seacrest PUD Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit "A ". A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the PUD Master Plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of site development plan approval, in accordance with Chapter 10, Section 10.02.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of the Seacrest PUD shall be in accordance with the GMP, the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC which are in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as but not limited to final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise applicable shall apply. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. All conditions imposed herein are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. D. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Chapter 10, Article 2) shall apply to the Seacrest PUD, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.03.A.3. E. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of LDC Chapter 6, Adequate Public Facilities, at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval or building permit issuance applicable to this development. 2.4 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC AND CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES A. Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.D., Standards for Retention and Detention Areas in Buffer Yards: A deviation is requested to allow for pedestrian pathways, water management systems, drainage structures, fences, walls and signs to be 111 V200$- 133227 V., 091- MPERRY CMM3 04017- 002.000- PPUD- 28187 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 41 of 102 2 -2 located within landscape buffer /easements per the LDC subject to review and approval by the County staff at time of SDP review. The developer proposes to locate within the buffer areas only those drainage structures needed to intercept offsite flows at the perimeter and route them around the property, or for the outfall from the onsite water management system. Where water management systems share the buffer area, the developer agrees to maintain the minimum percentage of buffer area utilized for landscape as set forth in Section 4.06.02.D.2. The developer's request for this deviation is based on the site constraints presented by the amount of wetlands, and combining functions to minimize the development footprint in order to maintain the greatest amount possible of preservation areas. B. Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.E., Fences and Walls: A landscaped berm along with a six -foot high wood fence were previously installed between the Seacrest School and the Falling Waters PUD properties and are currently on site. The existing conditions provide adequate and appropriate buffering between the two properties. C. Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02, Sidewalks and Bike Lane Requirements: A pedestrian pathway network shall be established throughout the project and will serve to link the upper and lower school facilities and sports /recreation fields. This pedestrian pathway will be six feet wide, and any required breaks in the pathway for vehicular crossing or access shall be identified through the use of pavers, signage, or other traffic calming techniques deemed appropriate to reduce the speed of vehicles and provide safe pedestrian movements throughout the site. The pathway will feature canopy trees or palms with ground level landscape plantings. Bike lanes will not be provided within the project. The developer shall construct one eight -foot wide pedestrian pathway from the County Barn Road east right -of -way line to the western edge of the "SchooUCampus" District designated "S" on the PUD Master Plan. The developer shall construct a six -foot wide pedestrian pathway on both sides of the internal driveway along the frontage of the "SchooUCampus" District within the Upper School Campus and designated as "S" on the PUD Master Plan. The developer shall construct one six -foot wide pedestrian pathway from the Davis Boulevard south right -of -way line to the main entrance of the existing administrative building on the Lower School Campus near the northern end of the "SchooUCampus" District designated as "S" as shown the PUD Master Plan. The width of the pathway from Davis Boulevard to the administrative building may be reduced from six feet to the minimum width required by the Americans with Disabilities Act if site constraints such as existing trees, light poles or setbacks to preserves preclude the installation of a six foot wide pathway. To the extent that sidewalks are required along the Project frontage with Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road at the time of Site Development Plan application, a payment in lieu of constructing said sidewalks will be made by the developer in the amount of $23,940 for the Davis Boulevard frontage, and $24,300 for the County Barn Road frontage. 117 112005- 13322 7 Vx OB I- MPERRY c.�aa 04017.002- 000 -PPU6 28187 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 42 of 102 2 -3 D. Deviation from /clarification of LDC Section 6.06.01, Street System Requirements: The internal vehicular area is a driveway; therefore, the requirements of this LDC Section do not apply. E. Deviation from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Setbacks to Right -of -Way Line or Easement Line: An exception is requested to allow the control elevation contour of a lake excavation within fifty feet (50'), but no less than twenty feet (20'), of the existing or future County Barn Road right -of -way line, access easement line or drainage easement line. The developer may locate a stormwater management facility near the County Barn Road right -of -way line and adjacent to the County's planned drainage ditch on the east side of County Barn Road. The ditch will create a forty -foot (40') separation between the County Barn Road travel lanes and the Developer's property. Hence, adequate separation will be provided without the need for additional barriers or design analysis. F. Deviation from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Setbacks to Side, Rear, or Abutting Property Lines: An exception is requested to allow the control elevation contour of a lake excavation to be set back no less than twenty feet (20') from a side, rear, or abutting property line. The Developer will install a protective measure such as fencing (minimum four -foot chain link), berms, walls, or other engineered protective measure for the portion of the property line within one hundred feet (100') of the lake. °- 2.5 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION A. As depicted on the Seacrest PUD Master Plan, lakes and water management areas have been preliminarily sited, with the ultimate location and configuration to be determined during the site development review stages of project development. B. Lake banks and edge of water may be sculpted for aesthetic purposes and to complement the overall project theme and may use combinations of vertical bulkheads (rock, concrete, wood), vegetation, beach and earthen berms, consistent with the intent of Section 4.06.02.D.5 of the LDC. Pathways, including boardwalks, may be constructed along the lake edges for pedestrian circulation internal to the development. Deviation is requested from Section 4.06.02.D.5.C., items i - iii. In an effort to maintain the security of the school facility, public access to this amenity will not be provided. The developer intends to use this amenity for the enjoyment of the students, faculty and guests, and will provide picnic tables, benches, walkways, and other outdoor facilities for this purpose. A permanent fountain structure may also be provided. C. Wet detention ponds shall have a littoral shelf with an area equal to 7% of the pond's surface area measured at the control elevation and be planted with native aquatic vegetation, pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.10. D. Final lake area determinations shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria and Section 22 -106, Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County. As permitted in Section 22 -106, exception to the side setback will be requested, and the developer will meet the requirements as outlined therein. V1 IF2006- 133227 Vx 001- MPERRY Goo 04017- 002 -000. PPV0. 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 43 of 102 2 -4 E. Blasting can be utilized in the excavation process provided such excavations meet the setback requirements and other provision of this PUD Document for lakes. Unless otherwise addressed herein, blasting shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the LDC. 2.6 CONSTRUCTION OFFICES Construction offices, staging areas, and other similar uses and structures shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Seacrest PUD. These uses may be either wet or dry facilities, and may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 64E-6, and may use potable water, existing lakes or irrigation wells for irrigation. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 5.04.03 of the LDC. The construction offices temporary use permits shall be valid through the buildout of the project with no extension of the temporary use required. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance including the Seacrest PUD Master Plan as provided in Section 10.02.13 of the LDC. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Seacrest PUD Master Plan upon written request of the developer. A. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County GMP and the Seacrest PUD Document. 2. The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Section 10.02.13.E of the LDC. B. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1. Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. 2. Internal realignment of driveway, other than a relocation of access points to the PUD itself, where water management facilities, preserve areas, or required easements are not adversely affected or otherwise provided for. 3. Reconfiguration of parcels when there is no encroachment into the preserve area. C. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by .appropriate Collier County Staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County ordinances and regulations prior to the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator's consideration for approval. D. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Site Development Plan approval, however such approval 1111r2006-133227 V— 091- MPERRV c.3 04017- 002 -DM PPUD 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 44 of 102 2 -5 shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.8 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Seacrest PUD. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1. Grassed berms 4:1 2. Ground covered berms 3:1 3. Rip -rap berms 2:1, except not permitted in Type D right -of -way buffers B. The maximum height of all fences or walls is eight feet, as measured from the finished grade of the ground at the base of the fence or wall. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered to be no greater than 18 inches above the highest crown elevation of the nearest existing road. C. Upon submission of a landscape plan, the County Landscape Architect may approve landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls to be constructed along the perimeter of the Seacrest PUD prior to site development plan submittal. D. Fence or wall setbacks: Fences, walls and similar structures shall have a minimum of a five -foot setback from development boundaries where adjacent to a public right -of -way and a zero - foot setback from all other land uses. E. Pedestrian pathways, water management systems, drainage structures, fences, walls, signs and utilities are allowed in landscape buffersteasements per the LDC subject to review and approval by the County staff at time of SDP review. 2.9 CLEARING AND FILL STORAGE Fill storage is generally permitted as a temporary principal use throughout the Seacrest PUD until buildout of the project. Fill material may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the developer shall notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section 4.06.04 of the LDC. The following standards shall apply: 1. Stockpile maximum height: 45 feet 2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet in height shall be separated from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1. 2.10 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Seacrest PUD except in the Preserve District. General permitted uses are those uses which are typically part of the common infrastructure. 1111/2005- 133227 V- 001- MPERRV C 3 04017. 002.000 - PPUD- H107 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 45 of 102 2 -6 A. General Permitted Uses: Water management facilities and related structures including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 2. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. Architectural features and elements including walls, fences, arbors, gazebos and the like. 4. Temporary construction and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 5. Landscape/hardscape features including, but not limited to landscape buffers, berms, fences, water features and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.8 of this PUD. 6. Fill storage, site filling and grading are subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.9 of this PUD. 7. Temporary educational facilities. 8. Any other uses which are comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and are approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in this Document, the following development standards shall apply to General Permitted Uses: 1. Guardhouses, gatehouses, signage, landscape features, and access control structures shall be setback a minimum of ten feet (10'). 2. Other general permitted uses (except fences) shall be set back a minimum of five feet from property lines. Temporary educational facilities shall be set back a minimum of thirty feet (30') from all property lines. 3. Minimum distance between structures, which are part of an architecturally unified grouping — five feet 4. Minimum distance between unrelated structures — ten feet 5. Maximum height of General Permitted Uses buildings — 35 feet (Note: For the purposes of this PUD, height is defined as the vertical distance from the first finished floor to the highest point of the roof surface of a flat or Bermuda roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. This height limitation does not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas, flagpoles, antennas, ventilators, chimneys, or other appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human occupancy.) 6. Minimum floor area - None required. 1!112005. 133227 V.: 091- MPERRY 04017-002-000- PPUD- 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 46 of 102 2 -7 7. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Seacrest PUD are to be in accordance with the LDC provision in effect at the time of permit application. 2.11 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A combination of the lakes, preserve, and open space/ recreational facilities shall fully meet the 30 percent open space requirement for development of the project. 2.12 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Per Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME and Section 3.05.07 of the LDC, a minimum of 15% of the native vegetation present shall be preserved within the project. The total native vegetation existing on the site Is approximately 38.4 acres and a minimum of 5.8 acres of native vegetation will be preserved within the existing and proposed preserve areas as indicated on the PUD master plan. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards shall be set aside as. preserved areas and shall be protected by a permanent .conservation easement. A management plan shall be submitted to identify 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, and maintenance of permitted facilities. 2.13 EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the preserve area, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Department review staff prior to construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic removal within the preserve area shall be submitted with the above - mentioned plan. The maintenance plan shall be implemented on a yearly basis at a minimum to effectively control exotics, and shall describe specific techniques to prevent re- invasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. 2.14 SITE LIGHTING Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighborhood residential properties from direct glare or other interference. 2.15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Pursuant to Section 2.03.07.E of the LDC, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 2.16 TIME LIMITS AND MONITORING REPORT PROVISIONS A. The Seacrest PUD shall be subject to the time limits of Section 10.02.13.D of the LDC. 1!1112006133227 Vw. 091- MPERRY GW 04017.002400- PPUD0. 20107 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 47 of 102 2 -8 B. An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13.F of the LDC. 2.17 APPLICABILITY OF LDC CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.05.08 The purpose and intent of LDC Chapter 5, Section 5.05.08 is to provide standards and guidelines that apply to the design of commercial buildings and projects. Since Seacrest is not a commercial building or project, Section 5.05.08.13.5 of the LDC is applicable. At the time of SDP review for new construction or for redevelopment of the existing school facility, the developer may submit an "Alternative Architectural Design Standards Plan," which will reference the requested deviations on the plan and a descriptive narrative which specifically identifies the code development standards which will be addressed through the alternative approach. If submitted, the "Alternative Architectural Design Standards Plan" will be administratively reviewed by the Planning Services Director for consistency with the intent of LDC Section 5.05.08. 1!172005133227 Va. 001- 1APERRY CW3 01017 - 002-000- PPU6 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 48 of 102 3 -1 SECTION III SCHOOUCAMPUS DISTRICT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Seacrest PUD designated on the Seacrest PUD Master Plan as "S." 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "S"— School /Campus on the PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate the school/campus and related uses. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES - "S" DISTRICT No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Elementary and secondary schools (Group 8211) 2. Libraries (Group 8231) 3. Administrative offices 4. Gymnasiums 5. Auditoriums B. Accessory Uses: 1. Recreational facilities associated with a school, including but not limited to, stadiums, athletic fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, track and field venues, basketball courts, volleyball courts, and tennis courts 2. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 3. Eating places (Group 5812, restricted to cafeterias, no drive - through service) 4. Customary accessory uses or structures incidental to school and campus related uses, including structures relating to the electrical and mechanical operation of the school facility. 5. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Setback for principal and accessory uses from public road rights -of -way and -. project boundaries — Thirty feet (30'). 7/71!2006.133227 Vac001- MPERRV C. 0101 7- 0 02.OW PPUD- 2a1a7 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 49 of 102 3 -2 Setback for athletic fields other than baseball fields from public road rights - of -way and project boundaries — Thirty feet (30'), including sports field light poles, score boards, grandstand(s), and bleacher(s). Setback for baseball field(s) from public road rights -of -way and project boundaries — Fifteen feet (15') for the outfield portion only, and thirty feet (30') for other portions of the baseball field including sports field light poles, score board(s), grandstand(s), and bleacher(s). Setback for all athletic field(s) concession building(s) from public rights -of- way and project boundaries — Fifty feet (50'). 2. Distance between free- standing principal uses: Thirty feet (30') 3. Distance between principal and accessory structures — Zero feet (0') 4. Distance between accessory structures — Zero feet (0'). 5. Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment (retaining wall which is architecturally consistent with other structures on the property) is incorporated into the design and subject to approval from Collier County Planning Services Department. 6. Setback from the boundary of any preserve shall be twenty-five feet (25') for principal structures and ten feet (10') for accessory structures. Setback to site alterations shall either be a) ten feet (10') from the boundary of any preserve, or b) zero feet (0') to ten feet (10') if a ground covered berm with a 3:1 side slope at least one foot high above existing grade is placed between the toe of slope of the site alteration and the boundary of any preserve. Setback from existing preserves and alterations adjacent to existing preserves, as identified on the PUD master plan, shall be as shown on the previously approved Site Development Plan for the site. B. Maximum height of structures: 56 feet C. Minimum floor area for principal structures: 1,000 square feet D. Minimum Parking Required: 1. One space per each faculty member 2. One space per each administrative staff 3. One space per five (5) upper school students 4. Twenty-five (25) spaces per each recreational/sports field The above minimum parking requirements shall meet the required parking for all uses proposed on the PUD master plan and within this PUD document. No parking for individual uses not specifically noted above will be required for the project. ill 112006 133227 Vv 09!•MPERRY eY10 00017-002 -000 - PP116 28107 SECTION IV OPEN SPACE/RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DISTRICT 4.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 50 of 102 4-.1 The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Seacrest PUD designated on the Seacrest PUD Master Plan as "OS /R." 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "OS /R" — Open Space/Recreational Facilities on the PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate school related recreational facilities and open space uses. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES - "OS /R" DISTRICT No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Recreational uses including, but not limited to, tennis courts, racquetball courts, shuffleboard courts, basketball courts, playgrounds, track and field venues, and athletic fields. 2. Open space and usable open space as defined in the LDC, Chapter 1, Section 1.08.02. B. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses or structures incidental to school recreational facility related uses and open space. 2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: Setback for principal and accessory uses from public road rights -of -way and project boundaries — Thirty feet (30'). Setback for athletic fields other than baseball fields from public road rights - of -way and project boundaries — Thirty feet (30'), including sports field light poles, score boards, grandstand(s), and bleacher(s). Setback for baseball field(s) from public road rights -of -way and project boundaries — Fifteen feet (15') for the outfield portion only; and thirty feet (30') for other portions of the baseball field including sports field light poles, score board(s), grandstand(s), and bleacher(s). 111 112 00 5- 133227 Vr, 001- MPERRY GM1.1 04017- 002- 000 - PPVa 20107 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 102 4 -2 Setback for all athletic field(s) concession building(s) from public rights -of- way and project boundaries — Fifty feet (50'). 2. Distance between free - standing principal uses: Zero feet (0'). 3. Distance between principal and accessory structures: Zero feet (0') 4. Distance between accessory structures — Zero feet (0'). 5. Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment (retaining wall which is architecturally consistent with other structures on the property) is incorporated into the design and subject to approval from Collier County Planning Services Department. 6. Setback from the boundary of any preserve shall be twenty -five feet (25') for principal structures and ten feet (10') for accessory structures. Setback to site alterations shall either be a) ten feet (10') from the boundary of any preserve, or b) zero feet (0') to ten feet (10') if a ground covered berm with a 3:1 side slope at least one foot high above existing grade is placed between the toe of slope of the site alteration and the boundary of any preserve. Setback from existing preserves and alterations adjacent to existing preserves, as identified on the PUD master plan, shall be as shown on the previously approved Site Development Plan for the site. B. Maximum height of structures: 30 feet C. Minimum floor area for principal structures: none required D. Minimum required parking: Per Section 3.4.D of this PUD document. 7!4 V2005. 133227 Vx 001- MPERRY CAM 04017A02.0M PPUDQ 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 52 of 102 5 -1 SECTION V PRESERVE DISTRICT 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for the area within the Seacrest PUD designated on the Seacrest PUD Master Plan as "P ". 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "P"— Preserve District on the Seacrest PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate customary uses in preserve areas. 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and'Structures 1. Conservation and Preserve. 2. Passive recreational areas, pervious nature trails, boardwalks and recreational shelters, and other similar uses. 3. Water management structures. 4. Mitigation areas and mitigation maintenance activities. 5. Any other preservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the Land Development Code at the time of the request for such use. 11111200& 133227 Vwr: 091 - MPERRY awa 04017.002.000• PPU0. 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 53 of 102 6 -1 SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to outline the general development commitments for Seacrest. 6.2 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights -of -way, or within dedicated utility easements, shall be conveyed to Collier County Utilities pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 2001 -57, as amended. B. Temporary construction trailers may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 64E-6, and may use potable or irrigation wells. C. Within the project, landscaping (including palm trees, shrubs and ground cover), pedestrian pathways will be allowed within a utility easement, including placement within three feet of a utility line. Canopy trees may be located seven feet from the utility line. Said seven feet being measured from the trunk of the tree to the center of the utility line. Reconstruction of pedestrian pathways, or modification/ reinstallation of plant materials due to the necessary maintenance of utility lines will be the responsibility of the developer, its successors, or assigns. 6.3 TRANSPORTATION A. All traffic control devices and design criterion used shall be in accordance with the minimum standards as adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as amended, as required by Florida Statutes - Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at project entrance(s). Said lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent Certificate of Occupancy (CO) pertaining to that phase of construction. C. External and internal improvements determined by Collier County Transportation staff to be essential to the safe ingress and egress to the development will not be considered eligible for impact fee credits. All such improvements shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) pertaining to that phase of construction. D. Road Impact Fees will be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 2001- 13, as amended, and the Land Development Code (LDC), as amended, unless otherwise approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). 1/112006.133227 Ve, 691- MPERRY CAV 04917. 02.060 PPUa 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 54 of 102 6 -2 E. Any and all points of ingress and/or egress as shown on any and all plan submittal(s), are conceptual in nature and subject to change as determined by Collier County Transportation staff. Collier County Transportation staff reserves the right to modify, or close any ingress and /or egress location(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These Include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues, roadway capacity problems, etc. F. Any and all median opening locations will be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy, as amended, and Land Development Code (LDC), as amended. Median access and control will remain under Collier County Transportation staff's authority. Collier County Transportation staff reserves the right to modify or close any median opening(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues, roadway capacity problems, etc. G. Nothing in any development order will vest the right of access over and above a right intright out condition. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, egress and /or median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). H. The development shall be designed to promote the safe travel of all users including pedestrians. All sidewalk design criteria used shall be in accordance with the minimum standards as adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) - Design Standards, as amended, as required by Florida Statutes - Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. Collier County Transportation staff reserves the right to impose stricter requirements if determined as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. The developers) shall provide any and all site related transportation improvement(s) including, but not limited to, any and all necessary turn lane(s) improvements) at the development entrance(s) prior to the issuance of the first permanent Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Said improvements are considered site related, and therefore, do not qualify for impact fee credits. When turn lane Improvement(s) described below are determined to be necessary, If additional right - of -way and /or compensating right -of -way is required, it shall be provided in conjunction with said improvements), as determined by Collier County Transportation staff. The subject development turn lane improvements shall be as follows: Southbound left turn lane and northbound right turn lane at the project entrance on County Barn Road. All turn lane design criteria used shall be in accordance with the minimum standards as adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) - Design Standards, as amended, as required by Florida Statutes - Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. The turn lane queue length determinations shall be in V112006. 133727 Vor: 09 1. MPERRY C 04017.002.0M PPUO- 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 55 of 102 6 -3 accordance with the criteria /calculations within the Highway Capacity Manual - Chapter 17. J. All work within Collier County right -of -way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 93-64, as amended. K. All internal accesses, drive aisles, sidewalks, etc., not located within County right -of- way, will be privately maintained by the developer, its successors in title, or assignees. L. If a gate is proposed at any and/or all development entrance(s) they shall be .designed so as not to cause vehicles to be backed up onto any and all adjacent roadways. • The minimum throat depth from the nearest intersecting roadway edge of pavement shall be no less than 50 feet to the proposed gate(s). • A hammerhead turn around area of sufficient design (or other appropriate design) shall be provided in advance of the proposed gate(s). M. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right -of -way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be bome by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL A. The development of this project shall be consistent with the environmental section of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval. B. This PUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species on site. A habitat management plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Environmental Services Department Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan /construction plan approval. C. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of the Growth Management Plan shall be set aside as preserve areas. All preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts and be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. D. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants in perpetuity shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Ill 112005. 133227 Vx 091- MPERRY cma 01017-002.006 PPUo- 28187 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 56 of 102 6 -4 E. A preserve area management plan shall be provided to environmental staff for approval prior to site /construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. F. All approved agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted poor to final site plan /construction plan approval. G. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the preserve areas, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Department Staff for review and approval poor to final site plan /construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic removal within all preservation areas shall be submitted with the above - mentioned plan. H. The developer acknowledges the conflicting use of the land for both littoral zone plantings and lake maintenance access and the developer accepts full responsibility for any damage that may occur to the littoral zone plantings as a result of lake maintenance access activities within the 20 -foot wide lake maintenance easement. 6.5 DRAINAGE A. The property owner shall reserve the area depicted on the PUD Master Plan as a future drainage easement ("Reservation Area ") for a period of three (3) years following the adoption of the PUD. The actual area to be acquired by the County shall be based on an engineering analysis, to be prepared by Collier County, that justifies the need for the requested width. The property owner shall also dedicate to Collier County a ten foot (10') wide access easement, adjacent to but outside of the limits of the Reservation Area eastern easement line, for the sole purpose of maintaining the drainage easement. The property owner is allowed to encroach into the access easement up to half of the width of any required landscape buffer, provided that any plantings are installed outside of the access easement. The Reservation Area and access easement shall be conveyed to the County within ninety (90) days of the County's written request. The County shall pay the property owner the fair market value of the Reservation Area and access easement as of the date of the County's written request. The County shall submit to the property owner an appraisal setting forth the amount the County believes to be the fair market value of the Reservation Area and access easement at the time of the request for conveyance of the Reservation Area and access easement. The developer shall have forty -five (45) days to accept the County's appraisal or obtain its own appraisal. If the Developer's appraisal exceeds the County's appraisal, the County shall pay the average of the two appraisals. The reservation for the drainage easement and access easement shall expire three (3) years after the date the PUD is adopted. B. The developer shall dedicate at the time of final SDP approval a non - exclusive lake maintenance and access easement to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance for each wet detention lake to be constructed. 1!11!!006179227 Ver. 001• MFERRY 0� 04017.002. 000 - PPUDQ 28167 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 57 of 102 ------------ -------------- - ----- ---------------------- ---- ---------- - ---- -- ---- —. - ----------------- -------------------------- - ---------------------------------- - - DAVM K)ULEYAW - --------------- ------ ----------------------------- ------------ -------- --- ----- ...... HONING -q ZOMM UL EZONWG ZVMM z SUCREST Q° Hill LOWER SOlOOL 1L t. CS0 Q-2 cn M < —:3—M�MS -.2 C-L fit - - - - - - - - - - E ZORM 93 W1 - a M--' 6' LAND USE SUM"RY I. And EZOMNG Mw W L". f W M."~ U 000 CKM v ao MA - Op— ft.-AR—pskow Fedli.0 ILI IF 80,.Vcw. of TOM —30A Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 58 of 102 . *�O it, 4f a APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ZPUD REZONE (PUDZ) ❑PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ -A) Petition No.: Planner Assigned: Date Received: Commission District: g. BY 1. General information: Name of Applicant(s) Seacrest School, Inc. Applicant's Mailing Address 7100 Davis Boulevard City Naples State FL Zip 34104 Applicant's Telephone # 793 -1986 Fax # 793 -1460 i Applicant's E -Mail Address: Name of Agent Dennis Cronin Firm Porter Wright Morris and Arthur Agent's Mailing Address 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard Y ' City Naples State FL P Agent's Telephone # 593 -290Q Fax # 593 -2990 Agent's E -Mail Address: ocronin0porterwright.com COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRWF NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403- 2400/FAX (941) 643 -6968 *Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accgrdingly and ensure that you are In compliance with these regulations. '""x004 - 154!74 Wn 011 - MPNMY 001400• PPW 3!155 r Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 59 of 102 2 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Master Association: NIA Mailing Address Name of Civic Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip City State Zip 2. Disclosure of Interest Information: a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Seacrest School, Inc., is a Florida Corporation, not for profit. Their Board of Directors for 2003 -2004 is listed below: 2003 -2004 Board of Directors of Seacrest Country Day School: Jan Goldsmith, Chair Charles K: Szabo, Chair Emeritus Lynne Powell, Head of School David Amico, Treasurer Richard T. Bendel Matthew P. Cannarsa Joann Cassio Trish Erickson Barry Hastings Honorary Members: Miriam Clark, Teddy P. Elett, Jane Kem, Vera Lindabury 0004.15�6T4 {/K 011• I�E�tRY b M7-002.000. pP110. 2e1C! Carol Lund Jack McVicker Ursula M. Pfahl Jean Ryan, First Vice Chair Delores Sorey Ingar Theodore Tobye, Secretary Jane Billings Bryant Yunker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 176 February 22, 2005 Page 60 of 102 3 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the. percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest d. If the property is In the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership S. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, Including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, If a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired (x) leased (): Term of lease __yrs. /mos. The subject property was purchased in four phases: January 17, 1992; November 21, 2002, January 29, 2003, and December 19, 2003. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated dosing date h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 72004- 184674 Wr. 011. W"RY V M7�.000• ►PVD -201!! Agenda Item No.'17B February 22, 2005 Page 61 of 102 3. Detailed legal description of the Property covered by the application: (if . space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. CIE 5 1 Section: 8 Township: 50 South Range: 26 East Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page # Property I. D.#: Metes & Bounds Description: A detailed legal description of the property is provided in Section 1.2 of the PUD document Size of Property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 39.4 Addnme/general location of subiect Propert 7100 Davis Boulevard: Naples, FL 34104 PUD Dlstrict (LDC 2.2.20.4): 7. Adiacent zoning and land use: Zoning ❑ Residential ® Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Land use N_ `E ". and PUD Berean Baptist Church: vacant property Bretonne Park and Berkshire Lakes (countryside) are located to the north _ across Davis Boulevard S "E" Sinale family residences: Unity Church E "E" and PUD Single family residences and Falling Waters PUD 'W "E" and "RMF -6(4)" Vacant property, and across County Barn Road Florida Apartment Club (multi - family rental apartments) 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). N/A Section: Township: Range: Lot: - Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: roll- lum VW.. ov.1 mmy 174=4 o.MUN=J$8 Adenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 62 of 102 5 Metes & Bounds Description: 8. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the E- Estates and E- Estates with approved conditional use zoning district(s) to the PUD coning district(s). Present Use of the Property: A portion of the project is currently being used as a private school (Seacrest Country Day School). The remainder of the property is currently vacant. Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Expansion of the existinc school facility to include an upper school and related educational and recrelitional facilities. Original PUD Name: N/A Ordinance No.: 9. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 and Sec. 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staffs analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 2.7.3.2.5) 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattem of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. . The subject property Is located within the urban residential subdistrict designation of the Growth Management Plan. Within the urban area of Collier County, certain non - residential uses are permissible. Community facilities, Including schools, are one of these non - residential uses. Therefore, the location of the existing school, and expansion of the facilities to include an upper school and other educational and recreational facilities is consistent with the Growth Management Alan, Access to Seacrest Upper and Lower School will be from Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. The existing access on Davis Boulevard provides an eastbound right turn lane and a westbound left turrn lane. A southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane will be provided at the project entrance on County Barn Road. The surface water management system for the proposed project will result In no degradation to wetlands and other sensitive areas, and will be permitted In accordance with South Florida Water Management District and Collier County regulations. =04.1UP4 Ver. 011. LVEMY w M7 -002.000• PPUD- nin Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 63 of 102 6 The subject property Is located within Collier County's water and sewer district, and Is `eligible for central sanitary sewer service and central potable. water service from Collier County. 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 attomey. The applicant has documented unified control of the subject property as evidenced In the warranty deeds, two copies submitted as required. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. The proposed development will be In accordance with the adopted growth policies of the Future Land Use Element, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, and in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and other applicable regulations, unless otherwise specifically described in the PUD document 4. The intemal and extemal compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Seacrest Country Day School was opened in the fall of 1982. The school has proven to be complimentary to and compatible with the surrounding properties and uses. Expansion of the facility to Include an upper school and related educational and recreational facilities will also be in keeping with the area. The existing and proposed educational facility will be adequately buffered from adjacent uses as described in the PUD document and as noted on the PUD master plan. Interconnection to Unity Church will continue and will be enhanced by the Interconnection to County Barn Road; however, interconnection to other adjacent properties will not be contemplated In order to maintain the safety and security of the school. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Per the requirements of Section 2.6.32.3 of the LDC, a combination of the lakes,. conservation/water management, and open spacehecreational facilities shall fully meet the thirty percent open space requirement. 6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is the intent of the developer to expand the existing school facility for opening in the fall of 2005. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. :*1IS�a„ v cmi -ream 0 n'r- eoa000'.PPU0. wea Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 64 of 102 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Over the past two years, Seacrest School, Inc., has acquired properties adjacent to the existing school site. They now own approximately 39.4 acres of contiguous property, which will adequately accommodate the expansion to the existing school. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justifiled as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Regulations for development of Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD will be In accordance with the contents of the PUD document, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with the PUD document, applicable sections of the LDC which are In effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements. Where the PUD document does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC shall apply. 10. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to.contad 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'. 11. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No public hearing on the subject woperty has been held within the last year. 12. Additional Submittal requirements: In addition to this completed application, the following shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the pre - application meeting. a . A copy of the pre - application meeting notes; , b . If this rezone is being requested for a specific, use, provide twenty (20) copies (this includes: HUI if affordable housing, Joyce Ernst, If residential and ImmokaleelWater Sewer District, if in lmmokalee) of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan [and one reduced 8'/2" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, depicting the following [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), or CCPC]; • all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, • provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), • all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating . required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], 2004 131874 Vsr, 011 - MPERRY b h7 -002.000- PPLO 28188 . Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 65 of 102 • required yards, open space and preserve areas, • proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the site), • proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the County, c. An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. d. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate. e. Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved (per LDC Section 3.9.5.8.4.). f. Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches); g. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre - application meeting; h. A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre - application meeting); 1. Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and identified during the pre - application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federal permits. j. An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of this submittal package. k. Boundary Survey, no more than six months old - LDC Section 2.7.3.1.2.(8) Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2 (3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final action Is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign (s) Immediately. i004. 134474 VK 011- MPOW O 17-0024)00- M10- 20100 Agenda Item No. 17B PUID REZONE APPLICATION - SUBMIT' "CHECKLIST February 22, 2005 TK[S COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBNWIM WITH APPLICATION P wfi 102 RE Q UIREMENTS - #_ OF NOT COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED 1. Completed Application/PUD documents 24* 24 2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(s) and all 2* 2 Partners if a Corporation 3. Completed Owner /Agent Affidavit, Notarized 2* 24 4. Pre - application notes /minutes 24* 24 - 5. Conceptual Site Plans 24* 24 6. Environmental Impact Statement - (EIS) 4 4 7. Aerial Photograph - (with habitat areas identified) 5* Provided in EIS 8. Completed Utility Provisions Statement (with required 4 24 attachments and sketches 9. Traffic Impact Statement - (TIS) 7 24 10. Historical & Archaeological Surveyor Waiver Application 4 N/A 11. Copies of State and/or Federal Permits 4 NIA -12. Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s) 4 To be provided prior to public hearings 13. Application Fee — "PUD Rezone" = $10,000 + $25 per $50 Pfd acre at time of pro- ❑Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review = $2,250 check in the amount of ❑ Application Fee — "PUD to PUD Rezone" _ $8000 $15,38619 included in this Fire Code Review = $150 submittal EIS Review = $1600 Check shall be made payable to: Collier County Board of Commissioners 14. An electronic version of the PUD on, a disk as part of the Electronic submittal packet. version of the PUD document will be e- mailed to IroJect planner 15. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement including all 4 N/A Appendices and Exhibits. 16. Boundary Survey (no more than 6 months old) 5 rj 17. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: N/A * Documents required for Long -Range Planning Review * 1 additional copy if for affordable housing As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include I necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. LA _�- Ag nt/Ap 'cast Signature Date 1004134574 YW.011- M4PBRRY' a 17- 002 -09)0- M43- 20156 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 67 of 102 10 AFFIDAVIT I, Helen BMW, ChiefFinancial OtXicer, Seacrest Country Da v School being first duly sworn, depose and say that Seacrest School, Inc. is the owner 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 apart of this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I 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 1 further authorize Dennis Cronin. ofPorter, Wright. Moms and Arthur to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. E R AM' MI . , . iii is .5. ;w 5 t Typed or Printed Name of Owner The f re oing ins ent was acknowledged before me this ✓6 day of_ cam— 2004, by �� � who isxersoaa4 knrnvn to me or has produced as identification. State of Florida County of Collier • QOIi/{��pf1�'� con c, oo1612 ' .2 202: Vt+lolotfe�Nola11A■n . 2061 - 131674 V.-. 6 /41P6wiY e n7�on•o6a. Pv�o- mtae (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name, of Notary Public) Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 68 of 102 Country Day School RECEIVED September 20, 2004 SEP 2 1 2004 ZONING DEPARTMENT Mr. Michael Bosi, AICP Principal Planner Collier Co . unty Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34105 RE: Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Petition — Change of Agent Notice Dear Mr. Bosi: This is to notify you of a change in the agent for the subject petition. As property owner I further authorize Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Please direct any future communications to Mr. Yovanovich and kindly copy myself and Ms. Margaret Perry of WilsonMiller. Please do not hesitate in contacting me should you need additional information. Sin ely el n Chief Fin cc: Ri M Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 69 of 102 PRE.- APPLICATION MEETING NOTES inj PUD Rezone ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone Date: Time: 9 *-X Ar n. Firm:_ V, .n M 11 i 'Project Name: _ S�w�.,,�i! S,l,,, •,( py IJ .Applicant Name: Phone:_ L,,jg - ,4o9n Pwner Name: Se, 'Owner Address:_ -71 n �a,.:j� Phone: Meeting Attendees: Planner: M',xL klat s Submittal Requirements (refer to application for additional requirements) 24 Copies of the following: Completed Application ® Pre- application Meeting Notes Conceptual Site Plan 24X 36" and One 8' /s X l l" copy PUD document and Master Plan 2 Copies of the following: Deeds/Legals & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended) List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation Owner /Agent Affidavit signed & notarized Completed Addressing Checklist 4 Cpoies of the following: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) er-wai ," Historical Survey or waiver request Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches Architectural rendering of proposed structures Survey, signed & sealed . Seven (7) Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver Five (5) copies of Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1" = 400' One (1) Electronic version of PUD document in Word format ees: ,Lpplication Fee: $10,000 + $25 per acre (plus Property Owner Notification fees) $8,000 amendment �j $150.00 Fire Code Review ?] $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review $500.00 Pre - application fee (to be credited toward application fee if submitted within 9 months of pre - application meeting. $681.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). $205.00 Legal Advertising. Fee for BCC meeting $1600.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee *Property Owner Notifications $1.00 Non - certified; $3.00 Certfled return receipt mail ( to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review Fee Total $ I ' Meeting Notes Agenda Item No. 17B Meeting February 22, 2005 Page 70 of 102 I; /lee ��'i S�� °�t� s t r�G�' .�i= s��kf�ik�li W/74/-/ S not !2 C-11-1 ee l �U �c.alw.. c....�. O 1 . } I Zurrent\Pre -App forrn3kPUD pre- app.doe Revised October 15, 2003 . 2/17/2004 21:06 6595724 ADDRESSING PAGE 01 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 71 of 102 DDRESSIIVG CMCAL1rST ;ease complete the following and submit to the Addressing Section for Review. Not all items wil . avv v to 'cry- Aroiect. Items in bold Me are required. Legal description of subject property or properties Ccopy of lengthy de5oription may be attache See leal dmiption on the attached survey -- kjo,4 cry- S -3,0T -7 Z:. Z, ► �_ - 5 0 - ?�- Folio (.Property ID) number(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) .,0-04037200Q0,00403400003 0040304 007 X0405520004 00402480008 Street address or addresses (as applicable, if already assigned) _7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, FL 34104 -� Location map, showing exact location ofproject/site in relation to nearest public mad right -of. vay Location map is attached. Copy of survey (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTIES) Co2y of survey is attached Proposed project name (if applicable) Seacrest Q22er and Lower School Proposed Street names (if applicable) N/A Site Development Plan Number (FOR EXISTING PROJECTS /SITES ONLY) $DP - •Petitioa Type - (Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ PPL (Plans .& Plat Review) L SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ SDPI (SDP Tnsubstantial Change) ❑ FP (Final Plat) SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) L3 SiPA (SIP Amendment) 0 BL (Blasting Permit) (] SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ ROW (Right -of -Way Permit) Vegetation/Exotic (Veg. Removal Permits) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) Land Use Petition (Variance, Conditional Usc, ❑ VRSFP (Veg. Removal & Site Fill P srmit) Boat Dock Ext., Rezone, PUD rezone, etc:) Other - Describe: _ PUD Rezone rioject or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if applicable; indicate whether proposed or existing) N/A rtease Check One: Checklist is to be Faxed Back ❑ Personally Picked Up Applicant Name _1ylaraaret Pert' fWilson illerl Phone 649 -4040 Fax Z63-644f gnature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and /or Street Name approval and is s abject to umber review by the Addressing Section. 'STAFF USE Orq y ;y Number�� ess Number R E C E f 1 ED is Number s Number Approved by Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page-72 of 102 Traffic Impact Statement For Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Rezoning Application Q Conducted for: ` SECREST Countq Day Schad 7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, FL 34104 Conducted by: WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 239.649.4040 March 2004 L w,; Agenda Item NQ. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 73 of 102 Traffic Impact Statement For r7r Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Rezoning Application 0 Conducted for: Wilsonivimer, Inc. Seacrest Country Day School 7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, FL 34104 Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 Conducted by: Y Michael D. Spitz, PE r FL. PE License No. 60266 Wilsonivimer, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 239.649.4040 r March 2004 Agenda Item No. 17B Fe Seacrest Upper& Lower School PUD Application Pag ag� 22, 2005 '�@" 02 Traffic Impact Statement WllsonMiller, Inc. r 1. INTRODUCTION S SUMMARY A. PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES Seacrest School is planning to expand their facilities on Davis Boulevard from a Pre -K -8 school to a Pre -K -12 school. To accomplish this, the school hired WilsonMiller, Inc. to prepare the application for public hearing and support documentation to include the new facilities for the expansion as well as the existing facilities. This report details the Traffic Impact Statement conducted as part of the PUD Application as required by Collier County. B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seacrest School is planning to add an upper school (grades 9 -12) to their existing facilities that will �-] accommodate a capacity of 450 students by 2006. The site plan includes a new access point on I County Barn Road. Trip generation using ITE land use code 540 predicts that 220 AM peak hour trips will occur with 152 entering and 68 exiting. The primary intersections of County Barn Road at Davis Boulevard and Davis Boulevard at Santa Barbara Boulevard were analyzed along with the two driveways. Only the intersection of County Barn Road at Davis Boulevard shows a change in the level of service going from a projected LOS of C to D resulting from a three - second increase in vehicle delay from 34.5 seconds to 37.4 seconds at the intersection. No off -site road improvements J are required. Site related improvements include a left turn lane from southbound County Barn Road into the new driveway. This turn -lane would be part of the new median that is currently under Ji design by the County. U. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. SUBJECT SITE The existing school is on 9.84 acres located approximately 1800 feet east of County Barn Road on Davis Boulevard (SR -84). The school serves 450 students in grades from pre - kindergarten through eight. The school's driveway also provides access to Unity Church, which is located on a separate parcel behind the school. The site plan is still in development, but the facility is expected to be 1 serviced by an access road that runs through the site from -the existing entrance on Davis j Boulevard to a proposed second entrance on County Barn Road to be located approximately 1,500 + feet south of Davis Boulevard. The school has purchased an additional 29.6 acres adjacent to the J existing facility for a total of approximately 39.4 acres. 3/19120" IM0e1 Kt: Oil- JPERRY _J CA04 Z655&85&W& -0M J 1 C' «i 0 I F10 0 Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application Traffic Impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B February 22 2005 PagVMW0102 WllsonMiller, Inc. The existing site is zoned E- Estates with a Conditional Use (CU) approved for the school, while the parcels planned for the expansion are vacant and zoned E- Estates. The proposed zoning would be a PUD that would include both the existing and proposed facilities. Construction for the new school would occur in a single phase with an opening date set for Fall of 2005 and buildout capacity assumed for 2006. III. AREA CONDITIONS A. STUDY AREA LIMITS The study area includes those roadways expected to be impacted by the new development per the requirements set forth in Collier County's Procedures and Guidelines for Traffic Impact Statement as revised November 4, 2003. These guidelines require that roadway segments be designated as A, B, or C links depending upon their proximity to the proposed development. All roadways that are directly accessed by the project are considered A- links. The first non -A -link segment connected to an A -link is considered a B -link. Continuing segments are considered C- links. The percentage of total capacity of each segment added by project traffic must clear a threshold value to require further analysis. Table 1 shows the roadway segments, their link classification, and whether they require further analysis. Table 1 — Service Volume Comparison Roadway Segment Link Class Service Volume Svc. Vol Threshold New Traffic % of Svc Volume Analysis Re uired2 Davis Blvd Airport-Pulling Rd. to Lakewood Blvd. C 3,036 5% 52 1.7% No Lakewood Blvd. to County Bam Rd. B 3,036 3% 52 1.7% No Coun Barn Rd. to Santa Barbara Blvd. A 3,036 3% 85 2.8% Yes Santa Barbara Blvd. to Radio Rd. B 1,555 3% 14 0.9% No Radio Rd. to Collier Blvd. C 1,555 5% 14 0.90/0 No County Barn Rd. Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake- Hammock Rd. A 1,702 3% 20 1.2% Yes Rattlesnake- Hammock Rd County Barn Rd. to Polly Ave. C 2 972 5% 12 0.4% No County Barn Rd. to Charlemagne Blvd. C 2,972 5% 8 0.3% No Santa Barbara Blvd. Davis Blvd. to Radio Rd. B 2,751 3% 71 2.6% No Radlo Rd. to Golden Gate Parkway C 2,824 5% 71 2.5% No -.__. ..­. — .,,...,,,oa —.,will vw =I wuncy Quam invantuly aa[au Irucw0 2. Analysis Is required for all Minks and for B- and G links that exceed the SenAce Volume Threshold. 3/1MU- 136081 Vx.011- JPERRY C1V,3 Z5666.6664z& - 0000 2 317 - M Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application PagV176W 02 Traffic Impact Statement WllsonMiller, Inc. - ► B. SITE ACCESSIBILITY Area Roadway System Existing The following intersections are expected to be affected by this project: • County Barn Road at Davis Boulevard; and • Davis Boulevard at Santa Barbara Boulevard. Davis Boulevard is a 4 lane divided east -west arterial that is managed cooperatively by the Collier County DOT and the Florida DOT. The posted speed limit on Davis Boulevard is 45 mph. Signalized intersections along Davis exist at County Barn Road and at Santa Barbara Boulevard. The school's drive has been provided with a left in median opening on Davis Boulevard. Vehicles exiting the site that need to go west on Davis Boulevard are forced to go east to the median opening in front of Failing Waters to make a U -Turn. County Barn Road is a two -lane collector that runs north - south. The posted speed limit on County Barn Road is 45 mph. Santa Barbara Boulevard is a four -lane divided arterial that runs north - south. The posted speed limit on Santa Barbara Boulevard is 45 mph. =� Proposed Plans are currently being prepared to widen County Barn Road to a four -lane divided roadway with major intersection improvements at Davis Boulevard. Plans are also being prepared that will widen j Santa Barbara Boulevard to a six -lane divided roadway with major intersection improvements at Davis Boulevard. This design will also reconstruct a portion of Davis Boulevard east and west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The reconstructed portion will not extend as far west as the school. The County Barn Road improvements are planned to be under construction when the school opens. The Santa Barbara improvements are also planned to be under construction when the school opens. The County generally allows the use of planned roadway expansions for capacity analysis provided that the opening dates are close together. The existing roadway configurations were generally used for this report with the exception of the recommendations for a median opening on County Barn Road, as this median is not yet in place. JV MM.1o6061 Vm011.0MY 3 CAM 26655465656- • woo Agenda Item No. 17B Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application February 22, 2005 PagWI71AW4102 E Traffic Impact Statement _ WllsonMlller, Inc. IV. TRAFFIC J A. EXISTING TRAFFIC The primary traffic entering and exiting the site occurs during the morning when the staff arrives and students are dropped off. The afternoon peak is less critical since the students are picked up over tv a longer time period to account for after school activities and the staff similarly leaves at varying times. Therefore, only the AM peak hour was analyzed for this study. Turning movement counts were conducted for the following locations during March of 2004: • Davis Boulevard at County Barn Road; • Davis Boulevard at the Seacrest driveway; and • Davis Boulevard at Santa Barbara Boulevard. The turning movement volumes for each of these intersections is included In Appendix A. .� B. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC The opening of this school is Fall 2005 with the full capacity assumed for 2006. Historical traffic .T� volumes for County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard were examined to determine the background traffic in 2006. Linear trend line analysis was used to project future year traffic volumes (see Appendix B for historical and projected volumes). The predicted increase in trend line values for Davis Boulevard from 2004 to 2006 (34,047 to 37,362) is 9.75 percent. For this reason, the turn movements counted in March 2004 were increased 9.75 percent to provide 2006 background traffic turning movements for all Davis Boulevard approaches to the intersections analyzed. This 9.75 percent increase was also used to inflate the approach volumes counted on Santa Barbara Boulevard at its intersection with Davis Boulevard to 2006 conditions. County Barn Road has experienced a decreasing trend in traffic volumes in recent years. To be conservative, this downward trend was not used for 2006 background traffic projections. Instead, the turning movements counted in March, 2004 were used'unaltered for the County Barn approach to its intersection with Davis Boulevard. The existing site generated traffic Pre -K through 8th Grade is not expected to change. 9 ( 9 ) p The existing facility is currently operating at capacity, so no new trips would be generated from the 311&2004.136081 Vx.011 -JPMY 4 JJJIII CAW Z666G665 -"6- - 0000 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application PagWMdA 02 j Traffic Impact Statement WitaonMlller, Inc. Lower School in 2006. The existing traffic was not reassigned internally. All of the existing vehicles continue to use Unity Way. The 2006 background turning movement volumes for each of these intersections is shown in Appendix B. IC. SITE TRAFFIC Trip Generation The new site generated traffic was determined by using ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Land use code 540, high school was selected as providing the best fit with the proposed development. A capacity of 450 students is planned for the new high school. The AM peak hour traffic projects a total of 220 trips with 152 entering and 68 exiting. A copy of the Trip Generation work sheet is located in Appendix C. Trip Distribution °- Trip distribution was accomplished by examining existing Seacrest School driveway counts that determine the distribution of student, faculty & staff trips. The count data (Appendix A) revealed the majority of vehicles coming to /from the east. New project trips were assigned in a distribution pattern similar to that actually counted from the driveway. Traffic Assignment The proposed facility adds an access point on County Barn Road. This access point is expected to significantly reduce the number of vehicles that make U -Turns at the Falling Waters median opening. The traffic assignment for this study makes use of this new access point for exiting vehicles wanting to travel west on Davis Boulevard or south on County Barn Road. Vehicles entering from the south on County Barn Road are also expected to use this entrance as are a small portion of the vehicles entering from the west on Davis Boulevard. It Is expected that most vehicles accessing the site from Davis Boulevard will use the Davis Entrance. A graphical representation of the distribution and traffic assignment patterns used is in Appendix C. J D. NON -SITE TRAFFIC No non -site traffic is expected to impact this development. There are no other known developments that have applied for zoning or SDP approval adjacent to this site. 311617001 - 176061 Vw, 0V. JPERRY 5 a L5666.66646& - 0000 Agenda Item No. 1.7B Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application Februarryy?2 2005 Pag'li'"fJ 0102 Traffic Impact Statement WilsonMil er, Inc. E. TOTAL TRAFFIC The total traffic combines the 2006 background volumes with the site generated traffic assigned as noted. The 2006 proposed turning movement volumes are included in Appendix C. IV. ANALYSIS IA. SITE ACCESS Site access is expected to be split between the existing driveway on Davis Boulevard and the new driveway on County Barn Road. The existing traffic was not reassigned internally. The new traffic was assigned to both driveways and a LOS analysis was conducted under the proposed conditions. S. CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Background Based upon the determination of the links significantly impacted by new project traffic (Table 1), a level of service (LOS) analysis was performed for the roadway segments of Davis Boulevard from County Barn Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, and County Barn Road from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake- Hammack Road. On Davis Boulevard, the maximum AM peak directional volumes are westbound just east of the existing school entrance. For 2004, 2006 background, and 2006 j proposed conditions, those directional volumes are 1900, 2072 and 2157 respectively (illustrated in j Appendices A, B and C respectively). All are well within the 3036 peak hour peak directional minimum standard level of service capacity for the road segment. On County Barn Road, the maximum AM peak directional volumes are northbound at the intersection with Davis Boulevard. For 2004, 2006 background, and 2006 proposed conditions, those directional volumes are 618, 618, and 641 respectively. All are well within the 1702 peak hour peak directional minimum standard level of service capacity for the road segment. Based upon the determination of the links significantly impacted by new project traffic (Table 1), a level of service (LOS) analysis was performed for the signalized intersections of Davis Boulevard at County Barn Road and Davis Blvd at Santa Barbara Boulevard (existing lane configuration). An I unsignalized analysis was performed for the Project Entrance on Davis Boulevard (Unity Way). The _ } XW2004•1980!1 V- .011 - JERRY 6 J Z65&54s54ss . 0000 J 7 l Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application Traffic impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B Februa Pag� 2$i %?P 02 WilsonMiller, Inc. LOS analysis was conducted using the methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 edition. The LOS results are shown in Table 3 for each of the critical intersections. The intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road currently operates at LOS C with all movements operating at LOS E or better. For the Unity Way access, only the right turn from the driveway is stop controlled, and this movement has a LOS of C. The intersection of Davis Boulevard at Santa Barbara Boulevard is currently operating at LOS F. This condition can be expected to improve with the programmed reconstruction of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard north to Radio Road. Table 3 — Background (2006) LOS Analysis AM Peak Hour Notes 1. Davis Blvd at the Sencrest driveway Is a stop - controlled intersection, therefore otuy the stop- con tronea movements are analyzed for LOS. 2. Movements Indicated by'—'are not applicable due to the configuration of the Intersection. Proposed The proposed traffic from the Seacrest Upper and Lower School has little impact on the road network. As noted in Section IV (B) Background Traffic, the existing traffic has not been reassigned 1 and is still utilizing the Davis Boulevard entrance exclusively. Only the new traffic has been ( assigned to the new entrance. With this configuration, the Impacts to the subject intersections are minimal. The overall LOS for the Davis Boulevard /County, Barn Road intersection changes from C to D due to the minimal change In Average Vehicle Delay from 34.5 seconds to 37.4 seconds. None of the other intersections experience a change in LOS from the new site generated traffic. The proposed LOS results are shown in Table 4 for each of the critical intersections. J 3J1eso04- 135081 Vw:011.JP&RRY aura Z5555-6W565. 00W JIIIIIIIIIIIIIN - 7 Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Overall LT THRU RT LT THRU RT LT ' THRU RT LT THRU RT Intersection Davis Blvd at E E D C C C D C C E C C C County Bam Rd. Davis Blvd at Unity Way' C T—] Davis Blvd at — _ _ C _ F — F D F B — F Santa Barbara Blvd. Notes 1. Davis Blvd at the Sencrest driveway Is a stop - controlled intersection, therefore otuy the stop- con tronea movements are analyzed for LOS. 2. Movements Indicated by'—'are not applicable due to the configuration of the Intersection. Proposed The proposed traffic from the Seacrest Upper and Lower School has little impact on the road network. As noted in Section IV (B) Background Traffic, the existing traffic has not been reassigned 1 and is still utilizing the Davis Boulevard entrance exclusively. Only the new traffic has been ( assigned to the new entrance. With this configuration, the Impacts to the subject intersections are minimal. The overall LOS for the Davis Boulevard /County, Barn Road intersection changes from C to D due to the minimal change In Average Vehicle Delay from 34.5 seconds to 37.4 seconds. None of the other intersections experience a change in LOS from the new site generated traffic. The proposed LOS results are shown in Table 4 for each of the critical intersections. J 3J1eso04- 135081 Vw:011.JP&RRY aura Z5555-6W565. 00W JIIIIIIIIIIIIIN - 7 n Agenda Item No. 17B Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application Februaryy 1?42WR 02 22 2005 Traffic Impact Statement Pa_ WWilsonMiller, Inc. Table 4 — Proposed (2006) LOS Analysis AM Peak Hour Notes 1, Both Seacrest driveways are stop- controlled Intersections, therefore only the stop-controlled movements are analyzed for LOS. 2. Movements Indicated by =' are not applicable due to the configuration of the Intersection. As stated previously, Collier County has programmed the widening of Santa Barbara Boulevard ' from Davis Boulevard north to Golden Gate Parkway. As part of the 6 -lane design process, the Davis Boulevard /Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection was analyzed for the presumed "opening year" (2005) of the 6- laning with the lane configuration of the future improved condition. The JI analysis concluded that the planned improvements will return the operating condition of the intersection to LOS "C" in the AM Peak and LOS "B" in the PM Peak periods. This analysis is included in Appendix C. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS A. SITE ACCESS /CIRCULATION PLAN The site circulation plan will be developed in cooperation with the general site plan. This will be submitted for review during the site development approval phase. B. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The only improvement required for this development is the addition of a southbound left -turn lane in on County Barn Road. This turn lane is required under the existing 2 -lane and the proposed 4-lane roadway configuration. The storage length requirements of this tum -lane will be coordinated with the County's design consultant when the redesign of County Barn Road commences. If the access connection to County Barn Road is constructed prior to the 4- laning of County Barn Road, it may be possible to defer construction of the south -bound left -turn lane (under the 2 -lane configuration) until such time as the multi - laning project proceeds to construction. Based upon the analysis of projected 3H8/200/- 136081 VW.. 011- JPERRY JC�3 ZS666.666 -656.. 0000 J Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Intersection Overall LT THRU RT LT THRU RT LT THRU RT LT THRU RT Davis Blvd at D D D C C C D C C E D C D County Barn Rd. Davis Blvd at C Uni Way ' County Barn Rd at Seacrest Driveway' B Davis Blvd at _ _ _ C __ F — F D F B — F Santa Barbara Blvd. Notes 1, Both Seacrest driveways are stop- controlled Intersections, therefore only the stop-controlled movements are analyzed for LOS. 2. Movements Indicated by =' are not applicable due to the configuration of the Intersection. As stated previously, Collier County has programmed the widening of Santa Barbara Boulevard ' from Davis Boulevard north to Golden Gate Parkway. As part of the 6 -lane design process, the Davis Boulevard /Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection was analyzed for the presumed "opening year" (2005) of the 6- laning with the lane configuration of the future improved condition. The JI analysis concluded that the planned improvements will return the operating condition of the intersection to LOS "C" in the AM Peak and LOS "B" in the PM Peak periods. This analysis is included in Appendix C. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS A. SITE ACCESS /CIRCULATION PLAN The site circulation plan will be developed in cooperation with the general site plan. This will be submitted for review during the site development approval phase. B. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The only improvement required for this development is the addition of a southbound left -turn lane in on County Barn Road. This turn lane is required under the existing 2 -lane and the proposed 4-lane roadway configuration. The storage length requirements of this tum -lane will be coordinated with the County's design consultant when the redesign of County Barn Road commences. If the access connection to County Barn Road is constructed prior to the 4- laning of County Barn Road, it may be possible to defer construction of the south -bound left -turn lane (under the 2 -lane configuration) until such time as the multi - laning project proceeds to construction. Based upon the analysis of projected 3H8/200/- 136081 VW.. 011- JPERRY JC�3 ZS666.666 -656.. 0000 J Agenda Item No. 17B Seacrest Upper & Lower School PUD Application Februa 122 2005 Pag�$&�02 L.. Traffic Impact Statement WllsonMlller, Inc. traffic, northbound light -turn volumes do not warrant a northbound right turn lane under the 2 -lane condition. A right -turn lane would be required in the event that the 4 -lane construction takes place in advance of constructing the access connection to County Barn Road. C. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS l Three buses operate from the school serving students from Marco Island, Port Royal and Old Naples, and North Naples. These buses will continue to operate reducing the traffic loads the school would otherwise generate. VII. CONCLUSION I No significant traffic impacts are expected to result from this project. The additional access provided to County Barn Road should help to reduce the existing number of U -turn movements on Davis Boulevard east of the Unity Way. The County has programmed improvements to the Davis Boulevard /Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection that will return the LOS to acceptable levels. Coordination of a proposed median opening at the new driveway on County Barn Road will be coordinated with the County and the roadway design consultant. Turn lanes will be installed per .i County code requirements as warranted. J 31la2004- 16001 VW.011.JPERRY J CA043 Z66664664666- - 0000 ,i 1 SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PREPARED FOR: Seacrest School, Inc. 7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, Florida 34104 PREPARED BY: WilsonMiller, Inc. Wilson Professional Center 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL MARCH 18, 2004 FIRST REVISED SUBMITTAL JULY 01, 2004 SECOND REVISED SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 I Naples • Fort Myers • Sarasota • ramps • Panama City Beach • rallahassee 3200 Balley Lane, Sulte 200 • Naples, Rodda 34105 . 239- 649 - 4040'x' 239 -643 -5716 �¶ 9/I W40a 141772 wr osw rrreft www.wiisoammier com ueo 04017-0024)00• EPER• 27652 WilsonWfer.lnc. — FL Llc.0 LC- 0000170 CA 43 "f� 5 t•i f 7'1�G��� Ite�ra, �Q 1`/ CJ F• `,�� February;22,.2t fly F'age.,� 83 of102 . i it NOW I(ft /ais in PWNZkV, OVSfpn.6 fng#M*A p ,i 1 SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PREPARED FOR: Seacrest School, Inc. 7100 Davis Boulevard Naples, Florida 34104 PREPARED BY: WilsonMiller, Inc. Wilson Professional Center 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL MARCH 18, 2004 FIRST REVISED SUBMITTAL JULY 01, 2004 SECOND REVISED SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 I Naples • Fort Myers • Sarasota • ramps • Panama City Beach • rallahassee 3200 Balley Lane, Sulte 200 • Naples, Rodda 34105 . 239- 649 - 4040'x' 239 -643 -5716 �¶ 9/I W40a 141772 wr osw rrreft www.wiisoammier com ueo 04017-0024)00• EPER• 27652 WilsonWfer.lnc. — FL Llc.0 LC- 0000170 CA 43 Seacrest Upper and Lower School Page i Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 3.8.5.1. APPLICANT INFORMATION ................................................ ..............................1 II. 3.8.5.2. MAPPING AND SUPPORT GRAPHICS ............................... ..............................1 III. 3.8.5.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ........ 4 IV. 3.8.5.4. NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION ............................ ..............................8 V. 3.8.5.5. WETLANDS ......................................................................... .............................12 VI. 3.8.5.6. SURFACE AND GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT .......... .............................19 VII. 3.8.5.7. LISTED SPECIES ................................................................ .............................21 VIII. 3.8.5.8. OTHER .................. ........ ............................... .............. ............................... 27 TABLES Table 1 FLUCCS Descriptions and Acreages on the Seacrest Upper and Lower School Site ... 10 Table 2 Wetland FLUCCS Descriptions and Acreages for the Seacrest Upper School Site...... 14 Table 3 Listed faunal species that could potentially occur on -site but were not observed . ........ 24 Table 4 List of non- listed faunal species observed on the Seacrest Upper School site ........:.... 25 Table 5 Listed floral species observed on the Seacrest Upper School site ... .............................25 Table 6 Listed floral species that could occur but were not observed on the Seacrest Upper School site. WIW2004- 141772 vN:091- TTfeft ewe 04017-oma00- EPFJt- M62 Agenda Item No. 17B WIhim,,lere February 22, 2005 Page 84 of 102 New Dlrectlons In Plrnning, Design 6 Engineering Seacrest Upper and Lower School Page i Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 3.8.5.1. APPLICANT INFORMATION ................................................ ..............................1 II. 3.8.5.2. MAPPING AND SUPPORT GRAPHICS ............................... ..............................1 III. 3.8.5.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ........ 4 IV. 3.8.5.4. NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION ............................ ..............................8 V. 3.8.5.5. WETLANDS ......................................................................... .............................12 VI. 3.8.5.6. SURFACE AND GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT .......... .............................19 VII. 3.8.5.7. LISTED SPECIES ................................................................ .............................21 VIII. 3.8.5.8. OTHER .................. ........ ............................... .............. ............................... 27 TABLES Table 1 FLUCCS Descriptions and Acreages on the Seacrest Upper and Lower School Site ... 10 Table 2 Wetland FLUCCS Descriptions and Acreages for the Seacrest Upper School Site...... 14 Table 3 Listed faunal species that could potentially occur on -site but were not observed . ........ 24 Table 4 List of non- listed faunal species observed on the Seacrest Upper School site ........:.... 25 Table 5 Listed floral species observed on the Seacrest Upper School site ... .............................25 Table 6 Listed floral species that could occur but were not observed on the Seacrest Upper School site. WIW2004- 141772 vN:091- TTfeft ewe 04017-oma00- EPFJt- M62 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Wilsomillor' Page 85 of 102 New Direarons In Pbwlna Design d Engnieedng Seacrest Upper and Lower School page 9 Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement I. 3.8.5.1. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Responsible person who wrote the EIS and his /her education and job related environmental experience. The following WilsonMiller, Inc. (WilsonMiller) staff prepared the EIS: Jennifer R. Hecker — B.A. (Environmental Studies), Graduate Certificate (Tropical Biology and Conservation), 6 years of professional environmental experience including environmental lands management, listed species surveys, mitigation monitoring, and permitting. Thomas T. Trettis - B.A. (Environmental Studies), Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS), Certified Ecologist (CE), more than 13 years of professional environmental experience performing state and federal jurisdictional wetland determinations, listed species surveys, permitting, and mitigation monitoring. Rebecca R. King — B.S. (Civil Engineering), Engineering Intem (EI), 1+ years of professional experience in the design, permitting, and preparation of plans for stormwater collection and wastewater collection systems for public developments. Adolfo A. Gonzalez — B.C.E. (Civil Engineering), Professional Engineer (PE), 18 years of civil engineering experience in site development,. surface water management design, water resources, utilities engineering, transportation engineering, plans production, specifications preparation, environmental permitting, contract administration, and project management. B. Owner(s) /agent(s) name, address, phone number & e-mail address. Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 435 -3535 II. 3.8.52. MAPPING AND SUPPORT GRAPHICS A. General location map. A general location map is presented as Exhibit A. l B. Native habitats and their boundaries identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending at least 200 feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant Is required to go on to adjoining properties. Habitat ` identification consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the County. Other scale aerials may be I' + W1 W2004- 141772 v.r. 031. Truer l ava 0I0174e2.000. EM- 27ee2 W11SOa7N111er* New Dlmftns in Pknning, Design & Engloewring Seacrest Upper and Lourcr School y Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 86 of 102 Page 2 used where appropriate for the size of the project, provided the photograph and overlays are legible at the scale provided. A legend for each of the FLUCCS categories found on -site shall be included on the aerial. Native habitats were delineated by WilsonMiller in the field and are classified by the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) and their boundaries are shown on Exhibit B. C. Topographic map, and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Where possible, elevations within each of FLUCCS categories shall be provided. The surveyed spot topography for the site Indicates that elevations range from approximately 8.2 to 11.0 feet NGVD. Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road are the highest topographic features adjacent to the property boundary and have altered the historic wetland sheet -flow pattern on the site. The spot elevation data and Collier County aerial topographic features suggest that the site is hydrologically isolated and its contribution, if any, to the surface drainage of adjacent properties, Is limited. The Map of Boundary and Topographic Survey of the site is included as Exhibit C and FLUCCS categories are provided in Exhibit B. D. Solis map at scale consistent with that used for the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations. Soil information from maps prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is provided as Exhibit D. The following descriptions are taken directly from the Collier County Soil Survey prepared by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS soil descriptions are not site - specific and some variations from these descriptions may occur on the project site. The soil types as mapped by the NRCS are shown on Exhibit D. Descriptions of the soils mapped within the project site areas follows: According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey of Collier County Area, Florida, two (2) soil map units are present on the project site. i These map units, all of which are common to Collier County and southwest Florida, include the following: Map Symbol Soil Unit Name Hydric Status* 14 Pineda Fine Sand, limestone substratum Hydric 21 Boca Fine Sand Non- hydric ' Hydric status as determined by NRCS Resource Soil Scientist Howard Yamataki for the Collier County so# map units. The major component of the two soil map units is designated hydric by the NRCS. The other soil map unit, Boca fine sand, is designated as predominantly non - hydric. �,. The NRCS official series description for Pineda soils describes the natural I 0/104004. 141772 VW. 0%. Wreft _ . CAM " 04017-002 -004 VeR• 27552 i ` WilsonNillero New Dimcoons In Planning, Design d Engineering seavrest Lipper and Lower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement I i C Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 87 of 102 Page 3 vegetation as consisting of slash pine, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, chalky bluestem, and pineland three -awn. The following abbreviated descriptions for the site's soil units are taken directly from the NRCS Soil Survey for Collier County: Unit #14- Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum. The soils of the Pineda Series are loamy, siliceous, hyperthermic Arenic Glossaqualfs. They are deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained, slowly permeable soils that formed in thick beds of sandy and loamy marine sediments. These nearly level soils are in sloughs and depressions. Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent. The Pineda soil is listed by NRCS as a hydric soil, but the artificial drainage existing on this site has altered soil hydrology locally. In most years, under natural conditions, the water table is within 10 inches of the surface for 2 to 4 months and at a depth of 10 to 40 inches for more than 6 months. The water table normally recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil would normally be covered by slowly moving, shallow water for periods of about 7 days to 1 month or more. Unit #21 -Boca Fine Sand. These are nearly level, poorly drained soils commonly found in flatwoods with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer is about 4 inches of very dark gray fine sand. The subsurface layer is about 26 inches with the upper part light gray fine sand and the lower part brown fine sand. The subsoil is about 30 inches and is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid and the available water capacity is low. The available water capacity is very low. In most years under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is between 6 and 18 inches of the surface for 1 to 6 months. In other months, the water table is below 18 inches and recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. The NRCS does not classify this map unit as hydric. As stated previously, the project site's water table regime may have been altered from the natural historic condition, and therefore the NRCS hydrology description for the above map unit may not reflect current site hydrology. No unique geologic features (e.g., sand dunes, bluffs, sinkholes, springs, etc.), or areas susceptible to subsidence, are known to occur on the project site. E. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, outfall and off -site drainage. The site will be developed according to South Florida Water Management District and Collier County criteria for the design of the Surface Water Management System. Historic natural drainage patterns for the area were characterized by overland flow from a northeast to a southwest direction. The presence of Davis Boulevard and the associated canal, as well as County Barn Road, disrupted the !11012004. 141772 Ver. 071 -TTw04 0/us1 040174024)00- EPER- 27872 Agenda Item No. 17B W 11 Hi,�r, February 22, 05 Page 88 of f 102 I' NewDirecoons In Pianning DesVn 6 Engineering Seacrest Upper and Lower School p&V 4 Second Revised Coliier County Environmental Impact Statement I historic sheet -flow and may have contributed to the lower water table on this j property and adjacent lands. The reduced hydrology has allowed melaleuca and o' other exotic plants to become well established within habitats on the project site. The proposed project will remove the exotic vegetation and the natural drainage patterns will be incorporated into the Surface Water Management System where possible. Please refer to Exhibit E, the PUD Master Plan with General Surface Water Management Features. F. Development plan including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area. ! The conceptual PUD Master Plan is presented as Exhibit E. G. Site plan showing preserves on -site, and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations of proposed and existing development, roads, and areas for stormwater retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as public owned conservation lands, conservation acquisition areas, major Z flowways and potential wildlife corridors. The site plan is presented in the conceptual PUD Master Plan exhibit, Exhibit E. The location of the property in relation to adjacent properties and roadways is depicted on Exhibit A, the Site Location Map. There are no publicly owned conservation lands, conservation acquisition areas, major flowways, and potential wildlife corridors adjacent to the property. There are no known preserves immediately adjacent to the property boundary. H. For properties in the RLSA or RFMU Districts, a site plan showing the location of the site, and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan. I The site is not located in the RLSA or RFMU Districts. Ill. 3.8.5.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION A. Provide an overall description of the project with respect to environmental and water management issues. The Seacrest Upper and Lower School property will be developed as a private school with educational buildings, tennis courts, track, baseball, softball and soccer ' field, parking areas, and stormwater management facilities. The Seacrest Country Day School (Lower School) has already been permitted and built and the Upper School is the proposed project. The wetlands on the Upper School site are impacted by a combination of altered hydrology and exotic plant infestation. The presence of Davis Boulevard and canal, County Bam Road and surrounding 1 development has altered wetland sheet -flow and severed any significant wifdlife corridors. Evidence of wildlife utilization on the site is minimal. The site is not currently inhabited or utilized by endangered, threatened or species of special I M1W2004- 111772 V�. 071. TTft Gw7 01017402.000- EPER- 27552 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 wiIspl millere Page 89 of 102 New DirsOons in ftnnfnp, DesVn 6 Engineering Seacrest Upper and Lowcr Schooi Page 5 Second Revised Cosier County Environmental Impact Statement concern; Given the infill nature of the property, and poor quality of wetlands on site, it is a suitable location for the proposed project. The subject property consists of the existing Seacrest Country Day School (9.79 acres) and the proposed Seacrest Upper School Campus site, which is currently undeveloped and contains approximately 29.64 acres. Combined, both sites account for approximately 39.4 acres. Habitats contain varying amounts of exotic vegetation and the acreages of each FLUCCS code can be seen in Table 1 of the Collier County EIS. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) identifies two soil types occurring on the site; Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14) and Boca fine sand (Unit 21). The undeveloped portion of the site consists mainly of NRCS Soil Map Unit 14, which is listed as a hydric soil by the NRCS. There are approximately 20.92 acres of wetlands that occur on the existing Seacrest Country Day School and proposed Upper School Campus combined. Wetland areas consist of 0.99 acres of Exotic Wetland Hardwoods (FLUCCS 619), 0.85 acres of Cypress -Pine Cabbage Palm (FLUCCS 624), 2.55 acres of Cypress -Pine Cabbage Palm, Exotics 10 % -24% (FLUCCS 624 E1), 1.44 acres of Cypress- Pine - Cabbage Palm, Exotics 10 % -24 %, Disturbed (FLUCCS 624 E1 D), 5.80 acres of Cypress- Pine - Cabbage Palm, Exotics 25 %-49% (FLUCCS 624 E2), 5.34 acres of Cypress- Pine - Cabbage Palm, Exotics >75% (FLUCCS 624 E3), 1:29 acres of Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 10 % -24 %, Disturbed (FLUCCS 625 Ell D), 0.35 acres of Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 25 %-49% (FLUCCS 625 E2), 0.80 acres of Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 25 %-49 %, Disturbed (FLUCCS 625 E2 D), 0.84 acres of Hydric Pine Flatwoods , Exotics 50 % -74% (FLUCCS 625 E3), 0.48 acres of Hydric Pine Savanna (FLUCCS 626), and 0.19 acres of Vegetated Non - Forested Wetlands (FLUCCS 640). These habitats i contain varying amounts of exotic vegetation and the acreages of each wetland FLUCCS code can be seen on Table 1 of the Collier County EIS. Approximately, 13.11 acres of wetlands, on the undeveloped Upper School Campus site, are proposed to be directly impacted by the project. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will include preservation and enhancement of onsite wetlands. Enhancement will include exotic and nuisance plant eradication, hydroperiod restoration and re- vegetation with indigenous wetland vegetation. Additionally, upland habitat will also be preserved within the wetland system. Mitigation for wetland impacts also includes the purchase of the required amount of credits through a private mitigation bank. The Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD will meet or exceed the required amount of native vegetation for preservation pursuant to 3.9.4.2.A of the Land Development Code and Policy 6.1.1 of the Growth and Management Plan - Conservation and Coastal Element. Native vegetation will be retained in conservation areas and will meet or exceed native vegetation preservation requirements. Native vegetation preservation areas will be placed into a conservation easement, prohibiting further W16=04-141m vaosi -TTMM W1 ? -DO:-OD0-- SIER- 27M WIS097millere New Directions in Planning, D#Sir & &&mooring Seacrest Upper and Lower School Secood Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Siatemeni Exotic Invasion Modifiers Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 90 of 102 Page 14 A significant factor in mapping local habitats is invasion by exotic plant species such as melaleuca, Australian pine and/or Brazilian pepper. Exotics are present throughout many of the natural communities on -site. WilsonMiller has mapped levels of exotic density and suffixes (i.e., E1, E2, E3, and E4) have been appended to the FLUCCS code to indicate the exotics level (combined percent coverage of the canopy and subcanopy strata), as follows: E1 = Exotics 10-24% E2 = Exotics 25-49% E3 - Exotics 50-75% E4 = Exotics >75% D = Disturbed Lands Table 2 Wetland FLUCCS Descriptions and Acreages for the Seacrest Upper School Site. [Note: this does not Include, the Lower School site wetlands, which were determined separately and were permitted separately (SFWMD ERP Permit #11 -01502 -P). No changes to the Lower School wetlands are proposed In association with the proposed proiectl 618 Exotic Welland Hardwoods 1.00 624 E1 Cypress - Pine - Cabbage Palm, Exotics 10 % -24% 2.55 624 E1 (D) Cypress - Fine - Cabbage Palm, Exotics 10 % -24 %, Disturbed 1.44 624 E2 Cypress-Pine- Cabbage Palm, Exotics 25 %-490/a 5.80 624 E3 Cypress- Pine - Cabbage Palm, Exotics >75% 5.34 625E1 (D) Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 10% -24%, Disturbed 1.29 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 25 %-49% 625E2 (D) Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 25 0/6-49%, Disturbed .35 625E3 Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 50 0/6-74% .60 84 TOTAL 18.41 B. Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators. Indicate haw the project design Improves/affects predevelopment hydroperiods. Provide a narrative addressing the anticipated control elevation(s) for the site. Historic high water levels are not available for the project site. It appears the subject property was cleared of vegetation in the 1940's and no old growth trees were observed on the site. The wet season high water table was determined by WilsonMiller ecologists using site - speck hydrobiologicai indicators. Cypress trees on the property exhibited lichen lines and water stains at an average elevation of 8.95 feet NGVD. Three (3) trees were nailed at the wet season high water line and the WilsonMiller survey department surveyed the elevation of each, along with ground elevation at each tree on November 20, 2003. Three (3) stakes were installed by WilsonMiller ecologists at separate wetland /upland inter- w,o2004-141772 V«:031.nMft CAM 0+0+74ai-000- EPEP, 2'1552 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 wilsomillero Page 91 of 102 New Dlrecdons In Pfd mg, Design 6 Engliwft Seacrost Upper and Lower Schoo! Page 19 Second Revised Collier County Environmeniral Impact Statement Development of the project will result in direct permanent impacts to 13.11 acres of wetlands. The locations of wetland impacts are depicted on Exhibit F, Wetland Impacts Map. A total of 5% of the wetland impacts on site occur in wetland exotic monoculture (FLUCCS 619), and another 22% of wetland acreage proposed to be impacted currently has between 50-75% infestation by Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and other exotic plant species. Approximately 9% of impacts occur in areas with 25-49% Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, Australian pine, and other exotic plant species. Another 15% of impacts occur in areas with 10 -24 10r6 Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, Australian pine, and other exotic plant species. Impacts to Brazilian pepper and melaleuca- invaded wetlands on the site result primarily from the placement of fill in the high school campus area and the excavation of lakes for surface water management. Permanent impacts to site wetlands will result in a loss of wetland function. However, given the infill nature of the property, the existing low quality of the wetlands, the severance of the wetlands from larger flow -ways, and the low utilization by wildlife, this loss is not considered to be regionally significant. Even without the proposed project, wetland function and values are anticipated to continually decrease due to the infill nature of the site, exotic plant infestation, and the altered hydrologic conditions. Therefore, with the low long -term opportunities of on -site mitigation success, due to the location of the site, off -site compensatory mitigation is an ecologically preferred alternative to on -site mitigation. Through the purchase of off -site mitigation that is regionally significant, the proposed mitigation adequately compensates for the direct and secondary impacts to the existing low -value wetlands. Given the infill nature and location of the proposed development, the relatively low quality of on -site wetlands, the fragmentation to wetlands proposed to be preserved, and the area's altered hydrology, a combination of on -site mitigation and off -site mitigation is proposed for this project. As the site is outside the RFMU District and no higher quality wetlands are being retained on -site, a justification i based on the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method would not be applicable for this project. Instead, off -site mitigation can provide valuable wetland functions that would not be available . at the proposed project site, even if it were left undeveloped in its existing (in -fill, altered hydrology and exotic plant infestation) condition. The applicant has proposed purchasing 6.05 mitigation credits from a private mitigation bank to satisfy off -site mitigation credits for this project. ( On -site enhancement is proposed to occur via exotic eradication, native groundcover and/or subcanopy replanting, improvement of the degraded hydroperiod via surface water management, and establishment of a suitable water control elevation. t-- Littoral shelves will be created along lake edges that border the retained wetland. These littoral shelves will serve as foraging areas for wood storks, and other wading birds, during dry periods. Mitigation credit is not proposed for the planted i lake littoral shelves. WIWZOOF 141772 vr, M. TTMM wa 04017- 002400- EPEn- nssx wlsonmiler' New DirecAars In Plan)IAV, Design & Engineering Seacrest tipper and Lower Schoo! Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 92 of 102 Page 19 The Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) was utilized in the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) submitted to SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for this project. The ERP was submitted to SFWMD and Corps before the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method was enacted. Both agencies are currently permitting the project utilizing the WRAP method. VI. 3.8.5.6. SURFACE AND GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT A. Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how It works, the basis of design, historical drainage flows, off - site flows coming In to the system and how they will be incorporated In the system or passed around the system, positive outfall availability, Wet Season Water Table and Dry Season Water Table, and how they were determined, and any other pertinent information pertaining to the control of storm and ground water. The project is within the Lely Canal Basin and Region 3 of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. Rainfall runoff from the undeveloped areas within and upstream of the project generally flows in a southwesterly direction toward the County Bam Road east roadside swale. Runoff from the proposed improvements discharge to a positive outfall since the post - development peak stage is higher than the expected tailwater elevation at the project boundary. Off -site flows north of the subject property will be intercepted and conveyed to the County Bam Road swale. The existing Lower School campus has a stormwater management system that treats runoff and discharges it at the southeast comer of the campus. This system has a positive outfall to the Unity Church property. The Failing Waters Development Corporation and Falling Waters Master Association constructed the outfall in favor of Seacrest School, Unity of Naples, Jack Kern, and Jane Kern around 1993 as an obligation related to the development of the Falling Waters PUD. The outfail installation was permitted as a component of the Falling Waters water management system. Runoff then flows west along the common property line between Seacrest and Unity Church toward a pond within the Unity Church property. No modifications are proposed for the existing water management system outfall. The proposed surface water management system will consist of two wet detention lakes that discharge into the on -site preserve. The system is designed to satisfy the surface water management rules of the South Florida Water Management District as well as the limiting peak discharge rate for the Lely Canal Basin according to Collier County Ordinance 2001 -27. In addition, the County's engineering report for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) was reviewed and pertinent data was incorporated into the project's design parameters. Considering the current permitting status of the LASIP project, the project design is based on existing conditions within the basin, rather than the proposed future conditions when the LASIP improvements are I 1„ , W102004111772 vr. 051. TT4"k wa .. 01017- 002000- EM- 27552 WilsonMillere New Directions In Planning. Design 6 Engineering Seacreat Upper and Lower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 93 of 102 Page 26 constructed. This results in a conservative design since predicted future stages along County Barn Road are lower than existing conditions. Storm water runoff from developed areas will be intercepted and treated in the wet detention ponds prior to discharge into the on -site wetland preserve. Excess runoff from the preserve discharges into the east roadside swale of County Barn Road. The storm water management system limits discharges from a 5 -year 24- hour, 25 -year 72 -hour, and 100 -year 72 -hour storm event. The 5 -year 24 -hour event was evaluated to limit flood stages in the wetland to no more than 1' above the wet season water table. The wet season water table was determined by nailing water stain/lichen lines on vegetation in wetland areas of the site. The elevation of the nails and the ground elevation at each nail were surveyed by WilsonMiller. The selected elevation is consistent with permitted control elevations for adjoining properties. The dry season water table elevation was taken from the "Dry Season Water Levels Taken During April '99" exhibit prepared by Collier County. Tailwater elevations were taken from the LASIP conceptual permit application and a conversation, with Mr. Robert Wiley of the County's Transportation Department. The 5 -year tailwater was based on the bank -full elevation of the County Barn Road Swale along the property line. The 25 -year tailwater stage was based on the 25 -year 72 -hour peak stage for the County Barn Road swale at Cope Lane. The 100 -year 72 -hour peak stage was based on an observed stage from Tropical Storm Jerry (August 1995) and is the same elevation utilized for the Florida Apartment Club water management design, which is west of the site across County Barn Road. B. Provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed and uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre - development conditions. This analysis is required for projects impacting five (5) or more acres of wetlands. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies. The stormwater management system was designed to reduce total nitrogen and phosphorous based on the required methodology. Please refer to the "Harper" Water Quality Analysis" in Appendix A. C. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM -ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM -STs. There are no Weilfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones within the project area. 9!162004. 111772 Ver. 051. TTn"5e we 04017. 002.000- EPER• 27552 WilsonMiller' New 01= bons in Rannft Dastpn & Enpineedng Seacrest Upper and lower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement VII. 3.8.6.7. LISTED SPECIES Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page-94 of 102 Page 21 A. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, listed species known to Inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on -site, and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Florida f Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State actual survey times and dates, and provide a map showing the location(s) of species of special status identified on -site. Prior to conducting a listed species survey, WilsonMiller ecologists identified the various habitats within the property boundaries. A FLUCCS map and a primary list of potential listed species, which may occur within suitable habitats on the property, was then prepared. For completeness, GIS queries regarding listed wildlife species were performed by WilsonMiller, using the latest publicly available data sets obtained from the FWC and the Florida Natural Areas inventory (FNAI). Potential listed species were identified from the most current FWC official List of Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida. f=ederally listed wildlife and plant species were considered to be those identified in the FWC publication "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida" (August 1, 1997). Invertebrates were excluded from the study. Federally listed plant species were considered to be those listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FINS) in this same publication. in August 2003, WilsonMiller ecologists performed meandering listed species pedestrian transects on the subject property. The survey primarily utilized the meandering strip census method of pedestrian transects through the various habitats or vegetation associations. These transects resulted in a grid pattern of observations through the various habitats on site. Once the grid of meandering ! transects covered the site, additional transects were performed targeting those portions of the site with greatest potential for listed species observations. Observers were equipped with compass, hip chain, aerials, wildlife and plant identification books, binoculars, field notebooks, and a tape recorder containing red- ` cockaded woodpecker (Plooides borealis) vocalizations. Along each transect, the ecologists periodically stopped, looked for wildlife and signs of wildlife, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The approximate location of any listed species were observed, would be mapped on aerials and recorded in field notebooks on a daily basis. In the same fashion, non - listed wildlife species, numbers, and general i locations were recorded daily. The surveys were conducted at various times on any given day. Surveys were conducted such that observations included time periods ranging from sunrise to sunset. Barring seasonal considerations, the survey dates allowed for observations i during likely times of probable occurrence for the majority of the listed wildlife species which could occur on -site. During the survey, temperatures ranged from 1 the low 70s to the low 90s (degrees Fahrenheit) and conditions ranged from clear to i overcast and mostly calm winds. When performing pedestrian transects through appropriate habitats, particular 2vMA04.141'72 v4r.031 -rn.ar. M17 -M-N6 EPM- 27652 wiisonmillef New Direegons In ftnnfny, Dasfgn & Engineering Seacres *. Upper and Lower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement B. I W1o20041 417n VW.. 031-T7M6 L cw can ooz-0oo eves -nssx Agenda Item No, 17B February 22, 2005 Page 95 of 102 Page 22 consideration was given to looking for signs of red - cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) and gopher tortoises. The SLOPES RCW survey protocol option -A was utilized by WilsonMiller, as potential suitable habitat for RCW is present on the site. A RCW foraging area survey was conducted by WilsonMiller ecologists during the fall season (October 15 — December 15, 2003). The survey was performed during 15 consecutive working days (Monday through Friday), as required by SLOPES. The survey complied with time- of-day specifications and included hours on the site from one half hour before sunrise and ended four hours past sunrise. Weather conditions were favorable each day of the survey. Tape recorded RCW scolding calls were broadcast at numerous stations throughout the site. The tape recording was played for 2 -5 minutes in each cardinal direction at each station. No RCW individuals, or cavity trees, were observed during the survey. A RCW nesting season survey was also performed by WilsonMiller ecologists on the site between April 15 and June 15, 2004 to satisfy SLOPES criteria. No RCW individuals, or cavity trees, were observed during this survey. Special attention was paid to large and/or old slash pine trees with trunks relatively free of vines or high understory brush to locate signs made by RCWs. When large and/or old slash pine trees were encountered, ecologists would typically circle the tree while visually scanning for start holes, cavities, resin wells, and/or RCW individuals. Ecologists looked for RCWs and listened for RCW vocalizations in potential foraging habitats. Identify all listed species that are known to Inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on the site or that have been directly observed on the site. The listed species surveys conducted by WilsonMiller ecologists resulted in no observations of state or federally listed faunal species. Wood stork (Mycteria americana) habitat is not present on or adjacent to the property; therefore, wood storks will not be negatively affected by the project. However, the addition of littoral shelves within on -site lakes can provide foraging opportunities for wood storks and other wading birds that do not exist in the pre - development condition. The Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais cooped) has the potential to occur on the project site, but was not observed during listed species surveys. If required, an Eastern indigo snake management plan will be submitted during the United States Army Corps of Engineers permitting process. The American bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocepha /us) has the potential to occur on the project site, but no individuals or nests were observed during listed species surveys. The proposed development of the Seacrest Upper and Lower School site is well outside the limits of the primary and secondary protection zones established for the nearest bald eagle nest. The nearest bald eagle nest occurs approximately 1.5 miles west of the project on the Foxfire Country Club property. The bald eagle could potentially visit the Seacrest site for foraging purposes but the availability of large pines of sufficient height and structure for Wilsonmiller' New Dirwdans In Planning. Design 6 i_ngineedng SeaGrest Upper and tower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement WIW2004.1 4,772 Wr.031477AdY CAM D40t7402.000. EPER• 27552 nest construction are very limited. Agenda Item No. 1713 February 22, 2005 Page 96 of 102 Page 23 The red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) has the potential to occur on the project, but was not observed during listed species surveys performed by WilsonMiller ecologists. No red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) individuals or cavity trees were observed on the site. The Florida panther (Fells concolor coryi) has the potential to occur on the property. However, no panther individuals, or signs, were observed during the listed species survey. No radio - telemetry data indicates that panther have utilized the property and the site is not within Priority 1 or 11 habitat. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus tloridanus) is the largest endemic mammal in Florida and is listed as threatened by FWC, but is not listed by FWS. Florida black bear habitat in Florida has been characterized as consisting of large tracts of undeveloped forests containing diverse vegetation types. The Florida black bear has a large home range and could visit the project site, however, evidence of Florida black bear (Le., tracks, scat, claw marks) was not observed on the property during WilsonMiller surveys. The Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) has the potential to occur on the site. However, no fox squirrel individuals or fox squirrel nests were observed during the listed species survey. Gray squirrels were observed utilizing the site on a daily basis. No sate or federally listed wildlife species have been documented occurring on or adjacent to the property. Table 3 provides listed species that could occur on the property but were not observed. Table 4 provides non - listed wildlife species observed on the property. 111rilsontMiller' New Direcg" In Planning, Design 6 Engineering Seacrest Lipper and Lowcr School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 97 of 102 Page 24 Table 3 Listed faunal species that could potentially occur on -eke but were not observed. FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service E = Endangered T = Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern NL = Not Listed Habitat = Major FLUCCS categories in which indicated species were observed or are most likely to occur. 1 W1 Wna01. 141772 v�r. 032- rn.nr C. eA" 04017.002_000. ErEK- 27352 `e..,, '_ ( T 411, 600 `}� i ',rt:. "i„� iri;;.t ,t ;%.bll:? +�.h. }F , 4 ,:....,k w 2<i . �. 7yj,:;M, F ,Gr:•.a +' pa.^',.., •,�+"^: Haliaeetus Bald eagle T No Low Potential leucoce halus visitor Potential Eudocfmus albus White ibis SSC NL 600 No Low visitor Potential Egretta (hula Snowy egret SSC NL 600 No Low visitor Egretta caervlea Little blue SSC NL 600 No Low Potential heron visitor Egralta tricolor Tricolored SSC NL 600 No Low Potential heron h visitor Mycteria Wood stork E E 600 No Low Potential americana visitor BROWN N Drymarchon cones Eastern T T 411,600 No Low Potential cou 'err ind' o snake visitor w All habitats No Low Felis concolor Florida E E Potential co i anther visitor Sciurus niger Big Cypress T NL All habitats No Medium Potential avicennia fox squirrel visitor Ursus amencanus Florida T NL All habitats No Low Potential Boddanus Black Bear I I visitor FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service E = Endangered T = Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern NL = Not Listed Habitat = Major FLUCCS categories in which indicated species were observed or are most likely to occur. 1 W1 Wna01. 141772 v�r. 032- rn.nr C. eA" 04017.002_000. ErEK- 27352 Agenda February 222005 Page 98 of 102 New Dirocdons in Planning, Design & Engineering Seacrest Upper and tower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement Page 25 Table 4 List of non -listed faunal species observed on the Seacrest Upper School site. :.Cardinal. Cardinalls cardinalis 411 Blue jay Cyanocitta crisata 411 Pine warbler Dendroice pinus 411 Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 411 Red - bellied woodpecker Melanerpes cerollnus 411,024 Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 411, 624 Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 411,624 Mouming dove Green anole Zenaide macroura hh Anolis carolinensis 411,624 1. 411,600 Cuban anole Anolis sagrei 411, 6W Oak toad Bufo querdcus 411 y. NN Flti ill' rl 'L t h h . r I1ir_ lNlj Nine - banded armadillo` Dasypus novemcinctus 411 Raccoon Procyon iotor 411 Gray squirrel Sciuras caroftnensis 411,624 zigns of Vise species (i.e. — tracks, scat, burrows, rubs, etc.) were observed. The listed species survey resulted in observations of Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) listed floral species. However, no plant species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was observed on the project site. Table 5 describes the scientific and common name of the plant species, vegetative community association, as well as its listing status by the FWS and the FDA. Table 6 describes the floral species that could potentially occur on the site due to their association with the vegetative communities on -site, but were not observed during the listed species survey. Table 5 Listed floral species observed on the Seacrest U l pper School site. I- Urr = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service E = Endangered T = Threatened NL = Not Listed C = Commercially exploited Habitat = Major FLUCCS categories in which indicated species were observed. ,I 1 WIW2004-14i772 v.r.o3i -rrmu, v... wa osottaozaoo. ePFa.27592 Stiff - leaved wild pine Tillandsla fasciculata E NL 411, 619, 621,624, 825 Reflexed wild pine 7711andsia belbisiana T NL 411, 621, 624 Twisted air plant Ti'1landsla Rexuose E NL 411 Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis C NL 621,624 WId-coco Eulophia alta T NL 411, 624 I- Urr = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service E = Endangered T = Threatened NL = Not Listed C = Commercially exploited Habitat = Major FLUCCS categories in which indicated species were observed. ,I 1 WIW2004-14i772 v.r.o3i -rrmu, v... wa osottaozaoo. ePFa.27592 wilsonmillere Naw Dirm lens In Planning, Das/gn d Fngl wft Sescrest Upper and tower School Second Revised Collier County Environmental Impact Statement Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 Page 99 of 102 Page 26 Table 6 Listed floral specifies that could reasonably occur but were not observed on the Seacrest Upper School site. K { - 7'Yt ✓L� r}' "1 f V �q l't1Mi[F9 ,{u �4"' �������t 4,P �Hi.P t Giant leather fern Acmsfichum danaefthlium FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service C = Commercially exploited NIL = Not listed Habitat = Major FLUCCS categories in which indicated species were observed or are most likely to occur. C. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for Impacts to listed species. No faunal species of special status were observed or are known to inhabit the site. No impacts to faunal species of special status are anticipated to occur as a result of this project. As previously noted, the property is surrounded by intensive land uses and shows little evidence of wildlife utilization. Significant wildlife connectivity to off -site habitat is non - existent. Although no wading birds were observed or are known to occur on the property, the addition of the open water habitat and shallow littoral fringes at the proposed on -site stormwater management system will provide foraging areas for wood storks and other wading birds. In addition, mitigation will be provided by purchasing credits from an off -site mitigation bank, which provides high - quality habitat for the wood stork and other listed wading bird species. The listed floral species on -site are listed only by the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA). These plants are listed pursuant to the Preservation of Native Flora of Florida Act. This act prohibits the willful destruction of harvesting of listed plant species; however, parties exempted from the prohibition include landowners and their agents clearing plants from canals, ditched, survey lines, building sites, or road or other right -of -way on their own land. D. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property. For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones, bald eagle management plans are required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD documents, where applicable. There are no listed wildlife either observed or known to utilize the project site. Therefore, listed species habitat management plans are not applicable to this project. E. Where applicable, include correspondence received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with regards to the project. Explain how the i W1=004- 141772 VW. 031 -MOM 0401740s000. EPER- 27552 Agenda Item No. 178 Wils miller• February 22, f 105 Page 100 of 102 New Dimcffws In Planning Deslgn & ftnwdba Seacres# Upper and Lower School Page 27 Second Revised Collier Counly Environmental Impact Statement concerns of these agencies have been met Letters to the FFWC and USFWS were sent requesting information regarding listed species documented on and adjacent to the property. To date, a response from the FFWCC has not been received. WiisonMiiler's in -house FFWCC I , database did not document any listed species occurrences on the project site. The USFWS responded to our listed species information request on September 10, 2003. A copy of the response letter from USFWS is included as Exhibit I. No federally listed species was documented by USFWS as inhabiting or utilizing the site or adjacent properties. Vill. 3.8.6.8. OTHER A. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more'r and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with the Marina Siting and other criteria In the Manatee Protection Plan. There are no multi -slip docking facilities or marina facilities associated with the proposed project. ' B. Include the results of any environmental assessments and/or audits of the. property. If applicable, provide a narrative of the cost and measures . ! - needed to clean up the site. There have not been any environmental assessments or audits of the property. i C. For sites located in the Big r Cypress Area of Critical State Concern - Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) overlay district, show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations established for the ACSC- ST. The site is not located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment (ACSC ST) overlay district. D. Soil sampling or ground water monitoring reports and programs shall be required for sites that occupy old farm fields, old golf courses or are suspected of previously having contamination on site. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The project site is neither an old farm field nor an old golf course and is not suspected of any previous contamination. Therefore, a soil sampling or ground water monitoring report is not applicable. E. Provide documentation from the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the project area. Locate any known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed project design. { WIV"4',41773 Vv. 031•TTn6Y 1. u� 0"17-002-WO- EPER -37664 Agenda Item No. 17B February 22, 2005 / /rl 11mi„ere Page 101 of 102 rr/ s New Directions In Planning, Design & Engineering Seacrest Upper and Lower School Page 28 Second Revised Conker County Environmental Impact Statement I 1 Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historiclarchaeological integrity of the site. The proposed Seacrest Upper School site is not known to contain areas of historic significance. The site is located outside of areas of potential historic and archaeological probability as defined in the "Index Map of I HistoricallArchaeological Probability of Collier County, Florida,' dated March 23, 1993. A search of the Florida Master Site File and the Register of Historical Places was made, and a letter response dated August 12, 2003 indicated that no archaeological or historical sites have been recorded for the project site (refer to Exhibit H). r� SMOM004- 141772 W031- TTAIft G.° aor-aoz -ooa Evve- 27652 I i �� 1� i 1 I i 1 I. i RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856) RIVIERA 18 COLONY GOLF N � w.o.rw a000 r.n PnPaW py; V. PNIpAno &MM X;/EnvW17n8uaut High eohooNLooaeon 22, 2005 21- TWELVE LAKES 4 WILDW ESTATES SAXON ✓ BRETONNE PARK g MANOR � NAPLES ISL S HERITAGE BEMBRIDGE MOON GOLF RIVIERA 18 COLONY GOLF N � w.o.rw a000 r.n PnPaW py; V. PNIpAno &MM X;/EnvW17n8uaut High eohooNLooaeon 22, 2005 21- TWELVE LAKES 4 WILDW ESTATES NEW HOPE ✓ BRETONNE PARK BERKSHIRE LAKES 5 6 � NAPLES w O HERITAGE BEMBRIDGE MOON GOLF TOARMINA LAKE w FALLING COUNTRY m tOJECT B MUNDA SHOPPES m m AT CROWN z Z POINTE SANTA r I Z BARBARA IX Q DAVIS BOUL ARD EXT. RIVIERA 18 COLONY GOLF N � w.o.rw a000 r.n PnPaW py; V. PNIpAno &MM X;/EnvW17n8uaut High eohooNLooaeon 22, 2005 21- TWELVE LAKES 4 WILDW ESTATES NEW HOPE ✓ MINISTRIES (S.R. � NAPLES w O HERITAGE CL GOLF TOARMINA AND FALLING COUNTRY PI tOJECT B MUNDA 7 m WEST CROWN ca � J OQ POINTE m Z IX Q O U RIVIERA 18 COLONY GOLF N � w.o.rw a000 r.n PnPaW py; V. PNIpAno &MM X;/EnvW17n8uaut High eohooNLooaeon 22, 2005 21- TWELVE LAKES 4 WILDW ESTATES YOUTH HAVEN 17 ROYAL WOODS WATERFORD WOOD I ESTATES L!— 16 uz LOCATION MAR IRS-WI *Miller NewMiyabne In PbNft Dwkn d Enoinwim EXHIBIT A PROJECT: SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL CLIENT: SEACREST SCHOOL, INC. PROJECT: 04017402.000 - FE ENV SEC. 6, TWP. 605, RNG. 26E, Colller County, Florida NEW HOPE ✓ MINISTRIES NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF TOARMINA AND FALLING COUNTRY � WATERS 8 CLUB P t m � ca � J m YOUTH HAVEN 17 ROYAL WOODS WATERFORD WOOD I ESTATES L!— 16 uz LOCATION MAR IRS-WI *Miller NewMiyabne In PbNft Dwkn d Enoinwim EXHIBIT A PROJECT: SEACREST UPPER AND LOWER SCHOOL CLIENT: SEACREST SCHOOL, INC. PROJECT: 04017402.000 - FE ENV SEC. 6, TWP. 605, RNG. 26E, Colller County, Florida Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 165 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petition PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Champion Lakes Development, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace it with conventional mixed residential dwelling unit types and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve PUD. A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per acre. The property is located on the north side of Championship Drive in Sections 11, 14 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the requested rezone is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and is in the best interest of the community. CONSIDERATIONS: The Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD was originally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on April 11, 2000 and recorded through Ordinance Number 2000 -21. The existing Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD is a mixed -use development allowing for 300 recreational vehicle (RV) units and a variety of recreational amenities with a limited number of convenience commercial uses on 101.5+ acres. The proposed Copper Cove Preserve PUD amendment eliminates the 300 RV units in lieu of traditional single - family and multi - family units. The PUD amendment proposes to retain the recreational amenities approved by the original rezoning but seeks to eliminate the limited commercial component. Access to the project will be provided from Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) via Championship Drive located at the southwest comer of the project. The land use pattern for SR 951 south of US 41 consists of a mix of residential and commercial. Within the immediate area of the subject property is residential development with a range of dwelling units including single - family dwelling units and recreational vehicle units. Fiddler's Creek PUD, Pelican Lakes PUD, and Silver Lakes PUD, all residential PUDs, in addition to Quail Roost Mobile Home Park, regulate the land use for the area. The changes proposed by the PUD amendment, single and multi - family dwelling units in exchange for recreational vehicle units, and the elimination of 15,000 square feet of convenience commercial, are compatible with the surrounding residential development. The rezone request is seeking eight deviations from the regulations provided in the Land Development Code (LDC). These deviations were contained in the existing Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD document and have been modified slightly during the PUD amendment process. The deviations and modifications are contained within Section 2.5 of the Copper Cover Preserve PUD. Each of the requested deviations are listed below with the applicant's justification. PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 165 1. A deviation from Construction Standards Manual Revised in Supplement 17 (03 -55); Streets and access improvements. Street right -of -way width: The minimum right -of -way width to be utilized for local streets and cul -de -sacs shall be 40 feet. The proposed 40 -foot right -of -way width for internal streets is sufficient to support the required infrastructure for Copper Cove Preserve PUD. This deviation was previously approved as part of the existing Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD, and a plat with these right -of -way widths has been approved by Collier County. 2. A deviation from Construction Standards Manual Revised in Supplement 17 (03 -55); Dead -end Streets. Cul -de -sacs may exceed a length of 1,000 feet. The deviation for cul -de -sac lengths exceeding 1,000 feet has been requested to provide flexibility in final subdivision design. Exceeding 1,000 feet in length for a cul -de -sac street will pose no life safety threats, as the roadways will be designed to accommodate turning radius for fire apparatus. A deviation from Construction Standards Manual Revised in Supplement 17 (03 -55); Reverse Curves. Reverse Curves: Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. Because of the location of the preserves along the site boundaries and the irregular shape of the preserve area, it is necessary to provide a road network that has reverse curves to avoid additional preserve impacts. Thus in some instances, it is necessary to have a reverse curve without a tangent line on the local street. This deviation was previously approved, and the plat has been approved without tangents. 4. A deviation from Chapter 6.06.02; Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths. No sidewalk shall be required for that portion of the project roadway connecting to SR 951 i.e. Casa Del Lago Boulevard. However, if it is determined in the future that this roadway can and will be upgraded to add a sidewalk, Copper Cove shall pay a fair share contribution to the construction of the sidewalk. This deviation was previously approved by Collier County as it relates to the roadway extending to the site from SR 951. The existing roadway that has been constructed contains no sidewalk, and the roadway cross - section will not support sidewalk construction. 5. A deviation from Chapter 10.02.05.E.3(n) and Chapter 4.06.0l.C; Streets and access improvements. The project roadway(s) extending west to SR 951 may be designed as a rural cross - section or modified cross - section, subject to approval by the Collier County Zoning Director, or designee. If this roadway is upgraded to four lanes, an urban section, turn lanes installed at SR 951 and/or a signal installed at SR 951 in the future, Copper Cove shall pay a fair share contribution to the upgrade construction. A rural roadway cross - section has been previously approved by Collier County, and the roadway has been built to this standard. 6. A deviation from 6.01.02; Easements. Drainage easements between residential lots shall be permitted to be a minimum of 10 feet in width where reinforced concrete pipe is utilized, all joints are sealed, and installation depths are minimized. The LDC requires a minimum of 15 feet when underground drainage structures are installed. The requested deviation to permit drainage easements between residential lots at a minimum of 10 feet will permit flexibility in final subdivision design without compromising public safety or maintenance capabilities. This deviation can only be utilized where shallow depths are proposed with concrete pipe installation between individual residential lots. PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 3 of 165 7. A deviation from Chapter 3.05.07; Preserve Setbacks. Principal structures shall be permitted to be constructed up to 20 feet from preserve areas, a deviation from the required 25 foot principal structure setback from preserves to permit principal structures to be located 20 feet from a preserve area. The project is located within the Deltona Settlement Area, and the preserve areas shown are not required preserves. Additionally, the project has previously received approval from the South Florida Water Management District and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, permitting specific upland buffers near the preserve areas. 8. A deviation from Chapter 10.02.13. Annual monitoring reports. The developer in lieu of paying for annual traffic counts at the project entrance shall make a single payment in the amount of $8,000 to the county for a permanent count station to be placed on the roadway leading to SR 951. Each of the pertinent reviewing County departments has reviewed and is supporting the requested deviations based upon existing improvements within the project, or the physical constraints presented by the property. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning of this PUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the property is rezoned, a portion of the existing land will be developed, and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. 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 Levels 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 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), and is within the Traffic Congestion Area and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU /A) and is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The project is located within a Traffic Congestion Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), so is subject to a 1 DU /A reduction from the base density of 4 DU /A and is not eligible for any density bonuses. Therefore, this project is limited to a maximum density of 3 DU /A. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed amendments can be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 4 of 165 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (6.8), of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD document has been written to reflect the most current environmental regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The petition was not required to appear before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), because the Environmental Impact Statement associated with the project is less than 5 years old. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on February 3, 2005. They forwarded the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to modifications as follows: 1. the developer shall construct a turn around at the project's entrance for Emergency Management vehicles; 2. the addition of a 10 -foot side yard setback requirement for multi - family structures to Development Table I in the PUD document and 3. the addition of a requirement to the PUD document to require the developer to replant the preserve area located between Silver Lakes PUD and Pelican Lakes PUD. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7 to 0. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) must be based. The legal considerations are reflected in the Collier County Planning Commission's evaluation of the listed criteria in Chapter 10.03.05 and Chapter 10.02.12 of the LDC. These evaluations are completed as separate documents that have been incorporated into the attached staff report. A summary of the legal considerations and findings are noted below: • The proposed change has been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMP. • The proposed land uses are compatible with the existing land use pattern. • The proposed change will not 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. This project has also been deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Element of the GMP. • The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private, shall be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 4 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2000 Page 5 of 165 Staff analysis indicates that the proposed Copper Cove Preserve PUD is compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 subject to the attached Copper Cove Preserve PUD document that has been modified to reflect the CCPC's recommendation of approval and includes the eight requested deviations. PREPARED BY: Mike Bosi, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning and Land Development Review PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR 5879 Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 6 of 165 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number 17C Bem summary This Rend requires lhgl all pinrncipanm he swore) in and ex -parte disclosure he provided by Commission members PUDZ- A- 2004 -AR -5879 Champion Lakes Development, LLC. represented by Richard Yovan —,,lh of Goodlalte, Coleman and Johnson. PA. requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed ra;fdential dwelling unit types, and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve RP'JD. A maximum of 300 residentia' d - -frog units pre requested on 101 5 arre.5, with a prolect density of appmxlmalely 2.96 units Iner aere The property Is ioested On the north .'side, of Championship Drive, in Sections 11, 14 & 15, Township 51 Sputh. Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Mending Date 2/2212005 9:0000 .AM Prepared By Date Mike Boa,, AICP Pnnripal Planner 2/4/2005 1:36:41 PM Commundy Oov<lopment a Enviranmontat 5crvires 'T_oning R land Orvelapmen2 P.avi<w Approved By Mike. Bassi, AICP Principal Planner Date. Community Development & loamy & i -and U<Velupm¢nt Neviaw 1 131i2005 11:24 AM F.nvironrnental Services Approved By Constance A. John —, Operations Analyst Uafa C.,rn —ly Development & Communny Development & 2!4120054:112 PM Environmental Servir,es Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Sandra Lna Executive s<nr<taty nuM Community Devebpment& Community Development& 21712005 1 D:t9 AM Envmonmental Servicea Envnvnmental Servic <a Admin. Approved By Ray Bellows Cf+lef Planner Date Community Develop —ri A Zoning R I. ..d Develapmen[ Review 2 ?!2005 4:03 P!.A Environmental Services Approved By Susan Murray. AICP Zoning R Land Developnfent Director Date community Development& Zoning R Land Dovefopmenl Revi <w ?!7!2005 4:20 PM Environmental Servicea Approved By Donald L. S—tt Transportation Planning Director Date Transpottion S-1— Tranapnrtation Planning 21x/2005 1:37 PM Approved By Norm E. Fader. AICP 7ranxportatinn Division Administrator Date 1'ranap<rtion Servicea '(ransportatlon Servicea Admin. 21912005 3:10 PM Approved By Pffirrck O. white Aasi tent County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attnrnry Office 2/10/20051 7:47 PM Approved By fnmmunity [development & .doseph K, Schmitt Environmental Services Adrninstrator Date Community Development R Community Davelepmenl & 211 1)2905 12:04 PM Environmental Servicer Environmental Servicea Admin. Approved By OMB Coordinator Administrative As—AW Darn County Manag <r'a Office Onic<of Manag<ment & Budg<I, 2111120D5 1:37 PM Approved By Michael 6rnykuwskl Msnugemant& Dudg <t Director Date County Manager's Uffice Otf.— of Management 8. Butlget 2114f2005 5:19 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Hoard cf county Commissioners tiouMy Manager's Offine 2; i6l20D5 U:41 AM AGENDA ITEM 8 -G Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 7 of 165 Coyer County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2005 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879, COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD AGENT /APPLICANT: OWNER: Champion Lakes Development, LLC 606 Bald Eagle Drive, Suite 603 Marco Island, FL 34145 AGENT: D. Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REOUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Copper Cove Preserve PUD. The applicant seeks to amend the existing Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD by eliminating the approved 300 Recreation Vehicle (RV) units in exchange for 300 units of single- family and multi - family. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD will be developed as a mixed -use community with a mix of residential dwelling units, and a recreation center providing for activities such as community gatherings and recreation recreation5l amenities. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR951), approximately one mile south of East Tamiami Trial (US41) in Sections 11, 14 and 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See illustration on following page) PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD P Al a U b A co ro 2 n Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 165 LOCATION MAP SITE MAP PETITION =PUDZ- 9001- Ali- 0670 IN Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 8 of 165 LOCATION MAP SITE MAP PETITION =PUDZ- 9001- Ali- 0670 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 . Page 9 of 165 Mastor r ,a LNR u M" �e La+ A rvr A irr aR, jw I A - Lim as Aar Or jw wr a LAM r sss MW r A SAW �pewL ri r•�• A r® A , A e r O ' Y reimr +�� �� W ■�� JpYR/R'! ..r !'tlD ,.a rrrs ttl0�'tm w Sam%* I& fA t >a : ' t am" M am GaAs MMM rrmrou Ills aanaawr .+�araa eurtt iW � p � t1 �° as VM Ka wad aN MCMU FM YASM raaw ... M... . ....e. PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD 3 FEE F v th w n .b n n O N pC i Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 10 of 165 aura � .clt roar � .a•rnAturu- wxr (racs w M rmni aRa w , -ant rm(rrw - .�!lrwl m r•ety,. :•;..:: q(rI LR . MMttrtl � -' 1 Pm MM r¢ra� Wt M M 1 Wrla rW r t I #uoulp I!' rn M(P a a rfJloo (mtai p(p M AND M 12!1-k N OD A�N.tlm P. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD 4N paE. • NYr/ Eg191T A I,tri�n rM, trra alw !..�R^ MASTER CONCEPT PLAN ttrr iiw rirtu it7•IDT.'F1:. aw irr r,r.r•. ,....,. auwr Irirr t . pal ra. f _ Ip 91St• a�aIT.P rrr �8�p1 r_ �;c Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 11 of 165 PURPOSE/DESCRIMON OF PROJECT: The Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD was originally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on April 11, 2000, and recorded through Ordinance Number 2000- 21. The existing Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD is a mixed -use development allowing for 300 Recreational Vehicle (RV) units and a variety of recreational amenities, with a limited amount of convenience commercial uses. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD amendment is proposing to eliminate the 300 RV units in lieu of traditional single - family and multi - family units. The PUD amendment is proposing to retain the recreational amenities approved for by the original rezoning, but seeks to eliminate the limited commercial component contained within the original PUD document. Access to the project will be provided from Collier Boulevard (CR951) via Championship Drive located at the southwest corner of the project. The land use pattern for the south segment of CR951 south of US41 is a mix of residential and commercial. The immediate local area for the subject property is residential development with a range of dwelling units from single - family dwelling units to Recreational Vehicle units. Fiddler's Creek PUD, Pelican Lakes PUD, and Silver Lakes PUD, all residential PUDs, in addition to Quail Roost Mobile Home Park, regulate the land use for the area. The changes proposed by the PUD amendment, single and multi - family dwelling units in exchange for Recreational Vehicle units and the elimination of 15,000 square feet of convenience commercial, are compatible with the surrounding residential development. PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD 5 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 12 of 165 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: Undeveloped parcels; zoned Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD Surrounding- North: Existing mobile home structures and undeveloped land, zoned MH and Fiddler's Creek PUD East: Undeveloped parcels; zoned Fiddler's Creek PUD South: Existing residential structures, zoned Fiddler's Creek & Pelican Lake PUDs West: Existing residential structures, zoned Silver Lakes &Pelican Lake PUDs GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), and is within the Traffic Congestion Area and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD . 6 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 13 of 165 petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU /A) and is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. . The project is located within a Traffic Congestion Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the FLUE, so is subject to a 1 DU /A reduction from the base density of 4 DU /A and is not eligible for any density bonuses. Therefore, this project is limited to a maximum density of 3 DU /A. Base Density 4 du/a Traffic Congestion Area -1 du /a Total Eligible Density 3 du/a FLUE Policy 5.4 provides that all new development must be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves the determination of compatibility to Zoning and Land Development staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. Future Land Use Element: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed amendments can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Transportation Element: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and was found consistent with Policy 5.1. The consistency finding provides a statement to the project, that when developed, it will not excessively increase traffic congestion. As noted, the subject property is within the Traffic Congestion Area and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. With the Traffic Congestion Area, the project is subject to a 1 dwelling unit per acre reduction from the base density of 4 dwelling unit per acre and is not eligible for any density bonuses. Due to the Traffic Congestion Area designation. for the surrounding area, the subject property and surrounding area would be constrained from expanding beyond the 3 units per acre approved for by the existing PUD, and sought by the proposed amendment. Oven Space /Conservation: A minimum of thirty percent open space of the gross site area, as described in Chapter 4.02.01 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Policy 1.1.6 of the GMP, will be required of the PUD. Section 2.15 of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD document requires that the minimum of thirty percent useable open space be maintained for the project. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Chapter 10.03.05 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and required staff evaluation and comment. The Planning Commission also will utilize these criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Appropriate evaluation of petitions for rezones.to PUDs PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD Agenda Item No. 1:7C February 22, 2005 Page 14 of 165 should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision- makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criteria noted and are summarized by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non - compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit "A and Exhibit "B"). Environmental Analysis: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed the petition and has incorporated safeguards within the PUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations. The Environmental Section (6.6), of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD document has been revised through the amendment process to reflect the most current environmental regulations. The petition was not required to go before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) due to the fact that the Environmental Impact Statement associate with the petition is less than five years old. Transportation Analysis: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: The PUD document, in relation to the Transportation element, has. been updated to ensure all development within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD will be subject to and compliant with the policy contained within the Transportation sub - element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the regulatory fabric contained in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Transportation Section (6.7), of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD document, has been revised through the amendment process to parallel the current LDC regulations. Utility Issues: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following: water distribution, sewage collection and transmission, and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Zoning and Land Development Analysis: As previously noted, the subject property is designated as Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Traffic Congestion Area and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU /A and is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The project is located within a Traffic Congestion Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and,described in the FLUE, so is subject to a 1 DU /A reduction from the base density of 4 DU /A and is not eligible for any density bonuses. Therefore, this project is limited to a maximum density of 3 DU /A. The proposed amendment is not seeking to increase the residential density of 2.97 dwelling units per acre allotted to the PUD. Considering the availability of community infrastructure and services, and the applicant's commitments in the PUD document, staff concludes that the proposed changes to the PUD document are consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 15 of 165 In addition to an evaluation of the proposed rezoning action regarding the Comprehensive Planning consistency review, an evaluation of the proposed action compared to existing land uses is required. The discussion of the relationship to existing land uses concerns the compatibility with the adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west. The Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD is an existing PUD. that was created to integrate with the surrounding residential dwelling type mix of the local area. The proposed zoning action is seeking to amend the PUD to eliminate the recreational vehicle use and add conventional residential dwelling units to the project. As noted, the property is surrounded by existing and proposed residential development, consisting of recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and conventional dwelling unit types. In addition, the request is seeking to eliminate the 15,000 square feet of limited commercial currently allotted to the PUD. This action will add further consistency to the residential land use pattern in the local area. Access to the property has been established by an extension of Championship Drive, which has been constructed. The rezone request is seeking seven deviations from the regulations provided for in the Land Development Code- (LDC). These deviations were contained in the existing Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD document and have been modified slightly during the PUD amendment process. The deviations and modifications are contained within Section 2.5 of the Copper Cover Preserve PUD. Each of the requested deviations are listed below with the applicant's justification. 1. A deviation from Construction Standards Manual Revised in Supplement 17 (03 -55); Streets and access improvements. Street right -of -way width: The minimum right -of -way width to be utilized for local streets and cul -de -sacs shall be forty (40) feet. The proposed 40 -foot right -of -way width for internal streets is sufficient to support the required infrastructure for Copper Cove Preserve PUD. This deviation was previously approved, and a plat with these right -of -way widths has been approved by Collier County. 2. A deviation from Construction Standards Manual _Revised in Supplement 17 (03 -55); Dead -end Streets. Cul -de -sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. The deviation for cul -de -sac lengths exceeding 1,000 feet has been requested to provide flexibility in final subdivision design. Exceeding 1,000 feet in length for a cul -de -sac street will pose no life safety threats, as the roadways will be designed to accommodate turning radius for fire apparatus. 3. A deviation from Construction Standards Manual Revised in Supplement 17 (03 -55); Reverse Curves. Reverse Curves: Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. Because of the location of the preserves along the site boundaries and the irregular shape of the preserve area, it is necessary to provide a road network that has reverse curves to avoid additional preserve impacts. Thus in some instances, it is necessary to have a reverse curve without a tangent line on the local street. This deviation was previously approved and the plat has been approved without tangents. 4. A deviation from Chapter 6.06.02; Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths. No sidewalk shall be required for that portion of the project roadway connecting to CR951 (Collier Boulevard) i.e. Casa Del Lago Boulevard. This deviation was previously approved by PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 16 of 165 Collier County as it relates to the roadway extending to the site from CR951. The existing roadway that has been constructed contains no sidewalk and the cross- section will not support sidewalk construction. 5. A deviation from Chapter 10.02.05.E.3(n) and Chapter 4.06.01.C; Streets and access improvements. The project roadway(s) extending west to CR951 may be designed as a rural cross- section or modified cross - section, subject to approval by the Collier County Zoning Director, or designee. A rural roadway cross - section has been previously approved by Collier County and the roadway has been built to this standard. 6. A deviation from 6.01.02; Easements. Drainage easements between residential lots shall be permitted to be a minimum of 10 feet in width where RCP pipe is utilized, all joints are sealed, and installation depths are minimized. The LDC requires a minimum of fifteen (15) feet when underground drainage structures are installed. The requested deviation to permit drainage easements between residential lots at a minimum of ten (10) feet will permit flexibility in final subdivision design without compromising public safety or maintenance capabilities. This deviation can only be utilized where shallow depths are proposed with concrete pipe installation between individual residential lots. 7. A deviation from Chapter 3.05.07; Preserve Setbacks. Principal structures shall be permitted to be constructed up to twenty (20) feet from preserve areas. A deviation from the typical twenty -five (25) foot principal structure setback from preserves to permit principal structures to be located twenty (20) feet from a preserve area. The project is located within the Deltona Settlement Area and the preserve areas shown are not required preserves. Additionally, the project has previously received approval from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, permitting specific'upland buffers near the preserve areas. Each of the pertinent reviewing County departments has reviewed and is supporting the requested deviations, except for deviation number four and five. These deviations pertain to the exemption of the sidewalk requirement, and the rural roadway cross - section standard for project roadway(s) extending west to CR951 respectively. It is the Transportation Division opinion that these deviations will prevent the roadway as presented from accommodating the future demands the approval of the authorized units would dictate. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The petitioner held a Neighborhood Information Meeting on July 20, 2004, that was attended by approximately six individuals, other than the applicant's agents and county staff. Of those persons that spoke, none expressed opposition to the proposed rezone or preliminary development plans. PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD 10 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 . Page 17 of 165 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of Petition PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 that repeals Ordinance Number 02 -08 as described by the Ordinance of Adoption and exhibits thereto, the Copper Cove Preserve PUD regulatory document, with the modification of the PUD document to eliminate the below noted deviations: 1. A deviation from Chapter 6.06.02; Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths. No sidewalk shall be required for that portion of the project roadway connecting to CR951 (Collier Boulevard) i.e. Casa Del Lago Boulevard. This deviation was _previously approved by Collier County as it relates to the roadway extending to the site from CR951. The existing roadway that has been constructed contains no sidewalk and the cross - section will not support sidewalk construction. 2. A deviation from Chapter 10.02,05.E.3(n) and Chapter 4.06701.C; Streets and access improvements. The project roadway(s) extending `west to CR951 may be designed as a rural .cross-section or modified cross - section, subject to approval by the Collier County Zoning Director, or designee. A rural roadway cross - section has been previously approved by Collier County and the roadway has been built to this standard. PUDA -04 -AR -5879, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD 11 Agenda Item No. 1.7C February 22, 2005 Page 18 of 165 PREPARED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RAY 44LOW7S, MANAGER DATE DEPAMMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -g O S' USAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRE OR 16ATt DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: J E H K. SCHMTTT ADMINISTRATOR T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the February 22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN PUDA -04 -AR -5874, Copper Cove Preserve RPUD 12 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 19 of 165 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Chapter 10.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), and is within the Traffic Congestion Area and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU /A and is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The project is located within a Traffic Congestion Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the FLUE, so is subject to a 1 dwelling unit per acre reduction from the base density of 4 dwelling unit per acre and is not eligible for any density bonuses. The Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD was deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and was approved by the BCC in 2000. The proposed dwelling unit substitution and the elimination of the commercial component has not affected the FLUE consistency for the PUD. 2. The existing land use pattern. The land use pattern for the south segment of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) south of US 41 is a mix of residential and commercial. The immediate local area for the subject property is residential development with a range of dwelling units from single family dwelling units to Recreational Vehicle units, Fiddler's Creek PUD, Pelican Lakes PUD, and Silver Lakes PUD, all residential PUDs, in addition to Quail Roost Mobile Home Park, regulate the land use for the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The Copper Cove Preserve RPUD is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE. The result of the requested action, elimination of convenience commercial will grant a greater consistency to the residential zoning pattern in the localized area. Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 20 of 165 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The approval granted to the PUD by the Board of County Commissioners in 2000, found the existing boundary for the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD to be logically drawn. The proposed PUD amendment does not request to expand or alter the approved project boundaries. Based upon these factors, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the property and the positive relationship of the request to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The project's surrounding development: Silver Lakes PUD, Pelican Lake PUD, Fiddler's Creek PUD, and Quail Roost Mobile Home Park, are all residential development with similar or compatible density. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood based upon the safeguards incorporated within the development standards of the proposed PUD document 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. Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and was found consistent. This finding provides a statement that this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion. Additionally certain traffic management systems improvements are required as a condition of approval (i.e. turn lanes, traffic signals, dedications, etc.). In the final analysis all rezone actions are subject to the Checkbook Concurrency Management System. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment will not create a drainage problem. As indicated within the Water Management Report for Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD, the water management/storm drainage plan will incorporate best management practices and will be consistent with South Florida Water Management District permit criteria. Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 21 of 165 Every project approved in the County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub - surface drainage generated by development activities as a condition of approval. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed single family and multi- family development standards contained in the proposed PUD amendment are similar to the development standards contained in similar traditional zoning districts, which are designed to protect the circulation of light and air to adjacent areas. The PUD, by regulation, must provide for a minimum of thirty percent open space within the project. The proposed amendment will not affect this requirement. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The changes proposed by the PUD amendment, single and multi- family dwelling units in exchange of Recreational Vehicles units and the elimination of 15,000 square feet of convenience commercial, are compatible with the surrounding residential development. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not adversely affect property values. It should be noted that the value of property is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the zoning districts throughout Collier County is that their sound application when combined with the administrative site development plan approval process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in a deterrence to improvement 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 Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that proposed amendment to the PUD complies with the GMP. In light of this fact, the proposed PUD Amendment 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 said plans are in the public interest. 13. Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 22 of 165 Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, however to do so would prevent this petition from responding to changing market demands, which has dictated a change from Recreational Vehicle units to traditional single family and multi - family dwelling units. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed amendment complies with the GMT and will not adversely impact the scale, density and overall intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County. The proposed amendment will further establish the residential character of the PUD and the localized land. use pattern with the elimination of the commercial component of the existing PUD. 15. Whether..it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are other sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed residential development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a. rezoning decision. The determinants of zoning are consistency with the elements of the GMP, compatibility, adequacy of infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action and all of the above criteria. 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. The subject property will require a degree of site alteration to accommodate the range of uses proposed by the PUD document, but physical alteration is a product of developing vacant land which cannot be avoided 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. A multi - disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMT has reviewed this petition and they have found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 23 of 165 FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 Chapter 10.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 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 local area, approximately two miles south of the US 41 /Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) intersection, east of Collier Boulevard, is populated with a range of residential dwelling units, from single and multi- family units to mobile homes. The proposed amendment is seeking to substitute the 300 Recreational Vehicle units approved by the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD, for single and multi- family units. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the Copper Cove Preserve RPUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the RPUD document will be recommended to the Planning Commission and the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GMT. 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. Docu Tents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The Copper Cove Preserve RPUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity is addressed in the Staff Report. Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 24 of 165 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 request seeks to substitute the 300 mobile Recreational Vehicle units approved by the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD, for single and multi - family units. In addition, the proposed amendment requests the elimination of the previously approved 15,000 square feet of convenience commercial. The proposed Copper Cove Preserve RPUD will bring the subject property more in -line with the adjoining residential zoned parcels, and result in a greater consistency in the zoning for the neighboring area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. As provided in Section 2.15 of the PUD Document, the amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The tuning or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Given the fact that the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD is an existing PUD, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), and is within the Traffic Congestion Area and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. With the Traffic Congestion Area, the project is subject to a 1 dwelling unit per acre reduction from the base density of 4 dwelling unit per acre ' and is not eligible for any density bonuses. The Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD is an existing PUD that was created to integrate with the existing residential mix of the surrounding area. The amendment proposes to exchange the 300 Recreational Vehicle units for single and multi - family units. Due to the Traffic Congestion Area designation for the surrounding area, the subject property and surrounding area would be constrained to expand beyond the 3 units per acre approved for by the existing PUD, and sought by the proposed amendment. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 25 of 165 modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. As noted the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD is an existing approved PUD. The proposed amendment seeks to eliminate the commercial component of the PUD and substitute the dwelling unit type allowed for within the PUD. No increase in density is being sought by the proposed amendment. The amendment proposes deviations from the LDC as contained in Section 2.5 of the Copper Cove Preserve RPUD document that were contained within the existing PUD document. The remaining PUD document was updated to reference all current applicable sections of the LDC. Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 26 of 165 ORDINANCE NO. 05— AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "PUD" TO "RPUD" FOR THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CHAMPION LAKES RV RESORT, TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PUD TO THE COPPER COVE PRESERVE RPUD AND TO ABANDON THE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE UNITS AND REPLACE THEM WITH CONVENTIONAL MIXED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 300 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 2.96 UNITS PER ACRE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 101 ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 00 -21, AS AMENDED, THE FORMER CHAMPION LAKES RV RESORT PUD; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA, representing Champion Lakes Development, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject real property as part of Petition PUDZ - 2004 -AR -5879; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; SECTION ONE: The Zoning Classification of the subject real property as described in Section I of the PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof, located in Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "PUD" to "RPUD" Planned Unit Development to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed residential dwelling unit types. A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are approved, with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per acre. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code, are hereby amended accordingly. Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 27 of 165 SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 2000 -21, as amended, known as the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD, adopted on April 11, 2000, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with these regulations. SECTION THREE: 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 .2005. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form an Le ci , Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney 2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 28 of 165 COPPER COVE PRESERVE n MIXED -USE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 141.5± Acres Located in Sections 11, 14 & 15 Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Colonial Homes, Inc. 12220 Towne Lake Drive, Suite 75 Fort Myers, FL 33913 PREPARED BY: Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Fl 34134 (239) 947 -1144 (239) 947 -0375 Fax and Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34104 EXHIBIT "A„ TABLE OF CONTENTS Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 29 of 165 PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE u SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & 1 -1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 11 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL 3 -1 SECTION IV RECREATION 4 -1 SECTION V PRESERVE 5 -1 SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6 -1 COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28-05 11 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 30 of 165 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B BOUNDARY SURVEY EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT D PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT E LOCATION MAP TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 111 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 31 of 165 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of the Developer, to create a Mixed -use Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) of 300 units on 141.5± acres of land located in Sections 11, 14 & 15 Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Copper Cove Preserve PUD. The development of Copper Cove Preserve PUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The Development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use Residential District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The purpose of the Urban Mixed Use Residential District is to provide for a variety of residential and mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. 2. The proposed residential density of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD is 2.96 dwelling units per acre and is less than the maximum density of three (3) dwelling units per acre permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System and the Land Development Code (LDC) and is therefore consistent with FLUE Policy 5.1. 3. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 5. The development of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policy 3.1. of the FLUE. 6. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD is a large- scale, mixed -use community, and is planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Residential Planned Unit Development District. 7. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as may be required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub- Element of the Public Facilities Element. 8. All final local development orders for this Project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 iv Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 32 of 165 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "COPPER COVE PRESERVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ". COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 V Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 33 of 165 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached Exhibit "C" 13 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP See attached Exhibit "D" 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The Project site is located in Sections 11 and 14 & 15 Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida. The site is generally bordered on the West by Pelican Lake and Silver Lakes RV PUDs; on the North by Quail Roost Mobile Home Park; on the East and on the South by the Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is PUD. C. Elevations within the site are approximately 3.5' above MSL. Per FEMA Firm Map Panel No. 120067 620 D, dated June 3, 1986, the Copper Cove Preserve property is located within Zone "AE 7" of the FEMA flood insurance rate map. D. Portions of the site have been altered through past and current agricultural uses; however, the site does contain jurisdictional wetlands. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been submitted, pursuant to Chapters 3 and 10 of the LDC. E. The soil types on the site generally include fine quartz sands, including Malabar, Oldsmar and Holopaw fine sands. This information was derived from the Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 1-1 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 34 of 165 F. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD contains a variety of vegetative communities, including cropland and pastures, woodland pastures, pine flatwoods, and palmetto prairies. Clearing has occurred consistent with the Preserve area requirements and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. G. The Project site is located within the Collier County Water Management District U.S. 41 Outfall Basin No. 1. 1.5 DENSITY A. Acreage of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD is approximately 101.5+ acres and the number of dwelling units authorized to be built pursuant to this PUD is a maximum of 300. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 2.96 units per acre. B. At all times all property included within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD as described in Section 1.2 shall be included in determining Project density. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 1 -2 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 35 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD will be developed as a mixed -use community, which may feature a full array of dwelling types, and a recreation center, providing for activities such as community gatherings, recreational amenities, and personnel services central to community residents. B. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically as Exhibit "A ". A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreage is shown on the plan. The Master Plan is conceptual, and the location, size, and configuration of individual tracts, including preserves and water management facilities shall be determined at the time of Final Site Development Plan and/or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor adjustments at the time of Final Plat approval, in accordance with Chapter 1, 4 and 10 of the LDC. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC (to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance), and the Growth Management Plan. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. Where specific standards are specified in this PUD, these standards shall prevail over those in the LDC. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Chapter 6 of the LDC. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2-1 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 36 of 165 D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD or by subsequent request, the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code remain in effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Copper Cove Preserve Conceptual Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land maybe developed. F. The subdivision requirements of the LDC, shall apply to the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, except where an exemption or substitution is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to the Land Development Code. G. The Site Development Plans Chapter 10 of the LDC shall apply to the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to the Land Development Code. H. Recognizing that the plans for development of tracts have not been designated with a specific dwelling unit type, the type of dwelling unit which characterizes the initial development of any platted tract shall be carried out throughout the development of that entire tract. However, tracts platted for the purpose of establishing prototypical model homes shall be not be required to develop with a singular dwelling unit type. 2.4 ROADWAYS A. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, or approved during Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Chapters 1, 4 and 10 of the LDC. The Developer retains the right to establish gates, guardhouses, and other access controls as may be deemed appropriate by the Developer on all privately owned and maintained Project roadways and roadways built and/or maintained by the Copper Cove Preserve PUD. 2.5 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A. Roadways within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Construction Standards Manual and Chapters 1, 4 and 10 of the LDC with the following substitutions: Streets and access improvements Street Right -of -Way Width ICOPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -26 -05 2 -2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 37 of 165 Street right -of -way width: The minimum right -of -way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de -sacs shall be forty (40) feet 2. Dead -end Streets Cul-de -sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. 3. Reverse Curves Reverse Curves: Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. 4. Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths No sidewalk shall be required for that portion of the project roadway connecting to CR951 (Collier Boulevard) i.e. Casa Del Lago Boulevard. However, if it is determined in the future that this roadway can and will be upgraded to add a sidewalk, Copper Cove shall pay a fair share contribution to the construction of the sidewalk 5. Streets and access improvements The project roadway(s) extending west to CR951 may be designed as a rural cross - section or modified cross - section, subject to approval by the Collier County Zoning Director, or designee. If this roadway is upgraded to four lanes, an urban section, turn lanes installed at SR 951 and/or a signal installed at SR 951 in the future, Copper Cove shall pay a fair share contribution to the upgrade construction. 6. Drainage Easement Drainage easements between residential lots shall be permitted to be a minimum of 10' in width where RCP pipe is utilized, all joints are sealed, and installation depths are minimized. 7. Preserve Setbacks Principal structures shall be permitted to be constructed up to Twenty feet from preserve areas. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean I -28 -05 2-3 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 38 of 165 8. Annual monitoring reports. The developer in lieu of paying for annual traffic counts at the project entrance shall make a single payment in the amount of $8,000 to the county for a permanent count station to be placed on the roadway leading to SR 951. 2.6 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION The lake setback requirements described in Subsection 3.05. 10 of the LDC maybe reduced with the administrative approval of the Collier County Planning Services Director. All lakes greater than two (2) acres may be excavated to the maximum commercial excavation depths set forth in Section 3.5.7.3.1. of the LDC. Removal of fill and rock from the Copper Cove Preserve PUD shall be administratively permitted to an amount up to 10 percent per lake (20,000 cubic yards maximum total), unless issued a commercial excavation permit. 2.7 USE OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY Utilization of lands within all Project rights -of -way for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Developer and the Collier County Development Services Director for engineering and safety considerations during the Development review process and prior to any installations. 2.8 MODEL HOMES /SALES CENTERS /SALES OFFICES/ CONSTRUCTION OFFICES A. CONSTRUCTION OFFICES 1. A temporary use permit shall be granted initially for a period not to exceed 24 months in length and may be renewed annually based upon demonstration of need pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 2. This use may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under Rule 64E -6, F.A.C., and may use potable or irrigation wells. Offices located in permanent structures shall be required to connect to the central utility system at the time it becomes available. B. MODEL HOMES, SALES CENTERS AND SALES OFFICES COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2-4 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 39 of 165 1. Model homes, sales centers and sales offices shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Copper Cove Preserve PUD. 2. Model homes shall be "wet" or "dry" facilities. a. "Wet" facilities may be occupied by a sales office and/or representative. b. The temporary use permit shall be issued initially for a period of three (3) years. Extensions in excess of this period shall require submittal and approval of a conditional use petition in accordance with Section 2.7.4 of the Land Development Code, except where model homes are located within a "model home row ", in which case the Planning Services Director may administratively extend the temporary use permit on an annual basis for all of the model units, until such time as the project lot sales reach 90% of the maximum permitted units. 2.9 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or the PUD Master Plan as provided in Chapter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the LDC. The County Manager or designee shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Copper Cove Preserve PUD Master Plan upon written request of the Developer. The PUD Master Plan is a conceptual plan containing approximate acreage of each land use. The actual acreage shall be determined at the time of preliminary subdivision plat or site development approval, and shall be consistent with jurisdictional agency determinations. A. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: 1. The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Copper Cove Preserve PUD document. 2. The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Chapter 10 of the LDC. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28-05 2 -5 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 40 of 165 3. The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the PUD. B. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1. Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, preserve areas or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District or other applicable jurisdictional permitting agency and Collier County. 2. Internal realignment of rights -of -way other than a relocation of access points to the PUD, except where the access point is required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 3. Reconfiguration of residential parcels, water management and recreation parcels when there is no net loss to areas identified as conservation or preserve. C. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by the appropriate Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County ordinances and regulations prior to the County Manager or designee's consideration for approval. D. Approval by the County Manager or designee of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval; however, such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Common area maintenance will be provided by the Developer or by a property owners' association. For those areas not maintained by the Developer, the Developer will create a property owners' association or associations, whose functions shall include provisions for the perpetual maintenance of common facilities and open spaces. The Developer or the property owners' association, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter of the LDC together with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2 -6 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 41 of 165 2.11 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, beans, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Copper Cove Preserve PUD. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1. Grassed berms 4:1 2. Ground covered berms Perimeter 2:1 Internal to project 3:1 3. Rip -Rap berms 2:1 with geotextiie mat 4. Structural walled berms — vertical B. Fence or wall maximum height: Eight feet (8'), as measured from the finished floor elevation of the nearest habitable structure within the Development. If the fence or wall is constructed on a landscaped berm, the wall shall not exceed six feet (6) in height from the top of berm elevation for berm elevations with an average side slope of 4:1 or less, and shall not exceed six feet (6) in height from the top of berm elevation for berms with an average side slope of greater than 4:1 (i.e. 3:1). B. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls may be constructed along the perimeter of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD boundary prior to preliminary subdivision plat and site development plan submittal, when the landscape and irrigation plans are submitted and approved prior to plat construction. C. Fences and walls which are an integral part of security and access control structures such as gate houses and control gates shall be subject to the height limitations for principal residential structures. In the case of access control structures within rights -of -way adjoining two or more different districts, the more restrictive height standard shall apply. D. Pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be constructed in landscape buffers, per LDC Chapter 4. E. Landscape berms located within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right -of -way line may be constructed such that the toe of slope is located 5' off the property line and/or right -of -way line. 2.12 FILL STORAGE COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2-7 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 42 of 165 Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, except in the preserve areas. Fill material generated from other properties owned or leased by the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed/farmed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope 2:1, if protected by a six foot (6') high fence, otherwise a 4:1 side slope shall be required. B. Stockpile maximum height: Thirty feet (30') C. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5') in height shall be located no closer than three hundred feet (300') from any existing residential unit or residential unit under construction. D. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC, Division 3.7. 2.13 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD is a planned community and will be developed under unified control. The Developer will establish design guidelines and standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality residential units and related community features and facilities, which include features and facilities such as landscaping, hardscapes, waterscapes, signage, lighting, pedestrian systems, bicycle paths, pavement treatments, roadway medians, fences, walls, buffers, berms and other similar facilities. 2.14 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Copper Cove Preserve PUD except in the Preserve. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the Developer and residents of Copper Cove Preserve PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facilities. A. General Permitted Uses: Essential services as set forth under LDC, Chapter 2. 2. Caretaker /manager residence, which may be a permanent site -built structure 3. Water management facilities and related structures. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2 -8 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 43 of 165 4. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 5. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. Fishing piers, community boat docks and similar structures are permitted within lake areas. 6. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 7. Community and neighborhood parks, boat docks and other recreational facilities. 8. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 9. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls, subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.10 of this PUD. 10. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this PUD. 11. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in this document, the following development standards shall apply to structures: 1. Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road - twelve feet (12') except for guard houses, gatehouses, and access control structures which shall have no required setback. 2. Setback from PUD boundary: Fifteen feet (15') 3. Minimum distance between unrelated structures - Ten feet (10'). 4. Maximum height of structures — Thirty -five feet (35') 5. Minimum floor area - None required. 6. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2-9 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 44 of 165 7. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. 2.15 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30 percent of the gross project area shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.16 NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS The subject property is located within that portion of Collier County, Florida known as the "Deltona Settlement Agreement" area. In accordance with the Stipulation for Dismissal and Settlement Agreement for the Deltona Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement, no on -site preservation of native vegetation is required by Collier County. Preservation of native vegetation shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal agency permits. Preserve areas shall meet minimum dimensional criteria in accordance with LDC requirements. 2.17 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL 1. All Collier County sign regulations, pursuant to LDC, Chapter 5, SIGNS, in force at the time of sign permit application shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this Section, in which case the PUD Document shall govern. 2. All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. All internal project rights -of -way may be utilized for decorative landscaped entrance features and signage- subject to review and approval from the Planning Services Department for consistency with the requirements set forth herein. a. All project and Development signage adjacent to and/or visible from any dedicated County right -of -way shall be developed in accordance with the LDC, Chapter 5, SIGNS. 4. One project entrance sign shall be permitted adjacent the S.R. 951 project frontage, subject to the entrance sign criteria specified in Section 2.17.13. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2 -10 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 45 of 165 B. ENTRANCE SIGNS 1. Two ground or wall - mounted entrance signs maybe located at each entrance to the project within the PUD. Such signs may contain the name of the subdivision and the insignia or motto of the Development. 2. No sign face area may exceed 60 square feet and the total sign face area of entrance signs at each entrance may not exceed 120 square feet. If the sign is a single, two -sided sign, each sign face may not exceed 60 square feet in area. For three -sided signs, the third sign side may only face internal to the subdivision and only the Project's name, motto or insignia may be displayed. The sign face area shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or monument upon which it is located. 3. The setback for the signs from the public right -of -way, and any perimeter property line shall be 10 feet. 4. Entrance signs may not exceed a height of 8 feet above the finished ground level of the sign site. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered to be no greater than the highest crown elevation of the nearest road, unless the wall or monument is constructed on a perimeter landscape berm, in which case the sign structure may not exceed a height of 6 feet. D. TRAFFIC SIGNS 1. Traffic signs such as street signs, stop signs and speed limit signs may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme. The placement and size of the signs will be in accordance with Department of Transportation criteria. 2.18 SIDEWALKSBIKEPATHS A. Pursuant to LDC, Chapters 4 and 6 and Section 2.4 of the Copper Cove Preserve PUD, sidewalks/bikepaths shall be permitted as follows: An internal pedestrian walkway system is permitted within drainage easements. 2. Sidewalks may be located outside platted rights -of -way, when located within a separate sidewalk easement. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2-11 Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 46 of 165 3. Sidewalks may be located within landscape buffers and/or easements; however, the landscape buffer shall be increased in width by an amount equal to the encroachment, at the point of encroachment. 2.19 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS A. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with the Construction Standards Manual. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 2 -12 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R1" and "R2" 3.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 47 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD designated on the Master Plan as "R.", Residential. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 300 dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated "R", Residential on the PUD Master Plan. 3.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "R," on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of residential dwelling types and general permitted uses as described by Section 2.14, a fitll range of recreational facilities, essential services, and customary accessory uses. The approximate acreage of the area designated for residential development is indicated on the PUD Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, and other similar uses found in residential areas. 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses — "R1" Areas: 1. Single family attached and detached dwellings. 2. Two - family and duplex dwellings. 3. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 3-1 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 48 of 165 4. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrian/bikeways. 5. Public wellfields. B. Principal Uses — "R2" Areas: i . Single family attached and detached dwellings, townhomes. 2. Two - family and duplex dwellings. 3. Multi family dwellings. 4. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 5. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrian/bikeways. 6. Public wellfields. C. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures, recreational facilities designed to serve the development, and essential services. 2. Outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and equipment within the FPL Easement. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the BZA.3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table 1 sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD Residential Development Area. B. Site development standards for single family, two - family, duplex, single family attached and town home uses apply to individual residential lot boundaries. Multi- family standards apply to parcel boundaries. C. Standards for parking, landscaping (excluding landscape buffer width), signs and other land uses, where such standards are not specified herein, are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of site development plan approval. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 3 -2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 49 of 165 Unless otherwise indicated, required yard, height, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in this Section shall be in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which permits development that is most similar to the proposed use. E. During the platting process, the developer shall identify the specific housing type intended for each platted tract. F. This project is located in an area identified in the Deltona settlement area; therefore, preserve areas have been set aside as part of the settlement and no onsite preserve areas are required for this project. Setbacks from preserve areas shall be as established in Table 1 for principal and accessory structure rear yards. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 3-3 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 50 of 165 TABLE I COPPER COVE PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS PERMITTED USES AND Single Two Family Single Family Multi- Family STANDARDS Family and Duplex Attached and Dwellings Detached Town home Category 1 3 4 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. 3,500 sq. 3,500 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. ft. *2 Minimum Lot Width *3 50' 35' 20' 90' Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' 100' 100' Front Yard *6 20' 20' 20' 20' Side Yard *I 6' 0' or 6' 0' or 6' *4 10' *8 Rear Yard * 1 15' 15' 15' 15' Rear Yard Accessory * 1 10' 10' 10' 10, Preserve Principal 20' 20' 20' 20' Accessory 10' 10' 10' 10' Maximum Building Height 35' not to exceed 2 35' 35' 35' stories Distance Between Detached Principal Structures *5 12' 1 12' 12' 1 20' Floor Area Min. S.F. 1000 sq. ft. I 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1 750 All distances ate in feet unless otherwise noted. *1 - Principal and accessory structures on waterfront lots shall be permitted to be constructed up to, but not encroaching into a drainage easement *2 -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. *3 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *4 - Zero foot (0') minimum side setback on one side of building as long as a minimum 12 foot separation between principal structures is maintained *5 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 10 feet if detached or 0 fed where attached garages are provided. Multi - family principal buildings shall be separated a minimum of 20' and garages a minimum of 10'. *6 - Building garages must be setback a minimum of 23' from edge of any provided sidewalk. Minimum 20' front yard may be reduced to 15' where the residence is served by a side - loaded or rear entry garage. *7 - No encroachments shall occur within the required landscape buffers. *8— Setback measured from property line COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 3 -4 SECTION IV RECREATION 4.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 51 of 165 The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD designated on the Master Plan as "Recreation ". 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The approximate acreage of the Recreation areas are indicated on the Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with Chapter 4, and Chapter 10 respectively, of the LDC. The Recreation Area is designed as a mixed use area which will accommodate a variety of active recreational and personal services for the Copper Cove Preserve residents and guests. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Indoor or outdoor recreational facilities and structures such as pools, fitness facilities, clubhouses, community buildings, playgrounds, playfields, walking trails and tennis courts. B. Vehicular and recreational equipment parking and storage. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including parking facilities. 2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the County Manager or designee determines to be compatible, as determined by the BZA. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 4-1 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 52 of 165 1. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15') 2. Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Rear Yard: Fifteen feet (15'). 4. Preserve: a. Principal: Twenty feet (20') b. Accessory: Ten feet (10'). 5. In no instance shall there be an encroachment into a required landscape buffer area. B. Exterior lighting shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. C. Maximum height of structures — Thirty -five (35) feet; except clock towers or similar architectural features, which shall be permitted up to forty (40) feet. D. Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10') or greater if required by local fire codes at time of development. E. Minimum distance between accessory structures - Ten feet (10') Parking for uses and structures constructed in the Recreation Area: one (1) space per 1,000 square feet of enclosed building area. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -2MS 4 -2 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 53 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to identify the permitted uses and development standards for the area within the Copper Cove Preserve PUD designated on the Master Plan as Preserve. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Preserve Areas on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate conservation, open space, passive recreation and limited water management uses and functions. The approximate acreage of the Preserve Areas is indicated on the Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. The actual acreage and location of Preserve Areas will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the LDC, and shall be based in part on jurisdictional agency requirements. 5.3 PERM[TTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks, nature trails, shelters. 2. Water management facilities, consistent with approved SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. 3. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the County Manager or designee determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 5-1 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yazd Requirements 1. From PUD or tract boundary: 2. From Lake /Preserve: B. Maximum Height of Structures: COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28-05 5 -2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 54 of 165 Ten Feet (10') Zero Feet (0') Twenty -five Feet (25') SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 55 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the Copper Cove PreservePUD. 6.2 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the final site development plans, final subdivision plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes and regulations except where specifically noted. B. The RPUD Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit A) is an illustration of the conceptual development plan. Tracts and boundaries shown on the plan are conceptual and shall not be considered final. Actual tract boundaries shall be determined at the time of preliminary/final subdivision plat or site development plan approval. C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all utilities. 6.3 ENGINEERING A. Except as noted herein, all Project development will occur consistent with the LDC. 6.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the Project by the Developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights -of -way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, except as may be provided in this PUD Document. B. Upon completion of the utility facilities, they shall be tested to ensure they meet Collier County's utility construction requirements in effect at the time construction plans are approved. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 6-1 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 56 of 165 C. All customers connecting to the potable water and sanitary sewer system shall be customers of the County, except as may be provided in Section 2.19 of this Document. D. One (1) wellfield easement, not to exceed 30 feet by 30 feet in area, shall be provided to Collier County in the location shown on the Master Concept Plan. Said easement shall be dedicated on the first plat for the project. The applicant agrees to coordinate with Collier County to provide a second wellfield easement at the time of SDP or plat approval near S.R. 951 if such an easement can be provided without impact to preserve areas or project signage. 6.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District, this Project shall be designed for a storm event of a 3 -day duration and 25 -year return frequency. B. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County LDC. All lake dimensions will be approved at the time of excavation permit approval. C. The Copper Cove Preserve PUD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Surface Water Management and Utilities Report which has been included in the PUD Rezone application materials. D. In accordance with the Harper Analysis submitted for the project, water management lakes shall be aerated to achieve the required reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus as demonstrated in the analysis for the site. 6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Wetland buffers shall be provided in accordance with Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District Rules. B. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Department Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic vegetation removal within all conservation/preservation areas shall be submitted with the above - mentioned plan. C. All conservation/preservation areas shall be designated as preserves on all construction plans and, if the project is platted, shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 6 -2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 57 of 165 Preserve areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. D. All category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. E. A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to Environmental Services Department Staff for approval prior to site /construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. F. All approved Agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final Site Plan/Construction Plan approval. G. The developer shall replant the preserve area located between Siler Lakes PUD and Pelican Lakes PUD. 6.7 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Access to the Copper Cove Preserve PUD shall be permitted via an extension of Championship Drive. Said extended roadway shall be surfaced with dustless material prior to commencement of site work. B. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier county Land Development code (LDC). C. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO). D. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access shall be COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 6 -3 Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 58 of 165 consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. 01 -247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long -range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD Amendment is to be processed. E. Site- related improvements (as apposed to system- related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. F. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01- 13, as amended, and Division 3.15. LDC, as it may be amended. G. All work within Collier County rights -of -way or public easements shall require a Right -of -way Permit. H. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01 -247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this PUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. I. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, shall be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. J. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier Country shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. K. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County right - of -way or easement, compensating right -of -way, shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. L. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right -of -way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD C1c" 1 -26-05 6-4 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 59 of 165 borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. M. The developer shall be required to construct a five -foot wide concrete sidewalk within Roost Road Right -of -way, along the project's frontage on Roost Road. The required sidewalk shall be constructed concurrent with phase one of the project's plat and plan. A gated pedestrian access point to Roost Road shall be provided from the project in the general location shown on the Conceptual Master Plan. N. The developer shall explore with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SFWMD the feasibility of constructing a nature trail/path within the preserve area, extending from S.R. 951 to the residential areas of the project. O. (OPTIONAL, DEPENDING UPON CIRCUMSTANCES) Adjacent developments have been designed to provide shared access or interconnections with this development. The PUD Master Plan indicates these locations. The developer, or assigns, shall assure that any such shared access or interconnection is utilized and shall accommodate the perpetual use of such access by incorporating appropriate language into the development covenants or plat. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Clean 1 -28 -05 6 -5 -Z--Q= OwvwcwMT"M3TlOO 1 \ I Agenda Item No. 17C e page 60 of 165 1` ■ lI1 pall rR ■ R s� fin! Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 N opt ll _�;�! Ir 165 I ra Agenda Item No. 17C.. February 22, 2005 Page 62 of 165 . :40 COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION . A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BE 240 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01 058130" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 977.17 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88° 14'03" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 058'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 101.13 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 005115" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01-50011 WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 005'18" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.16 FEET TO A POINT. ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 88 °1T11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE, ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°02'49 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 198.07 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 46 °44114" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 220.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE, RUN SOUTH 88 01422" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 510.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 *42'49" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 910.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88°05'18" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 690.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 12 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH% RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °01'41" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 12 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 88°20'44" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,077.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 12 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 000IT50" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF Pale I of 2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 63 of 165 EXEWC Corrste Cobs revs Puy LAGA . nESCRVM K rlp sof1 1,398.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTA SUNG 94.732 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. r� KRESSE PARCEL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE NORTH 1R OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EASTERLY OF STATE ROAD 951 (ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD), LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 1, 100.00 FEET THEREOF AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 220.00 FEET THEREOF; CONTAINING 6.826 ACRES; MORE OR LESS. COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD EXEIRIT D PROPERTY OWNERSHIP Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 64 of 165 FOLIO NUMBERS: 00742%0107, 00741720005, 00741560003, 00736880206, AND 00736880109: COLONIAL HOMES, INC. ATTN: ALAN S. FARRIOR 2000 INTERSTATE PR DR STE 400 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36109 IVILS);' M' 1' C' J: . 11 I ZCII Y Agenda Item No. 17C February 2 05 Page 65 of 165 COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD EXHIBIT E LOCATION MAP R110001 - Agenda Item No, 17C, February 22, 2005 Page 66 of 165 j GRAM PION KE RV ESOWCOPPER COVE PRESERVE A MIXED -USE RESIDENTIAL FLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 101.5E Acres Located in Sections 11, 14 & 15 I Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: olonial Home,_ s.. Inc. 12220 Towne Lake Drive, Suite 75 Fort MverL FL 3391 M0*-e6 island, 14 34W 1 A C PREPARED BY: Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Fl 34134 (94}239 947 -1144 (94129 947 -0375 Fax and Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34104 '" EXHIBIT "A„ TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & GENERAL DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SECTION III RESIDENTIAL SECTION IV RECREATION SECTION V PRESERVE SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONUvffIWMNTS COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12 -22 -04) 11 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 67 of 165 PAGE ii 1 -1 2 -1 3 -1 4 -1 5 -1 6 -1 Agenda Item No. 17Q February 22, 2005 Page 68 of 165 I ff9 i011: y EXHIBIT A CHAMPION 6kY.ESCOPPER COVE PRESERVE M' D V O^4 PUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B BOUNDARY SURVEY EXHIBIT BC LEGAL DESCRIPTION I EXHIBIT QD PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT E LOCATION MAP TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 111 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22,2005 Page 69 of 165 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of the Developer, to create a Mixed -use Residential Planned Unit Development (_RPUD) of 300 units on 141.5 acres of land located in Sections 11, 14 & 15 Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be GMmpieR 6ake sC2Mer Cove Preserve D;'t:�-PUD. The development of Ghampien L&es opper Cove Preserve D17 _R � PUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The Development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use Residential District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The purpose of the Urban Mixed Use Residential District is to provide for a variety of residential and mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. 2. The proposed residential density of the Gl}wupien L&esCopper Cove Preserve DW Rift PUD is 2-92.96 dwelling units per acre and is less than the maximum density of three (3) dwelling units per acre permitted by the FLUE Density Rating System and the Land Development Code (LDC) and is therefore consistent with FLUE Policy 5.1. The entire .. ef the Land D&Nelepmeat Code. 3. The Chamgien L&esCopper Cove Preserve RV Rose PUD is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 5. The development of the C- ie &&eeCopper Cove Preserve RV Rose PUD will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policy 3.1. of the FLUE. 6., - The Lake Copper Cove Preserve vXr s PUD is a large - scale, mixed -use community, and is planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Residential Planned Unit Development District. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) iv Agenda Item No. 170 February 22, 2005 Page 70 of 165 7. The G1empiea :s opQer Cove Preserve RV Reseg PUD is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as may be required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element, 8. All final local development orders for this Project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Divisies M&C 1@pter§ of the Land Development Code. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (svf rvv 4 - 12- 22 -04) v Agenda Item No. 17C Fehruary 22, 2005 Page 71 of 165 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the OPPER COVE PRESERVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ". COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 -12- 22-04) vl Agenda Item No. 17 February 22, 200 Page 72 of 165 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of the Ghampieff EAEes,'onper Cove Preserve DA' ReseA PUD, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See. attached Exhibit "BC" 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP See attached Exhibit "GD" 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The Project site is located in Sections 11 and 14 & 15 Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida. The site is generally bordered on the West by Pelican Lake and Silver Lakes RV PUDs; on the North by Quail Roost Mobile Home Park; on the East and on the South by the Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI. I B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application is Mobile i e He TD 9F- 4PUD. C. Elevations within the site are approximately 3.5' above MSL. Per FEMA Firm Map Panel No. 120067 620 D, dated June 3, 1986, the qNwVieft -bAesCopper Cove Preserve RV Res i property is located within Zone "AE 7" of the FEMA flood insurance rate map. D. Portions of the site have been altered through past and current agricultural uses; however, the site does contain jurisdictional wetlands. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been submitted, pursuant to DiN44an grg.ChgRters 3 and 10 of the LDC. E. The soil types on the site generally include fine quartz sands, including Malabar, Oldsmar and Holopaw fine sands. This information was derived from the Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 1 -1 Agenda Item.No. 17C February 22, 2005 . Page 73 of 165 F. The Ghampiea LalfesCopper Cove Preserve D N'�ft PUD contains a variety of vegetative communities, including cropland and pastures, woodland pastures, pine flatwoods, and palmetto prairies. Clearing has occurred consistent with the Preserve area requirements and U.S: Armv Corps of Engineers permits. G. The Project site is located within the Collier County Water Management District U.S. 41 Outfall Basin No. 1. 1.5 DENSITY A. Acreage of the 61empiesbal£esCopper Cove Preserve PAZ Rose PUD Js approximately 101.5+ acres and the number of weliinE units authorized to be built pursuant to this PUD is a maximum of 300. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 2.P2.96 units per acre. B. At all times all property included within the GhaaViea bake sConner Cove Preserve DiTx X ReseA PUD as described in Section 1.2 shall be included in determining Project density. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 1 -2 SECTION H PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 74 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for the Gheawieh- -bakee op= Cove Preserve R-Nr Res PUD, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The Ghwapieff L&esCopper Cove Preserve RALReseAPUD will be developed as a mixed -fuse community, which may feature a full array of dwelling types, and a recreation center, providing for activities such as. community gatherings, recreational amenities, and personnel services central to community residents. B. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically as Exhibit "A ". A Land Use. Summary indicating approximate land use acreage is shown on the plan. The Master Plan is conceptual, and the location, size, and configuration of individual tracts, including preserves and water management facilities shall be determined'at the time of Final Site Development Plan and/or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor adjustments at the time of Final Plat . approval, in accordance with geetie 3-.2-.-7Cha2ter 1, 4 and -3410 of the LDC. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of the Ghat a LWEesCopper* Cove Preserve Reset PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC (to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance), and the Growth Management Plan. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. Where specific standards are specified in this PUD, these standards shall prevail over those in the LDC. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily, implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 9 4 SChapter 6 of the LDC. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (euf m 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -1 ti Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 75 of 165 D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD or by subsequent request, the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code remain in effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Champion bakesCopper Cove Preserve -R-3,7 Reae#Conceptual Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. F. The Ssubdivisions D eft- requirements of the LDC, Ai4iele 3, Divisign apply to the Ghampien LakesCopper Cove Preserve RALReseftPUD, except where an exemption or substitution is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to the Land Development Coda, See ien 3.24. G. The Site Development Plans DiAsian-Chapter 10 of the LDC t:dele ' r,..:.. e shall apply to the Gh b a akesCoamer Cove Preserve RV-46seAPUD, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to the Land Development Code, Seetien 3.34. ' H. Recognizing that the plans for development of tracts have not been designated with a specific dwelling unit type, the type of dwelling unit which characterizes the initial development of any platted tract shall be carried out throughout the development of that entire tract. However, tracts platted for the purpose of establishing prototypical model homes shall be not be required to develop with a singular dwelling unit type. 2.4 ROADWAYS A. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, or approved during Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Seale- "'r'hapters 1, 4 and 10 of the LDC. The Developer retains the right to establish gates, guardhouses, and other access controls as may be deemed appropriate by the Developer on all privately owned and maintained Project roadways and roadways built and/or maintained by the Qampierr- bakesCopper Cove Preserve MI Rosen PUD. 2.5 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC &A. Roadways within the Gb&wien Lake sCopper Cove Preserve -2:%,T 12 PUD shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Seefien 3. Qthe Construction Standards Manual and Chapters 1 4 and 10 of.the LDC with the following substitutions: 3.2.9.4.16. Streets and access improvements COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufrev 4 - I2- 22-04) 2 -2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 76 of 165 1. , Street Right -of -Way Width Street right -of- -way width: The minimum right -of -way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de -sacs shall be forty (40) feet 2. SeWee 3.2.9.4464-,Dead-end Streets Cul -de -sacs may exceed a length of one thousand (1,000) feet. Oki,*, five (35) feet Fadiijo far- ifiteffieetiel" EA ffaJeet efftnffiees. 43. 9eetie., 9.2 Q 16 1 ^, Reverse Curves Reverse Curves: Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. . , Sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths' I way -No sidewalk shall be required for that portion of the project roadway connecting to S.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) i.e. Casa Del imago Boulevard 65• See e ' e 3 1 °' a , Streets and access improvements I The project roadway(s) extending west to S.R.951 (Collier Boulevard) may be designed as a rural cross- section or modified cross- section, subject to approval by the Collier County Planning Services Director, or his designee. 6. Drainage Easement Drainage easements between residential lots shall be permitted to be a minimum of 10' in width where RCP pipe is utilized, all joints are Sealed, and installation depths are minimized. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (auf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -3 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2006 Page 77 of 165 7. Preserve Setbacks Principal structures shall be permitted to be constructed up to Twenty feet from preserve areas. 2.96 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION The lake setback requirements described in See4en- Subsection 3.5.7.1 .05.1.0 of the LDC may be reduced with the administrative approval of the ,Collier County Planning Services Director. All lakes greater than two (2) acres may 'be excavated to the maYSmum commercial excavation depths set forth in Section 3.5.7.3.1. of the LDC.. Removal of fill and rock from the GWimpien Lake sCO!Mer Cove Preserve RAI Reset PUD shall be administratively permitted to an amount up to 10 percent per lake (20,000 cubic yards maximum total), unless issued a commercial excavation permit. 262.7 USE OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY Utilization of lands within all Project rights -of -way for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Developer and the Collier County Development Services Director for engineering and safety considerations during the Development review process and prior to any installations. 2A8 MODEL HOMES /SALES CENTERS /SALES OFFICES/ CONSTRUCTION OFFICES A. CONSTRUCTION OFFICES A temporary use permit shall be granted initially for a period not to exceed 24 months in length and may be renewed annually based upon demonstration of need pursuant to the requirements of c .' - Chapter 5 of the Collier f County Land Development Code (LDC). 2. This use may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under Rule 64E -6, F.A.C., and may use potable or irrigation wells. Offices located in permanent structures shall be required to connect to the central utility system at the time it becomes available. B. MODEL HOMES, SALES CENTERS AND SALES OFFICES 1. Model homes, sales centers and sales offices shall be permitted principal uses throughout the esCopper Cove Preserve D'�'�ft PUD. 2. Model homes shall be "wet" or "dry" facilities. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (s& rev 4 -12-22-04)' . 2-4 Agenda Item No. 17Q February 22, 2005 Page 78 of 165 a. "Wet" facilities may be occupied by a sales office and/or representative. be -rimed: a-b. , The temporary use permit shall be issued initially for period of three (3) years. Extensions in excess of this period shall require submittal and approval of a conditional use petition in accordance with Section 2.7.4 of the Land Development Code, except where model homes are located within a "model home row", in which case the Planning Services Director may administratively extend the. temporary use permit on an annual basis for all of the model units, until such time as the project lot sales reach 90% of the maximum permitted units. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf my 4 - 12- 22 -04) 2 -5 100" OWN- COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf my 4 - 12- 22 -04) 2 -5 • Y. AN - - - Agenda Item No., 17C February 22, 2005 'Page 79 of 165 2.89 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or the PUD Master Plan as provided in pter 10 of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the LDC. The ounty Manager or designee shall be authorized to approve I . minor changes and refinements to the men ba" Copper Cove Preserve D ;7 pwseft J PUD Master Plan upon written request of the Developer. The PUD Master Plan is a conceptual plan containing approximate acreage of each land use. The actual acreage shall be determined at the time of preliminary subdivision plat or site development approval, and shall be consistent with jurisdictional agency determinations. A. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: The minor change or refinement shall be 'consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Champien bakeaCopper Cove Preserve n Wen PUD document. 2. The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to S ae6 aa '' ''.3. S.' —QWter 10 of the LDC. 3. The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the PUD. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 -12- 22-04) 2 -6 Agenda Item No. .17C February 22, 2005 Page. 80 of, 165 B. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1. Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, preserve areas or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District or other applicable jurisdictional permitting agency and Collier County. 2. Internal realignment of rights -of -way other than a relocation of access points to the PUD, except where the access point is required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. Reconfiguration of residential parcels, water management and recreation parcels when there is no net loss to areas identified as conservation or preserve. C. Minor changes and refinements as described above. shall be reviewed by the appropriate Collier 'County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County ordinances and regulations prior to the County Manager or* designe qpkmniag Senises, DkeeteF's consideration for approval. D. Approval by the County Manager or design of a minor Change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan, approval; however, such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.110 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Common area maintenance will be provided by the Developer or by a property owners' association. For those areas not maintained by the Developer, the Developer will create a property owners' association or associations, whose functions shall include provisions for the perpetual maintenance of common facilities and open I spaces. The Developer or the property owners' association, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving the iea- Lake sCo„Qner Gove Preserve °NZ eft PUD, in accordance with the provisions of , . an ter of the rAtiFAZ C-R4M- Develepme$ - LDC together with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (auf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 1. 2 -7 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 81 of 165 2.11 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the GhampieH Lak�.e&Q20er Cove Preserve RV-ReseFPUD. The following standards shall apply A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1. Grassed berms 4:1 2. Ground covered berms Perimeter 2:1 Internal to project 3:1 3. Rip -Rap berms 442:1 with geotextile mat 4. Structural walled berms — vertical B. Fence or wall maximum height: Eight feet (8'), as measured from the finished floor elevation of the nearest habitable structure within the Development. If the fence or wall is constructed on a landscaped berm, the wall shall not exceed six feet (6D in height from the top of berm elevation for berm elevations with an average side slope of 4:1 or less, and shall not exceed six feet (6) in height from the top of berm elevation for berms with an average side slope of greater than 4:1 (i.e. 3:1). G:B. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls may be constructed along the perimeter of the Gl lea -Lake Copper Cove Preserve RAF ReseA PUD boundary prior to preliminary subdivision plat and site development plan submittal, when the landscape and irrigation plans are submitted and approved prior to plat construction. D C. Fences and walls which are an integral part of security and access control structures f such as gate houses and control gates shall be subject to the height limitations for principal residential structures. In the case of access control structures within rights- of -way adjoining two or more different districts, the more restrictive height standard shall apply. E D. Pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be e4ewed- constructed in landscape buffers, per LDC Chapter 4. F-.E.. Landscape berms located within the C pie$- LakesCopper Cove Preserve Rese r PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right -of -way line may be constructed such that the toe of slope is located en-5' off the property line and/or right -of -way line. 2.4412 FILL STORAGE COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufrev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 2 -8 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 82 of 165 Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Leo take Conner Cove .Preserve R31 gin PUD Fill material generated from other properties owned or leased by the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed/farmed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope 2:1, if protected by a six foot (6') high fence, otherwise a 4:1 side slope shall be required. B. Stockpile maximum height: Thirty feet (30) C. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5') in height shall be located no closer than three hundred feet (300) from any existing residential unit or residential unit under construction. D. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC, Division 3.7. 2.4413 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS .. B.A. The Ghamgien -1 akesCopper Cove Preserve RV R•esert PUD is a planned community and will be developed under unified control. The Developer will establish design guidelines and standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality residential units and related community features and facilities, which include features and facilities such as landscaping, hardscapes, waterscapes, signage, lighting, pedestrian systems, bicycle paths, pavement treatments, roadway medians, fences, walls, buffers, berms and other similar facilities. , COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -9 �. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -9 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 83 of 165 MM • �. - .. 2.-514 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the GhmViea LakesCopper Cove Preserve l seFt PUD except in the Preserve. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the Developer and residents of Glie T-i&eeCopper Cove Preserve n Ve PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facilities. A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Se ter 2. 2. Caretaker /manager residence, which may be a permanent site - built structure 3. Water management facilities and related structures. 4. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 5. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. Fishing piers, community boat docks and similar structures are permitted within lake areas. 6. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 7. Community and neighborhood parks, boat docks and other recreational facilities. 8. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 9. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls, subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.44 -10of this PUD. 10. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.4 -2-11 of this PUD. f COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf my 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -10 Agenda Item No. 17C n. February 22, 2005 Page 84' of 165 11. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatlble,_a determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in this document, the following development standards shall apply to structures: 1. Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road - twelve feet (12D except for guard houses, gatehouses, and access control structures which shall have no required setback. 2. Setback from PUD boundary: Fifteen feet (IS') 3. Minimum distance between unrelated structures - Ten feet (10). 4. Maximum height of structures — Thirty -five feet (35') S. Minimum floor area - None required. 6. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. 7. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. 2.4615 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A minimum of 30 percent of the gross project area shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.4q16 NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS The subject property is located within that portion of Collier County, Florida known as the " Deltona Settlement Agreement". area. In accordance with the Stipulation for Dismissal and Settlement Agreement for the Deltona Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 -12- 22-04) 2 -11 .. .. A minimum of 30 percent of the gross project area shall be devoted to usable open space. 2.4q16 NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS The subject property is located within that portion of Collier County, Florida known as the " Deltona Settlement Agreement". area. In accordance with the Stipulation for Dismissal and Settlement Agreement for the Deltona Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 -12- 22-04) 2 -11 Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 85 of 165 Environmental Impact Statement, no on -site preservation of native vegetation is required by Collier County. Preservation of native vegetation shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal agency permits. Preserve areas shall meet minimum dimensional criteria in accordance with LDC requirements. 2.4917 SIGNAGE A: GENERAL All Collier County sign regulations, pursuant to LDC, DMsief-2.3Chapter SSIGNS, in force at the time of sign permit application shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this Section, in which case the PUD Document shall govern. 2. All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. 3. All internal project rights -of -way may be utilized for decorative .landscaped entrance features and signage- subject to review and approval from the Planning Services Department for consistency with the requirements set forth herein. a. All project and Development signage adjacent to and/or visible from any dedicated County right -of -way shall be developed in accordance with the.LDC, ter 5 SIGNS. 4. , e project entrance sign shall be permitted adjacent; ma3= the S.R.. 951 project frontage:, subject to the entrance sign criteria specified in Section 2.17.B. ■ - - rYW - - wnwren COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 2 -12 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 86 of 165 GB. ENTRANCE SIGNS 1. Two ground or wall- mounted entrance signs maybe located at each entrance to the project within the PUD. Such signs may contain the name of the'subdivision and the insignia or motto of the Development. 2. No sign face area may exceed 60 square feet and the total sign face area of entrance signs at each entrance may not exceed 120 square feet. If the sign is a single, two -sided sign, each sign face may not exceed 60 square feet in area. For three -sided signs, the third sign side may only face internal to the subdivision and only the Project's name, motto or insignia may be displayed. The sign face area shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or monument upon which it is located 3. The setback for the signs from the public right -of -way, and any perimeter property line shall be 10 feet.. 4. Entrance signs may not exceed a height of 8 feet above the finished ground level of the sign site. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered to be no greater than the highest crown elevation of the nearest road, unless the wall or monument is constructed. on a perimeter landscape berm, 'in which case the sign structure may not exceed a height of 6 feet. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 2 -13 Y. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 2 -13 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 87 of 165 • Y. PIR F-D. TRAFFIC SIGNS 1. Traffic signs such as street signs, stop signs and speed limit signs may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme.. The placement and size of the signs will be in accordance with Department of Transportation criteria. 2.4418 SIDEWALKSBIIEPATHS C sett n 'i 2 4 Z r 7� A. Pursuant to LDC, .. haters 4 and 6 and Section 242_4 of the D" ° °s° PUD, sidewalks /bikepaths Eperr- Lal�esCopper Cove Preserve �.--� shall be permitted as follows: 1. An. internal pedestrian walkway system is permitted within drainage easements. 2. Sidewalks may be located outside platted rights -of -way, when located within a separate sidewalk easement. 3. Sidewalks may be located within landscape buffers and/or easements; however, the landscape buffer shall be increased in width by an amount equal to the encroachment, at the point of encroachment. 2.U19 SUBSTITUTIONS TO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -14 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 88 of 165 A. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to subdivision improvement and utility design standards in accordance with See fi.., 3.17.2 a the -l? )Gthe Construction Standards Manual. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf my 4 - 12- 22-04) 2 -15 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "Rl" and "R2" 3.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 89 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the ChasVien bake sCopner Cove Preserve "Res PUD designated on the Master Plan as "R-W", Residential. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 300 feemafieH4 whiekedwelling _units may be constructed JAased on lands designated "RVY", Residential on the PUD Master Plan. 3.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "R -V," on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of FeeftafieiW esidential dwelling dies, types and general permitted uses as described by Section 2.414 a full range of recreational facilities, essential services, and customary accessory uses. The approximate .acreage of the area designated as I �DiP�.- > ;for residential development is indicated on the PUD Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval esidential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, and other. similar uses found in residential areas. 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure or vart thereof, shall be erected altered or used. or land used in whole or Hart, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses — "R 1" Areas: 1. Single family attached and detached dwelling 2. Two - family and duplex dwellings COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 3 -1 - Agenda Item No. 17C February 22,2005 Page 90 of 165 3. Model homes and model home centers including_ offices for project administration, construction, gales and marketing; 4. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrim*ikeways: 5. Public wellfields. B. Principal Uses — "R2" Areas: 1. Single-family attached and detached dwellings, townhomgs. 2. Two - family and duplex dwellings. 3. Multi family dwelling. 4. Model homes and model home centers including offices for protect administration, construction, sales and marketing. 5. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrian/bikeways. 6. Public welifields. �. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and jWgures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including; swimming_ pools, spas and screen enclosures, recreational facilities desimed, to serve the development, and essential services. 2. Outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and equipment within the FPL Easement. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the , , dwa the fellewing- COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 3 -2 Agenda item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 91 of 165 ice• - �_ ,: - - - u nzrw ;T ot • - - A• nzrw ;T ot A• • o. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 3 -3 Agenda Item -No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 92 of 165 .. A. Table 1 sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the die bakesCotmer Cove Preserve PUD Residential Development Area. B. Site development standards for single fimfly. two - family, daplex. single fmily attached and town home uses apply to individual residential lot boundaries. Multi- fgp& standards apnly to parcel boundaries. C Standards for parking landscaping (excluding g andscape buffer width), signs and other land uses, where such standards are not specified herein, are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of site development plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yard, height, and floor' area standards apply to principal structures. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12 -22-04) 3-4 s .. A. Table 1 sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the die bakesCotmer Cove Preserve PUD Residential Development Area. B. Site development standards for single fimfly. two - family, daplex. single fmily attached and town home uses apply to individual residential lot boundaries. Multi- fgp& standards apnly to parcel boundaries. C Standards for parking landscaping (excluding g andscape buffer width), signs and other land uses, where such standards are not specified herein, are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of site development plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yard, height, and floor' area standards apply to principal structures. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12 -22-04) 3-4 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 93 of 165 D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in this Section shall be in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which permits development that is most similar to theDroposed use. E. During the platting process, the developer shall identify the specific housing tune intended for each platted tract. F. This proiect is located in an area identified in the Deltona settlement area, preserve areas have been set aside as part of the settlement and no onsite preserve areas are required for this project Setbacks from preserve areas shall be as established in Table 1 for principal and accessory structure rear yards COPPER CAVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 3 -5 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 94 of 165 TABLE I OPPER COVE PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Single Family Detached Two Family and Duplex Single Family Attached and Town home Multi - Family Dwellings Cate o 1 3 4 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 g. ft. 3,500 sQ. ft, *2 3,500 sa ft. 9.000 sa. ii. f.' :: •1. •. :: !} ./ .} Minimum Lot Width *3 50' 35' 20' -O Minimum Lot DS2 th 100' 100' 100' 100' Front Yard *6 20' 20' 20' 20' Side Yard * 1 6' 0' or 6' 0' or 6' *4 NA Rear Yard * 1 ' 15' 15' 15' 15' Rear Yard AcclaagpLLI 10' 10' 10' 10' Preserve Principal Access2ly 20' 10' 20' 101. 20' 10' 20' 10' Maximum Building Height 3 ' 35' 35' 35' not to exceed 2 stories Distance Between Detached Principal Structures 12' 12' 12' 20' *5 Floor Area Min. S.F. 1000 s . ft. 1000 s . ft. 1 s . ft, 1 750 iay71.: tS1 ,•�. -:..•• 'SS_•11_S^ •ll. L-.z'I N!. • !.: 9 l".Sp i. z•. ! L 1 -1S. h..• .. !• . !• -�. MS..';_,! 1.• ..1? •I :'_!!_ •. .. -.11 -�1_. ! : . . .. • l! Sg. . : SY- •. l l • 1 . 111 :. T. :y . : ..:. 11 1 n !R 1 1Q 1. -ilM.74 yK 159. . n =--3 . 1 11 •. 1:• _ .:• .i !' lb !�_ f :.-__. .1.: • a• •.:!..a. el. ! •r •❑ • z�. S:•1_._S-'. }L -} .!.� 1 1.:1. ' �f S• l4.1 1 11 . .1 !1 • -.!1!•... ll •�� l + • )1... • f.' :: •1. •. :: !} ./ .} y.: :... . - L.. t.• • } ! -1'l.. 1. S ^.. !1:. 1 !' 1146—.77. . . •. 7! - -• }1' /. S.• -.:! 't�S ' -: ! !f._}_i }_ .. 1. '�: . 1 :..' 1. 11f • 1 A:- � '_: ! _'. •. 1 t:y ./l -U. :5.:. ! � 'l_I { ^.: '_S •. SI�I • :•. a !'111. 1: • {y: 11 1 111 1-I 1 NION 't S= 1• 7 • - 1.1•[x... - 11 • .11 • .7 +• •�S� I • �• .T !. ti.t._ 1J 1 y . l.l+ • S:• _ COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufrev 4 - 12- 22-04) 3 -6 SECTION IV RECREATION 4.1 PURPOSE Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 95 of 165 The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Chmapien bake Copper Cove Preserve ° u RA=d PI designated on the Master Plan as "Recreation ". 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The approximate acreage of the Recreation areas are indicated on the. Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with Division 3.3QWter 4- and DiNisie rx 3 3Chapter 10 respectively, of the LDC. The Recreation Area is designed as a mixed use area which will accommodate a variety of active recreational and personal services for the Ghenipiea L&e s:�onper Cove Preserve D LRege g- residents and guests. 4.3 PERA TTTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Indoor or outdoor recreational facilities and structures such as, - pools, fitness facilities, clubhouses, community buildings, playgrounds, playfields, walking trails and tennis courts. C:B. Vehicular and recreational equipment parking and storage. 13:C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufrev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 4 -1 - - - C:B. Vehicular and recreational equipment parking and storage. 13:C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufrev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 4 -1 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22 2005 Page 96 of 165 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including parking facilities. 3.2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the ounb Manager or design determines to be compatible, as determined by the BZA: 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15') 2. Side Yard: Ten feet (10D. 3. Rear Yard: Fifteen feet (15�. 4. uses may be z@Fe feet ' .Preserve• a. Principal: Twenty feet QW) b. Accessory: Ten feet (10'). 5. In no instance shall there be an encroachment into a required landscape buffer area. B. Exterior lighting shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. C. Maximum height of structures - Thirty-five (35) feet; except clock towers or similar architectural features, which shall be permitted up to forty (40) feet. D. Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10') or greater if required by local fire codes at time of development. E. Minimum distance between accessory structures - Ten feet (10') Parking for uses and structures constructed in the Recreation Area: one (1). space per 1,000 square feet of enclosed building area. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (ram 4 - 12- 22 -04) 4 -2 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE Agenda item No.17C February 22, 2005 Page 97 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to identify the permitted uses and development standards for the area within the ien La6 comer Cove Preserve n[' Rosecs PUD designated on the Master Plan as Preserve. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION "Areas designated as Preserve Areas on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate conservation, open space, , assive recreation and limited water management uses and functions. The approximate acreage of the Preserve Areas is indicated on the Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. The actual acreage and location of Preserve Areas will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with the IDC, and shall be based in part on jurisdictional agency requirements. 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks, leadseape i; nature trails, shelters. 2. Water management_ facilities, consistent with approved SFWMD and U S Army Corps of Engineers permits , 4.3. Y 1 other conservation and related open space activity or use which is. comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Coun Manager or designe determines to be compatible I in the Preserve Area. 1 COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22-04) 5 -1 Agenda Item No, 170 February 22, 2005 Page 98 of 165' 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements 1. From PUD or tract boundary: Ten Feet (10') 2. From Lake/Preserve: Zero Feet (0') B. Maximum Height of Structures: Twenty -five Feet (25') COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufrev 4 - 12- 22-04) 5 -2 SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE . Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 99 of 165 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the GhampieB - bele3sCopper Cove Preserve RXReseil -PfejeetPUD. 6.2 PUD MASTER. DEVELOPMENT PLAN A., All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the final site development plans, final subdivision plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes and regulations except where specifically noted. B. The RPUD Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit A) is an illustration of the conceptual development plan. Tracts and boundaries shown on the plan are conceptual and shall not be considered final. Actual tract boundaries shall be determined at the time of preliminary/final subdivision plat or site development plan approval. C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all utilities. . 6.3 ENGINEERING A. Except as noted herein, all Project development will occur consistent with ,,.:s:..�. ,..a 12 11 „ the LDC. 6.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage. collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the Project by the Developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights -of -way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, except as may be provided in See6en 2.20 a this PUD Document. B. Upon completion of the utility facilities, they shall be tested to ensure they meet Collier County's utility construction requirements in effect at the time construction plans are approved. COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 6 -1 Agenda Item No. 176 . February 22, 2005 Page 100 of 165 C. All customers connecting to the potable water and sanitary sewer system shall be customers of the County, except as may be provided in Section X2.19 of this Document. D. One (1) wellfield easement, not to exceed 30 feet by 30 feet in area, shall be provided to Collier County in the location shown on the Master Concept Plan. Said easement shall be dedicated on the first plat for the Project. The applicant agrees to coordinate with Collier County to provide a second wellfield easement at the time of SDP or plat approval near S.R. 951 if such an easement can be provided without impact to preserve areas or project signAge. 6.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District, this Project shall be designed for a storm event of a 3 -day duration and 25 -year return frequency. B. An Excavation Permit will be' required for the proposed lakes in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County LDC. All lake dimensions will be approved at the time of excavation permit approval. C. The GhffVisa L&esCopper Cove Preserve R14 R.eseFkPLJD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Surface Water Management and Utilities Report which has been included in the PUD Rezone application materials. D._ In accordance with the Harper Analysis submitted for the project. water management lakes shall be aerated to achieve the required reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus as demonstrated in the analysis for the site. .6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Wetland buffers shall be provided in accordance with Army Corps of Engineers and. South Florida Water Management District Rules. B. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Cueat Ra. g- Environmental Services DgRarhnent Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic vegetation removal within all conservation/preservation areas shall be submitted with the above - mentioned plan. C. a the designated Pr-esepve Aazea; 9B the COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12 -n -04) 6 -2 Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 101 of 165 All conservation/preservation areas shall be designated as preserves on all construction plans and, if the project is platted. shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Preserve areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownershi and maintenance responsibilities and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. D. All category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within -preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these" plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. E. A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to .Environmental Services Department Staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management and maintenance. F. All approved Agency (SFWMD, ALOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final Site Plan/Construction. PIan approval. 6.7 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Access to the cesCopper Cove Preserve DA'�t4 PUD shall be permitted via an extension of Championship Drive. Said extended roadway shall be surfaced with dustless material prior to commencement of site work. B. All traffic control devices signs pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition FDOT Desian Standards current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier county Land Development code (LDC ). C Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) D. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any _right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access shall be COPPER COVE PRESERVE (sufmv 4 -12- 22-04) 6 -3 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 102 of 165 consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. 01 -247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long-range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD Amendment is to be processed. E Site- related improvements (as agposed to system- related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. F Road impact fees shall be Raid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance O1- 13 as amended, and Division 3.15. LDC, as it may be amended. G All work within Collier County rights -of -way or public easements shall require a Rip-ht-of-way Permit. H. All proposed median_oyenins locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 41 -247), as it may be amended. and the LDC, as it may be amended Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this PUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. I. Nothing in anv development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a ri ght in/right out condition at any access point. Neither will the existence of a point of ingress, ss a point of egress or a median opening nor the lack thereof shall be the basis for any future cause 'of action for damages against the ' County by the developer, its successor in title, or asst nee. J. All intemal roads, driveways alleys. pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adiacent developments shall be. operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier COE= shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. K. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing., County right- of -way or easement, compensating right- of-wav, shall be provided without cost to Collier Cgp= as a consequence of such improvement. L If in the sole opinion of Collier Counter a traffic signal or other traffic control device sign or pavement marking improvement within. a public right -of -way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be COPPER COVE PRESERVE (adrev 4 -12- 22-04) 6-4 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page .103 of 165 borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before the issuance of the first CO. M. developer shall be required to construct a five foot wide concrete sidewalk within Roost Road Right -of -way, along the project's frontage on Roost Road The required sidewalk shall be constructed concurrent with - - se ha one of the project's plat and plan. A gated pedestrian access point to Roost Road shall be provided from the vroiect in the general location shown on the Conceptual Master Plan. N. The developer shall explore with the U.S.-Army Corps of Engineers and SFWMD the feasibility of constructing a nature trail /path within the preserve area. extending from S.R. 951 to the residential areas of the proiect. O. (OPTIONAL, DEPENDING UPON CIRCUMSTANCES) Adiacent developments have been designed to provide shared access or interconneel+ions with this development. The PUD Master Plan indicates these locations The developer, or assigns, shall assure that any such shared access or interconnection is utilized and shall accommodate the perpetual use of such access by incorporating appropriate language into the development covenants or plat Geller COPPER COVE PRESERVE (suf rev 4 - 12- 22 -04) 6 -5 LU ACRW MWO&AVE Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 104 of 165 OIIAI.JgOBrA1DN./ N MW PAIK IF ripe B Wpm ZOO UH 1B TYPE 9 BLFPBI II TYm B -- • � Is BUFF � i I R i 2 e TYPB e I F12 / V TYPE D OU"M /LVM LA1 W FW j I LAW FCCLAM CRS. RO =DImPID I I 1pOP1� I MTED MEB'IAAN ARCM POINT 1 I L BABHABNT S AGES PIEME '+ At _ I LAKB� I \ Rl + B2 300 UNITS I 66-5t ACRES 16• TYPE B BUFFET RECREATION TRACT 22t ACRES h: •. 1 I t R2 701 Iw NA LAKES - 82t ACRES P`JDANLANRvrIO ' ' 1 PRESERVE 211t ACRES ZWWFUD '.;: LAKE 1 BUFFERS / OTHER OPEN SPACE - 3.St ACRES 1 TOTAL SITE - 101.5t ACRES W BT as 16' TTPB B mrpsw WELLPI .D EASEMENT ! "° m1On1�CO LAM= GRIN =1 Am A45"Im PA . COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD Caw•l .OYEl. INC out /R LALL OIL i®s . W IOIR� . "�Aa, E%HIB1T A Ii130 iOMK lA•L ONK. ••a n A111.1m 6R4 ° iu.:.u. MASTER CONCEPT PLAN rare unw, nan• �zu a •ne arw• wiry rY�iq>t�arariN rNlYlq NX/! 20M +- Yaw�YYS- Y�IYf�.. -i 'M�iY -�rwII �I rwAKWiNFar! Agenda Item No. 17C February 22. 2005 Page 105 of 165 --- A � M A �w n ry � e m i .�i� Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 106 of 165 EXHIBIT C COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01 °58'30" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 977.17 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 °14'03" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 °58'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 101.13 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 °05'15" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 °58'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 °05'18" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS. SOUTH 88 °17'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°02'49 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 198.07 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 46 044'14" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 220.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 014'22" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 510.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 14249" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION, 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 910.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 °05'18" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 690.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °01'41" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 020'44" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,077.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 0001750" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF Page 1 of 2 ExHlBrr C COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 107 of 165 1,398.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 94.732 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. KRESSE PARCEL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EASTERLY OF STATE ROAD 951 (ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD), LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 1,100.00 FEET THEREOF AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 220.00 FEET THEREOF; CONTAINING 6.826 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 108 of 165 COPPER COVE PRESERVE PUD EXHIBIT D PROPERTY OWNERSHIP FOLIO NUMBERS: 00742960107, 00741720005, 00741560003, 00736880206, AND 00736880109: COLONIAL HOMES, INC. ATTN: ALAN S. FARRIOR 2000 INTERSTATE PK DR STE 400 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36109 F:UOBICHArON LAKESIZONINGTUD DOCUMiENTEMBff D.doc a Item No. 17C Page 1 di;oT 165 COPPER COVE PRESERVE. PUD EXHIBIT E LOCATION MAP 41 Lmy AIU LeLr TRY cws Lo.T LELY ELEMENTARY 4 4 L N LY 20 21 22 �70c 23 IGH CHOOL aantwan canoe D . NAPLES MANOR 30 ��� 28 27 26 EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK LELY '� RESORT 32 34 35 U Ell g 6 5 4 x 3 2. 1 Q NATEE L UDUB B SOCIET A M1 OOKERY Y _ MI 12 " LDLIPE S NCTOARY 9 0 10 q,� /�'i oil 7 r 17 16 15 4 'S 13 1 FlDDL CREEK 41 19 20 21 22 23. 24 19 28 27 MA SAIL DR. 26 1�44 25 30 SL-S OF RC0 CAPRI 4 ORE SL D IRPOR LU ;y fri� i� 44 ' Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 PUDZ A- 2004- AR-SV74P 110 of 165 PROJECT #19990013 DATE: 918104 MIKE BOSI APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: EIPUD REZONE ®PUD TO FUD REZONE Petition No.: Commission District: 1. ' General Information: Date Petition Received: Planner Assigned: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Name of Applicant(s) Colonial Homes, Inc. Applicant's Mailing Address 12220 Towne Lake Drive Suite 75 City Fort Myers State Florida Zip 33913 Applicant's Telephone # 239 -768 -3826 Fax # 239- 768 -3319 Applicant's E -Mail Address: sclarkna colonial omesinc.com Name of Agent D. Wayne Arnold Firm 0. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Agent's Mailing Address 3800 Via Del Rev City Bonita Sprinas State FL Zip 34134 Agent's Telephone # 239 - 947 -1144 Fax # 239 -947 -0375 COLLIER COUNTY CON MUNTTY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES /CURRENT PLANNING 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403 -2400 / FAX (941) 643 -6968 Agenda Item No. 17C Name of Agent Richard D. Yovanavich Firm Goodlette. Coleman and ebl bfl 11 WAP5 Agent's Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Navles State FL Zip 34103 Agent's Telephone # 239435 -3535 Fax # 239 -435 -1218 Agenda Item No. 17C rebruary 22, 2005 * Be aware that Collier -County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yo~ 112 of 165 accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this,petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: NA Mailing Address City State FL Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State FL Zip City State FL Zip Name of Master Association: NA Mailing Address City State FL Zip Name of Civic Association: NA Mailing Address City State FL Zip ,, I'Wr7rl M030103. Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 2. Disclosure of Interest Information: Page 113 of 165 a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock James K. Lowder, Chairman 20 Alan S FmTiar, President 20 AApg= Persich1111. Sr Vive President 20 Bryan L. Tucker. Treasurer 20 Mac McLeod, Secretary 20 c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LE IITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Agenda Item No. 17C ' February 22, 2005 e. If there is a CONTRACT FbR PURCHASE, with an individual or kj*w1thjWl f,11s5 Corporation,- Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, it6ckholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Nerve and. Address Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 115 of 165 3. Detailed legal description of the property covered b_y the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 11, 14 and 15 Township: 51 S Range: 26E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. #: 00741560003, 007 6880109 00736880206 00741720005.00742960107 Metes & Bounds Description: Please see legal description 4. Size of property: 2390.00± & X 1840.00± & = Total Sq. Ft. Acres ±101.5 5. Address /eeneral location of subiect property The sub'et ct property is located in Sections 11. 14 and 15. Township 51S, Range 26 E Collier County Florida, The site is Bordered on the west by Pelican lake and Silver Lakes PUD's• on the North by Quail Roost Mobile Home Park :on the east by Fiddler's Creek PUD and on the south by Fiddler's Creek PUD. 6. PUD District (LDC 2.2.20.4): ® Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Agenda Item No. 176 .February 22, 2005 Page 116 of 165 EXHIBIT A CHANTION LAKES PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION` A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH O1 °58'30" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 977.17 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 014103" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 °58'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 101.13 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 °05115" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 °58'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 °05118" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 8801TI I" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 °02'49 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 198.07 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 46 °44'14" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 220.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 014'22" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 510.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 °42'49" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 910.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE. OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 °05'18" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 690.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °01'41" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 020'44" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,077.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 00 017150" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF Page 1 of 2 W(HMrrA Agenda Item No. 17C CHAMPION LAKES PUD February 22, 2005 LEGALDHSCRPMN Page 117 of 165 Pop 2 oft 1,398.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 94.732 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND KRESSE PARCEL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EASTERLY OF STATE ROAD 951 (ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD), LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 1 ,100.00 FEET THEREOF AND- LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 220,00 FEET THEREOF; CONTAINING 6.826 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 118 of.165 7. Adfacent zoning and land use: Zoning Land Use N MH and PUD Quail Roost Mobile Rome Park. Residential - Fiddler's Creek PUD S PUD Residential - Pelican Lake and Fiddler's Creek PUD's E PUD Residential - Fiddler's Creek W PUD Residential - Silver lakes and Pelican Lakes PUD's . 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: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: 8. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the PUD - Champion Lakes RV Resort zoning district(s) to the PUD - Champion Lakes zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property. Single family residential Original PUD Name; Champion Lakes RV Resort Ordinance No.: 2000 -21 9. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 AND Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. Agenda Item No. 17.0 February 22, 2005 PUD Rezone Considerations (LDCSeedon 2.7.3.2.5) Page 119 of 165 L The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of developmentproposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, trafflc and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 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. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. 4. The internal and external compatibility ofproposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7 The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 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. 9. 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. 10. Previous land use petitions on the subject Property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? NO fl. J l� Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 120 of 165 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST 1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Colonial Homes, Inc. 2. MAILING ADDRESS: 12220 Towne Lake Drive Suite 75 CITY Fort Myers STATE Florida ZIP 33913 3. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section: 11 14 and 15 Township: 51�,.S. , Range: 26E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: 00741560003, 00736880109, 00736880206,00741 20005,00742960107 Metes & Bounds Description: Please see attached legal description 5. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT ❑ (GPD capacity) e. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ 6. TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED: a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) ❑ Agenda Item No. 17C 7. TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: 300 Units Mixed Use February 22, 2005 Page 121 of 165 8. PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER -PEAK 85,192 AVERAGE DAILY 127.789 B. SEWER-PEAK 55,320 AVERAGE DAILY 71,916 9. IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED: 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. Utility Provision Statement RUM 10/17/97 ,V1 ijojg RUD REZONE APPLICATION 3UBA=AL CHECKLIST This completed checklist is to be submitted with application packet! Agenda Item No. 176 February 22, 2005 Page 122 of 165 Requirements Co f Required Not 1. Corn leted A lication/PUD documents 24* 2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(s) and all 2* Partners if a Corporation 3. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 2* 4. Pre-application notes /minutes 24* 5. Conceptual Site Plans 24* 6. Environmental Impact Statement - IS 4 AIIA 7. Aerial Photograph - with habitat areas identified 5* N A 8. Completed Utility Provisions Statement (with required 4 attachments and sketches 9. Traffic Impact Statement - S 4 10. Historical & Archaeological Surveyor Waiver 4 Application 11. Copies of State and/or Federal Permits 4 12. Architectural Rendering of Proposed. Structure(s) 4 13. Pre - Application Fee, Application Fee and Data - Conversion Fee Check shall be made payable to Collier County Board of County Commissioners 14. An electronic version of the PUD on a disk as part of the submittal packeL 15. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING}: APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: Copy of Affidavit attesting that all property owners, civic associations and property owner associations were notified. Copy of audio /video recording of public meeting. Written account of meeting. 16. Affordable Housing Density Bonu' Agreement 4 including all Applications and Exhibits. 17. Boundary Survey no more than 6 months old 5 18. OTHER REQU IRE MENTS: k—k, ' Documents required for Long- Range Planning Review *1 additional copy if for affordable housing As the authorized agent(applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. �l p Agent/Applicant Sipatur6 Date Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 123 of 165 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: (ID REZONE 9. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 AND Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and 'the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (L.DC Section Z 7 3 Z S1 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of developmentproposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is well suited for the proposed mixed use residential planned unit development. The subject property is presently zoned for development of a recreational vehicle park; however, the property has recently been sold and the current property owner is seeking the PUD amendment to eliminate the recreational vehicle use and add conventional residential dwelling units to the project. The property is surrounded by existing and proposed development, consisting of recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and conventional dwelling unit types. Access to the property has been established by an extension of Championship Drive, which has been constructed. Water, sewer, and drainage have been provided to the site and coordinated with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies. F:UOB \CHAMPION I.ASBS PUD\WAbvaluation mitari&doc AFFIDAVIT Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 124 of 165 We /l, Champion Lakes Development. LLG being,lrst duly sworn, depose and say that we/7 am/are is the owner 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 this application, are. honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I 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 O. Grady. Minor & Associates. P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette Coleman. and Joh-won. P.A. to act as our /my representative in any matters regarding this Pe� Owner - Signature of Property Owner RMmond H. Smela Manama Champion Lakes Development, LLC Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1� day of 2004 by 0 'b +i , SM_ EELA_ whom r�QaalL awn to me or has produced as identification. State of Florida County of r Leh (Siatx�re of Notary. Public - State of Florida) Sharon Umpenhour D. 2115 arptns Dx � 2005 N_tip_ Saided Thca Agmtk B=dIrg CM, B= (Print, T),pe, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR 5879 p ,OJECT #19990013 DATE: 5/12104 MICHAEL BOSI BOOK JX)b - rage 1OZZ T 1�;, '' '` L3 Pr mw bx ■ w let— W. THOMAS I3. GUNDERSON Actor y at Law HENDERSON, FRANSL.IN7, STAmw & aOLT, P.A. (Fort MyarU 1715 Memee SL P.O. Boa 2W Fort Myers, FL 33902 File Nmaber: TIG COLON SMBLA Will Cad mm; 12 Page I of I Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 125 of 165 3392994 OR: 3556 PG: 1622 1Imm In OElI= MW of Lrotm Will 1, is 15113/204 -at 11:11!11 Pam 1, n0011, cm 00111 11.11110." Be m 19.60 Doc-." 74111.11 11.11.: a> MISHVAl, 1715 110!101 fff It am n 17501 3072 tam wa. see IAe ft R&mWba Warranty Deed This Warranty Dept m.ae this 3ed day of May. 2004 botweea CHAMPION L,4m DSVI MMBNT, LLC, a Florida BMW lab ft 00101MM, whore post of foe addrew is 2000 Royal Marco Way, Marce .gland, FL 34115., Srmw, Rod COLONIAL HOMES, INC., a Florida corporsdoa whose post otfico addien is 2W bmasbo peels Dr., Suits 400, Alta: Alm S Fvrior, Proddm4 Moayemery, AL 36109, snmtaa (VAmvwr mad tads se 71.1.7 •pma" asd •smrrae' iadaas sII arc parfn ,s 1.717 iwssmeet .n1. the hdra IaW apensmdvea ml wipe d ladlridssh �/ Iw woosrnaa ad sip d wrpq,saer, em sera e�rrsr,) wfte M=dth. that said gnator. for cad in comidersdom of the am of TEN AND NO/I00 DOLLARS (110:00) and other SOW and valuable rations to said grantor in band pdd by aid StsMee, the reoaipt whereof is baeby admowledged, has tnoted bartaioed, and told to the add vmnmc, mod ttaotee's heirs and Lai ta forever, the Mow doe rib ]cad, situate, lying and being is CoIDer Comty, Florida to,-wit: See Eddbtt "A" sttaehad her" Parcel Identification Numbers; 007429110107, 007311880109, 00796880204 W741560003 and 00741720005 Subject ID 91. for 204 cad =bae*uw years; covenam% condWom, eesttkdioos, memesds, eatwvadons cod Bdlatlms of mooed, Raw.. SUBJECT TO a Purebaae Money Fhst Mortsgq gbaa by Graotae to Grantor, see rlag the oelg$mal prit0pat smm or11,000,000.0L Tosether with all the tertemeots, heneditamem and Mprateos wu therm belonging or is tayww apperWW1q;, To Have and to Hold, the same in fee singic fo ww And the t Lmm hereby covensta with said trantae that the s =W, is lawtid)y teizW of Old lard In fen Wmpk: that the grantor has good right and bwfhi authodty m sell and convey Ofd lard; that the grmtor hereby tWly samosa the dlde to aid land std will dekad the Odic against the Iavrfnd claims of all persons wbomsoever; and that said land Is See of an eoc,mrbcarces, auapt sores acauiag mbsequea to Dec mbw 31,2M. In Witness Witero0[, granwr has hermom set graarort hand and seal the day end year first above written RE- SUBMITTAL. PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 PROJECT ##19990013 DATE: 918/04 MIKE BOSI http:// www. collierappraiser .com/viewer/Image.asp? 8/23/2004 Agenda Item No. 1 IC . February 22, 2005 Page 126 of 165 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that they are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Folio Numbers 00741564003 00736 109 007368$0206 00741720005 and -007-42960107 (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for planned unit development (PUD) zoning. We hereby designate. 0. Grady Minor & Associates P.A. and Richard D Yovenovieh of Goodlette. Coleman and Jghuson. P.A. legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are autho to ega y m owners o prope to a courac o sco 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, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the. property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County, 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, tonditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land_ Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit velop#ient and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into co pli a wi all terms, conditions and safejuards^ p od unit development Owner Owner Printed Name and Title Printed Name and Title STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF eQ Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of IQ U .S- , 2004 by ,Scot k- Clay k 4 » ►1r 4 -�4sG-K L U whc�ersonaliy known to m or has produced as identification. Nrota�ry Public Marianne E Byes ' t1 ey r(Q n Yid `f'' My C WWUW..ion DD1s6226 (Nano typed, printed or stamped) VarN�" Eomi*18,2= (Serial Number, if any) P -20� 004- R -5879 PROJECT #19990013 DATE: 9/8/04' MIKE BOSI Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 127 of 165 11: CHAMPION LAKES PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 01 °58'30" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 977.17 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 014'03" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 058'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 101.13 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 005'15 WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 058'30" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 005'18" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 88 °17'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 °02'49 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 198.07 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 46 044'14" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 220.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 014'22" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 510.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 °4249" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 910.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 °05'18" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, FOR A DISTANCE OF 690.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °01'41" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 °20'44" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,077.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE RUN NORTH 00 °17'50" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14, FOR A DISTANCE OF Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No. 17t EKHBrr February 22, 2005 CHAMPI ON LAKES PUD A Page 128 of 165 CHAMPION LEGAL DESCRIPMN Page 2 of 2 1,398.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 94.732 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND KRESSE PARCEL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EASTERLY OF STATE ROAD 951 (ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD), LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 1,100.00 FEET THEREOF AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 220.00 FEET THEREOF; CONTAINING 6.826 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 2 of 2 PUDZ -A- 2004 -AR -5879 PROJECT #19990013 DATE: 5/12/04 MICHAEL BOSI Vanass�P 5 D.., Ior TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT COLONIAL CHAMPION LAKES April 21, 2004 SR 951 Collier Boulevard at Championship Drive Collier County, Florida Prepared For Scott Clark at Colonial Homes. 12601 Westlinks Dr Unit 7 Fort Myers FL 33913 Job # 80755.03 Prepared By: Vanasse & Daylor LLP 12730 New Brittany Bouleard, Suite 600, Fort Myers, Florida 33907 t 239.437.4601 F 239.431.4636 w nnday.wm 0 755 Va Urban planning Traffic Engineving U.denpe k6iacalre EnrxonmenW Science rj° mb N FebrL Fa ary 22, 2005 a 130 of 165 00101W k�A Civil Engineering Fl )dd 4 ss )755 —LOC �+ D a I O msb w� brimnr beaenr4 sax deo W E 36 32 Re" 3133997 (239) 768 -3826 WIN am SWP 96 S RNA inn r' ..7471' 0-31- 0 9400 3000 SCALE: f' — -VW' 5 s z � 4 O r� MANATEE ROAD if ra eSllL' • CHAMPIONSHIP DR l e ' re u O is pp N 0 A F ►D0� ZO 23 22 pf 21 0 755 Va Urban planning Traffic Engineving U.denpe k6iacalre EnrxonmenW Science rj° mb n as s e 00101W k�A Civil Engineering Fl )dd dm 7 12601 Wsers )755 —LOC �+ D a I O msb w� brimnr beaenr4 sax deo Fort Myers FL 33913 3 13 1 Re" 3133997 (239) 768 -3826 WIN am SWP e139A3L11d1 139.411AW ■ nod-.. RNA inn r' ..7471' 0-31- PAW UM C b Al Chea*m Ukes aft IOCAQdI PiAl11B/ l Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 131 of 165 STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. APR 2 12004 Ernest R. Spradlingo.P.E. Florida Registration #61235 VanasseDaylor, LLP 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 (239) 437 -4601 Collaborator. Nelson Galeano Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 132 of 165 Table of Contents INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARY ............................................................ ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... ............................... 3 PROPOSED, EXISTING AND VESTED LAND USE .............................. ............................... 3 AREACONDITIONS ..................................................................................... ............................... 3 SITEACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................... ............................... 3 AREAROADWAY SYSTEM ................................................................ ............................... 3 TRAFFICVOLUMES ............................................................................. ............................... 4 COMMITTED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ................................... ............................... 5 PROJECTEDTRAFFIC ....................................................:............................. ............................... 5 TRIPGENERATION .................................................................................. ............................... 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ........................................... ............................... 6 -. PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..... ............................... 7 ANALYSES..................................................................................................... ............................... 8 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................. ............................... 8 LINKANALYSES ........................................................................ ............................... SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANALYSES ..................................................... ............................... 8 INTERSECTION ANALYSES ............................................................... ............................... 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ................................................... I.................... SITEACCESSES ...................................................................................... ............................... 11 ISLE OF CAPRI (SR 95 1) & CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE MAIN ACCESS ........................ 12 IMPROVEMENTANALYSES .................................................................... ............................... 13 IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE NON -SITE TRAFFIC ........ ............................... 13 IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE SITE - GENERATED TRAFFIC ........................ 13 I Champion Lakes Development Page I Table of Contents Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 133 of 165 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Location Map. Exhibit 2 Study Area and Studied Intersections. Exhibit 3 Site - generated Trip Distribution Percentages. Exhibit 4 Site- generated Vehicle Trip Assignments. Exhibit 5 Background Traffic PM Peak Hour Exhibit 6 Total Traffic PM Peak Hour Exhibit 7 Recommended Site Access Locations and Lane Configurations. List of Tables Table 1 Trip Generation Equations Table 2 Project Trips Generation Table 3 Traffic Distribution PM Peak Hour Table 4 Level of Service (2008 PM Peak Season Peak Hour Directional. Links) Table 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results List of Appendices Appendix A Traffic Data Appendix B Level of Service Appendix C SYNCHRO® 6.0 Analyses Appendix D FDOT Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Champion Lakes Development Page it Table of Contents Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 134 of 165 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY VanasseDaylor is providing this Traffic Impact Statement for the Colonial Champion Lakes Development. The purpose of this study is to provide to the Collier County Transportation Operations Review Department adequate information to show that the site - related traffic impacts have been anticipated and that effective mitigation measures have been identified. The Colonial Champion Lakes project is located off SR 951 approximately two (2) miles south of US 41 approximately 5,500 feet south of Manatee Road in southern Collier County. Access will be provided via Championship Drive, with a potential second access via Roost Road to Manatee Road. (see Exhibit l Location Map). The site is currently zoned for a 300 unit RV park. The following Land Use program is proposed for this project: • Residential 275 Single- family Dwelling Unit • Residential 25 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Dwelling Unit SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No roadway links are projected to be significantly impacted, as defined by the LDC, because of 2008 project traffic. In order to accommodate the site- and non - site - related traffic, it is recommended that a traffic signal warrant analysis be completed at the SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection at or prior to Buildout. No other improvements are recommended to accommodate the site - related traffic. The recommended lane configuration of the SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection is as follows: ■ . Southbound Two through lanes, One 515 -foot exclusive left turn lane. ■ Northbound Two through lanes, One 440 -foot exclusive right turn lane. ■ Westbound One 270 -foot exclusive right turn lane, One exclusive left turn lane. Champion Lakes Development I I: lProjecu \8071807551Tnffic180755TI5001 .dot Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 135 of 165 The developer proposes to enter into a binding agreement with the County to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees and to construct site - related improvements needed at the site accesses. The development will be subject to concurrency management review during the SDP Phase of project development. Champion Lakes Development 2 I:\ Projects\ 807\80755\Traffic\80755T1S001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 136 of 165 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED, EXISTING AND VESTED LAND USE The Colonial Champion Lakes project is located off SR 951 approximately two (2) miles south of US 41 in southern Collier County. Access will be provided via Championship Drive, with a potential second access via Roost Road to Manatee Road, in Collier County (see Exhibit 1 Location Map). The site is approximately 60 acres in size, is zoned for a 300 -unit RV Park, and is currently vacant. The following Land Use program is proposed for this project • Residential 275 Single - family Dwelling Units • Residential .25 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Dwelling Units Completion of Colonial Champion Lakes project is anticipated to be prior to the 2008 peak season. For purposes of this evaluation, the Buildout Year was assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2008 planning horizon. AREA CONDITIONS SITE ACCESSIBILITY AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM The roadway system inside the study area contains the following arterial and major collector roads and streets (Exhibit 2): Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Tamiami Trail (US 41) in the vicinity of the project (east of SR 951) is a two -lane two -way arterial (Class 1) under state jurisdiction. US 41 west of SR 951 is a six-lane roadway under state jurisdiction and is also classified as an arterial roadway. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level and tangent. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. US 41 is signed as a north -south highway throughout the state of Florida. It is a northwest - southeast alignment through the study area. For purposes of discussion throughout this document, US 41 will be described as an east -west highway, with Miami oriented toward the east and Naples toward the west. Champion Lakes Development 3 I:\ Projecu\ 807\80755\Trafric\807557IS001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 page 137 of 165 Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) in the study area is a north -south four -lane divided roadway. CR 951 to the north of US 41 is a four -lane divided roadway under county jurisdiction. CR 951 is also functionally classified as an arterial roadway. The roadway alignment is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted at 45 miles per hour (mph). Isle of Capri Road (SR 95 1) Isle of Capri Road (SR 95 1) in the study area is a north -south four -lane divided roadway. Under state jurisdiction south of US 41, SR 951 is functionally classified as an arterial roadway. The roadway alignment is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted at 45 miles per hour (mph) north of Manatee Road. South of Manatee Road, the speed limit is 55 mph. Manatee Road Manatee Road in the study area is an east -west, two -lane local roadway. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. It is approximately located 1 mile south of the US 41 & SR 951 intersection. Fiddler's Creek Parkway Fiddler's Creek Parkway in the study area will be an east -west, four -lane, divided roadway under .county jurisdiction, east of SR 951. It is functionally classified as a collector roadway. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. It is located approximately 2 miles south of the SR 951 & Manatee Road intersection. Mainsail Drive Mainsail Drive in the study area is an east -west, four -lane, divided local roadway. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level and curvilinear. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. It is located approximately 1 mile south of the SR 951 & Fiddler's Creek Parkway intersection. TRAFFIC VOLUMES VanasseDaylor reviewed available data and model projections to estimate background and future traffic volumes for the study area. Data reviewed included Collier County Transportation Planning Department 2003 Traffic Count Report (Collier 2003 -Counts), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Florida Traffic Information 2002. Additional traffic volume counts were Champion Lakes Development 4 I:1 ProjectsWO71807551Tnffic\80755TI5001 .doc Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 138 of 165 collected by Florida Transportation Engineering, Inc. (FTE) in late 2003 and early 2004 at the US 41 & Collier Boulevard, SR 951 & Manatee Road, SR 951 & Mainsail Drive, and SR 951 & Fiddler's Creek Parkway intersections. The applicable Peak Season Conversion Factors were used to adjust the traffic counts. Appendix A contains copies of the applicable data used. COMMITTED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Roadway improvements are constructed in order to help alleviate current area road deficiencies and to support future area development. For purposes of this study, knowing that a roadway improvement is "committed" means that the characteristics of the higher level facility may be used in the reserve capacity estimates. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the FY 2004 to FY 2006 time frame were considered to be committed improvements. These were identified in the Collier County Transportation Improvement Plan, the Collier County 2003 Annual Update Inventory Report (2003 AUIR). and Florida Department of Transl2orrtation FDOT Adopted Work Programs for Collier County. Fiscal Year 2002/2003 - 2007/2008. The committed improvements that could affect the area include: • Six -lane expansion of CR 951 from Davis Boulevard to US 41 scheduled to start in 2006. • FDOT has a PD &E study in progress to widen US 41 east of SR 951; however, no design or construction funding commitments have been made. PROJECTED TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION Site - generated trips were estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) TriD Generation (7th Edition), in accordance with the current Collier County policy. The following trip generation formulas were used, and the trips generation results are shown in Table 1: Table I -Trip Generation Equations Single- Family Detached Housing (LU 210): ADT: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.71 AM Peak Hour: T = 0.70(X) + 9.43 PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.90 Ln(X) + 0.53 Champion Lakes Development 5 Residential Condominium/Townhouse (LU 230): ADT: Ln(T) = 0.85 Ln(X) + 2.55 AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 0.26 PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.32 I: k? ro) ecu1807\807551Trafic180755T15001 .doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 139 of 165 The above equations were used with the land use data provided to generate the estimated trip generations for the project as shown in Table 2. Table 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE Single Family (LU 210): Residential Condominium/Townhouse (LU 230): Totals 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, turning movement proportions, and engineering judgment. The traffic distribution is presented in Table 3 and graphically shown on Exhibit 3. The trip distribution percentages of the land use were applied to the site- generated traffic volumes to determine the site - generated vehicle trip assignment. These assignments may also be found on Table 3 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION -PM PEAK HOUR Segment_ Roadway CR 951 north of US 41 US 41 west of CR 951 US 41 east of CR 951 SR 951 south of US 41 SR 951 north of Manatee Rd SR 951 south of Manatee Rd SR 951 south of Project SR 951 south of Fiddlers Ck Exhibit 4 and in Table 4 presented elsewhere in this report. 'traffic l� 20% 25% 0% 45% 55% 60% 40% 30% Champion lakes Development 6 1:1 Projects\ 807\8075S\Trafflc\80755TIS001.doc AM Peak PM Peak Em Slat AQT T _W €nterinz Esisiag J9_W Enterinr f WS jlg 275 DU 2.637 202 s0 151 266 168 98 25 DU 198 17 3 14 19 13 6 300 DU 2,835 219 53 165 285 181 104 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, turning movement proportions, and engineering judgment. The traffic distribution is presented in Table 3 and graphically shown on Exhibit 3. The trip distribution percentages of the land use were applied to the site- generated traffic volumes to determine the site - generated vehicle trip assignment. These assignments may also be found on Table 3 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION -PM PEAK HOUR Segment_ Roadway CR 951 north of US 41 US 41 west of CR 951 US 41 east of CR 951 SR 951 south of US 41 SR 951 north of Manatee Rd SR 951 south of Manatee Rd SR 951 south of Project SR 951 south of Fiddlers Ck Exhibit 4 and in Table 4 presented elsewhere in this report. 'traffic l� 20% 25% 0% 45% 55% 60% 40% 30% Champion lakes Development 6 1:1 Projects\ 807\8075S\Trafflc\80755TIS001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 140 of 165 PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES The projected background volumes represent the peak season peak hour directional traffic volumes. The existing (2003) traffic was projected forward to the projected buildout year of 2008. The Fiddlers Creek and Marco Shores projects have a large number of units that are "vested" for transportation concurrency purposes. Since Fiddlers Creek is a long -term project (20t years before buildout), the vested traffic was assumed to be included in the background traffic growth. Traffic from other projects in the area would be absorbed in the background traffic growth. In accordance with Collier County staff direction, the historical growth rate of the roadways in the area was used to project the background traffic to the Horizon Year. Table 4 shows the projected 2008 directional Peak Hour Link Volumes. Exhibit 5 shows the projected background turning movement volumes, and Exhibit 6 presents the projected total turning movement volumes, that were used in the intersection analyses. Table 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE 2008 (PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL) -Sold denotes "YjnlAane Impact or "adrarm" Impact Champion Lakes Development 7 I:1Projects\ 807 \807551Trafflc\80755TI5001.doc 2003 Project ROADWAY PM Pk 2008 Pk PM Peak PM Peak AUIR Traffic Hr Growth Hr Project Total LOS as % of BKGD Rate BKGD Traffic Traffic Std LOS Std CR 951 north of US 41 NB 2184 1.7% 2381 21 2402 3370 0.6% US 41 west of CR 951 WB 1245 3.3% 1464 26 1490 3200 0.8% US 41 east of CR 951 WB 648 2.7% 742 0 742 950 0.0% SR 951 south of US 41 NB 3142 5.3% 4065 47 4112 1970 2.4% SR 951 north of Manatee Rd NB 1774 5.3% 2295 57 2352 1970 2.9% SR 951 south of Manatee Rd NB 1691 5.3% 2187 62 2249 2590 2.4% SR 951 south of Project NB 1492 5.3% 1931 72 2003 2590 2.8% SR 951 south of Fiddlers Ck NB 1492 5.3% 1931 54 1985 2590 2.1% -Sold denotes "YjnlAane Impact or "adrarm" Impact Champion Lakes Development 7 I:1Projects\ 807 \807551Trafflc\80755TI5001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 141 of 165 ANALYSES CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE LINK ANALYSES The roadway segments that were identified as being within the project Area of Influence, according to the Collier County 3/3/5 rule, were analyzed to determine background and Buildout traffic conditions. Table 4 presents the link LOS analyses for the projected background and total traffic conditions. For the purposes of this study, the LOS perfomance standard and service volumes were from the 2003 AUIR tables for the studied roadway segments. The PM Peak Hour traffic was used because the site - related residential land use peak hour typically occurs in the PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street traffic. Appendix B contains the tables used in these analyses. SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANALYSES According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.15.6.4.3: "Significance Test: Impact for the impact traffic analysis purposes for a proposed development project will be considered significant: 1. on those roadway segments directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or greater than 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; 2. for those roadway segments immediately adjacent to segments which are directly accessed by the project where project traffic is greater than or equal to 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; or 3. for all other adjacent segments where the project traffic is greater than 5% 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." 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 3 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; 5 percent for the other links; and (2) the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted level of service standard. Champion Lakes Development 8 I: kProjects %OM07551Traffic%0755TI5001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 142 of 165 The analysis shows that no roadway links are projected to be significantly impacted per the LDC because of 2008 projected traffic. Therefore, no Link Level of Service (LOS) calculations were completed for this project. INTERSECTION ANALYSES The foregoing determinations were based on link service levels using the AUIR performance standard service volumes. Since intersection operations have a greater impact on corridor operations than the capacities of the roadway links, additional analyses were conducted on key intersections in the Area of Influence. The selection process was based primarily on the relationships between the significant links and proximity to the site. The analyses were conducted using the TrafficwareTm software package, SYNCHRO® version 6.0 to determine probable intersection operations. The studied intersections are listed in Table 5, along with the analytical results. Table 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Background Traffic Total Traffic Signalized Intersections Los Delay sedveh. LOS Delay see/veh. SR 951 & Championship Drive D 43 E 55 Unsignalized Intersections SR 951 & Championship Drive F 512 n/a - Two different scenarios were analyzed for the Buildout Year: Background Traffic with committed roadway improvements, and Total Traffic with the committed roadway improvements. Table 5 presents the Buildout Year 2008 PM Peak Hour background and total traffic Capacity Analysis results at the intersections that were analyzed for this study. Champion Lakes Development 9 I: 1Projecu18 0 718 0 7 5 51Trafflc \80755TIS001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 143 of 165 If no degradation to the service level of an intersection was identified using total traffic volumes, then no additional analyses were performed on that intersection. Copies of the analysis results are contained in Appendix C. The analyses indicated that the projected 2008 Background Traffic would cause the unsignalized SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection to fall below LOS standards. Under Total Traffic conditions, the average signalized intersection delay was projected to increase (approximately 12 sec /veh), placing the delay at the LOS D/E threshold; however, the intersection would remain within an acceptable operating range with signalized operations. The poor service levels found in the analytical results at the unsignalized SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection merited closer scrutiny. Examining the printouts found that the westbound left turn movement was the only movement that exhibited high delays. This is an inherent condition of side -street STOP - controlled intersections, which are dependent on the availability of gaps in the through traffic stream to allow the stopped vehicles to enter the major street traffic. If gaps in the through traffic stream are not readily available, the stopped street traffic will exhibit high computed delays. Usually, the major street traffic exhibits acceptable operational characteristics. The only effective solutions would entail either installing all -way STOP control or installing a traffic signal, if warranted. Since SR 951 is an arterial roadway connecting Marco Island to the mainland, and since the through traffic volumes are high with relation to the side street volumes, installing an All -way STOP at the SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection is not feasible. Under Background Traffic conditions, the westbound left turn movement is projected to have 86 vph in the PM Peak Hour, and under Total Traffic conditions, the westbound left turn is projected to have 128 vph in the same peak hour. Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses were conducted to determine whether the intersection would operate with a traffic signal for right -of -way allocation. The results indicate that a signal would allow acceptable intersection operation at SR 951 & Championship Drive. The intersection is approximately 1 mile south of Manatee Road, and about 0.9 mile north of Fiddler's Creek Parkway, which suggests that signal spacing would be adequate without having to resort to coordination. Based on these findings, consideration should be given to constructing a signal at the SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection. Champion Lakes Development 10 1: \Projects\ 807 \80755 \Traf ic\80755TISOO I.doc Agenda Item No, 17C February 22, 2005 Page 144 of 165 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The capacity analyses indicated that signalization may be needed at the SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection. The final site access could be also evaluated to determine whether any traffic signal warrants will be met by the site - generated traffic. The warrants in the MUTCD Millennium Edition should be used in these analyses. According to the analyses, the access will meet Warrant 3 by project buildout (See Appendix E). The single peak hour warrant is met, (128 vph in the westbound left turn vs 100 vph); however, a comprehensive traffic signal warrant study should be made once the project is constructed. SITE ACCESSES Site Access analyses were completed utilizing SYNCHRO® software, which is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000), and applied to Build -out year traffic. Appendix C contains the SYNCHRO® computer printouts. The purpose of these analyses is to evaluate the operational characteristics and needs of the site accesses, and to recommend access configurations. The main access was initially evaluated as unsignalized intersection operating with side - street STOP control. If service levels were found deficient, improvements were applied to the analyses until acceptable service levels were obtained. The project is proposed to have one full- movement access point on SR 951 at Championship Drive. It was recognized during the study process that need for, and length of need of, turn lanes, and how those lengths of need would interact with neighboring access and improvements, would affect both the recommended access configurations and their locations along the site frontage. Four parameters were used in order to reach the recommendations: current land use which allows to establish the in/out flows on the Championship Drive (Appendix A), capacity analysis results, turn lane length of need analysis results, and the proximity of the proposed accesses, with turn lanes, with relation to neighboring accesses /intersections and their auxiliary lanes. In order to analyze the turn lanes, it was necessary to review related ordinances. According to the Collier County Right -of Way Ordinance #2003 -3764, left turn lanes must be provided at median openings on multilane highways. The same ordinance establishes that right turn lanes must be provided on all driveways accessing multilane highways. The FDOT Index 301 and Figure 3 -15 Champion Lakes Development I I 1: 1Projects\8071807551Trafflc180755TI5001 .doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 145 of 165 of the Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards were used for conceptual geometric design (see Appendix D). ISLE OF CAPRI (SR 95 1) & CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE MAIN ACCESS Capacity Analyses This access was evaluated to determine the projected intersection operations during the PM Peak Hour. The Unsignalized Intersection analysis clearly indicated that side - street STOP - controlled intersection operation will not provide acceptable operational characteristics for traffic exiting the site. A Signalized Intersection analysis indicated that acceptable operation could be obtained (LOS E, 55 sec /veh delay) using westbound exclusive left and right turn lanes. Westbound Approach Analysis The westbound approach currently is a shared left/right lane. The PM Peak Hour background traffic is projected to have 86 vph westbound left turns and 128 vph westbound right turns. This project is expected to generate 42 VPH westbound left turns and 62 right turns during the PM Peak Hour. The total traffic is projected to be 128 vph left turns and 190 vph right turns. The background volumes exceed the turn lane threshold values, and the capacity analyses indicate intersection service levels would improve with exclusive turn lanes on Championship Drive. Length of need analyses indicate that the proposed left turn lane should be 245 feet long (100 feet storage + 145 foot deceleration lane with 50 foot taper), and the proposed right turn lane should be 270 feet long (125 feet storage + 145 foot deceleration lane with 50 foot taper). In order to avoid the queue blocking at this access, it is recommended to use the greater length of need (270 feet) for both turn lane lengths. This will provide sufficient clearance to allow left- turning traffic to maneuver around the westbound right turn queues. In this case, the exclusive right turn lane should be constructed. Left Turn Analysis (.Southbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 98 vph southbound left turning movements during the PM Peak Hour. The total traffic will be 390 vph in the same period. This exceeds the 20 vph threshold value. Based on this information, a southbound left turn lane will be warranted at the Champion Lakes Development 12 I:% Projects1807180755 %Traffic180755Tr5001.doc Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 146 of 165 SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection. This proposed a left turn lane should be 515 feet long (275 feet storage + 240 foot deceleration lane with 50 foot taper). Right Turn Analysis (Northbound Approach2 This project will generate 72 northbound right turns. The total traffic will be 255 vph. Based on this information the number of right turning trips will exceed the 40 vph threshold value. For this reason, a northbound right turn lane will be warranted at the SR 951 & Championship Drive intersection. This proposed left turn lane should be 415 feet long (175 feet storage + 240 foot deceleration lane with 50 foot taper). Access Point Location The access should be located at Championship Drive & SR 951 intersection. The median opening should be revised into a full- movement opening as part of this improvement. IMPROVEMENT ANALYSES Because many of the analyses were addressed in a previous section, this improvement analysis section will be limited in scope to a conclusive narrative. IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE NON -SITE TRAFFIC The Championship Drive at SR 951 intersection should be signalized in order to accommodate the non -site traffic. IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE SITE - GENERATED TRAFFIC No improvement was identified as being needed in order to accommodate site - generated traffic. The development will be subject to concurrency management review during the SDP Phase of project development. Champion Lakes Development 13 I: 1Projects48071807SSkTraffic180755TIS00i .doc A i 25X GeS; 46It 20x 4� 45X NX 1il 0p,0 A� K � 30X °'S5 ` Urbm Flenninj Ueffit I.F.-ri Lendtcepe Architenure Emvonmentn Soenrr t 55X va 5X al NANA TEE ROAD -a-� 80755�77S Q y 12601 Weadinks Dr. Unit 7 O p a O 127)6 MW 6' " 6aw"d. Suite d01 y 4 60X OO � V MUM ter SWP O r2)rA)7.dAl rut.l)7.1a)f v Mder.mn ar�ra an f' . ]ron' N-J)- W CHAMPIONSHIP DR. 40% 1il 0p,0 A� K � 30X February 22, 05 Page 14U2 { W Q 0 E S SCALE r' - 3000' �7 �G a4 SITE LEQEND •e—�► DIRECTION OF TRAVEL X DISTRIBU770AI �PAU WOW �►���,,,++, takes Try D%hibfrMM PO conwo E. MIT 3 °'S5 Va n a s s e Urbm Flenninj Ueffit I.F.-ri Lendtcepe Architenure Emvonmentn Soenrr f1°m F1 )dd Ci�� Homes 80755�77S Cnil Engineervq 12601 Weadinks Dr. Unit 7 p a o r 127)6 MW 6' " 6aw"d. Suite d01 Fort Afyers FL 33913 Y Fen "m FI ))907 (239) 768 -3826 MUM ter SWP r2)rA)7.dAl rut.l)7.1a)f v Mder.mn ar�ra an f' . ]ron' N-J)- February 22, 05 Page 14U2 { W Q 0 E S SCALE r' - 3000' �7 �G a4 SITE LEQEND •e—�► DIRECTION OF TRAVEL X DISTRIBU770AI �PAU WOW �►���,,,++, takes Try D%hibfrMM PO conwo E. MIT 3 36 26 ♦ 21 45 3� 45 � G 81 � 26 „ 21 `'� 0� t47 9 R F 9 99 1 MANATEE ROAD 0� —5 Lj62 108 108 O - `- °y Fa4 . C 104 CHAMPIONSHIP DR. 72 162 42 t 72 11 18 31 I 8 wn 18 QI^" �54 F10pL� 11 31 654 Urban Planning Traffic En {iaatrin0 PWAM Tae ZF�755-71S a n as S e pndttapr Arttaaun Enriwnmanaf faana colas t�anea aril EnpnetrinE Ft !t6 12601 Westllnka Or. Unit 7 V D a I o r 127!0 Maw MUM Mawd. Suitt 600 Fort Myer, FL 33919 y fun 1ry"' n »n7 (239) 768 -3826 t 2lfA17. 4601 r214.4).4fif aotrr rates w vmdwy.nm 0 February 22,NO05 Pag�1� �5 E Q 0 S 0 1300 3000 sc Lr. r' _ 3aoo• 4- 4G ," SITE — s• DIRECTION OF TRAVEL XX VEHICLE TRIPS VPH mu ow LobW Ci1NRX7 w Lakes PM Pak &%- GWMted Mt* Tap AwbvnW EXHIBIT 4 February 22, 24105 �.!► �dp Page 1+fl E .� �9 ry�p 1500 3000 , SGAL� }' � 3000 S cp '`234 •- i� h � B9 MANATEE ROAD 15 '� RpPp EEK GR 4 SITE ONO 128 F tipp1.ER5 86 CHAMPIONSHIP DR. a o1 N rn� ^^ �3f N 15 '� RpPp EEK GR F tipp1.ER5 a o1 N INTERSECTION —� TRAFFIC FLOW °755 V:na;s S �`�nn D nnine NMI' EnEineerinE �°1° >n. a Archiacwre Enrironmend Sarn6 00,01116, HQI1193 CiG�B, l.ek @e Wl Eft Gvil En�innnerinl 8075 In IJ710 Nn M., kdd Aiu deo ! o r Fl 166 1260) Wdr1Gi/tic9 °' ��;, ' Fort ost l i R 3 Unit 7 p��L,.�,,� � 1ffl�f'CI PA�C HOUR m Fort 94)7 R 11)11 $ r 231.1)).1111 rllf.11l.dQd (239) 768 -3826 ar.� LfA EXHIBIT V • and .com � 1000' —JI—Of February 22,151005 �* �Q Page 150+ 1 �5 '�'?►,� W E Q 0 ry�o 0 1300 J000 scar. 1' . aDOO• "41�fs` d� Q0 CN h Q L984 MANA TEE ROAD SNO d �'�''?• g SITE 190 128 CHAMPIONSHIP DR. F15 OPp . Fip�L�R� � �EC�iEEND INTERSEC770N —r TRAFFIC FLOW �D°TN0 Man pannin!! TraKcEnEinKdnE ��+� AO MX* 80755 a n as s e landrapa Ar <Mamrc EiwironmanuI P' no c01t7fl►el Chm pft Lakes AW Ma Chd En`intva= 1l 3it 12601 bW mms 7 0755 -115 pa ! O r IT7k IPa. �dn>n xmaad seu doo 10G8 TofaJ TrslAr PM Pak How r Fort A(T7 FL 33913 ion M7m fl 11107 mum SWP � .72P. /1TA60I rUPAI7.1 /76 arJrs (239) 768 -3826 arr • nada .am 7' . EXHIBIT g 075 5 6O- uanS WWm 5WP All G� w MANA TEE ROAD o� y OOC O 4 � ONGFEEr V 270 FEET 1 LL LONG O y� CHAMPIONSHIP DR. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 415 FEET / LONG ��EEK aoA° AS 1 'anasse Urban tlannia Tralfc Enaineerby LanitapF k 4tture Emfnonmutd am C ' Hdlie6 wit Fl 360 12601 WeaBinks Dr. UnH 7 Da r 13310 Now Innairy 0admrd, Suitt 600 (� fort *ard FL 33913 1 Fart hym, FI !3901 (239) 768 -3826 w.239.437,001 FWAIA63d acuan Krz r nadat.on t' . ]000' d3-31- February 22, 2,05 Page 151 of 65 W E Q S 0 1500 3000 SC4M I' — J=' rs .SF SITE LEGEND INTERSECTON ------ 21■ TRAFFIC FLOW R9COf►llmedC� Lmd m A lane Cafvwaft EXHIBIT 7 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 152 of 165 Page 1 of 1 Champion Lakes PUD ENGINEER'S REPORT PURPOSE: This application is a request for construction approval of a surface water management system serving a 94 +/- acre residential development. The proposed project is a modification of the approved Casa Del Lago RV Resort (ERP #11- 01954 -P, App # 0011008 -18). The project has been rezoned from RV lots to single family homes. EXISTING FACILITIES: The proposed site is currently cleared and vacant. There currently are no control structures on -site. Surface water runoff is predominantly contained on -site or flows overland to the existing Collier County outfall canal (see attached exhibit). PROPOSED FACILITIES: The proposed project will consist of lakes for water retention. The discharge will be through a control structure into the existing Collier County outfall canal. DRAINAGE INFORMATION A. Pre - development and post - development drainage calculations. 2. 3. The subject site lies within the U.S. 41. outfall basin and per Collier County Ordinance 90 -10; the allowable post - development discharge rate is 0.12 cfs per acre. The wet season water table elevation has been determined to be 3.5 feet N.G.V.D. The receiving water elevation is 3.0 feet N.G.V.D. 4. Design Storm a. Minimum road crown and minimum perimeter grading. . Return frequency = 25 - years Rainfall duration = 3 - days 24 -hour rainfall — 9.20 inches b. Minimum finish floor elevations. Return frequency — 100 - years Rainfall duration = 3 - days 24 -hour rainfall = 11.40 inches 5. Time of Concentration (Q = 2(Total basin area/640)0.5 = 2(77.41/640)0" = 0.69 hours F:VOBICASA DEL 1AGOYM 5W rop2.doe CLFUDA Use t� = 1 hour Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 153 of 165 Page 2 of 2 6. Runoff hydrographs were created using the SFWMD Routing Model Cascade 2001 (Version 1.0) program. 7. Stage - Storage and Stage - Discharge Calculations STAGE PAVEMENT / LAKES SITE (OPEN SPACE) TOTAL SIDEWALKS 3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 0.00 (7.18 ac)(0.5 ft) = (0.5/4.5)(65.52 acx0.5 ft/2) 5.41 3.59 -1.82 5.0 0.00 (7.18 ac)(1.5 ft) = (1.5/4.5x65.52 acx1.5 ft/2) 27.15 10.77 =16.38 6.0 0.00 (7.18 acx2.5 ft) = (2.5/4.5)(65.52 acx2.5 f!(2) 63.45 17.95 = 45.5 7.0 (1/2)(5.68 acx1.0 ft/2) (7.18 ac)(3.5 ft) = (3.5/4.5x65.52 ac)(3.5 ft/2) 115.73 =1.42 25.13 = 89.18 8'0 (2/2x5.68 ac)(2.0 ft/2) (7.18 acx4.5 ft) = (4.5/4.5)(6552 acx4.5 ft/2) 185.41 - 5.68 32.31 -147.42 Note. All storage values are in acre-feet Open space areas are assumed to be linear between elevation 3.5 and 8.0. The roans are assumed to be full at elevation 80. 8. Soil Storage The average depth to the water table will be = average site grade elevation - average site water table elevation = 6.5 - 3.5 = 3 feet From the soil storage table, assuming the 25% compaction and 3 feet to the water table, up to 4.95 inches of moisture can be stored in the soil under pervious areas. Compute available sitewide soil storage, S = soil storage available * pervious areas / total site area = (4.95') * (37.92)/ (94.73) = 1.98" of soil storage Compute SCS Curve Number, CN = 1000 /(S +10) = 1000/(11.98) = 83 9. Stage/Discharge calculations. The discharge calculations were performed by Cascade and are included in attachment A. 10. Surface Water Profiles and Runoff Peak Rates *see attachments A -E for Cascade Outputs F:VOB\CASA DEL LAGO\CCH\SWM tep2.doc CLFMA Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 154 of 165 Page 3 of 3 The minimum road centerline elevation in this basin will be 6.00. The minimum finish floor elevation will be 7.00 or 18" above the road centerline, whichever is greater. This is greater than or equal to the Flood Insurance Rate Map that shows this project in Zone AE, Elevation 7.00 (per Community -Panel Number 120067 0620 D revised 6/3/86) 11.The receiving body is assumed to rise from elevation 2.5 at hour zero to elevation 4.5 at hour 72 for the 25 -year and 100 -year storms. 12. There are no pumps proposed for this project. F "JOBWASA DEL LAGO\CCH4SWM repldoc CLPUDA 25 -YEAR STORM 100 -YEAR STORM STAGE GVD 5.52 6.19 DISCHARGE (CFS) 10.63 - The minimum road centerline elevation in this basin will be 6.00. The minimum finish floor elevation will be 7.00 or 18" above the road centerline, whichever is greater. This is greater than or equal to the Flood Insurance Rate Map that shows this project in Zone AE, Elevation 7.00 (per Community -Panel Number 120067 0620 D revised 6/3/86) 11.The receiving body is assumed to rise from elevation 2.5 at hour zero to elevation 4.5 at hour 72 for the 25 -year and 100 -year storms. 12. There are no pumps proposed for this project. F "JOBWASA DEL LAGO\CCH4SWM repldoc CLPUDA ' Agenda Item.No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 155 of 165 Page 4 of 4 ITEM `C'.SITE DATA Total Property = 94.73 ac Leas Conservation Areas = 16.35 ac Total Drainage Basin = 78.38 ac 100.00% Lakes = 7.18 ac 9.16% Impervious Roadways/Sidewalkc = 5.68 ac 7.25% SFLots(70% impervious) = 41.64 ac 53.13% Clubhouse(90% impervious) = 2.31 ac 2.95% Pervious SFLots (30 %pervious) = 17.84 ac 22.76% FPL EasementlOpen Space = 3.47 ac 3.32% Clubhouse(90% pervious) = 0.26 ac 1.43% ITEM 'E' WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS Compute the greater of the first inch, of runoff versus 2.5 times the percentage of imperviousness. 1. First Inch: 94.73 acres x 1 -inch x (1 -foot per 12- inches) = 7.89 acre feet. 2. 2.5 inches times percent of imperviousness Site area for water quality pervioushmpervious calculations only- = Total project — (conservation + water surface + roof') _ 94.73 ac — (16.35 ac + 7.18 ac + 18.36) = 52.84 ac of site area for water quality pervious/impervious Impervious area for water quality pervious/impervious calculations only- = (Site area for water quality pervious/impervious) — pervious = 52.84 ac — 21.57 ac = 31.27 ac Percentage of imperviousness for water quality: = (Impervious area for water quality /Site area for water quality) * 100 = (32.69 ac/ 51.93 ac) * 100 = 60.22% impervious For 2.5 inches times the percentage impervious: = 2.5" * 0.602 = 1.50" to be treated Compute the volume required for water quality detention: RUMCASA DEL LP.GO\CCH\SWM rep2.doc CULTDA Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 156 of 165 Page 5 of s = inches to be treated * (total site — water management) = 1.50" * (94.73 ac — 7.18 ac) * (1712'1 =10.94 ac -ft 3. 10.94 > 7.89 so the first inch of runoff over the entire site controls water quality requirements. Setting the main weir at elevation 4.51 by interpolating from the stage storage table: (4.0— 3.5)/ 5.41— 0.00) = (X — 3.5)/(10.94- 0.00) 0.092 = (X — 3.5)/(10.94) 1.01 = (X -3.5) 4.51 = X *Estimate of roof area is calculated by adding the following; 665vo of Clubhouse (impervious) = 1.70 40% of SF lots ('impervious) = 16.66 TOTAL 18.36 ac F:1TOBWCASA DEL L.AGo1CC swM nep2.doc CLPUDA Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 157 of 165 Page 6 of 6 ITEM `F' BLEEDER DESIGN The bleeder is designed to allow 0.5" of runoff from the entire drainage basin to discharge in a. period of 24 hours. The flowrate is calculated as follows: Qbleed, = (0.5')/ 24 hours)(78.38 ac)(1'/12 ")(43,560 fl /acre)(1. hr/ 3600 sec) =1.65 cfs A V -notch bleeder is used in this model. The equation for the flow rate of a sharp - crested, v -notch weir is as follows: Qr = 4.28 C tan (0/2)(h + k) 5/2 Where Q = Discharge (cfs) =1.65 cis C =Discharge Coefficient = 0.5760389660710401 0 = Notch Angle = h = Head = 1.01 k = Head Correction Factor = 0.003 3 9287 5999356801 - The head is the height from the invert of the bleeder to the invert of the main weir. It was determined that the main weir would be at elevation 4.51 to meet water quality requirements for this basin. Therefore by rearranging the weir equation, the Notch Angle 0 = 66 °. F.UOB\CASA DEL LACKWXH\SWM rep1doe CLPUDA Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 158 of 165 Page 7 of 7 ITEM `H' ALLOWABLE_ DISCHARGE Allowable discharge based on the existing permit allows for 0.12 cfs per acre to be discharged through the water control structure during the 25 -year design storm. (94.73 ac)(0.12 cfs/acre) =1 1.37 cfs Limit weir discharge to allowable discharge conditions. Qanowabit (total) = 11.37cfs Qa .wabk = Qweir + Qbleed. Qbleedw = 1.65cfs Qw* = 9.72 cfs Qweir = 3.13LH l os 9.72cfs = 3.13 L (2)" L = 2.20 ft. From Cascade model: max discharge =10.63 cfs w/ L =.2.2 ft. (2611)/ 660 v- notch. *see attachments A B F:1TOB\CASA DEL LAGO\CCH\SWM iapldoc CLPUDA Agenda Item No. 17C. February 22, 2005 Page 159 of 165 Page 8 of 8 FrEM `I' DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY The project is currently cleared and vacant. This project has been approved for construction per SFWMII permit #11- 01954 -P and Collier County AR# 2580 as "Casa Del Lago RV Resort". Preserve areas have remained unchanged or have increased in size with the proposed revisions depending on the location. The project is currently contained by existing development and roadways. No off -site in -flows will be required to be accepted by this project. The system is a standard design for residential subdivisions. We utilized models obtain from SFWMD and followed design criteria contained in SFWMD Basis of Review. The system as designed provides adequate surface water management. F:UOMCASA DEL LAGO\CCHI.SWM repldoc C YM 3 [N� Agenda Item No. 17C Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 February 22, 2005 Page 160 of 165 File: championship lakes PUD Date: November 22, 2004 Page l Project Name: Champion Lakes PUD Reviewer: Chris Hayes Project Number: CLPUDA Period Begin: Jan 01, 2000;0000 hr End: Jan 15, 2000;0000 hr Duration: 336 hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: 10 Basin 1: Championship Lakes Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFWMD - 3day Design Frequency: 25 year 3 Day Rainfall: 9.2 inches Area: 94.7298 acres Ground Storage: 1.98 inches Time of Concentration: 1 hours Initial Stage: 3.5 ft NGVD Stage Storage (ft NGVD) (acre -ft) 3.50 0.00 4.00 5.41 5.00 27.15 6.00 63.45 7.00 115.73 6.00 185.41 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsitel Time Stage (hr) (ft NGVD) 0.00 3.50 336.00 3.50 Structure: 1 From Basin: Championship Lakes To Basin: Offsitel Structure Type: Gravity Weir: Sharp Crested, Crest Elev - 4.51 ft NGVD, Length - 2.2 ft Bleeder: V- Notch, Invert Elev - 3.5 ft NGVD, Top Elev - 4.51 ft NGVD Angle - 66 deg Default Coe£s: Weir Coef - 2.5, Orifice Coef - 0.6 Pipe: None Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) -------------------- °- ° - - - -- ------°'------------------------- �.-- � - -� - -� 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 4.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 8.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 12.00 0.49 0.23 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 16.00 0.66 0.75 0.00 0.00 3.52 3.50' 20.00 0.82 1.18 0.00 0.00 3.55 3.50 24.00 0.99 1.52 0.00 0.00 3.59 3.50 28.00 1.23 2.75 0.02 0.00 3.66 3.50 32.00 1.47 3.22 0.05 0.01 3.75 3.50 36.00 1.71 3.58 0.12 0.04 3.85 3.50 40.00 1.95 3.87 0.23 0.10 3.96 3.50 44.00 2.19 4.10 0.34 0.20 4.04 3.50 48.00 2.43 4.30 0.44 0.33 4.09 3.50 52.00 2.73 6.31 0.58 0.50 4.16 3.50 56.00 3.36 14.42 0.95 0.74 4.31 3.50 60.00 6.87 182.11 3.59 1.27 4.80 3.50 64.00 8.39 24.26 10.22 4.06 5.48 3.50 68.00 8.88 11.45 10.63 7.54 5._52 3.50 • 1 11 Agenda Item No. 17C Cascade 2001 version 1.0 February 22, 2005 Page 161 of 165 File: championship lakes PUD Date: November 22, 2004 Page 2 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) m!!!! m!! lalSSSmSlSlm!! (cfs) (acre -ft) SSl ISiCS---- (ft NGVD) 1- !1- 88- mSSlmtSmm!!!S! (ft NGVD) !!m!!SlmmCSSiZSSS3S. 72.00 !¢ 9.20 7.56 10.41 11.02 5.50 3.50 76.00 9.20 0.14 9.55 14.33 5.42 3.50 80.00 9.20 0.00 8.64 17.33 5.34 3.50 84.00 9.20 0.00 7.84 20.04 5.26 3.50 88.00 9.20 0.00 7.14 22.51 5.20 3.50. 92.00 9.20 0.00 6.52 24.76 5.13 3.50 96.00 9.20 0.00 5.97 26.82 5.08 3.50 100.00 9.20 0.00 5.49 28.70 5.03 3.50' 104.00 9.20 0.00 4.92 30.43 4.96 3.50 108.00 9.20 0.00 4.33 31.95 4.89 3.50 112.00 9.20 0.00 3.83 33.29 4.83 3.50 116.00 9.20 0.00 3.41 34.48 4.78 3.50 120.00 9.20 0.00 3.06 35.55 4.73 3.50 124.00 9.20 0.00 2.76 36.51 4.68 3.50 128.00 9.20 0.00 2.51 37.37 4.64. 3.50 132.00 9.20 0.00 2.29 38.17 4.61 3.50 136.00 9.20 0.00 2.11 38.89 4.57 3.50 140.00 9.20 0.00 1.96 39.56 4.54 3.50 144.00 9.20 0.00 1.85 40.19 4.51 3.50 148.00 9.20 0.00 1.57 40.73 4.49 3.50 152.00 9.20 0.00 1.48 41.23 4.46 3.50 156.00 9.20 0.00 1.40 41.71 4.44 3.50 160.00 9.20 0.00 1.32 42.16 4.42 3.50 164.00 9.20 0.00 1.25 42.59 4.40 3.50 168.00 9.20 0.00 1.19 42.99 4.38 3.50 172.00 9.20 0.00 1.13 43.37 4.37 3.50 176.00 9.20 0.00 1.08 43.74 4.35 3.50 180.00 9.20 0.00 1.03 44.09 4.33 3.50 184.00 9.20 0.00 0.98 44.42 4.32 3.50 188.00 9.20 0.00 0.94 44.73 4.30 3.50 192.00 9.20 0.00 0.90 45.04 4.29 3.50 196.00 9.2D 0.00 0.86 45.33 4.28 3.50 200.00 9.20 0.00 0.83 45.61 4.26 3.50 204.00 9.20 .0.00 0.79 45.87 4.25 3.50 208.00 9.20 0.00 0.76 46.13 4.24 3.50 212.00 9.20 0.00 0.73 46.38 4.23 3.50 216.00 9.20 0.00 0.71 46.61 4.22 3.50 220.00 9.20 0.00 0.68 46.84 4.21 3.50 224.00 9.20 0.00 0.66 47.06 4.20 3.50 228.00. 9.20 0.00 0.63 47.28 4.19 3.50 232.00 9.20 0.00 0.61 47.48 4.18' 3.50 236.00 9.20 0.00 0.59 47.68 4.17 3.50 240.00 9.20 0.00 0.57 .47.87 4.16 3.50 244.00 9.20 0.00 0.55 48.06 4.15 3.50 248.00 9.20 0.00 0.54 48.24 4.14 3.50 252.00 9.20 0.00 0.52 48.41 4.13 3.50 256.00 9.20 0.00 0.50 48.58 4.13 3.50 260.00 9.20 0.00 0.49 48.75 4.12 3.50 264.00 9.20 0.00 0.47 48.90 4.11 3.50 268.00 9.20 0.00 0.46 49.06 4.10 3.50 272.00 9.20 0.00 0.45 49.21 4.10 3.50 276.00 9.20 O.DO 0.43 49.35 4.09 3.50 280.00 9.20 0.00 0.42 49.50 4.08 3.50 284.00 9.20 0.00 0.41 49.63 4.08 3.50 288.00 9.20 0.00 0.40 49.77 4.07 3.50 292.00 9.20 0.00 0.39 49.90 4.07 3.50 296.00 9.20 0.00 0.38 50.03 4.06 3.50 300.00 9.20 0.00 0.37 50.15 4.05 3.50 304.00 9.20 0.00 0.36 50.27 4.05 3.50 308.00 9.20 0.00 0.35 50.39 4.04 3.50 312.00 9.20 0.00 0.34 50.50 4.04 3.50 316.00 9.20 D.00 0.34 50.62 4.03 3.50 320.00 9.20 0.00 0.33 50.73 4.03 3.50 324.00 9.20 0.00 0.32 50.83 4.02 3.50 328.00 9.20 0.00 0.31 50.94 4.02 3.50 332.00 9.20 0.00 0.31 51.04 4.01 3.50 336.00 9.20 0.00 0.30 51.14 4.01 3.50 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: championship lakes PUD Date: November 22, 2004 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES xsm= a- aiCxxma ---- m ---- -- i- a--= =x -=-IW ----- -6= x�iaOxCC� Struc Max (cfs) Time (hr) Min (cfs) Time (hr) = sxxxax== z= a=== ms==== :mz= xm-- s-= mmam :xam = xasas :smmacsxxm 1 10.63 68.20 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES == aaaaa= aaaammm= ..m= a= mmmm == mama =m =mmm :sammmm= xxmm.�mmms:amm�: Basin Max (ft) Time (hr) Min (ft) Time (hr) sca-- mm-- m=a------ s.- m- mxxxmmmamaaaaam mam= mmmmaammamaamvsx =seam Championship L 5.52 68.20 3.50 0.00 ,n Agenda Item No. 17C February 22,_2005 pag$162 q 165 age BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre -ft) s= mass s= asa= xxssa: m= x== xocxd= r_ x-=-= oxaammasmammse= xxxxxmx= x- ax =x -- -mama sac --as- Total Structure Structure Initial Final Basin Runoff Inflow Outflow' Storage Storage Residual -------= m- am-- a- - --- Championship L 56.72 0.00 51.13 0.00 5.59 0.00 L 00 `teAR 95 OL" r. Agenda Item No. 17C Cascade 2001 version 1.0 February 22, 2005 Page 163 of 165 File: championship lakes PUD Date: November 22, 2004 Page 1 Project Name: Champion Lakes PUD Reviewer: Chris Hayes Project Number: CLPUDA Period Begin: Jan 01, 2000;0000 hr End: Jan 15, 2000;0000 hr Duration: 336.hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: 10 Basin 1: Championship Lakes Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFWMD - 3day Design Frequency: 100 year 3 Day Rainfall: 11.4 inches Area: 94.7298 acres Ground Storage: 1.98 inches Time of Concentration: 1 hours Initial Stage: 3.5 ft NGVD Stage (ft NGVD) 3.50 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Storage (acre -ft) 0.00 5.41 27.15 63.45 115.73 185.41 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsitel Time Stage (hr) (ft NGVD) 0.00 3.50 336.00 3.50 Structure: 1 From Basin: Championship Lakes To Basin: Offsitel Structure Type: Gravity Weir: None Bleeder: None Pipe: None Cumulative. Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre -ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50. 3.50= 4.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 8.00 0.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 12.00 0.61 0.72 0.00 0.00 3.51 3.50' 16.00 0.82 1.41, 0.00 0.00 3.54 3.50 20.00 1.02 1.94 0.00 0.00 3.59 3.50 24.00 1.22 2.36 0.00 0.00 3.66 3.50 28.00 1.52 4.05 0.00 0.00 3.77 3.50 32.00 1.82 4.59 0.00 0.00 3.90 3.50 36.00 2.12 4.99 0.00 0.00 4.02 3.50 40.00 2.42 5.30 0.00 0.00 4.10 3.50 44.00 2.71 5.54 0.00 0.00 4.18 3.50 48.00 3.01 5.74 0.00 0.00 4.27 3.50 52.00 3.39 8.35 0.00 0.00 4.37 3.50 56.00 4.16 18.82 0.00 0.00 4.57 3.50 60.00 8.51 231.23 0.00 0.00 5.14 3.50 64.00 10.39 30.51 0.00 0.00 6.00 3.50 68.00 11.00 14.35 0.00 0.00 6.11 3.50 72.00 11.40 9.48 0.00 0.00 6.18 3.50 76.00 11.40 _ 0.17 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 Cascade 2001 Version-1.0 File: championship lakes PUD Date: November 22, 2004 t. Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Pag$11g6e jf 165 Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) i (cfs) - 7�sv-------- (cfs) ==-- (acre -ft) s- -ca- c- =- (ft NGVD) ®- «- =-- s -- (Et NGVD) - -- .���a�� 80.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 84.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 88.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 92.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 96.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 100.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 104.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 108.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 112.00• 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 116.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 120.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 124.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 128.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 132.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 136.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 140.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 144.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 148.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 152.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 156.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 160.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 164.00 11'.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 168.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 172.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 176.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 180.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 184.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 188.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 192.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 196.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 200.00 11.40 0.00, 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 204.00 11.40 0.00,. 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 208.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 212.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 216.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 220.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 224.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 228.00 11.40 0.00, 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 232.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 236.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 240.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 244.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 248.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 252.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.5'0° 256.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 260.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 264.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 268.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 272.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 276.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 280.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 284.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 288.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 292.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 296.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 300.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 304.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 308.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 312.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 316.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 320.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 324.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00, 6.19 3.50 328.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 " 332.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 336.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 3.50 a Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: championship lakes PUD Date: November 22, 2004 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES s Struc Max (cfs) Time (hr) Min(cfs) Time (hr) = = -= e— _=== _i- mc 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES Basin Max (ft) Time (hr) Min (ft) Time (hr) ------- ===r== s��== �� ®== a==== mm= ��====== m= �a = = = ° =� Championship L 6.19 82.60 3.50 0.00 Agenda Item No. 17C February 22, 2005 Page 165 of 165 Page 3 BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre -ft) Total Structure = Structure Initial a Final Basin Runoff Inflow Outflow Storage Storage Residual Championship L 73.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.60 0.00